Debates of March 17th, 1999

Budget Implementation Act, 1999

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for agreeing to that.

I rise to address Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions tabled in the budget on February 16. This legislation is an omnibus bill, maybe an ominous bill too. It deals with a number of different issues.

It makes it difficult for an opposition party to vote on a bill like this one when there are so many different things in it. There are parts of it we agree with. There are parts we completely disagree with. It points to the need to have an agreement that legislation tabled in the House be roughly of one kind so that when we address these things we can vote against the legislation knowing that we are voting against a core group of things that we oppose, or support, if there are supportable things in it.

As my colleague from the Liberal Party pointed out, a number of different things are dealt with in this bill. The biggest issues in the bill have to do with health care and the child tax benefit. The Reform Party has already told the government that we support putting more money into health care. We have been arguing for that for a long time. We disagree completely though with how this was done, which is why we cannot support this legislation, unfortunately. We disagree with it on a couple of counts.

We are in a situation where the government cut a tremendous amount of money out of health care initially, somewhere in the range of over $20 billion. Now it is putting $11.5 billion back in over a five year period, and the government is seeking to get some kind of credit for doing that. This is another example of the Canadian public paying more in taxes and getting far less in the form of health care. We disagree with that.

The government should have been up front with Canadians instead of playing this shell game as it does so often. There are many, many examples of how the government plays this shell game. Whether it is with employment insurance, the Canada pension plan, or whatever it is, the government starts out giving people more benefits and then takes them away. It gives with one hand and takes away with the other and expects to get credit. That is wrong. The government should not be rewarded for that. We disagree completely with the government's approach on health care in doing that.

The government has some supportable measures in the legislation. In this budget the government has a chance to send a powerful message to the Canadian public that it understands the difficult position Canadians are in.

We had a surplus this year. It would have been a much larger surplus than it actually turned out to be because the government in its wisdom decided to go on a spending spree again. We had a spending target of $104.5 billion. The government went almost $8 billion over budget in its spending. This meant that all of a sudden there was no money left for substantive tax relief. There was no money left for substantive debt reduction. And the government continues to spend on programs that are absolutely counterproductive, programs that distort the Canadian economy, that hold us back as a country in today's global economy.

The government should go through its spending with a fine-tooth comb. Money which is being spent on low priority items should be taken away from those items and spent on things like health care, things like fixing up national defence. In many ways it has become a laughingstock, not because of the tremendous effort of the soldiers and people who make up our Canadian armed forces. They do an outstanding job but they are ill equipped. That money should have gone back into ensuring that our soldiers who are in places like Kosovo have proper equipment. Sadly that did not happen.

Our criticism goes beyond that. Canadians want tax relief. They are demanding it. They did not get it in this budget. We do not see it in Bill C-71 at all.

We know from recent events that the government, in its open moments when it assumes that no one is listening, acknowledges that Canada has a serious problem when it comes to the issue of taxation. The situation today is we are one of the highest taxed nations in the world. If Liberal members doubt my word on that, then I invite them to consider what their own industry minister said just three weeks ago when he spoke to the Empire Club. I want to read from some of the slides he put up when he spoke to the Empire Club.

The minister was addressing the issue of standard of living. He pointed out that since 1987, Canada's standard of living has increased by only 7%. In the United States it increased by 17%. According to the slide: “The income gap between the U.S. and Canada is 30% and growing, $37,239 versus $28,000”. That is a $9,000 difference in income between Canada and the U.S.

The industry minister was reading from statistics prepared by Statistics Canada. It was not the Reform Party. This was the government's industry minister levelling this kind of criticism at the performance of the Canadian economy. And guess what? For the last five years this government has been in charge of the Canadian economy. It is an admission that the government has done a horrible job.

The slide on productivity reads: “Impact of productivity. Canada has the lowest rate of growth in productivity in the G-7”. Out of all the major industrialized world, the industry minister told the Empire Club that Canada has the lowest rate of growth in productivity.

As we heard yesterday at a conference sponsored by a former Liberal cabinet minister, the pollster for the Liberals, Michael Marzolini, pointed out that productivity is tied intimately to the standard of living of Canadians. There is a direct connection between productivity and standard of living. We have the lowest rate of growth in productivity, meaning we have the lowest rate of growth in standard of living. This is the Liberal pollster at the Liberal productivity conference. And the Liberal industry minister was saying all these things. This was not the Reform Party. This was the government pointing these things out.

We go to the next slide, productivity payoff: “Our falling productivity has resulted in lower incomes, $7,000 per capita”. That is not cumulative. That is not from 1979 to 1997 if we add it all up. No. What we are talking about is that in 1997, the difference between Canada and the U.S., because we have fallen behind in our productivity, is now $7,000 per person per year. The industry minister went on to point out that it works out to $28,000 per family of four difference in income if we had kept our productivity even with the United States, but we have not.

That means the Prime Minister, the finance minister, the industry minister and the whole government are responsible for engineering an economy that has left the average family $28,000 poorer than they would have been otherwise. That is an absolutely shameful fact and the government actually spoke about it at this conference.

It is time to make some fundamental changes. In order to do that we have to begin to lower the crippling tax burden that the government levels on Canadians each and every day.

The industry minister also pointed out that we have much higher taxes in Canada than they do in the United States. Our taxes are 130% higher than taxes in the United States. Taxes in the U.S. are around 28.5% of GDP according to the industry minister. Ours are 36.8%, 130% higher.

This points to the need to make some changes in order to ensure that we have the standard of living we used to have in Canada. We used to be the economic equal of the United States. We have become second class economic citizens compared to our U.S. cousins. That is unacceptable.

The government's plan over the last five years has been to anesthetize the public and allow people to think everything is moving along the way it should be. We hear this don't worry, be happy message from the Prime Minister almost every week. I think my friends around the House would agree with that.

We know it is simply not so. We know we are falling further and further and further behind the United States. It should not happen. We are as good as they are. We are better in so many ways. We can do so many things much better than the United States.

We have companies that are world leaders, but what do we see? We see companies like Nortel, a great leader in the telecommunications industry, in the high tech field, moving more and more of its operations into the United States. That is a condemnation of the policies of the government. It is unbelievable that the government sits idly by.

No, that is not quite accurate. The government does not sit idly by. Instead it trots out these rinky-dink little programs saying, “We will have this program, we will have that program” expecting to reverse the terrible trend that is bankrupting families. Instead, the government should be cutting taxes.

There is hardly an economist left in the country who does not understand that we have become uncompetitive when it comes to taxes. The result is that our productivity continues to fall. Our standard of living continues to fall. We see that every day.

