Debates of Feb. 8th, 1999

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 133. .[Text]

Question No. 133—

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

With respect to Ms. Manon Lecours, who worked as a special assistant in the office of the Hon. Martin Cauchon: ( a ) on what date did she begin working in this position; ( b ) on what date did she leave this position; ( c ) what was her salary throughout the time she worked in the Minister's office; ( d ) what was the exact lenght of her leave without pay in April-May 1997; and ( e ) what is her current status within the federal government?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec as follows:

a) February 12, 1996;

b) June 19, 1998;

c) annual rate of pay for a ministerial assistant to a secretary of state may amount to $56,821;

d) from March 17 to June 8, 1997;

e) Ms. Lecours is no longer part of the Office of the Secretary of State.

I am informed by the Public Service Commission of Canada as follows: Ms. Manon Lecours is not currently employed in the federal public service under the Public Service Employment Act.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to inquire about Question No. 132 which was asked on September 21, 1998, and Question No. 138 which was asked on September 24, 1998.

I might remind my friend opposite that veterans families have been denied benefits because they cannot get the information we have asked for in these questions. I asked previously when I might expect an answer and I was only told that the government House leader would look into it. I wonder if I could get a specific timeframe on that.

Furthermore, seeing as the government has had this question for six months, would it be prepared at least to table part of the question it has answered and give us an undertaking as to why it has taken so long to answer this question?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member's concern. I heard his remarks this morning on a point of order on this very question.

I will look into in great detail the whereabouts of Questions Nos. 132 and 138. I will also look into his suggestion as to a way in which we might obtain a response.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask a question of my friend, the parliamentary secretary. The government had promised to introduce legislation this year to protect Canada's water. That was actually last year and it is a new year now. Could he bring us any kind of update?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am reluctant to allow question period to continue. The hon. member rose on a point of order. If he is referring to a question on the order paper I would perhaps allow his question. It does not appear that he is. This is another, if I may call it so, bit of a fishing expedition.

I think the proper time for this is during business of the House on Thursdays when the government House leader is here to deal with it.

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the House broke for question period the hon. member for Kings—Hants had the floor and he had five minutes remaining for his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of equalization is fundamental to Canada. Equalization has represented a cornerstone of the social and economic policies in Canada. The equality of opportunity that has been provided by equalization is pivotal and important if we are to ensure that throughout Canada people have access to the levers of the free market and a global economy.

It is very important that we recognize the differences of the country and encourage people to succeed in their provinces and to access opportunity. Without equalization, without this commitment to what is essentially Canadian, we would be imperilling that opportunity and that tenet of Canadian policy.

I mentioned earlier that in Manitoba there is some significant concern over the reduction in equalization payments that this adjustment process would result in. It reminded me of an article I read last spring in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, May 17, 1997. It followed the Reform Party's announcement on equalization and was called “Securing Your Future”. They were calling for a cut in equalization payments by 12% or $1 billion. They were looking at readjusting equalization so as not to include some of the provinces that are currently receiving it.

Manitoba would be one of the provinces that would be cut out of equalization. I will give an idea of the impact on Manitoba. Manitoba's deputy premier Jim Downey at that time called the Reform plan to cut equalization payments to only three payments frightening. He said that at first blush it would cause a remarkably severe impact on Manitoba and a loss of $1 billion or about one-sixth of the province's gross revenues. He said it would essentially wipe out 25 provincial departments or the entire education budget. He was explaining what the impact in the short term would be of this type of draconian policy.

We all believe in the free market. We must all understand that the free market is only successful if all Canadians have access to the levers of it. In a knowledge based society equality of opportunity means equality of educational opportunities and health care. All these policies tie together.

We will not stand by and see a ghettoization of Canada. It is a remarkable achievement in our country that we have been able to provide some semblance of equality across the country in terms of opportunity.

We would like to see the government move forward not just with an equalization policy to equalize opportunities but with something more fundamental than that, an industrial strategy for our country, which is clearly lacking; a commitment to reducing interprovincial trade barriers; a commitment to reducing taxes; a commitment to reducing the regulatory burden on individuals and on small businesses; and a commitment to ensuring that Canadians can not only compete in a global environment as we enter the 21st century but can succeed in that environment.

