Debates of March 2nd, 1999

The Budget

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

He is not a sovereigntist either.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Relying on assumptions similar to those used by the minister in his budget, the chief actuary estimates that the annual surplus in 1999 will reach $6.22 billion. And the shocker: by the end of 1999, the surplus accumulated by this government in the last few years will have reached $26 billion, all of it lifted right out of the pockets of unemployed workers, SMEs and the most disadvantaged members of society.

I cannot say what I think of this Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, because it would be unparliamentary, but I am utterly disgusted with its arrogance and unfairness.

This government says we made no suggestions. That it does not know what to do about EI. I have news for it.

Here is what it would have been nice to hear from the Minister of Finance. There is nothing tricky about it, except that, if these fair social principles were observed, the Minister of Finance would lose his cash cow. He would no longer be able to pay down the deficit and meddle in the affairs of the provinces.

I will list what the Bloc Quebecois would have liked to have seen in this budget.

First of all, improved eligibility: abolition of the discrimination toward certain categories of unemployed persons based on their so-called presence in the labour force, such as the number of hours required for eligibility; reduction from the present 700 hours to 300 hours for eligibility for special sick, maternity and parental benefits.

Second, increase in maximum number of benefit weeks from 45 to 50.

Third, abolition of the so-called intensity rule which imposes a gradual decrease from 55% to 50% of the benefit level for claimants making regular use of employment insurance.

Fourth, transparency of the EI account: employment insurance account distinct from government operations and employment insurance rate determined solely by the employment insurance commission.

Fifth, reimbursement of EI contributions to those whose total insurable earnings are under $5,000.

Sixth, elimination of the rules reducing the amount of benefits: abolishing the freeze on maximum insurable earnings; restoring the 52 week base period; calculating benefits on the number of weeks required to qualify during which earnings were highest; and allowing people to earn 25% of maximum benefits weekly.

These suggestions have been incorporated into six bills tabled in this very House. This, in my opinion, would create an employment insurance program which would be fair and equitable for the people of Quebec and for all Canadians.

I will now address another issue relating to employment insurance, fiddling with zones. This is the greatest invention yet of the federal government for depriving people of a program to which they are entitled and for creating an awful mess, like the one we have in my own riding of Lotbinière.

The Lotbinière county municipality is part of a zone where the unemployment rate is at 7.2%. As a result, a worker has to have worked a minimum of 630 hours to qualify for 17 weeks of benefits. In another region or zone right next to it, and still within the riding of Lotbinière, that same person would have to work only 490 hours to qualify for 23 weeks. The Lotbinière county municipality is at a considerable disadvantage because of this regional rate and is deprived of any possibility of access to active job creation measures such as the job creation fund and the short weeks program.

When the employment insurance plan was created, it was supposed to help everyone without restriction and regardless of region. This government found a way to fiddle with the zones and to make sure that, in Quebec, as in my riding, no one understands. A person comes to me saying he lives in a certain municipality and has the right to draw 23 weeks of benefits. In another, he would be entitled to only 17 weeks. Try to explain that.

This plan is impossible. In this regard, I announce my intention to launch a vast operation to mobilize all the socio-economic and community stakeholders in the RCM of Lotbinière, the community decision makers, to get the Minister of Human Resources Development to correct his department's officials.

I will be tabling here in the next few months a complete file for the Minister of Human Resources Development. I hope he does not consider it a political action, an action by the Bloc Quebecois. It will be an action by the entire population of the RCM of Lotbinière, which is part of the riding of Lotbinière, a follow-up operation, a necessary operation. It will be an operation intended to break this longstanding social inequity.

I would now like to speak about the agriculture section of this budget: a big improvement over last year. The Minister of Finance devoted a tiny paragraph to agriculture in his voluminous 276 page propaganda document. Last year, there was not a single line, so it is a vast improvement. He announced, once again, the disaster program the minister of agriculture announced hastily before Christmas.

This government has had two specialities of late: it announces programs during recesses and organizes leaks of the deliberations of parliamentary committees to the media.

For example, last week the Minister of Agriculture announced his program when all the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food were in Washington to take part in information sessions organized with American officials and politicians to prepare future WTO negotiations. What a nice show of transparency on the minister's part.

Let us hope that, in its dealings with the provinces, this government will be fair and equitable toward Quebec, particularly hog farmers, who were saved by the intervention of the Lucien Bouchard government. If the recent social union agreement is any indication, we should expect the worst.