I bet there is not a member of parliament in this place who cannot tell a story about a family member, a daughter, a son, or a friend who has left Canada to go to the United States. Why do they go? There are four very compelling reasons.

First, there are more jobs in the United States especially for people with great skills in those high tech fields. Our high tech industry is held back by the government but in the United States it is booming. It is absolutely going crazy. There are all kinds of jobs. We hear stories about the entire class or a great chunk of the class from Waterloo being recruited by Microsoft to work at Microsoft in Seattle. We hear those stories all the time. There are more jobs.

Second, the pay is better. When there is an unemployment rate in the United States of 4.3%, companies in the U.S. are desperate to find good workers. They pay a lot more money. Even when comparing American dollars to Canadian dollars, companies are still paying a higher numerical value in the United States for those workers.

Third, people in the United States get to keep more of the money they earn. As the industry minister has pointed out based on the government's own data, our taxes are far higher than the taxes in the United States. The industry minister hounded that point home at the Empire Club.

Fourth, the U.S. dollar is worth so much more than ours. Ours is now at 65 cents, near a record low. People are able to buy a lot more with those dollars.

Those are four big reasons the government indirectly has given to young people to leave Canada to go to the United States. It is disgraceful that that happens. It is an economic tragedy. More than that, it is a human tragedy. We are losing our family members to places outside Canada, not only to the United States but to other countries around the world as well. Ireland is attracting many people, the U.K., and on and on it goes.

It is a human tragedy. We would like to keep our families together. We would like our young people to have the option to continue their high tech careers in Toronto, Kanata, Calgary, or wherever. We just do not see that happening because the government punishes innovation. It punishes people who have obtained skills. The result is that we lose these young people which is a great tragedy.

Lately the government has been attempting to hang its hat on a study done by KPMG Consulting which the government alleges suggests that Canada is somehow far more competitive than the rest of the world in terms of attracting business to Canada. When we look at the fine print in that KPMG study two things jump out. The first is that the single biggest reason people should come to Canada is because we have low wages. For government members to get to the point where they will stand in the House of Commons to boast about Canada having extraordinarily low wages so others should come here to set up shop speaks of the desperation of the government. It demonstrates real desperation when they get to the point of essentially saying “Come to Canada because Canadians will work for peanuts”.

Second, they say that others should come to Canada because we have an extraordinarily weak currency. The currency is the barometer of the health of the economy. We can take where the currency is and essentially say that is where the standard of living is. As the currency strengthens, so does the standard of living. We saw our currency fall to record lows in July and the government did nothing about it. In fact the Prime Minister almost bragged about it. He said “It is good for exports. No problem”. He has said that over and over again during the course of his career.

Contrarily, when the finance minister was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party several years ago he berated Michael Wilson, the Conservative finance minister at the time, because the dollar had dipped below 80 cents. We yearn for the days when it was only 80 cents. We yearn for those days because again the dollar reflects the standard of living of Canadians. When the dollar is low the standard of living is low.

If anyone doubts for a moment that Canadians have seen their standard of living drop, then do not listen to my words, listen to the words of the industry minister of the Government of Canada who pointed out in his speech to the Empire Club that Canada has seen its standard of living fall below the poorest of the deep southern American states. Canada's standard of living is below that of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas and Louisiana. That is a fact.

The industry minister told the Empire Club that a few weeks ago and the government continues to stick its head in the sand a pretend everything is okay. “Don't worry, be happy”. That is all we hear from the government.

It had a chance to rectify this problem. It has been running surpluses. If it had kept the line on spending we would have money to start lowering taxes and to increase productivity and the prosperity and standard of living of Canadians.

We desperately need that in Canada today. We are tired of being second class economic citizens compared to the United State. We used to have a dollar that was stronger. We used to have a standard of living that was stronger. We used to have unemployment that was lower. That has all gone by the wayside. Since we have had this government, and Tory and Liberal governments before it, we have seen the erosion.

It is time to reverse that and there is a way to do it. The way is to hold the line on spending, run up big surpluses and cut taxes. What happens when we cut taxes? Revenues increase. Those who doubt for a moment what I am saying should look at Ontario where revenues have increased since it cut taxes. On St. Patrick's Day, look at Ireland and the Irish miracle. It cut taxes and its economy has grown at over 5% a year for several years now. It has extraordinarily low income tax rates and tax rates of all kinds, to the point where it is actually able to provide free tuition to everybody in Ireland today. That is how much extra revenue it is bringing in as a result of cutting taxes because of the increased business activity.

The government is way off track with Bill C-71. It is way off track with its budget in general. It should have taken the opportunity to start cutting taxes, to leave more money in the pockets of homemakers, business people and entrepreneurs. Those are the people who create the jobs. Those are the people who deserve a break.

I encourage my friends across the way to not be so hidebound and to consider for a moment that there might be some good ideas coming not only from the other side, not only from Canadians, but even from the Department of Industry in the comments made by the industry minister not so long ago.

At the end of the day, Canadians deserve this tax relief. We should be getting it from this government.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty tough act to follow, but I will see what I can do. I have a lot of admiration for my colleague and friend from Medicine Hat.

We are talking about budget implementation and I will focus on different aspects of the budget.

The day of reckoning is coming. Within a few years this Liberal government is going to see that Canadians cannot be given a snow job. This is really about brainwashing, not about budgeting. Government spin doctors are famous for their tinkering. All they know how to do is tinker.

Let us just look at the record of this Liberal government. I want to stick to the facts. In 1999 the average Canadian will pay $2,000 more in taxes than they paid in 1993. At the very same time, health cuts will amount to $1,500 per person. Over the last three years there have been $1,500 in health care cuts per person.

What is the government's record? Let us look at the facts. What has it done? I can give hon. members examples.

Instead of looking at funding hip replacements or surgery, taxpayers are providing funding of $100,000 for a government grant on a book of dumb blonde jokes. The list goes on and on forever.

The government has slashed university funding while protecting $4 billion in pork barrel regional development grants over the last four years.

This is an interesting one. RCMP services have been cut. We have seen that it is devastating. The RCMP in British Columbia has been cut down to the bare bones. Vacancies are not being filled. As the government continues to cut money that is available to the RCMP, it gets millions and millions of dollars from the illegal trade subsidies it gives to profitable corporations.

That was no more apparent than when we were speaking during question period today. I see that members opposite are wondering about this. The government continues with these illegal trade subsidies, and that is exactly what they are. The WTO ruled on it. It is part of the government's taxation policy to give Canadian taxpayers' dollars away to profitable corporations.

