Debates of Feb. 18th, 1999

Health Care

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. member for Macleod.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

As I said, if we had hit the debt wall, maybe there would be an excuse for this. But the finance minister has had plenty of loot, in fact $2,000 per taxpayer more than when he took power back in 1993.

My question is very straightforward. Why did Liberals give us the biggest, greediest tax collector and give us a rickety two tier health care system? That is their legacy. Why did they do it?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I reject absolutely the preamble to the member's question.

This party and this government stand firmly behind the principles of the Canada Health Act, unlike that party which has been calling for not only two tier, but American style medicine for a very long time. We will never allow that to happen. We will never amend the Canada Health Act as they propose. We will ensure that when the people of Canada need health services that the provinces have the resources they need to enable them to deliver those services.

Transfer Payments

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government decided to change the rules about the financing of health, post-secondary education and, more importantly, social assistance, this without any consultations, lead time or advance notice.

From now on, the federal contribution to social assistance will be based only on the demographic weight of the provinces, regardless of their real needs.

How can the minister explain that, from now on, the federal contribution to social assistance will be based on population rather than on the real needs of a province, including the need to alleviate poverty?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Canada social transfer and the equalization program go hand in hand. We must keep them together, otherwise there would be distortions.

For example, Quebec is currently getting $20 more per capita than Newfoundland. Is Quebec poorer than Newfoundland? Quebec receives $78 more per capita than Prince Edward Island. Is P.E.I. richer than Quebec? No. This is because there are distortions and we will have to eliminate them, so that compensation—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Témiscamingue.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance forgets to mention that, in comparative terms, Quebec will now receive less than Ontario, despite having many more people on welfare.

How can the Minister of Finance claim that Quebec benefited by temporarily getting more through equalization, when he knows full well that the transfer payments will be stable and increase over time, while equalization payments can diminish or disappear altogether, depending on the economy?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, according to the per capita formula, Quebec is currently getting $939 per capita; next year, it will receive $954, and this amount will increase to $960 and then to $971. The amount will increase over time.

It may well be that equalization payments will vary, but they will also vary if Quebec's economy improves.

There is another thing. Within the next three weeks, we will give Quebec a $1.4 billion cheque, and that is reality.

Small Business

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, even this Liberal government grudgingly concedes that small business is the engine of our economy creating in excess of 80% of the jobs the Liberals like to brag about.

My question is very simple. Why does this finance minister continue to derail that engine with high payroll taxes and an overburden of user fees?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, $50 million to the Business Development Bank of Canada is directed totally to small business. When we took office, payroll taxes and unemployment insurance taxes were going up to $3.07. Today they are $2.55. That is $3.5 billion that has been given back to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The finance minister still has time if he would like to answer the question.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so anxious for his supplementary.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Canadian businesses create those jobs in spite of these government programs. The CPP hike more than offsets any nickels and dimes that EI gave.

The CFIB gave this finance minister a failing grade. They called it a disappointing budget. They called it a missed opportunity. Payroll taxes in reality gouged deeper.

The small business deduction is mired in 1980 values. How dare this finance minister stand there and continue to force small businesses into paying more and getting less?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, small business participates in the overall economy of the country. What has the overall economy of the country done?

We have one of the highest growth rates of any of the countries in the G-7. We are creating more jobs than any country in the G-7, including the United States. Our interest rates have come down dramatically over the last five years. We have eliminated the deficit. We are the only major industrial country now paying debt. That is what gives us a solid economy. That is what small and medium size businesses want.

Immigration

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that Immigration Canada officers had once again tarnished Quebec's reputation by turning back a French researcher.

The French government is obviously unhappy about this incident.

How could the minister still be defending her officials this week, saying that their work is beyond reproach, when their unacceptable behaviour is creating diplomatic incidents? When is she going to wake up?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, relations between Canada and France are excellent, as evidenced by the fact that we are even looking to increase the number of exchanges of trainees, students and researchers between the two countries.

That said, it is clear that anyone who wants to enter Canada must obey the rules and prove that they have the required authorizations to enter the country. In this regard, our immigration officers at Dorval are doing exactly the job they should be doing.

Natural Resources

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

In his ground breaking budget on Tuesday, the Minister of Finance outlined an initiative called GeoConnexions, an attempt to make geographic information more broadly available and useful to Canadians through the information highway.

Could the minister tell me how this initiative might benefit people in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie and Canadians in other parts of the country?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, this initiative is about Canada's geomatics industry, one of the country's fastest growing high tech sectors with more than 1,500 companies, 20,000 employees and a global market growing at a rate of 20% a year. Canada is a big player in that market.

GeoConnexions is a unique intergovernmental, private sector, academic sector partnership to build an ultra modern information highway for the delivery of vital integrated comprehensive geographic information all across Canada. That means urban, rural, aboriginal, northern and remote areas. All Canadians will benefit.

Employment

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the proof is in. A recent evaluation of the Canada jobs fund shows that grants are awarded for political reasons rather than on the merits of job creation.

Why is the Liberal government using the Canada jobs fund as its own private pork barrel to reward its Liberal friends?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely not what the study revealed. It is quite the contrary. The study talks about the role and the strengths of the fact that we do have political consultations with the other orders of government, with the fact that we consult all members of the House when a project takes place in their riding, including members of the opposition.

If we call that political interference, that is the strength of the program, to precisely consult the political actors, because they know their regions, even when they are in opposition.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. First it was a Liberal bagman using the Canada jobs fund as a carrot to demand election contributions. Then a friend buys the Prime Minister's money-losing hotel and is rewarded with $164,000 from the jobs fund.

Now officials with the fund are blowing the whistle on grants being handed out for political purposes. When will the minister clean up this mess?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the program is working very well. It has created 30,000 jobs in regions where unemployment remains stubbornly high. It is a remarkable program that is appreciated even by a number of opposition members of parliament who have mentioned it to me.

I can say one thing. We will on this side as a government continue to provide opportunities for unemployed Canadians in the regions where unemployment remains too high because that is what they expect of us.

The Budget

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who did indicate in his budget the growing concern about the gap between the haves and have nots in Canada.

As a result of the tax changes he introduced the other day, we find that the president of the Royal Bank received about a $30,000 tax break while hardworking Bob Price in my constituency got a tax break of about 35 cents a day. Holly Olson, a single mom with four children on social assistance, got zero tax relief from this budget.

With these kinds of tax changes, does it not actually expand the gap between the haves and have nots as opposed to reducing it?