Gar Knutson

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the implementation bill and add my comments to the budget debate.

As many members have stated, this budget is very historic. I think all our Liberal budgets have been somewhat historic but this budget is historic because it can bring in renewed optimism and renewed hope. We are now embarking on an age when we will no longer say that with reliance on federal government support things are going to get worse. We can now begin to say that we have reached the bottom and things can get better.

More needs to be done. Many people in this country are hurting and many people are not sharing in the prosperity that is generally around the land. I will return to that point toward the end of my speech. Let me highlight what I think are the major accomplishments in the budget.

Against the backdrop of unemployment dropping very rapidly in my own community, as I mentioned in one of my comments earlier, since 1993 or thereabouts the unemployment rate has dropped probably from around 16% to about 8%. We are seeing a gradual but steady month over month decline of the unemployment rate which is fundamentally the most important statistic that we can talk about. It is more important than the balanced budget. It is more important than tax relief. Jobs are the real issue in this country. When people have the dignity of work they are more hopeful for their existence and more hopeful as a community.

Having said that, however, we cannot underestimate how important balancing the budget is. Not until we balance the budget can we start to deal with the major issue of the debt. By balancing the budget we know that as the economy grows both in real terms and in inflationary terms and as we pay down the debt the proportion of the debt as a percentage of our economy is going to get smaller very quickly.

If we have approximately 2% growth on an annual basis combined with approximately 2% inflation we can expect that the debt as a percentage of the economy will be cut in half in merely 10 years or thereabouts. That is a tremendous achievement. It is all based on having a balanced budget.

In promising a balanced budget this year, next year and the year after, the finance minister has put us on the road to solid recovery.

When I look at how things have changed in my own community since we took office in 1993, I see a change from a community which suffered a terrible recession in the late 1980s and early 1990s to one where the prosperity level is very high. I see examples of this where the Magna automobile corporation is making a huge investment in my riding. Approximately 1,000 jobs will be created in a new plant Magna is putting in. Freightliner is making a major investment to build highway trucks in my riding.

The unemployment rate has been cut in half over the past five years. Farm incomes are up. By and large things are clearly better off now than they were in 1993. People expect them to be even better over the next five years. The message of this budget really is that things are going to get better.

The highlight of this budget is balance. Not only is it balanced this year, it will be balanced for the next two years.

Members of the opposition like to talk about how many times the government raises tax and they bring out numbers, 37 times. Why do they not congratulate us for the tax relief in this budget? It is not enough. We need to lower taxes even more. It is a step in the right direction. I believe quite firmly it is a trend. Because of the changes announced in the budget, 400,000 Canadians will no longer be paying any federal tax at all. That represents approximately 1,200 people in my own community.

The budget sets priorities, investing in education with the millennium scholarship fund, investing in children with the announcement of a second $850 million for the child tax benefit of which I am very proud.

Let me talk about what opposition members said previously and ask them why they are not applauding the budget. The Reform Party stated in its campaign that a Reform government would balance the federal budget by March 31, 1999. The leader of the Reform Party promised that in 1996 in Fresh Start. Lo and behold we balanced the budget a full year earlier than the Leader of the Opposition promised to do.

The Leader of the Opposition also said in Fresh Start that after a Reform government balanced the budget annual surpluses would be used to reinvest in the Canadian economy through lower taxes, to increase spending on health and education, and begin to reduce the debt. That sounds very much like Liberal policy. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is really a Liberal, but I do not think so.

Reform's suggestion for tax relief calls for measures found in the 1998 budget. The basic personal amount would be increased from $6,456 to $7,900. At least we went one-third of the way, albeit means tested. The 3% and 5% surtaxes of the Tories would be eliminated. We went part of the way and I am hopeful we will go the rest of the way. Students would be allowed to claim a tax deduction for interest payments on student loans. Lo and behold the Liberal government adopted just such a policy. Do we hear the Reform Party applauding us? No. Job killing payroll taxes paid by employers would be reduced. We reduced the EI premiums again, effective in 1998.

I will turn my attention to the Bloc for a moment. The BQ urged the federal government to use the $3 billion it saves annually as a result of this review to encourage small and medium size business as well as very small businesses to create jobs. This reduction in tax burden for businesses could take the form of tax holidays linked to business performance with respect to creating jobs and helping youth enter the job market.

The 1998 budget delivers. To encourage employers to hire young Canadians, the budget proposes to give employers an EI holiday per additional young Canadian between the ages of 18 and 24 hired between 1999 and 2000. Should the Bloc Quebecois not be applauding us for this measure?

As with the new hires program in operation in 1997 and 1998, employers will be allowed to stop paying premiums when they reach the 1998 level of payroll or they can claim a rebate when filing their tax forms. This will reduce payroll costs for employers by about $100 million a year for 1999 and 2000. Is that enough? Do EI premiums need to come down even more? They certainly do but at least it is the start of a trend.

The New Democratic Party called for an increase in capital and research funding to restore and renew post-secondary facilities. The Liberal budget increases funding to research granting councils. Our budget of last year provided $800 million to create the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Should the NDP not be applauding these measures?

