Debates of Dec. 16th, 1999

Questions On The Order Paper

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

The Indian Art Centre of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, DIAND, is a longstanding cultural centre which supports and promotes the visual arts of first nations in Canada. The centre was created in 1965 to support the development of aboriginal artist working in the traditional art forms, as well as those working in the contemporary fine arts including painting, drawing, prints making, sculpture and photography.

(a) The total amount spent on these purchases over the last 10 fiscal years was $96,430.25.

(b) Seven hundred and twelve works were purchased to be displayed in the headquarters and regional offices throughout the department of Indians Affairs and Northern Development, as well as in travelling exhibitions and two native art collections, the Alberta collection and the Indian Art Collection Vault.

(c) Locations:

Regional Offices—47 Travelling Exhibitions—27 Headquarters—252 Alberta Collection (Headquarters)—227 Indian Art Collection Vault—159

Total—712

Question No. 42—

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Has the federal government established a plan for turning the 500,000 hectare Stoltmann Wilderness protected area in British Columbia into a national park, and if so, what is that plan?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

No, the federal government has not established a plan for turning the Randy Stoltmann Wilderness Area in British Columbia into a national park.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 26 and 33 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed. .[Text]

Question No. 26—

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

What is the complete listing of veterinary drugs approved in Canada for use in food-producing animals (by species)?

Return tabled.

Question No. 33—

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

With respect to non-Canadian visitors (not immigrants) for each of the last five calendar years (broken down by citizenship or nationality): ( a ) how many visitors entered Canada; ( b ) how many visitors were issued visitor's visas pursuant to section 9 of the Immigration Act of Canada; ( c ) how many of those visitor's visas were issued to visitors who had criminal records (broken down by summary conviction and indictable offences); ( d ) how many visitor's visas were denied and of those how many were denied on the basis of the applicant having a criminal record (broken down by summary conviction and indictable offences); ( e ) how many visitors who had criminal records (broken down by summary conviction and indictable offences) were knowingly permitted and denied entry under the immigration officer's discretion pursuant to section 19(3) of the Immigration Act of Canada?

Return tabled.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Standing Committee On Finance

[Allan Rock, Liberal, for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That this House take note of the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented to the House on Friday, December 10, 1999.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 37 minutes.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago when I was first elected, the then Leader of the Official Opposition told me that I should spend the first few years of my political career listening to the people of Canada, travelling the country region by region, understanding the issues and appreciating the diversity of opinion which is expressed daily throughout our country. For the past 11 years I have done just that.

I have been across the country many times and have spoken with thousands of Canadians from every region and every walk of life. For me it has been a continuous national dialogue. In fact, it is their stories and their voices that have inspired me to make a long term commitment to a larger cause, that is, preserving the hope of Canadians that tomorrow can indeed be better than today and more important, that we all have an obligation to make it so.

As we prepare to welcome in a new century, there is much to celebrate about Canada. We have shown the world how to balance freedom with compassion and tradition with innovation, how to provide health care to all our citizens and how to treat our senior citizens with the respect and dignity they deserve. In a world darkened by conflicts that literally tear nations apart, our country has stood as an example of how people of different cultural backgrounds can live and work together in harmony.

There is no question in my mind that Canada's greatest strength is in fact her people, the people who have settled and developed this country. Thanks to their imagination and determination, Canada has always moved forward, going from being an agrarian society to a leading industrial power during and after the second world war.

Our country has continued to push ahead with innovation in the years since, capturing leadership positions in such areas as telecommunications, aerospace and information technology.

All of this does not mean that we have not had our challenges, but what it does mean is that every time we have been challenged as a country the people of Canada have risen to the challenge.

It was not long ago that the international community doubted our ability to remain a player in the global economy. I am sure we all remember in the House in 1994 when the Wall Street Journal compared us to a third world economy. We as Canadians could have given up, but we did not. That is not the Canadian way. Instead, we rolled up our sleeves and we turned our country around. We made an impressive comeback.

Today we have the best fiscal health of the G-7. We have eliminated a $42 billion deficit. We have balanced our books. We are paying down our public debt. We have begun to lower taxes. Our inflation rate is the lowest since the 1960s. Our interest rates are also the lowest in decades and, thanks to a dynamic private sector, over 1.7 million jobs have been created since the government took office in 1993.

