Debates of March 3rd, 1999

The Budget

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I heard the member say that the government gave millions of dollars of illegal subsidies to businesses. If that is the case, I would ask that the member withdraw that remark.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps the hon. member can clarify the position. I did not hear that remark myself, but perhaps the hon. member can clarify it if he did say that. I know he would not want to suggest such a thing.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I said was that this government continues to give subsidies to foreign businesses, which in our view—and there are a lot of ways to characterize them—is illegal, not that the government is committing illegal actions.

This government has no right to take any credit for balancing this budget because it did nothing. The credit goes entirely to the Canadians who have been forced to pay $2,000 more in taxes each and every year. The credit goes to those who have lingered and died on hospital waiting lists, while waiting lists have grown longer because this government slashed $20 billion out of health care over the past few years.

No, it was not the Liberal government which made tough fiscal decisions, it was Canadian families. They were the ones who were forced to priorize their spending. They were the ones who were forced to pay more for less health care.

It is high time that Canadian taxpayers received the recognition they deserve. It is high time they got the tax relief they deserve.

What does this budget offer them? Guess what? More tax increases. While this government offers $7.7 billion in tax cuts it will raise CPP premiums by $7.2 billion over the next three years. Bracket creep will take another $2.7 billion. I think it is absolutely shameful that this government tries to spin a $2.2 billion tax hike and then tells Canadians they should be grateful for that.

It comes as no surprise that Canadian families are not grateful. Why should they be grateful for a government that continues to ratchet up the tax burden faster than income growth? Why should they be grateful for a government that treats stay at home parents as second class citizens?

Let us take a family of four, with an income of $50,000, with one of those parents staying at home to raise the children. That family pays $4,000 more in taxes each year than the same family with both parents working outside the home. This government has deliberately penalized stay at home parents.

Does this budget put an end to this inequity? No.

Instead, stay at home families are treated to an insult, a slap in the face by the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. Instead of tax fairness we see discriminatory taxes and more shell games.

This budget reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 . In that novel the government announced that chocolate rations would be reduced from 20 grams to 10 grams. There was a second announcement the next day. There was all kinds of fanfare. The government with excitement announced it was increasing the chocolate rations from 10 grams to 15 grams. In that society citizens were brainwashed into believing that was an improvement. Canadian society is not so easily fooled. It is tired of the big brother from Shawinigan and his Liberal speak, Liberal speak like the finance minister's warning that Canadians must wait another two decades before they will see real tax relief.

I guarantee Canadians will not have to wait that long. Overburdened taxpayers do not have to wait another 20 years for something they have been demanding for decades. No, Canadians need only have to wait a year or two. Soon Canadians will take matters into their own hands in the next election. They will toss out big brother and his big taxes. They will vote for a party that is united in its resolve to give Canadians real immediate tax relief.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about tax increases, as did the member from Nose Hill.

The figures members referred to are the estimated total revenues from personal income taxation from all Canadian taxpayers. They suggest that since that number is going up Canadians are paying more taxes. The fact is that since the government took power there are over 1.5 million more Canadians who have jobs, 1.5 million more taxpayers.

I ask the member very directly that when he considers all the changes that have taken place in the last series of budgets, all of which reduced taxes like the 3% surtax, the $675 on the non-refundable tax credit and all the other improvements that were made, is he saying to the House that the government has introduced any changes which increase an individual's income taxes?

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an exact example of what comes from this government, a bunch of numbers and figures.

Every Canadian will be able to show their paycheque stub in two months or six months from now. Let us see if there is any real tax relief. Look at paycheque stubs for the last five years since this government has been in power. It goes down and down. We have less and less to take home every single time. That will continue to happen.

The government can put out all the rhetoric and fancy numbers it wants but at the end of the day Canadians will look at their paycheques and there will be less and less to take home to provide for their families. There will be more and more deductions. The story will be told on the paycheque stubs of every working Canadian.

They will see that this is a shell game by this government. They will see there is no real tax relief. The government can tell us all the numbers it wants but Canadians will know the truth when they have less to pay their bills at the end of the month, less to provide for their families, less to give their children. Those are the facts. They can look at their stubs today and ask where the tax relief is and where are the hundreds and thousands of dollars this government promises. They are not there. It is a shell game. It is empty government rhetoric. The numbers will not add up on the paycheque stubs. I challenge the member to that.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the Reform member failed to address the most important message Canadians are sending to Liberals and to Reformers. To use the words from the member's speech, they are saying “Don't you dare bring in user fees into our health care system. Don't you dare take our system any step further toward a two tier, for profit Americanized health care system”.