The NDP also asked for investment in families with measures such as access to high quality child care and support for parents. Our budget increased the child care deduction by $2,000 per child. I have three children who attend day care. That will amount to $6,000, a significant amount, and the government should be applauded for that.

I will turn last to the Progressive Conservatives. The leader of the Tory party promised a balanced budget by the year 2000. That was in its 1997 election platform, “Let the Future Begin”. Only two years later we delivered a zero deficit. Should the Tories not be saying the Liberals brought in a balanced budget two full years before they could do it?

The leader of the Tories said repeatedly that we must reduce EI taxes when over their nine years in office the Tories increased EI premiums four times from $2 to $3. The Liberal government has reduced EI premium rates each year since 1994 from $3.07 that year to $2.70 this year, and hopefully they will go down even further.

The Tory's 1997 platform promised to start a $100 million Canadian merit scholarship program. Our 1998 budget introduced a $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund. Surely the Tories can applaud us for investing in higher education. The Tories promised to make CPP self-financing, which we did with Bill C-2, and called for the cash floor of the CHST to be raised to $12.5 billion. Lo and behold we have done just that and I would expect the Conservatives to applaud.

The Tory plan for growth asked for the basic exemption to rise. It asked for the 3% surtax, the Tory gift to the taxpayers, to end and for a tax credit for interest on student loans. All these measures are in our 1998 budget.

I ask all members of the House to support our budget because it is not only balanced from a fiscal point of view. It is balanced in terms of providing tax relief, debt reduction and much needed reinvestment in social programs.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the hon. member for her speech and ask her to comment on the following.

The budget set out a number of issues but the one I was most pleased with was tax relief for low and middle income Canadians. Beginning July 1, 1998 the basic personal exemption will increase, meaning 400,000 low income Canadians will no longer pay any federal income tax.

Beginning July 1 the 3% general surtax will be eliminated for Canadians with incomes up to about $50,000 and reduced for those with incomes up to $65,000. These two measures alone will yield close to $1.4 billion in tax relief for 14 million low and middle income Canadians by 1999 and the year 2000 90% of all taxpayers.

I ask the hon. member whether this focused targeted tax relief for those who need it most is being well received in her riding or perhaps she could give what comments on the tax relief she is getting in her own community.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the issue of hope.

I would like to sincerely invite him to my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London and show him a community that during the waning days of the last Tory government probably suffered through the worst recession in its history. It had an unemployment rate of well over 16% or 17%. Factories were moving out of our community en masse.

I would bring him down to the community now and show him that our unemployment rate has roughly been cut in half, if not better. We have investments from companies all over the world. If he wants to see a more hopeful, optimistic community, have him come to Elgin—Middlesex—London.

I would also like to suggest that the story in my riding is not unique. It is being repeated all across the country.

The point about Canadians having the highest income taxes in the industrialized world is something we hear from the Conservatives. It is something we hear from their kissing cousins the Reform Party. The fact of the matter is that a truer picture of tax fairness includes all taxes. The opposition repeatedly distorts the facts by focusing on selected tax measures.

Total tax revenue for all levels of governments stood at 36.1% of GDP in 1994. This puts Canada in the middle of the G-7 countries. Canada relies more than most countries on income tax and less on payroll and sales taxes which increases tax fairness.

My main point is that in October 1997 a study conducted by KPMG, an international consulting firm, concluded that Canada has lower overall business costs than the United States and Europe, including the lowest overall tax burden of the seven nations studied.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Did the NDP in the last election not call for a student assistance program that would give qualified students access to post-secondary education? Have not we, the Liberals, actually delivered on that NDP plan in our millennium fund? Should we not be applauded for that?

Did the NDP not call for increased capital and research funding to restore and renew post-secondary facilities? Have not we, the Liberals, in the last two budgets increased funding to research granting councils? In this last budget and in the prior budget did we not provide $800 million to create the Canada foundation for innovation?

Did the NDP not also ask for investing in families with measures such as access to high quality child care and support for parents? Does not the increase in the child care tax deduction by $2,000 partially deliver on that promise? Should we not be applauded for that as well?

[Petitions, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present a petition signed by 100 constituents of my riding.

The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[World Water Day, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 the general assembly of the United Nations designated March 22 as world water day, a special day set aside each year for the people of the world to reflect on the importance and the value of water in their daily lives.

This year's theme is groundwater, the invisible resource. It reflects the concern that our planets groundwater supplies are increasingly being threatened. In Canada more than 20% of our population depends on underground water sources for its drinking water. It is one of our most vital natural resources. Groundwater is essential for our continued health and economic well-being.

Water efficiency requires a full commitment of all people. WaterCan is an Ottawa based non-profit organization which, along with several partners, has demonstrated its commitment by organizing world water day activities and by raising public awareness on the wise use of our precious water resources.

A little more than a week ago, in celebration of world water day, more than 500 students from the Ottawa-Hull area took a pledge to conserve and protect Canada's water resources. Only by—

[The Environment, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Global attention is now focused on the conference under way in Kyoto, Japan where countries search for the right formula to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the global environment.

