House of Commons Hansard #188 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
René Canuel Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC
Madam Speaker, having heard my colleague praise the Minister of Finance and his budget to the skies, I have a very short question to ask him.
How can it be that the number of food banks in the country has tripled since 1989, and that the number of those who go to the food banks has doubled? How can he accept that people with incomes of $250,000 or more are going to pay $8,000 less in income tax? How can these things be reconciled?
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Fanshawe, ON
Madam Speaker, it is really quite simple for the member. The first tax cuts this government brought in since being in power were aimed at low and middle income Canadians. Four hundred thousand low income Canadians were removed from the tax rolls in the 1998 budget. Two hundred thousand more low income Canadians were removed from the tax rolls this budget.
This government understands that to be a Liberal is to help those who cannot help themselves. We are not the Reform Party. We believe in targeted tax cuts, which is exactly what we will continue to do in future budgets.
David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on the budget and what I would describe as a fiscal prescription for a healthy Canada as we enter the new millennium.
When the Liberal Party came to power in 1993, Canada's fiscal house was crumbling at its very foundation. The previous government had let the debt skyrocket out of control for years and was operating with a $42 billion deficit.
This party, unlike others in this chamber, learned the lessons of history. This Liberal Party understood that if Canada was to be an economic force to be reckoned with in the new millennium, we absolutely had to get the country back on track.
Canadians wanted a government that would actually take a leadership role and devise a new economic plan for this country, one that actually worked. Sustained by our political courage and armed with the knowledge that Canadians supported our policies, we eliminated the deficit in four years and recorded a budgetary surplus in 1998 of $3.5 billion, the first such surplus in 28 years.
We have put Canada's fiscal house in order. We delivered on our promise. However, we do not hear the opposition members recognizing the major strides this government has made over the last five or six years. No, they are much too busy trying to draft catchy sound bytes while we are developing sound economic policy.
The facts speak for themselves. Our record has shown that we have delivered the goods when it comes to fiscal responsibility. When the history of Canada is written in the years and decades ahead, I have absolutely no doubt that the historians and economists of the future will say that the last half decade of the 20th century was absolutely critical in terms of rebuilding Canada's economic foundation.
I am also supremely confident that history will record the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance as being the people responsible for what the Economist magazine called Canada's economic miracle.
This budget is part of an overall plan, one which did not begin last year and one which will not end next year. It is part of a building process which eliminated the deficit and began producing surpluses which have allowed us to make major investments, last year in education and this year in health.
As the Minister of Finance has so eloquently said on several occasions, budgets are more than entries in the books of a government, they are chapters in the progress of a people. So true, so true.
Yes, budget '99 focuses on health. Over the next five years this government will inject $11.5 billion into health into this country so that the provinces have the proper tools to address concerns about hospital waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms and shortages of diagnostic services. This will ultimately result in a stronger health care system that reflects and meets the changing needs of Canadians. I believe that this is good news for every Canadian and I am not alone.
My riding of Nepean—Carleton is located in the national capital region. This is an area that has felt the sharp edge of the Harris Tory cutting sword. The premature Tory tax cut put us face to face with the Ontario government's vision of better health care which was less hospitals, longer waiting lists and poorer service.
With the additional federal dollars, the health care situation in Ontario is starting to move in the right direction. This is recognized by people who are close to the issue. For instance, hospital and municipal officials in Ottawa-Carleton are labelling our commitment to health care as good medicine.
Local heart surgeon and Conservative senator Dr. Wilbert Keon said that the infusion of money into health care is “very good news”. The mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, was even more optimistic. He said, “We could learn a lesson from this budget, that you can have more money to invest in social programs when you rein in your spending”.
Hopefully the Ontario government learns from this budget, learns that our government's commitment to health care is just what the doctor ordered. However, there is much more good news in the budget than an investment in health care.
