Debates of March 10th, 1998

The Budget

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite indicated unacceptable levels of unemployment. If I heard him correctly, he used the figure of 11.2% as being unacceptable. It is down to about 9%. I think it might be at 8.9%.

I am wondering whether he could shed some insight into why this government is so reluctant to set some targets for unemployment levels. The government has done it on reducing the deficit. It did it over a period of years.

I am wondering why there is such reticence on the government side to set realistic targets to reduce unemployment, particularly among young people because their level is nowhere near the 11% or the 9%. It is in the high teens if they are lucky. Perhaps the member opposite could answer that question.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the levels of unemployment among our youth are of great concern, but in terms of our goals, I think all of us should aim toward seeing that everybody who wants to work is able to get a job. We cannot really set 5%, 4% or whatever the structural amount might be. We eventually have to provide an opportunity to every Canadian who wants to participate in our economy to have work.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened for the most part to the member's presentation.

Job creation is the key to the thinking of most Canadians that would satisfy them in earning and contributing to this big country of ours and feeling productive. Of course the jobs are not out there. Even with the rates of unemployment that we now have and this spurred economy, many people are concerned that they will still remain unemployed or underemployed.

We have a projected debt that will remain at $583 billion. This debt will cost every Canadian family $6,000 a year. How can the Liberal government justify its position of not reducing that debt and tax burden on Canadian families and continuing on its route of spending the surplus?

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying in a book on statistics, which I think was written by Lord Ashley, that figures lie and liars figure. Some 14 million Canadian families are being offered some degree of tax relief. To try to assume that each Canadian family has $6,000 of debt on average may be correct, but it is really not a fact. Hopefully, as big corporations such as our banks and other groups improve and contribute more to our economy we will see that overall general debt being reduced.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the most historic budget in Canada in almost 30 years.

After the budget was presented all members of Parliament had the opportunity to go back to their constituencies and hold town hall meetings and to have consultations with their constituents concerning this historic budget.

When I was back in my own riding of Mississauga South I received a few phone calls and a number of letters. I spent time walking through the neighbourhoods and talking to businessmen. The one thing that became very clear was that there was a great pride in the fact that we as a country had managed to put our financial house in order and balance the budget. That was the clear message I received in my riding.

There is no question that Canadians were asked to step up and do their share to deal with a $42 billion deficit. They were asked to bear some of the hardship. Members across the House have raised a number of points. I think all Canadians understand that if we did not get our fiscal house in order nothing could be done in terms of backfilling areas of health care, education and social programs. We had to get the fiscal position under control. We had to balance the budget.

I would like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the Minister of Industry.

The clearest indication of what the budget has done is the signal international financial markets gave to Canada in terms of their assessment of the job we had done in managing the fiscal situation of this country.

For ordinary Canadians the clearest indication that was happening had to do with interest rates in Canada which dropped to the lowest levels in some 30 years. There was a point at which short term rates were some 4% lower than they were in the United States.

An environment was created in Canada which led to massive initiatives to stimulate job creation in Canada. It was not by the government. The government does not create jobs. In fact as part of getting the fiscal situation in order there was significant downsizing of the federal public service. Spending of the government had to decline significantly. There were people who had to bear that pressure and that burden. It was very tough for many Canadians and many public servants.

The fact that interest rates came down represents one of the single largest tax breaks to Canadians that they have seen in a long time. It means that Canadians now have the opportunity provided by lower interest rates. Since house prices and mortgage interest on houses started to go down more Canadians were able to buy houses.

Let us look at the figures, at housing starts, at the number of families that finally have an opportunity to buy houses, and at the sale of cars. The automobile sector represents 30% of the economy in my province of Ontario. Automobiles sales went up.

In addition to the issue of balancing a budget and turning that corner, this is the first budget of this new mandate. This is not the only budget. There are things yet to do. There are commitments to be made.

Certainly we have in the budget an emphasis on education, tax relief and debt relief. The stage has now been set for further changes to be made. In the absence of an economic downturn, I am absolutely sure we will see continued benefits for Canadians both in terms of tax relief and social programs as well as the important reduction of Canada's debt.

I will conclude my comments because I am sure members will have some questions.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question.

