Debates of Feb. 17th, 1999

The Budget

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, whose riding is very close to New Brunswick.

Does he agree with me that, in the budget, there is absolutely nothing for the unemployed—the finance minister confirmed he had used the surplus accumulated on the backs of the unemployed to reduce the debt and hand out goodies—nothing for the fishing industry, which is in a critical situation, nothing at all for small and medium size businesses and zilch for rural development?

In regions where unemployment is sky high, like my riding, some people stopped receiving EI cheques two weeks ago. The work will not resume before June and they have nothing to live on till then. People in Albert County collected employment insurance benefits for 18 weeks.

That is all they got. They did not get 19 weeks or 22 weeks, just 18, because the Minister of Human Resources Development still considers them to be from the Moncton area, in spite of the fact that they are an hour away from Moncton by car.

At the same time, with this budget, a hockey player earning $1 million a year will save $8,000 in tax this year. By comparison, people who earn $10,000—and there are many in my region who earn as little as $10,000 a year—will save $51. And we are supposed to be kissing the finance minister's feet for that today?

Did I miss something in the budget or can my colleague corroborate what I just said?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for her question. I also take this opportunity to congratulate her for hard work in looking after the interests of her constituents, particularly the unemployed in her riding.

The hon. member did not miss anything in this budget. This is indeed what is happening. There is nothing in it for the unemployed, in spite of the fact that only 36% of them qualify for EI benefits even though 100% of them contributed to the fund. There is nothing for the unemployed in this budget.

The government did not think about seasonal workers. It did not think about the so-called spring gap, which is coming soon. It did not think about resource regions. Worse still—and I do not know if the member noticed it in the budget—the government dared to cut $100 million from regional development.

This country no longer makes any sense. Canadians will have to mobilize against the employment insurance program—it does not make sense anymore—against puppet ministers who no longer have any powers in this cabinet, to get them to listen to reason and to get them to fight for the real interests of Quebeckers and Canadians, the real interests of the unemployed. I invite my dear colleague to join us.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's comments he addressed the issue of the CHST adjustments with regard to British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario relieving the ceiling on the per capita payments.

I would like to ask the member whether he has a problem with transfers being made to each province on a per capita basis so that each and every Canadian gets their fair share. Is the member telling Canadians that equal shares for all is not fair?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with a lot of things in this budget. I have a problem with the fact that the employment insurance fund is being used to give the richest members of society tax breaks instead of providing relief for the unemployed.

Those earning $250,000 get a $3,800 tax break, while the poorest members of our society, middle income earners in particular, who are helping the nation put its finances in order, get next to no tax relief. I have a problem with that.

I also have a problem with the fact that the provinces have isolated Quebec. I have a big problem with the fact that they sold out, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta in particular, and signed the social union framework, kowtowing to the Prime Minister and agreeing to all sorts of interference in areas of jurisdiction recognized as provincial in the Constitution of Canada. I have a big problem with that.

Nor am I too happy about the fact that the Liberal Party members and ministers from Quebec did nothing to restore equity in transfer payments to Quebec and federal procurement of goods and services, or regional development policies, where Quebec has come out the loser in the last eight years. Every year, there is a $600 million shortfall, $2 billion in goods and services. And it is even worse with respect to research and development.

I am disgusted with the Liberal members from Quebec for not fighting to get Quebec compensated for harmonizing the GST with the QST. We are talking about $2 billion. They compensated the maritimes, with more patronage appointments, as they did elsewhere. Quebec is entitled to $2 billion in compensation for harmonizing the GST and the QST several years earlier. I have a problem with that.

I also have a problem with the fact that, just days after a first ministers meeting where it was agreed to increase health transfers only and to use the time-honoured formula, yesterday the funding formula was unilaterally changed to Quebec's disadvantage. I have a problem with that as well.

Does that answer the member's question?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity today to participate in the debate on the 1999 budget.

As the government repeated over and over again in the weeks leading up to this budget, this was to be the health budget. This was to be the health budget. It was supposed to be the moment when the government would provide us with the remedy to the health system in crisis, a crisis caused by its policies. But perhaps even more important, this was the moment that the government was to rise and set out a vision for the future of health care in this country.

The best that can be said about the so-called health budget is that at least the federal Liberal government finally acknowledged that it was its policies that were causing the crisis across this country in our health care system.

[An hon. member]

It took a while.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

It took a while, that is for sure, and it took a lot of Canadians suffering and bringing their pain to the attention of this government to finally get the Liberals to admit that their policies had put our health care system on the critical list.

This was not always the case. Four years ago when this government began to hack and slash away at health care funding, the Prime Minister and the finance minister were busy telling Canadians that even with an aging population, even with the rapidly changing medical technology, even with the escalation in the cost of prescription drugs, somehow we could spend less on health care without any real consequences. Regrettably every Canadian knows today that there were consequences. There were severe consequences.

Now we have to start repairing the damage done by that hacking and slashing by a government with no vision whatsoever for the future of our health care system and no regard for the damage that it was doing to the health care system of today and tomorrow.

As the Liberal government took over $20 billion out of the money that it was transferring to the provinces, emergency wards were growing more and more crowded. As the federal share of health care funding fell to just 11%, and let us remember that the federal share of health care spending was once 50%, and as the government dragged it down to 11%, the waiting lists grew longer and longer. More sick patients were sent home from hospital before they were ready and without a home care program there to look after their needs.

The Liberals began to blame the provinces. Again this afternoon in question period we saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health blame the provinces for the inadequacy of home care. Then of course some of premiers, like Mike Harris, blamed the hospitals. For all I know some of the harried hospital administrators in this country tried to blame the patients for being sick. Blame everybody, blame anybody, but do not accept the responsibility yourself. That has been the federal government's position.

If nothing else can be said about yesterday's budget, this government has finally admitted that it has been a major cause of the health care crisis across this country today. Canadians have been accusing this government of wilful neglect of our health care system, of tearing down health care, and yesterday the finance minister finally pleaded guilty. That is the good news in this budget and we agree with those who say that is welcome news.

I propose that as part of the finance minister's penalty, as part of his penance as my clergy colleague would say, the Minister of Finance should be required to perform some community service. Surely that is a reasonable proposition. Surely he should be required to serve some time. Serve time in an emergency ward. Go and help the families and help the staff cope with the overcrowded waiting rooms his policies have created. Surely that is a reasonable sentence. For the real test of this so-called health budget will take place in the emergency wards, in the surgical wards and the chronic care facilities around this country.

