House of Commons Hansard #134 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Roger Gallaway Liberal Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of groups and individuals who want to use herbs and other natural products for medical purposes. They are suggesting that Health Canada unreasonably forbids the importation of some rather innocuous health products.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. Does Health Canada in fact publish statements as to why certain products are or are not allowed in and is there an appeal process when entry is denied?
Joe Volpe LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, members of the House will know that Health Canada's priority is to ensure that products which are put up for sale are both safe and effective.
Every year the department authorizes several hundred uses of traditional herbal remedies and vitamin and mineral supplements. We have also dealt with a series of other items that have been less than safe. I cite as an example remedies containing ephedrine which were responsible for a number of serious illnesses in Canada. As a result a ban was imposed on the use of Ephedra in certain products.
Health Canada does permit the importation of products that meet regulatory requirements. In the event that products are prohibited, all importers can appeal to the department for a review. The review process is an open one.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, not only is the Minister of Finance going to hike the CPP tax by 70 per cent for working people, but let us look at what he is going to do for the retired folk.
Under the minister's proposed new rules the old age security is gone. The guaranteed income supplement is going to be gone. The $3,500 seniors tax free allowance is gone and the $1,000 tax free pension income for seniors is gone.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us why he has killed these four pillars of financial security for seniors so that he can brag about his budget?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the government by bringing in the new seniors benefit has brought in a benefit that is going to be fully indexed, a benefit that is going to be tax free and a benefit which will benefit 75 per cent of Canadian seniors, nine out of ten single women. It is a benefit that is going to target those who need it most, certainly people who will never vote for Reform.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the new seniors benefit that he is so proud of. If a senior only has a seniors benefit and the Canada pension plan, if that is all the senior has, the Minister of Finance would take back half the Canada pension plan. Let him tell us why that is fair.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true.
The main issue we should really address is why, with all of the problems and the opportunities this country has, the Reform Party has taken up all of question period with one goal in mind: to destroy the help that will be given to low income seniors and to destroy the Canada pension plan. What is it deep in the hearts of Reformers that would destroy the social security programs upon which Canadians rely? Why? It has been an hour of basic-
François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
On Tuesday, the Minister of National Defence finally admitted that he and his colleague in External Affairs had received a report concerning the allegations that a Quebec diplomat in Washington was spied upon by Canadian military attachés.
Out of a concern for transparency and in order to get to the bottom of this matter, is the minister prepared to make that report public?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I would simply refer the hon. member to the reports that appeared this morning where the lawyer for Mr. Keener who had made that allegation said that the allegation was simply false. That should clear up the point which we made in the House, that this whole allegation was absurd. Now the lawyer of the person who said it in the first place has said that it simply is absurd.
Jack Frazer Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, according to the defence minister, everybody knows what happened in Somalia so we do not need the inquiry commission.
Since the minister knows, perhaps he can tell us why no military police were sent to investigate the March 4 shooting, or why Major
Armstrong's medical report was ignored. Perhaps he can tell us whether Bob Fowler really did blackmail Kim Campbell and whether generals interfered with an investigation.
Since the minister knows the answers, will he tell Canadians what they are? If not, why is he so determined to avoid learning the truth?
Douglas Young LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, of course the elements that are raised by my hon. friend are important. That is why the Somalia commission of inquiry has been working now for nearly two years. By the end of June, after three extensions, it will have caused some $25 million to have been spent.
With respect to the specific incidents that occurred in Somalia which the hon. member refers to, I hope that after all of this work the conclusions and the recommendations of the Somalia commission of inquiry will be useful to all Canadians, including the hon. member and the government.
Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Baha'is in my community and countless Canadians are repelled by the news of death sentences passed on Baha'is in Iran. A few days ago Iran raised the bounty on Salman Rushdie's head to $2.5 million.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, what is Canada's reaction to this latest outrage and to human rights abuses that continue in Iran?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, let me say on behalf of the government and all Canadians that these decisions are simply outrageous and we have to do everything we can to try to counter them.
