Debates of Feb. 18th, 1999

The Late Walter Harris

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I would like to join with the members who have already spoken on behalf of other parties to pay tribute to the long and distinguished parliamentary career of Mr. Walter Harris and to pay tribute to a long and distinguished life in which we see success not only in the political realm but in his work as a lawyer and in his service to his country as a soldier.

I was particularly struck when I read that in 1940 as a newly elected member of parliament and as a family man with three children he nevertheless volunteered and went overseas for four years. He returned only after having been wounded and then volunteered to sell war bonds.

He was obviously a man of great character and distinction and we join with our colleagues in the House in paying tribute to him and expressing our condolences to his family.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I want to associate our party with the words of sympathy and tribute from the Prime Minister and from other hon. members.

The children of Walter Harris must be very proud of their father. He served Canada and his fellow Canadians in so many ways, here in the House of Commons, in the cabinet room and when the world was inflamed in war he took up arms to defend this country.

When he could no longer fight with a gun he gave leadership to help finance the war effort.

On behalf of all Newfoundlanders I want to express our appreciation for his fine efforts while negotiating Newfoundland's entrance into Confederation.

Walter Harris left the national stage four decades ago, but his example of public service shines as a bright light to those of us who came afterwards. On marking the end of his long life we give thanks for his service to Canada and to his membership in the House and we offer our sincere condolences to the members of his family.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

On Wednesday, February 17, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast raised a question of privilege concerning picket lines established at strategic locations around Parliament Hill and at entrances to specific buildings within the precincts.

The member alleged that these pickets impeded him as a member of parliament because they prevented him from carrying out his obligations in a timely fashion.

Two other members, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, raised questions of privilege relating to the effect of these same picket lines on them and their work. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville rose to support those interventions.

I wish to thank all the hon. members who helped me regarding this issue, including the Leader of the Government in the House, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

Before proceeding, let me remind the House that one of these questions of privilege has already been disposed of, namely the allegation made by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt that, in his words, a mob of hooligans used physical violence and intimidation to prevent him from gaining access to his office in one of the picketed buildings.

Because of the seriousness of the allegation I ruled immediately that there was in that case a prima facie question of privilege.

The member moved the appropriate motion which the House adopted without debate and so the matter of the alleged molestation of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt now stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I carefully reviewed what hon. members said when they informed the House of their very justified fear about the events that occurred yesterday morning, and I am now prepared to make a ruling on the other incidents, which were reported to me and which I took under advisement.

One hon. member alleges that he was impeded from fulfilling his responsibilities as a member because at least initially he was unable to enter his building while other hon. members have argued that their privileges were breached because the strikers interfered with the usual operations of their offices and staff.

Mindful of the role of the Speaker as the guardian of the rights of members, I have reviewed the facts presented yesterday regarding impeded access to the parliamentary precincts. I have been persuaded by the interventions made by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville and have decided that these concerns are sufficiently serious for me to act.

The Chair therefore rules that the incident of February 17, 1999, impeding access to the parliamentary precincts, constitute a prima facie case of contempt of the House. I invite the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Cost to move the appropriate motion.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the incident of February 17, 1999, relating to picket lines established to impede access to the precincts of parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Points Of Order

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period. In the closing minutes of question period the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle raised a matter having to do with expenditures of the other place and you ruled it out of order.

With respect, I want to suggest that another interpretation of the the question might have been available to Chair. It seems to me that when we are talking about the budget, when we are talking about expenditures and we are talking about estimates we should be able to bring up the other place in this context.

I understand there is a longstanding rule that there are certain things we do not talk about it when it comes to the other place. We do not even mention it by name, which is why I call it the other place, out of respect for that tradition.

I know from being here for almost 20 years now that there are contexts in which it is appropriate to talk about the other place, whether we are talking about its abolition, its reform or the expenditures associated with it.

I would ask the Chair to consider the ruling that was made at that time. It seemed to me the government benches were upset by it and I would ask Mr. Speaker to consider whether that ruling was the appropriate one.

[The Speaker]

It is not usual for a Speaker to give reasons for it. I refer the hon. member to article 409 in Beauchesne's sixth edition.