Once the budget day dust settles and Canadians see how health funding figures have been inflated and exaggerated by this government, they will be looking to see if this health budget makes a real difference in the quality of care they and their families actually receive from the health care system. I honestly hope it will make a difference. We all hope it will make a difference because Canadians really deserve a break after so many years of such devastating cuts to our health care system.

I fear that the crisis is not over. I think most Canadians know in their hearts that the health care crisis is not over. The Liberal government has let the problems get so bad and it has been so slow to respond to that crisis, so slow to offer the needed injection of money, that I fear it will be a very long time before Canadians will see any really significant improvement in the health care system.

The Liberals have inflated the appearance of the new money by announcing five years of spending in advance. Announcing five years of spending at one time seems like a neat trick on the face of it, but at the end of the day this budget will only get us back to where we were four years ago. That is with no accounting for inflation, no accounting for the continuing escalation in drug costs, no accounting for the increased cost of caring for an aging population or any of the other additional costs associated with new treatments and new medical technologies.

Canadians do not want their health care system going backward. They do not want us being dragged backward and they do not want us just to be stuck in repairing the damage this government has caused. They want some vision for the future. They want some leadership in how we are going to implement a vision for health care in the future.

Canadians are desperate for some action on home care and pharmacare. They know from experience that the practice of medicine is changing and that patients are being sent home from hospitals earlier and earlier after surgery and other treatments. In theory that is a welcome development. We all know some patients are better off at home earlier if—and it is an if that this government seems not to understand or to be willing to take any responsibility for—the home supports are in place to ensure people are safe and on the road to recovery.

Right now the reality is quite different. Today and for some time to come, and this government has provided no assurance that it is not going to continue for a very long time, countless numbers of people, mainly women, daughters, mothers and wives, are pitching in. Another layer of responsibility is being added to their family responsibilities and to their work lives, to bear the burden of providing care in the home for which they are not trained and for which the support is not present.

Early hospital release and outpatient treatment also mean—and this is sometimes lost and apparently this government does not understand—that many more prescription drug costs are passed on to the patient and the patient's family. Before those costs would have been covered as part of the hospital stay. As a result of rushing patients out of hospital and placing them in their own homes, a double burden is being heaped on those families because with very few exceptions, the costs of those drugs are borne by the out of hospital patients and their families.

Developing a health care system where Canadians all across the country can count on publicly provided home care and where all Canadians have a drug plan must be a top priority for our health care system. The Liberal Party promised home care and prescription pharmacare during the last election. There was no talk then about how this is of no concern to the federal government. “This is not our responsibility; it is the responsibility exclusively of the provinces” is the explanation we heard today when we raised the concerns again about home care.

We would have thought that in a budget which the government itself trumpeted as the health budget, it would have proposed some initiatives on home care and pharmacare. But no, not a hint that the federal government will offer any leadership or any initiatives in these critical areas. It is this absence of forward looking vision that is the budget's biggest disappointment. If the government is not going to take action on home care and on prescription drugs in what the government itself calls the health care budget, then when will the government ever take action on home care and pharmacare?

The second theme of the budget was tax reduction. At the outset the finance minister appeared to strike the right note on tax reform. In his opening statement he said “Most importantly we must always be fair. If at the end of the day the books of the country are better and the lives of Canadians are not, we will not have succeeded”. These are fine words and it is a darn shame that the finance minister did not act on those words when he brought forward his budget.

For a budget supposedly designed to improve the lives of Canadians, the Liberal government gave the biggest breaks of all to those with the biggest incomes. Those are the facts. That is not Liberal spin. That is not opposition rhetoric. Those are the facts of this budget.

The Liberal government gave most of the tax breaks to those least in need of them.

With the elimination of the surtax to those earning over $50,000, the budget delivered over $1 billion of the $2.8 billion tax package, or 35%, to 17% of the highest earning taxpayers. I guess that is Liberal tax fairness. What that means is taking advice from the Reform Party to our right; what that means in terms of fairness is that the millionaire gets a tax break of $8,000 while anyone earning less than $50,000 does not get one red cent of a tax break in this budget.

Surely that $1 billion could have been better and more fairly spent on people who desperately need help in this country: the one million kids living in poverty who will get no help from this budget; the 800,000 unemployed who are no longer eligible to receive unemployment insurance because the government has gutted the unemployment insurance program; the 1,000 workers at Devco who are losing their jobs, their source of income and their pension entitlement after 20 or more years on the job sacrificing, as we were reminded this weekend by a coal miner's wife, their health, their limbs and in too many instances their lives; and the hundreds of thousands of homeless people crowding the streets and relying on food banks and shelters for sustenance.

The child tax benefit was boosted by $300 million in order to raise the floor at which the benefit is phased out. This change is to be welcomed, but it will only provide very modest additional relief to families with incomes over $26,000 and about $184 a year for families between $40,000 and $60,000 with two children.

The major problem with this measure, with the federal government's child tax benefit break, is that it fails to do anything for the poorest of poor children, for the poorest of poor families.

Those families on social assistance who have been struggling to get into the paid workforce or who are at home raising their young children without the benefit of the oft promised child care program from the government, another broken promise, will continue to go with no benefits whatsoever from the so-called child tax benefit extension.

Three years ago the finance minister sold this child benefit as the answer to child poverty. Since the unanimous adoption in parliament of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent's motion in 1989 to eliminate child poverty in this country by the year 2000, the number of poor kids in Canada has actually risen by over 500,000. It has not declined but has risen under this government's policy by 500,000. Today one child in five in the country lives in poverty. Over one million of them are in families on social assistance. These children will receive no help whatsoever from the budget. Not a single cent.

How does the Minister of Finance measure this breach of fairness? How does the finance minister explain this breach of fairness? He has balanced his books but the lives of the most destitute of Canadians remain untouched.

The finance minister has provided some general assistance to all taxpayers by raising the basic personal exemption to $7,131 from $6,456. This gives about $124 more to individuals. That is 40 cents a day. The government likes to point out how many people have been taken off the income tax rolls by this measure. However they will still be forced to pay the GST. They receive no break there at all.

