Debates of March 10th, 1998

Points Of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I rise to bring the issue that I am to the floor of the House. It is the issue of what went on earlier today in question period, what I would call one of disrespect for the chair and its occupant.

It is a privilege of all of us, perhaps even our duty, to be as partisan as we feel necessary in order to make our points in this House. I for one, who has been around here for a long time, some might say too long, have been more than partisan upon occasion, both as a government supporter and an opposition MP, which I also was, as your Honour will know, for a very long time.

In all the years that I have been in this Chamber I have not yet witnessed what I saw occur here today in terms of asking questions, not only referring to the Speaker as “a prominent Liberal MP” but also to ask directly in a subsequent question about what Mr. Speaker as a person said outside of this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention Citation 168 of Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, on page 49 of this document. It says of the occupant of the chair:

The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. As a symbol of the authority of the House, the Speaker is preceded by the Mace which is carried by the Sergeant-at-Arms and is placed upon the Table when the Speaker is in the Chair. The Speaker calls upon Members to speak. In debate all speeches are addressed to the Speaker. When rising to preserve order or to give a ruling the Speaker must always be heard in silence. No Member may rise when the Speaker is standing. Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. The actions of the Speaker cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion.

This has been a consistent ruling as outlined in the Journals as early as June 4, 1956. These are very old principles in our Parliament and must be respected. I believe that they are by the vast majority of us. Hopefully they will be in the future by all of us.

I read further:

Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker's impartiality.

The Speaker takes no part in debate in the House, and votes only when the Voices are equal, and then only in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question.

The rules of this House are quite clear for all of us. I believe, notwithstanding anything that members might have said, that these rules are well known either explicitly or implicitly by all of us. Even if they were not, the proper rules of decorum in which all of us are to operate would dictate that everything I have just said should be the basis of our working here in Parliament.

I, for one, and I am sure all of my colleagues have the utmost confidence not only in the great office of the Speaker, but in the present occupant of the chair and those who support and fulfil this very important function.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that any action that may have taken place in the heat of debate today will be withdrawn and instantly regretted by those who have made the remarks that have been made so we can continue from here on in to have the confidence in you that we have always displayed in you and for the great office that you hold.

We owe it to this House and to this country and those who came here alleging new ways of doing parliamentary business, new and respectful ways of the authorities, will see fit to do that here and now.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to what went on today in question period, the admissibility of the question that I tried to ask in the questions that were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

These questions were intended to address ministerial responsibility of the government because they were designed to clear any doubt as to the position of the government in regard to its relationship to Cuba. The doubt, whether the member opposite or anyone else likes it or not, was necessary because of comments and headlines in national newspapers this morning that we all woke up to, and saw in the Quorum.

I refer you to Beauchesne's 6th Edition, Citation 162 which states:

The Speaker of the House of Commons is the representative of the House itself—

Citation 164 states that the Speaker communicates the resolutions of the House. Citation 166 explains the rank of the Speaker which states:

The Speaker's rank is defined by Order in Council of December 19, 1968, in which it is provided that upon all occasions and in all meetings, except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament, the Speaker shall have precedence immediately after the Governor General, the Prime Minister of Canada, Chief Justice of Canada, former Governors General, former Prime Ministers and the Speaker of the Senate, and immediately before Ambassadors and Members of the Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, you truly do hold a high and exalted role in Parliament and in the Canadian parliamentary system. When you speak and when you are quoted, with your rank also comes the responsibility of being quoted properly and of being answerable for those comments since you do in fact speak on behalf of all of us when you speak publicly in your role as the Speaker.

I believe the opposition was doing the responsible thing in asking the government to clear any misconceptions about the government's position toward Cuba, in our relationship with Cuba and so on.

Mr. Speaker that is what the question was, certainly that asked by the Leader of the Opposition, where he asked the government to clear up what is our position. The first question was answered by the Deputy Prime Minister. He tried to clarify it. The Leader of the Official Opposition rose again to get more details about what was being done about the communication of that position and at that point, you refused to listen to him. You refused to listen to him for the remainder of the question period.

The questions of the Leader of the Opposition were an attempt to clear up any misconceptions that the headlines and the quotes brought upon the position of this Parliament and, I think, the position of the government. Certainly that was the intent of those questions. Mr. Speaker did not listen to those questions and did not allow the normal rotation that has been negotiated between House leaders about the rotation between the parties during the question period. I think this was shortsighted because we never did get to the bottom of what the government position was.

Those quotes from Beauchesne's I think properly puts you in the elevated spot that parliamentarians and Canadians hold you in but that does not mean that we cannot ask questions that have been raised both publicly in the press and in a public forum in your role as the Speaker in order to clarify them and allow the government to put their position on the table.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just went through some very sad events and I must say that I agree with the last comment made, to the effect that you play an extremely important role at the core of the whole democratic and parliamentary system of this country.