Yet that is exactly what Reformers did only two weeks ago at their united alternative conference. That is what they voted for. They had a chance to vote for national standards for a health care system but they voted that down. They voted instead to leave the door open for user fees.

The member talks about a united voice for Canadians. How did the member vote on that resolution? Where does his party stand on user fees? When will he join us in preserving medicare and going forward?

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member where I stand in the party. I spent five years in the province of British Columbia as a paramedic and nobody believes stronger in a national health care system available to every single Canadian than this party does.

The New Democratic government in British Columbia, my home province, has forced Canadians into a two tier health system where tens of thousands of British Columbians are forced to go down to the States to get health care treatment. That is an absolute disgrace. The Premier of British Columbia's home was raided today by the RCMP because of the questionable way he governs the province. It has led to a two tier health care system. That is what we have from NDP governance.

The Reform Party believes in a strong national health care system available to every single Canadian. That is what people would get from this party. We campaigned in 1997 on putting $4 billion immediately back into health care. We are committed to that, not like the current Liberal government which slashed $7 billion and then gave back a mere $1.5 billion or $2.5 billion, and it wants us to thank it.

Imagine if a criminal came into your home and stole $10,000 and came back and gave you $1,000 and asked to be thanked. I do not think it adds up.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time. It is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to the 1999 budget. This year's budget is a Canadian budget. It invests in community, the community of Canada.

What the government does not do is often as important as what it does do. What we have not done with this budget is jeopardize our sound fiscal base, a base that has enabled us to withstand international fluctuation in economic trends.

This budget does not buy our way to prosperity as the authors of the alternative federal budget, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Choices, would have us do.

We are investing in our national social system because this is what Canadians have stated they want. This is what our government is providing. It is the Canadian way, it is the Liberal way. This budget does not abandon sound fiscal principles. We will balance the books through to the year 2001. We are not setting unrealistic targets.

Three years ago when the debt to GDP ratio was at its peak, 36 cents out of every revenue dollar, more than one-third, went to debt interest. This was money Canadians could not use to prepare for the future because their governments were too busy paying for the past.

Last year with the debt ratio dropping, the portion of each revenue dollar servicing the debt also dropped to 27 cents. We have not returned to the old ways of the old days. We will continue to invest and build on last year's focus of research, job creation and knowledge.

This budget does not use borrowed money to invest in the future of Canada and the welfare of Canadians. We are in a position to reinvest Canadian dollars in the priority of Canadians.

It is impossible to cover everything contained in the budget in this 10 minute speech. However, in my opinion there are four main themes I would like to cover: fundamentals, framework, fairness and the future.

First, the fundamentals. Our economy is in excellent shape. Our unemployment rates are at all time lows. Interest rates are down. The deficit has been paid off. It is through the efforts of all Canadians that we are in a position to invest in our nation's social system. This budget does just that.

Debt reduction is a priority for this government but it is not its only priority. Of course we must pay down our debt. Step one is our commitment to not overspend annually on our budget. We will not borrow to buy the groceries. This government will not put all our resources into debt reduction alone. It is like paying off the mortgage on the house but allowing the children to go hungry and leaving the roof leaking without repair. This scenario does not strike a balance. It lacks vision for long term health and it is not what Canadians have said they want.

In a survey my constituents of Kitchener Centre responded that 80% of them wanted some debt reduction. They said it should be a priority. The government is making that a reality with the $3 billion contingency fund which will go annually to paying down the debt.

I can stand in the House and firmly state that I believe this government will pay down the debt. As a matter of fact, we will eliminate the debt. But it will be by continually acting in a prudent fashion. We will meet the expectations of my constituents and all Canadians with sound fiscal management.

The tax policy of the federal government is based on three fundamental principles. I would like to take a moment to outline these. The first is that our tax system must be fair. Tax reductions must benefit those who need them the most, low and middle income Canadians.

Second, broad based tax relief should focus initially on personal income taxes.

Finally, because of our debt burden, broad based tax relief should not be financed with borrowed money.

As we know, this year's budget builds on last year's budget. On budget day I had a hard time going through it trying to find some kind of surprise that I could share with the local media. This speaks to the transparency and the broad based consultation that the government has been involved with to find out truly what Canadians want to see and the vision that we will share as a government.