Our priority would have been to implement a 1% reduction in the GST? In that way all Canadians would have benefited and it would not have depended on their earnings level. That surely would have been a fairer way to bring in tax relief and would have been a job generator.

The most eloquent and most telling part of the budget, however, is in its silences. Health care is not the only emergency we face. Indeed, many cities across the country have officially declared homelessness a national emergency. Not in living memory have so many Canadians found themselves living on the street and without adequate shelter.

They understand that homelessness can be a complex problem including poverty, unemployment, mental health, addiction, family breakdown and many other problems, but surely complex problems require extra effort and special attention.

The Liberal government has done exactly the opposite. Faced with this complex problem it has simply walked away from its responsibilities. It is in the process of getting out of any responsibility for social housing at a time when its participation was never more needed.

The Liberal government's approach to homelessness has been to simply walk on the other side of the street.

There are many other evidences of silences in the budget: silence on child care, silence on support for parents, silence on helping young people finance their education or get the training they need, and silence on eliminating wage discrimination and pay inequities. These silences speak volumes about the extent to which the government is out of touch with the lives of ordinary Canadians.

If the government were in tune with the lives and the values of ordinary Canadians, it would not engage in the endless self-congratulations that we have seen in the last 24 hours. It would accept that in a democratic society we have a responsibility to provide for the most vulnerable.

It is clear that the government lacks the sensitivity and the humility to acknowledge that it has failed to provide for the most vulnerable Canadians. That is why we on this side of the House have our work cut out for us.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a question. My first comment has to do with the issue of poverty. The member has raised poverty in this speech and other speeches. I congratulate her for it. It is an important issue. Also she correctly pointed out that it was a complex problem for which there is no simple solution.

She dealt with issues such as mental health, physical disabilities and alcohol and drug abuse addictions. She also mentioned that family breakdown was the single largest contributor to not just child poverty but family poverty in Canada.

My question has to do with health because it was a health budget and the member dealt with that. In view of the fact that pursuant to the Canada Health Act transfers from the federal government are directed specifically to hospitals and doctors and the delivery of services and ancillary areas are clearly and constitutionally the responsibility of the provinces, does she believe that the federal government, notwithstanding the social union accord developed with the agreement of all provinces except Quebec, should have unilaterally proceeded with something to do with pharmacare and home care and ignored provincial jurisdiction?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me say how much I welcome that question. What I fear is that I will not have enough time to deal with the many questions raised. Let me go right to the heart of it.

I noticed the member did not ask the question about what we should have done for poverty. Let me say what they should not have done, and that is ignore it as they did.

Let me go to health care. He raised the question of whether the government should have totally ignored that delivery of health services is provincial, acted unilaterally and shown some leadership on home care and pharmacare programs. I have two responses.

Where were those thoughts when the Liberal Party went all over the country during the last election campaign specifically promising a national program on home care and a national program on pharmacare? The Liberal government acted unilaterally when it did that and it continues to do so.

Tommy Douglas used to say it was a darn shame that we have only put the first two parts of a universal health care system in place: hospital insurance and provision for physician services. We have yet to put the third and perhaps the most important part of the health care system in place. That means expanding what the federal government now includes in its description of universal health care to add to medical services and hospital care a range of other services such as home care and pharmacare that are desperately needed by Canadians.

I do not believe for one minute that any provincial government which cares about its citizens would stand and oppose the federal government showing some leadership and taking some initiative to expand the insurable services under health care. Until we do that we will not have a universal health care system.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I wish to congratulate my New Democratic Party colleague for her great sensitivity to the less fortunate, particularly children.

As I said last week, everyone agreed back in 1989 that we should eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Today, the number of poor children stands at 1.5 million, a 500,000 increase.

What this means is that, since 1993, this government has shown no compassion. This is terrible, when children do not get enough to eat, when they go to school without a lunch, when they do not have proper clothes to wear and are made fun of, and at the same time the taxes of rich Canadians are going down. I call that a scandal, an outright scandal.

I hope the members opposite will agree with the NDP leader that this is a scorched earth policy, and that is exactly what I mean.

I ask my wonderfully sensitive colleague how we are going to get to zero poverty in the near future, if it is possible at all, because I am losing hope. Fortunately, we already have a zero deficit. However, we must get to zero poverty in four or five years.

Zero poverty should be everyone's goal. How can we make them understand? I do not know if they have it in them. How can we get together and make them understand that zero poverty should be everyone's goal?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague's comments.

It is very true we have witnessed under this government an increase in the incidence of child poverty that has added 500,000 more children to the ranks of poverty in the country. It is a disgrace.

That is why we challenge the government on its sense of priorities. What does it say about the priorities of the government and the finance minister, that they would bring in a measure which gives $8,000 extra to every millionaire in the country while there is not a single benefit for the one million children in the country who do not have enough food to eat? What does it say about the government's priorities?

It is not that the government does not know what can be done and what must be done to address the problem of poverty. It gutted the unemployment insurance system. Many families are not receiving the income replacement for which they have paid insurance premiums.

The government has so slashed federal transfers to provinces that the social assistance system is no longer working to keep people out of poverty. One of the things about which I will have a lot more to say in the days ahead is that it is absolutely clear, as the government congratulates itself on its health budget, that it has no intention of increasing transfers for education and for social welfare over the next five years.

With that so clear, so apparent, so transparent in the budget, there is every reason to be even more fearful about the lot of over one million poor children.

In conclusion, that is why it is time, 10 years later, after all-party endorsement of a resolution to eliminate child poverty within a decade, for us to rededicate ourselves and make the elimination of child poverty the real millennium project for all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the government laying out its priorities on health care. The member is absolutely right. It was health care.

One province has already indicated it will use the money to hire more nurses, to reduce waiting lists for cancer and neonatal services and to expand home care services. We have decided on our priority.

The hon. member hired the former Saskatchewan NDP cabinet minister who said “One cannot live on borrowed money forever. Sometimes it catches up to you. You cannot mortgage your children's future to the point where you can live high. It only leaves them with a debt”. Take his advice. Stop saying spend, spend, spend. We laid out our priorities. It is a health budget. The member should stand up and applaud.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about spend, spend. This is about priorities. The record will show that the priority of this government is to give an $8,000 benefit to millionaires and not one red cent to one million children in this country who do not have enough food.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. I wish to inform the House that the amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are profoundly disappointed with this government's budget. This was summed up best in today's

Globe and Mail

editorial: “Poor marks for the finance minister's budget”. It said that he has left the impression of a man more interested in short term political popularity and budget sleight of hand than laying the foundations for a stronger economy in the long run”.

