Debates of Feb. 26th, 1998

The Budget

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member wanted to know what world we are on.

I wish to tell him that our world is a federalist one, a world in favour of national unity.

I would also hope the member would like to join us as a fellow Canadian in trying to decrease the EI premiums. That is what the government should be doing and is something the Reform Party has been pushing for for a long time.

If the government decreased EI premiums, it could be one of the greatest gifts the government could give to the private sector. The finance minister recognized this as being the primary motivating force in the country in creating jobs and giving it the ability to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians to get gainful employment.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga West.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, February 24. The Minister of Finance with the support of the Prime Minister and the sacrifice of all Canadians accomplished something that no minister of finance has been able to do for 30 years.

Not only would I like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for his historic accomplishment, but I would also like to thank him for giving me a birthday present I will remember for many years to come.

We remember during the 1993 campaign we promised to reduce the deficit of $42 billion to 3% of our GDP by the end of our first mandate. We did better than that. We got rid of it completely.

Many tough decisions had to be made to eliminate the enormous deficit we inherited from the Conservative government in 1993. This Liberal government did not take the slash and burn approach advocated by the Reform Party. We acted responsibly, and with the help of all Canadians, we were able to succeed. This is something all Canadians should be proud of.

As we enter this new balanced budget era, we will continue to act responsibly when it comes to this nation's finances. We will be as cautious with any surplus as we were with the deficit. That means targeted spending in areas of concern to all Canadians, such as health care and education, debt reduction, and tax relief to those who most need it. That also means we will not do everything that everyone wants us to do in this first budget of our second mandate.

However, this budget succeeds in striking a balance between social spending, tax cuts and debt reduction, just as we promised during the 1997 election campaign. That is why we are providing $7 billion in targeted tax relief over the next three years, including the elimination of the 3% general surtax on those earning up to $50,000 and an increase in the basic personal exemption for low and middle income Canadians. These two measures will completely remove 400,000 Canadians from the tax rolls and reduce the taxes for 14 million Canadians by 1999-2000.

This is a budget for Canada's families. This is the budget for all Canadians who made sacrifices during our four year battle against the deficit. Working Canadians with children will benefit from an increased child care deduction of $7,000 for children up to seven years of age, up from the previous $5,000, and $4,000 for children between seven and sixteen years of age, up from $3,000. These measures will benefit some 65,000 Canadian families with children.

Canadians faced with caring for elderly or disabled family members will benefit from a new caregiver credit that will reduce the federal tax by up to $400. This new measure will affect some 450,000 caregivers in Canada.

Lower income families with children will receive extra assistance.

The government recognizes that knowledge and skills are the key to jobs. That is why education is a key element of this budget. Lower income individuals with children or other dependants who would like to upgrade their education will be eligible for the Canada study grant of up to $3,000 per year.

As of January 1, 1998 this government is providing a grant of 20% on the first $2,000 of annual contributions made to a registered education savings plan for beneficiaries up to the age of 18.

This new program, the Canada education savings grant, will help families save for their children's education. A family contribution of $25 to the RESP every two weeks for 15 years would provide one child with $4,700 for each year of a four year post-secondary education. That means a case of beer per week.

Starting in the year 2000, the Canada millennium scholarship foundation will also give up to $3,000 per year to approximately 100,000 students wishing to pursue post-secondary education.

The measures announced under this program will reduce the debt load that many students can expect to incur by approximately half. Once out of school, Canadians with student loans will see tax relief for interest payments on those loans. All students will be given a 17% tax credit for interest payments on their student loans.

This budget also encourages employers to hire young Canadians. We are offering an EI premium holiday. Employers will pay no employment insurance premiums for new jobs created in 1999 and 2000 for persons 18 to 24 years of age.

This government is also making a significant investment in health. An additional $7 billion over six years will be given to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. This means that the CHST will grow an average of 2.5% over the six year period.

This government also increased its contribution to the establishment of a new blood agency by $60 million to renew Canada's blood system. An investment of $211 million over five years was also committed to the renewal of the national HIV/AIDS strategy.

In an effort to promote advanced medical research and graduate study, the Medical Research Council of Canada will receive a major increase in funding. The MRC will receive an additional $134 million for university based medical research. I believe some companies in my riding that are working closely with the universities will benefit.

