House of Commons Hansard #53 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was spending.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, for four days the Bloc has been slamming the Canadian government, claiming we are not doing enough to help disaster victims in Quebec.
Everybody knows of the great efforts of our Canadian armed forces in Quebec. What the heck else is the Canadian government doing to help disaster victims in Quebec? I would like an answer in a minute or less.
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, although it is the responsibility of the provincial government to provide the first line of defence in case of emergencies, the federal government has obviously used all its resources, including the department of defence with the army, the departments of health and national revenue in order to help.
The Department of Natural Resources has provided $45 million. I have already indicated that we were ready to contribute by giving a cheque of $50 million to minister Brassard in Quebec.
The minister of defence has done the same thing in Ontario. We will continue to do that.
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, in 1985 the Tories introduced an insidious blood sucking tax called bracket creep. It is still here. It was supposed to be a tax to reduce the deficit.
I ask the minister of finance, now that we are going to get the budget balanced, is he prepared today to say he is going to drop the bracket creep tax?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position to talk about what is going to be in this budget or in subsequent budgets throughout the course of this mandate.
I can assure the hon. member that it is the intention of this government to reverse every insidious blood sucking action the previous Tory government took.
John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order emanating from question period this afternoon.
During the course of question period I put a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the bank merger. I was citing some facts with respect to contributions made by banks to the governing party. Then I asked the question subsequent to that.
These facts came from the chief electoral officer's report of Canada outlining that the Liberal Party received substantial contributions from the bank—
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Colleagues, I know that you will give enough leeway to your Speaker to make a decision in this matter. If the hon. member wishes to pursue this, I will see him in my chambers. This point of order is over.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader to inform the House of the order of business for the remainder of this week and next week.
I would also like to ask him whether or not there will be a debate on the budget in the following week.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the Minister of Finance has not yet announced the date of the budget.
Tomorrow we shall deal with third reading of Bill C-18, respecting the power of customs officers. There is an understanding to complete debate on that bill tomorrow.
On Monday we shall return to report stage of Bill C-4, respecting the Canadian Wheat Board.
On Tuesday, February 10 and Friday, February 13 we shall have opposition days.
Wednesday and Thursday of next week we will continue Bill C-4 to complete it at remaining stages. Time permitting, we will work on continuing to deal with other legislation to be arranged later with the possibility of doing Bill S-5.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, in relation to its study of social and economic challenges facing members of the Canadian forces, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Quebec City, Valcartier and Bagotville from February 8 to 12, 1998, to Kingston on March 16 and 17, 1998, to North Bay on March 22 and 23, 1998, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, having your presentation interrupted by question period is somewhat like having a couple of rounds of WWF during a tennis match, but I will try to carry on.
Large debt burdens also reduce the levels of job creating and investment in plants, machinery and equipment. The massive iceberg of a debt that government seemingly refuses to address has exposed Canadians to higher taxes, making investors nervous.
This government owes it to Canadians to change the course of financial administration in this country and to heed the warning calls that have been sounded.
Young generations of Canadians have recently realized that they cannot trust the government to pay back their CPP contributions when they retire in the next millennium.
The government's financial record is simply atrocious. For years and years government was entrusted with safeguarding and wisely investing the Canada pension plan funds. The track record is very embarrassing. The government now owes almost $4 billion to the CPP and a whopping $114 billion to public sector pension plans.
Again, think of the government as the CEO of our nation. In the private sector, its track record would never be tolerated. Shareholders would be hollering from the rooftops for a change. Canadians need to hold their government to the same degree of competence. Shareholders in a company would not be approving spending increases if the company still carried a multibillion dollar debt load.
To conclude, I come back to my original analogy of the Titanic government approaching the ever increasing iceberg debt. Knowing now how the plotted course of action will hurt our nation's economy, it would be indignant of this government to keep spending full steam ahead, leaving already overburdened Canadians to pick up the pieces and carry the worry of such a huge debt on their backs.
The responsible thing to do is to change our course of action. Ignoring the debt will be as irresponsible as ignoring the warnings of the looming iceberg was to the Titanic .
I urge the government to stop playing Russian roulette with our nation's finances.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for an excellent speech. He has a good understanding of the necessity of bringing our debt under control and managing the finances of the country on a very solid basis.
I wonder if he would take a minute to tell the House and the members here what in his view is the effect of the large amount of debt and the interest payments on it in terms of the effect that has on the paying of government programs.
Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, servicing the debt, $48 billion a year, affects every aspect of government. The fact that that kind of money has to go to strictly service the debt and cannot be used for social programs, cannot be used for education, cannot be used for health programs is what is wrong with this country. If we can get the debt paid down and free up some of the interest payments to it and slowly work away at it, we can free up funds to take care of the problems that we discuss in this House every day. Some of the debt is held on short term, high interest rates, so we have got to get rid of that first.
I see people in my constituency office on a daily basis who are struggling to get by, and they are struggling for one reason, the tax load is too high. There are two parents working, one working just to pay the taxes, so that they can try to make a living and try to take care of their children.
This has to be changed. We have to reduce the debt. We have to free up more funds. We have to reduce taxes so families in this country can enjoy the kind of life they deserve.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, earlier today the Leader of the Opposition led off the debate by outlining his party's position being that 50% of the surplus should be applied against the debt and the other 50% should go to tax breaks.
In answer to a question about spending, the Leader of the Opposition said they plan to keep spending levels the same. Given that is the position of the Reform Party, I wonder if the member could advise the House what items of new spending the Reform Party is proposing, if any, and if there are some, what exactly is it going to cut out if it introduces these new programs to make sure that total spending levels do not increase?
Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. A couple of the areas that we must address, and I think I mentioned them earlier, are health care and education. We heard today in the House that education tuition is too high. Student debt has increased substantially in this country. We see it daily at home that the students are coming to us and saying that they cannot afford to pay higher tuition. There has to be some help.
We looked at health and we looked at the way education is funded, and these are a couple of places where we would like to spend some money.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's response to the first half of the question, that he will spend in these areas. The second part of the question, which he did not answer, is to pay for those additional spending items that he laid out, what do we spend on today that they plan to cut out so that total spending does not increase from today's levels?
Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, there are lots of areas where we could spend. There are lots of areas where we could save money. In one place we could have had $500 billion more if we had not had to pay the penalty on cancelling a bunch of helicopters that we ended up buying anyway. We could have saved $260 million on the bungled Pearson airport deal. We could have saved $3.4 million on Mulroney's airbus payout. These are but some of the places we will look to find this money. There is $1.1 billion in regional development savings. We could look at eliminating that.
We are looking at the Department of Canadian Heritage. We are looking at the department of Indian affairs. We hear in this House every day of the mismanagement that happens there. There is money there that could be realized. We are looking at cutting the employment insurance rates by 21%. These are just a few of the areas we would look at and a few of the places where we believe money could be found.
Every department, every office in this government should be looked at and decided if it is still needed and if there is room in that office for some cuts.
Elinor Caplan Liberal Thornhill, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand in the House of Commons today to participate in this debate. For those who are watching and may have just tuned in following question period, we are debating an opposition motion that condemns the Liberal government for imperilling the economic and social security of Canadians. First, nothing could be further from the truth. Second, the motion is not supportable for numerous reasons.
I am proud to stand in my place today as a member of a government that in 1993 inherited a $42 billion deficit and, as we heard from the finance minister this afternoon during question period, will for the first time in too many years see a balanced budget reported.
If anything is to secure the future of Canadians, if anything is to secure economic and social services for the people of Canada, surely getting our fiscal house in order is the first prescription for achieving that.
The motion is not supportable because it denies the reality of the fact that we have turned the corner. The back of the deficit is broken. We are on the verge of a balanced budget. The Liberal Party has a plan that we went to the people of Canada with. I was proud to take it to the people of my riding of Thornhill.
During the election campaign last spring I told my constituents about the plan of the Liberal Party, that we expected the budget to be balanced within the next two years and that as soon as we achieved a balanced budget it was our intention to have surpluses. That is what happens when the budget is balanced.
Fifty per cent of the fiscal dividend, whatever its amount, will be used to offer needed debt and tax relief to Canadians and fifty per cent will be used to invest in the important quality of life and social priorities of Canadians. Those priorities are health care, education, children, training and child poverty. I hope we can achieve a consensus in the House that the people of Canada understood the promise and the importance of that kind of balance in public policy.
No one will stand in the House to say “I love paying taxes”. However I will say I love Canada and I love the services we have collectively decided to support. I love the fact that when I travel outside Canada people say to me that with Canada's health system it does not matter if you are rich or poor; you get care. People around the world know that we have problems, but Canadian medicare says to people that it will do what it can to ensure they get the care they need when they need it. They do not have to worry about bankruptcy or their children or mortgaging their future.