What a difference six years have made. Recently the Financial Times of London referred to Canada as the top dog of the G-7. We are doing much better.

In the new global economy there is really not too much time to stop and congratulate ourselves on our success. Canadians know that. That is why they want an agenda that will see them enjoy more opportunity, a higher standard of living and an even better quality of life in the new century. In order to achieve all this, however, we need a clear vision for the future.

There is no doubt in my mind that Canada stands at the threshold of a new century. Within a few days our nation will enter a new era, a new millennium.

This fall marked the sixth time that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance sought the advice of Canadians in advance of the federal budget. It was the third time that I participated as chair of the committee. In a very short time I have seen the mood of the country and Canadians change, becoming increasingly optimistic about the prospects of the future.

The committee's report, entitled “Budget 2000—New Era—New Plan”, is the result of our continuing conversations with Canadians, a national dialogue that has helped us to understand our fellow citizens' values and priorities and how the federal budget should reflect them.

Canadians want an agenda that will see them enjoy more opportunities, a higher standard of living. In order to achieve all this we have put together, through our prebudget consultation report, a road map that will in fact achieve this vision. This plan fosters sound financial management, promotes economic growth and a better standard of living by cutting taxes, makes our economy more competitive and ensures that Canadians will enjoy greater security and expanded opportunities. It is my hope that this plan will inspire Canadians to confidently believe that indeed tomorrow can be better than today.

While conducting our prebudget consultation the finance committee heard from a broad range of witnesses. We listened to organizations representing businesses, children, industry, arts, culture and farmers. We heard from educators, health care workers, economists and individual municipalities. We reached out to every single section of this great country.

The committee crossed Canada and spoke with advocates who said that we need greater support for the homeless, public transportation and research and development. Very importantly, we met with individual Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

At this point I really ought to be thanking the members of parliament who held town hall meetings across the country and who took the time to listen to their constituents, as well as the members of the committee who worked very hard to put the report together.

I also want to say that I firmly believe that this report clearly reflects the values and priorities of Canadians.

Canadians are very happy with the fact that we have ended an era of skyrocketing deficits and public debt for good, that we have brought down back to back balanced budgets for the first time since 1951-52, and that we have put the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track. The fiscal turnaround, coupled with low inflation and interest rates, has really helped this country to create over 1.7 million jobs and to bring back prosperity to the people of Canada.

There was also very strong support for measures taken by the government, whether we are referring to the $16.5 billion tax cut that was introduced or the investments we have made in innovation and skills development through the Canada foundation for innovation and the Canada millennium scholarship fund. There was also very strong support from the people of Canada for the extra commitment made by the government to provide an additional $11.5 billion over five years to the provinces and territories specifically for health care.

One of the issues that was raised often and was strongly supported was the national child benefit, not to mention the appreciation of Canadians for the government modernizing the employment insurance program.

The committee is committed to making sure that we are never going to let the nation's finances get out of control again. We will keep the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track.

The committee also introduced a multi-year plan for tax reduction, which I will elaborate later.

The role of government is to continue to create opportunities for Canadians, to access foreign markets and to promote Canada as an ideal place in which to invest.

The people of Canada also called for further investment for lifelong learning to continue to build the most highly skilled workforce in the world, and that is one of the greatest advantages that this country has in the knowledge based economy.

Let us talk about an issue that is extremely important to the people of Canada, that is, the issue of health care. In the 1999 budget, as I said earlier, the government made the largest single new investment since coming to office by committing $11.5 billion over five years. As well, the Prime Minister chaired the national forum on health and implemented key recommendations of the forum, including the health transition fund, the Canada health information service, the community action program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program. These programs and the balanced approach by the government to these issues were also applauded by the people of Canada.

One of the greatest resources a country has is its people.

We have the thrust of the Canada opportunities strategy, a comprehensive plan to provide Canadians with greater and more affordable access to education and skills, the millennium scholarship fund, the tax relief on interest payments on student loans, the Canada education savings grant, the work done on SchoolNet, which has connected every public school and library in Canada to the Internet, the first nation in the world to accomplish this, the community access program, which will have public Internet sites connected to 10,000 rural and urban sites by the year 2000, and computers for schools, whose goal is to provide 250,000 computers for Canadian schools by the year 2000, which is 60% complete. These measures taken by the government have certainly been welcomed.