The government has begun the process of providing broad based tax relief for all Canadians. Together the 1998 and 1999 budgets provide the largest proportion in tax reductions at the lowest income level. This is good news. We have removed 600,000 Canadians from the tax rolls. I am pleased that the government has continued to reduce the 3% surtax for those earning between $50,000 and $65,000. Fourteen million Canadians will receive tax reduction as a result of this measure.

The second theme to be addressed is framework. Through the social union, the government has provided true leadership. Canadians are tired of different levels of government pointing fingers at each other. The social framework allows all governments to move toward solutions that benefit Canadians. As a society we have shared responsibilities on issues such as homelessness, affordable housing and lack of skilled workers.

The government is looking to forge partnerships as well with labour and industry so together we can address these important social issues.

Faith communities in my riding of Kitchener Centre are planning a forum with members of parliament and our provincial counterparts as well as leaders at the regional and municipal level because they acknowledge there is a shared responsibility and are looking for solutions, not excuses.

There are fundamental issues of health care delivery that must be addressed. We must look at how we pay for health care, how we structure it in our communities and how we meet the evolving demographic needs and the changing roles of health care providers.

In addition, there is a strong desire by Canadians to see the development of key indicators for measuring health care delivery. Our investments in research will help develop these important research measures.

The government has gone beyond just transferring larger funds of money for health care to the provinces. We are setting a path for a clear vision for our health care system. We are building a system that is responsive and reflects the changing needs of Canadians. We are committed to working with our provincial and territorial colleagues on innovative health care programs, programs that meet the needs of all Canadians.

Only the most partisan individual can criticize the health care investments the government has made. We have invested according to the priorities of Canadians.

Over the next five years the provinces and territories will receive an additional $11.5 billion specifically for health care. This represents the largest single new investment the government has ever made. For my province of Ontario this is good news. I know that constituents of Kitchener Centre are pleased to hear that Ontario will receive $4.4 billion in health transfers.

A well rounded health care system must have a framework based on a number of key areas: research, home care, pharmacare and leadership within the medical community. This Liberal government has invested in all these areas. I am pleased that the government has committed to investing in projects such as the nurse fund. A $25 million endowment announced in this budget will enable nurses to find solutions to systemic challenges which face them.

I would like to address my third theme, framework. The government has an important role to play in promoting access to knowledge and skills. The budget demonstrates our commitment by the allocation of $1.8 billion for the creation, dissemination and commercialization of knowledge.

In my riding of Kitchener Centre we have seen a great surge of knowledge based companies open their doors. These businesses are always looking for talented individuals capable of functioning in a high tech environment.

We are committed to providing the necessary funds to ensure that our youth can meet the needs of high tech knowledge based companies, whether it be through the Canadian opportunities strategy or the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

I am pleased that the budget makes $150 million available through technology partnerships Canada to partner with the private sector to commercialize innovative processes and products.

It is important to note that the nation's program spending in relation to the GDP is only at 12.5%. This is the lowest level since 1950. This government has only increased spending in a minimal way, yet what we have done is reallocate existing funds and solidified a framework from which to work.

Equalization is a federal transfer program that goes to the heart of what it means to be a Canadian. It is about fairness. This budget fully restores per capita entitlements for all provinces in three years time. The government's increases to the equalization program will make resources available to most of the less prosperous provinces for public services, including health care.

In conclusion, I am extremely proud that not only have we addressed the queries that have been expressed by Canadians but we will be able to build on the gains of yesterday in order to create a bright future for tomorrow for all Canadians.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kitchener Centre will know that although I am from Winnipeg, I am fairly familiar with the Kitchener area. I was born and raised in a small village near Kitchener called Winterbourne, and I check in fairly regularly with my parents, Harry and Klazina Wasylycia.

I hope the member will agree with me when I say that my sense from that community is that the number one concern for all citizens in the area is health care. They are reeling from a double whammy, the effects of both cutbacks and regressive measures by the Harris Conservatives in Ontario and the cutbacks of the federal Liberals.

How does the member intend to deal with those concerns in that area? In particular how does she feel about any of this new federal money going to Premier Harris? He has opened up the whole home care program in that province to competitive bidding. This means that companies like Olsten, large American based profit making companies, are winning contracts to provide services at low cost while longstanding non-profit organizations like the Victorian Order of Nurses are fearing for their survival. It is really the patients who are at risk and people who need home care who are suffering because of this whole policy.