Let us now turn our attention to the future WTO negotiations. Agriculture is the first item on the agenda. These negotiations are under the supervision of the Minister for International Trade, who is an Ontarian, with the help of the Minister of Agriculture, another Ontarian, and of the Minister of Industry, another Ontarian. It is these three ministers who will represent Quebec's interests.

Needless to say I am concerned. I am even distressed by the fact that these Ontarians will make decisions for us Quebeckers. The social union tells the tale: one billion for beautiful Ontario, where the vast majority of federal Liberal members come from.

It is time we talk about sovereignty. To the people of Lotbinière and of Quebec I say we have to mobilize. We must talk more and more about this blueprint for our society, this project for the future, this project that gives hope to our young people, that will ensure Quebeckers' full development, that will give us the international prominence that we deserve, and that will finally liberate all Quebeckers from the yoke of the federal government. That project is Quebec's sovereignty.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my French is not very good. It is pretty rough around the edges. My friend, the member for Lotbinière is very troubled. Perhaps he could tell me why he is afraid of anyone from Ontario or from Canada's other provinces.

The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke would like an answer from the member for Lotbinière. I think the member for Lotbinière has a problem. He did not invent sliced bread. I call on him to explain the equalization payments Quebec receives, which are over $1 billion. Can he explain that to me?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has just shown that information gets distorted when it goes from one side of the House to the other. There is a psychological barrier in the House, and the federal Liberals are unable to understand how unfair they have been to Quebec in the last budget.

The budget contained $1 billion in health transfer payments for Ontario as opposed to only $150 million for Quebec. Equalization payments were withheld for three years. With equalization, normally, if the federal government were fair and spread its research and development dollars around equitably, not only would we not have received a cheque, we would have given one to other provinces.

This government is reducing Quebec to poverty, and I hope that the members opposite, including Jean Chrétien's valiant Liberals, will realize it.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I missed the start of the hon. member's speech, because I was held up in committee. What I did hear, however, sounded absurd, and I wonder how he could say such things here in the House.

If the hon. member for Lotbinière absolutely must work for separation, let him go to Quebec to do it, let him run provincially. Here we are working for Canada, working in the interests of Quebeckers and of all Canadians. That is what the House of Commons is for, and there is nothing shameful about receiving a salary from the Government of Canada.

But when reference is made to equalization payments, the social transfer, Ontario ministers, I would also point out to the hon. member for Lotbinière that Stéphane Dion is, to the best of my knowledge, a Quebec MP who is working very hard in the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians, for one can do both these things.

If he claims that the amounts allocated to Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta as transfer payments are unfair, then let him do the calculations.

[An hon. member]

You have borrowed from the employment insurance fund.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

I wonder why there is shouting from the other side. We listened to them; let them listen to us. Let them show us some respect. When it is said that Quebec receives $960 per capita in transfer payments, whereas Ontario receives $836, is this equitable? No.

In 1990, the previous government asked the three richest provinces to accept a two-year freeze on transfer payments so as to give the other provinces, including Quebec, a chance to get through the recession. That is now past. The governments were notified that there would be a return to equity as far as transfers were concerned.

Mr. Bouchard, then a minister in the Conservative government, had said that this was necessary. Now he claims to have never heard of such a thing. Odd, since he was there. As for equalization payments and the unexpected $1.4 billion cheque given to Quebec, which could give it the possibility of eliminating its deficit, there is no mention of that.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

We don't want charity. We pay $30 billion in tax money.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Yes, but we get 29% of Canadian transfer payments, although we account for 24% of the population. What do the hon. members across the way have to reply to that? Let them stop shouting and try to find some solutions to the problems, instead of always blaming someone else and never taking a look at themselves in the mirror.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it makes me laugh to hear the member saying the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs defends the interests of Quebeckers. It does not swell my confidence at all. We have a hard time understanding him, here in the House.

He landed in Quebec last week to try to explain the budget, when he has a hard time understanding the Canadian Constitution. It is clear. Education, health and municipalities are provincial. It is easy to give out figures, as the member for Beauce has just done. It is easy to treat us as separatists. I know no Quebeckers who do not want to become increasingly sovereignist in this province.

