Carolyn Bennett

[Governor General's Awards, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to attend the 1997 Governor General's Awards in commemoration of the Persons case earlier today. The awards are given annually to individuals who have made an outstanding contribution toward promoting the equality of women in Canada.

The awards were established in 1979 to commemorate the lengthy legal and political battle by five Alberta women for Canadian women's constitutional right to be recognized as persons. On October 18, 1929 the British privy council declared Canadian women to be persons.

The recipients of this year's award are Dr. Marguerite Ritchie from Ottawa, Ontario; Hedwidge Landry from Caraquet, New Brunswick; Sheila Genaille from Edmonton, Alberta; Dr. Margaret Fulton, Salt Spring Island, British Columbia; and my friend Nancyruth from Toronto, Ontario. I know my colleagues in this House and all Canadians join me in congratulating the Famous Five of 1997.

[Canadian Medical Association, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on October 9, 1867, three months after the proclamation of Canadian Confederation, 167 physicians from the then four provinces of Canada met in Quebec City to establish the Canadian Medical Association. The first president of the CMA was Sir Charles Tupper who would later in 1896 serve as Prime Minister of Canada.

Today the Canadian Medical Association celebrates its 130th anniversary, making it one of the oldest associations in Canada. The mission of the CMA is to provide leadership for physicians and to promote the highest standard of health and health care for Canadians.

It is an honour for me as a physician to commemorate this anniversary and I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues join me in extending our best wishes to the doctors of Canada.

[Breast Cancer, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 5 Canadians from across the country will run for the cure. They will be running, walking and jogging in support of breast cancer research.

The CIBC, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and an expected 50,000 participants in 18 cities across this country are hoping to raise $3 million for breast cancer research, education, diagnosis and treatment. I am proud to be part of that effort.

I am reminded of those who came before us in this fight, Ms. Pat Kelly and the Breast Cancer Action Group who fought hard to overcome systemic barriers to raising money for breast cancer research but, more important, fought to gain a voice for women in determining how breast cancer research dollars would be spent.

The run is the main fundraising event of this year for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. One of the many accomplishments of the foundation has been the establishment of the first Canadian chair on breast cancer research located at Women's College Hospital in Toronto.

I am heartened by the enormous effort and contributions of the—

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it will be imperative in the next chapter for us to reinvest in medical research, science and technology. The innovation fund is one of the most exciting things stated in the election platform and in the budget. To hear John Polanyi on Sunday night talk about the reverence with which he holds that fund was truly heartening to me as a Liberal member of Parliament.

Scientists understand that we will do the right thing. I do not think tax cuts have any relevance. In Ontario there is no evidence that tax cuts work. We know that most companies locate here because of the quality of our health care program, particularly companies in the service industries trying to pay health insurance premiums for their employees. That is bad for business. The companies with lots of employees love to go to places that have good, inexpensive health care and a good government funded health care insurance program.

It will be exciting when we start choosing where to reinvest. Obviously I will be fighting for job creation with investments in medical research, science and technology. We should be debating where to reinvest, not whether to reinvest as the member's motion states.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I wish it was that easy. It is a very good question for people of means. It is not very good question for people who do not have means.

If we continue to compare our taxation rate to that of the United States, it is a comparison of apples and oranges when 30 percent of people cannot afford to go to a doctor. Some of my patients who go south of the border have to write a cheque for $10,000 for health insurance. They do not see us as being particularly overtaxed. Those who cannot afford the $10,000 for insurance are forced to take the American approach of being western gambler pioneers and run without any health insurance and then eventually lose their homes.

It is extraordinarily important to understand that two plus two does not make five. As a group we can do much better for those who have less than they can do on their own. Some 150 years ago we said we would try to look after one another. We have to do that.

Canadians want value for their tax money. By decreasing the deficit and the debt we will be able to give them more value for their tax dollars. We will be able to make them feel more comfortable about their future, that programs will be there when they need them, particularly health care.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, all of us in the Liberal caucus are consulted and are prepared to meet with ministers on everything.

We already have a tremendous example of consultation. I know the people I spoke with during the election campaign, the people who have the risk of potentially being unemployed. As much as we are creating jobs, there are other people being laid off. We need to be able to promise people who may potentially be laid off through future downsizing that they will be secure.

The underwriters feel the amount in the EI fund is appropriate. Similarly in my profession the medical protective association is being accused of having too big a surplus in its fund. We have to deal with the experts. We need to have appropriate and realistic reservoirs for the future. We cannot put Canadians at risk, in particular those who may face losing their jobs.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

We are big picture people. We know there is a positive role for government. Arbitrary determinations of size of government and optimal tax rate will not work. We need to have a goal of putting Canadians back to work. We have to do whatever we can in partnerships and innovation to make sure that happens.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, there is no question one of the root causes of the ongoing demand for health care will be the determinants, jobs being one of them.

