Debates of March 3rd, 1999

The Budget

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf is absolutely right. The government's behaviour makes no sense.

I will conclude with the following statement: great magician that he is, the Minister of Finance, he tried to make his deficit disappear. This time he tried to make people in fishing disappear, and that makes no sense.

You can take an individual out of the Gaspé, but you cannot take the Gaspé out of the individual.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too am delighted to have an opportunity to take part in the debate on the 1999 budget, a budget that will see us into the third millennium.

Given the time available to me, I will not be able to examine the budget in minute detail, nor is that my responsibility. I will merely point out a few items that strike me as important.

Since 1994, individual income taxes have generated the modest sum of $19 billion for the government, and the GST has brought in another $5 billion on top of what the Minister of Finance expected.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Fortunately, he did not scrap it.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Yes indeed.

When one looks at the Minister of Finance's five budgets, one realizes that he has never been able to forecast good sources of revenue, to know whether there would be a deficit or surplus, to anticipate anything that actually happened. He has always managed to play with the figures, take a little from here, cover up a little there, so that only he knows exactly where he is headed.

He is headed toward a budget that will enable him, on the eve of the next election, when he might expect to be the big boss of the Liberal Party of Canada, to—

[An hon. member]

He hopes so.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

This is certainly high on his wish list. He is therefore planning on having the budgets and the surpluses he needs to be able to announce a huge tax cut for the public, to pass himself off as the greatest finance minister this country has ever known.

The bulk of revenues have come from the pockets of middle income workers and the unemployed, yet the budget contains nothing for them. The budget does, however, announce one thing: a new employment insurance fund surplus. It had already accumulated some $20 billion or $25 billion in recent years, but the Minister of Human Resources Development confirmed to us this week that all that money has been wasted.

For five years, the Minister of Finance has been telling us “I need reserves, in case a bad economic situation develops”. Now, all of a sudden, the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us the surplus the Minister of Finance wanted to save is all gone.

Now we are told of a new surplus, $4.9 billion. Once again, this money will be used for something other than operating the program.

Now for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the one who interests me the most. During the prebudget study and debate here in this House, we had reminded the government of the 40% assimilation rate across Canada and pointed out that, if it was a responsible government capable of doing more than just talk, one that wanted to actually do something, it ought to restore the budget envelopes for francophones to their 1993 level, at least.

Let us look at the situation a bit more closely. In 1993-94, the budget allocated for official languages was $310 million. In reality, it was $232 million, $78 million less. Then in 1994-95, the budget was $240 million, $70 million less than the forecast figure. In 1995-96, it was $210 million; this time $100 million less than what was forecast. So, in all, the government will have spent for official languages $248 million less in these three years, almost as much as he will be spending this year.

The $70 million announced live on television on RDI by the Minister of Canadian Heritage in fact represents small compensation for the losses incurred by the official languages program since the Liberals arrived in office in 1993. However, during this time, the minister found pots of money for all sorts of other things.

She found $60 million over three years to spend on propaganda with the Canada information office, the CIO. Such a fine thing. It is too bad she chose such a name for her propaganda service.

Then for her “million flags” operation, she found at least $15 million. For the council on Canadian unity, she spent tens of millions of dollars from the official languages budget, including the $4.8 million wasted by option Canada in one month's time during the referendum, without anyone knowing where the money went. And then she hiked the Canada day budget by 500%, 60% of which was spent in Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois is certainly not celebrating today, because the government is giving $70 million back to francophone communities. The minister should never have allowed francophone communities, like workers and the unemployed, to bear the brunt of reducing the deficit.

We have been here since 1993. Every day, we get surprises concerning the official languages. When it is not a crown corporation that submits a report in one language only, it is an organization such as Katimavik that sends an invitation to members of parliament in English only. When we contacted Katimavik, we were told “Well, we thought everyone could speak or read English”.

