House of Commons Hansard #198 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions on behalf of the people of Dauphin—Swan River.

The first petition calls on parliament to revisit the issue of hepatitis C compensation to reflect the concerns of the citizens of Canada and to offer a fair, compassionate and humane compensation package to all who received infected blood.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB

Madam Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners call on parliament to repeal Bill C-68, to redirect the hundreds of millions of tax dollars that are wasted on licensing responsible gun owners and to put those dollars toward having more police on the streets, more crime prevention programs, more suicide prevention programs, more women's crisis centres, an anti-smuggling campaign, as well as fighting organized crime and street gangs.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present on behalf of petitioners in my riding a petition which draws to the attention of this House that the use of the additive MMT in gasoline creates environmental hazards. The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to set, by the end of this calendar year, national clean fuel standards for gasoline with zero MMT and low sulphur content.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops who are concerned that our international trade agreements limit the ability of the House of Commons or provincial legislatures to pass legislation to protect the health of Canadian citizens. The petitioners ask the House of Commons to consider examining these international agreements to ensure they do not limit the ability of members of parliament to take decisions on behalf of their constituents.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Madam Speaker, I have a petition which deals with section 43 of the Criminal Code which allows schoolteachers, parents and those standing in the place of a parent to use reasonable force for the correction of pupils or children under their care. The petitioners say that reasonable force has been interpreted by the courts to include spanking, slapping, strapping, kicking, hitting with belts, sticks and extension cords and causing bruises, welts and abrasions.

The petitioners feel that this goes against the UN charter with respect to the rights of the child as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and they call upon parliament to end the legal approval of this harmful and discriminatory practice by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise to present yet another petition from the people in the Peterborough area who are concerned about the people of Iraq.

The petitioners point out that peace building and human security, already a significant element in Canada's foreign policy, assume that enduring peace is built from the people up by meeting their basic needs and respecting their basic rights, and that Canada as a new member of the UN Security Council has an added opportunity to take leadership in proposing alternative approaches to the effort to bring about peace and stability in Iraq and the Middle East.

The petitioners call upon parliament to strongly appeal to the UN, the U.S. and Britain to reject any further military action against Iraq. They call for a serious attempt to be made at peace negotiations with Iraq and its neighbours; and further, in order to build a stable and sustainable society in Iraq, excluding an embargo on military goods, that all other sanctions be listed; and further, the petitioners urge Canada to vastly increase its effort in providing food, medicine and infrastructure reconstruction to Iraq and to take a lead in promoting the same through the United Nations.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I stand to ask a question which I asked previously on the production of papers. Question No. P-50 was filed on October 5, which was exactly 162 days ago. I have yet to receive any answer on this production of paper and I would like to know why.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, I am would be pleased to answer that question under the appropriate item of Routine Proceedings. At the moment we are concerned with Questions on the Order Paper. I believe the member is referring to Motions for the Production of Papers.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Shall the remaining questions stand?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

March 17th, 1999 / 3:15 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I rise again on a point of order. I would like to now, once again, place the question to the hon. member with respect to a request I made on October 5 under the production of papers. It is 162 days since I made the request and I have yet to receive any answer. This is the proper timing now to put the question to the hon. member.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to that question if the member would give us the number concerned.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I have given the number twice already. Perhaps I could do it once again. P-50 is what I am referring to at this point. It was filed on October 5, 1998 by me.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, I think I must have missed P-50 before. I assure the member that I will look into the whereabouts of motion for the production of papers No. P-50. I know of his great interest in it.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On January 28, 1999 I submitted a notice of motion P-70 for the production of papers in connection with section 31 of the Elections Act and the Communist Party of Canada.

I took this action after withdrawing a written question on the order paper that had been there for almost a year. The government knows very well of my interest in this subject.

Could the parliamentary secretary give me some idea of exactly how long I have to wait to get the production of papers under P-70?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, I will certainly look into that matter as soon as possible.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Shall all the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

3:15 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette Liberalfor the Minister of Finance

moved that Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999 be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

3:15 p.m.

Stoney Creek Ontario

Liberal

Tony Valeri LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure on behalf of the government to launch the debate on second reading of Bill C-71, the 1999 budget omnibus bill.

In the minister's budget speech last month he reminded us and all Canadians about what budget making is really about: “It is to make the lives of Canadians better. It is to improve their standard of living. It is to build today for a better tomorrow, for budgets are about more than entries in the books of a government; they are chapters in the progress of a people”.

This vision is reflected clearly and concretely in the legislation before us. It will add some important, impressive pages to the record of national investment by the government. In particular, it provides historic new funding for Canada's public health care system, a very real aspect of the standard of living cherished by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Based on agreement with the provinces, it sets out the design of significant additional funding under the Canada child tax benefit, the primary federal instrument for providing financial assistance to families with children.

