Debates of March 2nd, 1999

The Budget

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that the debt has been paid down on the backs of unemployed workers and by means of the EI fund?

The minister gives wonderful statistics with respect to unemployment, saying that it has gone from 11% to 7.8%. However, the government never explains why there has been an increase in the number of food banks in Canada and what the statistics on them are now.

The government never tells us how many 25 and 30 year-olds are obliged to continue to live with their parents and how their parents have to support them.

These are the figures I would like the minister to give us, for these are the figures that really count and that are on the minds of Canadians.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing as unreformed as a New Democrat from outside Ontario where they never had to face the prospects of governing.

What underlies that question is a complete inability to do the arithmetic which drove the country to the point of bankruptcy in 1993, led by the province of Ontario where the New Democrats for five years spent their way into oblivion.

We have created the conditions by creating jobs, by seeing job creation expand and by seeing people go back to work. There are more people working in Canada today than at any time in our entire history.

What the NDP needs to understand and what the member needs to understand is that once we get to the basic problem of creating prosperity in society, problems that are solved by getting people to work, by increasing our productivity, by being competitive, by contributing to the factors that make the quality of life here the best in the world, we get to the source of the problems that he wants to talk about. We cannot solve one without dealing with the other.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister questioned everybody's arithmetic in the House today except his own. He mentioned that the debt was going down, that they had been paid it down by $20 million.

[An hon. member]

Billion.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes, $20 billion. I apologize. I see the dollar figure on the debt stays exactly the same for the next three years; not one dollar less than it is this year.

How can he say there are $20 billion less of debt and in his own books it is the same for the next three years? That is funny arithmetic.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have that question because if the hon. member does not understand it probably a lot of Canadians have not understood as well that the way we declare our deficits is a very cautious method. In other words, we take into account all the accrued liabilities from pensions which are not due in the current year. That means we accrue debts that actually do not require us to outlay cash.

What I said is that over the last two years our market debt, in other words what we have actually gone to the markets and actually borrowed from the bankers of the world, has been reduced by $20 billion. That is not small change in my books.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are over time but there seems to be an awful lot of interest in continuing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I raise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent to stretch question and answer period for another 10 minutes for the Minister of Industry.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley has requested unanimous consent of the House to extend the period of question and answers by 10 minutes. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before you to share my thoughts on the budget delivered by the Minister of Finance. You and I may share them alone, Sir; no one else is paying any attention.

Over the next few minutes I will analyse a number of different aspects of the budget. I will focus on health care and look at economic conditions and tax cuts.

Oxford County is like many other rural regions of the country. It is made up of people who work hard for a living, raise their families and try to give something back to their community. My constituents have told me in the past that they want the government to get its fiscal house in order. Each year after the budget they have said to me: “Good work, Finlay, but we need to go further and reduce the national debt”. I have received many letters over the past five and a half years from constituents who wanted a zero deficit but also wanted the essential programs protected and preserved.

At times our task seems impossible. As a new MP at the time of the 1994 budget, I looked at our previous $42 billion deficit and worried about the fiscal legacy we were about to leave our children and grandchildren. It was not a task I looked forward to. Nor, I imagine, did any member of the House at that time.

We conquered the deficit. No matter what the future holds for our Minister of Finance—some would say he has an exciting future ahead of him—he will be known as the man who led Canada away from the economic abyss to a future filled with potential for all Canadians.

The 1999 federal budget builds upon our past budgets not only in terms of tax cuts and fiscal balance but by ensuring that Canada's most important social program, health care, has been protected and preserved.

This was the message I was very happy to carry to the municipal councils in the town of Tillsonburg in Zorra township during the House recess last week. I look forward to discussing it with health care providers and hospital administrators throughout Oxford.

During the recent united alternative convention we did not hear the demagogues of the right talk about private health care although I am sure many espoused it in private. Why would they not espouse this basic tenet of Conservative philosophy? It is because they know Canadians believe that universal access to high quality, affordable health care is essential to Canada's quality of life. It is something that defines us as a nation.