This role was protected by those who, in the past, through wisdom and through practice, established the rules governing how this House operates.

I will not spend a lot of time on this issue. I simply want to tell you that, in our opinion, this role of yours—which is to protect democracy, to see that all parliamentarians are equal in this House, regardless of the political party to which they belong, and to ensure the proper administration of the affairs of this House, including in committee and any other place where parliamentarians have to work—is being fulfilled remarkably well.

At times, we could have, given the situation in which we find ourselves in this Parliament—and we were tempted to do so, which is only human, as you know—challenged decisions that were not to our advantage or that did not please us.

At times, we were even tempted to leave Parliament, to show that we were unhappy with the way things were done. But always guided by the most elementary wisdom and respect for those who sent us here, those who came here before us and those who will come after us, we controlled these initial impulses.

We agreed that it was important to put our confidence in you and, time after time, this confidence has been justified: decisions have been rendered in our favour when we were right and others against us when we were wrong.

As I indicated yesterday, there has been a general feeling of unease these past few days, with members unexpectedly rising to issue an extremely serious challenge to the institution that is the Chair. I have no intention of raising this issue again today, but I would just like you, Mr. Speaker, to know that no member of this House has the power to challenge the Standing Orders or the way they are applied by you in this place on our behalf, as we have mandated you to do with the support of the table officers, whose expertise is undeniable.

Your rulings cannot be questioned. We may not always be happy with them, but we must recognize their wisdom and, usually, in time, we realize that it is in everyone's interest to operate within the very specific structure provided by the rules governing deliberative assemblies such as ours.

It is a matter of respect for democracy. It is a matter of respect for authority. I would not want any parliamentarian to tarnish the image of this House by behaving in an unacceptable manner.

In that sense, Mr. Speaker, given that, as far as we are concerned, your duties have always been carried out with dignity and competence and that all of us are here for a number of months if not years, we will have to learn to toe the line and obey the rules, not to defy authority and to realize that, however partisan or impassioned the debate, the kind of behaviour we have witnessed cannot and will not be tolerated.

In the name of democracy, of this institution and of my political formation, I tell you that we have confidence in the work that has been done so far. We reiterate our confidence and are prepared to help implement measures to restore confidence in those who obviously do not work well within this system and ensure that their behaviour is worthy of parliamentarians.

Recall does not exist yet in politics. Perhaps this is a good thing for those who show no respect for our institutions.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the NDP's view on this point of order which I believe is an extremely important matter that the government House leader has raised.

I was a member of the Saskatchewan legislature for almost 10 years. I have been a member of this House of Commons for about four and a half years. I have never seen such a blatant action of hooliganism in my view by any political party anywhere in Canada in those 14 years.

If the issue with respect to the Reform Party was a matter of foreign policy, what they did was not raise the issue of foreign policy but try to raise political points on the Speaker which in my view, and what should be the view of every member of Parliament in this House, is that the Speaker's position is sacrosanct and should be independent.

It is perhaps ironic that today was the national lobby day for the Canadian Police Association. In my discussions with them we talked about a number of issues, including the Young Offenders Act and hooligans and yet, maybe in spite of the national lobby day by the police association, we see a very blatant display of hooliganism right in this House of Commons. They have tried to hijack the House of Commons and I personally take offence at that.

The final point I want to raise is in reference to what the Reform whip has made reference to but did not finish reading. That is citation 164 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms . The Reform whip read:

The Speaker:

(1) Communicates the resolutions of the House to those to whom they are directed—

He did not finish the sentence, which continues on:

—and conveys its thanks and expresses its censure, reprimands, and admonitions.

It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that you should study this issue, study the point of order that has been raised by the government House leader, and in your capacity as Speaker if you find that this is a point of order relevant to Beauchesne's, that you take your authority and reprimand the Reform Party for its disgusting action in this House of Commons.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of reference to this incident.

There has been reference to you and your role as the Chair. Perhaps the most important word that has been used here is respect. I would also suggest an important word is impartiality. When you don the cloak of the Speaker, of the Chair, you also don the impartial role of presiding over this House for all members, regardless of partisan politics.

Mr. Speaker, the language that was used in the question that you ruled in my opinion rightly out of order had in its preamble reference to you particularized as a prominent Liberal MP. I would suggest that you rightly ruled this out of order.

As a point of reference in your deliberations over this government point of privilege, I refer you to section 404 of Beauchesne, sixth edition, where it states at page 119:

No questions of any sort may be addressed to the Speaker. If information relating to matters under the jurisdiction of the Speaker is required, it must be obtained privately.

There were options available. Had the Reform Party wished to address this matter, it could have raised it on a point of privilege or a point of order. However they chose not to do so. They did so in an improper way which you ruled out of order.