This budget has not forgotten about the enormous debt burden facing this nation. So far this year, the government has paid down almost $13 billion in market debt. The debt repayment plan based on three key elements has been put in place. Those elements include: a two year fiscal plan based on prudent economic planning assumptions; a contingency reserve of $3 billion each year; and the use of the contingency reserve to pay down the public debt each year when it is not needed.

It is this type of fiscal planning which helped to eliminate the deficit. I am confident that the same strategy will be successful in eliminating the debt.

During the federal election campaign we committed to spending 50% of any fiscal dividend on social and economic priorities and the other 50% on a combination of tax relief and debt reduction. The impact of this budget over the next three years is a 40% investment in social and economic priorities and 60% on tax relief and debt reduction. Over the course of our mandate we will have to address this slight imbalance to ensure that we keep our commitment.

The budget before this House is a good budget. It is a good budget because it is the first balanced budget in 30 years. It is a good budget because it paves the way for balanced budgets into the next century. It is a good budget because it strikes a balance between tax relief, debt reduction and spending on valuable programs for children, families and those less fortunate.

This budget shows a commitment on the part of this Liberal government to invest in the future of all Canadians. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for his efforts.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my honourable colleague from Cambridge is out of touch with reality. Unfortunately for him, he does not have contact with the men and women in the street. He does not have contact with the middle-class workers in our society.

He says this is the first budget without a deficit in 30 years. I would like to remind him that all but nine of those years had Liberal ministers of finance, one of whom was the present Prime Minister. That is when the country experienced the highest interest and inflation rates.

The member for Cambridge was trying hard to tell us earlier about the treats the government will be giving out, but he forgot that employment insurance has a surplus of $12 billion right now. Why not lower the contributions of our poor workers? Oh, no. We certainly cannot touch that.

This morning I had a call from a representative of the AFEAS group in my riding complaining that, in the future, the average family income will be calculated in order to establish spousal pensions. Who is this going to penalize? Women for the most part, once again. But the hon. member did not mention that.

He made no mention of the $42 billion cut to the provinces. When I say he is cut off from reality—and I shall end on this—we need only listen to the Journal de Montréal . Vox populi, vox Dei: Joseph Bourque “He is sending the bill to the provinces”; Claude Allaire “He is not doing much for the middle class”; Claude Grenier—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Cambridge.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments.

I want to say that he is completely wrong. Not only did I rub shoulders with ordinary people, I worked in a factory plant on the floor with average Canadians and I contributed to EI funds. There were times when I did collect for a short time.

I want to remind the hon. member that this government has reduced EI premiums three times already.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I come here to praise the finance minister, not to bury him. For was it not the finance minister who failed to mention crime? Indeed it was. For was it not the finance minister who was able to ignore the unemployed? Indeed it was. For was it not the finance minister who cut the transfers to the provinces for health and education? Indeed it was.

This was all despite protests. What courage this man has. It was despite the protests for those who have suffered crimes and wanted to see restitution done and he was able to weather their storm and say, “No. I will not heed your concerns”. He was able to weather the plight of the unemployed and despite the fact that were promised jobs, jobs, jobs, he said, “That doesn't matter. Unemployment will remain high”. He said to those who took up the commitment that the federal government made on health care that we will pass on the buck to the provinces and not live up to our commitments.

Like I say, I come to praise the finance minister, not to bury him.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Reform Party is a new member and I wish him good luck. I remember in the 1993 election campaign the platform of the Reform Party was slash, slash. You remember that, Mr. Speaker, as well, and burn, burn, burn.

This government took a responsible balanced approach. Under this government there were over one million jobs created by the private sector.

The provincial health ministers are crying out that we cut transfers, including Roy Romanow, the premier of Saskatchewan. Instead of closing hospitals in the health system since we came to power in 1993, we are contributing another $1.5 billion to the health system, $12.5 billion, the same amount as before.

I ask the hon. member from the Reform Party what their excuse is going to be next year when the same amount is going to be in effect.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to hear the Reform Party quoting Shakespeare. I would have expected Homer Simpson instead. In any event, we will get to that a little later in the debate.

One of the things that I and I think Canadians find most interesting is the cries of indignation only come in this place. Take any of the journals of the fifth estate, take any of the headlines, just pick the newspaper, and it is really quite remarkable how this budget has been received. You ask yourself why.

I think the most telling thing that our finance minister said in his speech was not only is this a balanced budget, but it is a budget with balance. The opposition parties are wrestling with what to do and say about this.