Of course government members stand to make a lot of noise about how patriotic they are. They accuse the official opposition of siding with Brazil, which is absolute and utter nonsense. The WTO ruling is the result of the government's taxation policies. It wants to give tax dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, to profitable corporations. It is absolute and utter nonsense.

If government members are really so patriotic and committed to Canadians, why do they continue to gouge the pockets of every single Canadian in this country? Why do they continue with sneaky, hidden tax increases, one after the other? They are endless, and they are all sneaky, hidden tax increases.

Then government members claim these victories after they have raised taxes and raked the wallets and pocketbooks of Canadians, who are struggling from payday to payday.

Government members claim they had to make tough decisions so they could balance the budget. They have no right to claim for one second that they did one thing to balance this budget. The credit goes entirely to every single Canadian taxpayer who has been paying $2,000 more in taxes each year since 1993. The credit goes to those families who have suffered irreversible, incomprehensible harm as their loved ones have died waiting on hospital lists. That is who the credit really goes to for balancing this budget.

It was not the Liberal government that made tough decisions for Canadian families; it was the Canadian families themselves who had to balance their paycheques every month to scrape by, dip into their RRSPs, cash in their savings and struggle to make ends meet. It was not the government.

We have heard the Minister of Finance stand in this House to claim how proud he is that he has cut taxes. Sure, there might have been some minor tinkering to provide slight tax cuts, but what he is not telling us is that the increases have been greater. In fact if we take into account payroll taxes, Canada pension plan premiums and bracket creep, taxes this year alone have increased by $2.2 billion.

I will focus the rest of my talk on a couple of issues. I will deal with brain drain and how we have shattered the hopes and aspirations of young Canadians. The other area that I feel very passionate about is tax discrimination, tax unfairness, what we are doing to the Canadian family and how the government attempts to justify it.

We have all heard that a family of four with an income of $50,000, with one parent who chooses to stay at home, will pay $4,000 more in taxes than that of a family with the same income with two parents working. Let us look at the net effect. How does that affect these families?

The tax policies are discriminatory. I will use my sister for an example. My sister is a schoolteacher in Invermere. She has three small girls who are just starting elementary school. Her husband James decided to put his career on hold. He stayed at home with the three girls while my sister went off to teach. They felt it was very important that one parent be at home until the girls started school, so James put his career on hold and my sister went to work. He made personal sacrifices that we should be commending him for and not penalizing him under our current tax act. That is exactly what we are doing. There is no question about it.

I would like to quote some statements made by members opposite. The member for Vancouver Kingsway said in a finance committee hearing on October 8, 1998, when she was talking to parents who had chosen to put their careers on hold, chosen to stay at home and who place some value in parenting, “Perhaps individually you have low self-esteem for many reasons. Most women can combine career and family life. We know it is very difficult. A lot of times people just take the easy way out”. Those have to be the most insulting comments to make to someone who chooses to stay at home to look after their family. It is an absolute disgrace coming from the government, with all its fanfare and hoopla and all of its wining and dining of the financial institutions in trying to spin this budget. All the spin doctors out there have failed to recognize some very basic flaws in our tax act.

I am pleased to see that the province of Alberta has taken a leadership role in the country with respect to this issue. It is rectifying the issue as far as it can within its provincial jurisdiction to bring back fairness. It is breaking new ground and it is high time.

The issue was brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance over and over again. The Reform Party of Canada has been fighting the issue since it first became an official party of the House in 1993. It has had supply day motions and this debate has been going on and on. The government has again buried its head in the sand and has refused to recognize it. It is one of the most offensive areas I have found in tax policy.

What does the government do? It only tinkers. Its day of reckoning is coming. These are the hard core facts. I know the government does not like them. It is not very proud of them but they are the facts and it cannot get away from them.

Although I do not have the form in front of me I can recite form T778, the child care deduction form, because I know it so well. It gets even worse. If only one parent of a two parent family is working there are three ways according to the tax form, which is available on the Internet at website www.rc.gc.ca, to claim the child deduction.

First, they have to be mentally or physically incapable of looking after children. The second one is absolutely amazing. They have to be convicted criminals who have spent at least two weeks in jail in 1998. Can we imagine a convicted criminal who has spent two weeks in jail being given priority to claim the child care deduction? That is a fact. It is right on the tax form. It is absolutely outrageous.

The third way is if the parents are separated or divorced for at least 90 days. It is no good if they want to stay together. It is no good if they are happily married. However, if they want to separate, they can follow the Liberal government tax form. I encourage everyone to look it up on the Internet. They can go to any post office in Canada and ask for a T778 form, the child care deduction form. It is absolutely incomprehensible.

What do the Liberals really think of their budget? What do they really think about the Canadian economy? How proud are they? I will refer to some quotes of the Minister of Industry on February 18, 1999. We have already heard from him in the House today. This is what he thinks the Canadian economy is doing, one of the Prime Minister's henchmen, the frontline people who go out and do the messaging:

How can we maintain or, better still, increase our standard of living? Since 1987 we have done okay.

That is debatable. He continued:

Our standard of living has grown by 7%, but when we look our American friends we see that at the same time they have increased their standard of living by 17%.

In other words it is 30% higher in the U.S. than in Canada or $37,239 compared to $28,234. I repeat that this was the Minister of Industry speaking, the government's henchman, the spokesperson who goes out and brags about the record of government.

Then he went on to say:

So what does all this mean? Moving back to our standard of living, which is the whole point of this address, the productivity in Canada has grown 1.2% per year faster, which is a gap between U.S. and Canadian growth. According to the OECD per capita income would have been $7,000 a year higher. For a family of four this is a $28,000 shortfall.

The Prime Minister's henchmen are going out and doing their messaging to promote the budget, yet they are admitting that their economic policies have been an absolute, utter and complete failure.

There are some lessons to be learned from the American system. Obviously in 100 square miles in the U.S. and 100 square miles in Canada we will not be able to deliver the same services for the same price, but the difference does not have to be 10 times.

Our government's policies are driving us to bankruptcy. Our government's taxation policies are driving Canadian businesses out of Canada every minute of every day. Our government's policies on taxation are shattering the hopes and aspirations of all young Canadians. They are going across the border by the thousands. Where are they going? It is to our neighbours to the south. They are not going down there for the sunshine. They are not going down there to live in their cities for their clean air. They are going down there because they do not see any future way of fulfilling their aspirations and dreams in this country.