My friend stated that governments did not create jobs. While I say that is true to a point, could my hon. friend tell us who pays doctors, nurses, teachers, members of the RCMP, people who work in our trade offices overseas, our armed forces and our parole officers?

Canadians and the Minister of Health are calling for more home care and for more opportunities in hospitals. Will my hon. friend tell me who pays for these very essential people in society?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not exactly understand the point of the member's question, but I would say that the remuneration of doctors comes from the provinces. The remuneration of the nurses comes from the provinces.

The member wants to debate whether we are talking about another level of government or this level of government. I am sorry, but we are playing with semantics.

The key thing for Canadians to understand is the solution the NDP has to all of our problems is to throw money at them: hire everybody and pay for everything. That is not the way to manage an economy in a fiscally responsible manner.

NDPers have their way. I understand where they are in the political spectrum. I understand where they are in the House. That is why the Liberal Party is the governing party. It has demonstrated time and time again that proper fiscal management translates into a balanced budget, tax relief and debt reduction for which Canadians asked. We promised those things and we delivered.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his speech and I have a question for him.

My friend is a defender of families. He has written a book about families. He advocates that all families be treated fairly in the taxation system.

I wonder how he would respond to the government's measure to increase deductibility for child care expenses only for those families who take their children to day care. The government did absolutely nothing for all those families who choose to look after their children at home. How does the member respond to that?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for plugging my book. It is called Strong Families Make a Strong Country .

I understand the thrust of his question. In the budget there is an increase in the child care expense deduction from $5,000 to $7,000 and from $3,000 to $5,000 for older children. Indeed that benefits Canadian parents who choose to have others care for their children while they go to work, earn income and pay taxes.

As I said earlier, this is the first budget of the mandate. We brought in the caregiver tax credit. I put forward a motion to implement a caregiver tax credit for those who provide care in the home to preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.

We have delivered on the disabled. We have delivered on the chronically ill, the infirm and the aged with regard to the caregiver tax credit. We now have an opportunity to look at providing some sort of caregiver tax credit to families who choose to provide direct parental care to their children.

I still support that. I want the member to know that I continue to discuss it with the finance minister and have his assurance the House will be dealing with the issue of unpaid work in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his hard work on the finance committee as well as for his work in his constituency on prebudget consultations. He certainly had a dramatic impact on the budget. He is very learned in terms of tax issues.

Would the hon. member draw upon his tax experience and comment on the tax system in general? Would he also provide some input on what he has heard from his constituents with respect to the opportunities program that was put in place by the budget? That program will be essentially for families, on which the hon. member continues to focus.

The hon. member for Mississauga South has consistently been a strong promoter of families. He has done a fair amount of work in that area and continues to do so. He has spoken with me on the issue, as well as with other members of our caucus.

Could the member tell us what he heard from his constituents after the budget was presented? I am sure he has talked to a number of people. I would be very pleased to hear what his constituents had to say.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for Canadians to know that parliamentarians listen carefully to their constituents with respect to government actions or proposed actions. With respect to the budget, as I indicated, the aspect of balancing the budget was first and foremost in the minds of Canadians.

As the parliamentary secretary has outlined, the whole issue of the Canadian opportunities strategy has been extremely well received by my constituents of Mississauga South and others across the country, as others members of this place have seen.

The millennium scholarship fund, the increased funding for the council on advanced research, the tax relief measures for student loan interest and the improvement of the Canada Student Loans Act are very important parts of the budget. As well there are tax measures for promoting life-long learning, EI premium breaks for employers hiring young Canadians and funding for SchoolNet and Internet projects. There is an opportunity for families to provide future education for their children through the RESPs.

Many Canadians are unaware of some of these programs. The job of members of Parliament is to pass on this kind of information to their constituents through householders and otherwise to let them know about the opportunities that have been made available.

The theme in the budget has been preparing our young people for the knowledge based economy of the 21st century. I thank the member for his kind words. There is no question there is an appetite in the House to see that families have all the flexibility, options and choices they need to ensure we invest in our children, the future of Canada.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member comment on the new millennium fund his government introduced.

If it is such a good idea to have scholarships available for Canadian students and if the program is being front ended by $2.5 billion this year, why can Canadian students not access it this current year?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asks an interesting question. I noted that provision. Certain accounting rules of the Government of Canada are not discretionary. There are accounting rules as there are for any business. The auditor general is the one who determines whether or not charges to a particular fiscal period are appropriate.