When we get taken, as was the case in the recent budget, when we see the social union, they can talk all they want about transparency. When were we consulted about investing only $150 million? The Prime Minister did not even honour his signature. And what about social union: a fine bit of blackmail. “We need you in the next election. We need you to fight the sovereignists. We will give you money. A million dollars in Ontario, a bit to B.C. and to Alberta”. Do people find that fair and equitable?

These people must be more responsible when they speak in the House of Commons.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, is my hon. colleague aware of the way the federal government treats British Columbia and the way it has closed the only land base in the province that is most likely to have a major earthquake in an urban area?

Is he aware that British Columbia gets very little in procurement from the federal government? Is he aware that British Columbia does not have the representation in the House of Commons or in the Senate that it should have?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I paid particularly close attention to the issues of Quebec, but I know that all the provinces are penalized by the federal government's actions. I can see the concerns of my colleague from B.C.

Everyone knows the budget was unfair. Everyone understands that this government is centralizing. Everyone, except the federal Liberals, understands that this government makes a mockery of provincial jurisdictions. There is a problem. There are only some 150 people in Canada who do not understand that there was nothing for the provinces in this budget and that there was nothing to promote development.

I support my colleague, and the Bloc Quebecois supports any cause that defends provincial jurisdictions.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments on the budget, many of which tend to dispel the myth the government is trying to create, the myth that this is a good news budget, the myth that is being perpetuated by the government's spending of millions of dollars to advertise it as a good news budget.

At the end of the day the people in Halifax West and in various other ridings across the country will ask themselves whether they have a job, whether they will still have to stand in line for health care, whether they will get out from under the heavy student debt load they are experiencing, whether they will have a place to live, whether they will be getting EI.

One very important issue that was not addressed by the budget was the question of a national shipbuilding policy for Canada, which would certainly help the Atlantic provinces with employment and with economic spin-off. There was a meeting a while back which involved the parties, but the Liberals did not send anyone to it. Will the member comment on whether the budget should have addressed the issue of a national shipbuilding policy?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, the Bloc Quebecois supported the unemployed in New Brunswick. This was a show of solidarity. We realize that the federal system is making people leave the Atlantic region in droves.

People from that region showed more common sense than Quebeckers. They got rid of them. They will take care of them at the next election.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the budget debate. I express gratitude to the people of Fredericton and in fact to all Canadians for the sacrifice and the patience they have shown in the last five or six years as we have attempted to deal with the deficit we inherited upon taking office in 1993.

In order to understand the 1999 budget, we have to go back at least that far and recognize that in the sixties and seventies, with all the best and noble intentions, federal and provincial governments of all political stripes attempted to bring about regional equity in terms of economic development in Canada. I would also hasten to add that for the most part most of these programs worked.

I take some offence to those who would suggest that this entire exercise that has been characterized as the welfare state has not been a success. In a vast majority of cases it has been very successful. But the country's economy did not grow at the rate that was anticipated, and as a result we were not able to sustain the rate of growth of some of these social programs. Very quickly it affected many Canadians in a way we would rather not have happened, but Canadians understood their responsibility, Canadians understood what government had to do and they made some very serious sacrifices. We owe Canadians a debt of thanks.

We have been able to make those programs sustainable into the next millennium. We have been able to deal with the deficit which we inherited. The 1999 budget is here and the deficit dragon has been slain as many have said and we are looking to reinvest around two fundamental areas. The first fundamental area around which we must invest is wealth generation. The second is to determine the appropriate way in which the wealth that is generated serves the collective and public good.

The government with this budget has demonstrated our position that economic growth in Canada will accompany a shift away from what for the last 100 years was almost entirely a resource based economy to a knowledge based economy. Hence there is a significant investment in all kinds of research. There is research around pure science, applied research, information based research, research in the social sciences and humanities, public policy and program research. Health research has been mentioned by any number of speakers to this point. There is also health care best practices and research into the new demographics and how we are going to deal with the aging population.

My own constituency of Fredericton has a significant IT industry employing thousands of engineers, computer programmers and others in the knowledge based industries, and that is growing every day. In fact our unemployment rate is 2% better than it was in 1993 and that is in the face of tremendous restraint as a provincial capital, not only the restraint that was exercised by the federal government but also a period of restraint by the provincial government.

I commend the Greater Fredericton Economic Development Corporation and Jacques Dubé who works with our municipalities, the province, the cities and municipal councils of Fredericton, Oromocto and New Maryland, with the chambers of commerce and the local labour development board, and most important in the face of the need to invest in knowledge and research, the universities, UNB and St. Thomas. I also have to pay tribute to ACOA, the regional economic development agency, for its foresight and good work. It assists universities on a regular basis in a way which I think very often is unappreciated by some members of the House.