Our party has always been committed to these goals. We would like to see the government commit in the upcoming budget to the type of fiscal policy and type of economic policy that would lead Canadians proudly into the 21st century. Maybe some day equalization will not be necessary because all regions of the country will succeed and all Canadians will have an opportunity to participate in the type of economic growth that everyone deserves.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the member's final comments was with regard to the ghettoization of Canada and I think that is an unfortunate description of what might be in fact the effect of the equalization program.

The member will know that equalization puts about $8.5 billion into the hands of the provinces so their taxation levels do not have to rise for them to be able to provide the same kind of services across the country. It is basically a mobility issue.

The member should be careful in his choice of language. It would be wonderful to think that over the long term all provinces would be able to sustain their economies without equalization, but the bill before us will renew the equalization program for the benefit of all Canadians.

I would hope the member would want to clarify his views on equalization in Canada.

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

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

The hon. member may not have heard the first part of my speech which was prior to question period. At no time did I say that we did not support equalization. In fact I defended the tenets of equalization vociferously.

I agree with the hon. member that it is absolutely essential to the equality of opportunity across the country that we maintain and strengthen equalization.

I appreciate the hon. member's intervention because I would not in any way want my words to be interpreted as not supporting equalization. It is quite the contrary. We recognize it as a cornerstone of Canadian social policy. Our party defends it and we recognize its importance.

What I was suggesting, relative to ghettoization, is that without equalization there would be a ghettoization of Canadians because there would be some groups in some regions of the country who would simply not have the same access to opportunity as others. Without equalization we would have a ghettoization. I hope that clarification is to the member's satisfaction.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the member had to say and I agree with him that Canadians are fair and generous people who really do not mind helping out their neighbour.

However there is a feeling among many that Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia seem to be left holding the bag with this equalization business. That perception is very real. Part of the problem is that the whole process of the equalization formula is complex, convoluted and confusing. Nobody really understands why one province will be the beneficiary of funding while another will not. Without getting into detail, we have to look at some of the provinces and how wealthy they are in resources and ask why that province is getting funding when another is not.

In all seriousness, how would the member give this whole notion a better public relations face?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He raises a very good point.

I would suggest that if the member wanted to see British Columbia become a beneficiary province the best way to ensure that would be to maintain a New Democrat government there for a long time. In fact at some point in the future that may occur.

But seriously, it is an extraordinarily complex formula. We were briefed several times on the formula and it is very complicated, quite frankly, for a student of these affairs to understand. From a public relations perspective I do not know how to get the point across.

What is important for Canadians living in the contributing provinces to realize is that the people who are on the receiving end do not use the funds in a wasteful manner. They are being used for the basic social fabric, education, health care and those fundamental areas that everyone in Canada values. What makes Canada unique is our ability to provide the funds.

The people who simplistically say that we should cut off equalization have to realize that those people would go somewhere to find opportunities. Ultimately the social problems that would exist in a particular region, such as Atlantic Canada, would exist in another region if we were not able to provide some basic level of service in the areas of social spending, education and health care. Those problems would not disappear simply because of the lack of equalization.

Through an industrial strategy we could ensure that in 10 or 15 years equalization would be less necessary. We have to move on that type of policy. However in the short term it is a fundamental tenet of Canadian social and economic policy that simply needs to be maintained at this time.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member had to say. However the underlying question is: Are provinces, in a way, not like people? Are we not creating, to a certain extent, some kind of dependency on equalization, given that it is not clear to most people just why the money is being given?

We are transferring huge gobs of money from one place to another, from one pocket to another. Under what circumstances? I do not know. To a certain extent we are creating a dependency when the lines are not very clearly defined for these transfers.

Would the member comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that is changing dramatically in Atlantic Canada is natural resource development. There is natural gas development in Nova Scotia and the Hibernia project in Newfoundland. We would hope that in the not too distant future these provinces would actually be have provinces.

