Nick Discepola

[Ice Storm, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the recent ice storm gave the federal government an opportunity to show to the whole country the know-how of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Justifiably so, the Quebec government recognized the ceaseless co-operation between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec, who both worked effectively to meet the needs of affected regions.

I must point out the excellent job done by the Canadian government. Let us also not forget all those who worked very hard and who showed great courage to make it through this most difficult period for over one million people.

The crisis will have made us realize how vulnerable we are in a society as modern as ours, and how there is strength in unity.

I also want to congratulate the 24 mayors and the municipal authorities in my riding, and particularly the hundreds of volunteers who gave time, energy and support. You are an inspiration to all of us.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since I have very little time, I will respond very briefly to the two questions concerning the bill.

On the subject of the banks, I think the Minister of Finance gave a good answer during Question Period, when the member was present.

As regards employment insurance, I think we took appropriate measures when the country's finances allowed us to. Last December, the Minister of Finance announced a $1.4 million reduction in employment insurance premiums. This benefits all workers.

Likewise, as regards transfers to his own province, I would like to point something out to the hon. member. He comes from New Brunswick, and for his province, if we include equalization payments, this represents $2,017 per capita. New Brunswick is the fourth biggest beneficiary of these programs.

I have to conclude from his comments that he supports Bill C-28, because we are going to put in an additional $1.5 billion. His province will also draw extra benefits as a result.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, hindsight is 20:20. It would have been great four years ago to have had a crystal ball to project what could have happened.

We had to make those decisions in 1994-95 with serious repercussions for all Canadians. When it came to transfers to the provinces there is no way they could have escaped any cutbacks. It represents roughly 20% of our budget. We cut back only 3%, and I say that with respect. It was 3% of total revenues for the provinces.

If somebody said that they were going to cut back my own personal budget by 3%, I could handle that quite easily. If somebody said they were going to cut me back 20% some serious decisions would have to made.

We made difficult decisions. We went to the provinces upon their request and gave them stable funding. Today in this bill we are almost reinstating the $1.5 billion in that promise that we made three years ago.

The hon. member may say that we are only giving them back $1.5 billion in less cuts but still the provinces have $12 billion. When it comes to stable funding I do not know what law the member referred to. I presume he might be talking about stable funding for CBC, but in this legislation there is the five year commitment.

He referred to the fact that the federal government cut and cut on the backs of provinces. In my speech I indicated how some of the provinces and indeed all Canadians benefited from the difficult decisions that we had to make. I gave a concrete example in my home province. Because of its heavy debt financing it was able to save $645 million in its debt service alone.

The member's home province is Alberta. When members from Alberta come to me and say that the feds cut back in education and social transfers and that it is their fault hospitals had to be closed I do not buy that argument. Alberta finds itself today with a balanced budget, a billion dollar surplus, and is well on its way to eliminating its debt.

Was it a federal decision to close the hospitals or schools, or was it a provincial decision by Mr. Klein and company that may have gone a little too quickly?

Those were individual decisions the provinces had to make. Our commitment is to give them the money and to give it on a five year basis so that they can plan their fiscal needs and priorities. When it comes to cutbacks the priorities of individual provinces are established. Those provinces acted prudently, so much so that almost seven provinces have balanced budgets. They have benefited. To come back four years later and say maybe we should not have cut back, hindsight is 20:20.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the social transfer it includes the provinces and the territories. I may not in my speech have mentioned particularly the word territories. For that I apologize, but I believe if the member checks the law she will see that it includes transfers to all provinces and the territories.

Notwithstanding, we had to cut back in the transfers to the provinces when we had to make our difficult decisions almost four years ago. On the first occasion the government has had after having addressed the serious problem of deficit we have taken $1.5 billion and put it into our first priority as a government, that is helping the provinces cope with education and health.

In this case not only will the provinces benefit through five years of stable funding but the territories will also. I hope the member realizes that. I understand the high unemployment rate in her native region but right now the bill that we are addressing is for social transfers. It give them stable funding for five years, as I mentioned. This is very important for provinces and territories that in the past were reliant upon the mercy of the federal government, not knowing that the funding would come some time within a year or so and having to establish their priorities.