How does the member feel about money going to for-profit health care instead of non-profit delivery of home care?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. She really has put her finger on one of the large concerns in my community.

This federal budget is very good news for the people of Ontario. One of the things the social union framework acknowledges and legitimizes is the partnership we have with the province. This is a good news budget for the people in Winterbourne, for the people in Kitchener, for the people in all of Ontario because we are releasing resources and $3.5 billion can be accessed immediately. What the Harris government decides to do with that will be something he will have to be accountable to the people of Ontario for.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed working on the finance committee with the hon. member.

I took note of one thing she said with respect to debt. I suppose nothing concerns me more than the fact that the governments of the last 30 years have driven us into debt to the point where, as she mentioned in her speech, at one stage some 31 cents of every $1 collected in income tax went toward interest. Just think of what we could do if we did not have the debt to service. The amount of money that would be available for programs would be immense.

She then talked about this $3 billion contingency fund which, if not needed, will go toward reducing the debt. She said she was sure the debt would be repaid.

I taught mathematics for a number of years and have these math and finance formulas in my head. I did a quick calculation. To get rid of the debt, $580 billion, over the next 25 years, by the time I am 85, would require the posting of a surplus every year in those 25 years of some $50 billion a year. Here we are paying a puny little $3 billion if we happen to not need it at the end of each year.

I wonder whether she would comment on a greater urgency to reducing the debt so that we could reduce the amount of interest payments and have more of the taxpayers' money available for programs or to give them a tax break.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are two halves to the equation. I really support the fact that we are looking at our debt through our GDP ratio. As the hon. member opposite points out, even with a $50 billion investment, which would leave us no money to reinvest in the programs we hear Canadians asking for and the kind of social structure Canadians are demanding, it would still take a long time to pay the debt off.

I do not see this government having a single focus on merely paying down debt. As we went across Canada, people said health care was up here and their second priority was down here. I believe that this budget and this government have achieved the balance that will give a quality of life to Canadians as well as help to retire the debt.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Madam Speaker, I did not think I was going to have an opportunity to speak this afternoon but it has availed itself. I am pleased to make a couple of observations during the budget debate.

As the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, which is a west end riding of the city of Winnipeg, I was naturally interested in how my constituents would react to the February 16, 1999 budget.

I am happy to say that the budget is going over extremely well, in fact, so well that very often it is difficult to find reaction out there. When voters, constituents, are generally happy with an initiative by government, they do not say a lot. It is when government is seen to be doing something negative, something that is a mistake that we hear it from voters. I have not been getting an earful from constituents in the past week or so; in fact it has been quite the opposite.

What are they saying? First of all, they are very happy with our health care initiative. Most Canadians, and I think I can speak for most of my constituents—

[An hon. member]

What about where I come from?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

I know the member for Winnipeg North Centre finds the budget very difficult, but then I am not too sure whether there is anything we could do that would make the hon. member happy. However, those are the things we have to put up with.

I want to talk about health care, which is a real passion for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is also one of my passions. I am very proud of the fact that the government has restored health care funding to the tune of $11.5 billion.

I am quite sure that if we asked any of the hon. member's New Democratic friends whether we would have come back with $11.5 billion, they would have said no. I am sure most New Democratic Party members, if they were honest and straightforward, would say thank you very much to the Minister of Finance and to the government. That is what Manitobans are saying.

I will quote a woman the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might even know, Lynda Kushnir Pekrul of the Canadian Nurses Association. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would love to hear what this woman said. She said: “This budget is a victory for nurses”. Shall I repeat it again in case the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not hear? This budget is a victory for nurses.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Did you talk to the nurses on the ward?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not satisfied with that, I can find another quote to settle her down. “They have no excuses left. There is every reason why the Manitoba government must take immediate action. Hospital and home care services in Manitoba have deteriorated too far”. Who said that? Dr. George Kelly, president of the Manitoba Medical Association.

I notice that the New Democratic member for Winnipeg North Centre has suddenly fallen silent. I hear nothing but silence from that side. The testimony hurts does it not?