This is a very important time for our country. We are entering the 21st century, a time of global opportunity. The decisions and choices we make today as a country can either limit or reduce the choices we have as Canadians in the next century. We fear that the minister is making the wrong choices.

The Liberal government did not address the fact that Canada currently has the highest personal income taxes of any of the G-7 countries, the highest tax burden of any of the industrialized countries.

The Liberal government did not address the fact that our productivity growth has been the worst in the G-7 over the last two decades. Our incomes, after taxes and inflation, have been declining while our neighbours to the south have enjoyed soaring incomes.

We live in a world with unprecedented change. Globalization and the forces of technology are driving that change.

Governments will be successful in bringing their countries into the new millennium to be full participants in the global economy only if they have the vision and leadership to do so.

Our party believes in the free market system but we also believe that all Canadians deserve an opportunity to participate in that economy. They need access to the levers of the free market economy. Without that we will not have the type of society that Canadians want, a prosperous society, a society where all Canadians have equality of opportunity regardless of where they are from in the country, regardless of the income level or the socioeconomic status of their parents. We want to see all Canadians participate in economic opportunity.

This government really has no meaningful agenda. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have demonstrated no real vision. This is a government on cruise control. It is a caretakership government, a government without real leadership.

This was nowhere more evident than during last summer's dollar debacle when the debate surrounded the dollar and the dollar went to record lows of sub 65 cents. At that time the Prime Minister actually had the economic naivety, I should say audacity perhaps, to say it was good for tourism, implying that somehow the lower dollar could help the Canadian economy, implying that we can devalue our way to prosperity.

The logical corollary of his argument would be that if we reduce the dollar to zero by high taxes and productivity inhibiting policies ultimately we would become the greatest exporting nation in the world.

We all know a country cannot devalue its way to prosperity. To achieve success and prosperity in a global environment requires a country that values productivity, that values its people and their opportunities.

Instead of looking into the next century the Liberals are focused on the next election. The finance minister is focused on the next leadership campaign. Canadians deserve better than this. Economic policies are not short term in nature. They require consistency, a long term focus and they require vision.

Last year when the government even had a vague whiff of a surplus what did it do with that? It took $2.5 billion from Canadians for the millennium scholarship fund, $2.5 billion out of last year's budget, and stocked it away for the future. It took it from Canadians who needed the economic stimulus, who needed the investment in the economy last year and said they could not have it.

That is clearly unacceptable. Not only does it offend the auditor general but it offends Canadians and it offends good economic policy.

We have seen the results of five years of this government. Those results have been a beleaguered health care system, a health care system that is not there when Canadians need it. The tax burden has grown from $112 billion in 1993 to over $150 billion last year under this government.

What we have here is a budget surplus and a leadership deficit. Canadians deserve a full opportunity to succeed. That is the least they deserve. Our leader, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, said recently that sound economic and fiscal policies are the bedrock of any country that wants to function effectively in the modern world and economic growth is the means to achieve all the goals we set for our society.

There are some dire warnings out there about the Canadian economy from organizations like the IMF and the OECD, one of the world's greatest economic think tanks on these types of issues. The OECD, headed by a former Liberal cabinet minister, warned recently that current trends could “lead to a substantial decline in Canada's per capita income relative to the OECD average”.

In short, Canada is falling behind our trading partners, behind other countries, and Canadians will pay the price in the future for a government's lack of vision now and the Liberal government's lack of courage in tackling the real problems facing Canadians and the Canadian economy.

Canadians and our party understand the importance of fiscal responsibility. In 1979 Joe Clark introduced the first fiscally responsible budget of a generation, which was defeated for purely partisan purposes. The last P.C. government reduced the deficit to GDP ratio from 9% when it took office to around 5% when it left office.

The real price to reduce the deficit has been paid by Canadians, Canadians who have seen their health care system slashed, Canadians who have seen $19 billion taken from their health care system, Canadians who have seen taxes rise dramatically from $114 billion to $151 billion, EI premiums kept at a ridiculously high rate and benefits slashed. Only 30% of applicants or those who pay into the system of EI actually qualify when they need it. This is clearly unacceptable.

The Liberals have fought the deficit by charging Canadians more and giving the provinces and Canadians less. They also had some help. The

Economist

said that much of the credit for deficit reduction goes to the passage of time and to successful reforms implemented by the previous government, including free trade, deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy and of course the GST that the Liberals used to be opposed to but now embrace and which the Prime Minister claims on foreign trips to have invented.

Good government will require better choices than this government is making. The previous government gave it the opportunities to make the right choices, because that government had the vision to make the right choices.

In this budget there is no tax relief for Canadians. I think it is very important that point be made clear. What we have is a fiscal shell game and an illusion that there are tax benefits in this budget, but in fact there are not. Cutting taxes and giving more money back to Canadians who have borne the brunt of deficit reduction is not important to this government. Government members feel they have cut the deficit. We see them over there like trained seals during question period applauding their efforts. They feel they cut the deficit. Canadians paid the price for reducing and eliminating the deficit and Canadians deserve a break now.

The Liberals increased the basic personal exemption a little in this budget and they said it will take 200,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. What about the 1.4 million low income Canadians who have been dragged kicking and screaming on to the tax rolls by this government by refusing to reindex tax brackets?

There has been a huge tax grab in the EI fund, $19 billion this government has taken from workers and employers, workers who need that fund during difficult times, seasonal workers. During a transitional period, during a time of immense change, both economically driven and technologically driven, there are regions of our country where people need help to make that type of change. This government has turned its back on regions of this country, including Atlantic Canada. The message was very clear in the last federal election. I would add that the message will be clear in the next federal election as well.

This government is practising a give and take tax policy where it will give some tax breaks through the front door but then through the refusal to reindex tax brackets will take it through the back door.

Bracket creep is costing Canadians around $1 billion per year. This government has not addressed that issue. The budget does not address the brain drain issue, the fact that the tax disparity between Canada and the U.S. remains immense. In Canada one reaches top marginal tax rate at about $65,000. In the U.S. it is around $400,000 Canadian. In Canada the top marginal tax rate, federal and provincial, is about 50%. In the U.S. it is about 40%.