But specifically, as I understood the question, whether one side or the other is not particularly enamoured with a question does not weigh upon me to make a decision.

I felt that the Minister of Finance is not responsible for estimates or expenditures in the Senate and he is not accountable to the House for that. That is the reason for my decision and my decision will stand.

Ways And Means

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion respecting the National Parks Act. I am also tabling background information.

Our national parks remain one of the greatest resources available to all Canadians. They continue to expand, become more accessible and more pristine under current stewardship.

I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; of the amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment.

The Budget

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Macleod for his very well delivered and factual presentation on this budget. He is a particular expert in the area of health care, being a licenced physician for many years.

I would like to ask a question of the member. The government has indeed promised to put $11.5 billion back into health care funding which brings it back to the 1995 level. This is over a five year period.

Demographics clearly show that we have an aging population. As well, as we grow older our demands on the health care system dramatically increase. Five years from now when the $11.5 billion is used up, will the aging population create a demand on the health care system such that we will find ourselves right where we started again because of the increased demand on the health care system? Is there any chance, given the way we are moving to a greater dependency on health care, the 200,000 waiting list has any hope of being shrunk under this Liberal formula?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. I have never heard of projecting funds five years down the road when there will be an election between then and now. It is very bizarre to be able to think and project beyond the mandate of the current government.

When we are talking about five years hence and we go back and look at the five years prior, we will find that the cuts have been $21.4 billion in the five years prior. Here we have $11.5 coming. Simple math would say two dollars taken out and one dollar being put in will never get us a shorter waiting line.

The demographics, the aging of our population, are extremely important and are one of the reasons Reformers are asking for a real honest debate on the future of health care. We are bantering back and forth. We say two tier is presently in place in Canada and they are blaming us for two tier. What we would really like is an honest debate with none of the name calling but a true fixing of the health care system. If we had that I would be proud to be a member of parliament and debating health.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is looking forward to this presentation today. I know he will listen to what I have to say about the budget and take the message to the finance minister and his party.

It has been said that the Liberal government has truly and rightfully earned the title as the pay more, get less government of all time. In all of Canadian history there has been no government that has picked the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer, the individual, small business and large business as has this Liberal government.

No matter what the finance minister said a couple of days ago in his great budget speech, these are the facts. Canadians since 1993 have consistently, every year of this government, paid more in taxes and received less in services.

Here are some numbers. Average Canadian taxpayers are now paying annually over $2,000 more in personal income taxes than they paid in 1993 when the government was elected. These are the people who are out spending their earnings in the marketplace trying to create a growing economy. The average Canadian household income has shrunk by over $4,000 since 1993. Let us imagine taking $4,000 out a household income. One year it is there and five years later it is gone. That is what the government has done to Canadian families.

As well, the government is responsible for the highest increase in payroll taxes for workers and employers than any other government in the history of the country.

We will see Canada pension plan premiums increase by a whopping 73% over the next few years. And guess what? When the current generation in their early twenties and thirties retire, having paid the full 73% increase at least for now, they will get less money. There might be more increases coming down the road. I hope not. Having paid that massive increase through their entire working lives, they will get less money in Canada pension benefits than someone who has paid the lower amount, lower than the 73% amount. That is the legacy of the government.

Average workers and employers are paying far more in EI premiums than necessary. That is another payroll tax. The EI commissioner has clearly said that the government is scooping an additional $7 billion out of the EI fund that it is not entitled to. It is simply not entitled to it. Why does it not just give it back?

One thing that really aggravates hard working Canadians is the war on the two parent, single income family begun many years ago by the hero of the Liberal Party, Pierre Trudeau. It is continuing today under this Liberal government.

The average two parent, single income family with a $60,000 income, that is one parent working and two children, will pay for the privilege of having one parent stay home to nurture the children, to help to steer them in the direction within the belief of the family, over $4,000 more in income tax than a two parent, two income family with two children earning the same $60,000. In other words, if a family earns $60,000 with one parent working and one parent staying home, they pay $4,000 more than if both parents were working earning the same $60,000 and had two children.