It is also with some regret that I make reference to the fact that we are here again in this situation, mired down in a debate that could have been avoided.

Yesterday, you will recall, there was a point of privilege brought forward by the Conservative Party. At that time the government remained silent on this point.

There has been a very frightening and disturbing trend in that there is a disintegration in the rules of Parliament, something I am sure you are aware of and something I am sure that you have to be concerned about. We are seeing this happen quite readily over the last two weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure, and I join with the voices of support in this House for you, that you will make a proper, deliberate, judicious ruling, to use your words, over these points of privilege and points of order.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to those already made on the point of order raised by my colleague, the government House leader.

I want to say that none of the precedents cited by the Reform whip in any way suggest that the Speaker of the House is ever the voice of the government. Section 162 of Beauchesne says: “The Speaker of the House of Commons is the representative of the House itself in its powers, proceedings and dignities”.

This is understandable because section 163 of Beauchesne says “The Speaker is elected by the House itself”.

The Reform whip attempted to suggest that words of the Speaker of this House had some significance as words of the government because of the Speaker's place in the order of precedence. Let us take a look at section 166 of Beauchesne. It says: “The Speaker's rank is defined by Order in Council on December 19, 1968 in which it is provided”, and I go on to read: “that the Speaker shall have precedence immediately after the Governor General, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Chief Justice of Canada, former governors general, former prime ministers and the Speaker of the Senate and immediately before ambassadors and members of the cabinet”.

There is nothing whatsoever in this citation that suggests that whenever the Speaker expresses himself, whether in this House or outside this House, he is speaking on behalf of the government.

If the interpretation of the Reform whip of section 166 were accurate, then he himself would be attempting to argue that when the Chief Justice speaks, he is speaking on behalf of the government, or when the Governor General speaks he is speaking on behalf of the government. This is patently wrong and patently ridiculous.

With respect to the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I do not think it is proper in the light of the precedents of this House for a question to even imply that the Speaker of the House is anything other than impartial and that anything he says is raised on behalf of the government. This is something that should be obvious to somebody in this place from the very first moment he enters this House.

Therefore, I underscore the points made by the government House leader and others that the remarks, the implications in the questions of the Leader of the Opposition were totally out of order. The implication suggested in the questions by the Leader of the Opposition that the press reports, assuming they were accurate, in any way meant that the person involved was speaking on behalf of the government is totally wrong. I respectfully suggest that the best way for things to be put back on their feet is for the Leader of the Opposition to come into this House, recognize what he did was wrong and express words of apology.

When the Reform Party first came to this House in some substantive number, its members said that they intended to bring a new tone to the House of Commons, a new atmosphere of civility. I wish they would look at their words at that point in time when they first entered the House and take these words seriously. They should have these words reflected in their actions today.

If the members of the Reform Party reflected on what they said at the opening of the 1993 Parliament and contrasted what they said with their actions today, they would feel ashamed of themselves. The best way to remove that shame is for the leader of the Reform Party to express words of apology. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and we would accept those words and we could get back to serving Canadians and serving the business of Canada.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, the last thing I ever wanted to be was the focal point of any kind of anger or any kind of criticism in this House. My only reason for being the Speaker of this House is to see to it that all of you, my colleagues and myself as a member of Parliament, are treated fairly.

From the outset I have tried to see to it that all of you Canadian parliamentarians had the chance to express yourselves and be heard within the rules of the House of Commons. You have entrusted me to look at the rules and to make decisions on behalf of the House.

There can be no doubt that there was criticism of me in the House this afternoon. Of course there was. Perhaps the hon. whip of the opposition party has every right to criticize what I do. Perhaps the Speaker should be criticized when he brings—I do not want to use the word dishonour, but I will use the member's word if indeed it was that—shame—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Please, my colleagues.

But there is a way. There are avenues that we have to deal with our Speakers and their actions. Our rules and practice provide avenues for such criticism. I do not think it should be done under the guise of a point of order. I do not think it should be done under the guise of debate.

I would suggest to you that if the Leader of the Opposition who spoke earlier today or the government whip if he wishes to by moving a substantive motion against the Speaker, he has this procedure open. They both have this procedure open; you all have this procedure open to you.

I do not want to be the focal point of the debate.

Heaven knows there are enough problems, enough important issues in our country that I should not be the focus of attention.

We have gone on now for a few days taking up valuable time, your time, talking about actions of the Speaker, what he did do, what he did not do. We have better things to do.

I, with all respect to you, to every one of you my colleagues, I invite you that if you do have these strongly held views to bring a substantive motion against me. I invite you to do it now so that we can clear the air.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. I will look at that option and get back to you as quickly as I can.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, this matter is closed for now. Orders of the day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Budget

[The Speaker]

Do I have another point of order?

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order.

