House of Commons Hansard #184 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

It was this finance minister.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

He didn't say that?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

He did. He said earlier this decade that only the federal government should be taking the leadership. It was only the federal government that had the resources to show leadership. He mentioned homelessness in his budget. What did he about it? Nothing. There was not a red cent toward housing.

The mayors of the major cities were shocked. We all got faxes and e-mails in the last couple of days. Mr. Speaker, you will probably have a whole pile on your desk when you get back to your office. They were disgusted and dismayed. They found it unbelievable that at a time when we have not $1 billion or $2 billion or $5 billion or $10 billion but more in surplus that not a red cent was given to the housing crisis, the housing tragedy in the country.

If I were a Liberal sitting across there today, I would run out of here in shame.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

There they go.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

There they go. I do not blame them. I would too.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Most of them have already. They are not even here.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

There is something else that is strange about the budget. The Minister of Finance should be arrested and charged. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. A few years ago an individual called Doug Small leaked a little bit of a federal budget. He was a broadcaster in Ottawa. He leaked a few phrases of the budget and was charged by the RCMP. He went to court for leaking a budget.

The Minister of Finance leaked the entire budget. Every major issue has been out in the public domain for weeks and weeks. He should be charged by the RCMP for leaking his own budget. Why did he do that? Why did the Minister of Finance leak his own budget?

I will tell the House. I will have trouble saying it, so I will have to muster up my courage. When the Conservatives were in office they had guts. They actually believed in certain things. I do not believe in them. Most Canadians do not believe in them, but the Tories believed in them. They said the GST was good for Canada. They did not leak it out.

I remember Michael Wilson rising and saying “We will introduce a GST tax for every walking Canadian”, and the Tories jumped up in applause. They thought it was a great idea. He also said “We have a better one. We will give a $500,000 capital tax exemption for major capital raised in the country”. There was a standing ovation for that one.

They announced it during the budget. They did not float it out weeks before and then do focus groups, polling and trial balloons to see what works and what does not work. This is not leadership. This is cowardly leadership where before they say a single word as leaders on financial matters, they test every single phrase, every single word, every nuance. If it does not fly then they will not say it. If it is popular then they will say it. That is not what leadership is. Leadership is when they come in here based on convictions and make announcements on what they want to do. That is not what happened.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

An hon. member

What are you saying, do not consult Canadians?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Does the member think the Minister of Finance did not consult Canadians? He did. I was part of the consultation process. It is called prebudget consultations. I will tell my Liberal friend that the finance committee went into every province asking Canadians to come forward and tell us what they thought should be done with the surplus. That was their task. Not a single individual said that the priorities should be major tax cuts. We talked to hundreds of people. Nobody said ignore the homeless, ignore the unemployed, ignore students with huge debtloads. They did not say that. They said address these serious issues, including health care.

When I went out to consult Canadians from coast to coast to coast and asked them what should be in the budget, none of them said this stuff. None of them said they wanted this budget. They said they wanted a whole bunch of advances on important fronts. What did this Minister of Finance do? He ignored people. If we go out on the streets of Canada today and ask people what they think of this budget they will say that there is nothing in it for them. They did not get anything out of it. Their family did not get anything out of it. They are unemployed. There is nothing in it for them. There are students $40,000 in debt. There is nothing in it for them. There are single moms on social assistance trying to raise three kids. There is nothing in it for them.

I know one guy who is really happy. Mr. Cleghorn, the CEO of the Royal Bank, made a tax break of $30,000 on that announcement. He is $30,000 richer today because of this budget. Bob Cleghorn is a happy camper.

I will tell the House who is not a happy camper. The hundreds of thousands of single moms and single dads raising children on social assistance. They did not get a single cent from this budget. What kind of a government is that? What kind of a government alienates and ignores Canadians? For political scientists watching this, this is the classic liberalism. It is the Darwinian approach to social policy where the weak die and the strong survive. It is survival of the fittest. It is based on the key role of the individual in society.

