Debates of March 3rd, 1999

The Budget

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

No, that is fine. I appreciate it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments with regard to tax impacts on or benefits to single parent families are important. He said that the budget did nothing, but when I looked back over what happened in this budget and in the prior budget I saw that the child care expense deduction was increased from $5,000 to $7,000 for those who have preschool children. I saw that the basic personal amount under the non-refundable tax credits was increased by $675. I also saw the announcement of another $1.7 billion to the Canada child tax benefit, which benefits primarily low income Canadians.

Would the member try to reconcile all of those direct benefits to low income parents, in particular single income parents, with his statement that the budget did nothing for them?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. He knows very well that the provinces claw back some of that money. He knows darn well that is exactly what happens. He is shaking his head but those are the facts. Francine Cosman, community services minister of the Liberal Nova Scotia government, stated quite clearly that it claws back some of that money. That is exactly what it does.

They are very proud of the national child benefit. I admit it was a good first start to helping low income families but it is nowhere near enough. If that money went directly to the families and not through the provinces, it would have a much greater effect.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued with the member's speech. We share one thing. I am sure there will be some heckling immediately, but we share a genuine concern about the health care system.

I expressed that earlier in the House when I talked about my dear aunt who just died. She got very poor care and had to be moved to a private health care facility, an extended care centre run by a religious organization, so she would get decent care. He talked a little about the restoration of health care dollars.

The Liberals want us to believe that they are putting in $11.5 billion. I look at that as simply a very small amount. It is a $2 billion increase per year. The next year there will be no further increase and they are still calling that $2 billion. The next year there will be a $.5 billion increase and they are calling that $2.5 billion and so on for the next three years. They come up with this grand total of $11.5 billion when in fact it is an increase of either $2 billion or $2.5 billion per year over the next five years.

I would like the member to take this opportunity to rip into the Liberals because of this.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement. One of my favourite pastimes is ripping into the Liberal government. Although I have some personal friends on the other side and I respect a lot of them greatly, fact is fact.

The member is absolutely correct. When it comes to health care spending, the $11.5 billion over five years, they did not take into account inflation or the fact that we have an aging population. They certainly did not take into account the needs of rural Canada when it came to the budget.

When they talk about the major urban centres and the health care crisis of downtown Toronto, Montreal, Halifax or Vancouver, they certainly forget areas like Medicine Hat, Sheet Harbour, Whitehorse, Yellowknife, et cetera. The government should not be very pleased with what it has been doing to rural health care.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on the 1999 budget. I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues, the member for Mississauga South.

I congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance for putting forward a budget that addresses the needs of Canadians. This is a budget we can all be proud of. Today I will use my time to speak briefly to three themes in the budget. I want to make sure my constituents who are watching this debate get some facts directly from the budget. I will address the issues of health care, knowledge, innovation and tax relief as outlined in the budget.

I believe the support of strategies to enhance quality health care for Canadians and the support to families and individuals in our tax system are essential for the growth of Etobicoke—Lakeshore and for all communities across the country.

Budget '99 is not an end in itself. It is a continuation of the federal government's commitment to building a strong, secure future for all Canadians. My constituents are pleased with budget '99 and agree that the government has taken yet another step in the right direction.

Over the past year my constituents have been saying to me that they would like to see the budget surplus used for deficit reduction, health, research and development, and tax relief among other things. In my consultations with them, those were the issues that kept coming to the top.

With the budget the federal government has delivered on their priorities without borrowing a single penny. I was pleased to share that with my constituents. Despite new investments in social and economic priorities, the federal government has not swerved in staying the course in sustaining sound fiscal management. This is what all of us in the House want our government to do.

In 1993 when the government took office the budgetary deficit stood at $42 billion. The state of Canada's fiscal house was in poor shape. The federal government had a major task in balancing the books and restoring the confidence of Canadians in our economy.

My constituents were concerned. The phone calls and the round table discussions we held all expressed their concern about the deficit. In 1998, when we delivered a budget that eliminated the deficit and balanced the books for the first time in 28 years, we were pleased and proud to share that with every individual who sat around the table and moaned with us about the $42 billion deficit we were in.