Members may ask what the federal government has done to protect medicare in the budget. Through substantial funding increases and strategic investment the budget is about using the resources freed up by balancing the budget to strengthen and modernize medicare so that it can cope with emerging demands and adopt new technologies to meet the needs of Canadians.

Not only does the federal Liberal government commit a minimum increase of $11.5 billion over the next five years to the Canada health and social transfer to the provinces. It also allocates an additional $1.4 billion over the remainder of this fiscal year and the next three fiscal years to our health care system.

This funding includes the following: $328 million to improve public access to high quality health care information and to better inform Canadians about the performance of their health care system, consistent with the social union framework agreed to by all the provinces; $240 million to support the development of the Canadian Institute of Health Research; $150 million in additional funding for health related research for the advanced research granting councils, the National Research Council and Health Canada; an additional $200 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation; $190 million to better meet the health needs of first nations and Inuit communities; and $287 million to improve prenatal nutrition, food safety, toxic substances control, to foster innovation in rural and community health, and to combat diabetes.

I am proud to call the 1999 federal budget a health care budget. It was accomplished through the sacrifice of Canadians from coast to coast and it builds upon the success of the government's deficit fighting efforts.

I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that our most essential social program has been strengthened and preserved for our collective future. I only hope that the provincial Tory government in Ontario will ensure that rural regions like Oxford see the full benefits of this funding increase through improved service and quality of care.

The budget is about more than health care. It is also a record of achievement which seeks to build a better economy for Canadians. When the government took office, the national deficit stood at an all time high of $42 billion. No federal government, either Liberal or Conservative, had delivered a balanced budget in almost a generation.

Tough fiscal medicine, economic growth and job creation have combined to eliminate the deficit and give Canadians a balanced or a better budget for two years in a row. This is significant because it is the first time since the government of Louis St. Laurent that the federal government has been deficit free for two consecutive years.

As the minister pointed out in his speech, the government is committed to further balanced budgets or better in 1999-2000 and 2000-01. This will make only the third time since Confederation that the Government of Canada has recorded four consecutive balanced budgets. It is a legacy I am very happy to hand over to my children and grandchildren.

Balanced budgets have provided room for the government to provide tax cuts to Canadians. We recognize that tax relief and tax fairness are essential to improving the Canadian standard of living. As I have said before, we can only provide tax cuts that we can afford and that are sustainable. It makes no sense to provide tax cuts one year and then revoke them the next, or to butcher a program as Reform proposes every time the economy goes into a tailspin. Our approach is balanced. It is moderate and it is sustainable.

Let me quickly summarize the tax cuts in the budget. The basic personal exemption will be increased by $175 to a total of $675. This extends to all taxpayers along with last year's increase of $500 to low income Canadians. As of July 1 the 3% surtax on personal income will be eliminated for all Canadians.

What does this mean to average Canadian taxpayers? It means that single taxpayers earning $20,000 or less will see their taxes reduced by at least 10%. Typical one earner families with two children and incomes of $30,000 or less will pay no net federal income tax. Families with incomes of $45,000 or less will have their taxes reduced by a minimum of 10%. Every Canadian can look forward to a tax cut and 600,000 lower income Canadians will no longer pay any federal income tax at all. That is an increase of 200,000 over last year.

Farmers across Canada were also happy to see in the budget the federal commitment to producers suffering from the income crisis they faced this past year. The federal government in the budget committed to paying 100% of the cost of the agriculture income disaster assistance program in the first year, up to $600 million. The provinces will fund the major part of the program in the second year, resulting in a 60:40 cost sharing ratio over the two years.

I assure the House that there are many farmers in Oxford County waiting anxiously for this assistance. It is heartening to see that the government has found a way to furnish assistance and to seek out the funding necessary to provide an essential part of our economy when it is needed. It is also encouraging to see that all the provinces but one have co-operated, and we hope that one will be onboard before too long. Some economic turmoil cannot be forecast but the government has proven that it can react proactively to ensure those affected suffer as little as possible.