The issue of children and families came up during the prebudget consultation hearings. There was support for the national child benefit. Many referred to it as the most innovative of national social programs in this generation. Many other projects like the aboriginal head start initiative, the Canadian prenatal nutrition program and the community action program for children were also supported.

I will put this debate in its proper context. In my opening remarks I talked about a higher standard of living for Canadians. There is a responsibility on the part of government to use all of its levers to make sure that Canadians will enjoy a higher standard of living and a better quality of life in the new millennium. It is important to have a well set and well thought out strategy to achieve these ends.

The government, as is reflected in the prebudget consultation report “A new era—A new plan”, has those levers. We as members of the committee ask the government to act on these particular issues.

If we want to generate the type of wealth and the type of economic growth required to address all the social issues and challenges we heard about from coast to coast to coast, then there is no question in my mind that the only way we can do that is to put a plan together that speaks to the issue of improving the standard of living for people.

What are the components of this strategy? Where should the government go to make sure that we as individual Canadians will enjoy a higher standard of living?

Let us look at fiscal and monetary policy. If there is one area in which this government has done well, and about which we can say we are heading in the right direction, it is the area of fiscal and monetary policy.

Canadians may ask why it is an important component of the finance committee's strategy to improve the standard of living for Canadians. A stable macroeconomic environment with low inflation brings lower interest rates and boosts confidence. It encourages investment, which enhances productivity growth and boosts employment.

It is very clear that any government, here in Canada or abroad, must get those fundamentals right. As we enjoy the low interest rates and the great boom we have had in employment growth, we must recognize that this is not something we do on a part time basis. We must remain vigilant. We must make sure that the debt continues to go in a downward projection because it is very important not only for Canadians but people throughout the world to recognize that Canada has its economic fundamentals right.

What have been the accomplishments of the government? The deficit has been eliminated. We now have a surplus. This is one of the major reasons we travelled across the country seeking input and asking Canadians what the priorities should be, what were their values as Canadians and where we should make investments.

As I stated earlier the debt to GDP ratio is clearly on a downward path. It is also important to note that provinces have had substantial fiscal progress in the past five years, not to mention that we are benefiting from the low inflation of the 1990s.

What does this mean to everyday Canadians? When Canadians renewed their mortgages they understood the actual meaning. They understood the difference between the theory of fiscal responsibility and the practice. Throughout the country people are happy with the fact that they are finally regaining some financial freedom to make decisions that are right for them and their families.

Another lever the federal government has to deal with is the issue of taxation policy. Everywhere we went throughout the country, whether I was talking with someone in a coffee shop or at my local parish or visiting workers in factories it did not matter to whomever I spoke. Canadians want tax cuts and Canadians deserve tax cuts.

Why is that? It is because Canadians have worked very hard for a number of years to defeat the deficit. It is thanks to the hard work of Canadians that today we enjoy a surplus. It is right for the federal government to help Canadians restore some of their lost disposable income.

With the exception of the past two or three years during which people have begun to feel the impact of federal government policies, they have seen their incomes go up. It is also important to note that for the past 10 years the average disposable income in Canada has gone down. It is our responsibility as members of the House, trusted legislators of the country, to restore some of that disposable income so Canadians can begin to understand that their sacrifices are rewarded.

Tax policy in a country that is dedicated to improving the standard of living of people is extremely important. Taxes can affect the allocation of resources and alter the incentives to work, to save and to invest. I emphasize this point because it is part of the $46 billion tax cut plan the finance committee tabled in the House of Commons. It is important to understand the components of the plan because they take into consideration that tax cuts should not only cater to a section of Canadian society. Tax cuts belong to all Canadians.

What did the finance committee that is reflecting the needs, desires and aspirations of Canadians say about tax cuts? The first measure was to increase the basic and spousal amounts by 15%, raising the limit to $8,200. That is the amount of money people can earn tax free.