Today the policy of sound, prudent fiscal management pursued by the federal government has put our economy on the right track for the benefit of all Canadians.

Budget '99 continues the course. It continues to build on this comprehensive plan for creating a strong economy and a secure society. On this side of the House we believe that our young people deserve to inherit a country that is fiscally robust and capable of meeting the challenges of the next century. As we head into that next century the fiscal outlook of Canada is positive.

As we listened to our finance minister on budget day, all Canadians got the sense of renewed optimism about the economic viability of our country. In budget '99 the federal government will again balance our books. For the first time since 1951-52, the government has been deficit free for two consecutive years. The federal government will remain committed. We heard our Minister of Finance speak to this.

The 1999-2000 budget and the 2000-01 budget are again recording consecutive balanced budgets. The fiscal policy of the government continues to put the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track. Again, this pleased my constituents. This is of tremendous significance to them simply because balanced budgets and a decline in the debt to GDP ratio means that the government can free up resources to strengthen our health care system, provide tax relief, invest in a more productive economy and a higher standard of living by promoting access to knowledge, research and innovation.

Budget '99 also preserved our health care system by securing high quality, equitable health care for all Canadians. The budget sets us on a course that speaks to the highest possible quality of health care and other tools that will make healthy lifestyles and healthy lives.

The health agreement reached in last month's first ministers conference and the new social union framework shows Canadians that the federal and provincial governments will pursue a common vision that puts health and quality of life first. We know that the prosperity of any nation depends on the health of its citizens. It has a direct bearing on how well Canada is situated in the global economy and ultimately the future of our country.

In budget '99 the federal government reaffirmed to all Canadians that sustaining and strengthening health care is one of its key priorities. My constituents know the total number is $11.5 billion and they are very much aware of the $3.5 billion that will be provided immediately as a one time supplement which the provinces will have the flexibility to draw upon according to their needs and priorities. In the province of Ontario we know the importance of that immediate $3.5 billion and what it will create for us.

In the weeks leading up to the budget, my constituents asked me over and over to ensure that the federal government addressed the problems of crowded emergency rooms, long waiting lists, shortage of diagnostic services, et cetera. As the media portrayed the upcoming budget as a health budget, there was more and more anxiety by constituents to ensure that these issues were addressed. This health budget is welcome news for the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Ontario will also be receiving other moneys. It will receive a $4.4 billion investment in health care to encourage the government to make fundamental improvements to Ontario's health care system.

Making decisions about one's health requires one to be given the information and the tools to make positive decisions and choices. I want to ensure that my constituents understand where some of the dollars will go in terms of initiatives to enhance the flow of health information. A national health surveillance network will be built which will electronically link laboratories and public health offices across the country.

My constituents also need to know that we are establishing the Canada health network, accessible by computer and telephone and enabling Canadians everywhere to have direct access to objective, reliable, up to date information on a range of health issues and providing better reports on the health of Canadians and the functioning of the health system. Those initiatives are consistent with the government's commitment on health and are a concrete step to strengthening medicare.

Budget '99 takes action on many fronts. It builds on the Canadian opportunities strategy by investing more than $1.8 billion over the remainder of this fiscal year and the next three years in the creation, the assimilation, the commercialization of knowledge and in support of employment.

There is just so much this budget has addressed that it would take minutes more to delineate the many positive items in this budget. I call on all of my colleagues as they debate this 1999 budget that they recognize the issues, that they recognize the measures which are in there and that they recognize the way in which this budget has addressed the concerns of Canadians.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment.

I have been taken aback at the praising of the budget and the praising of how great it is that this money is going back and everybody is cheering the government. I have sat here and thought that of course everybody is happy because there is money going back into health care. The government has cut $20 billion out of health care. It is finally putting something back in. Of course we are going to be happy.