That is why I am standing in the House today. I ask any member of the House to challenge that I am not a patriotic Canadian and that I am not here to fight for Canada, to make this country a better place in which to live. That is why I am here and I made sacrifices to be here. We have to offer a vision so that young Canadians will be able to fulfil their dreams in this country and not have them shattered by our taxation policies.

Let us go back 25 years to when I left high school. People today do not have the same opportunities I had. When I finished high school I could easily get work. It was no problem. I was never out of work a day. I had good paying jobs and was able to fund myself all the way through university without assistance. I could do it because there were opportunities. There was excitement. We were ready to get an education and get into the working field. We could hardly wait to start going after our dreams.

Young Canadians from coast to coast to coast in the country do not see the same opportunities. They are trying to find minimum wage jobs. They are graduating from university with students loans in excess of $50,000. They are calling my office and asking what they can do and how to get out of that mess. They have degrees. They cannot get jobs. They owe $50,000. They ask if they can declare bankruptcy. They ask for guidance. They do not see any opportunities to fulfil their dreams.

Why? It is because of the government's tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend policies. We have known about this for a long time, as has the government. It likes to tinker a bit, fudge a few numbers, shuffle the books and then say it has brought in a great budget. It is all brainwashing. It is all nonsense.

I will leave government members with a few thoughts of which I want them to take note. I am standing here along with my colleagues to fight for Canada, to make the country a better place so that young Canadians can fulfil their aspirations, hopes and dreams; so that families can make the right decisions and can choose to stay at home to raise their families without being discriminated against by absolutely insane government taxation policy.

Every Canadian family would be better off if Reformers could just change a few of these things, if they could convince the government to get its head out of the sand and look into the future as opposed to tinkering.

We are speaking on deaf ears across the way but the day of reckoning will come. Canadians will see the so-called wonderful tax decreases the government keeps talking about. I will leave them with this thought: please phone me, please give me a call. I ask them to take their paycheque stubs to their members of parliament next month or in three or six months from now and show them the hundreds of dollars of tax relief. At the end of the day Canadians will not get one thin dime more. That is a disgrace.

[The Deputy Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Tobacco.

Business Of The House

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some discussions have taken place among all parties and the member for Wild Rose concerning the taking of the division of Bill C-219 scheduled at the conclusion of Private Members' Business today. I believe you would find consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on C-219, all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second reading shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at the expiry of Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 16, 1999, be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-71 now before the House, which seeks to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled last month in the House.

It is difficult to find positive things to say about this bill, since the budget alluded, of course, to the centralizing of the health care system, does nothing for the unemployed and is giving the agriculture sector nothing but crumbs. I want to show how this government managed to eliminate its deficit.

First, let us look at the employment insurance program. Members opposite are very stubborn; we keep telling them that the system is not working, that it is choking the unemployed. Let me give you an example. As members know, in recent years, the employment insurance benefits that the unemployed were not getting have been used to increase the amount in the employment insurance fund which, in turn, was used by the Minister of Finance to eliminate the deficit.

In the 1999 budget, the government confirms that it misappropriated the $7 billion EI surplus in 1998-99 and that it intends to repeat the performance with the anticipated $5 billion surplus in 1999-2000. Adding up all the billions that were taken from the unemployed, by the end of this year—and this is a real bug for the jobless—amounts to a $26 billion surplus, which has made the regions, including Quebec, poorer and put the jobless in a scary situation that still persists. These people have no hope that the system might some day meet their expectations.

When I rose a few weeks ago to speak to the budget, I had made a long list of suggestions to improve the employment insurance plan. However, when we on this side speak to the other side, I do not know, it is as if there is an invisible wall or some comprehension problem, but they do not understand common sense. They really do not understand common sense.

We are hoping that, finally, the Liberals opposite will understand what the Bloc Quebecois wants and what all the workers in Quebec and Canada are calling for.

First of all, improved eligibility: the end of discrimination against certain categories of unemployed because of their so called regularity on the labour market; a reduction from the current 700 hours to 300 hours the requirement for special illness, maternity or parental benefits; an increase in the number of weeks of benefit from 45 to 50; the abolition of the so called intensity rule, which progressively cuts benefit rates from 55% to 50% for contributors regularly drawing employment insurance.

As we know, like a diet, a plan can be hard on people. Sometimes people lose weight when they go on one. But the unemployed lose money. They really lose money. Since 1993, this government has ceaselessly attacked society's most disadvantaged. This government, and especially the Minister of Finance, has become very good at creative bookkeeping.

That brings us to the transparency of the EI fund. At a press conference last winter, the four parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, got together and called for the EI account to be kept separate from government operations and for the Employment Insurance Commission, not the minister, to be given sole authority over EI premium rates.

Every December, the minister trots out so-called good news that bears no resemblance to what unemployed workers want.

We also called for the rules that reduce the amount of benefits to be eliminated. We asked that the freeze on maximum insurable earnings be lifted, the 52 week base period be restored, and the calculation of benefits be based on the number of weeks required to qualify during which earnings are highest.

These are interesting and constructive suggestions, but nothing is happening. On the contrary, the government continues to dip into the EI surplus. Why? So that it can lower the deficit and, worse still, interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is getting very good at this.

This was clear in the September 1997 throne speech written by a marketing specialist, the sole objective of which was to make sure the maple leaf appeared on everything.

Whether in provincial, municipal or rural jurisdictions, everywhere we turn, there is the maple leaf. With the millennium scholarships, we were even afraid we would have to have the Prime Minister's face on the documents. What do you suppose would happen to a Canadian dollar with the Prime Minister's face on it?

[An hon. member]

It would have lost value.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

It would be worth less than 50 cents.

How much energy and money is expended by this government in an ongoing battle against its own constitution? When it gets involved in health and the municipalities, it is directly interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. When it comes in with the millennium scholarships, it is interfering with education.

Who are the losers with the millennium scholarships? The younger generation, the students, who will find themselves dealing with two systems—once again, duplication in Quebec—and will lose financially. While the federal government doggedly insists on not respecting Quebec's jurisdiction over education, who is it that loses out? The young people.

There is a shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars. Everything possible has been done to get negotiations under way again, but on an equal footing, not between the president of Bell Canada and the new Minister of Education, but between the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Education. This government is trying to shirk its responsibilities by delegating a representative of a private company. Let us get serious, now.

Getting back to employment insurance, I would like to repeat to this government the essential demands of the Bloc Quebecois. The employment insurance fund must no longer be used as a tax on employment. The way it is operating, employment insurance has become an indirect tax, a tax that is taken from the pockets of the unemployed and from employers, and one that has no positive benefits for them.