There is much more about the budget that I applaud like the funding for innovation and research, but I will now close with some words from my favourite playwright, William Shakespeare. In the last scene of As You Like It the Duke says:

—let us do those ends That here were well begone and well begot: And after, every of this happy number That have endured shrewd days and nights with us Shall share the good of our returned fortune

In 10 months we will enter a new millennium. Canada is ready to—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. I am afraid I will have to interrupt the member.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Oxford's usual lack of courage is clearly in evidence here when he says he will vote for the Minister of Finance's budget. He is not as brave as the member for York South—Weston who voted against the Minister of Finance's budget because his party refused to keep its promise to abolish the GST. He was kicked out of the party and his constituents rewarded him in 1997 by re-electing him to office.

What the member for Oxford failed to point out is that, of the 100% of workers who pay EI premiums, only 41% qualify for benefits. The $20 billion surplus was used to balance the budget, and that is the fact of the matter.

In addition, his government will have cut health care by $33 billion by 2003. He does not tell us that. The government says that it will add a few billion dollars, but it has already cut $42 billion. The member for Oxford lacks courage and will fall to his knees and vote for the budget.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure how the GST got in here. I did not promise to get rid of the GST, and many of us on this side of the House did not. I remind the member that when he is talking about debt, when we took office 36 cents of every revenue dollar went to service the debt. We used to have that day in July or August which was the day when we finished paying. Now that is 27 cents on every revenue dollar, which is a 25% increase and which accounts a great deal for our being to put more money into the programs that Canadians want and need.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. He mentioned the disaster relief program for farmers across the country. I am from Okanagan—Coquihalla and we have an orchard industry that brings to the Okanagan Valley some $700 million a year which we are very proud of. I think now and then all Canadians enjoy B.C. apples. That has been a tradition across the country. We are well known for our high quality products.

In the last two years our orchardists have been ravished with disastrous weather, crop failures and a number of situations. The member with a lot of pride defended the program in this budget that has been set up for the agricultural industry.

I would like to ask the member if all people in the agricultural industry are so happy about the process that has been set up why then did tree fruit growers in the Okanagan Valley announce yesterday that they plan to cut down their apple trees in the Okanagan Valley, destroying a complete industry, on March 15? Could the member please give the orchardists in the Okanagan Valley some encouragement that this process and relief program will come sooner than sometime in July or August and that relief will be immediate for these people who are suffering a great deal.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague makes an excellent point. I was happy to have visited that area of British Columbia last fall. I talked to some of the apple growers. I know that prices were a concern and I know that weather was a concern.

This is a disaster relief program that we are talking about. As I understand it, any agriculturalist can apply for the relief. The methods and the application forms will be on websites by Friday this week. The hard copy should be ready in a couple of weeks. Although the minister is unable to say exactly what it will be, the turnaround time will certainly be earlier than July.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, to respond briefly to the member's comments, it has been announced that the orchardists will have to wait until after they get their income tax returns which could be considerably down the road.

I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to take part in this debate on the Liberal government's pay more and get less budget. I say pay more and get less because Canadians are paying more in taxes but getting less in services like health care than they were before the Liberals took office in 1993. They are paying more and getting less and that has been a consistent theme by this Liberal government.

There have been a lot of excellent speeches today on health care and taxes from the official opposition and other members, but I have chosen to spend my time on a national institution, a very proud institution, the Canadian Armed Forces.

Recently while conducting some research in my office I came across a lead story from the Globe and Mail . The date of article was February 28, 1951. The article was entitled “Canadians jubilant over orders to go to Korea”. This article detailed the decision of the Canadian government to contribute significant troops to the conflict in Korea.

The articled stated that Canadian soldiers were excited because they were proud and indeed Canadians from coast to coast to coast were proud of the contribution the Canadian Armed Forces could make to the Korean conflict.