The best example I can think of as the kind of economic development opportunities that will spring out of this R and D is a small project at UNB. It was announced in the last six months. It was financed through the transitional jobs fund, which has been characterized in other less flattering ways as a program by other members of the House. In this case the transitional jobs fund was used to invest in a metal detection research project at UNB. When items go through the metal detectors at airports and other places, it can be done with more sophistication.

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded to mention that I am splitting my time with the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development and Western Economic Diversification.

This project has already created jobs in Fredericton. It presents a wonderful opportunity for the kind of economic growth our region needs if we want to move beyond our traditional position of not being at the national average in numbers of unemployed and so on.

Our region felt the impact of the last five or six years more than most because we were so heavily dependent, whether it was on national defence or transfers from the government. Therefore, when the federal government went through a period of restraint we felt it more than anyone else.

It is important for us to take our place in line as we reinvest. We have dealt with the deficit and are dealing with the debt. As we reinvest it is very important that our region makes its case for the kind of investment that will allow us to step away from the traditional transfers that are so often associated with Atlantic Canada.

On the question of government spending and the quality of life issues, it is obvious that the Government of Canada heard Canadians. That is the reason it has made the significant investment of $1.5 billion in health care.

I have to remind the House, particularly when I hear members of the Reform Party and Conservative Party talking about the money that is being restored is money that was cut earlier, in the 1995 budget where the reduction in transfers to the provinces was announced, the official opposition had the opportunity to present a motion of non-confidence in the government. At that time significant cuts had been announced in terms of correcting the imbalance between revenues and expenditures.

However it was not the cuts which caused the Reformers to suggest non-confidence in the government. In fact, at that time the opposition said that the government did not cut enough. I remember this specifically because I was the chair of a caucus committee that was concerned about the CHST and the impact on our region and on provinces with less resources. Notwithstanding the current debate in terms of the health care system and so on, when those decisions were originally taken, we must remember the position of the opposition at that time.

As we talk about the 1999 budget, in addition to what has been announced, we have also invested in children through the national child benefit. We have invested in students through the millennium scholarship fund. We have invested in research at the universities through the innovation foundation. We have increased the CHST, the first time by $1.5 billion and we have increased it since then by an additional $11.5 billion.

This is important to recognize because when the reductions were made in 1995 they affected universities, they affected welfare and they affected health. When we are talking about the money that has been restored, we have to talk about the money that has been restored for health, post-secondary education and welfare, all of this before the 1999 budget which has reinvested a significant amount of money.

On top of this, we have provided low and medium income tax relief. We have invested $375 million in the quality of lives of the members of the armed forces. This is very important to me as I represent CFB Gagetown in my constituency. We have invested $400 million in the criminal justice system.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister for supporting the Minister of Finance and to all Canadians who have been the source of the sacrifice and the determination that has allowed this to happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, last week the ministers of the crown were in the province of Quebec rightly correcting distortions Lucien Bouchard had made, which was to say that with 24% of the population, Quebec was not getting its fair share of money. These were absolute distortions. As a matter of fact I would characterize them as lies that the premier of the province of Quebec was engaged in. They correctly pointed out that instead of there being less than 24%, which represents the population, I believe the number was 32%, 33% or 34%, or whatever it is. They were correcting the records.

For the benefit of the member, I would also like to correct the record of the Liberals. At the same time that Bouchard was putting out those ads, the Minister of Health was putting out ads talking about how health was the most important thing in the world to this government. He was putting $3.5 billion in and $11.5 billion, all of these numbers, but forgetting completely, and as a matter of fact I charge distorting the truth, the fact that there has been—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are not going to do from the back door what we cannot do from the front door. I would invite the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia to put the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, if there has been $16 billion taken out of health care—forget CHST and just talk about health care—and it will take the government five years to put a total of $11.5 billion back in, why should this be characterized as anything different from the kind of advertisements the premier of the province of Quebec put out?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is half right; I think the premier of Quebec was wrong.

The transfers to the provinces around health are very complicated. Either the hon. member does not understand the complexity of these transfers or he is involving himself in the kind of activity he characterized others as being involved in.