Let us consider the following example. A person has insurance for his car. He is told “If you have an accident at Drummondville, you will be covered, but if it is at Lac-Saint-Jean, you will not”. The EI system is as ridiculous as that.

In the Quebec City region, crossing the river changes the EI rate. The result of this is that no one gets the same amount, no one is entitled to the same number of weeks of employment insurance. Where is the fairness and justice in such a system?

What is more, administration of the employment insurance account needs to be depoliticized. If the federal government has a hard time grasping common sense, it need only give this responsibility to employers and workers. We have introduced a private member's bill on this issue. Here again, the four parties on this side of the House have approved this approach, but, on the other side, nothing is happening.

I would now like to discuss the second point of my speech, which concerns health, or, if members want to put in that way, the initial ravages of the social union. The cuts are in the amount of $33 billion rather than $42 billion. The budget announced an additional $11.5 billion in transfers over five years, which means $2 billion in 1999-00 and $9 billion until 2003-04.

Furthermore, the government also announced an additional $1.4 billion in new health care spending, which tramples on and overlaps provincial jurisdictions. The $2 billion announced for all of Canada represents only just the amount that was cut for Quebec alone in health care. It is a third of the $6.3 billion shortfall the federal government announced last month.

Let us talk figures. They are the experts in this on the other side of the House. They are also experts in having a hard time recognizing the real things.

The initial plan for cuts represented a cumulative shortfall of $48 billion between 1993-94 and 2002-03. The announcement in the 1997 election was a little election treat. They are good at that. I will discuss later the little election treats in rural development and where the money goes. You will see that, in patronage, these folks are hard to beat.

During the 1997 election campaign, the Liberals announced an increase of $12.5 billion and said the cumulative cut would be only be $42 billion. This is not what I call a treat.

Let us now turn our attention to the recent social union framework agreement. This was a great blackmail operation conducted in the Prime Minister's office, along with provinces that will soon hold an election, except one. It is very easy to understand why Ontario received $1 billion. That province is well represented in this House.

I can understand why the province of Ontario would be favoured, but I have a hard time figuring out why Liberal members from Quebec would be so gullible. What is going on in that caucus? They are asleep. Quebec MPs fall bow down to Ontario and guess who loses? Quebec. Ontario receives $1 billion, while Quebec gets $150 million. Is this justice? Is this a worthwhile social union?

I can certainly understand why the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, dismissed the agreement that was proposed to first ministers. It is impossible to understand why this government is always trying to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I will now give the long list of future federal intrusions in health.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Let's get the Kleenex out.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

It bothers them a lot on the other side to hear the truth. But do not worry, I am used to that. I once worked in the telecommunications industry and I am not the nervous type.

Talking about intrusions, the national health surveillance network comes to mind. This network will be used to identify outbreaks of serious illnesses and will link Canadian laboratories electronically. This is an investment of $75 million over a three-year period. Health is a provincial jurisdiction, it is a Quebec jurisdiction.

There is also the establishment of the Canada health network. This network will provide Canadians with access to information about health issues ranging from nutrition to colds, from breast cancer to diabetes, and so on. It will cost another $75 million over three years. Health comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec, not of Canada.

Then there is the Canadian institute for health information, a bunch of medical snoops who will visit CLSCs and hospitals and report to the Minister of Health on how he can take money, go over the heads of the provinces and of Quebec, and invest it.

The new mandate of the Canadian institute for health information will be to file periodic reports on the health of Canadians and the health system, including waiting lists, doctor and specialist assignments and the most effective courses of treatment.

During a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food dealing with rural development—since we are talking about health—I learned that a $70,000 investment in community health was being made in Saint-Étienne-des-Grès. How odd that this is right near, if not right in, the riding of the Prime Minister. I do not know whether the nurse or the person in charge of this project is a generous contributor to the Liberal Party of Canada. There are 68 rural development projects for a total of $3.8 million in areas of provincial jurisdiction. They excel at this.

There is more. There are telehealth and telecare pilot projects. These are virtual CLSCs. There are accountability measures and the NURSE fund. Now they are into training. But the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed a training agreement. This has been ignored. What about prenatal nutrition, to the tune of $75 million? This duplicates what is being done by CLSCs.

I will now look at how the federal Liberals went about eliminating the deficit. There is nothing tricky about it: the provinces, the sick, and unemployed workers were stuck with the bill. In 1993, the federal deficit stood at $42 billion.

This is the unfortunate heritage of the Conservative government, but we must not forget that before the Conservatives tere were the Trudeau Liberals, John Turner and great experts in economics. The result was a growing deficit.

In 1993, the present Prime Minister said it would be impossible for him to eliminate this deficit in under five years, without cutting social programs. The first solution was to cut social programs. And what did the Liberals do as soon as they took over? They systematically demolished social programs.

From 1994 to 1999, federal government program expenditures were reduced by $7.5 billion. Transfer payments to the provinces alone were slashed by $6.3 billion, or 84% of total reductions in program expenditures. Thus, close to 80% of federal budget cuts were shouldered by the provinces. These federal cuts to front line services represent more than 75 cents of every dollar of cuts to health and education in Quebec.

And what about the unemployed? This is another Liberal policy aimed at eliminating the federal deficit. There is nothing complicated about it. The employment insurance program is reformed, the rules are modified, and as a result fewer than 40% of unemployed workers paying into the program are now eligible to draw benefits. And where does the surplus go? First of all into the employment insurance fund, and later into the pocket of the finance minister.

When one thinks of it, employment insurance has become surplus insurance for the government and poverty insurance for workers who lose their jobs.

Nowadays, is there anything more scary than losing one's job? There have been so many cuts in offices that the unemployed are now dealing with recordings. There is not much sensitivity involved. People wait. They do not know what they will get. The act is so complex. They are told “Use tape number one to find out how to fill your form. Use tape number two to know your rights. Use tape number three to kill time”. Finally, when the time comes to meet an officer, the afternoon is gone. It is 4:30 p.m. They are then told “Sir, Madam, come back tomorrow”.

And the lists get longer. I have received many complaints in my riding office concerning the 1-800 number. The line is always busy. Yet, the telephone operators are located in Shawinigan, in the riding of Saint-Maurice. That service should work. After all, it is in the Prime Minister's riding.

I will now refer to a recent study by two UQAM professors, Pierre Fortin and Pierre-Yves Crémieux, which shows that, because of the recent employment insurance reforms, Quebec's welfare roles alone will eventually swell by 200,000.