The other article I point out was also from the Globe and Mail , dated February 21, 1959. The article announced Diefenbaker's decision to scrap the Avro Arrow project due to budgetary considerations. In another article that day by the Globe and Mail there was an editorial deploring the decision to force the Canadian government to purchase high tech equipment from the United States.

These two articles reminded me that in the 1950s Canada had a significant military establishment for a middle power, a place that we should hold today on the international scene.

The decision to scrap the Avro Arrow cost Canadians 13,800 jobs mainly in the province of Ontario. The Globe and Mail pointed out that despite the cost of the Avro Arrow program, these 13,800 workers were Canadian taxpayers. The money spent on the project would remain here in Canada.

The editorial concluded by stating: “And now what? Now the brilliant array of engineering and technical talent which built up this great Canadian industry will be dissipated. Now these highly trained men and women, the one national asset, will probably go”. The editorial asks where. The answer was to the United States. They did go and they formed the backbone of NASA.

Their exit from Canada foreshadowed today's brain drain of skilled workers who are leaving Canada due to high taxes in this country.

I bring up these two historic issues of the Globe and Mail not to reopen the debates on the decision to send troops to Korea or to scrap the Avro Arrow but to point out that Canada in the 1950s was taken seriously as a middle power. We had a serious military establishment, one that we as Canadians were very proud of.

When the call came in 1951 we were ready to go, not to maintain the peace but to fight a war. Our armed forces totalled 120,000 personnel. We contributed a brigade group, ships and aircraft to the UN sanctioned war in Korea. By 1959 we had a serious aerospace industry providing Canada with its defence requirements. Defence was taken seriously enough that the defence spending budget accounted for 20% of federal spending.

During the 1950s and into the 1960s our armed forces contribution to peace and security helped earn Canada a premier place among the world's nations. By the 1970s this started to change with the election of another Liberal government, Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government. I remember those days well because I was a young leading seaman in the Canadian Armed Forces serving on a Canadian destroyer escort. I watched firsthand as Trudeau's cuts did devastation on the Canadian Armed Forces.

By the late 1970s our soldiers were the best paid in the world. However, I remember numerous incidents where our ships were docked in Halifax and Esquimalt due to a lack of fuel. To make matters worse, training was hampered due to a lack of ammunition.

Under today's current Liberal regime things are much worse. Since 1993 the defence budget has been slashed by an additional 28% while the demands placed on our troops in the Canadian Armed Forces have increased.

At just over $9 billion defence spending accounts for only 6% of the federal spending, down from 20% in the 1950s and a minuscule expenditure compared to the $42.5 billion spent each year paying interest on the national debt.

Canadian defence expenditures account for 1.1% of GDP while the average defence expenditure for our NATO allies is 2.4% of their GDP. Again, we are out of whack completely when we spend 1.1% on defence spending.

The result of this Liberal government's cuts to defence spending has been dramatic. We have seen our troops drop to 60,000 from 73,000 in 1993. We find it impossible to meet Canada's stated defence policy objectives. Hardest hit is our army, our land forces. Most army units are manned at only 65% of their authorized strength. Despite the Canadian population hovering somewhere around 30 million we can barely muster 800 troops to send to Kosovo. Even then they will be poorly armed.

In April 1998 the Auditor General of Canada reported to the House of Commons on the state of the Canadian Armed Forces equipment and expressed grave concern about the deterioration of equipment that was preventing our forces from fulfilling Canada's defence policies. In terms of the army the auditor general pointed out that operationally it had not kept pace with technology to modernize equipment, leaving it vulnerable to threats. Its infantry and armour could be detected, engaged and defeated long before our personnel even knew the enemy was present.

This cannot be taken lightly. The auditor general has unequivocally stated that the money for capital funding would decrease even further due to the high maintenance and operating costs of servicing aging equipment, as we see daily with stories about our Sea King and Labrador helicopters, the Aurora aircraft, but enough of the facts and figures.