The Minister of Finance in his budget actually said that the marketplace cannot deal with the social issues of the country. It requires a government. We measure the value of a government not by how it treats the Bob Cleghorns of the world, the millionaires. We measure a government by how it treats ordinary citizens, particularly citizens in need. Were the homeless recognized in this budget? No, they were not. Were the people who today are looking for work recognized? No, they were ignored.

Let us identify a single group of young people. This morning 1.5 million children who are living in poverty because their parents are living in poverty woke up still living in poverty. Is there anything in this budget that is going to change their lives to give them hope and optimism? There is nothing for the 1.5 million kids living in poverty. How can my Liberal friends sit there and not do anything about it and applaud and say this is some great budget? It is very sad.

He said this was a health care budget. What does someone who knows about health care say about it? Let us ask the president of the Canadian Medical Association. He said it had moved it from being an emergency situation to a urgent situation.

He acknowledges that over the next number of years the government is to restore funding. Why? Some members will remember back in 1995 the occurrence of the Ottawa chainsaw massacre. The Minister of Finance came in here with a chainsaw and started to hack $1 million, $2 million, $2.5 million out of the health care budget, one of the major symbols of what it means to be a Canadian.

We had a quality health care system. Yes, I know it started with the NDP in the province of Saskatchewan and built up over the years, but it was a showcase that we could show around the world as what one can do as a country. President Clinton tried to emulate it but he lost that battle. He said look at what Canadians have.

To every single Canadian it was a symbol of what differentiated us from others. It was the best of being Canadian. What did this government do? It just followed suit of Brian Mulroney and came here with a chainsaw and started hacking the health care system year after year.

Finally this year the government says “Whoops, we blew it. We made a mistake. We cut too deeply. We have destroyed the system”. If one looks carefully out there one will see the stealth like change occurring to health care as it is being privatized. Thirty per cent of health care funding today is in the private sector. Nobody talks about this because they are embarrassed to talk about it. It is all because of the slashing, hacking and whacking of the health care budget that allowed the private sector to move into the health care system.

Let us take a look at what this will do. The government says it will restore some of the funding and in a few years from now it will be at the same level it was back in 1995. Big bloody deal. In other words, after years of restoration we are going to be at the same level we were back in the middle part of this decade. Is that progress? At the same time inflation is moving along and the population is increasing.

We are supposed to be cheering here today because the funding is to be restored in a few years back to the levels of 1995. This is almost unbelievable. It is pathetic. Somehow this is held up as a health care budget. The reason it is called a health care budget is it did not do a bloody thing to anything else. Nothing else was recognized.

I think we all acknowledge, including the Minister of Finance in his comments the other day, that the small business sector accounts for most of the jobs being created in Canada. One would expect, at a time when we have levels of joblessness in this country that have been for the last decade the highest since the Great Depression, that the government would want to do something significant in terms of creating employment opportunities and grow the economy into meaningful jobs with the recognition that this involves the small business sector.

Would one not expect the Minister of Finance to do the right thing and say he would make the small business sector a priority by finding ways and means of assisting and supporting the small business sector so it can create employment? I will bet most people thought that would happen.

What did the Minister of Finance, the government and the Liberal Party do about small business? Diddly-squat. I do not know if that is a parliamentary term but I think I will use it anyway. I cannot even say zero because they decided to put $50 million in the next little while into the Business Development Bank of Canada.

I did some calculations and asked what that meant for the province of British Columbia. It means that the province of British Columbia will get over the next few years $5 million to assist the small business sector. This is the only initiative taken by this government. It is absolutely incredible that this government would be so insensitive, so uncaring, so unrealistic, so impractical that it would not do anything to help the sector of the economy that is actually creating some employment.

That is not all. Good grief, I wish I had a longer speech today. Let us acknowledge that the one sector of our economy that creates a lot of meaningful employment is the construction sector. We know that the issue of homelessness is a national tragedy. I do not think there is a single MP in this House who would not say we have a housing crisis in this country. We have to work at this. We live in the second largest country in the world. There are trees from one end of this country to the other. We have land everywhere. We have the banks filled with money and we have a housing crisis. To have a housing crisis you have to really work at this. Our government has somehow been able to do that, to create a housing crisis.