The impoverishment of Quebec and the regions is the result of the employment insurance program. The data from Statistics Canada support this forecast, given that, between 1989 and 1997, the percentage of unemployed receiving EI benefits dropped from 83% down to 42%. The situation is even more dramatic in the case of young people. More than three out of every four young people do not qualify for employment insurance, even though all young workers contribute to the program.

I want to say a word about the tax reduction, about the crumbs that this government offered in its latest budget. The Bloc Quebecois had asked for a targeted tax reduction that would have helped those who paid off the deficit, namely the unemployed, the young, the sick and the poor in our society.

As regards the elimination of the 3% surtax for middle class people earning between $30,000 and $60,000, the reductions in income tax amount to $163 per person. In this budget, the poor were left to their own devices, with tax reductions of only $90.

The minister announced an increase in the basic personal exemption from $6,456 to $7,131, a tax reduction of $115 per single taxpayer living alone. That really boosts the economy, and helps a parent cope with difficulties.

I have spoken at length of the unemployed and health care, I will now speak about rural development.

The Minister of Finance announced cuts worth $100 million to funds earmarked for regional development. Since its arrival in 1993, this government has completely forgotten Quebec regions in its budgets. That is understandable, since a recent survey published last week in the Globe and Mail revealed that 77% of people did not know who was responsible for regional development, despite government propaganda.

Every time they provide a bit of money in Bloc ridings, we are not invited. They arrive on the sly. The Minister of Human Resources Development was by two or three weeks ago on the pretext of making big local and regional announcements. All he wanted to do was impress the local media with the benefits of the budget.

The press conference was over in 20 minutes, of which 15 were taken up with questions and five with announcements. The media reported that there was nothing in the budget for unemployed workers, middle income earners, or health. On the contrary, there is plenty for health when it comes to Quebec. But once again this was misunderstood.

In conclusion, I would like to mention another cute patronage trick for interfering in the affairs of the provinces. It is called rural development. There is an indepartmental working group composed of 26 federal departments and agencies. Their job is quite simply to find ways of interfering in provincial jurisdictions where they have no business. That is their mandate.

At least they are frank about it, which is rare for members opposite. They say that the rural development goals for the next few years are to ensure follow-up—$3.8 million for 68 small projects with no structure—; co-operate better with other levels of government. I wonder what that is all about because they are going to be interfering in municipal and provincial jurisdictions. Another goal is to make programs more flexible and—here comes the fine print—increase the federal presence. This was on one of the slides shown last Tuesday.

They also want to listen. Listen to what? Listen to the demands of people who no longer know which way is up. The response is to increase funding and to go over the heads of municipalities, provinces and agencies serving the public.

Let me address these projects, particularly the $70,000 to develop a model for rural community health care co-operatives.

The other project—and the minister was asked to define rural community last Tuesday—is a $20,000 investment in community organizations in the municipalities of Longueuil, Saint-Hubert, Boucherville and Chambly. These communities are located across from Montreal, on the south shore. It is an urban area, and the government would have us believe that it will put money into rural development in that area. It is nothing but a joke.

In conclusion, when talking about implementing certain provisions of the budget, it is very difficult for us, in the Bloc Quebecois, to vote in favour, because our basic demands were dismissed out of hand by the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the federal Liberals.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999. The reason it is a delight to have a chance to participate in this debate is to clarify some of the mythology surrounding the most recent budget.

I realize that politics has a lot to do with perception. Perception is a fancy word for mythology, or misleading I suspect.

I have had some interesting advice. Watching today is a very important individual, Ange Vautour, who is age 75. Today is his birthday. He is very interested in the outcome of today's deliberations. As well, my father who is in his mid-nineties, is watching today. He gave me all kinds of advice in terms of what to include in my comments on the budget. They are two very special individuals, and I suspect many other very special individuals are watching today's proceedings.

I have listened with interest to the debates to this point. The picture from the constituency level is that this was a health care budget. In other words, a lot of people said that the government took major steps to once again fund Canada's health care system. In a sense that is true, but only in a sense. When we look at the fine print of this budget, we notice that if we wait for not this year, not next year, not the year after, not the year after that, and not the following year, but the following year, the funding the provinces will get will be at the same level as it was way back in 1995.

This is a bit of magic, a bit of hocus-pocus. This is moving the little shell between hats when the government says it is reinstating a whole lot of money into health care, which is true, but after all is said and done, many years from now, we are still way back in the mid-1990s in terms of funding for health care. Let us admit today that we are still going to be seriously underfunded in terms of developing the health care system that Canadians wish.

There are two items that I remember my friends in the Liberal Party promised Canadians. They promised, and promised. They said, “If you elect Liberals, we are going to have a decent home care program across the country. If you elect Liberals, we are going to have a decent pharmacare program. As a matter of fact, we will have a national pharmacare program and we are going to wind it into our medicare system”.

I noticed that the budget was relatively mute on two items. The Liberals do not talk much about home care any more. They do not talk much about pharmacare. I suspect they can talk about it all they want if they do not put any money into it. Mr. Speaker, you might want to have home care, I might want to have home care and my friend from P.E.I. might want to have home care, but if there is no money for home care, what the heck do we do? This is an empty promise. This is a promise that means nothing.

It is fair to say we are not going to have a pharmacare program in this country for two reasons. The most obvious one is that the government puts no money into it. But there is another one and it is called NAFTA.

Under the provisions of NAFTA if we were actually going to impose a pharmacare program that made sense, we would make a lot of multinational pharmaceutical companies unhappy, particularly those based in the United States. They would say to us, “If you want to impose a national pharmacare program to give the people of Canada a break when it comes to buying their prescription drugs and so on, you have to compensate us for all the lost profits, billions and billions of dollars in lost profits”.

No government is going to be in a fiscal position to do that. The promise on home care and pharmacare in particular is mythology that has been perpetuated by this government. It continues to be perpetuated, but I do not think Canadians are being fooled in the least.

I have some very specific concerns I want to raise about this bill today. I want to talk for a moment about a fundamental problem that exists in this House, with this government, with this parliament and in this country.

I know all of us have encountered people saying they do not trust us, they trust politicians. They say we will let them down. They do not believe we will do the things we say we will do. They feel we do not listen to them. They feel alienated from the process.

There is good reason for having those feelings. The government has let people down. They are alienated. Do members think a person living in Kamloops or in Chicoutimi or in Moose Jaw or in Thunder Bay is involved in the decision making of this government at all?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

My friend says no. He is a very smart individual.

[An hon. member]

Windsor either.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Or in Windsor. People do not believe they are involved. They know they are left out of the circle.

Before I get into proof, who makes the decisions? Here and now, what we have in this great country is not a parliamentary democracy. We have it in name but in reality we have an elected dictatorship where every few years Canadians elect a dictator. That person then decides they know what is best for everyone else.