The members opposite will say yes, but things are better here. The fact is things used to be better when we had a decent health care system, when we had a health care system people could rely on. But for the difference in take home pay after taxes, Canadians are discovering they can buy health care in the U.S. when they need it.

The fact is no one in the House or at least in our party advocates a private health care system, because we believe in a single user pay system that works for Canadians and is provided by the government. We believe very strongly in that because all Canadians, regardless of income levels, deserve access to a quality health care system. This government has devastated the health care system and at the same time has continually raised taxes, driving some of our best and brightest south of the border.

The EI premiums are an extraordinarily regressive tax. Payroll taxes are particularly regressive. Someone making $39,000 per year will pay the same amount of EI premiums as someone making $300,000 per year. This is the government's idea of a fair tax policy.

In terms of corporate taxes, in June the Mintz report was tabled to the finance committee. It pointed out some of the disparities between business taxes in Canada and business taxes in the U.S. and our other trading partners. It pointed out that one of the biggest impediments we have to economic growth and productivity in Canada is our tax system and particularly our business tax or corporate tax system. There was not a mention of really addressing the fundamental issues of corporate taxation in the budget.

We will continue to lose foreign investment to other countries because the budget has not addressed the fundamental issues. In time we will continue to see substandard job growth in Canada. The government said unemployment has gone down in recent years. It has gone down in the U.S. as well. In the U.S. the unemployment rate is at the lowest point in 20 years. Canada maintains an unemployment rate double that of the U.S. That is clearly unacceptable.

When we talk about lower taxes it is very easy to not really explain how important it is to the lives of average Canadians. We advocate tax reduction for three reasons.

Canadians need a break. Canadians have seen their disposable incomes decline by 9% in recent years. During the same period U.S. disposable incomes increased by 11%. Canadians need jobs and opportunities. In every jurisdiction high taxes kill jobs. In a global environment it is not possible to maintain an artificially high tax rate. We need to ensure that our tax system is competitive and thus Canadians can be competitive in the global environment.

Job creation has been led by Ontario and Alberta. Why? The governments in Ontario and Alberta have recognized that lower taxes create economic opportunity and jobs. By lowering taxes in Ontario the Harris government has actually taken in more tax revenues. It is imperative that the government learn from some of its more rational provinces in terms of appropriate tax systems.

What was really cynical in this budget is it mentioned the homeless but there was not one single initiative for the homeless. How dare the Minister of Finance mention the homeless but not provide one single initiative to help the homeless.

The budget may talk about poverty, and it is a major issue. One in five Canadian children is living in poverty. We had a debate in the House sponsored by our party on the issue of poverty. Why are children living in poverty? Their parents are living in poverty. We have slashed access to EI benefits for seasonal workers in regions like Atlantic Canada without providing anything in the wake of those draconian slashes. We have maintained artificially high taxes which have inhibited job growth. More Canadians need jobs.

The parents of these children who are living in poverty want to work. They want opportunities to compete and to succeed. The best way to ensure this is to reduce the tax burden on all Canadians to create economic growth and opportunity such that these people can participate in the economy.

In my riding there are many constituents with families living on less than $10,000 per year.

Members opposite have dismissed poverty as something that really is not there or they have said that we should change the way we measure poverty because the way we currently measure living in poverty in Canada is statistically incorrect. I heard a member of the Reform Party compare poverty in Canada to third world poverty by saying there may be some Canadians who are starving but not many.

In my Canada and our party's Canada it is unacceptable that any Canadian is starving or that any child is living in poverty. The only way we are going to change that is to recognize that we need to attach the hands of Canadians to the levers of economic growth, get this government of high taxes and high regulation out of the way and provide Canadians with the opportunity to compete and succeed.

This was supposed to be the health care budget. The last budget was the education budget. I forgot that for a moment because the results of the last budget, being an education budget, were fairly nebulous. There was a $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund taken out of last year's books. Of course it will not benefit any Canadian until after the year 2000, even then it will only benefit only 4% of students seeking higher education.

Interestingly enough, the year after the Liberals' education budget, 12,000 graduates have declared bankruptcy. I shudder to think what will happen after the health care budget but it cannot be any worse than what the Liberals have done before.

The minister expects to be commended for an $11.5 billion reinvestment in health care, which will only bring health care spending up by the year 2004 to the 1995 level. That ignores the $3 billion yearly growth in the cost of health care due to inflation and an aging population. That would be like thanking an arsonist for burning down your house and then rebuilding a smaller one on the same site eight years later. This is ludicrous.

The way the Liberals are spending on health care, they have cut indiscriminately since 1993 and now they are preparing to spend indiscriminately. Nowhere in the budget was there mention of engaging the volunteer sector to better maximize the health care spending of organizations like the VON which have served Canadians well in the past and will continue to do so in the future with very little help from this government. What is the strategy to address the fundamental issues of pharmacare and home care? What about palliative care with an aging population? Where is the strategy for developing a real program working with the provinces to provide not just a more expensive health care system but a better health care system?

We will be addressing issues in the budget debate over the next several days. This budget has clearly not dealt with some of the fundamental issues in the Canadian economy and health care system. On the economic front this government has not set firm debt reduction targets. Again the government is ducking the real issues.

I remind the Minister of Finance who recently said the economy is clicking on all cylinders that the economy continues to sputter for many Canadians and that we want to see the economy firing on all cylinders. The minister talks about the government's strong fundamentals. John Kenneth Galbraith, Canadian ex-patriot and economist, once said beware of governments that say their fundamentals are strong. That is very appropriate for this government.

Let us look at the fundamentals. We have an unemployment rate twice that of the U.S. We have record high rates of personal bankruptcy, a negative savings rate, the highest personal debt rates ever. The IMF and the OECD are saying cut taxes. Brain drain is taking our best and brightest. The economy is not clicking on all cylinders and we want to see it click on all cylinders for all Canadians.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak but after hearing the outrageous comments of my friend from Kings—Hants I felt compelled to do so. Transport is my game but I have a night job, trying to look after some of the interests of the government in Canada's largest city. There are 4.6 million people in the greater Toronto area. We are particularly sensitive to the plight of the homeless in that city and in other cities across the country. I take umbrage at my friend for saying there is nothing in this budget to deal with homelessness. He obviously has not read the budget.