One of my colleagues said to me before the budget that you will know that this is a successful budget if everything you hear is we didn't do enough. Go through it. We can take the Conservatives who would say in their program that they would grab a 10% income tax cut right across the line. It does not matter, as one of my colleagues said earlier. If you make $500,000 you will get a 10% cut, if you make $25,000 you will get a 10% cut. They would say that we did not do enough in the area of tax cuts.

From the document we see that the amount of income that low income Canadians can receive on a tax free basis will be increased by $500. That does not sound like a lot of money, but if you are a low income Canadian, that can make the difference between feeding your kids the way you want to and struggling and having to go to a food bank. In fact, it relieves 400,000 Canadians from paying any income tax at all.

Did we do enough? Is there a person in this House who would not rather stand here and say we would like to give them $1,000 instead of $500 in tax free allowances and tax free earnings? Of course we would.

When you look at the balance and the responsibility of the government governing for all Canadians, we believe that it is a good first step for low income Canadians who at least put some money back in their pocket which gives them a chance to get ahead.

The 3% general surtax was a gift from Brian Mulroney to the Canadian people. We eliminated it. Clearly, 13 million taxpayers with incomes up to about $50,000 will no longer have to pay that. Would we have liked to have done more? Yes. Would we have liked to increase that ceiling? Obviously we would have.

Once again, when we look at the balance requirements, we can only do so much in this budget and still maintain that balance.

I hear talk about managing student debt. The NDP would say we did not do enough. Once again there is that premise. It is a good budget we hear, but they did not do enough. The New Democrats, of course, would like to eliminate any requirement for a student to pay anything for post-secondary education. They are open and honest about that. We do not believe that is good balance. We do not believe that the Canadian taxpayer can afford that.

What have we done? We have provided tax relief for interest on all students loans. We would have liked to have done more, but we have to be reasonable. We have provided interest relief and extended it to more graduates. We have provided an extended repayment period for those who need it. However they have to demonstrate that they need it. There is nothing wrong with that. If they need the help, this government is prepared to provide it.

There will be an extended interest relief period for individuals who remain in financial difficulty. There is no point in forcing our graduates to struggle with a huge debt. We want to be able to help them. We have committed to do that.

We have even said that we will reduce the loan principal amount for individuals who face severe financial hardship.

That is a balanced approach.

We have heard people say that we have not done enough to help people upgrade their skills. One of the things that I see in my riding, when I look at the demographics of Mississauga West, is that a lot of people have made career changes. A lot of people in my riding are looking for a way to improve their skills and increase their training. They are entering a whole new way of life. It could be in the software or hardware industry of computers. It could be in some form of communications technology.

That is very difficult. These people may be 45 years old. They have been working for 20 years, since they left school. They have managed to build up some retirement savings, but their company has downsized. We all realize what that means. Not only do governments downsize; the corporate world has been feeling the pain for the last decade. We understand that. The translation is that when the corporate world adjusts, it usually hits the human resource element.

There may be a 45 year old man who has RRSPs. Up until now he has not been able to touch the RRSPs to spend the money on his improvement without paying taxes. We are providing a system whereby tax-free withdrawals can be made from retirement savings plans for lifelong learning. That will begin on January 1, 1999. Canadians will be able to make tax-free withdrawals from their RRSPs for lifelong learning.

Once again that is a balance. It says to the Canadian people “We have to be creative. We have to find new ways to use the resources which you have put aside”. Let us face it, a retirement savings plan is a tax haven for future retirement.

There is a repayment plan tied to that, and so there should be. Ten years or 20 years down the road when that 45 year old turns 65 and is ready to retire, they will have had an additional 20 years of earning. However we do not want them to be without RRSPs. They must pay them back or they will become taxable.

Again it is fair. It is a reasonable approach and Canadians understand that.

Let us talk about tax reductions. In my constituency there are an awful lot of people who still have young children either in elementary school or in high school. We are providing the Canada education savings grant. The phrase which is used in this document is that it is a new reason to save. It is a clear incentive. It is built with balance.

For example, if a family contributes $25 to a retirement education savings plan every two weeks for their child's education, a total of $650 a year, they will receive a grant in addition to that from the government of $130. That is 20%. On 20 cents out of every dollar they will get an additional grant.

If the family has three kids, or the proverbial 2.2 kids, and it makes those contributions for each kid, it will amount to a substantial amount of money to help a young person go to school.