We need to celebrate the fact that we have improved the number of Canadians with jobs. We are not there yet.

We also have to understand that governments like Ontario that are laying off thousands of people are contributing to the net. We actually have to realize that our ultimate success is a net cost. There is some gain and some loss, and we know we are not there yet. We would love to be able to put more efforts into training. We are excited by the kinds of programs we see.

At the Industry Canada open house last week there was a national graduates registry. Graduates were being put to work, able to consult with CEOs and able to produce good resumés. They were able to get out there and go to work.

I have not seen in Ontario where any tax cut has increased the numbers of jobs. I have not even felt the extra money jingling in my jeans pocket those people continue to talk about. That does not create jobs. There is no evidence to that effect.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on June 2 Canadians were consulted. The voters clearly preferred our more responsible approach and saw through the Reform Party's irresponsible tax cut promises before the budget was balanced. In every single province except Alberta, the majority of voters rejected the cuts to programs and services.

It is irresponsible for a government to artificially determine optimal government size and taxation levels and then drop the ball in order to achieve those goals.

As we know and as we have experienced in Ontario, this leaves those less able to, to go and fend for themselves. We feel this every day in Ontario: a mission of tax cuts; smaller government; survival of the fittest; no positive role for government; knee jerk, simplistic approaches; black and white with no shades of grey.

Canadians expect us to do what we said we would do. We will put the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward trend. We will balance the budget by 1998-99. They expect us to demonstrate vision and values. They expect us to be innovative and to find and build partnerships. They also expect us to reinvest in a stronger society. We said we would and we will.

As said in the Speech from the Throne, it is our responsibility to ensure that no Canadian is left behind as the country moves forward. We can do this without financial risk. We can do it in a balanced way set forth in the election platform.

The government has made tremendous strides while continuing to adhere to five basic principles: controlling government spending rather than increasing taxes, fairness so that no one is left behind, enhanced economic prospects and job growth, and frugality with a commitment to decrease waste in government.

The government also made a promise to shift resources from lower priorities to higher priorities knowing there is no new money until the budget is balanced.

I wish we could do this without having to listen to inaccurate Reform rhetoric and truncated history lessons that leave out the four critical years of stunningly successful fiscal management. Members of the official opposition keep talking about shell games. I dare them to go and pick up all the shells at once. They will be disappointed. There is not a tax and spend Liberal to be found.

Canadians will be consulted, but we will consult on how we deliver our promise and not whether. We have committed 50 percent of any surplus to reinvestments in building a stronger society. Canadians are counting on us, especially those less well off. The prime minister said “It is a nice problem to contemplate this surplus. It is a proud moment for Canada, not a time for partisan jealously.

The motion must be defeated and the government congratulated, not condemned, for its practical and doable election promise.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is asking the House to condemn the government for an election promise when that is what it was and indeed the people of Canada saw fit to elect the government on that basis.

The people of Canada have rewarded the Liberal record and have chosen to reaffirm their trust.

It was very clearly stated in the platform. We are moving toward the time when the budget will finally be balanced, the debt to GDP ratio will be declining and the government will have a fiscal surplus.

When we reach that time we will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal dividend so that one half will go to a combination of reducing taxes and reducing the national debt, and one half will address social and economic needs through program expenditures.

It was very clear to me door to door, coffee party after coffee party and all-candidate meeting after all-candidate meeting that the specifics of the plan, a 50:50 division of any future surpluses, were hugely reassuring to Canadians, particularly those of us in Ontario where the savage government cuts and an unaffordable tax cut are negatively affecting people every day.

The people of Canada have clearly demonstrated that they respected and trusted the commitments of the finance minister, continued prudent management and staying the course on restoring Canada's fiscal health. They were eloquently stated by the finance minister in the February budget and then reinforced again and again throughout the election campaign. The people of Canada have been consulted.

The people of Canada spoke loudly on June 2 and now we as a government must get on and do what we said we would do. The Liberal government has said that we would meet or exceed deficit targets, and we will. We would impose no new taxes and no new spending cuts, and we will not. We promised that we would address economic and social priorities through selected tax cuts, and we will honour that promise.

Thankfully, and with the support of Canadians, that is not all that is on our agenda, unlike the honourable opposition. We promised to create conditions favourable for private sector job creation and to invest for immediate jobs in growth, in infrastructure, trade, youth employment, labour market training, payroll tax deduction, tourism, rural Canada and small business. We have already begun on a number of these.

Canadians are counting on us to continue our investment in higher education and skills development and to proceed with our investment in technological innovation through the proposed Canada foundation for innovation which John Polanyi endorsed totally in his remarks to the Nobel laureates on Sunday night.

