Debates of Feb. 12th, 1999

50Th Anniversary Of Asbestos Strike

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the anniversary of an important date in Quebec's history.

The workers and the people of Quebec as a whole owe much of their freedom to the Asbestos strikers who, in 1949, threw off the shackles impeding Quebeckers' march toward modernity. The process was neither painless nor quick as their path was strewn with doubts, despondency and suffering.

Asbestos workers were able to express and demonstrate the strong desire of the people of Quebec to take control of their own destiny through sheer resistance and willpower and with dignity. The Asbestos strikers were instrumental in ushering in the Quiet Revolution, which signalled the birth of the Quebec nation but also brought significant scientific, economic and cultural developments.

Today, the Bloc Quebecois remembers and reflects on all the progress made in the past 50 years, which makes us very proud. When we think about what the future might hold, the long way we still have to go and the political shackles we have yet to throw off, we should remember Asbestos and be inspired by this lesson of resistance, perseverance and dignity.

Taxation

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this government is now collecting $1,800 more from every Canadian taxpayer than when it came to power in 1993. That is just the increase in personal income tax alone. When we pile on the Prime Minister's much loved GST and PST, and payroll taxes like CPP and EI, the tax load is simply staggering. Yet over this same five year period the government has contributed $1,150 less per taxpayer for health care. Why?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, even in difficult times, from our first budget, we started out with targeted tax cuts to help Canadians who are most in need. We started with students, Canada's disabled, the poorest families, charities and the voluntary sector.

In the last budget we were able to take 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. We introduced tax measures which cut income taxes by $7 billion over three years. We were able to benefit—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government's intention was to cut taxes, it missed its target. The government's tax policy is like Zeller's in reverse: pay more, get less. Pay more taxes, get less health care and other services.

This year the Liberals are squeezing $1,800 more in taxes from each taxpayer than they did five years ago. But during the same period they cut social program spending by $1,150 per person. When tax revenue is at an all time high, why is health care funding at an all time low?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, as we faced these difficult circumstances, one of our first priorities was to reinvest in health care. That is why our first major expenditure was to put $1.5 billion into the CHST for health care.

That shows what our priority is. I ask the hon. member to wait for our budget on Tuesday.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this government decided long ago that health care was not its number one priority. Total government taxes are at an all time high and, of course, it continues to steamroll $1,800 more in income tax out of each and every one of us. Despite this record breaking tax collection, it has gutted hospital spending by $1,150 per person.

With taxes at a record high and health care funding at a record low, why does the government continue its pay more, get less policy?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a much more fundamental question, one which goes right to the heart of the credibility of the Reform Party itself. The Reform budget calls for $54 billion in new fiscal goodies, but at the same time it is assuming growth rates for the next three years of 5.5%. That is a Bre-X budget: full of hype, but bankrupt.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have truly earned the title of the pay more, get less government of all time: pay more taxes, get less to raise one's family; pay more taxes and wait in line for health care; pay more CP and get less retirement income; pay more EI premiums and get less when you lose your job.

Why can this government not realize that it has sucked the life out of Canadian taxpayers? Why will it not give taxpayers a real break, right now, right here, today?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait four days for that when the budget comes down.

Our priority has been a balanced approach, unlike that of Reform. We have pursued a balanced approach by first getting rid of the deficit, by now paying down the debt, by re-investing in the necessary economic and social programs that are going to make a strong future for all Canadians, and by implementing a program for overall tax relief.

In the last budget we were able to give tax relief to 13 million out of 14 million Canadian taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the new Liberal ad for next Tuesday: “Come on down to our newly expanded, pay more, get less store. We guarantee you will get less for your money: less household income, less health care, less Canada pension benefits, less EI benefits. We guarantee to reduce your standard of living or our name is not the Liberal government”.

Why are taxes going up again this year, while at the same time this government continues to gut health care and every other service that Canadians are getting?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about cuts, the Reform budget would cut existing programs by $9 billion. Guess what? Not surprisingly, it has not told us where.

We remember in the last election how the Tories had an $8 billion black hole in their numbers. Now Reform has done them $1 billion better. They are perfect soulmates.