If that family contributes $25 every two weeks, over 15 years, assuming a 5% return on the investment, which I think is a prudent assumption, that child will wind up with $4,700 for each of the four years they will spend in higher education.

What is this budget about? It is not about the opposition members hammering the government and it is not about the government simply blindly defending it. This budget is about young people. It is about people like Nicky, Harris and Dell, nine and ten year olds in Mississauga who are starting out in life. It is about young David Bond, with his wife and two babies at home, working as a chef in Mississauga and what the future means for him. It is about health care and education. In fact, 80% of the budget goes to those two items directly.

I am very proud to be a Liberal. More important, I am proud to be a member of this place which has put out a balanced budget that will secure the future for all Canadians.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the rather partisan remarks by my colleague for Mississauga West.

For at least 35 years now, I have been following budget presentations, and the Liberals have been in power a good 15 years of that time. I have never before seen a Liberal member rise and say that his Minister of Finance was totally wrong, that a mistake had been made. Definitely not.

From the first year the current Prime Minister was Minister of Finance, he got us into debt, debt that accumulated over 28 years. I do not understand the hon. member's thought process. How can 35 years worth of good result in something bad, like the current $583 billion accumulated debt.

But that is not really my main concern. The Minister of Finance brags about curbing his deficit. But on whose backs did he do that? There are 500,000 people living in poverty in Montreal. Just this morning, the headline in the paper read “Young mother of four has problem with leaky roof”.

How is this young woman with four children expected to set up a registered school savings plan for her children? They will probably die of hunger before they reach high school.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully acknowledge that we have only begun down the road to solve some of the financial problems the member talks about.

We have identified $7 billion in tax relief for low and middle income Canadians. Does that satisfy everyone's needs? Of course it does not. We have increased the child tax credit. I had a call from a constituent who told me his wife stayed home with the kids 10 years ago and now the government is just giving the money away for people to do that. I told him that this was for the benefit of all Canadians. I told him that he may not directly benefit but that his kids would benefit and his kids' kids would benefit. That is the principle we are attempting to put in place.

The most important thing in this budget, which our Prime Minister has said and our Minister of Finance has said, is that never again will this country go down the road to the kind of deficit finance spending I admit we have seen in this place for far too long. The budget is balanced and it is a balanced budget that will indeed set us on the road to a strong financial future for all of Canada.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned headlines and that we should be reading headlines. The president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said he thinks the focus of the budget is misdirected. The hon. member talks about the opposition hammering the government. It is the government that is hammering the Canadian taxpayer. That is what is happening here.

How is that young people can benefit from a $583 billion debt? He talks about young people's future and it his government and past governments that have created a major problem which is not even addressed in the budget and that is debt repayment and substantial tax reduction. How is that he can claim that the government is going to take care of young people with massive increases in CPP contributions and a huge debt looming with no signs of relief in that area?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would acknowledge that the president of the Chamber of Commerce might not be lining up to join our parade.

As a matter of fact, there was a headline in one of the newspapers, “Big business bashes budget”. Okay, I will accept that criticism. It is the people who work for those big businesses, though, who are going to benefit from this.

Let me be clear. There is a debt reduction plan. We have already retired $13 billion in marketable debt. That is done, off the books, gone. We also have a debt repayment plan with a two year fiscal plan based on prudent economic planning assumptions.

We are taking the $3 billion contingency fund which, over the last three years, was used to eliminate part of the $42 billion in deficit we inherited from the Conservatives. It will go to debt reduction. That is $9 billion.

It is totally misleading to say that we are not attacking the debt. We would like to do more, but we have to maintain a balance.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.

On February 24, the first budget of this Liberal government's second mandate was delivered to Canada and Quebec. Not surprisingly, the maple leaf theme was omnipresent. The Liberals' masquerade is over. The true face of the Liberal government, the Prime Minister and his finance minister has been revealed to the people of Canada and Quebec.

What the Bloc Quebecois had been dreading since the Speech from the Throne, that is, an unprecedented invasion of provincial jurisdictions, has now become a sad reality.

In Quebec and the other Canadian provinces, the finance minister's words had a bitter flavour. The provinces have realized that, once again, they will have to pay a high price for the Liberal government's visibility, while the federal government completely ignores their demands to restore the transfer payments the Liberals have been systematically cutting back since they were re-elected in the fall of 1993.