Canadians know that this Liberal government has decimated the Canadian Armed Forces, leaving Canada at best a freeloader on the backs of our allies and at worst utterly incapable of fulfilling our defence policy objectives, including protecting our own sovereignty. This is a national embarrassment, a disgrace not only to our troops but a disgrace for this government.

Providing for the defence of its citizens is one of the prime responsibilities of any federal government. Here as in other areas the Liberals have failed.

For decades now the Canadian forces have done more for Canada than meet the call to arms. They have been a national institution that cannot be ignored, a national institution that should be used by this federal government to build unity from coast to coast with our militia units, with our reserve force and with the pride that our service people serve with around the world.

We do feel that pride: Canada's World War I victory at Vimy Ridge, our role defeating Nazi Germany, Italy and in France in World War II, our record as premier peacekeepers around the world. Notice I said “our”, our victory, our role, our record. They are our armed forces, our Canadian Armed Forces. Despite the best efforts of the Liberals Canadians are proud of the men and women who serve in our forces.

I urge the Liberal government not to ignore the Canadian Armed Forces. The minor and minuscule increases are not enough to keep our combat capable forces in place today.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the latest version of the Liberal budget on behalf of the citizens of Lethbridge. I have been looking forward to this chance to chronicle the assault of this government on the Canadian taxpayer, the unfortunate soul who is paying more but getting less.

This is now the sixth straight time that Canadian taxpayers have had to suffer through a Liberal budget. For the last six years, Canadians have endured slash and burn budget cuts that have devastated health and social transfers.

The Liberals have downsized our armed forces as my colleague just mentioned to a hollow shell, sacrificed environmental protection, tightened and restricted EI benefits, reduced portions of our national highway system to gravel, and worst of all, increased taxation revenues. Simply put, taxpayers in Canada have been paying more but they have definitely been getting less.

When this government took office in 1993, Canadians were paying $51.4 billion in personal income tax for the year. At the end of this year, personal income taxes will have risen 46% to $75 billion, an increase of $24 billion. This is an increase of $650 for every Canadian. This shell game which has been foisted on Canadians by the finance minister has forced Canadians to pay personal income taxes that are 56% higher than the G-7 average.

Of course, we can forget the infamous promise to scrap the GST. We heard a bit about that today. When the Liberals took over, Canadians were paying $15.7 billion in GST per year. By this year's end, Canadians will be paying $21.6 billion, an increase of $5.9 billion, or about 38%. That translates into about $156 more per Canadian for a tax that this government promised to abolish.

As if these increases were not bad enough, the government is set to hike CPP premiums by 73% over the next six years. Sadly, the former chief actuary of the CPP, before he was fired for not singing from the Liberal song sheet, estimated that this increase would likely not even be enough to save the plan.

To top it all off, the government has added insult to injury by ripping off taxpayers by overcharging them on their EI premiums. According to the chief auditor for this program, the government has been overtaxing Canadian workers by an average of 37% for the last five years. Canadians now pay more of their hard earned money for a plan that delivers them fewer benefits, that is, if they even qualify under the strict new rules.

This is the sad truth that the Liberal government refuses to tell. The Liberals hide behind their sleight of hand accounting practices, practices the Auditor General of Canada does not approve of. They hide behind their spin doctors and their rhetoric machines. They boast about EI reductions but say nothing about CPP hikes.

When the Liberals took over the reins of government from their partners, the tax and spend previous government, total federal tax revenues were $94.3 billion and total government revenues totalled $107.3 billion. At the end of this year, the federal tax revenues will top $131 billion, an increase of $36.8 billion and total government revenues will be $149.4 billion, an increase of $42 billion. Members opposite can claim that the government is raking in these record revenues because of the strong economy, and they do. But how do they explain that when the economy only grew by 3%, government revenues grew by 8%?