Why is this news so great for Canadians? It is because over half a million people will not be paying taxes any more. They will be off the tax rolls as a result of this measure. Is that important? It is. I have spoken to those individuals who are paying taxes on relatively low incomes. It is not who says what that really makes the difference. We have to do what is right for the people of Canada.

When we increase the thresholds by 15%, when we increase them from $29,000 to $34,000 and $60,000 to $68,000, what are we doing? In technical terms we are compensating for inflation. We are reducing marginal tax rates. We are reducing the one earner-two earner tax disparity. What is really important is that it is fair. Canadians will benefit from it. Canadians will have more money in their pockets to realize their dreams and their families dreams.

They also appreciate that if they work hard, take risks and make the necessary effort in a country like Canada then they will be rewarded. When this type of philosophy takes hold and when governments reflect the thrust of the argument I have outlined, I sense that there will be energy within the people of Canada to become more entrepreneurial and take greater risks because they know they will be rewarded for their efforts.

In many speeches in the House we talk about Canada's hard working middle class. We have to put our words into action. For this reason the finance committee recommended that we reduce the middle tax rate by three percentage points to 23% over the next five years. This will lower the taxes paid by middle income Canadians. This point has been raised in every town hall meeting that members of parliament have held across the country.

We must also eliminate the 5% surtax by gradually increasing the threshold. Why does the finance committee want the surtax to be eliminated? There can be tax reform and tax cuts but in this case it is also the issue of governance. The surtax was introduced when we were in a deficit position. Now that we have a balanced budget, now that we have a surplus, we as legislators must get rid of the surtax because it makes great economic sense but it is also a question of governance, of acting on a promise that was made.

Families and children are very important to the social and economic fibre of the country. Any budget that does not address this issue would fail. It is for this reason that the finance committee once again made a recommendation which would lower over a five year period the CTB phaseout rate by one-half to 2.5% for families with more than one child and 1.25% for families with one child.

That is kind of a technical version of this recommendation. What this means in real life is that more families will be helped to raise their children, that more families will have greater disposable income to do what they need to do. They will have more disposable income to get ahead and to make the personal wise investments they need to make.

I also want to be very clear that on these issues I have been talking about the personal side—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Unless I am mistaken, Standing Order 43 relating to the process of debate states that the first person speaking for the government—if he is the Prime Minister—the Leader of the Opposition, a minister moving a government order, and the member speaking in reply immediately after such a minister have no time limit.

As far as I can tell, the hon. member across the floor is not the Prime Minister, nor the Leader of the Opposition nor the minister proposing the motion, nor the member speaking in reply immediately after the minister, and thus ought not to be exempt from a time limit. He should have 20 minutes like the rest of us.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The point of order raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is a very strict reading of Standing Order 43.

It has been the practice for many years in the House for the first person speaking on behalf of the government following the proposal of a motion to have unlimited time and the first member of the opposition speaking in reply to have similarly unlimited time. That has been the invariable practice.

I recall having had that opportunity to speak, and accordingly the Chair has interpreted this as applying to the hon. member for Vaughan—King—Aurora who is the first member speaking on the motion following it being put by a minister who did not speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, even in the Projected Order of Business, Standing Order 43 is specified.

If what is meant to guide us in the process of debate is obsolete, and tradition allows us to do the opposite of what it says, things are all wrong.

From what I have seen in the past, Standing Order 43 has applied when the speakers involved were the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the minister making the motion or the member speaking in reply to the government. They had an unlimited amount of time but not an ordinary member of the House. It is all very well that the member in question is the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance but that is not covered by the standing orders.

As far as I can recall, this standing order has always been applied in relation to the work of the finance committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the Speaker's information and for members of the House, I remember very recently the Speaker ruling on another matter having to do with splitting speeches in the House. At that time when he gave his ruling on that point, he did mention that convention will supersede the standing orders in longstanding practices and traditions.

I think that might be something to consider in regard to this point as well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has carefully considered the matter. I have had recourse to the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons where, if hon. members looked, they would see it is stated quite clearly that in instances where the parliamentary secretary makes the first speech on behalf of the government, he or she has unlimited time, as well as the opposition member replying immediately thereafter.

I am aware that the hon. member is not the parliamentary secretary. The difficulty with the position advanced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is that the member speaking immediately after the minister would be the hon. member for Vaughan—King—Aurora. He would therefore have unlimited time on that guise if he were not the first person speaking for the government.