Of course not every measure in this bill touches so directly and so dramatically on so many Canadians. It also includes measures dealing with the operations of government itself. It includes debt management, income tax administration and first nations taxations among other initiatives.

These actions should not be seen as mere footnotes to the 1999 budget vision of building today for a better tomorrow. These reflect our continuing commitment to an effective, efficient and fiscally responsible government. This is one of the key foundations that has allowed us to make new investments for a stronger economy and society and at the same time provide broad based tax relief while remaining deficit free.

There is certainly a lot to cover in this legislation so I will move on to the measures themselves, starting with the vital issue of health care.

Medicare is certainly, as everyone would agree, one of our most cherished social programs. It represents the fundamental values of fairness and equality that define our country by ensuring that all Canadians, regardless of their financial means, have equal access to high quality health care services that are based on need and not on the ability to pay. That is why action to sustain and strengthen health care is a key priority of this government and a central initiative in today's legislation.

Part one amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to implement an $11.5 billion increase in cash through the Canada health and social transfer of health care. This funding marks the largest investment this government has ever made. The increases will be distributed on an equal per capita basis. That means each and every Canadian in every province will receive the same amount.

This is an investment that will help provinces deal with the immediate concerns of Canadians about health care. Those concerns, I believe, are articulated quite clearly, waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms and diagnostic services. At the same time this funding provides Canadians with longer term stability and predictability.

Premier Romanow recognized the importance of this budget when he said: “The important message of this budget is that it is a much needed shot in the arm of the health care system not only in Saskatchewan but right across the country”.

Under this legislation the Minister of Finance is authorized to pay $3.5 billion of these funds into a trust from which they will be distributed to the provinces at a pace they set over the three year period beginning April 1, 1999. The further $8 billion will be distributed through the CHST over the four year period beginning April 1, 2000. These numbers are significant by themselves but let me put them in a wider context for the House and for Canadians.

When the increase in funding reaches $2.5 billion in 2001 and 2002, direct cash support from the federal government under the CHST will total $15 billion a year. That means what is regarded as the health care component of the CHST will be as high as it was before the period of spending restraint. That period of spending restraint was to help eliminate the deficit in the mid-1990s. The story does not end there.

When we also include the growing value of the CHST tax transfers to the cash funding, total assistance to the provinces will be worth $30 billion in 2001 and 2002. This is a new high.

This legislation also provides for the complete elimination of the per capita disparities in the distribution of the existing CHST among provinces. By 2001-02 all provinces will receive identical per capita entitlements providing equal support for health and other social services to all Canadians.

In addition to the $11.5 billion increase in provincial transfers for health care, the budget announced that our government will further invest about $1.4 billion over the remainder of this year and over the next three years in health information systems, research, first nations and Inuit health services and health problem prevention.

Significant increases in the equalization program will also make more resources available to those less prosperous provinces for public services, including health care. Payments this year alone are expected to reach $10.7 billion. Bill C-65, which is now in the other place, renews the equalization program for the next five years. That means the projected payments will be a further $5 billion higher than over the previous five years.

There is one final point I would like to make. The government is not only increasing transfers for health care, we are also providing provinces and territories with greatly improved stability and predictability in funding. All major transfers, CHST, equalization and territorial formula financing, will be placed on a common five year track for the very first time.

The next measure I would like to highlight is the Canada child tax benefit. Through the creation of the national child benefit system the federal and provincial governments have embarked on a major co-operative effort to support families and reduce child poverty. Our purpose is to ensure that children are always better off when their parents join the workforce. In 1997 we announced the first federal contribution to this national endeavour, $850 million which began flowing last July, increasing financial support to over two million children and their families. In the 1998 budget we announced that a further $850 million would be allocated following the consultations with the provincial and territorial governments.

Today's legislation acts on those consultations. It also provides a further $300 million to increase benefits for modest and middle income families.

I should explain that the Canada child tax benefit has two key components, the base benefit and the national child benefit supplement. The base benefit provides a basic amount of $1,020 per child to families with incomes up to $25,921. Beyond this threshold it is progressively phased out and becomes nil when the family income exceeds $67,000. The national child benefit supplement provides maximum benefits of $605 for the first child, $405 for the second and $330 for each subsequent child to families with incomes up to $20,921. It becomes nil when the family income exceeds $25,921.

This bill proposes changes to both the supplement and the base benefit. It sets out the design of the 1998 budget commitment to provide an $850 million increase in the national child benefit supplement payments to low income families. The implementation of the proposed changes requires amendments to various sections of the Income Tax Act, section 122.6 to be specific.