The stable funding for five years reassures the provinces and the territories that they have recourse to this funding for five years to come.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-28 and, more specifically, to support the government's decision to increase cash transfers to the provinces under the terms of the Canada health and social transfer.

A measure of true leadership is the setting of government priorities. The priorities of this government are clear and definite.

Health and education are issues affecting every Canadian in every region. They are truly national concerns. It is therefore natural when federal finances improve for the government to give priority to investment in health and education by increasing transfers to the provinces in these vital areas. This is the type of investment that all Canadians recognize, the sort of federal-provincial partnership that all Canadians should support.

Under this legislation, cash transfers to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer are guaranteed to reach an annual $12.5 billion over the next five years. This represents an increase of $1.5 billion over the ceiling for cash transfers established previously by legislation.

However, I think it important we remember that the cash portion of the Canada health and social transfer is only part of the total amount of federal support to the provinces in the areas of health, education and social assistance. Including tax points, the total amount turned over to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer will exceed $25 billion and rise to over $28 billion in the coming years.

Tax points, you say? I know that appears abstract, obscure and even bureaucratic. Canadians must, however, take the trouble to understand, within our debates on national policy, what this is all about, especially if they want to understand the legislation of concern to us at this time.

Over the years, federal-provincial social programs have been developed, with the federal contribution taking two forms. First of all, there were direct cash contributions, but from 1977 on we also agreed to give tax points to the provinces.

And what is a tax point? It simply means that the provinces can get part of the taxes that would otherwise go to the federal government. In other words, provincial receipts go up while federal receipts go down, but the Canadian taxpayer pays the same amount of tax.

The provinces have a good reason to accept these tax points, because increased points go hand in hand with economic growth and each point, even with ups and downs in the economy, is worth far more today than when the funded programs were launched.

Think for a moment of the tax points transferred to the provinces in 1977 to support health and social programs. In 1977 these tax points represented some $3 billion dollars in receipts. Today, the figure is about $13 billion. In other words, if the federal government had not transferred these tax points to the provinces, we would have $13 billion more in our coffers.

Part of this amount could have been used to bring the deficit down faster. But I think, and I am sure that my government colleagues will agree with me, that this money belongs to those who now have it and that it is being put to good use. It helps finance a national health care system that is the envy of our American neighbours. It also helps support postsecondary education so that Canadians can acquire the skills needed to ensure their own success and their country's development in a knowledge-based global economy.

It seems to me that the results are obvious. Federal support for health and education, which are two major concerns of our society, is definite and reliable. As our economy grows and our financial situation improves, it will be possible to increase this support.

I am not trying to hide the fact that, in order to reduce the Canadian deficit, transfers had to be reduced. As you know, the cash component of federal transfers to the provinces accounts for approximately one in every five dollars in federal spending. It would have been impossible to reduce the deficit without including transfers to the provinces in our first mandate's budget restrictions.

There are, however, a number of factors I think we should consider in assessing the federal government's performance in terms of reduced transfers. First of all, initial cuts to cash transfers amounted to about 3% of total provincial revenues, or three cents on every dollar of provincial spending. I do not really think many Canadians would call that an excessive and exorbitant contribution to helping resolve the problem of the national debt, which affects us all.

Second, we, like other Canadians, have always been concerned by the future of our social programs, particularly our health care programs. Because of financial progress that was more rapid than expected, we can now reduce the size of anticipated transfer cuts, and Bill C-28 puts up to $1.5 billion in federal revenue dollars into provincial coffers annually.

Third, and most important, it must be recognized that these transfer cuts represented clear and real benefits for the provinces, not just losses. This may seem contradictory, but it is the plain truth.

Let us not forget that our federal deficit reduction program played an essential role in lowering Canadian interest rates, which have reached their lowest levels in 40 years. And although international tensions have raised these rates somewhat, they are still much lower than the rates we saw during the 1980s.