One has to ask why the government continues this war against the family. Why is the government so determined to drive every last stay at home parent out of the house and into the workforce? Why is the government so determined through its discriminatory taxation regime to ensure that children growing up do not have at least one parent at home to help in their formative years and through their teen years into adulthood? Why is the government through its taxation regime so determined to do that? I do not know.

It has been suggested that some sort of social engineering is going on. It has been suggested that the Liberal government with its socialist philosophy has figured out that a family unit has strength and as long as that family unit is together the strength is present and the government cannot get its clutches on those kids. It wants to break up families, get rid of the parents, get them out working, put the kids in day care and make free thinkers out of them so that it can come in with its philosophy and teach the kids what the world looks like through the eyes of a Liberal.

I do not say it lightly when I say there is a war against the family. It was started back in the days of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, when he brought in tax regimes that literally forced the second parent out of the home and into the workforce so that they could maintain the same standard of living. It was not to increase their standard of living but to maintain the same standard of living.

What is this master plan the Liberals have had for so many years? We do not know their real agenda, whether it is social engineering or whatever. However, we do know that what they have been doing is very real. It has been very effective in getting both parents into the workforce through their discriminatory tax regimes.

I can speak on behalf of many families who have made sacrifices while raising their children in order to have one parent stay home to be with the family. It happened in our family and it happened in many other families of people whom I know very well. They say it is no longer a privilege to stay home and raise the kids. It is a true sacrifice because one has to give up so many other things to have that ability.

It makes me very angry when I look at the budget to find some relief for the two parent, single income families and it simply is not there. There is over $4,000 difference in taxes between those two examples simply because one parent stays at home and one works or they both go out to work. It is discriminatory. We had hoped the government would address it and it has not.

I say to all the families out there with one parent at home and one income that we will keep the fight up. We will keep the pressure on the government and sooner or later it will recognize the value of mothers or parents who stay home to be with their kids.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is just astounding for me to hear the word discriminatory from the member opposite. This is not a discriminatory budget at all. In fact the budget is absolutely wonderful for every citizen of Canada. It is so obvious that members opposite do not understand what is in the budget. Otherwise they would not be saying these things.

Let us talk about single taxpayers earning $20,000 or less. Their taxes will be reduced by at least 10%. The typical one earner family with two children and an income of $30,000 or less will pay no net federal income tax. Families with incomes of $45,000 or less will have their taxes reduced by a minimum of 10% and in some cases more depending on the specific situation.

It is easy to pull out numbers. I do not know where those numbers come from, but I do know the accuracy of numbers that talk about us being in a situation where we can give tax relief. I do know that the government pays attention to children with some needs and that $300 million extra are going into the child tax benefit. These are very direct federal government contributions where there are specific needs.

Tax relief for low and middle income Canadians is the top priority of the government. Broad based tax relief should focus first on personal income tax. That is what members saw. They did not see a budget filled with corporate or business tax relief. What they saw was down to the individual Canadian who has worked hard to deliver the country to the place where we are today where we can bring in these measures.

In my home town we have a medical community, a research community. The people in my riding of London West are incredibly grateful for the future orientation of the people and the priorities of the government. I think of what that will mean in the health of the nation. The budget will affect the health of the nation and every family, no matter what income level, for years to come.

When we put money in research we are showing forethought. I am getting faxes from people in my riding, researchers, people who have perhaps not corresponded with the political network ever before, saying thanks for the budget. This is important to understand.

I am wondering how much into the future they are looking, or whether members of the Reform Party are only interested in some long ago world which unfortunately in families, and the diversity of families in the country, does not exist in that format. There is choice here. We are talking about current day Canadians and a society that is good. What century does the hon. member plan for?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her rhetoric. However these are the facts. On that side of the street lives the Smith family: two parents and two children. One parent works. The total household income is $60,000. On this side of the street is the Jones family: two parents and two children with both parents working. Their total income is $60,000.

The Jones family pays $4,000 more in taxes than the Smith family on that side of the street. The same size family, the same annual income, same street, same house and they even drive the same car, but they pay $4,000 more than the family on this side of the street because of the government's discriminatory tax policies against families that choose to have one income and one parent staying home.