A few years ago the government said it had a big deficit and that it could not do much so it was going to get out of the business of social housing, out of the business of assisting in the development of affordable housing for Canadians. People said that is fair enough, they understood that.

Now we are into a situation where we have billions in surplus. We have people who do not have houses to live in. We have many more people who do not have decent houses to live in. They are trying to raise children in substandard housing. I had a moving evening one night speaking with the grand chief of Canada. I asked what crucial issue facing aboriginal people we could begin to address in the House of Commons. He answered that it was obviously housing. He asked me to imagine being a young first nation child growing up and trying to do homework in a two room house with 13 people living in it, no water and no sewage system. Imagine trying to raise children in that type of environment, and for some that is a good place.

We have been waiting and now that we have $10 billion or $15 billion in surplus we think we will see some action. It is not that it was not encouraged. At every single stop as we criss-crossed the country people said we should take a step to confront the housing issue.

The construction consortiums from coast to coast said the following: “The industry wishes to help in the development of housing infrastructure in this country. Housing infrastructure would put tens of thousands of unemployed Canadians back to work at meaningful jobs and do a great deal in addressing this serious problem in our country”. Create jobs and confront a major social issue.

The mayors of all the major cities got together and asked what they could do. They said that it is an emergency and a tragedy. We should put 1% of this year's budget into housing. That is a little over a billion dollars into housing that would really show leadership on this. This is a term that is no longer part of the Liberal vocabulary but I will try it anyway. That would provide leadership on this issue.

If the Minister of Finance had said we are committed to dealing with this issue, we are going to allocate 1% of the national budget to the housing sector, there would have been a standing ovation around this house and a standing ovation from one part of this country to the other. But he did not. He said we are not going to put a single penny into housing, we are not going to take a single step toward resolving social housing and affordable housing in this country.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

An hon. member

Let's not forget the provinces have an important responsibility.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

The Minister of Finance said in 1990: “Only the federal government has the resources to provide leadership on this crucial social issue”. My friend should be embarrassed for suggesting that it is up to the provinces when her own Minister of Finance said quite the opposite.

There is much to talk about in terms of this budget. At the end of his budget speech the Minister of Finance quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier saying that the 20th century belonged to Canada. We are entering the 21st century. What a terrible way to be exiting the 20th century with one and a half million kids living in poverty with the government doing nothing to alleviate it. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people on the streets yet the government does nothing. When we walk out of here today we can see on every main corner in the city of Ottawa, the nation's capital, people begging with caps in hand, and the government does nothing about it.

One thing symbolizes this budget. We acknowledge in this House that parents dependent on social assistance and attempting and struggling to raise families are not getting a single cent of benefit from this budget while millionaires walk away with at least $8,000 in extra cash. It means that the gap between those who have and have not in this country continues to widen, thanks to this budget.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

Noon

Vancouver Centre B.C.

Liberal

Hedy Fry LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)

Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the last speaker obviously spent more time reading his speech than listening to what the minister of finance from British Columbia had to say and what the premier of Saskatchewan had to say. It is obvious he spent more time writing his speech than actually reading the budget.

Is the hon. member suggesting, given that poverty is one of the single greatest indicators of health and given that the ability to have access to good health care increases productivity remarkably, that he would not have had us make health care a priority in the budget?

Does the member think that we should not have dealt with the GST so that single parents in very low income circumstances would begin to get the maximum of their GST rebate supplement in a timely manner?

The child tax benefit is going to give $1,975 for the first child and an extra $1,775 for the second child in the family. That may not sound like a lot of money but it is a substantial increase of almost $4,000 to a low income family of two. The child tax benefit moved the level up from $26,000 to $29,000 which may sound like a great deal of money but which is poverty and low income circumstances as far as I am concerned.

There are so many initiatives that are helping poor single parents in the budget. Had the member taken the time to read the budget he would have known that. Does the hon. member not think we should have done all of those things?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

Noon

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it allows me to say two or three points which I forgot to mention. By the way, I did not write out my speech, as she could probably tell.