Whether one lives in Nanaimo or Nepean, the budget provides tax relief without borrowing money to pay for it. This is something that Canadians have not enjoyed since 1965. Building upon the initiatives in last year's budget, budget '99 prescribes $16.5 billion in tax relief over the next three years for the 15.7 million taxpayers in the nation.
The government understands the tax burden on lower income Canadians. That is why we have removed 200,000 taxpayers from the tax roll this year. Over the past two years our initiatives have resulted in a total of 600,000 Canadians escaping the usual financial pain that comes with a T-4 slip.
Together the 1998 and 1999 budgets provide the largest income tax reductions to the lowest income levels. This translates into a 10% reduction for single taxpayers earning $20,000 or less, and a 10% reduction for families with annual incomes of $45,000 or less. Families with two children and an annual income of $30,000 or less will pay no net federal income tax.
This year we have also removed the 3% surtax for all taxpayers. That is good news again for every Canadian.
One very important issue this budget addresses is that of productivity, the key to achieving sustained increases in our standard of living. Over the past few months the media has focused on what it calls Canada's decreasing level of productivity. Budget '99 has a plan to promote productivity growth to improve the standard of living and the quality of life for all Canadians.
We have already taken steps to foster this important initiative, including the elimination of the deficit as has already been mentioned, putting the debt to GDP ratio on a strong downward track, and the tax cuts that have already been mentioned.
However, knowledge and innovation are the real keys for advancing productivity growth. That is why we have decided to invest in creating, disseminating and commercializing knowledge. We are building on the 1999 Canadian opportunities strategy with an additional $1.8 billion for various programs.
As members will know, my riding contains part of the city of Nepean and borders the city of Kanata. Both these west end municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton region are the home of what has been referred to as Silicon Valley north. In fact, they are probably the most vibrant concentration of high tech companies anywhere in Canada. To say that they are enjoying explosive growth is almost an understatement.
Over the past couple of years and with the help of farsighted policies like the SR and ED tax credit and the Technology Partnerships Canada program, our high technology industry has blossomed. The TPC program alone is a $250 million per year program aimed at keeping Canada at the forefront of technological innovation.
Historically there have been more applications, unfortunately, than there have been resources available. Budget '99 adds another $50 million per year for this initiative and that is good news. It is also the catalyst to give businesses a competitive edge in terms of getting their products to market faster.
Programs like the two I have just mentioned are making Canadian high tech companies world beaters. That is why when we travel abroad we hear more and more of companies like Nortel, Newbridge and JDS Fitel. These companies are showing our flag and making sales in places as diverse as Munich, Sao Paulo, Taipei, San Francisco and Johannesburg.
The allocation of $550 million as well in another area, medical research, is extremely important, as is the creation of the Canadian institutes for health research. It marks a new and important federal commitment to medical research for scientists and researchers across Canada.
In the past our researchers have spent much of their time chasing grants and wondering where their next research dollar is coming from. This new initiative will enable these scientists and researchers to spend more time in the labs doing research extending the frontiers of human knowledge and increasing business opportunities related to scientific discovery.
Once again this budget is good for Canada. It is also providing more fuel for the growth of our local economy here in Ottawa-Carleton. This is what the regional chair of Ottawa-Carleton had to say about budget '99: “It will help create jobs and new spinoff companies that will continue to make this region the success story that it already is”.
Locally this funding will help benefit some major players in the medical research industry, including the Ottawa General Hospital Research Institute, the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, the Heart Institute, the Loeb Institute and the faculty of medicine at the University of Ottawa.
I should also mention a few comments about what budget '99 does in terms of the national defence budget. As vice-chair of the SCONDVA committee I am very pleased that the government has provided additional dollars to help implement some of the 89 recommendations contained in our report.
We are now past the era when governments promise more than they can deliver and, as the Minister of Finance has said, delivered more than they could afford. This is responsible budget making, future oriented budget making and affordable budget making.