The fact is in the budget we provided health care dollars to the tune of $11.5 billion. Most people in my province of Manitoba are very pleased. I got a letter today from a constituent who said that he hoped this money would be well spent. Just a few minutes ago I was in the process of replying to that constituent pointing out the fact that the spending of that money falls within the ambit of the provincial government. It is up to the provincial government to spend that money wisely. I trust the provincial government will do that because it is answerable to the people of Manitoba.

If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not like the message on health care, maybe I could please her a little on the question of taxes. Again we had some good news regarding taxes. In the last two budgets, the finance minister, who probably will go down as the finest finance minister in this century, the finance minister, with the support of the Prime Minister, with the support of cabinet and with the support of the entire Liberal caucus, has been able to provide in a gradual incremental way tax relief of over $16 billion. Is it enough? I suppose it is never enough but we are on track and we are on track toward further tax cuts. Relief last year, more relief this year. If everything goes according to Hoyle, if everything goes well, there will be more tax relief next year which is exactly what Canadians want.

I say that because we got into this deficit and financial pickle over a long period of time. Most Canadians understand that if it takes a long time to get into it, it will probably take some time to get out of it. The finance minister knows that; we on this side know it. We cannot do it overnight, but we are doing it. We are doing it with purpose and the job will be done. I know it will be very hard to convince the people on that side of the House, especially the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but we are going to get the job done.

I want to quote another Manitoban. This was on health care. It is by Dr. Gary Glavin, associate vice-president of research at the University of Manitoba. By the way, he is a constituent. He stated “This is the first time that I have been excited about a federal budget”. How do you like those apples? That is coming from people who normally do not say great things about federal budgets.

The hon. Harold Gillishammer who is the new minister of finance for Manitoba spoke very highly of the budget when he said “This budget was billed as one with tax reductions and increased expenditures in health care. Certainly the federal government came through”. Those are the operative words, “came through”. He went on to say “They have balanced the budget, they have reduced taxes, and we believe in that to make this country more competitive”. Imagine, that was said by a Conservative, who is hardly a Liberal flag waver. These are not bad comments from opponents.

Perhaps I will quote one more individual. This is certainly not from a normal Liberal flag waver. The fellow's name is Victor Vrsnik of the Manitoba taxpayers association. They are usually very critical of anything that Ottawa does. This is what he said about the budget: “The Canadian Taxpayers Association is delighted the finance minister is tuning into the message of tax relief. He is eliminating the 3% surtax and he is raising the basic personal exemption, which will mean that poorer or lower income Canadians will only start paying income tax now after $7,200 as opposed to $6,500”.

There we have it. I think that is pretty good testimony. But we are not going to stop at that. Even if we have silenced many of our critics, even if many of our opponents are saying good things, we are going to continue to do a good job because Canadians want better health care and they want lower taxes.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the hon. member, who reportedly is my shadow in the riding of Halifax West.

I noted that the hon. member spoke about health care and he spoke about taxes. But I notice he did not address the issue of employment insurance with respect to the budget. The member who spoke previously indicated that the unemployment rates are at an all time low. The government seems to take a great deal of comfort in throwing out that statement. But I am sure that statement does not give a lot of comfort to the many people who remain unemployed and, in particular, to those who find themselves ineligible for EI benefits because of the many changes that have taken place: the intensity rule, the clawback, the change from weekly to hourly qualifications and so on.

There seems to be a great significance in the fact that as the number of people who are eligible for EI benefits goes down we also notice that child poverty and homelessness is going up.

Does the hon. member feel that this budget in fact has dealt adequately with the question of homelessness, child poverty and EI?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to point out to the hon. member that I am not his shadow. I think we do have an arrangement. It is called twinning. I am sure he understands what twinning is in political jargon, but I am not his shadow. I am not going to watch him very closely. But if I can help my fellow Liberals in his riding, one way or the other, I will do exactly that. That is what twinning is all about. It has nothing to do with shadowing.

With respect to the question on the budget, was Rome built in a night or a day? I do not think so. Was the economy rebuilt in a day? Did the budget cover every possible avenue? Did it cover every possible issue? No. There is always work to be done.

I am very aware of how controversial EI is, particularly in his part of the country. I know the intensity rule is under question, as are many aspects of EI. What do I say to my hon. friend? Keep on raising those questions. If we do not hear those questions from the member and his colleagues, we hear them all the time from Liberal members from Atlantic Canada. There is genuine concern about EI, as there is about a lot of the issues.