Canadians understood that the tough decision had to be made in the first Liberal mandate in order to get our fiscal house back in order. They understood that as long as interest payments were a significant amount in each budget, it was impossible for government to provide to the people of Canada value for their tax dollars. We could not afford the deficit and the ballooning effect on the debt.

After this Canadian miracle, as economists around the world refer to this unprecedented success, it is totally insulting and inexcusable that the member for Medicine Hat can pretend it never happened.

How can he ignore the miraculous turnaround of an economy that had been called an economic basket case? This is a great Canadian success story, the record and commitments to decrease the debt, decrease taxes and reduce unemployment. I believe this Liberal government will honour those commitments.

It is also clear that the people of Canada voted to reinvest in building a stronger society, an increased ability to look after those less fortunate. That government can and should play a positive role in the lives of Canadians. They voted for improved health care delivery, they voted for support for children's health programs, they voted to increase the child tax benefit.

They voted for new and better support for the disabled and they voted for increasing support for charitable giving. They voted and knew they were voting for 50 percent of every future surplus going back into strategic reinvestments and programs.

We know there will be a need to seek more input. I expect it and Canadians expect it. This government is no stranger to consultation. I need only point out the unprecedented work of the Minister of Finance and his department in the annual prebudget consultations. They were wide ranging and inclusive and provided Canadians the opportunity to have input into the priorities of this government.

We will continue to consult in the manner that Canadians have come to expect and appreciate from this Liberal government. We will seek input on where targeted reinvestments should be and how to divide between tax relief and debt retirement.

Some suggestions may indeed be hard to assign. For example, does a child tax credit go under the tax relief column or the children's program column? This example also serves to point out the kind of narrow anti-government argument Reform members are prepared to engage in rather than the substantive of where should government be involved in bettering the lives and prospects of our children.

The optimal size of government cannot be arbitrarily determined. We must see what partnerships are possible and then see what we can do to be the catalyst to help get the job done.

Canadian values are inherently those articulated by the Minister of Finance in his 1997 budget address. Let us never come to believe there is such a thing as a tolerable level of child poverty or that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is ever acceptable. Let us never forget the debt we owe to our seniors and that there be no stone unturned in the quest for jobs.

I believe Canadians just want us to get on and do the right thing. We are at an exciting time. Corporations are learning that social marketing is good for business. The third sector is coming on line to help better determine the gaps and duplications and become more accountable. The unions are joining in projects and partnerships that are tremendous examples of what can be done.

When the government has a vision shared by Canadians, when we are convinced that we have the right things to do, only then can we set the goals and then go about achieving them with innovation and partnerships to ensure they happen.

SchoolNet is an excellent example. We know it is imperative that all schools and Canadian school children be on line by the year 2000. By setting this goal and enlisting the co-operation of the pioneers, those wonderful retired telephone workers who have already refurbished cast-off computers from government and the private sector, today we have placed over 40,000 computers into the classrooms of Canada.

Today's motion is just another rather transparent attempt to camouflage the meanspirited, survival of the fittest Reform ideology.

We know this type of consultation being sought by the Reform Party needs to meet only with the Canadian taxpayers federation and its leader in waiting, Stephen Harper, to be told that the total surplus should be put into arbitrary tax reductions with nothing being invested into Canada and into the types of programs Canadians want and deserve.

There is no vision in the Reform Party's narrow agenda. Rhetoric about taxation levels without regard for the inclusion of the best health care system in the world is dishonest.

Canadians understand that Americans pay less tax but they also understand that 30 percent of Americans cannot afford to go to the doctor. My patients, when they go to the United States, understand too when asked to write a cheque for $10,000 for their health care insurance.

The protection of our health care system is imperative for all Canadians. Confidence in high quality health care is paramount.

On June 2 Canadians chose the balanced Liberal approach. They were offered an immediate tax cut and they declined. They were offered two tier medicine and they declined.

The hon. member in his remarks scolded the government for not taking responsibility for the debt. I suggest that the people of Canada recognized and rewarded the Liberal plan of achieving a balanced budget before considering irresponsible tax cuts that could risk increasing the deficit and the debt.

Voters preferred our more responsible approach and saw through the Reform Party's irresponsible tax cut promise before the budget was balanced. It is totally irresponsible for a government to artificially determine optimal government size and taxation levels and then, in order to achieve it, drop the ball and allow those least able to fend for themselves to try and get by.

We have seen those results in Ontario. The arbitrary welfare cuts have Harris hookers on the streets. Reckless cuts to hospitals are now being documented in the Ivy School of Business as a serious loss of quality, all to pay for their arbitrary 30 percent tax cut. They have no vision.

As John Wright from Angus Reid has said, the tax cutter bus has ended up an express bus with no destination. I believe the people of Canada expect from this government continued prudent fiscal management. I believe they expect us to do what we said we would do, to put the GDP to debt ratio on a permanent downward trend—