People everywhere forget that there are two official languages. The member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies did not even bother to check—after all he chairs that UNESCO organization—to see that this organization could submit to us, right here, in a place not far from Parliament, a—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about an organization for parliamentarians. I remind this House that when the incident took place, we postponed the event until a later date, to make sure that the whole thing would be bilingual.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

This is not a point of order.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to hear this event will be held. I heard it from the minister herself this afternoon, when I went to see her after Oral Question Period. The failure to make the necessary arrangements, whether in this chamber or in adjacent rooms, is unacceptable. Naturally, I am aware that people decided to come back.

All this is to say that we must be constantly on the lookout to protect our language, to defend it at every opportunity, when it should be sufficiently well known that this is a bilingual country. That should be common knowledge by now.

While this government is tooting its own horn, francophone communities are in decline. According to the terminology used by the man responsible for language demography at Statistics Canada, Réjean Lachapelle, francophone communities are in the process of disappearing in six provinces out of nine. This is not the Bloc Quebecois saying this, but Mr. Lachapelle.

Moreover, in a report for Heritage Canada, Donald Savoie pointed out that the challenge for francophones outside Quebec is clearly to survive, to resist assimilation and to promote the development of strong and vibrant communities.

I had many other criticisms, but as my time is running out I simply wish to say to members that I think that the increased funding to the CBC mentioned in the budget is good news for the Department of Canadian Heritage, for now, anyway.

I hope that the $50 million earmarked for the CBC will mean that it can open a television station serving eastern Quebec, the North Shore and the Magdalen Islands.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am appalled at the level of poverty that still exists in the country. We have more poor children in Canada today than we had during the great depression.

The children are poor because their parents are poor. The Progressive Conservative Party in its last platform suggested that the basic personal exemption should be raised to $10,000. This would put much needed money in the pockets of those Canadians who really need our help, be it those who are negatively impacted by the downturn in the east coast fishery or Canadian farmers who are negatively impacted by the lack of support given to them.

Does my hon. colleague agree that with the federal budget the government has let down Canadian people who really need our help?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this highly pertinent and interesting question.

I have been an MP since 1993, and we were discussing that just last evening at a committee we had struck precisely for the purpose of looking further into poverty in Canada, the poverty I see every time I am in my riding, every time people ask to meet with me. The needs that they list have changed over time, and it is most unpleasant to see this. Basically, the government has surpluses. What the President of Treasury Board tabled yesterday, or the day before, represents a $6 billion increase in expenditures.

Going through it, one notes such items as a $1 billion addition to the National Defence budget. Why was that not allocated to poor children? With 1.5 million Quebec and Canadian children going to school hungry, it is no wonder that the illiteracy and dropout rates are on the rise. How can children learn anything on an empty stomach?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks by the member for Rimouski—Mitis. She said that I had said recently in the House that all the employment insurance funds within the consolidated fund have been wasted. That is indeed the word I heard—that all the money was wasted.

I would therefore ask the hon. member from Rimouski—Mitis what she considers wastage in the latest budget. Is it the equalization payments, $1.4 billion of which will go to Bernard Landry for his upcoming budget? What about the $2 billion we are adding each year to the national child tax benefit, which combine with the $5 billion we have already invested and which, obviously, will enable the Quebec government to make breakfast for children? The member for Rimouski—Mitis talks about breakfasts for children. I must also point out that this is provincial and not federal jurisdiction.

And the job strategy, which helps young people find jobs, is it wastage? Or the Canada jobs fund? What does she consider wastage in all that?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I said that the Minister of Canadian Heritage had found the heritage fund a useful source of money to waste on all sorts of things, such as the CIO, flags, and whatnot.

The minister is grandstanding a little more than he usually does.

[An hon. member]

A little more than he usually does.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

That is right, when he answers questions in the afternoon, during oral question period.

The government told us that it needed to keep the money for five years as a contingency fund. It needed the money and there was a fund. Suddenly, we hear that there is no longer a fund, that the money has been spent on all sorts of other things. We do not even know why, we are unable to find out.