I think I have made myself perfectly clear. Canadians are paying more than they ever have before and they are getting less. What are they receiving for these astronomical increases in taxes? What do they have?

They have a two tier health system. The health care system that Canadians have come to rely on is under siege. Waiting lists have increased 8.5% in one year to over 187,000 in 1997. Almost 200,000 people in Canada are waiting for health care services. The waiting time to see a specialist has increased 38% and the number of hospital beds have decreased by 25% in some provinces. My own daughter in Edmonton with a severely broken ankle waited 42 hours for surgery to repair it just a month ago.

In 1993 when the Liberals first took power, CHST payments were about $1,453 per taxpayer. But today after this budget, these payments per taxpayer have dropped to $1,005. That is a drop of 31%. So Canadians are paying more and getting less.

The government has announced with great fanfare that it is putting back $11.5 billion over five years into the transfer payments for health care. But if we look at the Liberal record at the end of this five years, we will see that cumulative CHST reductions will total $50 billion by the end of the five years. The Liberal government has taken $5 and it will give $1 back.

This budget was to be the cure to what was ailing the health care system, but Canadians are still paying more and getting less. They are paying more for out of pocket medical expenses and will be getting $4.3 billion less in health care in 1999 than they did in 1993. That is the legacy of this government.

Our soldiers have suffered. The Canadian armed forces, the brave men and women who have dedicated themselves to their country, those who are willing to put their lives on the line, have borne the brunt of the government's politics. These politics have put the well-being of our troops at risk. The defence policies of the government have led to a serious deterioration in the morale of this once proud force. It has left the armed forces with equipment that is 20 to 40 years old. It has cut personnel levels by almost 25% and has threatened to cut even more to balance the books.

The effects of the government's cuts have cost the defence department about $7.8 billion since 1993-94 and now the finance minister offers a pitiful $175 million per year. It is an insult to treat our soldiers with such disrespect. They deserve more, not less.

Nothing seems sacred to the government. With this budget the Liberal track record on the environment went from bad to worse. Across the country contaminated sites sit like a cancer on the land. These sites are affecting the health of Canadians, yet the government refuses to take a leadership role in their cleanup. Look at Sydney, Nova Scotia, the tar ponds. Nothing has been done. Lots of talk but no action. We are paying lots and getting nothing.

In six years the government has not made any serious effort to protect our endangered species through legislation despite its international commitments.

In May 1998 the environment committee released a report that outlined the serious deficiencies in the enforcement capabilities of Environment Canada. Funding levels have been cut to the point where enforcement officials are stretched so thin that they are falling behind in training and cannot enforce many of the increasing number of environmental regulations.

It is beyond belief that when the government was sitting on a $10 billion surplus it did not take the environment more seriously. Contrary to what the finance minister may think, the environment cannot survive on empty promises of relief for next year. Time is running out now.

I think the point has been made. Canadians are definitely paying more and they are getting less. They are paying $2,000 more in taxes since the government took office and they are getting at least $1,500 less for health and other services.

Another fact is the savings that Canadians have are dwindling. Canadians are unable to put any money away and they are starting to use their savings just to get by from day to day. Canadians do not deserve this. They bore the burden of the deficit cutting and deserve to share in the benefits. Nine out of ten Canadians say they want tax relief, not new spending, as their number one priority.

A Reform government would deliver comprehensive tax reform beginning with $26 billion in total tax relief phased in over three years. These reforms would simplify the tax system and, combined with the elimination of marriage and child care penalties, will deliver thousands of dollars per year back into the pockets of the average Canadian family of four.

Our health care is on life support and needs a major federal cash infusion. Reform would deliver immediately $2 billion to boost federal transfer payments. Wasteful government spending in other areas would be eliminated to give health care the priority it rightly deserves and Canadians are demanding.

Canada needs a reliable health care system with stable funding, funding that does not wildly fluctuate from year to year. Reform would also right the injustice done to Canadians like Joey Haché and compensate all victims of the hepatitis C tainted blood system. This is not a question of money, it is a question of fairness and a question of equality for all Canadians. It is doing the right thing.