The hon. member would find himself in the position where the hon. member for Vaughan—King—Aurora would have unlimited time because he is the first person speaking in reply to the government, and then the opposition would not get a similar opportunity. In the opinion of the Chair, this is not the result that should obtain in this case. In the opinion of the Chair, there should be two speeches of unlimited time.

Accordingly, I feel that it is appropriate that even though the member is not the parliamentary secretary, it has been the practice consistently in the use of this rule that when a government motion is moved, the first person speaking has unlimited time, as does the second.

The hon. member for Vaughan—King—Aurora is the first person speaking on the motion. Accordingly, I believe the ruling that he has unlimited time is correct in the circumstances. I propose, since we have already exceeded the 20 minutes by some measure, to allow him to complete his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I respect your decision, but if this is the case, it would be a good idea to amend Standing Order 43. If we adhere strictly to the standing orders but they begin to change the rules along the way, like they are trying to do with the bill to establish a framework for the Quebec referendum, then nothing makes sense any more.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I take note of the hon. member's suggestion. I hope he will make his suggestion to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If the committee tables a report, changes will no doubt be made to the standing orders. This would be helpful to everyone.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I probably would have finished my speech by the time this decision was rendered but having said that, this is another case in point where Canada's productivity rate could have been helped if we had just got down to business instead of wasting a lot of time on that issue.

I want to go back to the point about the Canada tax benefit. I do not want to lose the opportunity to say that this particular measure will extend the number of families that will benefit from it. It will also bring in many more middle class families that have not been able to access the Canada child tax benefit. This will literally help millions of families.

Most of my comments this morning have dealt with the personal side of taxation. We live in a globally competitive economy. Business, commerce, is very much a part of our everyday existence as a nation. Budgets should also take into consideration the important role businesses play in our economy.

It is for that reason the finance committee for example would like to reduce EI premiums by 40 cents over four years. At maturity this would be a $3.1 billion cut. It will reduce the marginal tax rates. It will reduce the amount of profit insensitive taxes faced by business. Workers will also benefit from this cut. We need to begin with some profound reform of the business tax system and we say that.

We also would like to increase the RRSP limit by a total of $2,000 over a five year period. We want to lower the general corporate rate by five percentage points over five years. This will help restore tax neutrality. It will provide our businesses with greater international competitiveness and it will stop penalizing new economy firms.

Other measures in this tax package include increasing the foreign content from 20% to 30%. This will increase returns to retirement savings at reduced risk. We also want to lower the inclusion rate for donation of appreciable property which will promote charitable giving, consider expanding eligible properties for a lower inclusion rate, and as I said earlier, also work with the provinces to establish a common capital tax base.

Given the fact that I am very sensitive to the time I have taken thus far, I would like to say that this $46 billion tax cut package is clearly an indication to the people of Canada and the businesses of the country that this government, or this committee, is very serious about establishing a competitive tax regime, about rewarding Canadians for their effort.

Only because I am mindful of the time, I will end now and say very simply that “Budget 2000—New Era, New Plan”, the report of the finance committee, is an excellent road map. I hope the Minister of Finance will seriously consider its elements.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again and debate the issue of the prebudget report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Yesterday I stood and delivered a speech which I thought was my response to this issue but as it turned out, it was not. Nevertheless I am happy to be here again today to address some of the issues that my friend has raised and which are contained in the report.

The first point I want to make is the same one I made yesterday. The basis of the entire report is a faulty one. It is so glaring a contradiction it is almost surprising that my friend across the way and other Liberal members of parliament are able to stand in this place and make a spirited case for what they believe in. It is that bold.

The essence of the contradiction is that on the one hand the government is calling for a $46 billion in tax relief, which of course is laudable and the Reform Party completely and unequivocally supports that. In fact we have championed tax relief for 12 years, ever since we came into being. I am proud of that fact and I would like to think we have helped influence the government to start to think about these things. The contradiction is that on the one hand the government calls for tax relief of that scale, and on the other hand it says it will maintain its 50:50 spending promise, which means that 50% of any future surplus would go to new program spending.