I want to tell you that I was hurt, insulted, saddened and even disgusted to see the Reform member for Medicine Hat throw the Canadian flag on the floor of the House, in a fit of rage directed at you.

The Reform Party leader, who claims to be a champion of the Canadian flag, should apologize for such contempt toward our flag.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

We will take that as a point of debate. We have gone to orders of the day.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to return the debate to budget 1998.

Over the last two weeks, I have had the occasion to meet with Canadians in many parts of the country and out of the country. I have discussed this budget in communities like Sudbury, Toronto, Vancouver, Oakville, London, Medicine Hat and Vancouver. I had the occasion last week to speak with business leaders at the Chicago Executive Club in Chicago, Illinois.

I can say that everywhere people are recognizing that this budget represents a major economic achievement. It is a national achievement, an achievement in which all Canadians can take pride because all Canadians have contributed to our victory over the deficit.

Congratulations are due to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister for their leadership in achieving a balanced budget by the end of this fiscal year—the first balanced budget in almost three decades.

In four years, with the commitment and support of all Canadians, we have wrestled a $42 billion deficit to the ground and set Canada on an irrevocable course to reduce the debt. The benefits are now clear. On the fiscal side, we are already moving on debt reduction. The 1998 budget delivers $7 billion in tax relief over the next three years.

This budget is more than a milestone in our battle against the deficit and debt. It sets the agenda for building a knowledge based Canadian economy for the 21st century. The knowledge revolution is changing the basis of success for individuals, businesses, communities and nations. It is breaking down the barriers of time and distance. It is redefining old notions of competitive advantage, giving greater prominence to the quality of people's skills and the inventiveness of their ideas. It affects all sectors of our economy.

To meet the demands of our knowledge economy, we face the challenge of developing a learning culture. It will spark the continuous improvement and the creation and application of new ideas that we need. It will feed a stronger Canadian innovation system.

The 1998 budget builds on initiatives that we have taken in previous budgets to build an innovative learning culture in our country, initiatives such as the technology partnerships Canada program and the Canada foundation for innovation. Budget 1998 expands and deepens that record of action across the industry portfolio. It injects new resources into key programs that invest in people and technology such as the agenda for connecting all Canadians.

Last September the Speech from the Throne included our commitment to reach an ambitious goal, to make Canada the most connected nation in the world by the year 2000. We want to make Canada the world leader in developing and using an advanced information infrastructure to achieve our social and economic goals in the knowledge economy.

This budget commits an additional $260 million to the agenda for connecting Canadians. Of that amount, $205 million will support the expansion of successful programs such as community access, CAP, and SchoolNet. Our old goal for SchoolNet was to connect every school in Canada to the Internet. We will achieve that goal this year, 1998. With the new funds we will go on to link every classroom in every school.

The new funding for CAP will allow us to surpass our old target of connecting 5,000 rural Canadian communities to the Internet by the year 2000. Now we will be able to expand CAP into urban areas, providing an additional 5,000 sites, making all centres sustainable and upgrading the network.

We will also create the Voluntary Sector Network Program (VolNet) to link voluntary and charitable organizations across Canada to the Internet and to each other. Our initial goal is to link at least 10,000 voluntary organizations to the Internet.

At the heart of connecting Canadians is the right infrastructure. The budget also responds to that need. It includes $55 million for CANARIE to build the next generation Internet, the world's first all optical broadband network.

Connecting Canadians is only one way the budget is investing in building Canada for the 21st century. We are making important investments in university research and the development of highly qualified people by increasing the budgets of the three university research granting councils by more than $400 million over the next three years.

We are expanding the National Research Council's successful industrial research assistance program, IRAP, by an additional $34 million this year. That support will help more Canadian small businesses to adopt new technologies. It will help them develop new products and processes for commercial markets here and internationally.

IRAP provides technical advice to more than 10,000 small and medium size enterprises each year. It provides financial assistance to help more than 3,000 businesses with research and development. These kinds of initiatives are changing the economic face of Canada.

If we look at this city in which we are now, Canada's high technology centre tells that story very well. As we all know, this was once a city seen as the home of the federal government and little more. Those days are gone. Over the past years a solid base of high technology employment has expanded enormously. I am proud to say that co-operation between federal research and development agencies and our private sector leaders have helped to spur that growth.

According to the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation, in 1990 the Ottawa region had 300 high tech companies. By 1997 that figure was more than 800 and it is continuing to rise.

Some of these new leading-edge businesses are spinoffs from the work of the NRC, NSERC and our other agencies. For example, last October, the NRC announced five new spinoff companies, four of those setting up shop here in Ottawa.

The new and expanding companies in our high tech sector mean jobs. OCEDCO estimates that their growth will mean that Ottawa-area employers will need to fill nearly 20,000 positions in the telecommunications and information technology sectors alone over the next five years.