If the member wants to throw this into the budget process, we have done something that no other government has done in the past, which is to have very wide open budget consultations. In fact we are into the pre-budget consultations for 2000 right now. If the member has something to submit, I am sure the finance minister and the rest of us will be all ears.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose I should not be asking the member this question because I think it is unfair. I think that he, like most Liberal backbenchers, like most Canadians, does not really understand the implications of the numbers as announced.

When this budget was talked about as being a health care budget, the number which they chose to use was $11.5 billion. If we look at what the budget is, it is an annual budget. The auditor general and other accounting experts have said that annual budgets should have their annual numbers stated. In smaller print, it says $2 billion a year.

Beyond that, $2 billion this year is mentioned, $2 billion next year, $2.5 billion, $2.5 billion and $2.5 billion. They project five years in advance and use the big number of $11.5 billion after taking $20 billion out of the health care system.

It is my understanding—and I would like the member to correct me if I am wrong, if he knows, and I do not think he will know—that when they say $2 billion this year and $2 billion next, it means $4 billion more and then $6.5 billion more and so on as an accumulation. Or is it simply that next year there will be no increase at all, but rather just $2 billion more than we had in the past? Then it would be $2 billion and no increase and then another $2 billion. Which is the right answer?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Madam Speaker, the way I read the budget, it is pretty simple. It is $11.5 billion over five years, but upfront, the very first year, it is a payment of $3.5 billion.

In other words, provinces can access not only the $2 billion over each of the next five years, but they can get an advance of $3.5 billion upfront.

For my province of Manitoba, that means a total of $425 million, which is not bad.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, not because this budget pleases me, but to give the people in my riding an opportunity to speak through me. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis.

If I may, I will pick up the thread of what has been said this afternoon. The member speaking before me mentioned that the Minister of Finance would go down in history as one of the greatest ministers of finance. The people of the Gaspé will remember the Minister of Finance as the greatest conjurer, that is, he has a talent for juggling figures, making believe a cut is no longer effective and having us believe that what he is giving us is coming immediately, when it can take three or four years, as the Reform MP mentioned. It is time to set things straight.

The other thing I must mention is that this conjurer opposite got his deficit to disappear by having the provinces and the unemployed pay first. I will elaborate on these two points.

First, let us talk about the unemployed. Everyone knows now that there is over $20 billion accumulated in the employment insurance fund. I am entitled to speak to this subject today, because the Minister of Finance included the employment insurance revenues in his consolidated budget.

This year, he is telling us that he thinks he will have revenues of about $18.8 billion, of which he expects to spend about $17 billion. But everyone knows that he will once again save at least $6 billion. The magician that he is comes up with various expenditures, but he never thinks about the well-being of the unemployed.

I want to take a moment to mention the excellent information work being done in the Gaspé region by the Mouvement action chômage Pabok and by its coalition, whose two co-chairmen, Mr. Cousineau and Mr. Blais, do a great job.

Let me go back to the manifest released by the coalition in New Richmond, two weeks ago. These people are asking three things from the government: first, to establish an independent employment insurance fund run by representatives of the contributors; second, to improve the employment insurance program; third, to put the surplus back into the fund.

These three issues are important to regions such as ours. I see that some Liberal members are listening carefully. Why is it so important? Because, in January 1999—I do not have the current figure—the actual unemployment rate was 20.8%. The average for 1998 was 22.8%.

Moreover, in the riding of Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, a paper mill may close and 300 jobs will be lost if one of the two machines is shut down, or 600 jobs will be lost if both machines are shut down. We are told “perhaps work can be done for other companies during down times”. But this requires maintaining the social security net, that is the employment insurance program, even though I would much rather see the paper mill operating year round with the two machines and the qualified workers who are already there.

I remind members opposite that our riding must also face the closing of a copper mine in Murdochville. This means that 300 jobs will be lost. This time, it is not the federal government's fault; it is because the mine is depleted.

When these job losses are added to the existing unemployment rate, members can see the how important the transition measure, the social net provided by the EI program really is. The Liberals did not say much about that. The minister of regional development will perhaps be able to confirm this, but my reading of the budget is that there is actually less money available for regional development. I would like him to respond to this.

The second point I would like to make is that the Minister of Finance magically transferred the deficit onto the backs of the provinces. Wearing three jurisdictional hats at once, he slashed the health, post-secondary education and social assistance envelopes.