It is as if there has been a war going on. This is a war. The Liberal government has attacked and waged war on social programs in Canada with all the cuts. We had the Korean war, the first world war and the second world war. The war ends and of course we are all going to cheer and be excited. But that does not mean we are going to sing the praises of Hitler, our enemy, or anybody else who has been attacking those programs. We are going to make darn sure we keep fighting for what is right.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I will comment on the comment.

I will not want to use the analogy of war. I tend to be a peaceful person and therefore I would like to see the positives.

I tried to speak to my constituents about what budget '99 has in it for them. We know that cuts had to be made. We know that we started in 1993 with a $42 billion deficit and some things had to be done. What we have done at this point in time is we have tried to address some issues and to move forward. Budget '99 has indeed moved the agenda forward.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

In this budget the fundamental problem with the government's approach is that it ignores the best approach to increase the business investment needed to improve productivity: lower business taxes and a lower regulatory burden.

Since the Liberals took office in 1993, corporate income tax revenue has more than doubled. Many of these taxes do not even depend on whether or not a corporation is profitable. The federal Department of Finance estimates that 70% of taxes that business pays are not related to any profit. Meanwhile, according to the Conference Board of Canada, of every single dollar in extra profit made by corporations over the past 30 years, a full 62 cents is clawed back.

I ask the member, if the government were truly concerned with productivity and jobs, would it not address the heavy tax burden that discourages needed business investment in this country?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that I was able to give the member the opportunity to read into this debate the concerns that he has in the books.

Again, we are addressing some issues that we have advanced from the 1998 budget into the 1999 budget. If the member did spend the time to go through the documentation, he would see the progress that we have made from 1993 until now.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a couple of issues that have come up in this debate.

The first one has to do with personal income taxes. Some members have suggested that there have been increases in taxes and that Canadians are paying more taxes.

I looked back from 1993 and found that personal income tax revenue to the Government of Canada was $51.4 billion. In the current year ended March 31, 1999, personal income tax revenue will rise to $73.7 billion. Next year it is expected that it will further rise another $1.3 billion to $75 billion.

There is no question that personal income tax revenue is increasing in Canada, but since the time that the government took office in 1993, there are 1.5 million more employed Canadians paying income tax. There have been no increases in personal income tax rates. There have been no increases in personal taxes. In fact, there have been decreases and I will mention a couple.

The child care expense deduction was increased from $5,000 to $7,000. It is a direct savings for families with children. The federal 3% surtax has been totally eliminated for all Canadians. It is a savings in taxes to Canadians.

The basic amount, the non-refundable tax credit, has been increased by $675 for all Canadians, a significant increase. It deals directly with the issue of bracket creep and indeed will cover any impact of bracket creep for an additional three years. If the member would like to know what bracket creep is, it is basically inflate that exemption portion.

The basic exemption for a Canadian is about $6,500. Inflation in Canada last year was at a rate of 1%. One per cent of $6,500 is $65. At the tax credit rate it means the member is talking about an impact of $16. That is not a significant amount. It is not the number the members are saying.

In addition there are non-taxable benefits that Canadians have received. The $1.7 billion invested in the Canadian child tax benefit is directly related to low income Canadians who need help with their children. Important changes were also made to things like RESPs. A government grant of up to $400 per year, per child was available to invest in the education of our children. These are very important.

The employment insurance premiums were reduced. They were going up to $3.30. Today they are $2.70. It was a $2.8 billion decrease in employment insurance revenue to the government because of the reduction in those rates to Canadians.

The fact remains that 600,000 Canadians no longer pay tax as a result of the tax deductions delivered by the Government of Canada, by the Liberal Party of Canada.

In addition, there is program spending on matters such as prenatal nutrition to deal with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects, programs such as CAPC that help children who are at risk.

I am very proud of the government's budget. I am very proud of the benefits and the programs it has bought, particularly for families with children. I look forward to the debate tomorrow when this comes up because I think Canadians will understand that the Liberal Government of Canada has children in mind first.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member whether he would answer one question. There is one minute for that. Could I do that?

[The Speaker]

The answer is no, the time is up.

It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of ways and means motion No. 19.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 326

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.