Agriculture

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The federal government has decided to compensate farmers, in light of the crisis they are facing. The Government of Quebec has compensated pork producers to help keep them from bankruptcy.

Are we to understand from the minister's remarks in the House yesterday that he intends to penalize pork producers who have received assistance from Quebec?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said in the House yesterday and that is not what will happen. Provincial safety net programs in some of the provinces have both federal and provincial money, as well as companion program money from the federal government.

When the new program is put in place, the new federal dollars that will go into the program will free up federal dollars that are already being used by the provinces in those programs to do other things with their industry, in co-operation with it, so the farmers will gain from that.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is a simple one, but the response is convoluted, to say the least.

The minister has been given clear recommendations by the advisory committee. He wants to set very low floors on income so as to penalize producers who are doing well, without taking into account their indebtedness which, at the height of the crisis, was as high as $40,000 a week.

Will Quebec's pork producers be penalized, yes or no? That's it, that's all.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, they will be treated exactly the same as every other pork producer around the country.

Canadian Rural Partnership Program

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently announced the winners of the Canadian Rural Partnership Program competition, an unofficial and unannounced political patronage event.

Can the minister tell the House what criteria are used in awarding these funds?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what she means. If the interpretation was right, she said unofficial patronage. Maybe she would want to clarify it, if she has a supplementary question.

We put in place in the rural secretariat over $3 million for pilot projects in Canada. I appointed an arm's length independent advisory body to make the selections. Those selections have been made and there are 68 pilot projects going on across Canada.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister expect us to believe he is responding to urgent problems in rural areas by coming up with funds for food security in Longueuil, Boucherville, Chambly and Châteauguay, and paying a nurse in Saint-Étienne-des-Grès in the Prime Minister's riding to supervise health care?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the hon. member is upset that the federal government is working with local communities and the provincial government to strengthen economic activity and co-operation among all of us and in rural Canada. Rural Canada is a big and important part of this country and we are going to do all we possibly can to strengthen it even more.

Health

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The whole country knows that there is a health care crisis right across Canada, in particular in emergency rooms. Canadians have now sent out a distress signal, a 911 call, for their health care system.

The minister said yesterday that he had no idea when the new money would go out to the provinces from the budget on Tuesday. There will be a budget on Tuesday, in four days. Can the minister give the House an assurance and a guarantee that the cheque will be cut on Tuesday and the provinces will get their money for this emergency situation?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the best way of dealing with the difficulties in health care is for governments to work together toward the same objective, which is to strengthen quality health care throughout the country.

In the days ahead the Government of Canada will be announcing details of the contributions it will make toward that cause, not only through money but through collaboration with our provincial partners.

I can assure the hon. member and I can assure the House that the manner in which we follow through will reflect the depth of our commitment to that cause.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister blamed the provinces. His friend Mike Harris is blaming the hospitals. This minister is sounding more and more like Mike Harris all the time: procrastinating, delaying and blaming.

Is the minister saying that he cannot cut that cheque on Tuesday? If that is the case, would he agree to stop the proceedings of this House right now to pass a unanimous resolution asking that the cheque be sent to the provinces on Tuesday? Would he agree to that if he cannot do it by himself?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in a few days the Government of Canada will table its budget and we will follow through on our commitments.

I remind the House that there are two ways to endanger medicare in this country. One way, of course, is to follow the counsel of the extreme right over there, the Reform Party, which would repeal the Canada Health Act and walk away from publicly funded health care.

The other way is to follow the counsel, the folly of the NDP, and spend until we are bankrupt. We are not going to do that. We are going to take a balanced approach. We are going to make sure that medicare is there for the long term.

The Economy

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government's dirty little secret is out. A recent headline in the Wall Street Journal read that low productivity clouds Canada's competitiveness and living standards.

The article cited a recent OECD report which said that high taxes and regulation are reducing Canada's ability to compete. The OECD predicts that in 20 years, due to high taxes and regulation, Canada's per capital GDP will drop to 15% below the OECD average.

Does the industry minister agree with what the OECD has said about Canada's productivity and dropping living standards?