Our soldiers earned our respect. A $1 billion increase in defence spending would equip our soldiers with the tools they need to do the jobs that we ask them to do.

Reform would introduce a credible plan for reducing the size of our national debt. The debt will consume $43.5 billion in interest payments alone this year, robbing Canadians of funding for programs that they really need.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Under this government Canadians will continue to pay more and get less.

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

Madam Speaker, in my constituency a number of businesses are choosing to leave Canada because of the high tax program of the Liberal government. They are going down to the states because their investment is a little more secure down there and the tax rates are lower. Students are taking jobs in the states because of the high taxes they would pay on income here in Canada.

The hon. member's riding is very close to the American border. I am wondering if he also is finding that it is a trend in today's society for businesses and young people to move down to the United States where the tax rates are much better?

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. It is interesting that just last week while I was in the constituency a young man came to me. He has been offered a job in the states. This young man has been looking for a job in Canada, but he can get a job in Nebraska. The benefits are better, the pay is better, the take home pay is much more, and the prospects are better for him.

I have come across a document. The National Post published some headings from e-mails it received from Canadians about the budget. I would like to let members know how Canadians feel about this. These are the headings from e-mails received at the paper: Taxed to death and back. The non-stop robbery. Bludgeoned dry. Feeling milked dry. Overtaxed. Tax depression. Taxpayer ready to revolt. Tired of no value for my taxes. Drowning in taxes. Lament decay of incentives. How dry I am. Bludget:Bloodget. Excessive taxation. Milked and bludgeoned. Support for a tax revolt. The bludgeoning of taxpayers. Milked and fed up. Ottawa bludgeons. The tax bite. Hate this country and government. I have the bludget blues. Taxed into oblivion. Bludget alias big joke.

That is not coming from this side of the House. That is coming from Canadians across the country. That is how Canadians feel.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague across the way. Chicken Little obviously is alive and well and the sky is falling.

When we listen to the opposition we hear that there have been no tax cuts. One of the things I find very disturbing in this House is that clearly the acoustics on that side are not very good. That side is not listening to the fact that we have been reducing taxes.

I indicated earlier in the day that when we talked about the $11.5 billion in terms of health care, it was not borrowed money. Those guys are into the borrowed money scheme. We are not into borrowed money. We are going to pay as we go.

If the member would read the tax information with regard to the budget, he would clearly see that in order to have sustainable tax cuts, we have to be in the black. We have to have the money. Clearly we are not prepared to finance tax cuts that are not doable. That is what we have been doing. We have been doing over $16.7 billion in terms of tax cuts in the last two budgets alone. Listen to the information.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has to be done before there is any credibility is to take care of expenses. This government has refused to cap its expenses. The finance minister, the tax minister every year, comes up with more places to spend the money. The Liberals do not want a surplus Canadians can look at.

Let us not talk about what we think. Let us talk about the Canadian Bond Rating Service report which notes:

—that budget 1999 includes a greater resource allocation towards expenditure priorities with fewer tax and debt reduction incentives. In fact, the government has made no direct or specific commitment towards debt reduction other than to allocate its residual surplus after spending goals have been met.

There is no plan. The debt will continue.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one cannot believe one's eyes when reading the Reform amendment before us today which urges the House to reject the budget. The members for Calgary Southeast and Medicine Hat are recommending in their amendment a rejection of an increase of $11.5 billion in health care over the next five years.

The leader of the Reform Party, with his amendment, further recommends rejection of the following: Canadian opportunities strategy, $1.8 billion; Canada Foundation for Innovation, $200 million; and National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the National Research Council, $176 million.