We have made a significant shift in the way the provinces receive the funding from the federal government by way of tax credits, tax points. Those tax points cannot ever totally deal with this problem because those parts of the country, such as New Brunswick, that do not have the same level of economic activity would not be able to provide the same level of activity as other richer provinces. That is the reason the system was divided between tax points and cash transfers when those transfers were originally announced. That is also the reason that in some period of time during the course of this, I think it was in 1981, that the cap was put on the transfers to the richer provinces.

I and the province of New Brunswick have taken the position that it is time we took those caps off. I am sure the member from British Columbia would welcome that decision. As for the transfers, it is a lot more complicated than the hon. member would have us believe.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite mentioned ACOA and economic development. ACOA has been a key player in the Canada infrastructure program, cost shared by the federal government, provinces and municipalities. This has aided a lot of small communities get basic infrastructure which they needed.

Can the hon. member tell me why there is nothing in the budget which would aid the continuation of this program for those vital infrastructure projects?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would share the member's enthusiasm for the infrastructure program and ACOA. I only say the reason the budget did not contain another infrastructure announcement is that the Government of Canada decided to invest in health care, which is where Canadians wanted us to invest. I look forward to the possibility of infrastructure investments in future budgets.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to make a few comments on the budget, which I reviewed very closely and which I discussed with Canadians across the country.

I made well over 50 calls and talked with well over 200 people about this budget. I want to share some of their views.

Most people felt that it was really a very balanced approach to the finances, to handling or managing if you wish, the finances of the nation. They were pleased with that. Clearly there were some who would have preferred a little more here or a bit more there, but overall I think it was fair and objective. If we look at the newspapers and the people with whom we talked, the report would be an extremely positive one.

I will briefly make the following points, the first one being about the tax reductions. Some people have tried to pooh-pooh them, tried to say that they were too small, too modest. Of course I would like, as I am sure my colleagues would like, to pay fewer taxes. But the truth of the matter is that if one looks at what was done last year, add what was done this year, when all of that is implemented there will be $16 billion plus worth of tax reductions.

I want to share with colleagues a very interesting fact. Let us pretend for a moment that I have the authority to give every individual tax filer a dollar a day tax break. Most people would say that is not a whole lot, and it is not really. However, at the same time there are 15 million taxpayers in the country. If we were to multiply the $15 million a day by 365 days a year, we would find the cost to the federal treasury in lost revenue would be $5.4 billion. That is a whole lot of money. It all depends on from what end we look at the decision.

Some people have tried to suggest that the transfers for health are not terribly significant. Of course that is not true. They are large. They are immense at $11.5 billion over the next five years. That is a lot of money. A lot of people have not talked about the $1.4 billion in research which will permit a number of important initiatives to try to understand better what we get from the $80 billion expenditure in health in Canada on a yearly basis. There are significant investments in health which are seen extremely positively.

The area of science, research and development has not been talked about a whole lot, a group of programs for which I have special responsibility. I want to share with my colleagues some of the comments made with regard to those decisions. I want to make sure they understand that they are not just coming from me. I quote from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada:

The federal government must be congratulated for having made such a commitment to research and for having paved a new way for integrated research in health.

Let us go to another organization, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada:

NSERC welcomes the 1999 budget decisions. We believe that many members of the science and engineering community will want to join me in expressing their appreciation for this vote of public support and confidence in their activities.

Here is another example with regard to the Networks of Centres of Excellences, the NCEs, as they are often called:

We are delighted at the 60% increase in the NCE budget. With this new funding, we will be able to add eight more centres of excellence.

And what did the AUCC have to say? It stated:

We are pleased that the government has made knowledge and innovation a key priority for the future.

We are pleased that the federal government has made knowledge and innovation a key priority for the future.

That is one of the points we must remember. In the budget the government has built upon previous budgets. For example, in the 1997 budget there was a massive investment of $800 million in the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Then the budget of last year added to the granting councils and a number of other initiatives so we would be doing leading edge research, which is what we are talking about when we talk about a knowledge based society and a knowledge based economy.

We are talking about giving Canadians the tools to make sure they can create jobs; to make sure they can create the quality of life we now enjoy; to make sure we can increase that quality of life for all Canadians; and to make sure we keep more of our youngest, our brightest and our best in Canada.

University of Toronto president, Robert Pichard, had this to say:

The University of Toronto is very pleased with the federal budget. This is the third federal budget that has strengthened our cause. We are very grateful for the new support.