What can we say about the government's position on the employment insurance issue? Where is its commitment to agriculture? The budget does not contain a single line on this industry which is vitally important to Quebec and my region in particular. Not to mention the war of flags that will be fought on the backs of Quebec students.

These remarks accurately reflect the comments made by the stakeholders in my riding of Lotbinière. On Tuesday, these people met in my Laurier-Station office and, after seeing the finance minister's fiscal plan, they concluded this was “a Canadian Liberal budget devised by a centralizing government that is gradually squeezing the provinces”.

Let me quote some of the comments made by socio-economic stakeholders in my riding: “Why does the federal government want to create a fund that will directly compete with Quebec's student loans and grants program?” “Where are the job creation initiatives?” “What will the Minister of Finance do with the employment insurance surpluses?” “Not a word on agriculture; it sure tells you what the federal government thinks of this sector.” “Independent workers are not just concerned about their dental plans; it is not enough, it is a joke.”

Let us take a look at the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Once again, we can see, upon reading the budget, that the Minister of Finance is contradicting himself.

In his speech he said “Education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. It is the provinces that are responsible for the curriculum, for educational institutions, for quality”. But the minister's respect for provinces, for Quebec, stops there. How the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation will operate will be defined without consulting the provinces.

The minister was clear on this. He said “Once established, the Foundation will consult”. The foundation, which will be administered through a cumbersome, costly and complex structure, will make life difficult for Quebec students.

The federal government, along with certain provinces, is doing the groundwork for the establishment of a true federal education department. This government, which cares so much about the Canadian Constitution, which is even prepared to go before the Supreme Court, cannot even respect its own Constitution.

This government, which is looking more and more unitary, is acting unilaterally. In actual fact, this budget is the second phase of the Canadian flag operation, a Plan B attempt to charm young people, a strictly election-minded strategy.

The Minister of Finance's budget ignores the provinces, who wanted the Liberal government to be fair, and to use its surpluses to give them back what it cut in transfer payments. But the government takes no notice of what the provinces are up against.

I would now like to share another reaction from one of my constituents: “I would like to see the look on the faces of those waiting in hospital corridors when they hear that the federal government is not returning one red cent to the health sector”.

By refusing to give back to the provinces the billions of dollars it has taken from them in recent years, the federal government is giving a signal that health is not a budget priority. Although the Minister of Finance used the phrase “equality of opportunity” in his budget, it is a budget full of financial inequities.

Let us now look at EI, specifically at surpluses in the EI fund which, at the rate things are going, will stand at $30 billion by the year 2000. That is the finance minister's big cash cow for paying down his deficit. Employers and unions throughout Canada called for substantial reductions in EI premium rates.

On Tuesday, workers were shocked to hear the Minister of Finance boast that the unemployment rate had gone from 11.2% in 1993 to under 9% in 1997. These victims of the new system were excluded from EI because of restrictive eligibility rules.

In conclusion, the scenario for Quebeckers, for our young people, for our sick people, for our seniors, as written by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, with the help of the Minister of Human Resources Development, is a sting aimed at our entire society.

I would like to inform you that, unlike the multiple Oscar-winning 1970s Hollywood movie “The Sting”, the Canadian version of that movie currently running in the federal parliamentary theatre is not winning any awards, with the exception of an Oscar for best predator to the Prime Minister and best imposter to the Minister of Finance.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments to make.

Certainly within the budget, as has been stated over and over again, with respect to provincial jurisdiction, curriculum, buildings, schools, books are the jurisdiction of the provinces. The millennium fund certainly respects that. The federal role in helping people gain access with financial assistance has always been a shared jurisdiction. The millennium fund continues to respect that jurisdiction.

But I am not one bit surprised that the Bloc and the PQ are attacking the fund, because they know this is the single most important way to help students gain access to educational institutions. The Bloc and the PQ are in fact afraid of the positive effect on people's lives.

Why is the member attacking the millennium fund? Is it because he is afraid that the positive effect on people is not coming from the separatist government in Quebec? Is that why he is attacking the fund?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all that the Bloc Quebecois MPs do is defend the interests of Quebec. Our mandate is a serious one. We defend the interests of Quebec. We defend the interests of Quebec as defined in an agreement signed in 1964 between Jean Lesage and Lester B. Pearson, a respectable Prime Minister who had the interests of Quebec at heart at that time and knew that giving the responsibility for education and the student loan and bursary program to the provinces would ensure that the system would work profitably and efficiently for Quebec students.