With regard to the millennium scholarship fund and the $2.5 billion, it is clear a decision was taken. Once the legislation is dealt with that endowment will go forward and start earning income. It will have the value that will be necessary to provide 100,000 scholarships for needy Canadians who show the merit of post-secondary education over the next 10 years.

The member asks a particular question as to the propriety of the charge which would be better posed to the auditor general.

Soulpepper Theatre Company

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Toronto, 12 of Canada's leading theatrical artists joined forces for the launch of that city's first classical repertory company.

Martha Burns, Susan Coyne, Ted Dykstra, Michael Hanrahan, Stuart Hughes, Robyn Stevan, William Webster, Joseph Ziegler and artistic directors Diana Leblanc, Diego Matamoros, Nancy Palk and Albert Schultz are the founding members of the Soulpepper Theatre Company.

This company will present vital Canadian interpretations of the classics while providing professional training for classical theatre.

The company's inaugural season will be directed by its first guest master director, Robin Phillips, and produced in association with the Harbourfront Centre. Joining the company for the inaugural season are two of Canada's most celebrated actors, Brent Carver and Peter Donat.

I wish the members of Soulpepper the best of success on this very exciting initiative.

Criminal Code

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, section 745, the faint hope clause, is alive and well in Ottawa. Brett Morgan was convicted of murdering Louise Ellis. He also killed an Edmonton woman and is a suspect in another murder. An Ottawa judge recently sentenced him to life with no opportunity for parole for 25 years.

Yesterday I had lunch with Susan Ashley whose 16 year old sister, Linda Bright, was murdered by Donald Armstrong 16 years ago. Like Morgan, Armstrong is believed to have killed before. Like Morgan, Armstrong was sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 25 years.

Linda Bright's family was shocked and angered when Armstrong applied under section 745. I expect Louis Ellis' family will also be shocked.

It is time for the government either to scrap section 745 or be honest with Canadians by admitting it believes that murderers should serve no more than 15 years before being eligible to apply for parole.

We all know what our Canadian police have been saying in our offices this week: “Scrap section 745”.

Winter Olympics

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to congratulate the athletes and coaches who honoured their community of Barrie by participating in the Olympic games at Nagano.

As member of Parliament for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, I hope this House will allow me some bragging rights.

Last night the city of Barrie and the Barrie Sports Hall of Fame honoured these Olympic athletes, coaches and other participants who live, work and train in Barrie. These include Olympic silver medalist and world figure skating champion Elvis Stojko, figure skater Jeff Langdon, Shanye Corson on the men's hockey team and Stephen Cousins, British figure skating champion.

Also honoured were figure skating coaches Robert Tebby and Doug and Michelle Leigh, co-operators of the world renowned Mariposa School of Skating in Barrie and the training quarters for skaters from 17 countries.

I am proud to express my appreciation for the distinction these Olympians—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Friendship Group

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Friendship Group has been officially formed.

I wish to thank the hon. members from Egmont and Victoria—Haliburton for their good work in helping form this association. Also, thanks to former MP Mary Clancy who in the 35th Parliament chaired an informal association which helped prepare the ground for our formal friendship group.

The Canada-Ireland association has been formally launched with 56 members from the House and Senate. All five political parties, even the Reform Party, in every region of Canada are represented.

I am honoured to be elected first president of this association and I look forward to welcoming many more members.

Our major goal is clear, to maintain and strengthen the historic bonds of friendship between our two great nations, Canada and Ireland.

Paralympics

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind the members of this House that the winter Olympics are not over.

This week in Nagano the Paralympics are taking place. Canada has sent a team of 32 athletes as well as coaches and medical support staff to the games. Our athletes are competing in four of the five sports, alpine skiing, biathlon, cross-country skiing and sledge hockey.

This past Sunday Canada won its first two medals of the games. Collette Bourgoneya of Saskatoon won a silver medal in cross-country skiing and Dan Wesley of New Westminster, B.C. won a bronze in men's alpine.

Like the athletes who competed in Nagano in February, Canada's Paralympians also personify the Olympic motto: higher, faster, stronger.

