Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1999

Aboriginal Affairs

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of the following letter only yesterday from the Liberal leader in B.C. It reads:

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to note my extreme dismay over your government's motion to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate today.

This motion is an unacceptable slight to British Columbia, and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this landmark treaty. On a matter of this critical importance to our province, to our country and our constitution, every member of parliament deserves an opportunity to speak.

It was wrong for the NDP government of British Columbia to close debate on this treaty, and to deny British Columbians' elected representatives the chance to even ask questions on 11 of its 22 chapters. I would submit that it is equally wrong for your government to engage in this same indefensible conduct, conduct that will only serve to further erode public trust and confidence in the treaty process.

Sincerely,

The Economy

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a spending problem. Someone has to help him work through it before taxpayers have to turn all of their income over to the government.

He is planning a $47 billion shopping spree based on a projected surplus that could, might, may reach $90 billion. Someone should remind him though that, unlike his shopping list, the surplus is projected and expected, not confirmed, meaning that tax relief is doomed again.

Why are the Prime Minister's shopping sprees always set in concrete while his tax relief is merely set in quicksand?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we predicted at the time of the last election that there would be a surplus for the first time in 50 years. We said that the surplus would be divided 50:50, 50% for the debt and tax reduction and 50% for social and economic programs. That is exactly what we are doing at this time.

I am very pleased to know that the Reform Party is beginning to realize that we have provided Canadian people with very good government, because we have a big surplus now compared to the $42 billion—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is absolutely right. We do recognize that he has provided us with big government and that he is keeping his promise. Yesterday the finance minister denied the $47 billion in new spending and the Prime Minister just took credit for it.

If everybody was as fabulously wealthy as the Prime Minister perhaps they would not care so much about tax relief. But for middle income families that are losing up to half of their income to government, it does matter a lot and it matters that the government is planning a nearly $50 billion spending spree.

A surplus is a surplus, and the answer to a surplus is to collect less, not spend more. Why will the Prime Minister not abandon his $47 billion spending—

[The Speaker]

The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, these are the people who yesterday asked for more money to spend on agriculture. We are doing that. We are spending $900 million more on agriculture this year than last year. The Reform Party has asked us to put in more.

What we have said is that the rational thing to do is to divide it 50:50. Even Premier Harris used the red book at the meeting of the first ministers in Quebec City in August and said it was the right policy for Canada.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Premier Harris has demonstrated how to grow an economy by letting people keep more of what they earn through real tax relief. He has done that by being responsible in terms of spending.

Premier Harris has not blown $47 billion of Ontario taxpayers' money out the window like the Prime Minister plans to do. Why does he not listen to the growing demands among working Canadian families for tax relief, instead of planning a back to the seventies spending binge? Why does he not stop his retro-seventies fiscal policy and give people tax relief for the 21st century?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have already started to reduce taxes. Most of these people voted for the Tories in the past. The Tories gave us a 3% surtax, which we took away.

Yesterday I gave the example of a family of four, with two people working, making $60,000. They will have a 10% reduction in their income tax and a 20% reduction—

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, we want to hear the question and the answer. The hon. Prime Minister has the floor.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have reduced taxes and we will keep reducing taxes because we offer the Canadian people a good government which has, for the first time in 50 years, put us in the position of having three surpluses in a row.

Employment Insurance

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has said that a $2.40 EI premium is his comfort zone, but the chief actuary of Canada said that his comfort zone is a $2.05 premium, the same comfort zone as the Reform Party and millions of Canadian workers and businesses.

Why do the Prime Minister and his finance minister not just enter into the comfort zone of working Canadians and lower the EI premiums to $2.05? Why do they not do that?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a party that said we should reduce the premiums only to companies, not to individuals.

When we started it was $3.07. We have reduced it every year by 15 cents. That is why it is now lower. It will be reduced again this year, but we will do it in a way that will make sure that the money will be available when it is needed.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, $21 billion, that is how much this government has overcharged Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. There has been a $21 billion overcharge on EI premiums.

The chief actuary said that the government can lower those premiums to $2.05. Why does the Prime Minister not listen to the chief government actuary and lower EI premiums to $2.05 for Canadian workers? Why does he not just do that?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, really I enjoy these moments, because I never thought, after six years in government, that I would be confronted with the difficult problem of what to do with the surplus that we have as a government.

I think of my predecessors for 50 years who were never confronted with this awful problem.

Budget Surpluses

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is all-round champion when it comes to missing the mark with predictions.

In 1995, the gap between his forecast figures and reality was $4 billion; in 1996, $15.4 billion; in 1997, $20.5; in 1998, $7 billion.

What credibility can we give to a Minister of Finance who has a 107% average error in his predictions over four years?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, prudence is the greatest of all virtues.

When we were in the opposition, I recall the Conservative finance ministers constantly telling us, with the support of the Reform Party members of the day, that the deficit was going to be something like $25 billion, and it ended up at $35 billion.

I prefer a prudent Minister of Finance; it is far better for the economic health of the country.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, prudence may be the greatest of all virtues, but camouflage is not necessarily a good thing in politics.

This is a jerry-built strategy. All of the Minister of Finance's scenarios since 1995 have had but one objective: giving him a better image. The Prime Minister knows a bit about that.

Is the essential quality of a Minister of Finance not rigour and transparency in handling the public purse?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why the Minister of Finance was prudent, so as not to get people's hopes up, something the Bloc Quebecois is so good at.

We prefer to be prudent, keeping within the confines of reality, rather than painting castles in the sky. At present, of course, the economy is going a lot better than planned, because there is a good government. Two million more Canadians are working, paying taxes, spending money, and as a result the treasury is in very good shape.

We need to keep on being prudent if we want to continue to be able to address the real problems of the nation effectively and efficiently.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that his government had increased the social transfers to the provinces by $11.5 billion over five years and had lowered income tax for all Canadian taxpayers.

How, with any decency, can the minister speak of increased transfer payments to the provinces, when these transfers amounted to nearly $19 billion in 1993 and have decreased this year to $15 billion?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is neglecting to mention that the transfers involve not only cash but also tax points, which give the governments enormous amounts.

When we calculate transfer payments, we calculate tax points and cash transfers. These are the real payments to the provincial governments, because the tax points are adjusted according to the individual provincial government's ability to tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is more erroneous information.

How can the minister talk with any decency of tax reductions, when, since 1994, tax revenues from individuals have grown faster than the economy, and a middle class family today pays $700 more in income tax than in 1993? Where are the Minister of Finance's tax reductions?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that someone who was unemployed and is now working pays more tax than before.

Two million more Canadians are working today than when we formed the government. This is why we collect more income tax, and when the figure reaches three million, we will be collecting even more. I would rather have that than have to pay employment insurance to people not working.

Poverty

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a devastating report by the National Council of Welfare noted that the political landscape is littered with rhetoric about children, broken promises and token efforts that provide very little real help to families.

It has now been 10 years since parliament voted to end child poverty by the year 2000, but in fact half a million more kids live in poverty.

Will the Prime Minister commit to use the budget surplus on real measures to reduce poverty, such as the national child care program?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have increased transfer payments to families by billions of dollars since we formed the government.

We had a program on day care that was proposed. It was part of our program in 1993, but it was rejected by the provincial governments which did not want to put more money into it, so we decided to give the money to the families rather than lose it. That is why the child tax credit has given a lot more money to families.

Some of the provinces are using that occasion to reduce their own transfers and to apply it elsewhere in the same field. That is their judgment. They have the right to do that, but—