The amendments will increase the level of the maximum benefits provided under the national child benefit supplement by $350 per child in two stages, $180 in July 1999 and $170 in July 2000. They would avoid a significant increase in the effective marginal tax rates for modest income families by increasing the net income level at which the supplement is fully phased out, from $25,921 to $27,750 in July 1999, and from $27,750 to $29,590 in July 2000. Finally, they would increase benefits by $184 per family for modest and middle income families.

Overall these changes mean, for example, that a family with two children which earns $20,000 will receive an increase benefit of $700 for a total of $3,750 per year.

Let us look at the aggregate results. The child tax benefit actions in our two previous budgets will ultimately provide $1.7 billion for the children of low income families. This legislation builds on that effort, not just by establishing the design for the $850 million allocated in 1998 but by delivering a further $300 million to enhance the child tax benefit for modest and middle income families. As a result 100,000 more Canadian families will become eligible for all or part of the base benefit.

This issue, support for Canadian children in need, takes me directly to the next aspect of this bill that I would like to cover. It takes actions to ensure that the full amount of the single supplement of the goods and services tax credit also goes to single parents whose income does not exceed $25,921.

The government will increase GST credit benefits for low income single parents to complement the national child benefit by providing them with the full value of the supplement. It will be effective on July 1, 1999 and will provide additional benefits to 300,000 single parent families.

The measures relating to the GST take me directly to the next set of measures contained in the legislation. In case hon. members have not noticed, the bill comprises a number of various measures so I am moving from one to the next as quickly as I can.

This section deals with the taxation powers of first nations. In our budget plan the government once again expressed its willingness to continue discussions and to put into effect taxation arrangements with first nations that indicate an interest in exercising taxation powers. This builds on the last two years of budget commitment to put into effect taxation arrangements with interested first nations which resulted in taxation authorities for three British Columbia first nations: the Cowichan Tribe, the West Bank First Nation and Kamloops Indian Band.

Today's legislation will further facilitate first nation taxation in a number of ways. The West Bank First Nation would be authorized to levy a 7% GST style tax on the sale of fuel sold on its reserve. This would take place in addition to its existing tobacco and alcoholic beverages tax authority.

I would also like to address another area where today's legislation involves the administration of taxation, specifically citing the example of the Nova Scotia workers compensation board. The amendment contained in the legislation will permit co-operation in audits and the exchange of program information between Revenue Canada and the WCB to help ensure that amounts owed are paid.

These actions are a direct result of the service agreement signed last October between Revenue Canada and Nova Scotia. These two levels of government are pursuing opportunities for partnership in tax administration, including joint employer remittance for payroll deduction and WCB payments.

The administration agreement will result in improved fairness and make compliance easier for business. We have often heard about this in the House and from other associations interested in ensuring the compliance burden is reduced. This is an example where various levels of government are joining together to reduce the compliance burden. It also reduces government overlap and duplication.

Some of the most important measures in today's legislation deal with investments our government is making in national health care and certainly in the welfare of children. We have not and we will not lose sight of a very fundamental concern: the critical importance of continuing good financial management. The investments we have made will not jeopardize our commitments to balanced budgets.

We often hear in the House and from Canadians in our constituencies that we still carry the painful legacy of decades of deficit financing in the form of a massive debt burden that costs us over $40 billion a year in interest payments. It is money that cannot go to further tax reduction. It is money that cannot go to additional investments in strengthening our economy and social safety net. That is why we have implemented our debt reduction plan. That is why we are also committed to managing the debt we carry as cost effectively as possible.

Today's legislation includes further measures to help achieve this goal. The amendments cover two principal areas. The first is clarifying the authority governing government borrowing and distribution of its debt. The second is modernizing government financial and risk management powers. Many of these are quite technical and often just confirm or clarify existing practices of powers, but let me just highlight a few.

Section 46 of the existing FAA provides the government with standing authority to refinance maturing debt. The government proposes to amend this section to clarify that maturing debt could only be refinanced within a given fiscal year. Accordingly, any debt that is not refinanced by the end of a fiscal year lapses and cannot be refinanced in the next fiscal year. It is a practice the government has followed for many years. The legislation is in response to interpretation questions raised with respect to the existing wording.

I should be very clear that the changes do not give the government more authority to borrow. New borrowing authority to finance a deficit must be obtained and would be obtained, as it has been in the past, through a borrowing authority bill.

Another amendment clarifies and enhances the legislative basis pertaining to auctions of Government of Canada securities. Last fall the government reached an agreement with the distributors of its debt on new rules in terms of participation at auctions of government securities. The amendments set out in more detail the minister's authority in respect of these auctions. The new rules are designed to enhance market integrity and to maintain a well functioning market in Government of Canada securities which benefits all taxpayers through lower debt costs.