Not only did I listen to the Minister of Finance, I was in the lockup and read all the documents for four straight hours. Therefore, it is not as though this were some kind of a flippant response.

First let me inform my hon. friend that a mother on social assistance raising children does not get the child tax benefit. It is clawed back by the provincial government and the member should know that.

When the member goes home next week I would ask her to visit some of the families in her constituency. Ask them how delighted they are with the federal budget. I know what she is going to hear. They probably do not even know there was a federal budget and thank goodness because they were overlooked in it.

Should I or they be thankful for this little tiny handout? That is like walking down the street and getting mugged. Somebody takes your wallet with all your money and credit cards and then says “By the way pal, here is your wallet back” and you are supposed to be thankful for getting the wallet back.

If all the minister has to say about child poverty is that there is going to be, in her own mind, some minute benefit because of the GST—minute benefit I believe are her own words—if that is the only initiative that the government has taken, I would hope that she would feel kind of badly.

The first part of her question was that investing in productivity will eventually benefit poor people. Boy, there is Ms. Trickle Down herself. This is trickle down economics at its best: give breaks to the wealthy; give breaks to some of the big corporations; give certain select tax breaks and grants; wait for a few weeks, months or years and eventually some will trickle down. Canadians have told her many times they do not want to be trickled on any more. They want some trickle up economics, not trickle down economics.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

Noon

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I add my voice to that of the hon. member of the New Democratic Party in denouncing the Liberal government's lack of will to eradicate poverty across Canada, and in Quebec in particular.

We know that the new Canada social transfer formula, which penalizes Quebec in particular in terms of health care, is a historic achievement. To rely exclusively on a per capita formula without taking the needs of the population into account really hurts.

We keep hearing that Quebec is getting more in equalization payments, but we know what that means. It means more people on welfare. In turn, this means more people who may need adequate health care and better access to health care.

Meanwhile, the rich provinces, the provinces whose economy is vibrant and where people can better support themselves and have access to quality services, are favoured. That is what hurts when we say that this government is not addressing the poverty issue in Canada.

Neither is there any provision to increase EI benefits in high unemployment regions, especially in Quebec.

There is nothing on social housing. We know how much the federal government likes to negotiate third-rate agreements with Quebec.

I therefore add my voice to that of the member of the New Democratic Party in denouncing the government's lack of will to eradicate poverty across Canada. They can give us equalization all they want, that is not what we need. We could use more in terms of investments in the procurement of government services in Quebec, which could result in job creation. That is the kind of measure we need.

I would like my colleague from the New Democratic Party to elaborate on that.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has summarized a number of obvious concerns regarding the budget. She referred to one aspect that I do not have time to address and that is the whole issue of employment insurance benefits.

I think it is well known by all members and most Canadians that one of the reasons the government has a surplus in order to provide some of these initiatives is as a result of taking a lot of money out of the EI fund. That is really an insurance fund; it ought not to be a source of government revenues. It is also fair for her to say that it is acknowledged that the level of benefits is inadequate.

It was interesting to note on doing an analysis the other day that a few years ago 75% of people who lost their jobs and had paid into the EI fund actually were able to collect some benefits. That has gone down now to about 34% on average across Canada. Interestingly enough this 34% is the same level as that in the great state of Arkansas, the state which is held as probably one of the crummiest states in which to live in terms of social policy. We have now reduced our social program called EI or unemployment insurance down to one of the lowest levels of the United States, which is what a lot of people feared would occur. We thought we would now see some obvious recognition of this imbalance.

I simply want to say in response to my friend that when we went into this budget, the social playing field if I can call it that, was very much tilted, out of whack. The gap between those who have and those who have not was increasing. This was an opportunity to level the playing field in social policy, to make it a little bit more even so that a child growing up in one part of Canada under certain circumstances would have a similar opportunity as a child growing up in another part of Canada. In other words, level the playing field so people have an equal opportunity to become the productive citizens they wish to be.