I will be meeting this afternoon with representatives of the Baha'i community to talk about how we might work together with them to respond. I have written to the foreign minister of Iran to say that this should be stopped. I will be in contact with the president of the European Union to see if we can mount a common front against what is really an outrageous situation. I can promise the hon. member we will do everything we can to stop these actions.
Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK
Mr. Speaker, earlier today New Democratic Party leader Alexa McDonough urged the Liberals to reverse plans hidden in Tuesday's budget. These budget plans will result in cuts to the benefits for some 288,000 children of the working poor in this country.
Given that the minister says he wants to help the children of Canada's working poor, why is he actually taking money away from them?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is absolutely wrong. No child in this country will receive less money this year than they received last year. That is absolutely clear.
Some people wished to be transferred from a per family to a per child situation. One child families will still receive more money, not as much as we had hoped and was promised in the earlier budget, but they will receive more money than they did last year. It is a matter of fairness to go to a per child situation instead of per family.
We are doing a good job for next year's national child benefit.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Vaclav Klaus, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the usual Thursday question. Can the government tell us what will be on the agenda when we return in two weeks?
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, starting tomorrow the government will call the report stage of Bill C-71, the tobacco bill; Bill C-66, the labour code amendments; and Bill C-67, the competition legislation.
We would also like, at an early date, to complete second reading of Bill C-46, the Criminal Code amendments, and Bill C-49, the administrative tribunals bill.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment.
Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the debate concluded prior to question period an hon. member had just finished speaking and there had not been time for questions and comments. I am wondering if you are about to call questions and comments.
The BudgetGovernment Orders
The Speaker
The hon. member is absolutely correct. The hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis had five minutes for questions and comments. I was about to call for that before we proceed with debate.
Are there questions or comments?
Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to direct a question to the hon. member from Quebec, with whom I have served on the environment committee and for whom I have a great deal of respect.
The hon. member spoke at great length about funding for research and development, for technologies and for other things. I am greatly disappointed that the federal budget did not announce additional funding for green plan moneys that have expired. Green plan moneys previously funded a lot of projects on the prairies for land preservation and conservation, and water and air conservation. Many rural residents, farmers in particular, benefited a great deal from the funds which were available for research and conservation projects.
My first question of two is: Does the member believe that at some point we should see a return of this kind of funding? Second, about 16 per cent of agricultural research and development money over the past three years has been withdrawn. I wonder if the member, who is committed to research and development, would not like to see the replacement of that 16 per cent to research and development in agriculture.
Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, naturally all of us want to see restoration of previous funding in the areas of environment and agriculture. At the same time, we face realities. We have had to cut substantially in government expenses. When government expenses, the deficit, are cut by 57 per cent over three years, the cutbacks are significant.
The budget sets a sense of direction. One government priority is innovation, research. It has earmarked the research foundation for the next five years even though it is subject to partnership with private enterprise, with the economic world so that hopefully it will produce $2 billion over five years.
Naturally, when finances are restored to the government, I hope there will be much more funding for the environment, whether it is in the form of the previous green plan which was criticized as being too unfocused. We need something focused, something that addresses the issue of scientific research in the environment especially. Yes, I would be all for this. The Minister of Finance shares this goal as well.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, a budget, particularly one which we know is a pre-election budget, indicates a party's profound sense of attachment to its ideals. Now, what does this budget really present us with? This budget tells all those people who have paid dearly to reduce the deficit-generally, those people and those regions and provinces which can least afford it-"You are going to have to keep on paying".
The budget speech is full of praise and self-congratulation for the new economic indicators which ought supposedly to create jobs on their own, without the government having to put anything into employment.
Now the same people who have had to bear the brunt of the deficit reduction are the ones cruelly deprived of jobs, which would put an end to their needing the various social programs. But what does the government do in this connection? It announces a new infrastructure program, it announces a project for investing in research and development, but these measures are not in the least sufficient to deal with the problems involved.