That is the fact. All the rhetoric in the world put forward by that member cannot dispute that. Where did I get the numbers from? It was from the finance minister's own budget. That is where the numbers came from.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the Minister of Finance's philosophy is to be tight with the people and generous with the rich. That is obvious.

The current Minister of Finance is merely miserly with the people. He takes what little people have and gives it to the rich. However, I was listening to my colleague, and I am not sure he would do a whole lot better.

I put the following question to him: What could he do for the 1,500,000 poor children?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

As a matter of fact the Reform Party has put forward many times that if we were in power, and we will be in power, there would be no family with a household income of under $30,000 paying any tax whatsoever. There would be zero tax for a $30,000 household income. That is what we would do.

We would lower the taxation rates for the hardworking Canadians out there. They would have more money in their pockets to spend into the economy. That would bring more revenue into the government coffers which would allow us to give more services to the poor families the member talked about.

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara Falls.

Today I would like to address the House about a very important investment that the 1999 federal budget is making. That investment is in our children. We all know that today's children are tomorrow's leaders. This government has taken that saying to heart and we are putting our money where our heart is, in Canada's children, in Canada's future. This budget is an important step in giving our children the support they need to become active and healthy Canadians.

Today I would like to speak about Canadian children. The 1999 federal budget invests in the future of our children. By protecting their future, we are protecting the future of Canada.

The spirit of the 1999 federal budget is health. In addition to the $11.5 billion that we are investing in the health of all Canadians, we are investing $287 million over the next three years in preventative and other health initiatives. This money will go to improve prenatal nutrition, food safety, and toxic substance control, to foster innovations in rural and community health, and to combat disease. More important, this money will help to ensure a healthy future for our children.

The Canada prenatal nutrition program will receive an additional $75 million over the next three years to help high risk pregnant moms have healthier babies. This is an investment we are making in our future. From this investment we will reap both financial and emotional benefits for generations to come. The additional $75 million is on top of the current $13 million we are investing per year. This program is especially dear to my heart because it will address a growing Canadian crisis, fetal alcohol syndrome.

For the past 30 years I have been working in Moncton with children with fetal alcohol syndrome, their parents and pregnant women. They need us. Fifty-five per cent of people in our Canadian prisons are fetal alcohol syndrome victims. It is an economic issue and this is the first time we have had a government that has looked at the preventative measures. We need to help these children become taxpayers and not offenders.

Our children are especially vulnerable to toxic substances in the environment, in food and drinking water. It can affect fetal, infant and childhood development. We all know these are the most crucial years of development for all Canadians. We must work to prevent these effects.

This budget has two direct investments to ensure that we protect Canadians and our children from these harmful effects. It has allocated $65 million over the next three years to modernize and strengthen the federal food and safety program.

In addition it provides Environment Canada with $42 million over the next three years to implement the recently introduced amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This act aims to protect all Canadians, including our children, from the damaging effects of toxic substances by identifying them quicker and controlling them faster.

In my province of New Brunswick, there is a mix of urban and rural populations. It can be a real challenge to get proper medical treatment in the rural areas, with time being a vital factor in treating children.

We know that care provided at home or in community centres may be a favourable alternative in certain circumstances.

This budget will invest $50 million in the next three years to come up, in consultation with the provinces, with innovative approaches to health care in rural and community settings.

Diabetes is a disease that affects Canadians, and the rate of this disease is particularly high among aboriginal people, striking three times that of the general population. The 1999 federal budget will invest $55 million to combat diabetes. This money will go to finding better ways to prevent this disease and enhance treatment and care.

The 1999 federal budget is not just an investment in health for our children. It also provides direct financial support to families through the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit. The federal government is committed through this program to assist low and middle income families with the expenses of raising children. This is an investment in the future of Canada.

In 1996 the Prime Minister and premiers made tackling child poverty a shared priority. This government does not take that priority lightly.