Many of the people of Thornhill have mortgages. It is a young community made up of Vaughan, Markham and Concord. Many have children. There is an older population in Thornhill. Many live in condominiums. Some have mortgages. Many people who cannot yet afford homes live in apartments.
All of them wish for a brighter and better economic future. They all want us to preserve the quality of life for which Canada is famous around the world. They want us to protect the social programs which have defined Canada and make us proud to be Canadian.
The people of Thornhill understand very well that when we start to talk about fiscal policy it is important to have a balanced budget. They know that sometimes a crisis will arise. They saw recently and were very sympathetic to the people who were suffering because of the devastating ice storm. I received many calls at my constituency office from people offering to help. We directed them to the appropriate disaster relief agency.
The people of my riding are sympathetic. They understand there can be crises that must be addressed, but they want fiscal prudence. Because many of them have mortgages or many of them have debts, they know that what is important is how they manage them. Is the debt or mortgage affordable?
I was concerned that the size of the debt was growing in Canada and that the debt to gross domestic product ratio was growing. For me the first priority has always been the elimination of the deficit and the stabilization of the debt. I was proud that the government made a commitment to reduce the debt to GDP ratio. We have already seen that occur.
The trend is in the right direction. It is important to reduce the debt. That is an important part of fiscal prudence. I believe very strongly that neither the debt reduction strategy nor the tax reduction strategy nor the investment in our youth and in our social programs will do anything but enhance the future for Canadians because the plan is balanced. It recognizes that it is important to Canadians that we manage our house, that we balance our books, that we look at our debt and ask whether we can afford it.
As we see a decline in the debt to GDP ratio and as the debt is gradually reduced we will look at the debt and make an assessment, just as people do every day in the riding of Thornhill and elsewhere across the country. They come to the conclusion that they do not want to wait until their house is paid off before they give their children the opportunities they need to have a successful future. No one wants to insist that their house is paid off before their children can go to university.
The people of Thornhill would like to see tax reduction, but they know the fairest way of reducing taxes is to make sure those people at the low end are the first to get tax relief. It is in their interest to have a strong social safety net. It is in their children's interest. It is in their grandparents' interest.
The plan of the Liberal government, which is a balanced policy, will improve the future of all Canadians. I believe it is supported by the people of Thornhill. They know it is in their interest and in their children's interest. That is the reason they honoured me by voting for me and the Liberal Party during the last election in such tremendous numbers. Some 60% of the people voted for me. For that I say thanks. I believe they would want me to vote against this motion of the Reform Party.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Madam Speaker, I have to agree totally with the Liberal member who just spoke. It is the people at the low end of the scale who should be getting the tax relief.
That being the case, I would specifically like to know why it is that her government would see a single parent mother with two children, earning $15,000 a year, pay $1,700 a year in taxes to her government. I would like to know why families earning $30,000 a year and under contribute almost $30 billion in taxes to her government.
Why then does she think Canadians should believe that her words have any basis in fact? She says, on one side of the coin, it should be the people at the low end of the scale who are getting the tax relief; but on the other side of the coin her government is collecting $30 billion a year from families earning less than $30,000 a year income. It is incomprehensible.
Let me be very clear and very precise. The specific program of the Reform Party is that the people at the low end of the scale will be the first people who will be advantaged. We will no longer see single parent moms who are barely getting by paying taxes to a government. That is where the Reform Party will make the relief. Why will the Liberal government not do it?
Elinor Caplan Liberal Thornhill, ON
Madam Speaker, I do not support the Reform Party policy that would scrap medicare. I do not support the Reform Party policy that would scrap the CPP. I do not support the Reform Party policy when its members stand in their places to tell the people that Canada has the highest rates of income tax in the G-7. The reality and the truth is that we are in the middle of the pack of the G-7 when it comes to taxes.
When people look very closely at Reform Party policies they will begin to realize the high price they will pay in the serious deterioration of the quality of life.
I say the Reform Party should support the child tax benefits, the millennium scholarship fund and the initiatives of the government which are balanced and which offer to people the kind of support they need.
Sure, we have to make progress, but his policies only cut the taxes and the deficit. They forget about medicare, pensions, education and social safety nets. They scrap equalization payments. I say no to my colleague in the Reform Party. That is not good for Canada and not good for the people of Thornhill.