However, this time, he is saying that, with the situation bad in the provinces and problems in the hospitals, the government will come up with some money and pretend to alleviate matters but will impose a medical police force to keep tabs on how it is spent.

This is disgraceful. Hospital management comes under provincial jurisdiction and the money is now in Ottawa, but it is always the same taxpayer footing the bill. The public will not be fooled.

That brings me to the following point. The sectors I have just mentioned come under provincial jurisdiction. But what about the fishery and the catch, which really do come under federal jurisdiction? Do members recall that there is a groundfish moratorium, that it is still in place, and that experts agree that the commercial fishery will not resume on its former scale any time in the next five years?

As for TAGS, the Atlantic groundfish strategy, the last lump sum payments will be made in May 1999. Nowhere in this budget is there any mention of what will become of fishery workers after May 1999.

What about the people approaching retirement age? What can we do in a devastated region such as ours, where fishing is no longer possible, when we get to be 50? What new job direction are we supposed to take, and where are the energies and catalysts for recharging our economy? There are none! Yet, they have jurisdiction over this, and it is easily enough understood.

I will use the other official language to pass the following message to my friends in the other maritime provinces, and I want the Liberals over there to listen carefully.

What kind of hope could this budget deliver to the fishing worker? There is nothing in this budget to cover the end of the TAGS program which will stop at the end of May 1999. This budget gives only dividends to people who have a chance to work, mainly Ontario workers. I am glad for them but nothing is done in this budget for the people from the maritimes and the Gaspésie. The people from Newfoundland and elsewhere in the maritimes should raise this question with their members, if the members have the courage to go back to these ridings after the last vote on this budget.

We are trying to stay calm, but this is becoming increasingly hard to do. In mid-January I was present at four or five different demonstrations. The people are taking to the streets of the Gaspé to voice their despair and confusion. At the moment they are doing so peacefully, but I am afraid, and I want the cries of the people to be heard all the way to this House.

I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development, or rather the Minister of Finance, to stop fiddling with the figures and to understand that the people need dignity, a social security safety net, and catalysts for a diversified economy. This is what they want the government to know. They do not want to be on employment insurance for the rest of their lives; they just want help in getting through some bad times, and unfortunately there is nothing in this budget that allows them any hope.

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

Madam Speaker, I listen intently every time the member from Gaspé speaks of the perils of fishermen and plant workers and the crisis in our fishing industry.

What do he and his constituents think of a government that writes a letter in 1994 promising income support until May 1999 and then a year before this literally rips up that contract with thousands of fishermen and plant workers and say here is the new deal, completely destroying their hope and faith in the Canadian federal government system?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore raises a very good point.

This government made promises to get elected, but it was just a smokescreen because, as soon as they took office, the Liberals started governing like a right wing party and making cuts.

Close to $1.9 billion was invested in the Atlantic groundfish strategy but, unfortunately—and the hon. member is right—the very first year cuts were made to all transition and economic diversification programs, under the pretext that the number of potential clients had been miscalculated. These people still exist. There were close to 45,000 of them and they will still be there at the end of May 1999. What will happen to them?

People who work in the fishing industry, including fishers and the women who work in plants, will not disappear like the cod, because it is the federal government that now manages that program. These people are still there. They are human beings.

I remind our viewers that Canada was discovered precisely because there was cod along our coasts. Fishermen came close to the Newfoundland and Gaspé shores. Today, people from the Gaspé and Newfoundland are told “Sorry, we have had enough of you. Stay home and keep quiet. We are not giving you another penny”.

This is an insult. It is pure contempt on the part of people who claim that Canada is a wonderful country, full of life and full of compassion for all its inhabitants, including those who live in the regions that were the first ones to become part of Canada. I do not know how the Minister of Finance can tell them “Sorry, that's it, that's all”.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks by my colleague, and I would add my voice to his indignation.

A budget is supposed to provide for the welfare of a society, and this is not the case here. For fishers and those working in the fishing industry or on its fringes in the Atlantic region, the situation is extremely precarious.

It is true that the Minister of Finance is using our tax money to pay off the debt, but in doing so he is putting people in debt. Our collective wealth is not really improved.

What is happening is that the Minister of Finance is paying off government debt by putting people in fishing in debt. That is the drama. The real drama is that there are families sinking into poverty and debt, whose heritage is being ruined, who are losing their house, their boat, their possessions, and who see no future for their children. That is the real tragedy.

I ask my colleague if he does not agree.