I do not honestly believe that equalization payments contribute to dependency. When I speak of social spending policies I am not talking about income support, I am talking about education, health care and so on.

Those areas do not represent a dependency. They represent a basic quality of life that is required for anyone to succeed. If we want Nova Scotians to succeed we need to provide enough funding for a strong education system and for a good health care system.

The hon. member raises the very important issue of dependency. We must consider whether the government has over the past 30 years, in trying to protect Atlantic Canadians from the risks of the future, actually prevented some Atlantic Canadians from participating fully in the opportunities of the future.

He does have a point. I would suspect that some of the policies which have been implemented have not been successful. Equalization in itself, as a policy, has actually had some level of success in at least providing a level of opportunity for those people to succeed either in those provinces or to go elsewhere. In particular, young people need to be provided with a sound footing to get them through the first years.

I agree with the hon. member that we need an industrial strategy. We need something that can actually harness the powers of the free market in a global environment so that all Canadians can succeed. However, that cannot be done simply through equalization. It cannot exist in isolation from other government policies and leadership in other areas. Frankly, that is what is really lacking at this point.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. This act provides the legislative authority for parliament and this government to provide equalization payments to the provinces by virtue of the fact that all Canadians are equal and deserve equal access to equal services. Fundamentally, that speaks to what this legislation is all about.

We have heard in this House what the opposition parties feel this bill should not be about. They feel this bill should not be about equity, that it should not be about building Canada from coast to coast to coast, that it should not be about providing services to all Canadians, no matter the level of income or the location of residence, on the basis of equity. We have heard from the opposition that it should be about the principle of every person for themselves; that every person, man or woman, should fend for themselves, based on their ability to compete and survive in a very turbid world of market forces, and that is the way it should be. That would be a great speech in Washington, D.C., but this is Canada. Canada was built on a principled set of tenets. Canadians deserve equity in social programs from coast to coast to coast.

I re-emphasize that this debate has been about what the program should not be. This debate so far for the opposition has been about what it should not be for Canadians. The opposition has said that we should not have equity, that we should not have regional distribution of wealth, that we should not build Canada as a mosaic of regions where each region builds upon the strengths of others and provides support where support is needed.

The opposition fails to remember that it was some of the eastern provinces which first began the process of transfer payments. It was the eastern part of this country that actually provided transfer payments for the building of the west. That did not happen last year, nor did it happen 10 years ago. It happened literally hundreds of years ago, but it happened. That is an example of how this country was built.

Do members of the House see me trying to profess that that was a wrong move, that it was un-Canadian, that now my region or province has been hard done by? No. That is what built this country. A major principle that built this country is that all Canadians should be provided equal access to government programs and services, in particular social programs such as health and education.

It is terrible that hon. members opposite are still heckling that point of view. We are debating the fact that in this country social programs will be provided to the citizens of St. John's, Newfoundland on the same basis as they are to citizens of Victoria, B.C. Hon. members opposite have some explaining to do, not just to their own constituents but to their own consciences. It is not a Canadian principle.

The Constitution has entrenched the principle of equity for Canadians. It has done so through the principle of providing services to Canadians.

I am very proud to be a Canadian. I am also proud that opposition members still defend the principle of equity. Unfortunately they do not come from the Reform Party, but I think there are a few members across the way who still quietly, while not disturbing their caucus ranks, realize and understand the value that Canada is not a dog eat dog society, that there are still some principles of building a country and that those principles are based on the fact that Canadians in need will be assisted by Canadians who, at that point in time, have a little more to offer.

We could simply take a snapshot in time of what Canada is today, but we must remember that Canada changes over time. The east coast was the economic engine of Canada not too long ago. We were the economic engine that provided resources to help build other parts of the country.

We have not heard any new ideas from the opposition about rebuilding the federation and building on the social programs and services which Canadians enjoy. What we have heard is how to take them down.

That is what the Reform Party has based its entire debate on. That is what the Reform Party and other members of the opposition have based their entire discussions on. Their question is how do they take down the program.