Businesses and the public were not the only ones in Canada to benefit from these lower rates. The provinces did too. First of all, the drop in interest rates made possible by our financial restraint translated into a reduction in the cost of servicing the provincial debt.

In fact, we have estimated that the lowered rates have resulted in a dividend to the provinces of $1.8 billion between January 1995 and December 1996. As for my province of Quebec, it saved about $645 million that year, more than any other province. In the last 14 months, these savings have kept increasing in every province.

The gains made by the provinces go beyond a decline in interest rates. Canada's low interest rates are the reason for the major increase in growth and job creation, in recent months. Our growth rate is one of the best in the world, while our unemployment rate for December was the lowest one in seven years.

Provinces are also benefiting, since they collect more taxes as more Canadians are working, businesses are in a better position, not to mention lower social assistance costs. In other words, our successful fight against the deficit helped improve the provinces' ability to invest in health care and education.

This is why I get annoyed at those who claim that our government acted unfairly and dumped its deficit onto the provinces. I see things differently.

While we did impose cuts, we did it carefully and we have always been as fair as possible. The provinces, and in fact all Canadians, benefit from the very real rewards that these federal cuts have generated.

I raised these issues because they are useful in the context of the legislation before us. However, before concluding, I want to mention other aspects relating to our government's commitment to health and education.

The increase in the CHST under Bill C-28 is the best example of our commitment, but it is not the only proof of our ongoing and progressive support for these essential social activities.

For instance, with Bill C-28, we are taking an important step towards helping Canadian parents set money aside for their children's education. This bill will increase the maximum amount that can be invested annually in a registered education savings plan for a child to $4,000 from the current $2,000. This raises the ceiling on these savings, the income from which is tax-free until used for educational expenses, to a level more in line with the growth in tuition fees and related expenses.

Our health care measures extend well beyond transfers under the CHST.

For example, in last year's budget, our government announced that it would invest $150 million over three years in order to help the provinces set up pilot projects, such as the new approaches to home care and drug coverage, so that they can find ways of improving our health care system.

In addition, the 1997 budget earmarked $50 million over the next three years for the introduction of a national health data co-ordination program. This will enable suppliers, planners and recipients of health care throughout the country to obtain accurate information on health at all times, including the most up to date information on the best treatments available.

I know that my remarks have gone beyond the framework of the legislation we are looking at today. However, no government legislation can be examined without a look at the general policy and undertakings of this government.

That is why I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-28. This bill shows our government's commitment to the vital issues of education and health care. It proves that the course we have chosen is one of ongoing partnership with and support of the provinces. It therefore deserves the support of all members of this House. I hope that that support will be unanimous.

[User Fee Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I read Bill C-205 with care and tried to see how it would improve things at the moment for user fees. I must say I am still looking.

What is the intent of this bill? That was my question. All user fees—new, increased or expanded—have to be submitted to the House of Commons.

The definition of user fees is too broad. It applies to both the fees established by the governor in council and to all federal agencies, including crown corporations, whether we are talking about user fees for a good, a service, authorization, a permit or a license authorized by Parliament.

To have force of law, user fees must be approved by the House of Commons. Before the House approves them, a committee of the House has 150 days to study the proposed fees. The amounts of money generated by user fees should appear separately in public accounts.

I think this is going too far. In its present form, the bill is, to say the least, weak in form and content. It requires so much reworking, so many amendments, in order to clarify its implementation, that studying it at a later stage in our parliamentary process becomes unrealistic.

The government has made significant progress where user fees are concerned, but Bill C-205 contains just what is needed for chaos and disorder.

Charging user fees is good government. If the intention of the bill is legitimate, however, the reality remains that it would impose a huge burden on our parliamentary process on the one hand, and would make it impossible to operate certain crown corporations and agencies on the other.

This private member's bill would require separate authorization by Parliament to set or increase user fees and would introduce chaos into a system that works well at the present time.

The costs and associated delays associated with this bill would represent a serious threat to all government programs based on user fees.