I believe this is the first time there has been a specific mention of this plight in any document of a budgetary nature in Canadian history. I think that took great courage on the part of the Minister of Finance. We at the federal level or at any level of government do not want to own this issue.

This is an issue that has to be dealt with by all levels of government. All Canadians have a stake in dealing with the plight of the homeless across the country.

Let me tell the House what this government has done in the past to deal with this issue. We have the youth employment strategy. We have the RRAP to fix up residential housing. We have made facilities such as armouries available in Toronto and in other cities.

In this budget $11.5 billion has been allocated for health care. Thirty per cent of the homeless on the streets of cities like Toronto are people who have mental illnesses and who can be institutionalized. It is up to the provinces. It is up to people like Mike Harris, their soul mate, to say we now have the money, the money has come through health from the federal government, we can deal with this issue.

One last point is that the Mulroney government put the cap on the old Canada assistance plan. What that meant to the wealthiest provinces like Alberta, B.C. and Ontario was that they were restricted in the amount of money they spent on social services. We are lifting the cap on the CHST and that means Mike Harris and everybody else can now start to treat the homeless as a priority, as they should.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his gentle and erudite comments.

The minister said the Liberals are sensitive to the issue of the homeless, which was similar to their treatment in the budget documents. It was kind of a warm, touchy feely way to mention the issue.

On behalf of the homeless I want to thank the government for mentioning the homeless in its budget. That is cold comfort to the homeless. There is a role for the federal government to work with the provinces and to work with the municipalities to develop a real strategy to deal with the homeless.

When I said the government did not address the issue of the homelessness and that it only mentioned it in its budget for political purposes, I was quoting one of the heads of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities who said during an interview last night that it was another level of government that has to deal on the front lines with the homeless.

This is similar to the way the government handles a number of economic issues or social issues. It talks about the homeless but there is no way that the government provides a program to deal with the homeless.

It talks about tax cuts as well. After this budget someone making $39,000 per year will pay more taxes due to rising payroll taxes. This is a government that likes to talk the talk but it seldom walks the walk on important issues like homelessness.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia is really concerned about the crocodile tears shed by the Minister of Transport and his Liberal colleagues when it comes to homelessness.

If John Cleghorn of the Royal Bank makes $2 million to $3 million he gets a $16,000 tax break. If Al Flood of the CIBC makes $3 million he gets a $24,000 tax break. Instead of giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Canadians, would that money not have gone to better use, for example, to compensate for all hepatitis C victims?

I speak not on behalf of or for the member for Saint John, but would that money not have gone to better use for our beloved merchant marines who have been struggling against this government to try to get recognition and compensation for their work? Instead this government in this budget turns around and gives the wealthiest Canadians tax breaks. Would he not agree that is a shame?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

This government is not interested in making the tax system more progressive. It believes quite strongly in a regressive tax policy.

I need not remind the member of the EI tax, the most regressive tax there is. I mentioned earlier that someone making $39,000 per year will pay the same amount of EI premiums as somebody making $300,000 per year. That is fundamentally unfair.

I would advocate tax reform in Canada that would build a fairer tax system. I would also advocate a flatter tax system. However the most pernicious, offensive and regressive taxes in Canada right now are our payroll taxes and EI premiums which are excessively high because the government is using them to pad its books and make its bottom line look better.

It is important to recognize that while the government is in the black, Canadians, particularly low income Canadians, are in the red.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kings—Hants used what he thought was a clever turn of phrase when he complained about a budget surplus and a leadership deficit. I submit that when that party was in power there was a $42 billion budget deficit and a leadership surplus that the Canadian public dealt with by firing every member of that party but two in 1993.

Would the member not agree that when 36 cents of every tax dollar collected goes into paying off a $560 billion deficit created by that party, it is contributing more to creating homelessness because the government of the day did not have the money as a result of the overspending of that party when it was in power?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has been spending too much time asking softball questions of ministers opposite, because that is a softball question.

The fact is that he speaks with some level of authority about building deficits. As a Liberal he understands that fully, because under Liberal governments our deficit in Canada grew from zero to $38 billion by the time the previous Conservative government took office in 1984, which was 9% of our GDP. The Conservative government reduced that from 9% to about 5% of GDP by the time it left office. Not only did it start deficit reduction. It also implemented the policies which made it possible for this government to eliminate the deficit.

I would love for the hon. member to explain to the House where he stood on free trade, where he stood on the GST, and where he stood on deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. Where did he stand on these policies? He probably did not stand anywhere except in opposition to them.

The fact is that he is absolutely right about leadership. Leadership is necessary to address issues. There is no leadership in the government to provide visionary policies that will ensure the next government, which will be a PC government, has the opportunities provided by strong visionary policies by the government now.

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

Mr. Speaker, after hearing a couple of hours of rhetoric I hope to be able to communicate to Canadians what was in the budget rather than what most members opposite believe in their own minds and use to their own political advantage.

Yesterday in the House the Minister of Finance delivered his sixth budget. It describes a vision of higher standard of living and a better quality of life for all Canadians. The budget articulated a well thought out vision for tomorrow. It also reinforced a plan for today, a plan that will make that vision a reality.

Maintaining sound, economic and financial management is certainly an essential component of the plan, but restoring order to the nation's finances is not, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday, an end in itself. He indicated in his speech yesterday that a better standard of living also requires us to invest in key priorities such as health care. It calls for continued tax relief. That is exactly what the 1999 budget proposes to do.

In my remarks today I should like to examine the fiscal and economic foundation on which we are building this vision.

As a nation our capacity to strengthen the health care system, to provide tax relief and to make other strategic investments depends upon the strength of this foundation. For the second consecutive year the government has brought down a budget that is balanced or better. Canada has moved from a deficit of $42 billion before the government came to office to a $3.5 billion surplus last year.

In the current fiscal year the government will again balance its books or better. It will be the first time since 1951-52 that Canada has been deficit free for two consecutive years. In fact by the accounting standards used in most other industrialized countries the government will post a financial surplus for the third year in 1998-99. It is this fiscal hat trick that is remarkable, not only in Canadian terms but in global terms. In the global arena Canada is the first G-7 country to post three consecutive surpluses in this decade.

As the Minister of Finance confirmed in his speech yesterday, the government is committed to keeping federal budgets balanced or better in both 1999-2000 and the year after that.