In our two previous budgets we provided $1.7 billion for the children of low income families. This budget announced a further $300 million to enhance the Canada child tax benefit for modest and middle income families. These investments promote fairness and equity among individuals with different incomes and family circumstances because no matter the family, we need to ensure that all Canadian children are able to benefit from all that this great country has to offer.

The national child benefit supplement is a federal, provincial and territorial initiative designed to tackle child poverty. The supplement is available to those who need it the most, low income families. The maximum level of the national child benefit supplement would increase by a total of $350 per child. The net family income level for eligibility will rise from about $27,000 to $30,000 by July 2000.

Enrichments to the national child benefit supplement will result in increased benefits for 1.4 million low income families. A low income family with two children will receive up to 48% more in the year 2000 than they did in 1996.

This year's budget also adds $300 million to the benefits provided to modest and middle income families under the Canada child tax benefit. Taken together with the $850 million announced in the 1997 budget, these measures will increase the child tax benefit by $2 billion this year. Two million modest and middle income families will receive these benefits. In addition, it will be extended to about 100,000 families that currently do not receive it.

Over three quarters of the child tax benefit will go to single parent and single income families. This tax benefit will affect some 3.2 million families, or over 80% of all Canadian children.

More importantly, this money will help our children to successfully prepare their future. This way we are helping them become the pillars of our society.

In closing, I am proud of this budget, a budget that realizes the importance of our children, a budget that invests in those children. I entered politics and came to Ottawa to give a voice to those who did not have one, those Canadians who are children, children who are the future of Canada. These children of the new millennium have the support and commitment of this government.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. minister who I know is an Atlantic Canadian and with whom I share many of the concerns she talks about in terms of our children.

She talked about toxic substances in toys. I direct her attention to my riding where we have the highest cancer rates in the country, where more people are dying because of cancer and it is almost directly related to the huge environmental disaster known as the tar ponds. Would she not agree with me that the children who live in and around that area are at great risk and that it is indeed regrettable that there is no mention in the budget of special funding to honour the government's commitment to clean up those tar ponds?

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Madam Speaker, for sure, having worked with children I understand what the member is saying. I understand the importance of the environment. However, I would suggest to the hon. member that the budget we received was not very specific. Maybe we should wait for more specific areas to come. When we talk about the environment, I know that this side of the House is very concerned. We will take his request very seriously.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member speak about the money that was going to be pumped back into health care, which is certainly welcomed funding. I want to remind the member that this is the government that cut Canadian health and social transfers to the provinces from $18.5 billion down to $11.5 billion. With the money that is being put back in, it is going to take three years to get back to where we were prior to the cuts.

My question really has to do with the $3.5 billion that is going to be budgeted for in this current fiscal year, 1998-99, the one that ends March 31, but which is going to be proportioned out over three years. If it is going to be budgeted for this year, why is that $3.5 billion not being pumped in immediately in order to see some response as a result of the much needed money that is required? If it is budgeted for this year, maybe it should be spent this year.

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member and his colleagues were last year when we did the budget because they keep bringing up the $18.5 billion.

If the member remembers last year's budget, we put an awful lot of money into education for youth. There is the millennium fund. We brought in the child tax credit. We brought in the transitional job fund.

The hon. member should look at what we brought in for health care, education and poverty. The member wants to talk about health care so let us talk about it. We took away $6 billion but with the tax credit we have cut by $3 billion, not $20 billion or $15 billion.

Canadians listening to this debate wonder why they are hearing all these different numbers. I sit here every day and wonder about all the different numbers. At home in my region of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, I can assure the member that our nurses, our patients and our citizens are glad because we gave the message in this budget that health care, children, youth and education are priorities for this government.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question.

I was listening to the minister as she addressed two issues in particular: poverty among children and in rural communities. Yet, funding for rural communities and the regions has been cut by $100,000.

I would like to ask her this: In light of the fact that we have unemployed workers in the riding of Matapédia—Matane who will go two months without any benefits, what are her thoughts about the poverty affecting the children of these unemployed workers?

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting question, since during the election campaign, Premier Bouchard announced a $400 million investment in health.

This week, we gave Quebec $380 million.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

The amount was $150 million. You are getting your figures mixed up.