The budget also shows a certain degree of cynicism, since there is no indication whatsoever that the unemployment insurance fund surplus is liable to stop growing.
Finally, after having shed a tear over child poverty, the budget says that, this year, the government will invest $50 million.
I will expand on these points. There are more. My colleagues talked about federal intrusion. I want to emphasize these particular points because they affect ordinary people. I wish there were a better word, but I have yet to find one.
Ordinary people are those who need social programs, average citizens. We are all ordinary people but when we use this expres-
sion, I think of those who know they have no power, no wealth, no RRSP and often no house. These are the people who need the government, who need social programs.
So what do these people see nowadays? They see that instead of improving their lives, instead of being able to count on the programs they urgently need, this budget announces that they will continue to experience severe cuts in funding. I am referring to the people of Quebec. They will continue to experience severe cuts in funding for health care, education and social programs.
And they will continue to experience the full impact of employment insurance reform, a shameful misnomer. In fact, they will not be able to count on any help at all. This is outrageous, when we consider the employment insurance fund. Since the Liberals came to power, the employment insurance fund has annually collected $4 billion or $5 billion more than it distributed in benefits.
This year, the surplus is expected to be $5.8 billion. These figures are shocking because they tell us that although the government expects to spend $13.5 billion on benefits, it will collect $19.3 billion, and $5.8 billion over $13.5 is something like 43 per cent. This is outrageous. This is highway robbery and misappropriation of funds. It is intolerable that only workers and the businesses that employ them should pay this special premium to reduce the deficit.
However, the minister is delighted. Did you hear that? The minister is delighted because he managed to reduce unemployment insurance premiums. He is delighted with the fact that he reduced costs. He is delighted with the fact he reduced the deficit. He did not say that this deficit reduction was largely paid for by workers earning up to $39,000, no more. People who work overtime and earn really big salaries do not pay a cent. Businesses that employ people and pay them up to $39,000 are the people who, since Liberals came to power, have paid for most of the reduction of the deficit.
There are really no words to express how unproductive this is from the economic point of view and how unfair it is to the people themselves. In fact, it would make any citizen indignant. I have no hesitation in showing my indignation, because I see it everywhere in my riding as do all hon. members in this House, who can testify to the general indignation of the public.
The Conservative government's withdrawal of the $2 billion paid by the main budget for job training from the unemployment insurance fund had major consequences. Three years later, there was a $6 billion deficit in the fund-three times $2 billion. Because the government was no longer responsible for this area, the unemployment insurance had to pay. Workers and businesses had to pay for job training.
However, since the Liberals came to power, things have been quite incredible. Now, the consolidated fund, the main budget, has little to do with job training, help and active measures, everything comes out of the unemployment insurance fund. In fact, the Minister of Human Resources Development's reform had the effect of having the unemployment insurance fund pay for what previously came out of the consolidated fund.
In other words, this is so twisted that the scandal rages on while all the members on the government side gloat. However, it makes no sense that the deficit reduction effort is not better distributed, including among businesses.
Which businesses pay their employees the most unemployment insurance? The labour intensive ones and the small and medium size businesses. The big ones rarely do. So the businesses providing the most jobs pay the most. Not just for the plan, but for the surplus in the fund, which is used only for the deficit.
When the minister decided to reduce the portion of salary from which unemployment insurance contributions are collected, we in the opposition tried to point out how unreasonable this was. Instead of spreading the costs of unemployment insurance to a population better able to afford it-the higher income earners-the level of earnings not subject to unemployment insurance premiums was reduced to $39,000. This is crazy.
The minister says: "This will continue. There was a $5 billion surplus in 1996; there will be at least $5 billion more at the end of 1997". About 1998-he is telling us what a good job he has done to get re-elected-he is saying nothing. He is saying nothing about reducing it, so there will be another $5 billion. It is turning into a tax, and not a hidden one. Much of unemployment insurance contributions goes to reducing the debt for society as a whole, yet it is workers who earn up to $39,000 who pay.