When we came to office Canada had a history of deficit financing. Today deficit financing is history. As recently as the early 1990s Canada's budgetary position was worse than that of any other G-7 country. Now, when making comparisons across countries, adjustments must be made for differences in accounting practices and in the distribution of responsibilities among the various levels of government.

In light of these considerations the most appropriate measure is the total government budget balance. On a comparable statistical basis our total national accounts based government sector deficit reached a high of 8% of GDP in 1992. It was more than double the 3.8% G-7 average at the time. Today our position is better than that of any other country in the G-7. It has improved each and every year since 1992.

It is our success in balancing the books that makes it possible for the government to consider significant investments in priority areas. First, our success in the fight against the deficit has made it possible to begin providing broad based tax relief for Canadians, both in last year's budget and again in this year's budget.

Next, the fiscal balance in previous budgets has made it possible for us to make a significant investment in health care in this year's budget. This investment, which amounts to $11.5 billion over the next five years, is the largest single new investment the government has every made since coming to office over five years ago.

The 1999 budget also includes a $1.4 billion investment aimed at strengthening Canada's health care system through additional resources for information systems, health research, as well as prevention and other health initiatives. This budget and this investment in health care are more than just transfers to provinces. It is all about ensuring that there is accountability, ensuring that there is investment in prevention, and ensuring that there is research in service delivery. It is all about ensuring that Canadians in every province now have a better opportunity of receiving better quality health care.

Fourth, we have proposed investments that will build on the Canadian opportunities strategy by advancing Canada's knowledge and innovation agenda. We said from the beginning that the plan we laid out in 1994 would be followed. Again, in this last budget we are building on previous budgets and building on the Canadian opportunities strategy, a strategy that ensures opportunity for individuals to acquire skills that they need in order to compete in the upcoming millennium. This budget invests and builds on that strategy and advances Canada's knowledge and innovation agenda. That will provide direct support for employment, particularly for youth.

Even with the important investments announced in this year's budget, Canada's program spending as a percentage of GDP is on a clear and downward trend. In 1993-94 program spending amounted to 16.6% of GDP. For 1998-99 program spending is expected to drop to 12.6% of GDP. By 2000-01 it should fall to 12% of GDP.

This will be the lowest level of program spending relative to the size of the economy in 50 years, and that is while we are continuing to invest in Canadian priorities: health, education, providing tax relief and continuing to pay down debt.

Focusing our spending on key priorities and putting an end to decades of deficit financing have allowed the government to make significant inroads in its fight against the debt. Last year Canada's debt to GDP ratio saw its largest single yearly decline since 1956-57. It fell from 70.3% to 66.9%. For the current fiscal year it is expected to fall still further to about 65.3%. By 2000-01 the debt ratio should come in at just under 62%.

Economic growth is not the only cause of this remarkable decline in debt relative to the size of the economy. The government is in fact doing what Canadians have asked. Canadians have asked that the government pay down the debt. The Minister of Finance pointed out in his speech yesterday that we are only one of a few countries in the world which is actually paying down its debt.

Nonetheless, Canada's debt to GDP ratio is still too high. Among our G-7 counterparts only Italy has a higher level of debt in relation to the size of the economy. We are therefore committed to keeping this debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track. To this end the government is following the debt repayment plan set out in last year's budget.

As part of this strategy we will continue to present two year fiscal plans. These plans will be based on prudent planning assumptions and will continue to include a contingency reserve, a buffer against unexpected financial pressures.

The current plan contains a contingency reserve of $3 billion each and every year. When it is not needed, as was the case last year, it will go directly to paying down the public debt. This is very important. Only three years ago when the debt to GDP ratio was at its peak, 36 cents of every dollar of federal revenue went to pay interest on the debt. Last year with the debt ratio dropping, the portion of each revenue dollar needed to service the debt fell to 27 cents, which allows the government more flexibility and more opportunity to reinvest in Canadian priorities.

These numbers tell a powerful story. They tell a story of a nation that is in control of its destiny, a Canada that is securing for itself greater economic freedom.

A diminishing debt burden is freeing up resources to strengthen health care and access to knowledge, to provide needed tax relief, to fight child poverty, to improve the environment and to invest more in a productive economy.

However, spending initiatives and tax cuts will be introduced only when they are sustainable, when the government is reasonably certain that it has the resources to pay for its actions. We will not commit to tax cuts, to spending that we cannot afford. We have turned the corner. The government is committed. Members on this side of the House are committed never ever to go back to the reckless spending years of the Tories across the way who continued to bury the country with $42 billion of deficit and continued to ensure that Canadians did not have the opportunity they were looking for.

Prudence is at the heart of this government's approach to managing the nation's finances. And so it should be, for there is absolutely nothing to be gained by introducing tax relief if it means running the risk of driving the country back into deficit. There is nothing to be gained by bringing in new spending initiatives one year if the government has to hike taxes the following year to pay for something it thought it could afford.

I know that our opposition critics love the government's prudent approach. We heard about it this afternoon. Why do they love it? Because the opposition will always be able to complain that we are not moving quickly enough to bring down taxes. We heard it from the leader of the Reform Party. We heard it from the Tories. Or that we are not acting decisively enough to beef up spending. We heard it from the NDP earlier today. We heard it from the Bloc.

What does this strategy mean for Canadians? That is whom this government is speaking for. It is speaking for Canadians and it is speaking to Canadians. For Canadians it means they can always have confidence in this government's ability to deliver sustainable measures. It means they can count on us to continue to provide tax relief and to continue to invest in key social and economic priorities year after year after year and budget after budget.

The continuing improvement in this government's fiscal situation is helping to keep interest rates low. In fact, short term interest rates, currently around 4.7%, have returned to the levels of early last year before the financial turmoil in Asia sent them rising. Long term interest rates are near historical low levels. The level of interest rates is further proof that Canada's economic fundamentals are strong.

The member for Kings—Hants made reference to how this government continues to talk about economic fundamentals. The essential difference in the management of the economy between this government and the past administration is that we focus on economic fundamentals. We ensure that the economic fundamentals are in place before we embark on any investment and before we embark on any tax cuts.

Reckless spending and promises that do not mean anything to Canadians and that cannot be fulfilled do not cut it with Canadians any more. They are looking for sustainability. They are looking for priorities that will be invested in and they are looking for leadership. This government has provided leadership. With the help of Canadians it will continue to provide leadership as we move into the next millennium.