How can Canada be putting forward a position that does not have the support of all provinces? What is the minister doing to gain the co-operation of all Canadians in meeting our goals?

[Elgin Regiment, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in recognition of the Elgin regiment. This fine military unit has recently received the official designation as a combat engineering regiment of the 31st Canadian brigade group.

The Elgin regiment dates back to 1866 with the establishment of the 25th Elgin battalion of infantry. The regiment was called out on active service on several occasions and served during World Wars I and II, earning numerous battle honours. As an engineering regiment, they now typically will participate in cleaning land mines and building bridges as well as many other ways of contributing to our peacekeeping mandate.

History has shown that the members of the Elgin regiment are used to change. Serving first as an infantry battalion and subsequently assuming armoured and reconnaissance status, the Elgin regiment now embarks upon a new chapter in its long and proud history as the 31st combat engineering regiment, the Elgins.

I want to congratulate the members of this regiment and say that I am proud to represent such a committed group of Canadian citizens.

[Distinct Society, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with honour that I speak for the first time in the 36th Parliament. As with my first speech in the 35th Parliament, I want to take this opportunity, in my second maiden speech, to thank the constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London for electing me in June of 1997. It was a great honour to be re-elected. Being elected the first time was a tremendous honour, but to have it reaffirmed is certainly one of the greatest moments in my life.

Let me now turn to the issue at hand, Quebec and its uniqueness.

The starting point for me in understanding this issue was when I visited French-speaking communities in Quebec and talked to the French-speaking people of Quebec. They have a much different take on this than we do.

People need to understand that at a very fundamental level they feel threatened by living in what they see as an anglophone Canada, an anglophone North America and, in may respects, with the age of Internet, mass communications and satellites, what may turn into an anglophone world. What they want is some recognition in the rest of the country of their Frenchness. They want some understanding that they can have a minimum of protection in the Constitution. In certain respects it is an emotional thing, but they feel that their culture, their heritage and particularly their language are under great threat.

I explained this to people in St. Thomas. When we see a Pizza Hut open up or a Blockbuster video on the main street of St. Thomas it is not a cultural issue. When my children play on the Internet, that is not a cultural issue. If I go to an American movie, again, it is not a cultural issue. If I am bombarded with Much Music on television when my kids are watching it, it is not a big issue for me as an English-speaking person. However, those types of things in a French-speaking community may be taken far differently. They may be taken as just another sign of the dominance of English in our culture today.

It is at that level that they feel they need some protection. They want it to be recognized by the rest of the country. They want some acknowledgement. The greatest acknowledgement they can have is a simple line in the Constitution which states that they are unique and that they can enact laws to protect that uniqueness, within the parameters of the charter of rights and freedoms which ensures that all Canadians are equal. I think it is quite reasonable that it be within the parameters of the notion that all provinces are equal.

If we go to a French community today we may find no one who speaks English or very few who speak English. They actually believe that 30, 40 or 50 years down the road their children and their grandchildren, because of all these outside pressures, will be speaking English. When we start to understand the issue at that emotional level, I think we can understand what they are after.

They are after recognition, which the Calgary declaration does an adequate job of providing. It recognizes Quebec as being unique. We can debate whether we should use the word distinct, unique or some other word. For me, it is really about semantics. It really does not matter. The main point is that the majority of Quebeckers are French speaking and they want to protect their culture.

Once they get the recognition, they also want to have a veto over changes to the Constitution. That will basically give them the two anchors of any constitutional change. They need recognition and they also need a regional veto.

If we open our minds to this we can see the possibility as can people in my own community of Elgin. One person compared it to ethnic clubs. He said that he could care less when the German people get together and they go to the German club, the Saxsonia Hall in Aylmer and speak German for example. He could care less about a Hungarian club that might be in Simcoe or some other place, or a Croatian club just outside St. Thomas. It matters not to him that the people in Quebec want to speak French. He says that is a perfectly legitimate thing.

I explained to him that it will not affect his right for anything, that it will not make him any less equal, that it is really about people protecting their language and their culture. At its most fundamental level this is respect for the ways of their parents and grandparents, for the traditions that have been passed down. It is respect for the traditions they have grown up with and a desire to see those traditions passed on to their children and their grandchildren.

We can all understand that. We are proud of our heritage. We are proud of what our ancestors did regardless of our ethnic backgrounds. In Quebec they feel particularly threatened and they want to see it protected. I think we should support that.

[Dr. Thomas Curran, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the fine work of Dr. Thomas Curran who is about to retire from his position of senior research officer, science and technology division, research branch, Library of Parliament, a position he has held since 1975.

Over the past 20 years Dr. Curran has ably served on committees of the environment, forestry and fisheries, health and welfare, as well as others. Dr. Curran has authored reports on a wide range of topics including cloning, AIDS, global warming, gene therapy and acid rain. Dr. Curran is one example of the highest quality of support the Library of Parliament provides to parliamentarians in helping us deal with complex issues in service to Canadians.

I ask all members to wish him well in his retirement, as well as all others who are retiring.