This really started with our old pal Brian Mulroney. He came in here and said “I'm really a bright person”. I just thought of a joke. We do not hear many jokes in this place. These can be told about Brian Mulroney but you can load almost anybody else in.

Brian Mulroney and the member for Halifax were being invited to a speaking engagement in Vancouver. At the airport in Ottawa there was a young fellow standing there feeling very dejected. Brian said “What's wrong with you?” The fellow said “I'm a Boy Scout and I am supposed to be at a jamboree in Vancouver. I missed my flight”. Brian said “Join us. We're heading for Vancouver”.

The plane took off and just about over Thunder Bay it got into real trouble. The pilot said “Folks, I have bad news. We're going down. We're going to crash. You have to jump out but there are only two parachutes. So you will have to fight it out between you”.

Brian Mulroney jumps up and says “Listen, I'm obviously the smartest guy in the world. I have to get down there and save this country”. So out he goes.

The Boy Scout says “Listen, Ms. McDonough, you're the head of one of the most progressive political parties in the country. You have great ideas. I think you should go”. She turns to the Boy Scout and says “No, we can both jump out. We can both take parachutes”.

The Boy Scout said “What about Mr. Mulroney? Didn't he jump out?” “Yes, but the smartest guy in Canada grabbed your pack sack”.

Brian Mulroney started the trend to make this place somewhat irrelevant. I do not think he liked parliament. He found it a nuisance and so on but he had to go through the motions. They used closure, time allocation and so on to get legislation through the House.

Then the Liberals came in. I was hopeful. I thought they have a much longer tradition of parliament, particularly with the leadership of the cabinet, and they would use closure less often. Lo and behold, they use it more often.

[An hon. member]

Bob Rae used closure all the time.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

The world is not perfect. The reality is closure, closure, closure.

Who is in charge? My friends opposite in the back who are making suggestions for my speech, are they in charge? No, they are not. Is the cabinet in charge? No, the cabinet is not in charge. Who is in charge of this country? Not the Speaker. He is too nice a guy.

[An hon. member]

The United States government.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

That is interesting. My friend says the United States government. There is a lot of truth, unfortunately, in that. We will come back to that in a moment. The person in charge sits over there. He is called the Minister of Finance. He actually decides now on major social policy in the country.

Let us go back one budget. In last year's budget we were having this debate. One of the big items was the millennium scholarship fund.

The government said “This is what we are doing for education. We thought this through. We have education policy. We want to find ways and means of encouraging young people and others back into the school system, whether it be university, vocational school, college, technical school, an institute or whatever. We have this great idea. Its called the millennium scholarship fund and it will provide support for at least 7% of the students of this country”. What about the other 93%? The funds have been cut to universities and colleges. The government got out of the student loan program. For those 7% of students there is a scholarship fund.

They made educational policy. Was it the backbenchers on the Liberal side? No. It certainly was not on this side. Did we have a single debate in the House of Commons on education? Not a minute of debate.

The Minister of Finance decided that he knows best and he knows what educational policy should be. He introduced it. He is a very smart man. He is a very nice guy. I do not think he knows anything about educational policy. Why should he? He is a financier. That is his responsibility. That is the beginning.

We then asked what does this country need. It requires a major overhaul of our health care system. We all agree that health care is a crucial priority. Who decides on health care policy? Is it the Minister of Health? No, it is the Minister of Finance. He decides how much money is going into the system.

A few years ago he said “We will gut the health care system, slash the guts out of the health care system”. The government did, almost to the point this was an emergency situation. Now the minister says they have made a mistake. Things have to be changed so they will start refunding health care. Five years from now we will be at the level we were five years ago.

The Minister of Finance is determining health care policy in this great country. There is something wrong with this. This is just the beginning. I could speak for the next two hours about the Minister of Finance being in charge of everything in this country. Cabinet is not in charge and neither is the Prime Minister.

I will use one other example because it is a hot issue, the replacement to the Young Offenders Act. The government brought in the new Young Offenders Act which has various provisions and ideas, some very positive, some questionable, some negative. Nevertheless it is a reasonable try at doing a better job in terms of dealing with young offenders. I will give the government credit for that.

However, what is lacking? Are ideas lacking? No. Are new initiatives lacking? No. Are new proposals lacking? No. There is no money to implement the program. We could have all the programs, all the policies, all the new initiatives, all the new legislation, new regulations we want, but if no money is available to deliver to the provinces, what good is it?

That is the same problem we had with the last Young Offenders Act. One of the main problems we had with the last Young Offenders Act was that it had all types of suggestions that judges could take but there was no substance. There were no opportunities at the local level. Lawyers could argue on behalf of their young offender clients about the most appropriate way to deal with an offence but the judge would say he had no choice but to throw the kid in jail. That is the only choice the judge would have. Unfortunately after this new legislation is in place, if that takes place, it will be the same situation.

If my recollection serves me, there is $200 million available over the next three years to implement all the provisions in this new act. It is pittance. It is an impossibility to implement the provisions of this new Young Offenders Act. That is the mythology. Who decides this? Who decides how young offenders are dealt with? Is it the Minister of Justice? No. Is it the solicitor general? No. Is it anybody in cabinet? Yes, the Minister of Finance.

There is something wrong with this picture. I can see members shaking their heads. I think we all agree. There is something wrong with the system. We have to change this so that the Minister of Finance can spread his decision making around slightly.

This was also to be a budget about productivity, acknowledging that we need to improve our productivity. I think we all agree there are areas of the economy where productivity is important. When we say the word productivity, most Canadians watching will start to panic. When people hear the word productivity they think of layoffs, salary cuts and overtime. In other words, productivity does not mean what productivity is. Productivity means tougher times for most working people.

When we talk about productivity, I will take my hat off and acknowledge that the government put aside some money for research and development, to fund some of the major research agencies of the country. That was a positive step. By and large those funds are destined for the large multinational corporations. That is fair enough if some incentive will get them moving into more highly productive areas.

Where the real innovation and creativity takes place is in the small businesses of the country, in the medium sized businesses that are out there on the cutting edge of technological change, the innovators. Therein lies a real serious funding problem. The government would rather fund Bombardier, which probably does not really need any help, than to fund that small business in New Brunswick, northern Manitoba or wherever. That funding is not there. That is a serious problem we have to confront through either the tax system, granting agencies or whatever, to recognize that is where the real creativity is.