Was that playing field improved, or was it tilted even further? It was actually tilted even further. The gap was made even worse as a result of this budget, which is why I started off my speech by saying that I found it to be a rather disgusting budget presentation, when we consider what could have been done and what was done.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC

Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard a number of my colleagues comment on the budget.

I hear my colleagues opposite saying that we are tearing at our clothing, bleating and taking pleasure in criticizing for the sake of it. This morning, I would simply like to comment on the budget, particularly table 6.4 on page 138, where they brag about lowering Canadians' taxes.

Looking at this table—and I am not the one saying it, it is the Minister of Finance who prepared it—we see that a Canadian or a Quebecker earning up to $40,000 will save $114.75 a year. If we divide that by 365 days, it amounts to about 30 cents a day, not even enough for a cup of coffee.

A single taxpayer earning $1 million will pocket over $8,000, and the bank president will save $30,000.

So my question to the hon. member is this: Would indexing the tax tables not be a fairer way to provide tax relief?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's question. I can best respond to it by saying there would be a fair way to approach this issue.

His figures were accurate. I did some checking locally. He was right that a bank president like Mr. Cleghorn would save about $30,000 as a result. Bob Price, a gentleman who works in my constituency, calculated that he would benefit by about $115 a year. This is on taxes. Remember that at the same time there is a tax benefit of $115, the government is taking that much more in CPP payments. In a sense he will actually lose. Carol Smith, a single mom raising two children on social assistance, got nothing in terms of tax benefits.

Obviously this is a very unfair approach in terms of how the tax system is modified. My friend's suggestion is worth looking at and has considerable merit.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval West, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.

First, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance and his staff for the remarkable job they did once again this year with the budget.

For the second year in a row, our federal budget, the Canadians' budget, succeeded in being deficit free, this after two decades of running deficits. The light is no longer at the end of the tunnel, because we have come out of the tunnel. We have every reason to be proud.

I heartily congratulate the minister for having focused his budget on health, thus reflecting the concerns expressed by Canadians, who were increasingly worried about health care, to the point of thinking that it might be in jeopardy. The minister delivered and brilliantly so. Our government listened.

This budget meets the concerns of my constituents in Laval West and of all Canadians. People from all walks of life have expressed their legitimate concerns to me. Thanks to the budget, these concerns are now greatly alleviated. I am referring to issues that concern our aging Canadian population, such as health, and the middle generation, which has to deal with the dependency of both the younger and older generations.

This phenomenon will of course not be reversed with the budget, but at least this budget will give us the means to adjust to the best of our ability to this new situation.

Let me mention a few figures to better show the scope of this phenomenon. In 1981, 9.6% of the population was 65 or older. Since then, this has increased by approximately 1% a year and, in 1996, 12% of the population was at least 65 years of age. It is expected that over 20% of Canadians will be in this age group by 2031. This means that one in five Canadians will be at least 65 years old. Furthermore, I would remind everyone listening that this is only 32 years away, and time is flying.

The aging of our population, a phenomenon common to all industrialized countries, has had, and will continue to have, a number of important consequences.

First, health services must adapt to new demands, for seniors have special physical and mental health problems. Unfortunately, for instance, they lose their autonomy and their mobility. More gerontologists will therefore be needed.

Long term care is more appropriate for this age group. Home care, provided by relatives, helps prevent the loneliness to which they are too often prone. And, of course, research must continue, and it must increasingly focus on developing care for seniors and the next generations.

Like health care services, social services will also be increasingly called upon to meet the needs of a population that is demanding programs tailored to its needs.

Pensions, for instance, will represent an increasingly large component of federal budgets. Other programs will certainly have to be developed to more effectively meet the needs of those losing their autonomy. There must also be support for charitable groups and organizations that will undoubtedly come on the scene to provide assistance to seniors, which will make up one fifth of the population.

In fact, the problem will be not so much one of finding additional resources as of redistributing them effectively, for the rate of dependency will be no higher than it was in the 1950s and 1960s after the baby boom. In those days, the number of young children who depended on their parents' work and care was even greater than the number of seniors who will depend on social services and on their families in the future.