Once again the agencies that are getting increased support through this budget are helping to solve that need. The National Research Council is working with educational and private sector partners to address the critical shortage of software engineers through programs such as the O-Vitesse partnership.

The investments in learning and in our innovation system that the budget is making are important. They are creating opportunities for young people to learn and to find work. They are creating opportunities for businesses to master the tools of the new economy. They are building on our fiscal success to make Canada a strong trader in the global knowledge based economy of the 21st century.

I have travelled over the last two weeks literally from one end of Canada to the other. I met with people to talk about the important aspects that we find in this budget. We were talking not just about the realization of a long time target of reaching a budgetary balance, but of the new investments in the ability of Canadians to make the adaptations that are necessary to enter fully into the knowledge based economy of the 21st century.

I saw in each of the cities that I visited a realization that this indeed is the key to Canada's future. Our success in the past can be built upon by a success in the future that recognizes the importance of human resources, the importance of knowledge, the importance of learning and the importance of technology.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Minister of Industry, one would think one was on another planet. He says he has gone across the country and has found that business people, and indeed everyone, is happy with the finance minister's latest budget.

I would just quote a few comments made by business people, including Mr. Cléroux, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who said the day the budget was brought down, and I quote “It is a budget lacking vision, with no job strategy”.

So, when we are told that the business community was happy, we have our doubts. There was some unanimity around the budget, to the effect that it was not the budget of a visionary, and that, as far as real strategic planning with respect to the economy and jobs, the Minister of Finance was not perhaps the best person.

He says that everyone was happy. The day the budget was brought down, and the following day as well, all the provincial finance ministers and premiers—Mr. Romanow spoke on behalf of all Canada's premiers—were united in condemning this budget, saying that the Minister of Finance was taking credit for all the benefits of putting the fiscal house in order when it was their work that had made it possible and that they had received nothing for their efforts.

The Income Taxpayers' Association also had something to say. There were people representing taxpayers. They found $4 billion in tax cuts over the next three years laughable. Since he has been Minister of Finance, do you know how much the taxes of Quebeckers and Canadians have gone up? By almost $31 billion in three years.

So, thanks to him, people have paid an additional $31 billion in taxes over the past three years. Now he is telling us that, in the next three years, he will be reducing taxes by $4 billion. That amounts to laughing in people's faces.

The Minister of Finance is much quicker and more effective when it comes to voting in legislation for himself that suits him in terms of international shipping business than when it comes to reducing everyone's taxes for the collective good.

I have a question for the minister, in view of his remarks. We know that the first deficits date from a Liberal government some 25 years ago. I would ask him whether he agrees with our voting on an anti-deficit law in this House that would set specific parameters ensuring the accountability of the Minister of Finance to the House of Commons?

Would he agree to anti-deficit legislation to ensure that the Liberals do not fall back into their old ways of spending and put us in the situation they did 25 years ago?

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that throughout Canada, on my visits following the budget, people welcomed me enthusiastically and expressed their pride at finally having a balanced budget.

For 25 years—it indeed started in the early 1970s and continued until last year—we increased the debt burden. It was a major problem, and we were limited in the choices the government could make because of the deficit and the debt.

Now that we have a balanced budget—the first of the G7 countries—we have choices. We can regain control over our finances and decide ourselves on the vision we will follow in the coming years.

The new economy will not be built by bricks and mortar. The new economy requires knowledge, learning and connections of all Canadians to the new technologies that will exist.

The budget has the vision to do that, but it is based on the sanity of finances that has been recovered as a result of the efforts of the Minister of Finance.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some delight that I rise to talk to the budget of 1998, a budget of which Liberals are so proud. Quite frankly they do have not a lot of reason for such pride.

Yesterday in the House, in response to a question that I asked of the Prime Minister, I suggested that maybe health care was the top priority of Canadians generally across the country, whether they be premiers of provinces, finance ministers, health caregivers or other Canadians. The Prime Minister suggested to me at that time that I should probably go back to the Winnipeg budget and look at the budget of my colleagues, the Tories in Manitoba, who reduced taxes but did not add one cent to medicare.

I have had the opportunity to go back and look at the Manitoba budget that came down four days ago. I suggest that we can make some comparisons between the Manitoba budget and the Liberal budget tabled in the House. I honestly say that the Liberals can learn something from my colleagues in Manitoba.

Its budget was the fourth balanced budget Manitoba had put forward to its citizens. Over $100 million of new money was added to the Manitoba health care portion of the budget to bridge significant federal cuts to Manitoba's transfer payments.

In response to the Liberal government, Manitoba has shown that health care is a priority. Additional dollars are and have been going into health care in the Manitoba budget. Of that $100 million Manitoba spends $1.93 billion or 34% of its total budget on health care. I use that to stress the fact that the province of Manitoba recognizes health care is in a crisis and is a priority of its budget.