From improved health care to tax relief, investing in technology to improving the quality of life for our Canadian forces personnel, this budget has all the right ingredients for a recipe to build a better Canada. This is the type of leadership that the Liberal Party of Canada was known for throughout the 20th century and the type of leadership that we will continue to provide into the 21st. This is the leadership that has made Canada a leader among nations.
The BudgetGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
It is my duty , pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health Care.
Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk a bit and then ask the hon. member a question about the health component of this budget.
Before the budget came down I had an opportunity in my own riding to sit down with a number of health care professionals. I try to do this on a regular basis with focus groups within my riding to get a sense of where they are coming from.
If anybody knows the state of the health care system in Canada right now it is surely those people who are on the front lines, the doctors, the nurses, the people who run our hospitals particularly. One of the questions I asked was if in the next budget the government puts a lot of money back into the system would this necessarily fix the system. I have to say that those people were very skeptical about an infusion of money going back into the system that would in some way, shape or form fix the sad state of health care in this country.
I went back to those same people after the budget and I asked would this $11.5 billion that the Liberal government intends to put back into this budget over the next five years do what we hope it will do, fix the health care system. These people had not changed their minds. I do not think they are fooled by the rhetoric of the government in trying to make it appear that somehow it is now the saviour of health care by putting this kind of money back into the system.
Does the member think that putting this kind of money back into the health care system will fix the system when indeed his government is responsible for taking $20.4 billion out of the health care system in the last five years and creating the problem we are in today?
David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON
Madam Speaker, it is clear that when the government took office in 1993 we were facing some very daunting challenges. Part of those challenges was the $42 billion deficit that had been left by the previous government and it was absolutely essential that we get our program spending down which also meant reducing the transfers to provinces.
In some provinces, as in my home province of Ontario, we face a situation where there were cutbacks in transfer payments but the situation was significantly aggravated by a premature tax cut, something the party across the aisle seems to espouse as the be all and end all of what is good for Canada.
The situation in Ontario has pointed out fairly graphically how much in error that approach is and was. I think the government, in terms of increasing the amount of money for health care, the $11.5 billion, is taking steps in the right direction. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.
I am in touch with people in the medical community on a fairly regular basis. Just last Saturday night I was talking to a nurse who was complaining about the situation at the Queensway-Carleton Hospital which is just outside my riding but which serves a good portion of my riding. This nurse was very concerned about people lined up in the hallways of the hospital because there are not enough beds in the emergency department. This is something that obviously has to be corrected.
What is important not just in terms of the infusion of health care dollars is the future oriented spending in terms of medical health research. In that regard I should tell members that I have a sister who is a cancer researcher here in the Ottawa-Carleton region who is absolutely delighted with the foresight the government has shown in terms of investing more in medical research and the money going into it. It will have great benefits for the future.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time with my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore.
I intend to talk about health care and agriculture in this budget. I also intend to talk about some things that are not in this budget, the unemployed, the homeless and the poor in Canada and beyond our borders.
The finance minister announced on February 16 that the government will put $11.5 billion into health care. The money is needed urgently for more nurses, for more cancer treatment and for more home care. I am sure we are all grateful for that.
It is also important to know that $11.5 billion spread out over five years will take until the year 2003 before federal spending on health care reaches the level it was just four years ago.
Canadians know that Ottawa and the provinces share health care costs but in 1995 without warning the Liberals began a round of devastating cuts under the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer, that reduced Ottawa's contributions for said transfers by a whopping $21 billion. That is b as in billions, b as in big booboo.
When medicare began in the 1960s, Saskatchewan's gift to Canada, it was the federal government putting up 50 cents and the provinces putting up 50 cents. Now the federal share is down to just 11 cents on the dollar and the budget will bring it only up less than 2 cents to about 12.5 cents.