A person does not need to be an economist to understand the benefit of low interest rates. When rates are low, the benefit is felt directly by consumers. It is felt by Canadians. It is a bottom line benefit for anyone who has a mortgage to pay or car payments to make. It is a bottom line benefit for businesses of all sizes that borrow money to invest in capital equipment or to expand their operations and create jobs.

While the Tories ridicule the idea of fundamentals, fundamentals provide a climate of low interest rates and low inflation. They provide an environment where businesses can continue to prosper and create those jobs Canadians are looking for.

Speaking of jobs, one of the most encouraging developments in the last couple of years has been a surge in employment. Employment jumped by 453,000 jobs in 1998, building on the already impressive gain of 368,000 jobs in 1997. Canada's employment performance in 1998 was the best for the decade.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants also made reference to the G-7. The G-7 said that Canada will outpace the rate of job creation in any other G-7 country. The trend continued in January of this year with 87,000 new jobs created.

It is not the government that creates these jobs. It is the private sector. This government has been successful in providing an environment conducive to job growth. The private sector continues to be profitable. When it is profitable and meeting the needs of the global economy, the private sector will be hiring Canadians. We will continue to provide that environment.

The unemployment rate today stands at 7.8%. It is the lowest jobless rate this country has seen since 1990.

Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of Canada's job performance is the fact that almost 40% of the new jobs created in the last 12 months went to Canada's youth. This represents 202,000 jobs, a 10% gain. The yearly employment gain recorded for youth was the strongest in over 25 years.

As far as the overall prospects for economic growth are concerned, yesterday the Minister of Finance emphasized once again that Canada has been affected over the past year by the financial instability in the global market. We all know what happened in Asia. We all know what is happening in Russia. We know the impact of what may happen in Brazil.

Lower world commodity prices were the most significant channel through which the Asian crisis dampened economic growth in Canada last year. In a survey conducted at the beginning of this year, private sector forecasters indicated that they expected growth in Canada to slow to about 2% this year before picking up to 2.5% in the year 2000.

Even with the lower growth prospects, both the International Monetary Fund and the OECD expect Canada to be among the top performers in the G-7. These organizations also expect Canada to continue to lead the pack in job creation. When the hon. member makes reference to the IMF and the OECD, he should make sure that he tells the House and Canadians the complete story. The IMF and the OECD are continuing to provide Canada with high marks in job creation.

The 1999 budget invests in health care. It invests in research and innovation and other key areas. The government is continuing to provide general tax relief to all Canadians without borrowing money to do so. The government's ability to move on these three fronts is a result of its firm commitment to good financial management.

The figures in this year's budget plan make it clear that Canada is breaking new ground and putting in place a strong economic foundation. It is the foundation on which we will build a better tomorrow, an enduring period of prosperity and an improving quality of life.

The actions of this budget are mutually reinforcing. Unlike what the parties opposite say, the initiatives we are proposing will work together to ensure that this ambitious but realistic vision of 21st century Canada will manifest itself not only in our finance minister's eloquent words, but also in the day to day lives of all Canadians.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, listening to the hon. member opposite I had a great deal of difficulty restraining myself.

I cannot imagine how the Liberal members opposite manage not to choke when they speak in a debate like the one on the budget tabled yesterday.

It is as if we were living on two completely different planets. I believe the hon. member is from Ontario. Before making those kinds of remarks, he should come and travel across Quebec and the maritimes. Having done that, if he still cannot show more compassion, he may at least not get so carried away about how good this budget is, as he described it. I noted a few things. I will first make a comment and then put a question to the member.

The hon. member praised the work done by the Minister of Finance, saying that the minister was working with standards widely used in the G-7. I am not sure how widely used they are in the G-7. But one thing is sure: he was unable to tell us if these standards were widely recognized here, in Canada, by Canadians, so that comparisons could be made.

Neither could the hon. member bring himself to admit that the finance minister had his wrists slapped by the auditor general precisely because this is not a transparent approach allowing figures to be compared from one year to the next.

In fact, to find out what the actual breakdown by province is today, one has to request from senior Canadian officials special tables, which show in black and white what the Government of Quebec told us, and that is that the province is getting no more than $150 million for health care. That is my first point.

Second, he said that the Liberal government's priority for health care would be to make people more accountable and to make the management of the health care system more transparent. They dare brag that they will establish audit systems to ensure that care is actually provided.

I believe I am in the Parliament of Canada, which has the role of protecting the Canadian Constitution, although some would say it is not my job. The Constitution, which parliament must honour, must recognize at least that health care is under provincial jurisdiction. Let them not boast to Canadians watching us that they will establish accountability.

Another odd thing in the speech by the previous member is that the Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of increasing the country's debt. The Conservatives were in office only two terms. What the members opposite forget to say is that the deficits started under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I would remind the member that we were not in a recession at that point. People who want to provide a lesson should reread their history.

The federal government says that Canadians can now trust it and it will not spend foolishly, or something like that. Can we trust those opposite?

They got elected in 1993 and said they would scrap the GST. From 1993 to 1999, that is six years. This is the sixth budget brought down by the current government. It had the opportunity to eliminate the GST, but not a word was said on that in last night's budget. Should we trust the federal government?

I will give another example of what happens when the Liberals say we should trust them. Following the 1995 referendum in Quebec, they supported a motion in this House recognizing Quebec's unique character. This implied that if Quebec wants to do things differently, it should have the right to opt out of programs. But what did the government do at the first opportunity, when it started making a surplus, last year? It created the millennium scholarships, which was yet another intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The Liberals could have eliminated that program in yesterday's budget. They did not. This is another example of an unkept promise. And they are asking us to trust them.

I have a question for the hon. member. I do not see many members from the maritimes here today, but they could put that question to him. Health and education are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Fisheries, as far as catches are concerned, is a federal jurisdiction. What is there in the finance minister's budget for fishers, who will lose everything in May of this year? This is a federal jurisdiction. The federal government could not care less.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the rhetoric of rubbish is the only way I can speak to that.

What I want to—

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if my comments were misinterpreted, because the member referred to them as rhetoric of rubbish. Yet, I did not use any vulgar expression and I would appreciate it if the member opposite could choose his words more carefully.