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, I heard the Liberal member's comments and she is absolutely dishonest in what she is saying. The Reform Party is the only party that has railed against the Liberals for the gutting of health care and education that they have done over the last three and a half to four years, to the tune of $7 billion. That is the amount by which the Liberals have gutted the health care and education programs.
We have said that we would put the amount back in to the tune of $4 billion and that member knows it. Her statements are dishonest. I challenge her to stand and say that they are not.
Elinor Caplan Liberal Thornhill, ON
Madam Speaker, I am not even going to respond to the member opposite. He is absolutely ridiculous. What he says is not true. I would say to him that anyone who scrutinizes Reform Party policies would understand that they would fundamentally dismantle all those things which have built the country into a great and wonderful country where everyone has access to medicare, public education and, for those in need, to pensions.
I can say to him that I am proud of the fact that I have been in public life for almost 20 years and I am proud of my reputation for always telling the truth.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to set the record straight and to discount this most unworthy motion. I will not attempt to teach the opposition member the fundamentals of economics.
As my hon. colleagues have so eloquently stated, it is hard to find fault with an economy that boasts a disappearing deficit, low interest rates, low inflation and high confidence in one of the most robust economies in the industrialized world. The fiscal facts speak for themselves.
I want to remind the House that this progress was achieved without compromising our core values of fairness, generosity and compassion. This government recognized that deficit reduction did not come down to a choice between economics or people. It was a question of making the right choices in order to build a better and stronger society.
That is why we cut defence spending and agreed to develop a national children's agenda, making our first down payment by establishing a national child benefit that increases support to low income families with children. It is why we reduced subsidies to business, but increased spending on youth. Over three years overall government efforts will help nearly 300,000 young Canadians find their place in the labour market.
It is why we closed tax loopholes for wealthy Canadians, but launched an opportunities fund and employability assistance program for people with disabilities to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to enjoy the dignity and financial rewards that come with employment.
We have made wise investments, investing in the future, creating incentives for life-long learning, encouraging self-reliance and ensuring financial support for those in greatest need. Each social program is more target, more results oriented and more responsive to Canadians' needs than ever before.
I stand proudly before this House as a member of the government that believes profoundly in social investment. We know it is the right thing to do. It is the Canadian way.
It is with a mixture of disbelief and dismay that I address this illogical opposition motion. I am at a loss to understand what the hon. member considers to be “reckless spending”. I must admit to being curious about which social programs he believes imperil the economic and social security of Canadians.
Does he suggest we put the brakes on our campaign against child poverty, a co-ordinated national strategy to improve the well-being of children that sprung from productive partnerships with provincial and territorial governments? Does he realize that ensuring children have a strong start in life is critical to Canada's future? Study after study concludes that a failure to invest in early childhood development negatively affects our economic prosperity. Children in economic poverty encounter more difficulty and experience more emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives.
Maybe the opposition believes it is better to pay later, when the social burden would be even greater if we attempt to rebuild shattered lives and when our country will find itself incapable of competing in the global economy because of a lack of healthy, productive work-ready young adults.
Perhaps the hon. member believes we should forego the millennium scholarship fund which will ensure that students who want to pursue an advanced education, regardless of their financial circumstances, have every chance to realize their career dreams.
I wonder if the opposition is suggesting we should not fund the Canada student loans program which supports 370,000 full-time students, almost one-third of full-time students enrolled in Canadian universities this year.
Hundreds of thousands of Canadian young people are able to attend post-secondary institutions where they acquire the skills essential to become employable in our knowledge economy because of the $1.3 billion available in student loans to subsidize the costs of their education. Canada has the highest percentage of youth with a post-secondary education of all the OECD countries.
In light of current and worsening skill shortages in the high-tech sector, does the opposition recommend that we cast off the Software Human Resources Council which works to increase the supply and quality of workers entering this rapidly growing area of labour force? Can we afford not to fund initiatives such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation which supports economic development in knowledge-intensive sectors? This partnership with the private sector, the provinces and universities is essential to rebuild the research infrastructure of Canada's universities and teaching hospitals.
I would ask the hon. member this. Would his party have us abandon the senior citizens of this country whose initial investments built those institutions and whose hard work has provided us with the high standard of living and the quality of life Canadians enjoy today?
Surely my colleagues on the other side of this Chamber recognize the moral responsibility, necessity and economic value of providing a source of financial stability and security for retired Canadians under the Canada pension plan. Demographic demands dictate that we secure the future of the CPP.