The cuts have been felt everywhere but nowhere more than in the province of Saskatchewan. Our provincial government was forced to make very tough choices after 1995. It could either pass Ottawa's health care cuts on to its citizens and the district health boards or it could find scarce dollars to replace that money. Saskatchewan chose to replace the money and has increased spending on health care over and above what was cut by the federal government.
Replacing lost federal dollars on health care has meant that other pressing needs could not be met. It would be useful to have had that money to move more quickly on twinning our major highways and improving our roads. That is why the Premier of Saskatchewan, to respond to member for London—Fanshawe, was so pleased that finally the government woke up and was putting some real money back into health care so that he in turn can do some things that desperately need to be done in the province of Saskatchewan.
Canadians are extremely concerned about the future of our health care system, notwithstanding this infusion of money. We in the NDP caucus are committed to repairing existing health care services and increasing the emphasis on health promotions. We are determined to add home care and pharmacare to the health system and ensure that two tier American style health system never comes to this side of the border.
Looking briefly at the agricultural situation, in December after much prodding the agriculture minister promised $900 million in federal funds for an income disaster relief program. Farmers have had to wait almost 80 days for the minister to announce any details. If the devil is in the details there is much devilry in this set of details.
In agriculture, like health care, it is important not to listen simply to the government spin doctors but rather to read the fine print.
In December the minister of agriculture was promising $900 million for a farm disaster relief program, as the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia knows, but now there are clear indications that the minister and his bureaucrats, or someone over there, have fiddled with the program design to ensure that Ottawa will pay far less than it originally promised.
For example, when the program was announced last week the minister acknowledged that the program would not cover negative margins. That means if farmers lost money, as they certainly did in northwest Saskatchewan because of drought last year and in previous years, those losses are simply not covered.
I am receiving calls from farmers who have lost money in the past few years and who fear, having looked at the details, that this program will do absolutely nothing for them. In addition to not covering negative margins, the minister also announced his intention to deduct from his payments any contributions the government has made to the net income stabilization account, NISA, so it can pay farmers less.
The minister will pay out $600 million or less, not the $900 million he promised as recently as last December. As an aside, at $600 million it is no longer a 60:40 program in terms of federal-provincial. It is more like 50:50. The bottom line is that an agricultural manager for a Manitoba-Saskatchewan lending institution believes that under the rejigged rules announced last week so few farmers will qualify that very little of the $1.5 billion will actually ever be paid out.
The provinces are also being forced to pay the 40%, and that is not fair, as the Minister of Natural Resources would know.
He would know that is not what happened in North Dakota. That is not what happened in South Dakota or Minnesota. It was Washington that paid in that case and it should be Ottawa in this case. Small population provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are footing the bill to help our farmers through a trade war. Our small provinces cannot afford to take on the treasuries of the United States and Europe.
Ottawa used to take responsibility for safety net and disaster programs, but this Liberal government has walked away from its responsibilities. Since 1993 it has slashed spending on agriculture by 60%. The money it announced for the disaster relief program is a two year blip. By the year 2000 it will again be spending less than it did last year. That, in turn, is much less than it spent in 1993.
The minister the other day said that the announcement was a great day for Canadian farmers. It does not explain why farmers are still holding and planning to hold rallies as early as this Saturday in Regina or why provincial governments on the prairies are saying to Ottawa “You administrate this turkey because we do not want any part of it”.
Farmers have played a key role in deficit reduction and the restoration of a balanced budget. It is time for Ottawa to put money back into agriculture. We in this party believe that Canadian farmers need sustainable incomes. Our federal caucus intends to keep the pressure on the agriculture minister so that a solid, sustainable farm income disaster program will be there, not for just one or two years but for the long haul.
There is new money for health care. There is some new money for agriculture disaster relief. However, in both cases we are just beginning to recover from years of devastating cuts. At best we are running to stand still.