I will identify the fundamental fault with this legislation in this budget. What kind of successful life would you have if you did not have a clue where you were going, if you did not have a clue what you would try to do in the next two months, two years or whatever?

It is fair to say that for anyone to be a successful individual, however success is defined, there needs to be a bit of a road map. Goals and strategies have to be set. There has to be a plan, a business plan as the business community would call it. A person with a business idea, whether a farmer, small entrepreneur, home based business or self-employed, before going into any lending institution has to have a thought through business plan in order to qualify for support or funding.

That is the first thing anybody asks for. What is your plan? Where are you going?

Mr. Speaker, I know you are very successful in a whole variety of areas and I know the reason you are successful is you know how to write a good business plan. Successful business people know how to write a successful business plan because it is fundamental. Your plan on politics may be a little warped but that is something we can discuss another time, Mr. Speaker.

We need a plan to be successful as individuals. There has to be a plan to be successful in business. There has to be a plan to be successful as any organization, whether it is the Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, a minor hockey team or whatever. There has to be a plan to be successful. We all agree with this fundamental premise.

What about as a country? Do we need a plan to be successful as a country or can we just mumble, fumble and jumble our way through? That is what we are doing. Most Canadians if asked what they thought the game plan for our federal government is would probably laugh or shudder “oh my God, I think it is this but I am not sure”.

Why would Canadians not be aware of what our plan as a country is? We do not have a plan. We have no idea where we will be six months from now. Look at the budget itself. When most countries put together a budget their minister of finance has the guts to say “This is where I think our projects are going for at least the next five years. For five years this is what we project our revenues to be and for five years this is what we predict our expenditures to be”.

We do not dare go there as a country. We might foray out a couple of years. That is it. Even those, let us face it, are ultra conservative proposals. Even the Minister of Finance agrees we have no plan. We do not plan ahead and therefore we are in trouble. How can we evaluate a budget that is not based on anything?

One thing in this budget that really concerns me is the revenue agency being created, this monstrous form of government that will have access in everybody's lives, and this legislation facilitates that.

They say we will share information about people. This is the ultimate in big brother, sharing information between provincial governments and federal government departments about individuals.

If this agency were accountable, at least to the elected representatives of Canada, I would not feel so bad but it will operate at arm's length, virtually like a crown corporation. There is not accountability. It can intrude in Canadian lives all over the place and nobody will be able to ask the minister what is going on because it will be set aside. It will be like Canada Post.

Has anyone ever tried to find out what Canada Post does to wrecked letters or why the mail is not delivered? It is almost impossible.

This provision is something we should be waving some flags about. If the government is going to go ahead with this new revenue agency, it must have some real transparency and accountability to parliament and the elected representatives of the people of Canada.

I have a whole host of other items but I am running out of time. I will close by saying that we are not going to support this bill. We have too many concerns about it. I would not say that there is nothing good in it. There is obviously something good in any budget. There are a number of positive initiatives but overall it misses the mark. It does not reflect the views and concerns of Canadians. And frankly, I do not want a whole country run by a dictator called Paul Martin.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member is a very experienced parliamentarian. As all other members know, we do not refer to other members except by their office or their riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, not only would I hope the hon. member would take into consideration what you have just said, but also on the way he characterized the Minister of Finance I hope when he gets the opportunity to stand up he will correct what he said and retract that comment.

Toward the latter part of his comments I am assuming the hon. member talked about how he would build budgets. There has been some success on this side of the House in building budgets, with two year rolling targets, a contingency reserve, and prudence in the budgets ensuring that we stay with balanced budgets. We took that $42 billion down to a $3.5 billion surplus.

The hon. member obviously does not agree with the way balanced budgets are being built in this country, so I would offer him up the opportunity. How would he build the mechanics of the budget? He sits on the finance committee, he has heard from Canadians. He talks about rolling out the five year plans. The last time this country got itself involved in rolling out five year plans was when the Conservative Party was in government and we ended up with a $42 billion deficit.

How does the NDP build budgets? It obviously does not agree with the success we have had. Let us give it a chance to express how it would build budgets.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very reasonable question.

First, I do take back referring to the Minister of Finance by his name. I was referring to the Minister of Finance. And so there is no mistaking, if the word dictator can be used in a positive sense, that is what I was trying to do. Perhaps I could use a different term. I will be serious with my hon. friend because I respect his views and the work he does, but too much power now sits with one cabinet minister. There is too much influence.

My friend knows because I heard his comments earlier that this budget gives the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance even more authority and even greater power in terms of disbursing funds. This very clear trend is a serious concern which I share with him and which others have shared with me. His criticism was well placed. It was a term that could be misconstrued. I did not mean it in a pejorative sense. I meant it in a neutral sense with dictator meaning one single person deciding on government policy.

My friend said that a major accomplishment of this government was balancing the books. I do not think a single Canadian would say that was not the case, but let us acknowledge how that balance was achieved. That balance was achieved by dipping into the EI fund. By dipping into the EI fund and taking billions of dollars in employment insurance premiums, it was easy to balance the budget. The other way to balance the budget was to devastate the health care system. My friends over here would suggest there were some tax issues involved in this as well.

Any government can balance the budget if it slashes the meaning out of a society. Anybody can do that. If the government shut down every university and every hospital, it would balance the budget. It is that simple. But what kind of a country is that? What kind of a government is that?

Not only does the government dip into the EI fund, which some people have suggested is illegal to do, but it is now going to dip into the pension fund of the federal government employees. The government is going to dip into $37 billion of a pension fund for which it has no authority. The government is going to have to bring in legislation to be given that authority.

My second point was to acknowledge that the surplus comes with a great deal of pain. Were the people who were most pained by this budget cutting rewarded now that there is a surplus? Were the homeless recognized? No. Were the unemployed recognized? No. Were the people who need affordable housing recognized? No. Were the farmers acknowledged? No. Were the RCMP recognized? No. Were the people in the fisheries industry recognized? No. Were the miners recognized? No. Were the forest workers recognized? No. Who was recognized?

By the time we eliminate all of those groups, the nurses were hacked out, the doctors, the teachers, the professors, and on and on and on, there was a handful of people who liked this budget. My suspicion is that they probably hang around Bay Street.

I think I made my points.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a constituent of mine by the name of Ange Vautour who is celebrating his 75th birthday today, my father whom I love dearly, could my colleague explain to both me and my father what is in the budget, and again how the deficit was paid?

The Reform Party mentions that we are attracting companies here because of the low wages. I would like my colleague to explain to the House what exactly the Liberal government has done to make sure that people are forced to work not only for minimum salary, but I have a feeling that a lot of people in this country are working below minimum salary.