The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot have its cake and eat it too. Government members cannot speak out of both sides of their mouths, but that is what they are trying valiantly to do. We cannot let them get away with that. It is double-talk. That is all there is to it. It is just an attempt to win over all the various constituencies at once, even though they are recommending things that are completely contradictory. They cannot get away with that.

This is a pattern from the government. We have seen it over and over again. I would categorize it as Liberal rhetoric versus the Liberal record. We see completely different things when we compare the record to the rhetoric. The Liberals speak on one level that is completely disconnected from the reality the rest of the country has to live with. It is as though they are in court somewhere completely cut off from the rest of the population. I would suggest that is exactly the case. I think it was reflected in the statement the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora just delivered in the House.

I want to run through the Liberal record to underline what I have just said. When we run through the bare facts, people will see very clearly that what my friend has just delivered here in the House was a lot of rhetoric. He can say all he wants about how he feels it is important to cut taxes, to be more productive as a country, to deal with the debt as an important issue and to re-allocate spending because we do not want to see money wasted on projects that are not important. He can say those things, but if he never does anything about them, they are empty words. They are hollow husks. I submit that is exactly the case here.

I want to run through some of the facts so that members in this place and people watching can draw their own conclusions.

My friend said that he wants to see tax relief and he has made an argument for that. I remind members that the government has been in power for six years, that we have had a balanced budget for two and a half years going on to three years now, but still we have had no tax relief. I know my friends across the way will say that we have had tax relief. It is simply not so. Here are the facts.

The OECD in its reports that came out in June and September said that Canada must cut taxes, that taxes in Canada are growing with every passing day. Three or four days before the finance minister delivered his fiscal and economic update in November, the economics branch of the Toronto Dominion Bank delivered a report. It showed that the federal government today takes more money out of people's pockets than any federal government has ever taken in the history of Canada. It showed an upward trend too. In fact that will be realized on January 1 when the government helps Canadians celebrate the new millennium with a tax hike.

We will see the Canada pension plan taxes go up on January 1. We will also see income taxes go up because of bracket creep. Canadians will be poorer. The federal coffers will be enriched. Unfortunately that is bad news for Canadians.

It puts the lie to what we have heard in this place, which is that the government is somehow committed to lowering taxes. It is completely the contrary. What we are seeing are taxes ever ramping upward. That is a shameful fact, but it is a fact.

In Canada today the average family spends more on taxes than it does on food, shelter and clothing. That is the Liberal record versus the Liberal rhetoric. It is a fact that in Canada today disposable income languishes. It has barely grown since the recession of the 1990s and it is barely above where it stood in 1980.

Canadians are paying a dear price for the high tax record of the government. When it says that it wants to cut taxes, we know by its actions that tax cutting is very low on its priority list.

I want to talk about the government's record on the debt. In Canada today we have a debt of $577 billion. That is a staggering amount of money, 64% of GDP, which is one of the highest levels of debt to GDP in the industrialized world, only behind Italy in the G-7.

We also point out that in Canada today the finance minister cuts a cheque for $40 billion a year to pay the interest on the debt. That $40 billion is by far the largest payment that the government makes of any kind. Old age security is about $23 billion or $24 billion a year. That is our most expensive social program. Of course, the transfers to the provinces for health care and education are much lower than that, certainly a lot lower after the government cut transfers dramatically. They are around $15 billion a year, much lower than what we pay in interest on the debt.

The impact of that is that Canadians have to pay a big chunk of their taxes toward the interest on the debt. One would think that if the government truly was concerned about helping Canadians and ensuring the long term fiscal stability of the country that it would have some kind of plan to pay down the debt. What is its plan?

The plan is that if there is any money left over after it has gone on its spending sprees, then it will pay down some debt. We have the situation now where, after having run on paper what should have been big surpluses, the government has paid down $3 billion one year and $3 billion another year toward the debt.

At that rate it will take approximately 190 years to deal with the problem of the debt. I do not think Canadians want to wait that long. I think they want to deal with this issue now.

The federal government should take a look at what happened in Alberta, where the government poured billions upon billions of dollars into beating down a huge debt, the result being that it has one of the healthiest economies in Canada and in North America. In Alberta we are seeing jobs created with every passing day. People are coming from across the country to enjoy the fruits of the Alberta advantage. It truly is a spectacular and amazing success story. My friends across the way should pay attention because they would learn a tremendous amount.