There is another measure I would like to highlight because it deals with the issue of parliamentary accountability. I know members opposite are very interested in parliamentary accountability, as are all Canadians. The legislation will amend the FAA to enhance reporting to parliament on debt management activities and future debt management plans.

The proposed amendments ensure that parliament formally receives information annually on the government debt management program and plans, thus strengthening the reporting structure on an important government activity.

The government is also proposing to repeal the Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97. Currently there is $4 billion of non-lapsing borrowing authority contained in this act to provide for contingencies such as foreign exchange requirements. The government proposes to transfer this unused borrowing authority to the budget implementation bill. No change in authority is being provided by this transfer.

As members can see, today's legislation is truly wide ranging. I have been more brief than I would have liked in dealing with some of the measures addressed so far, but as we continue this debate I expect that some of my colleagues will go into further detail on aspects of the legislation that interest or concern them most.

Some of the other issues the bill deals with very briefly now will be acts like the Superannuation Act which applies to the public service, the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This change would improve future pension benefits for these individuals. There is an amendment to the basic pension formula to provide for benefits to be calculated on a five year average salary and one for integrating benefits for retirees when they become eligible for CPP or QPP benefits.

The legislation will also amend the Patent Act to clarify the authority of the Minister of Health to pay provinces moneys collected by the Patented Medicine Price Review Board from excessive pricing of products by patented manufacturers.

We are also amending the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act. A number of members in the House often speak out for the farming community and for rural parts of Canada. We are amending this act so that we can clarify the scope of federal government guarantees to financial institutions that fund advanced payments to agricultural producers under the act.

I should add a note of explanation. Although the intent was to provide direct unconditional guarantees to the lending institutions, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act needs to be clarified for the federal government to provide such guarantees. Under the current legislation direct guarantees are conditional upon having producer organizations meet the terms and conditions stated in the act, which results in higher risk for lenders and interest rates on the advances that adversely affects our farming community.

Therefore the government is taking measures in the 1999 budget to correct the wording of the AMPA and to ensure that advance payments can be provided to agricultural producers at the lowest possible cost. This measure is another example of federal government commitment to agricultural producers and rural Canadians.

Finally, we are amending the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Act to provide the Minister of Finance with the authority to undertake the financial operations necessary to meet our commitments to the EBRD.

These are but a few highlights of Bill C-71, the 1999 budget omnibus bill. It does not cover every measure that the February budget proposed. For example, the broad based income tax cuts which were announced will be confirmed in separate legislation. Even the actions in the legislation by themselves reflect the commitment to a balanced approach in budget planning and budget making which has been the hallmark of the government since coming to office.

The Minister of Finance said in the budget speech:

The social and economic needs of a nation are not separate. They are not in conflict. The balanced pursuit of both is key to the health and wealth of our country.

That is why, with the federal books in balance, we have brought before the House a bill that delivers historic investment in an area which Canadians have made very clear is their key priority. We all know that key priority is health care and that it continues our work to assist children in need or at risk.

We should be very clear that nothing we have proposed will undercut another vital aspect of balance: our commitment to providing Canadians with balanced budgets this year and in the years ahead.

This type of fiscal responsibility will allow us to sustain the social and economic investments we must make to maintain an economic environment which keeps interest rates low. We need to continue, as we have stated over and over in the House, and the Minister of Finance outside the House, the process of tax relief we all desire.

We know as a government and as parliamentarians that Canadians never want to return to the time of deficit financing when we were burdening our children and future generations with debt and adding to that debt each and every year. We have finally turned the corner. We now have an opportunity to build as we go forward in a very balanced and very responsible way.

As we move forward in the consultations for the next budget Canadians will come forward and clearly articulate their priorities. I am sure and quite confident that Canadians, as they have done in the past, will continue to provide a very balanced and thoughtful approach to making budgets for this great country. It will be one that will involve reinvestment both in the social arena and in the economic arena. It will ensure that we continue to pay down debt, that we stay balanced, and that we provide the kind of tax relief Canadians are looking for in a responsible way, which Canadians will clearly support. We have done so in the past. I submit that we will continue to do so in the future.

Many other members will be speaking to the 1999 budget omnibus bill. It contains a number of various elements contained in the budget speech, certainly in areas which reflect what Canadians told us in the prebudget consultations. The success of this budget and the success of the bill are embedded in the success Canadians have experienced and will continue to experience.

It is an opportunity for Canadians to contribute to the process and have their priorities heard. Many Canadians from my constituency and from other constituencies across the country will provide the input and necessary insight which clearly reflect where they want to go. They can rest assured their insight and priorities will continue to be reflected in what the government does in budgets to come.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to split my time with the my Irish friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The hon. member is seeking consent of the House to split his time. Is that agreed?

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.