How do we take it down? By simply providing tax relief to Canadians. What will this tax relief do? It will provide the provinces with the opportunity to be able to tax their citizens. It is more appropriate for the provinces to tax their citizens based on the individual capability to provide the services.

What does it really boil down to? It is so that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador will be able to use their own money to provide all the programs and services they would need in order for them to be equal Canadians.

What does that really say about the Reform Party's position? This means every man, woman and child must stand solely for themselves. No matter what the financial circumstances of the provinces, no matter what the circumstances of the region, everybody should be on it for their own. Is it a great country building principle? Quite frankly it is one that I reject out of hand.

Reformers are really saying that they want all persons to fend only for themselves. I do not accept that notion. I do not agree with it whatsoever. It is a very short term view of what Canada is all about and what Canada has been in the past.

We are already seeing in the House indications that when it is appropriate for members opposite to rise and demand additional services and programs for their own constituencies they have no problem doing it, but do not ever institutionalize a program in the Constitution or in legislation which actually provides for the basic principle that Canadians help Canadians. Do not ever do it unless it affects Reform Party constituents. Then it can be done because it is completely appropriate.

The country was built on a more solid foundation than that. They country was built on the foundation that through time, through place and through any sort of political arrangement Canadians help Canadians.

I am very delighted that I am allowed the opportunity to speak on equalization. It has been very helpful to my province in a period of economic need. Over 25% of the budget of Government of Newfoundland and Labrador literally is achieved through the equalization program. If we were to suddenly eliminate that, what kind of health care would Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive? What kind of education would they receive? How could they participate as full Canadians in a system which means that they will not receive the same levels of service as any other Canadian?

How productive or meaningful would our country be if we actually allowed that to occur? By providing government programs and services based on a province's individual capability of taxing its own citizens as opposed to drawing upon the collective strength of all Canadians is a very un-Canadian principle. Quite frankly, why have Canada? Why be a collective? Why be a nation based on principles of equity? Why do it?

Hon. members opposite have no response for me because they realize that just as in any organization, just as in any family, just as in any circumstance, sometimes men and women are called upon in time of need, time of crisis, out of friendship and compassion to help out where they can. That is the principle that built the country and it is not being reflected in the House or during the course of this debate. That is why I am quite honoured to be able to have that entered into the debate.

The equalization program provides a significant amount of revenue which my province of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed the other provinces of Atlantic Canada require. If it were not there the people of Atlantic Canada would not be as well served as they are today. They would not be provided with government programs and services. They would not feel like full Canadians.

The fact that it does exist despite the fact that it does have some shortcomings speaks well of Canada. It exists in a form that allows for equal participation not just of the provincial governments but of their citizens.

Equalization, according to this act as we have changed it, allows for a significant additional increase in incremental funds to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? Because we are in need right now and it is judged by our ability to tax our own citizens.

In terms of the formula based approach to the equalization formula, which is transparent, up front and very accountable to all citizens of Canada, we provide a basis to transfer moneys to provinces in particular need of those services so that they can provide equally to their constituents. That is a principle which is being aggressively attacked by the platform and statements of the opposition parties.

Why is it that they feel this is such irresponsible behaviour on the part of the government? They define it as irresponsible in that the net effect of it is to reduce personal incentive. Why would they say that to a region such as Atlantic Canada or to certain regions in the west which also receive equalization and still profess to be a party that wants to build the country?

Quite frankly this is not the way that Canada was built. Nor should it be. It is not the position of our government. Nor will it ever be. It is now enshrined in the Constitution that equalization is part of the basic fabric of our country.

I am very pleased to announce in the House this afternoon that Newfoundland and Labrador will be receiving additional incremental payments under the equalization formula as amended in this act.

I think the reaction from the members opposite speaks to the fact that it is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. I always want to make additional improvements to the bill, but I am very satisfied to stand in the House right now to defend an amendment to an act which allows my province the ability to provide government programs and services such as health and education at a higher level than it would if members of the opposition were in power. That speaks to itself. It speaks to what Canada is all about. It speaks to my role as member of parliament in addressing the particular issues. It speaks to what we do in the House, which is debate ideas.