My colleagues have talked about unemployment. I will not go into that in any detail except to note that in Saskatchewan only one unemployed person in three is now eligible for employment insurance. If we look back 10 years ago to 1989 we find that two out of every three unemployed persons actually received some benefits. This is a deliberate policy again by the federal Liberal government and it takes some $10 million annually out of the Palliser constituency, which affects small businesses, but more importantly, it affects families who cannot afford some of life's basic necessities. These policies are callous and unacceptable. People matter most. They pay into unemployment insurance and when they lose their jobs EI must be there for them.
In addition, this budget has done absolutely nothing for the homeless in our country and very little for the poor. The United Nations published an in-depth study earlier this year which is not at all flattering to Canada. This is not the one that members opposite use when they stand to say the UN says that Canada is number one in the world. This is the UNESCO study which says that amongst industrialized countries Canada is number ten in the industrialized world when it comes to the human poverty index.
In addressing budget deficits the UN document notes that the Canadian government has not paid attention to adverse effects for the population in general. In other words, the Liberal government has balanced its books on the backs of ordinary families. Those hurt most were those most at risk.
The committee says that homelessness in Canada is an area of grave concern. The report states that it is of grave concern that little or no progress has been made to improve the lot of aboriginal people, especially in the areas of housing, unemployment and safe drinking water.
I will conclude by noting that there is absolutely no new money in this budget for underdeveloped countries. I was particularly disappointed that the finance minister was silent in his budget about any commitment to forgive the debt owed to our government by some of the world's poorest countries.
Thousands of Canadians are involved in the Jubilee 2000 campaign to cancel debts owed to Canada by 50 of the world's poorest countries. Leaders of the Jubilee 2000 campaign met with the finance minister last fall. They felt at that point that he was empathetic, but they and the poorest of the world's poor came away without any crumbs from the finance minister's table.
On this side of the House we hearken back to what J. S. Woodsworth said: “What we wish for ourselves we desire for all”.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and then ask the member a question.
The member will know that the Canada health and social transfer is made up of two components, the cash component as well as the tax points. The sum of those two equals the total entitlement of a province.
The member will also know that as the economy grows and more people are working and provinces earn additional revenue, the amount of cash does go down, all of which is subject to a floor which is going to be set at $15 billion.
I wanted to raise that with the member because the cuts are not simply the cuts that otherwise would not have been made. As other members have already pointed out, some provinces like Ontario gave $4.3 billion in tax cuts and the cut from the federal government was only $1.2 billion. Clearly the provinces have priorities and clearly the province of Ontario showed that health care was not its priority.
My question to the member regards his final comments on homelessness. The Golden report in Toronto identified that 17% of the homeless in Toronto were aboriginals. The member will well know the amount of dollars invested in aboriginal health and wellness issues by the government, as well as in the last budget.
The member will also know that transfers to the provinces have increased because of these health transfers and that about 30% of homelessness has to do with mental and physical disabilities, and that money is addressing that.
He also knows that 28% of the homeless in the Toronto survey were youths. He knows how much money has been spent on youth employment initiatives and youth programs to ensure that our youth have the training and the education they are going to need to participate in society.
With those few statistics, I would ask the member whether he agrees that homelessness has been addressed directly by this budget and by other policies of the government.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely not agree with that comment from the member for Mississauga South.
There is a gentleman who is usually parked in front of the House of Commons at the East Block entrance, about 200 yards from the entrance to this building. He is there virtually every morning. I asked him the day after the budget how he had been affected as I dropped a few coins into his outstretched hand. He said “Not at all”.
With respect to the question on tax transfers, it is simply unrealistic to suggest that the provinces can make up the difference. The taxpayer is feeling the burden enormously.
On the homelessness issue, I thought it was particularly offensive the other day when the Deputy Prime Minister suggested to the member for Halifax that it was simply a photo opportunity. What this federal government needs to do is to convene a round table or a discussion on homelessness. I agree that it is more than one level of government, but there has to be some leadership shown.
The mayors of the 10 largest cities in Canada have asked for a meeting to discuss homelessness. So far this government has not acceded to that request and I think it should with alacrity.