However, the legislation requires the minister to monitor the use to which money in the EI fund is put. That is his ministerial responsibility. He took an oath that he would perform his duties as minister to the best of his ability. Yet he allows the Minister of Finance to pillage the fund, to empty it out and divert it to other uses while, in my riding, there are people starving because they no longer qualify for EI benefits.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of parliament for London—Fanshawe I am pleased to join the debate on behalf of my constituents as we speak about a very important budget and a very successful budget. Let me first indicate that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Nepean—Carleton.

There are so many positive things to comment on in the budget that one could use more than 10 minutes. However, as the chairman of SCONDVA, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, let me first turn to the matter of defence in the budget.

For the first time in 12 years the Minister of Finance has given additional moneys to the department of defence, some $175 million in each of the next three years. This is in direct response to the SCONDVA report which was tabled in the House last October. It was an all party committee which had the endorsement of most members of the House.

It called on some reinvestment in the men and women in our Canadian forces to help address their low level of pay and the very unacceptable quality of life that many of them found themselves facing as it related to housing, support for families, pay, and several other factors.

I would like to quote the minister's comment on defence in the budget speech:

That is why we are improving the compensation and benefits of the men and women of the Canadian forces, Canadians who put their lives at risk every day around the world and who have demonstrated uncommon dedication here at home helping their country cope with a series of natural disasters.

This is the kind of finance minister that I am very proud to serve with. For the first time in 12 years a government has seen the need to begin to reinvest in the Canadian forces. Is it enough? No. Candidly speaking probably it is not enough of an investment, but it is a major step in the right direction.

It is a major turn in the road as far as ending the cuts that have been repeatedly foisted on defence which the defence department has had to accept and now, for the first time in 12 years, the start of a reinvestment in defence.

What has been the reaction to the budget? I have listened to a party of avowed separatists today standing up for Atlantic Canada. That is an interesting reaction. I have heard members of the Reform Party decry the budget as the worst thing that has ever happened to the country. I have heard them calling for more tax cuts. I have heard my NDP colleagues calling for more spending as if nothing has been done at all to try to help low and middle income families.

Low income families in my riding know that is nonsense. One Roy Romanow, the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan, very candidly gave his full endorsement to the budget. How about Mike Harris, the Premier of Ontario? Admittedly he is facing the polls in the near future, but Mike Harris is trying to hitch his star to the Minister of Finance. He is now going around talking about “The Harris-Martin tax cuts”. It is interesting to see the reaction of these two premiers.

How about the lead speaker at the Reform convention—sorry, a Freudian slip—at the united alternative convention last weekend in Ottawa? One Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, said “I think the feds did the right thing”.

The reaction to the budget is fascinating. We have premiers from the left supporting it and premiers from the right supporting it, but those are people in elected office.

How about my constituents in London, Ontario? Each year my colleagues and I in London, Ontario hold a budget round table in early September. We invite a wide cross-section of groups and individuals to come and present their ideas on the budget. Those ideas are directly reported back to the Minister of Finance. We go out of our way in London, Ontario, in my riding of London—Fanshawe, to seek as wide as possible an input. The reaction in London, Ontario, to the budget is quite positive.

Reactions of my constituents on the whole through calls and through the mail are running about 70% to 75% in support of the budget. I will take that report card any day.

Admittedly London, Ontario, is a major centre for health with several hospitals. The absolute glee that reigns in London, Ontario, over the reinvestment in health care can be imagined. There is a considerable amount of research done in my community in the health sector and in several other sectors.

Experts in London were very quick recently to come to a function where I was in attendance along with my local MPs, one after another to thank us for taking the message to Ottawa which they have been giving us repeatedly for several years and to ask us if—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

If the NDP members will not heckle me, I will not heckle them. I know they may not like these truths. The fact is I was asked to carry back the message to this House which I am doing now and to the minister of how pleased the medical community was in London and across Canada at the reinvestment in research and development, particularly in the field of health.