I would like the members of this House to join me in recognizing the superlative achievements of all Canada's Paralympians.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of Canadian forces personnel have once again answered the call, packed their bags and headed for the Persian Gulf. The brave Canadians who sign up for military service do so out of a sense of duty to their country. It is a terrible shame that our government does not have the same sense of duty in return.

On February 11 the defence minister rose to assure this House that Canadian personnel in the gulf were being inoculated forthwith against anthrax. Time was of the essence for that vaccine to work. It was only this past weekend, however, that the first sailors actually started getting inoculated against such a threat, which everyone knows exists in the region, almost too late.

Was it because the defence minister could not get organized? Or was it because he did not care? In either case, his assurances were hollow.

The defence minister should be ashamed of himself. We need to pay the highest respect to our forces. We need to give them all the protection they need to do their job.

Salima Ghezali

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on International Women's Day, I want to pay tribute to Salima Ghezali, a teacher turned reporter, who distinguished herself as a leader in the struggle of women in her country, Algeria.

This opponent of religious fundamentalism and winner of the Sakharov human rights prize awarded by the European Parliament and the Olof Palme award was honoured for her courage in bearing witness against the violence inflicted upon the Algerian people while herself under constant threat of death.

This straight talking woman who is the manager and editorialist of the weekly La Nation does not hesitate to condemn the situation in Algeria.

The problems of the Algerians are beyond description. Tens of thousands of people have died because of the murderous destruction of terrorism. Human rights violations are also a major problem in that country.

Let us salute this woman who has the courage to stand up for her beliefs, in the face of adversity and in these troubled times in Algeria.

Gun Control

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations go out to the Quebec Court of Appeal for its good sense in ruling that the four year minimum penalty for committing an offence with a firearm does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The automatic sentence was part of the federal government's tough gun control package that was introduced in 1995.

Prior to the amendments, the one year minimum penalty for using a weapon while committing certain crimes was supposed to be in addition to the sentence for the crime itself. The new provision was challenged by a first time offender and the judge wisely ruled that the four year minimum did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judge continued to say that the mandatory sentence was severe but it was not disproportionate and did not offend the standards of decency.

I welcome this decision as we try to cope with the rights of victims. The victim is much more traumatized by robbery with a firearm than without. The four year mandatory is the right way to deal with the trauma imposed. The four year mandatory is the right way to go.

Association Féminine D'Éducation Et D'Action Sociale Du Québec

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I add my voice to those of the members of Quebec's Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale, or AFEAS, in making recommendations to the government with respect to the new legislation that will be introduced regarding the seniors benefit.

The AFEAS wants the government to respect the principle of individuality in paying every man and woman benefits calculated on the basis of their personal income instead of family income; to maintain a universal basic benefit recognizing the unseen work done by women for children and other relatives; and to provide substantial financial assistance to the disadvantaged instead of a small handout, which is cancelled out by a series of tax measures that reduce available income.

These are recommendations worth looking at, and they are in contrast with the confusion cultivated by the government on this issue.

Infrastructure

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the member from the fifth party representing Tobique—Mactaquac is now embracing the infrastructure program after his party refused to support it.

The infrastructure program is not a Mulroney program where members' staff would have been imposed on their communities. Instead, this program is designed to ensure that local communities determine their needs themselves and set their own priorities.

The decision making process of the infrastructure program has always reflected the needs and priorities set by local communities and will continue to do so as long as this government remains in power.

Due to the previous success of the initial infrastructure program, this government decided to introduce a second infrastructure program which is now enjoying the same measure of success.

The Senate

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1989 Albertans proudly chose Stan Waters as their first elected senator in Canadian history. In Edmonton last week Albertans, their provincial government as well as their federal government representatives reaffirmed their overwhelming support for an elected Senate, the first step toward a triple E Senate, elected, equal and effective.

The Prime Minister is on record saying: “I pledge to work for a Senate that is elected. As Prime Minister I can take steps to make it happen”.

Talk is cheap but unfortunately an unaccountable, out of control Senate is not cheap. Canadians can ill afford the status quo of unaccountability and absenteeism.

I urge the Prime Minister to heed the democratic will of the people to end backscratching patronage appointments to the Senate and to make good on his pledge for an elected Senate, or is the pledge for an elected Senate just one more in a long line of broken promises?