The Reform Party with its amendment today also recommends the rejection of $96 million toward the establishment of small communities. It rejects $75 million toward Canada prenatal nutrition programs; $150 million toward technology partnerships; $50 million to expand rural and community health; $795 million for the youth employment fund and the Canada jobs fund; and $42 million for improving management and control of toxic substances. It also rejects some tax relief, some $1.5 billion this year; $2.8 billion next year; and $3.4 billion in the year 2001-02. This is what the Reform Party is advocating today with its amendment on which we will vote shortly.

Having outlined the sham of the Reform Party position with respect to what it would like Canadians to be denied by its amendment, which does not take into account the positive aspects of the budget, one must also say a word of caution on the fanatic belief of the Reform Party in lowering taxes.

When taxes are lowered services are lowered. When taxes are lowered there is a longer wait for services. When taxes are lowered there are poorer services. When taxes are lowered good programs for youth, seniors, underprivileged, housing, et cetera, are cancelled. When taxes are lowered university tuition costs are increased. When taxes are lowered the waiting list for child care is increased. When taxes are lowered laws cannot be properly enforced. Water and air quality, to give an example, suffer as a consequence, and human health does too.

It is foolish to believe that lowering taxes leads to better standards of living. Actually the reverse is the reality and Canada, with its level of taxation, is considered by foreigners the country in which they want to live and visit as shown by our immigration statistics.

A few months ago the national Liberal caucus committee on sustainable development, chaired by the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, recognized the significant relationship between human health and a healthy environment and produced a document in which it says that human health is directly affected by the state of our environment.

The document concluded by quoting the Ontario Medical Association in a press release dated May 13, 1997, in which it said that air pollution was a public health crisis, drawing attention to the fact that it called for stringent action on smog causing emissions and other matters.

In the budget we find that the elements related to health could lead to the paving of the way for the next budget, namely a budget that could possibly take place in February of next year and could be devoted to the environment and sustainable development. When we start dealing with health we inevitably find our way to the roots of good health and proper public health and, therefore, to the basic elements of the way in which we approach the environment.

Having established the possibility of a future budget on the environment it is desirable to provide some input to the government on the question of expanding the concept of environmental protection to embrace the broader idea of sustainable development.

It would be desirable that a budget on the environment and sustainable development would examine the present capacity of the federal government to enforce its own laws and to launch at the same time programs that would permit an improvement in the performance of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, Transport Canada and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the name of public interest.

It would be a budget that would look at Canada's international commitments related to environmental protection and sustainable development. It would look at our implementation of agenda 21 as stemming from Rio, our commitments under the Basel convention, our commitments through the Kyoto agreement on climate change, and determine which are the fiscal and taxation measures that are facilitating our move toward the reduction of climate endangering emissions and the removal of tax incentives that stand in the way.

It would be a budget that would look at the sustainability of our natural resources particularly in the fishery and forests. It would look to our ability to compete through the function of energy efficiency because through a higher energy efficiency than the one we have achieved so far we could also be more competitive.

The next budget of the Government of Canada, if it devotes and focuses its attention on the environment and sustainable development, would be one that would put into practice the document that was published in 1995 under the heading “Turning Talk Into Action”. In that document the Government of Canada expresses the firm belief that our economic health depends on our environmental health. It is believed that the federal government can help shape a better future for all Canadians, a future characterized by sustainable development.

In that same document, which was signed by 21 cabinet ministers and by the Prime Minister, the following statement was made:

This is why we want to play a leadership role in turning sustainable development thinking into action. This is why we are now taking the next step of establishing a framework in which environmental and economic signals point the same way.

We have to achieve that plateau of pointing in the same way. A framework which integrates sustainable development into the workings of the federal government is one this document espouses right across the board. It concludes by saying that the Government of Canada is committed to getting government right by making government greener. “This is our commitment to Canadians”, the document concludes.

I welcome the opportunity of presenting this intervention and expressly hope that the next budget will be on environmental protection and sustainable development.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member feel that the government has given the right priority to environmental issues?

Unless I missed something there was no indication in the budget that the government had any concerns about the environmental issues facing the country.