House of Commons Hansard #152 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was reserves.
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, what I noticed when I traveled in Quebec last week is that Quebeckers are very pleased with the transitional jobs fund—
Pierre Pettigrew Liberal Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC
—which created thousands of jobs in those regions where the unemployment rate is particularly high.
I met young Quebeckers who thanked me for the federal government's youth employment strategy, which helps them join the labour market by allowing them to gain some work experience.
I met Quebeckers who were pleased with the progress we made on the issue of child poverty by implementing a national child benefit in co-operation with the provinces.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Two hundred and fifty thousand young Canadians start smoking each and every year. That is a human tragedy. Clearly more action is needed in the way of effective anti-smoking measures.
Does the health minister believe, yes or no, that a levy of 50 cents a carton is too high a price to prevent our youth from taking up smoking?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that this government has taken important and effective action to discourage young people from starting to smoke. We have done that by introducing some of the toughest and smartest anti-tobacco legislation in the western world, which restricts access by young people to tobacco and indeed creates offences for those who sell tobacco to persons under the legal age.
In addition, we have already announced the intention to spend over the coming five years $100 million in the administration of that statute and in efforts to discourage young people from smoking.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, who is the health minister kidding? He knows perfectly well that only $200,000, 2% of that $100 million prevention program, has even begun to be put to work.
Smoking related illnesses are costing Canadians $5 billion a year.
When will the health minister follow British Columbia's lead, stand up to big tobacco companies and make them pay for the costs of smoking related illnesses?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the member should be aware that we are devoting $100 million in the coming five years to enforce the Tobacco Act, which is the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the western world, and to efforts directly aimed at young people to discourage them from starting to smoke.
I should also remind the member that our statute and powers are to control tobacco as a substance and to increase the warnings on tobacco packages for which we now have proposals in front of us that are under consideration.
I can assure the hon. member that this government will follow through on its commitment to encourage young people not to start smoking.
Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's budget projections are bogus. Revenues this year are rising beyond his projections because of increases in personal taxes. The Canadian standard of living continues to decline as taxes rise.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Taxpayers has endorsed the PC plan demanding tax relief.
Will the minister commit today to lowering taxes and making them fairer for Canadians?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the last PC plan I saw had a $42 billion deficit in it.
We have made it very clear that it is our intention to reduce taxes. We did so in the last budget. We would hope to do so in every budget. We would also hope to continue to reduce EI premiums. We would also hope to see the kind of job creation that Canada is now coming forth with which is the strongest job creation of almost any of the G-7 countries.
Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, the last PC plan I saw had free trade and GST in it. I would like to know where the Liberals, who are sitting in this House today, were back then.
The fact is that personal taxes are up $2 billion this year and low income earners have had the biggest tax hike of all Canadians due to the 70% increase in CPP payroll taxes. The government now wants to maintain unnecessarily high EI premiums. These payroll taxes are regressive and punish the poor in Canada.
Why is this finance minister balancing the books on the backs of low income Canadians?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the current EI premiums, at $2.70, are substantially lower than the EI premiums that existed when the Tories were in office.
It is right that the surplus for the first six months is $10 billion higher than some people would have projected. However, I sat in this House when Tory finance minister after Tory finance minister made a mistake and it went the other way. If we are going to make a mistake I would rather make it our way.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it is taxpayers who pay for his mistakes: $10 billion right out of their pockets.
The fact is that the finance minister is sitting on a $10 billion mountain of money gouged right out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers and a full $7 billion of that comes from workers and employers through EI overtaxation.
When will the finance minister come down off money mountain and make sure that Canadians get the tax relief they need through lower EI premiums?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have a supplementary question so let him deal in the supplementary with the real difference of opinion.
We want to reduce taxes. We have demonstrated that. We want to reduce EI premiums. We have demonstrated that. This is not the issue. The issue is that we are not prepared to do it on the backs of low income Canadians. We are not prepared to do it on the backs of poor families with children. We are not prepared to do it by gutting the health care system.