I also suggest that maybe the Liberal government would like to go a little further and take another lesson from Manitoba which has implemented balanced budget legislation. The Liberal government could learn from Manitoba. Its balanced budget legislation has been in place for a number of years. If the budget of Manitoba is not balanced, ministers and the premier have to pay the consequences.

In the budget which was just brought down in Manitoba there was a reduction in personal income tax. Is the government listening? There was a reduction in personal income tax. There was debt repayment and a plan for continued debt repayment in the Manitoba budget. It was increased from $75 million to $150 million in this budget year to retire the debt. The Liberal government unfortunately has not learned those lessons.

In the Manitoba budget small business was acknowledged. An economic opportunity will be available if the businesses are treated properly. In the small business reduction the payroll tax went from 2.25% to 2.15%, but it was a reduction in regressive payroll taxes. Unfortunately the Liberal government has not learned the lessons of other provincial governments.

There was a capital tax reduction. There was an increase in the exemption from $3 million to $5 million. That is very positive. The Manitoba government recognizes that small business is the backbone of our economy. The Liberal government should take lessons from it.

The Prime Minister suggested that I make some comparisons between the Liberal budget and the Manitoba budget. Let us talk about the Liberal budget. It is balanced for the first time. Congratulations. I am very pleased that finally the budget is balanced.

Let us understand why the budget is balanced. It is not because of the last three and a half or four years of this administration. It goes back to 1991 when a policy was put into place to target inflation. The 1991 policy caused interest rates to drop, which allowed the government to balance the budget.

Other policies were put into place from 1991 to 1993. One of them was the NAFTA. Make no mistake about it. The reason the economy is so strong today in Canada is international trade. We live in a global society. We live in a global economy.

When members of the government were in opposition they said “We will rip it up. We will have nothing to do with international trade. We will have nothing to do with globalization”. Now they have decided that it is such a good thing they will expand the NAFTA. We are going to expand into Europe. We are going to expand with the MAI. We are going to expand into South America. Make no mistake. That policy was put into place by a previous administration.

Then there was the GST. The same people who are now in power said “We will scrap it. We will not have it any longer”. In fact the GST, which was put into place by the previous administration, was used to bring the operating deficit down to zero in this year's budget. The Liberal government should thank the previous administration immensely for balancing the budget of 1998.

Let us have a look at the Liberal record. Canada today, after four years of Liberal administration, has the highest personal income levels of the G-7 countries. We did not hear that in the finance minister's budget speech but it is fact. The Liberals have raised taxes 40 times since 1994.

According to an Industry Canada study that was done with the United States, Americans today are 25% richer than Canadians. American manufacturing workers get paid $1 per hour more than their Canadian counterparts. America's jobless rate is 4.7% while Canada's is 8.6%. Canadian wage earners pay roughly one-third more in taxes than their American counterparts.

Canadians have been making up for stagnant incomes by eating into their savings and borrowing more. I know my colleagues on the government side will pooh pooh this, but there is another statistic that in this year there will be more bankruptcies than ever before. There will be record levels with 97,000 registered bankruptcies in Canada this year.

The government cannot blame anybody. It cannot blame previous administrations. It cannot blame the economy. It can blame only itself and the tax record it put forward to the country.

According to Statistics Canada, taxes took the largest bite out of the household budget in 1996. Taxes took 22% of every dollar, whereas 17 cents went for shelter, 12 cents went for food and 12 cents went for transportation.

I hope Canadians were not looking for a big break on taxes in the budget, because they got none. Quite frankly they will have to pay more taxes. Even though the spin doctors are putting the spin that there were tax reductions in the budget, the fact of the matter is that when it comes down to the dollars and cents off a paycheque, at the end of every month they will be paying more in taxation than they have in tax breaks in the budget.

Liberals continue to overtax Canadian workers and employers and kill jobs by keeping employment insurance premiums unnecessarily high. It was our position that the government should take the $7 billion overexpenditures and transfer those dollars to CPP and not increase the CPP payments the way it did. That is where it comes to the fact that Canadians this year will be paying more in tax dollars than they did last year. They have had huge increases in CPP but have not had an offset in employment insurance premiums.

I go back to the Manitoba budget. Manitoba recognizes that business is a very important part of the economy. It reduced regressive payroll taxes. It increased the exemption in capital assets. It reduced capital tax. It allowed Manitoba businesses to have an environment to expand, to hire people and to develop an economy that Manitoba would like to have.

The Prime Minister said “Go and compare with the Manitoba budget”. He and the finance minister should have made that comparison prior to tabling their own budget in the House.