Joe Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the member a quick question. He talked about the need for sustainable incomes in farming. I think if the farm crisis shows us anything in this country, it is the value of supply management.
I am wondering if he would see this as an appropriate time to bring the hog producers under the supply management umbrella.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, I agree that supply management has made the farm crisis far less significant in some parts of the country than in others.
I was part of the agriculture committee that was in Washington last week. I can assure the hon. member that there is a deep-seated concern about supply management on the American side of the border. The Americans would like to see it done away with. The only thing they would probably put up on the same level is the Canadian Wheat Board, what they refer to as the state trading enterprise.
I would think in the great scheme of things that the government was making a choice. Knowing where their seats are, it would be that the Canadian Wheat Board would be offered up first, followed in the next round by supply management.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
I hope you are right, Mr. Minister, but we will wait and see.
The BudgetGovernment Orders
The Speaker
I know hon. members always want to address the Speaker when they speak.
Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC
Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member referred to the fact that the trick the Minister of Human Resources Development had discovered was to make the unemployed disappear.
Initially, about two thirds of the unemployed in his province were entitled to unemployment insurance. Now the figure is no more than one third. Does he agree with the following statement. Just as the great magician David Copperfield always has an assistant, does the Minister of Finance have an assistant too—that is, the Minister of Human Resources Development—to make the unemployed disappear and to create the illusion that there is no more deficit?
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, I think that 23% of eligible people in Regina actually receive some employment insurance benefits, the lowest in Canada.
We hear the minister of human resources on a daily basis say “There is no problem here. It is simply that there are more people working”. There is a huge problem in this country. Our constituency offices are being overwhelmed by claimants who are on employment insurance, demanding some relief. They are being told that they have no alternative but to go to welfare in order to seek relief for themselves and their families. The government knows it has a large problem and it is becoming more evident with each passing day.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, every time it snows outside this beautiful hallowed hall we call the House of Commons, the Liberal government gives us a snow job on the budget which we are discussing right now. It just goes on and on.
I would first like to talk about the hallowed budget surplus. The facts are the facts. Seven billion dollars has been taken out of the pockets of employers and employees in this country.
My question, which I have asked time and time again, is: Where is the money? We have heard from the minister of human resources that the money has already been spent on other programs. This government has no right to that money. It belongs to employers and employees. That is the first fact.
If the Liberals really wanted to do something about tax reduction, which all Canadians would like to see, why did they not do the simplest thing, which would have benefited the majority of Canadians, and reduce the GST, even by 1%? That would have put money in many people's pockets and it would have put money back where it belongs, into the economy and job creation.
It is unbelievable that the government could do this while food bank usage is on the rise, while the environment of our nation is being “degregated” at a rapid rate and while public service workers are not getting the equity and equality they deserve.
This government turned around in its recent budget and gave John Cleghorn of the Royal Bank and Al Flood of the CIBC a $32,000 tax break. That is what they will get for 1999-2000. Yet the chairman of the committee for SCONDVA and the vice-chair were both in here a moment ago bragging about how great this budget was for defence. The fact is that there was not one single word about compensation benefits for the merchant marines.
I would like these two to come back to the House and tell Ossie MacLean, in public, exactly what this budget does for them. It does absolutely nothing.
Joe Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think my hon. colleague intended to, but he referred to the absence of a member from the House. I think he has been here long enough to know that is not appropriate.
The BudgetGovernment Orders
The Speaker
I did not hear that particular part. We all know that members cannot mention whether or not someone is here. I am very confident the hon. member knows that.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, for whom I have great respect, for pointing that out. The fact is I would like him to mention in future debates what the budget does for our beloved merchant marines who sacrificed so much and to whom the government gives so little.