This government does not apologize for a single one of the many progressive social programs funded through federal tax dollars. Collectively they help define who Canadians are as a people. They shape the country we share, a nation that is the envy of the world.
Each of the worthy initiatives I have named is crucial to both Canada's social and economic stability. These investments in Canada's human capital are an invaluable investment in Canada's continued economic growth and social well-being.
Whether it is the employment insurance plan which helps workers who lose their jobs get back to work, the transitional jobs fund to create jobs in high unemployment areas, aboriginal strategic investments which improve aboriginal peoples' employability and create meaningful employment opportunities in aboriginal communities across Canada, or labour market development agreements with the provinces and territories that allow each region to tailor its active employment measures to respond to local priorities, these programs are making a real difference in the lives of individual Canadians and the overall welfare of our great nation.
Let me assure the House long gone are the days of passive income support. These are active, concrete measures that are getting people into the workforce, enabling them to provide for their families, giving them a reason to continue to believe in themselves, their country and the future.
Canadians are unequivocal in their insistence that we have a responsibility to look out for the most vulnerable. They tell us they want a Canada where parents are able to give their children what they need to flourish, a Canada where youth can find and keep rewarding work; a Canada where unemployed people can count on temporary assistance to tide them over until they get back on their feet; a Canada where Canadians feel secure and confident that the Canada pension plan will provide the income support they require to retire in dignity.
I ask the hon. member exactly who is it he would leave behind. What Canadian is not worthy of these fundamental human rights? Only when he is able to come up with the answer to that question should Parliament seriously consider this motion. Until then I urge all members of this House to focus our sights on the real priorities, continuing our balanced approach to fiscal accountability and social responsibility and ensuring that Canada will retain the title of number one nation in the world each and every year of the new millennium.
René Canuel Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC
Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's shopping list of groups in society to be considered. I agree. However, his good wishes do not reach the most remote rural areas, which are still suffering.
I do not necessarily agree that the debt should be paid as soon as possible, as the Reform Party often says, because if a family is in debt for example, it has to stay in debt for a while, unfortunately, so the children can eat and go to school. It is true it costs a lot, but the family will continue to pay off its debts for a few years.
My response to my colleague is “Yes, we are doing something, but we cannot do it that way”. We want the money to be given back to the provinces through tax points or transfers. Who is in a better position to distribute the money? The provinces, of course. When I say provinces, sometimes it is the municipalities, but they have to go through the provinces.
What does the government do? It plans to put the Canadian flag on every cheque. It looks good. This is tantamount to buying votes. I would submit that anyone with compassion should not try to score political points on the backs of the less fortunate.
Why is it that, this year again, banks are posting billions of dollars in profits without anyone raising the alarm about this? Would they go bankrupt if these profits were taxed at a higher rate? No. In practical terms, this means that, in this country, instead of distributing wealth equitably, governments are letting the rich get richer as the poor get poorer.
In my riding of Matapédia—Matane, employment insurance is commonly referred to as poverty insurance, because many of my constituents will not qualify for it this year because they are 20, 30 or 40 hours short. People want to work. But because they have not accumulated enough hours to qualify for EI benefits, they are forced onto welfare and this is a blow to their dignity.
I have a question for my hon. colleague. I listened carefully to his remarks and some of them made sense. Could he not convince his colleagues to transfer this responsibility to the provinces so they can do as he suggested, but much more efficiently and cost-effectively, and by staying closer to the people?
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for the question. I, too, represent a rural area in Ontario and I think it is very important that we work on behalf of our rural residents along with small town Canada and, indeed, all residents of this great country. I think it is very important.
The government, as members know, inherited an enormous debt and deficit when we took power in 1993. What we had to do in a short period of time was turn that around and make sure that our fiscal House was put in order.
We did that with remarkable speed in the great context of things. I think that speaks volumes about the ability of this government to do the right thing on behalf, not only of provinces, but all Canadians.
I think that is worthy of note. Once that is done, we can start to see where we can proceed in a way that is reasonable, measured and important. That is to start whittling away and reducing that accumulated debt to ensure that we make program reinvestments in a way that make sense not only for those of us here but for all Canadians on their behalf.
We need to start the process of looking at tax reductions in the forms that make sense for Canadians as well. It is important that we, as a federal government, do the right thing on behalf of all Canadians.
I would say that it is very important that the federal government, with its presence across this great land, do the kinds of things that Canadians not only want and need, but deserve.