The Liberals are planning no measure to ensure that a fiscal dividend will either be achieved or become a permanent part of the federal budget scene. Like the province of Manitoba, the PC Party believes that there must be tough balanced budget legislation to ensure the country is never again caught up in the spiral of deficits and debt. We propose a balanced budget law that would reduce the pay of the Prime Minister and cabinet if the deficit ban were broken.

Let us talk about that. We have a budget that was tabled in the House by the finance minister. It was the first and only budget I have ever seen that never used any assumptions. It never showed Canadians exactly what the surpluses would be. It never showed Canadians a fiscal plan to reduce the debt on an ongoing basis. Why was that?

The reason was that the finance minister did not want to show Canadians exactly what the surpluses were. The estimates are that there should be between $5 billion and $15 billion worth of surplus if the job were handled properly by the government. That $5 billion to $15 billion surplus should translate into debt reduction and tax reduction.

Unfortunately we never saw those numbers at the bottom of the finance sheet because the finance minister is afraid to show them in case his caucus, his colleagues and his cabinet may wish to spend those dollars on other issues. Quite frankly they spent those dollars because they have not been translated into tax cuts or have not been translated into deficit reduction or to debt reduction.

The Department of Finance projected several billion dollars in the government's surplus, but the money has been spent anyway before Canadians got a chance to see it.

Jeff Rubin, chief economist for CIBC Wood Gundy, said that the Minister of Finance “does not have a political mandate to run budgetary surpluses so he is hiding them from Canadian taxpayers in an effort to explain why he is not giving them tax relief. If he were to acknowledge where he really stands, this budget would be politically indefensible”.

The budget raises the basic personal amount of deduction by only $500. The basic exemption right now in this budget is $6,956, taking 400,000 people off the tax rolls. My party would raise the basic exemption level to $10,000 which would take two million Canadians off the tax roll.

There is nothing in this budget to encourage job creation for Canadians by alleviating the tax burden on small business. The Prime Minister said that the member for Brandon—Souris should look at the Manitoba budget to see what it has done with health care in terms of priorities. The member for Brandon—Souris looked at the Manitoba budget and found that there had been a personal reduction on income tax in that province. There has been a personal reduction of income tax in Alberta and Ontario but the Liberal government is obviously deaf to those who talk to the reasoning of tax reductions.

Taxation policy can influence the economic environment which in turn may affect the competitive position of a country in a global market. As such, a competitive and stable taxation policy has the potential to be an effective tool for the Canadian government to promote investment in economic activity in the country.

Taxation generates immense perceptions from investors who are looking for new opportunities worldwide. In recent years Canada has shown significant improvement in terms of lowering the tax burden. Nonetheless, even if the present trend continues it will take some time to shed the perception of Canada as a high taxed country.

Catherine Swift from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business comments on the budget: “Further tax cuts would help create jobs. We're still not seeing a major job creation agenda here and from a small business job creator standpoint that really should be a prime target”.

I hate to repeat myself but I will. Let us go back to the Manitoba budget. The Prime Minister suggested I do that. Do I not listen to what the Prime Minister says? Go to the Manitoba budget. I went to it and believe me, the Manitoba budget does speak to assistance to small business. We would speak to reducing small business taxes from 12% to 8%, to reducing corporate tax rates from 28% to 24% and to increasing the small business deductions from $200,000 to $300,000.

The PC party would also increase the capital gains tax exemption from $500,000 to $750,000. Entrepreneurs and people in the farming industry are more willing to take risks and bring their ideas to market when they know they will be able to keep more of what they earn. Increasing the capital gains tax exemption is just one suggestion for attracting investment capital for start up or expansion. The agricultural small and medium size business sector is the most dynamic sector of the economy and should be rewarded. None of those words were even considered by the Liberal budget, which is a travesty because small business was the loser.

The budget of the finance minister and the government failed to restore the $6 billion the Liberal government took out of transfers to the provinces for health care, education and social assistance. I was told to go back to look at my own province because it is not showing it as a priority. Wrong. We put $100 million into health care which did not come from the federal government in the form of any transfer payments. It came from the pockets of the taxpayers of Manitoba. Seven out of ten provinces continue to get less cash for health care and education than they did before the Liberals formed this government.

Here are some glowing reports from some provincial politicians concerning this Liberal budget: “It is a further kick in the teeth to all provinces and I think you will see more provinces retreating into saying we are on our own, we've got to solve our own problems”. That comes from Ontario Premier Mike Harris.

“Canadians, Manitobans, premiers, finance ministers, governments right across this country have called for the federal government to put back into place some of the support for health care”. That comes from the Manitoba finance minister, Mr. Eric Stefanson.

I repeat this budget has done virtually nothing for the provinces which in fact are doing the job and doing it very well. They are doing it without any federal assistance.

One area of my responsibility is agriculture. I have looked through the budget and I looked through the throne speech. In neither have I seen any indication that agriculture is even playing an important part in the Canadian economy.