The bill is so vague that it would apply to commercial prices set by crown corporations, and by so doing would hamper their operations.

In the case of crown corporations producing commercial goods and services, requiring the authority of Parliament for each of these user fees would completely gum up the works.

This bill would also make it impossible to maintain the confidentiality an organization requires in its dealings with clients. The result could be major damage to the point of making it impossible for many crown corporations to operate.

The same might also happen with programs. There are some 300 programs and categories of user fees listed in the Treasury Board Secretariat's report on user fees and many of these categories contain a large number of individual fees. They range from prices for firewood in Parks Canada campgrounds to fees for certifying drugs. There can be thousands of fee changes on a government-wide scale every year.

Imagine the administrative burden and the parliamentary bottleneck created by thousands of requests for changes in user fees. Imagine the additional workload for departments, government organizations and crown corporations, as well as for Parliament and parliamentarians.

Imagine, as well, the delays resulting from a clause in the bill authorizing the parliamentary committee to consider a proposed user fee increase for 150 days. And, to top it all off, the House would have to approve the committee's decision or recommendation. This would make it virtually impossible to administer user fee programs.

There is also every indication that departments would find it impossible to conduct the program review in a consistent manner.

Setting user fees would become a complicated exercise within the political process of parliamentary committees, which would become the prime target of intensive lobbying on the part of interest groups affected by user fee proposals.

While we feel it would be impossible to implement the bill, we are not opposed to some of its underlying elements. We agree that public accounts should provide more detailed information on revenues other than taxes. Unfortunately, the scope of the member's bill is too broad to represent only a minor change in public accounts.

We also support the idea of parliamentarians monitoring user fees. The fact is that user fees are mentioned more and more often in the reports on plans and priorities. Moreover, the legislation affecting the industry and health departments now provides that all user fees imposed by a minister must be referred, as part of a permanent process, to a committee of the House.

For these reasons, and for the reasons mentioned by my colleague, I cannot support the bill.

[The Late Michel Bélanger, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we learned of the death, yesterday, of Michel Bélanger, a great Canadian, who was noted during several decades for his contribution at the social, cultural, political and economic levels.

We all knew Michel Bélanger to be a man of conviction, who cared deeply for human values while bearing in mind that our society had to set out on the road to social and economic prosperity. He believed that every human being had something to contribute to the efforts to improve our quality of life.

The achievements of such an active man are too numerous to list here. Let us nevertheless mention that he was one of Canada's leading bankers. We will recall his role as co-chair of the parliamentary commission on the political and constitutional future of Quebec. I had the pleasure of working with him when he was chairman of the no committee during the 1995 referendum.

You shall not be forgotten, Mr. Bélanger. Thanks a million for your outstanding contribution to the development of Canada. You remain the model of a hard-working, conscientious person striving for perfection.

[Dangerous Offenders, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to take an isolated exception or one case out of context.

In essence, if the member reviews all of the statistics, he will understand that when it comes to escorted temporary passes and other temporary passes the success rate is very high, in excess of 98%.

One must realize that the majority of inmates eventually get out into the public after serving their sentences. It is important that the parole process is allowed to work so that we can reintegrate these people who eventually get out into society.

[Dangerous Offenders, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in effect, Mr. Richard is on a day pass.

I want to state to the House that when these passes are awarded, the risk that could be posed to the public is always assessed. In this case I can assure the House that the inmate in question is always under the supervision of a local parole officer.

[Institut De Pharmacologie, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to mention another initiative of our government that will promote the economic development of a strategic sector of the Canadian economy.

On November 25, the Secretary of State responsible for the federal office of regional development in Quebec inaugurated the new offices of the Institut de pharmacologie, in Sherbrooke. This high-tech centre, which specializes in medical chemistry and pharmacology, is the only one of its kind in Canada.

Through its contribution of close to $4 million, the federal government has recognized the expertise of the Eastern Townships in the area of medical research. It has also shown the confidence it has in partnerships with the private sector and with educational institutions to develop a promising sector for Canada.