Those who can, who pay from their first hour of work, the first dollar they earn, they are the ones who are paying down the deficit. Those who earn over $39,000 are not.
I also want to discuss child poverty. This issue also makes me really upset. The Liberal government got elected after stressing how caring it was, how big a heart it had, and how it was going to tackle the issue of child poverty. Back in 1993, one of the initiatives the government promised to take to fight child poverty-I know because I was the critic on that issue and I debated it with the Liberal leading lights of the time-was a national daycare service. Not one penny was ever allocated to that project. Zero. The minister argued that the provinces would refuse to go along, which was true in some, but not in all cases. Be that as it may, not one penny was spent on that initiative. That commitment was going to cost $720 million.
I was astonished when I saw in the budget, that the minister was recycling that promise. The finance minister may not like the comparison, but he is doing with tax benefits what Mr. Duplessis used to do with his promise to build a bridge. Mr. Duplessis would run at least two elections on a promise to build a bridge. The Liberal Party is in the process of running two elections, perhaps three-we will see after the next election-with the same promise to tackle the real causes of child poverty.
This time, the instrument being used is not a national daycare service, but a chid tax benefit. However, what guarantee do we have that the government will fulfil this promise? This year, it will invest $50 million.
There are 1.5 million children in Quebec and in Canada who live in poverty. In its generous spirit, the government says: "We will invest $50 million", which means $33 more per year for each poor child in Quebec and in Canada. When children live in poverty it is because their parents live in poverty, because they do not have a job, because they were cut off employment insurance, because they have problems getting welfare, because they are not in good health. As you know, the causes of poverty are cumulative: one cause triggers another, and so on. Can the government seriously claim to be doing something about child poverty by giving $33 more per year per child? This is the firm part of its commitment.
The other is a promise, said to be carved in stone, a commitment. If this were my first election, I would say: "Let us give credit to the government. After all, there have been some Liberal traditions in the past". But now I do not give credit to the government this time. I have no confidence left in the government and, worse, I am outraged. And I am going to tell you why.
In his budget, the finance minister says that he is proud because, since the government is in office, in terms of deficit reduction, Canada has gone from being the worst country in the G7 to being the best, which means that Canada is the leader in deficit reduction.
Members are aware that international figures always take some time to adjust, but the latest OECD data-what better source can you ask for-show that Canada is the worst not only among the G7 nations, but also among the OECD countries in terms of assistance to poor children.
In what some say is the best country in the world, how can we accept to be the best in deficit reduction, at the expense of the future and the health of our children, given the social impact this will have, because we tried to go about it faster than other countries who were already doing much better that Canada was, at a time when Canada's programs were also doing much better?
I could quote it at length, but I will just point out that, in Europe, when they calculate poverty before transfers and taxes, in France, for instance, in 1984, it was 24.7 per cent before and 5.7 per cent after. In Canada, in 1987, the poverty rate was 18.4 and 12.6 per cent after taxes.
Since then, social programs in Canada have deteriorated. To my knowledge at least, a global evaluation has not been made but it must be made, since future generations are the ones that will pay. We talk a lot about the budget deficit; when will we talk about the health deficit, the intellectual development deficit, the social development deficit that will result from these often drastic cuts? These will be the social costs of the decisions this government is so proud of.
I would have liked the Bloc Quebecois not to be the only party in this House to speak up on this. My colleagues may make as much noise as they want, I know what I am talking about and they know it. They should be happy to have us here, since we are now the only ones to speak for the future of young people in Quebec and Canada in our role as the official opposition.
This is not a good budget for ordinary Canadians. This is a sad budget. All those who have already put enough money aside will benefit from the economic indicators, but everybody else will be hard-pressed to find hope where there is not much hope.