“Canadian farmers gave their pint of blood over and over again to help Ottawa get its deficit under control. Now the federal government has to deal with the serious issue of farm income and security”. That comes from Jack Wilkinson, Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Nowhere did this budget deal with any of the issues that are facing agriculture not only now but in the future.

“There is painfully little in this budget on agriculture. It looks like they basically said goodbye to that productive sector in terms of any new initiatives for family farms. It makes it pretty clear that we are way down on the list of those who are deemed to be worthy of attention”. That comes from Nettie Wiebe of the National Farmers Union. But she had a point. There was nothing with agriculture in this budget.

The federal government offers nothing to the agriculture industry in this budget, nor did the government even mention agriculture in the throne speech. Two strikes. A third strike and I believe agriculture will see this government out.

The only measure it confirmed was the $20 million over the next four years Canadian rural partnership program. I have received and looked at the criteria of the Canadian rural partnership program. It is a $20 million over four year program. That is $5 million a year.

What is it going to do? It is going to facilitate some pilot projects. It is going to allow departments to come together so that they will be allowed to see how effective the programs are they now have in place. We will put $5 million a year over four years and basically accomplish nothing.

Ministry of agriculture's Pest Management Regulatory Agency budget for 1997-98 is going to have a $4.5 million deficit. The deficit was a result of the PMRA's not properly analysing its product base to generate fees.

We are going to put $5 million in one hand to try to look at the programs are, the pilot projects and facilitate programs for farmers. Yet farmers are going to pay $5 million a year more for PMRA which they did not want in the first place.

I know it is time to wrap up. I appreciate your time and this House's time. I must say that the balanced budget is the only good positive thing that I can say about the budget that was tabled. Other than that, all the issues that were dealt with in this budget, unfortunately, could be dealt with much better.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris brought up our home province a number of times in his presentation. I think it is only responsible in my reply to respond to some of the things that the hon. member has said.

He said that he was concerned about some of the things that were somehow omitted, certain kinds of information omitted from the finance minister's budget of last month. Given that the hon. member is concerned about omissions, I would like to cite a couple of omissions on his part.

First of all, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris mentioned that the Filmon government in the province of Manitoba devotes 34% of its budget to health care. Maybe the hon. member for Brandon—Souris would like to know that 36% of Mr. Filmon's budget comes from the federal government, just a little, small point that he might be interested to know.

Let me go a little further because he makes certain implications about how the provincial government or the province of Manitoba is treated by this budget.

I would like to remind the member for Brandon—Souris that when our government came to office in the fall of 1993, about four and a half years ago, Manitoba, my province, his province, received in both transfer payments, the CHST and equalization payments, a total of $1.951 billion.

What is it in the next fiscal year starting in less than three weeks, April 1? It will be $1.944 billion, a difference of $7 million. Let us put that $7 million into context. In the last three years, as a result of lower interest rates brought about by this government's fiscal policies, the Filmon government in the province of Manitoba has realized savings of $135 million. The province of Manitoba is doing quite well I would say to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Let us also put these transfer payments into further context. I mentioned that the transfer payments will exceed $1.9 billion starting April 1. That accounts for 36% of Manitoba's estimated revenues. That is 50% above the national average and the highest of the four western provinces.

I must admit it is really difficult to take criticism from a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party that ran our economy into the ground between 1984 and 1993. In the interest of facts and in the interest of informing Canadians, the member from Brandon—Souris owes us this piece of information about how the province of Manitoba has been treated by this budget and successive budgets over the last four years.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of faith in the finance minister of the province of Manitoba. I believe he has done an exceptional job over the last four years. He has balanced his budget for four years. He has not raised any taxes in the province of Manitoba and the economy is doing very well.

The reason I brought my example up was to make sure that the Liberals recognize there are ways of reducing taxes in a budget to make sure the economy is going to be improved.

I would like to quote the finance minister of Manitoba:

Providing Manitobans with the best health care possible has always been and continues to be our top program priority. Stefanson said: “Our funding commitment to health care is 45% or almost $600 million more than we spent in 1987—in contrast to the federal government cutting health transfers 35% in the last three years”.

The proof lies in the pudding. Needless to say the hon. member believes that the federal government is treating provincial governments fairly. That is a head in the sand attitude because I can give the member quotes from every premier and every finance minister who say that is not the case. That is okay, the member can hide his head in the sand.

The hon. member talks about how previous to 1993 the Progressive Conservative government caused the problems for our country with respect to deficits. I talked about the reason why the deficit now no longer exists. It is because of policies that were put in place in 1991-93. I can also say that I remember the Trudeau years when deficits and debt were the trademark of the day. If we want to talk about who put Canadians into this debt and deficit position, they have to look no further than their own history.