My friends mentioned health care in Alberta. I point out that even despite the big cuts of the federal government, which shut down hospitals across the country and forced people to recuperate in hallways, the Government of Alberta has actually raised its health care spending to record heights. Alberta has never spent more money on health care than it spends today. That is because of the dramatic improvement in the fiscal situation in the province of Alberta, due to the actions of the provincial government, not the actions of this government.

I want to talk about the spending record of the government. Today in Canada, and this may surprise some people, according to the national accounts, all levels of government are spending more money per person than has ever been spent before. That is a very important point to make because when we have the debate about what to do with the surplus that is coming our way, many people, including members of the Liberal government, say that we have to increase spending dramatically. The government has the 50:50 promise which, if enacted, and let us hope it does not keep this promise either, would mean $47 billion in new spending.

We saw the headlines in the National Post . Amazingly, that was the same number that the 50:50 formula would lead us to if it were ever enacted.

Forty-seven billion dollars in spending is a tremendous amount, but according to the national accounts for all levels of government, we have never spent more per person in Canada on program spending than we are spending today. I would argue that Canada does not need more spending because we have never spent more.

We know that relative to other countries in the world we spend a tremendous amount on programs of various kinds. I would argue that if we have a big surplus coming our way and we have a tremendous debt burden and extraordinarily high taxes, then it makes sense to devote that money to lowering our debt and our tax burden. To me that makes sense. I do not see why we would need to go beyond the record high levels of spending in which we are already engaging. Just because we are spending all that money does not mean we could not spend it a lot better.

When I look at how this government spends, one of the things that concerns me the most is its willingness to sacrifice necessary things to unnecessary things, or high priority things to low priority things.

Why does the government insist upon spending billions of dollars in grants and subsidies for its political friends, while farmers, for instance, in the prairies are left wanting? It makes no sense. Why do my friends across the way insist on spending billions of dollars on empire building for huge bureaucracies that do not deliver any kind of service to the public, but which burn up all that money, when those funds could be used for good things like health care, education and restoring funding to defence?

It is a shame that on the one hand the government stands at every opportunity to take a bow for the work of our peacekeeping troops around the world, while on the other hand it punishes them by putting them into perilous situations without proper equipment. That has to be the most hypocritical thing I have ever seen, but the government does it day after day.

It is profoundly wrong that the government cloaks itself in the proud heritage of the RCMP on the one hand, while on the other hand it deprives it of the basic tools it needs to do the job. We see more and more that investigations are being called off because of cost. There is not enough money to finish the investigations.

My colleague from Kootenay—Columbia is constantly pointing these things out in the House of Commons, but sadly the government does not get the message. It burns up billions of dollars in wasteful areas and at the same time deprives necessary programs of proper funding, which is fundamentally wrong.

As someone once said, those things that matter most should never be at the mercy of those things that matter least. We should engrave that over the doorways of the offices of many federal departments because sadly that happens all too often.

Here is more on Liberal rhetoric versus the Liberal record. I want to talk about productivity. My friend, the chair of the finance committee, gave an impassioned speech in this place about why we need to be more productive. He said that the government is doing all kinds of things. But consider this. If the government is so concerned about productivity, why did the finance minister in his 1995 budget speech announce that he would be hiring all kinds of auditors to audit businesses across the country in order to scrape every nickel out of them, when they were trying desperately to simply make a go of it?

My friend from Lakeland has raised the following issue in the past, and he knows it is a fact because he has constituents coming to him about it, as do I. They tell us that they are being harassed by Revenue Canada. People who have never had a problem with any kind of late payment are suddenly subject to incredible, ridiculous scrutiny by people from Revenue Canada, and they are tied up for days and days and weeks and weeks.

We know about the chiropractor in Winnipeg who faced a negative judgment by the tax courts. Revenue Canada's people swooped down on his home, even taking the cereal out of the cupboard. They took his 12 year old son's award for heroism, which was given to him by the governor general. That is the real record of the government.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The case to which the hon. member refers has been dealt with by the courts and has been found to be untrue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is debate, not a point of order.