We applaud the federal government's will to increase its investments in all areas of research.

The Canada Foundation for Innovation said:

These new funds mean that institutions will be able to offer the necessary working environment to keep our best researchers in Canada.

It is clear that we have invested heavily in innovation and knowledge. It is clear that the budget reinforces key measures taken in previous budgets. I have mentioned those. It is clear that we have announced an innovation strategy that reinforces key building blocks for renewing Canada's knowledge based economy. The key building blocks are there for improving that which we have, renewing Canada's knowledge base, clearly investing in research and development and innovation, and supporting the commercialization of knowledge.

The budget sets a direction for reducing our level of taxes to make Canada a location of choice for knowledge workers to live and to work. It does not provide all of the answers, but it takes a number of positive steps in the right direction.

Let us talk about the $1.8 billion invested in science, research and technology. Creating knowledge, what have we done in that area? We have invested in the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. We have invested in the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. We have invested in the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. As well we have invested in the National Research Council.

Investments are also being made in the areas of research and development and biotechnology.

Let us look at the second category of disseminating knowledge. We have invested $60 million in Smart Communities and $60 million in GeoConnections. Let us talk about commercialization knowledge.

There is the commercialization of knowledge: centres of excellence networks, $90 million; Technology Partnerships Canada, $150 million; Business Development Bank of Canada, $50 million; Canadian Space Agency, $430 million to stabilize the agency.

Let us talk about supporting le soutien de l'emploi, surtout chez les jeunes. We have the youth employment strategy at $465 million and the Canada jobs fund at $110 million.

We have made the right investments for Canadians in order to make sure that we create the jobs and the quality of life that they expect as a result of government working in partnership with others.

The budget provides considerable reinforcement for the key measures in the last three budgets to boost productivity, encourage innovation, and improve the well-being of Canadians in a knowledge-based global economy.

The keys to improving productivity have always been capital investment, innovative entrepreneurial spirit, and an increasingly skilled workforce.

In conclusion, I will just mention that there is also considerable funding for minorities, who will now be in a better position to build on what they have. The country that can provide its people with better tools, including the necessary training, will be a world leader.

The budget is about providing Canadians with the appropriate tools, including the training and education required and the climate to succeed in a knowledge based economy. The country that best provides these tools including the necessary training and education will be a leader in the 21st century.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, budget '99 did not give any meaningful tax relief to Canadians.

In fact the budget discriminated against parents who chose to stay home to take care of their children. The budget did not make any significant efforts to pay off the debt. The budget did not do anything for small businesses. They are completely left out of the loop in the budget. The government's $24 billion in cuts since 1993 have caused the destruction of our health care system.

Will the hon. member ask his government to cancel the damage control ad that is running in the newspaper, wasting millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars? Is this not simply an ad to hide a pay more, get less budget? This ad denies Canadians the right to know or the right to express themselves. It is a campaign to deny that the budget destroys health care. Will the member ask his government to stop that ad?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I would have hoped he might have been a bit more objective. Clearly the government has a responsibility to inform Canadians with regard to the programs it has and to the decisions it has made in the budget. That is exactly what is happening.

With regard to the comments about destroying the health care system, this is absolute nonsense. We had a $42 billion deficit when we came into power. That has been eradicated. What has been the major investment that has been undertaken subsequent to that? It has been in health with $11.5 billion dollars in transfer over five years to the provinces. There will be $1.4 billion to undertake research which will improve the quality of health care for all Canadians throughout the nation.

With respect to the other comments that he made, particularly the reduction of taxes, I indicated how superficial the Reform Party agreement is. If we gave a dollar a day tax reduction to the 15 million Canadians who file taxes, it would cost the government $15 million a day. In one year it would cost $5.4 billion. Does Reform not get it?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am sure the hon. member recognizes that the deficit was put there by previous Liberal governments. I know he will take responsibility for that.

I would like to quickly touch on two issues. One is the $5.4 billion per year. I assume if a dollar a day per taxpayer adds up to $5.4 billion per year the hon. member recognizes that when his government charges a dollar a day to the taxpayers of Canada it also generates revenue of $5.4 billion per year, which it has been increasing and not decreasing over the last five years.

I have a question about research and development. I give full marks for the dollars being put back into the budget for research and development. Would he touch on the Canadian aerospace funds of $400 million which were recently detailed in the WTO report as being an illegal subsidy to Canadian aerospace?