Today, part of the population officially categorized as inactive belongs to that category because it is getting into the twilight years and is taking a well deserved rest to accomplish other things. Thirty years ago, there was a similar part of the population that was simply too young to work, busy growing up and getting an education.

This means that pensions and health care will account for an increasing portion of government budgets to meet the needs of seniors. Inversely, the portion allocated to family allowances and early childhood education will decrease. This trend is well reflected in our 1999 budget. In other words, in proportion of government revenues, there will be more people receiving pensions, but there will be less people in our schools and universities.

With the baby boom that followed World War II, millions of young people who were not going to enter the labour force until the 1970s and who required special care were born in Canada. The Liberal governments of the day responded to this new situation in an intelligent and responsible manner. Specialized social services were provided.

Tax deductions were granted and the health system put in place to respond to a new demographic reality, but today we face a similar situation, but in reverse, with an age dependency ratio closer to what we had in the 1950s and 1960s. This means moving from programs geared toward baby boomers directly to those to be developed for seniors.

Programs must once again keep pace with changing demographics. Now, we must respond intelligently to an aging population, as we did in the past to a younger one. Our government has realized how important this is. We have started taking steps and are even ahead.

Regarding the health services, the minister has done well. Over the next five years, $11.5 billion will be transferred to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. In addition, $1.4 billion will be injected into medical research. This is a clear and effective response to the concerns and health needs of Canadians in general, and seniors in particular.

Rumour has it that the Bloc Quebecois was not too happy with the changes made to the terms of transfer under the CHST. Quebec will not get as much, they protest. As usual.

But our colleagues should know that a budget is a whole, made up of different parts. The Minister of Finance can readjust certain transfers to make the whole more consistent and ensure that everything works properly. He can transfer less under a given program in order to transfer more under another. Criticism must not be voiced out of context, or deal with concrete issues in abstract terms.

The fact of the matter is that the so-called cut in transfers under the CHST is more than made up by the increase in equalization payments. With these two types of transfers, in the next 13 months alone, Quebec will receive 48% of all the money paid to the provinces, and 29% over the next five years. That is not bad for a province with 24% of the Canadian population.

The figures do not lie. Quebec, like the rest of Canada, comes out a winner with this budget. In addition to the substantial and impressive funds injected into health, the tax relief announced in the budget is another way to respond to population aging, by leaving more money in the pockets of seniors and the families looking after them.

The 3% surtax introduced to combat the deficit serves no purpose now and will disappear completely. The basic personal exemption rises to $7,131. So the 600,000 Canadians with more modest income will not pay income tax. By the fiscal year 2001-02, our government will have cut taxes by $16.5 billion. Two million low or middle income families will receive increased child benefits.

I am unable to finish, because I am out of time, but I would ask all members of this House to have the courage to recognize that our government, through the Minister of Finance, looked after the real problems of Canadians.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite is just as nervy as the Minister of Finance.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

I do not think the word “nervy” is unparliamentary.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval West, QC

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The word “nervy” in French is an insult, and I reject this insult. I would ask the member to use more polite language with me.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Order, please. I had to get a bit of help because my French is not that good with the subtleties. The help that I received, which is beyond reproach, is of course that there are subtleties in the language. The use of that particular term could be received by the receiver as being bad but it is not necessarily bad. It depends on the thickness of the skin of the person on the receiving end. Really it is more a question of debate than a point of order.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I could also have said that she is has some nerve, that she has a lot of gall, or that she is going too far. There are many synonyms.

In any case, the important thing is why I am saying this. We need to step back a little. Bloc Quebecois members and Quebeckers are upset by what the Minister of Finance calls the change in the method of calculating transfers. Why? Because this is not a change in the method of calculation, it is the rejection by the federal government of the relationship between Canada and the provinces, since it took poverty into account when calculating transfer payments.

Back in 1969—

The BudgetGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I ask the hon. member to put her question.