Debates of Feb. 20th, 1997

The Budget

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we feel better already with such a promise. We have never heard this in the past. It is quite new.

[An hon. member]

Is it the same as the GST?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The Minister of Finance claims that the federal government is the source of progress. He and the Prime Minister should admit that, last year and this year again, their government cut $4.5 billion in social, health, and post-secondary education programs, which represents $1.3 billion for Quebec alone.

How can the Minister of Finance boast about putting only $50 million this year into a program to fight child poverty, after such cuts? Is that progress, $1.3 billion in cuts and $50 million in its place?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Quebec's Minister of Finance, Mr. Landry, will put his 31 per cent of federal transfer payments to the provinces to good use in his next budget. Although we represent only 25 per cent of the population, 31 per cent of federal transfer payments, and 46 per cent of equalization payments, is not bad.

I think the Government of Quebec is not doing too badly.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about 31 per cent, he is including tax points, as well as the money they are borrowing with our credit card, in our name, that we are obliged to pay later on.

When he talks about equalization payments and the fact that we receive more in UI, he should be ashamed. If Quebec receives more in UI, it is perhaps because there is higher unemployment in Quebec. He seems to be proud of this. It is hard to believe.

Getting back to the Prime Minister, who has been saying some very interesting things lately. He was explaining to the French Prime Minister, Jacques Chirac, that it is much easier in Canada than in France to cut social and health services, because the decisions are made in Ottawa and the provinces are stuck with the actual dirty work. Federalism is so wonderful.

Is the Minister of Finance aware that it is irresponsible of the federal government to place the provinces in an unstable position by forcing them to cut direct public services? Is he aware of that?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has cut some of its own programs. We have carried out two program reviews and made cuts to federal government programs. We have also reduced the number of federal public servants by 50,000.

It is easy to whine all the time and pretend to be the victim, the worst off of all the victims of the Canadian federation. I would like

to draw the attention of the opposition and of the Government of Quebec to the fact that Quebec still receives the largest federal transfer payment of any Canadian province relative to its budget.

Quebec derives considerable benefit from being in the Canadian federation, and we have no problem with that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Human Resources Development were more familiar with his history, he would not ask the questions he just has, for poverty has its historical and political causes.

The Minister of Finance has decided that the children of Quebec and Canada would remain poor. Yet, he managed to squeeze out a tear during his budget speech. He has, however, forgotten that he and his government had done a good deal to impoverish families. He has added a mere $50 million to the pot.

How can the Minister of Finance boast of his compassion, which I would have been glad to see him show toward poor children, when his so-called $50 million effort means only another $33 per year per child living in poverty in Quebec and in Canada?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, from-

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

The tables of the rich, a few crumbs.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

They can always be considered crumbs, but if you start by looking at the figures-

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

It is outrageous, 500,000 more poor children since you have been in power.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

-we have added $70 million to the $195 million we had already committed in this fiscal year. The amount we have committed, one that is permanent and will be repeated yearly for many years, the most important national social project for decades, a project in partnership with the provinces, which will add $850 million yearly for the benefit of children in low income families, is a magnificent commitment on the part of the government.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there was more money in 1984, in today's dollars, in assistance to children, for the number of children there were at that time, than there is in this budget.

Why does the Minister of Finance want to be at the top of the G-7 when it comes to deficit reduction, while he does not mind being at the bottom of the OECD countries when it comes to helping children living in poverty?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, this is like comparing apples and oranges. In 1984, there was a family allowance system which went to all households. It was a universal program, one which many governments before us had questioned.

If, however, we look at the situation and the way it has developed in recent years, I think that our government's commitment to children of low income families is one that is solid, significant, and aimed at low income families, unlike the family allowance, a universal program from another era, which we revised when we did a general tidying up of Canada's public finances to the benefit, incidentally, of all the administrations and all the companies in this country.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I pointed out that over the past five years the finance minister's tax revenues have gone up by 30 per cent, while the take home pay of Canadians has gone down by 10 per cent.

"Not to worry," he said, "those increased tax revenues were a result of the incredible economic growth". Could it be that all the great economic growth explains why Canadians are $3,000 poorer, why 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed and why one in four Canadians are worried about losing their jobs?