It is very clear that the idea of Canada as expressed by members of the Reform Party and other members of the opposition is not the idea that I share. We are a caring, sharing country where not every man, woman and child will have to fend for themselves according to their own means of the day. It is where we share resources, wealth, ideas and where we share the common greatness of our country.

That may be odious and terrible for the opposition. I hope the microphones are picking up the catcalls that are being put forward in the House. Equalization is a very important element of what we are doing in terms of providing equity and wealth distribution for all citizens throughout the country.

I want to say very clearly that the increased economic performance of Newfoundland and Labrador will mean in due time that we will not require the assistance of equalization payments. We will not require the assistance of any other transfers because that is our objective.

Just 10 short years ago Newfoundland and Labrador trailed the nation in terms of gross domestic product. We not only trailed. We were in negative growth. Today, Newfoundland and Labrador leads the country in economic growth. Our gross domestic product as predicted by some leading financial institutions is predicted to continue to grow into the 21st century. I am very proud of that. That growth will define the fact that we will no longer require equalization payments.

However, right now we have a dependable program of the Government of Canada to provide for some of our needs. Why that is even being debated on the other side speaks again to their positions.

Newfoundland and Labrador has representatives in cabinet and within the finance ministry who are protecting its interests, ensuring that the lives of the people of Atlantic Canada are better today than they were yesterday. That is accomplished in part through equalization.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his “Canada is a social program” speech. It was very heart rending. I am thrilled to hear that he has embraced collectivism and has spoken warmly in favour of it, but I want to point out a few things to him.

He talked about how much his government cares about social programs, but he forgot somehow to mention that his government has cut $20 billion out of health care in the last few years. There was not a word about that. Somehow that slipped his mind.

Could the hon. member across the way tell us, if his government cares so much about social programs, why it cut $20 billion out of health care over the last few years?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what is painfully left out of the hon. member's question is the fact that if the Reform Party had its way, if Canadians actually let it in through the democratic process, it would not be a question of cutting billions of dollars out of health care. It would be a question of when and how fast would it eliminate health care and have it just completely a user pay based system.

Let us be very clear about a couple of points. This is the party whose leader stood in Atlantic Canada some two or three years ago and said that when it comes to the fishery it has been such a boondoggle and expense on taxpayers “let's take 10 seconds and tell Atlantic Canadians that it is over”.

Today the Atlantic fisheries are producing more in terms of gross domestic product than they were 10 years ago. The value of exports are double. Our economy is growing. This is a party that continually would abandon Atlantic Canada given the opportunity, but we will not let them have the opportunity.

Health care is a prime concern of Canadians. Everybody in the House knows that unless we did something about our fiscal house in Canada there would not be any question of how much would we have to cut from health care or education, or any other program today. It would be how we would deal with the destruction of all social programs in Canada.

It gives me no joy to admit there were cuts to social programs. When a $42 billion deficit is eliminated it is not possible to turn to a neighbour and say it is okay because it is very important to eliminate a $42 billion deficit. It is important that the Government of Canada not spend $42 billion a year more than it takes in. When the question is asked whether that means we should cut $42 billion in government programs and services, they do not have an answer.

We rebuilt the economy and our ability to fund health care and education programs while at the same time trimmed our deficit to a responsible level. Now we are seeing a dividend from that. We are seeing a reinvestment into health care and education. We are seeing it on a very stable platform: one where there will be no further cuts in the future, one that will see Canadians have stable fiscal arrangements in the future, and one that builds upon a very much stronger Canada. That is a Canada that the Reform Party does not understand.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have risen from my laryngitis simply because I feel compelled to remark that of the many atrocious speeches I have heard in this place the member's ranks toward the very top of the list.

It is fascinating to have learned from the hon. demagogue opposite that he and his colleagues are in favour of equity, civility, collectivity, sweetness and niceness and little furry kittens, and the opposition is in favour eviscerating all that is good and civil about our society. I am delighted to see that the hon. member has a very mature Manichaean view of the political pluralism in the country.