Your present Prime Minister would do well to reread the words of Lester B. Pearson from that time, in order to see what a Canadian Prime Minister used to be like.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that Canada is ending this millennium and about to enter the next as one of the best countries in the world. It is very appropriate to celebrate this by introducing this type of millennium fund grant program for young people.

Is there not room in the heart of the hon. member across the way, in the heart of Bloquistes and the heart of souverainistes, to have pride in a country that has been so successful and to encourage that pride among young Quebeckers who, after all, will not be dictated to on what to think as a result of the millennium fund and are simply being invited to share in one of the best countries in the world?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the other side of this House has some problems understanding.

I have just told his colleague that education is a Quebec jurisdiction. You have no business getting involved in it. Is that clear?

In the 1867 Constitution, education is a provincial matter. Mind your own business. You will see that Quebec will take proper care of its young people.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the Minister of Finance cut the subsidy to Canadian dairy farmers by $5.12 per hectolitre to zero over five years. Cuts have been made for two years now.

This year, his fifth report to the House of Commons as Finance Minister says nothing about agriculture. Since he will, we believe, generate between $8 and $12 billion in the 1998-99 budget, he could perhaps have eased off a bit on the dairy farmers because it is a known fact that cheese has gone up by 40 cents a kilo since he became Minister of Finance.

I would like to ask my distinguished colleague from Lotbinière whether he does not think this would be a good thing for the numerous dairy farmers in his riding, since it would increase the consumption of industrial milk products.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I note the question put by my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic. Not only did the Minister of Finance do nothing for agriculture, he did nothing for SMBs. It is as if six rural ridings like our own were wiped off the Liberal government's list of priorities.

But things are coming to a conclusion. When Quebec is sovereign and a country, it will look after the real interests of Quebeckers, and I am sure that agriculture and the future of SMBs will be among the priorities of its government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond today to the Minister of Finance's budget speech.

I might be tempted to congratulate the minister on his balanced budget, but I have at least two good reasons for not doing so.

First, the public has made heavy sacrifices over the past four years at least to enable the minister to balance his budget.

People have faced huge cuts to health, education and social assistance. Workers and the unemployed had their employment insurance benefits cut or no longer received them because certain eligibility criteria were tightened. All these sacrifices created a surplus of billions of dollars in the employment insurance fund, which was used in the fight against the deficit.

Second, with a balanced budget in hand, the minister is hiding budget surpluses and preparing a new series of federal expenditures instead of going after pressing objectives such as job creation, the fight against poverty and a reorganization of the social programs they dismantled.

Now a word about the budget itself.

The minister talks about his strategy for equal opportunity, but he seems to forget that, for the past half century, one of the aims of the government has been to redistribute wealth through social programs. He seems to have abdicated this role and to consider unemployment and the rise in poverty to be spectator sports.

The minister neglected in his budget to point out the cuts of $30 billion still to come in the next few years.

His $450 million child tax credit in 1999 and 2000 is praiseworthy—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Although in the House there are no words in themselves which are unparliamentary, unfortunately it is also equally true that our flag and the waving of our flag are similarly not unparliamentary. It is the fashion in which words are used or a flag would be used.

In the opinion of the Chair at this time the use of the flag is inappropriate, so I would ask that you be kind enough to put the flags back in your desks, and we will resume debate.

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

His $450 million child tax credit in 1999 and 2000 is praiseworthy, but insufficient to meet the needs of the 1.4 million poor children in the country and the 5 million Canadians living below the poverty line.

It is extremely disappointing to see that the government is presenting no job creation measures whatsoever and is continuing to pocket the employment insurance surplus, which will hit $30 billion by the year 2000. Instead of using the contributions as a tax in disguise, the government could have stimulated job creation by reducing workers' and employers' contributions or by using the surplus for job creation projects.

The main initiative of this budget is the creation of the famous millennium scholarships at a cost of $2.5 billion. Those 100,000 scholarships will be handed out only in the year 2000. It is curious to see the government's sudden interest in education, when we know that it will have cut over $10 billion in that sector between 1993 and 2003, $3 billion of that in Quebec.

This government, which has thus contributed to weakening the education system, to tuition fee hikes, to the increased debt load of a generation of students, wants to come off as a benefactor and, as the Prime Minister has admitted, to gain visibility by handing out the flag-emblazoned cheques itself.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That is all right.

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

What is more, this is an unprecedented encroachment on an area of provincial responsibility—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.