I ask the finance minister this. Can he explain why all this supposed economic growth has made the government 30 per cent richer and Canadian families 10 per cent poorer? How does it add up?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that at the time we took office, there was an enormous amount of insecurity in the country. Canada had come through the deepest and longest recession since the depression of the 1930s. Taxes were going up, interest rates were skyrocketing and there was an enormous loss of confidence among business and consumers.

Three years later, 798,000 more jobs were created in the private sector, consumer confidence is on the way up, business confidence is on the way up and every international organization in the world, the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank, are saying that this is where the economic miracle of the world is taking place.

Canadians are very proud of what is going on here. They really do not like to see people knock the country.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, right now the people who are upset are those who have existing bankruptcies, which are up 60 per cent. I am not sure they would be bragging about the budget.

In the finance minister's world, a $3,000 pay cut for families is defined as economic growth and a 70 per cent pay hike in payroll taxes is considered an investment.

In April 1995 the minister's department released a study-I will table it if he would like me to-which concluded that a 40 per cent increase in CPP premiums between 1986 and 1993 had killed 26,000 jobs.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Has his department figured out the negative impact that this 70 per cent increase in CPP premiums will have on jobs? It was 40 per cent before, and now it will be a 70 per cent increase in these pay hikes. How many jobs will that lose, not create?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it takes a great deal to explain to the Reform Party the difference between a tax and pension contribution.

Yesterday I pointed out that what the Reform Party was recommending in its changes to pension contributions was the Chilean model which was 13 per cent, some $500 more than the federal government and provinces have come together on.

I wanted to be fair to the Reform Party. Therefore I went back to see if I could find out whether they had made a lower recommendation. Remember that the provinces and the federal government have agreed to 9.9 per cent. The lowest recommendation I could find from Reform was 10 per cent.

Let me quote from Reform's minority report from Standing Committee on Human Resources Development social security review. It says that in Chile the local version of CPP has been phased out and replaced by mandatory RRSPs, financed by a payroll deduction of 10 per cent. That is the lowest that they have come up with-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, by Canadians being able to put into their expanded RRSP program, they will get exactly double what the government offers in any pension scheme.

The same study that was done by Joe Italiano in the minister's department also examined the impact that payroll taxes had on wages. It is one thing for the minister to say that this is an investment. For the employers who are kicking out another 70 per cent of taxes on premiums for their workers, this is what his department came up with, not some Reformer, regarding wages.

"Employers, that is the people who hire and pay the employees, try to pass the increased cost of higher payroll taxes on to employees through lower wages". Somehow that does not sound like a great investment.

Since Canadians have already suffered a $3,000 pay cut under this Liberal government, how much more than $3,000 will they lose now that the finance minister has increased payroll taxes by 70 per cent?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to understand how members of the Reform Party can stand up day after day, swallow themselves whole and bring forward positions that are in total contradiction to what they have stated consistently in House of Commons committees or in this House.

I made a reference to the 10 per cent increase. That was the lowest number that I could see.

Let us look at what Reform has actually recommended. This is a quote from the Reform Party's social security review and the option which it recommends: "The schedule of planned increases to the CPP payroll tax", which they called it, "could be maintained or somewhat accelerated with the excess funds being diverted into contributors' personal super RRSP funds".

What Reform is recommending on paper is the acceleration of the contributions up to a level of 14.2 per cent.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.

In his budget, the minister announced the creation of the Canada Foundation for Innovation to invest in R & D infrastructures. However, as in the case of most of the measures announced in this budget, on the eve of an election the minister is putting money back into an area where he previously made massive cuts, as in the case of the Tokamak reactor in Varennes.

How can the minister create a federal foundation when he has already cut more than $3.3 billion in transfer payments to the provinces for health and post-secondary education and more than $100 million in funding for research councils? These are radical cuts that have already seriously undermined research in universities and hospitals.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the position taken today by the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois is a rather interesting one.

I can quote some comments by Denis Gagnon, vice rector of Laval University. He said: "I think it was very good news yesterday for universities and teaching hospitals that do research. Excellent news at last that we may be entitled to assistance in developing our research infrastructures".

He also said: "The federal government is involved, but it is looking for what it calls a partner in any commitment it will make, and it will be up to us to work with these partners".

David Johnston, former head of McGill university said: "We can establish-"

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is willing, we could send him some quotes which are the exact opposite of the ones he happened to choose. These are ten times worse.

Does the minister, who has cut at least one half billion annually from research and development budgets, not realize that $180 million is peanuts compared with the promise in the red book which would add $1 billion annually for science and technology?