That is the Reform Party agenda and at least its members ought to have the guts to stand and admit it.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, last year 2.5 million Canadians earning less than $30,000 a year kicked in $2.5 billion in EI premiums. That is the government's record when it comes to taxation of low income Canadians. I think the air is a little thin up there on money mountain. The oxygen is not getting to his brain.
The fact is that Canadians pay far too much in taxes, 56% higher than the G-7 average. There is a $7 billion surplus in the EI fund. When will the minister wake up and understand that the surplus is not his? It belongs to workers and employers. When will he give it back to them in the form of lower premiums?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, let us simply take a look at the facts.
In the first 10 months of 1996, 321,000 new jobs were created. In the month of October 57,000 new jobs were created. The reason for that is that the nation's finances have been cleaned up and there is a feeling of confidence across the country.
That is what will lead to job creation. That is what will lead to lower taxes. The Reform Party ought to understand that Canadians are now on a roll and ought to stop trying to stop it.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, the latest financial review reveals a surplus of over $10 billion in the first half of the current fiscal year.
However, last month, the Minister of Finance was maintaining his harebrained prediction of zero budget surplus for 1998-99.
Will the minister confirm that by so shamelessly hiding the surpluses, his plan for them is to apply them all to the debt, since under accounting rules all unplanned surpluses must be applied to the debt?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we have always said our projections would not be of our optimum performance, but of our minimum.
I am proud of Canada's victory over the deficit, and I am very happy to see that we have a $10 billion surplus for the first six months of this year. However, we still have another six months to go.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, being 100% wrong one month is certainly the minimum in terms of skill.
If the minister wants to use part of the surplus for something other than debt reduction, he knows he can table a supplementary budget to increase, for example, health transfers.
So why does the minister not want to use part of his $10 billion surplus to increase health transfers, when all the provinces are asking him to do so, when he has the wherewithal and when he can do so by tabling a supplementary budget this week?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, that is just what we did in the last budget. We increased transfers to the provinces by $7 billion over five years, and the Bloc members voted in opposition.
When we look at what the Bloc proposes, we realize that they want to spend $15 billion this year and $15 billion next year. They want Canada to be back in a deficit position. This is certainly not what Canadians want.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister just said that the Reform Party would gut health care. However the health minister in the five years they have had power has taken $7 billion a year out of transfers to the provinces.
I have a brand new Canadian Medical Association poll which says that 68% of Canadians want that money back into health care. Why, with $10 billion extra in the bank, is our health care system in such a mess?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already made clear that health will be the focus of the next major reinvestment by the government. The hon. member can count on us to keep our word.
What is passing strange is that this question would come from a member and from a party that if given the opportunity would gut the Canada Health Act, would repeal it and would end medicare.
This is the member and this is the party that called the Canada Health Act outdated legislation. It is shocking that this man would stand in the House and ask a question about the very medicare, given the chance, that he would destroy.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I guess the best defence is a good offence. The minister will twist any fact he has to but he does not answer the question.
Here are the Liberal facts on health care. They promised to preserve it. They delivered $7 billion in cuts. They promised to cut waiting lists. We have the worst waiting lists in Canadian history. They are trying to look after the brain drain. They are firing more physicians and health care workers, sending them to the States.
Why with $10 billion in the bank do we have a medicare system that is in a mess?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, many responses come to mind from the health transition fund we created to the $1.5 billion increase in the provincial transfer. The government has shown through the last difficult five years its commitment to health as a priority. The Prime Minister has also said that in the months ahead we will demonstrate once again that health is to us a central concern.
This member speaks of twisting the facts. He is the member of the House who stood in his place and said that the Canada Health Act was outdated legislation. He called for choice which we all know is a code word for American style private insurance. This man and his party should be ashamed of themselves.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance wants to change the government accounting system so as to combine the employment insurance surplus and the general government surplus.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is it not his intention to combine the two surpluses so that in future people will not know what exact proportion of the huge federal government surplus is from employment insurance, since the figures have become far too embarrassing for him?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, all that we are doing is complying with the requests of the Auditor General which date back to 1986. They were also complied with by the previous government.