I will bring the hon. member's attention to a speech delivered by the hon. leader of the opposition this morning. The hon. member opposite suggested that the Reform Party opposes all manner of equalization carte blanche and would eliminate such programs.

This is simply, completely, totally inaccurate, false, wrong and misleading. The hon. member would know that, had he been here this morning to hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition say that the Reform Party “supports equalization”. We support the principle of equalization. The people of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario generally support equalization as well. He went on to say that this is an important principle in our federation. What the hon. Leader of the Opposition did say, and I would second his comments, is that we have concerns about the way the formula is calculated and the way the program is applied.

The hon. member suggested that Newfoundland this year has the highest rate of GDP growth in the country. Marvellous. Kudos to Newfoundland and Labrador. We can all join in commending the people of that province for moving ahead economically. However, I would point out that that region is receiving hundreds of millions of equalization dollars from the taxpayers of British Columbia who are right now in a recession.

Given the hon. member's kind-hearted generosity, compassion and care for all, would he be prepared to adjust the equalization formula so that the fastest growing province in the country could help the only province that today is in recession?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting and amusing to see the policy gymnastics of the Reform Party.

What the hon. member has referred to is the fact that there is substantial economic growth occurring in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a country we are going to see the shared dividends from that economic growth.

What the hon. member fails to point out is that there is still some significant catching up to do. Newfoundland and Labrador will become a have province, a sharing province which is indeed our objective, but we still have some ground to make up. That is why the equalization program is stepping in right now. It is to be able to provide that opportunity.

It is not our objective over the long term to be a recipient of equalization. It is the objective however of the Reform Party to keep us in that position.

The Reform Party's position has always been that tax cuts are the answer. Can the revenue of a family be cut from $30,000 a year down to $25,000 and still provide the same level of purchasing power as there was at $30,000? The obvious answer is no. Yet the hon. member and the Reform Party continue to raise the idea that we can cut the revenues of the Government of Canada very substantially, very quickly and very heavily and still be able to provide the same levels of support, programs and services such as health care and education for Canadians.

Thank God the people of Canada are much, much smarter than the Reform Party members will ever give them credit for being. They just do not understand this fact. Reform members change their policies time and time again whenever it suits their needs. They never actually address the real issues. They continually read the polls, find out what the polls may say in their constituencies and actually design polls so they say what they want them to say and then they create ideas or policy documents based on those polls.

Polls do not say much when it comes to building Canada. What hon. members do not understand is that Canadians throughout the country share a very sound value which says let us build the economy, let us build jobs, let us have growth but at the same time, let us try to be fair to all the regions of the country.

The Reform Party members do not understand that and it is about time they did.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously does not know what he is talking about.

The Reform government will put $2.5 billion back into health care. Furthermore we will reduce the tax burden on a family of four earning $30,000 by $4,000 a year. That will put almost $1 billion more into Atlantic Canada than is presently being distributed in Atlantic Canada through all of those pork jobs the Liberals love to keep the strings on.

Our position is that we believe a dollar in the hand of the consumer beats the heck out of a dollar in the hands of the member. What is wrong with putting money into the hands of the people in Atlantic Canada who can be responsible and use that money in a far more responsible way than ACOA or any other program could think of?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Now we are getting to the heart of it, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. member is suggesting is that a dollar taken away from the hands of a public health care institution is far better served put in the hands of someone who is of a higher income bracket. Any tax cuts that occur take away funds from public institutions and put them in the hands of probably those who need them the least.

Tax cuts are important but they have to be focused. They have to be directed at the people who need them the most. Low income and middle income Canadian families are the people who deserve the tax breaks the most. Let us put it in perspective. What the hon. member is suggesting is that if we take that tax dollar, we reduce the ability of the Government of Canada and the individual provincial governments to provide those services and we put it in the hands of the rich. The rich quite frankly will be able to afford those health care services when they go on the free market to buy them. That is not universal health care. It is not universal health care and it is not a Canadian health care system.

We have one tier medicine where everybody, regardless of income level, regardless of their location of residence have equal access to the same medical services. That is something the Reform Party does not agree with. They cannot stand it—