Debates of Feb. 20th, 1997

The Budget

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

It's a tax increase.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if our workforce were at the same level now in 1997 as it was in 1993, unemployment would be at 6.4. per cent, not 9.7 per cent. Revenues are up because more people are working and more people are paying taxes. If they were not up more than the GDP then how could we reduce the deficit? It cannot be both ways. Revenue cannot be kept at this point and reduce the deficit. It is not possible, and all Canadians understand that.

I am sure the hon. member for Hillsborough wants to get started so I will cease here.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is a minute and 39 seconds. The hon. member for Beaver River.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a pretty simple question. I will quote the hon. member from part of his speech. He said: "I haven't earned my MP pension" and we are going to do all we can to make sure he never does, but then he said further, "my taxes are so high that I can't afford to live without my teacher's pension".

How many Canadians have the luxury of a teacher's pension to subsidize their small wage of $64,400? If he says that his taxes are too high-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Oxford has the remaining 40 seconds.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to hide. I worked for 36 years in education. I have a teacher's pension. I pay taxes like every other Canadian on the money I earn. It is considerable and I pay considerable taxes. That is my only point.

When I say I have not earned my MP pension I mean that I have paid for it but I have not earned it yet. I have to get elected again. It is not granted on one term. I certainly hope that I am back here after the next election and that some of my colleagues across the way are not. They do not want the pension anyway.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.52 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment now before the House. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the subamendment defeated.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, further to my question to the minister of agriculture, rural Canada's concerns must be kept in the forefront and must remain a priority for this federal government. This week's budget takes great strides down that road.

I was very pleased to see the finance minister's emphasis on programs and investments that will work for rural Canadians. These budget measures will directly impact my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka and will help businesses in my riding to create jobs.

In addition to the renewed commitment to a federal infrastructure job creation program which has been very beneficial in my riding, I point to the $15 million annual increase over three years for the Canadian Tourism Commission, and the $50 million investment in the Business Development Bank of Canada. This will lever another $250 million in loans for the creation of tourism infrastructure in rural areas.

I single out the $50 million investment to the Farm Credit Corporation to be used for rural development and the $30 million to expand the community access program to ensure that virtually all rural communities are linked to the Internet.

This is support upon which we can build. This is support that is right in line with what constituents across Canada were asking for when we took testimony as part of the natural resources committee's rural development study.

Those of us from rural areas have identified several priorities that need to be addressed in order to enhance economic development in the rural areas of our country. Some of these the budget has dealt with. I am sure the constituents in rural Canada will applaud the government's initiatives on these rural issues.

The Prime Minister himself made a firm commitment to tackle the unique needs of rural Canadians on behalf of all of us who live in rural areas. Four ministers were charged with the rural development portfolio and my committee has helped lead the way.

We set about detailing the challenges of rural Canada, the lack of formal education for some of those or the lack of access to education in high technology fields where the jobs are for others.

We looked at partnerships between the public and private sectors to better meet the needs of business operators in rural areas so that they would be better able to overcome the disadvantages of distance, geography, low population densities and so that we could enhance investment opportunities and expand our information base.

We looked at ways to enhance the benefits of value adding in our natural resources sector. We looked at restrictive regulatory regimes and how they could be eliminated. We looked at how to eliminate duplication and the need to have increased tax incentives for investment.

Investment in innovative technologies and initiatives that will ensure that virtually all rural communities have access to the Internet and that build upon our efforts to date will go a long way to giving those of us who live in rural Canada the support we need to compete in an urban oriented world.

Further elaboration on planned or existing initiatives will help constituents in my riding understand and therefore benefit from federal commitments today.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, since the speech from the throne and the commitment to rural economic renewal, federal departments have been working together to focus efforts.

A great variety of programs and services currently can assist rural development, yet these are not widely known. The first step has been to ensure that rural Canadians are made aware of what is already available. Communications activities are under way to provide concrete details of programs and service information to rural Canadians.

Among the many programs, the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund, noted in the House on February 6, is putting more than $100 million over the next four years into the hands of local adaptation councils across Canada.

A further $50 million capital infusion to the FCC announced in the budget will assist growth and diversification in the farm sector. The government is also pursuing further opportunities to improve the range of financial products and services available to rural Canadians.

The community access program is helping rural and remote communities access the information highway. In January a further 429 projects were funded, making a total of over 700 rural communities across Canada now being assisted.

In the 1996 budget speech, the government provided for a fund to assist 1,500 communities by 1998. In this year's budget, it sets aside another $30 million over the next three years to help some 5,000 rural communities gain access to the Internet. These community access points-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but time is up.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one week ago, on February 13, I had the opportunity in the House to ask the Minister of Public Works and Government Services a question on the issue of co-op housing in Canada.

The question flowed from a number of concerns that have been brought to my attention as the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex.

Before directing these comments to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, I would like to refresh members' minds because I think they all have had representations made to them that there are three primary concerns of people who live in co-op housing now.

First is the maintenance of national standards. Quite frankly, people in Ontario have a very real concern that where there is a right wing slashing type of government in power, as they feel the current government is, such a government cannot be relied on without definitive national standards to protect co-op housing as it currently exists.

They have a very real fear that the government will put it on chopping block one way or another, either by passing it on to the municipalities or simply by refusing to protect current arrangements.

Second is the whole issue of the protection of current agreements which exist for people living in co-op housing, particularly the protection of current mortgage agreements.

Third is the necessity for full public consultation between the federal government, the people who live in co-op housing and their spokespeople across the country.

A option has been put forward by these people that they would like the opportunity to run co-op housing themselves in co-operation with the federal government, which they have much more trust in, as was expressed to me, than they have in certain provincial governments in the country.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could elaborate on the assurances that the minister gave me. I will quote part of her answer very briefly: "As a condition, before provinces get to sign an agreement, they will have to agree to respect national principles".

My question on that point to the parliamentary secretary is how would we insist that these national principles be enforced. If governments refused to live up to them, what then would be the course of the federal government?

The minister went on to say: "More important, they will have to adhere to a strict accountability framework in order to ensure that those dollars continue to be spent to help those in need of housing".

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might elaborate on exactly what strict accountability the minister had in mind when she gave that answer.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond further to the question raised by my colleague regarding the important negotiations between the federal government and the provinces concerning housing.

The federal government has offered to the provinces and territories the opportunity to take over the management of the existing federal social housing resources, with the exception of housing on Indian reserves, provided federal subsidies continue to be used for housing and are targeted to low income households.

These negotiations are aimed at simplifying the administration of social housing by eliminating overlap and duplication and providing clients with one stop shopping.

Let me assure my colleague that national principles and a rigorous accountability framework will govern the agreement and provinces will have to agree and respect those agreements. Once new social housing agreements are in place, any future cost savings that may be realized will be used for social housing purposes, either to assist in the management and/or renovation of the older existing social housing portfolio or to create new social housing programs.

The federal government is not withdrawing the financial support it provides to low income Canadians with housing needs. We will continue to meet our financial obligations related to the existing social housing portfolio currently at about $1.9 billion a year.

With regard to the protection of existing rights of people living in co-operative housing, let me further assure my colleague that since individual sponsors own and operate most of the federally assisted non-profit and co-operative housing, CMHC agreements with individual co-operatives will continue to be legally binding. I can assure my hon. colleague of that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleagues, the motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

(The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.)