It is unbelievable. The government talks about job creation. What about the garment workers of Levi Strauss who just realized they will be losing their jobs in Cornwall? What about the Volvo workers of Halifax who have lost their jobs? What about the thousands and thousands of fishermen and plant workers from coast to coast to coast who have lost their jobs? What about the Boeing workers in Toronto who in November will be losing their jobs? What about the 2,400 Bell Canada operators who will losing their jobs?
There was not a single mention from the Liberals about those workers. All they talk about is tax breaks and health care concerns. I admit putting $2.5 billion back into health care is a good first step. The fact is that spread over five years it will only match 1995 levels by 2003. It is an absolute disgrace.
Tommy Douglas, J. S. Woodsworth and all those beautiful New Democrats of before stood up and fought for health care. They were Saskatchewan's gift to Canada. My hon. friend from Palliser is absolutely correct. The premise of health care was 50% in dollars from the federal government and 50% in dollars from the provincial governments. After five years the government even admits that the grand percentage will be around 13% to 15% of federal contributions. It is no wonder that we are going to a two tier system.
An incredible amount of small business absolutely despises the budget. If members do not believe me, they can listen to Catherine Swift. I may not be a great fan of Catherine Swift but she is right.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I love the heckling. I have got them going. This is great.
In my riding there are 14 small business operators on my street alone. Every one of them complain about the underground economy because of the GST and HST rules. The GST-HST was shoved down the throats of Atlantic Canadians. It ended up that the underground economy grew to over $4 billion in the country. It is an utter disgrace that competent, well meaning and honest small businesses have to compete with the underground economy. The government did not address that problem in the budget.
One of the greatest concerns of our country—it is a national disgrace—is what we are doing to hepatitis C victims. I know Joey Haché is watching us right now and wants to know why the government completely ignored the constant concerns of hepatitis C victims. The government ignored those people just like it ignored the fishermen on the east and west coasts and in our inland provinces, just like it will ignore the miners of Cape Breton, just like it ignored the miners of Kamloops and just like it will let go the Volvo workers, the garment workers, the Bell workers and everyone else.
It is absolute disgrace. The government sits here and I noticed that not one member of the Liberal Party stood and spoke off the cuff. They all had to read prepared speeches, obviously done by bureaucrats in the finance department. They sound like a broken record.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I am glad to see the debate livened up a bit. That is the way it should be. The government has completely ignored the future of our nation.
I will quote for everyone an article which is hot off the press, from Internet. Statistics Canada released information on family incomes today. This is dated March 3 at 4.40 this afternoon. It supports the old saying about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Between 1970 and 1995 average family incomes in Canada rose by 32% but that affected only the richest 30% of families. For the rest there was a slight decline. Hardest hit are families with a single female parent. Such families have almost doubled in the past 25 years and about 40% of them are in the bottom 10% of income earners.
This information is from Statistics Canada. I took it off Internet about an hour and a half ago. Those people are seriously affected by what is not in the budget. The federal government can talk about the budget benefiting its friends like John Cleghorn and Al Flood, but the fact is that it does absolutely nothing for single parent families and working people. It is a sin.
The hon. member for Palliser did not get the opportunity to mention the fact that family farmers across the country are devastated and hurt terribly by what the budget has done. There is a lack of commitment by the government to help them in their time of need.
The European Economic Community came up with $60 billion and the United States came up with $7 billion in aid for their farmers. What does our government do? It hems and haws. It even comes to the point where it denies its promise of a few months ago and reduces it by almost $300 million. It is an absolute disgrace.
I would like government members to speak to Mr. Ray Martin of Flin Flon, Manitoba; Carol Ferguson of Louisbourg; and Alex Handyside of Porters Lake. Government members are bragging; they are proud of the budget. I can give them phone numbers so they can call these people and tell them how proud they are of the budget. These are only three people from across the country who have called me to say that they are very disgusted with the budget and very disappointed in the federal government.
The BudgetGovernment Orders
The Speaker
It is not usual for me to intervene, but I thank the hon. member for giving me a new word, “degregated”.