Indeed, one only has to reflect on the words of Michael Smith, our Nobel Prize winner, who said that in terms of reinvestment in health, this is probably the best budget ever by a federal government in this country. To my knowledge, Mr. Smith is not a Liberal member of parliament. He is a highly respected international figure in the medical community.

Why is there such a positive response? It is obvious. For the second year in a row there is a balanced budget and a commitment by this government that we will balance budgets over the next two years as well. Therefore there will have been four consecutive balanced budgets under this government, and that when we faced the situation of a $42.5 billion deficit which we inherited when we came to power in 1993.

We recently met with a wide cross-section of labour leaders in London, Ontario. They had a concern about unemployment, as I do. But they could not deny the fact that we inherited 11.5% unemployment and today it stands at 7.8%. It is not good enough, but it is a lot better than it was in 1993, and the lowest level since 1990. Youth unemployment is decreasing. In the last 12 months youth employment has had its strongest yearly growth rate in over 25 years.

We are a Liberal government and we see a Liberal balanced budget which is trying to reinvest the surplus that we have been able to realize through the efforts of Canadians and the leadership of this government and at the same time continue the tax cuts which were begun in past budgets.

One only needs to reflect on the fact that 200,000 more Canadians are removed from the tax rolls this year. They are low and middle income Canadians. Those are my constituents who live in co-op housing in my riding whom I just met with the other night. They praised that fact as well as they praised the government's stand on not transferring federal co-op housing to the province of Ontario.

It is very interesting to hear the champions of these issues. Let them come to London—Fanshawe. I welcome them to come to London, Ontario. I welcome them to a debate any time. I even welcome their heckling now because it is a sign that these truths do not sit well.

In conclusion, I say that we have had an excellent budget from an excellent minister. It has been very well received in London, Ontario. It has been very well received in my riding of London—Fanshawe. Yes, there are suggestions for future budgets. I intend to pursue them on behalf of my constituents but I am proud to support this budget wholeheartedly.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have two comments that might lead into questions with regard to co-op housing. The federal government has decided not to shirk responsibility in the province of Ontario. How does the member explain that we got rid of co-op housing for Manitoba and other provinces but what we do in Ontario I guess is a little bit different from what we do anywhere else in Canada. If it was okay in Ontario, why was it not okay somewhere else?

With regard to the singing and praising of the budget and how things are so much better and we do not have a problem with the EI or anything like this, I wonder how the member feels about moneys for employment insurance. People who are working pay money into employment insurance expecting that should they be out of a job that money is going to be there for employment insurance. Then they find out that the government thinks it is a-okay, correcto, to spend it on this, that and something else.

What about the trust the government has broken with the people who have put that money in? Whether it be employers or employees they expect that that money is there for employment insurance. The surplus the government is dealing with is dollars that it took irresponsibly and, for lack of a better word, misrepresented why it was taking that money from Canadians.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to answer the member's questions. I hope she will not heckle the answer because I did not heckle the question, although she was pretty aggressive during my comments but that is okay.

It is fascinating to hear an NDP member talk about “trust broken”. Come to Ontario. Tell the people of Ontario who trusted Bob Rae one time, who trusted an NDP government in Ontario one time and then saw the tricks that were pulled on them. Ask the CAW—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I guess she cannot resist the heckling. Ask the CAW why it is not supporting the NDP in the upcoming Ontario election. It is fascinating to hear.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The CAW has come out very vocally that there is no rift—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

That is not a point of order.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, she is a new member but she is not going to intimidate me with that kind of nonsense. Maybe that would please her, I do not know.

She speaks about the problem with EI. Let me address that. We do not need any lectures from the NDP on the fact that we understand there are some valid concerns about EI. We on this side share them as well. We have a concern about the intensity rule. We have a concern about the clawback.

Come to London—Fanshawe, come and meet with me and the labour leaders in London, Ontario. They know we have those concerns. They know we are fighting for them on those issues. We have no lessons to learn from the NDP on that score.