Debates of May 4th, 1999

Budget Implementation Act, 1999

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

I will. Just pay attention. In a rare scene of a cabinet minister coming to his senses, even the industry minister echoed the calls of the Reform Party for lower taxes. Imagine that.

Is that the parliamentary secretary's well thought vision for tomorrow? In spite of the $11.5 billion the government is adding to the health care system, the fact remains that federal transfers are still $4.3 billion less than when the Liberals took power.

If I go back to our earlier analogy, how does the taxpayer feel? Is he still reeling from the effects after that 30 year beating? The Liberals probably think he feels pretty good. After all, he was just given a free flag. In case that did not cheer him up, maybe the heritage minister can give him a copy of the dumb blonde joke book that he is paying for.

It seems a bunch of Liberals are going around western Canada trying to figure out how western Canadians feel. As someone who is trained in the fine art of grassroots representation, something members across have a little trouble with, I can say he is not doing so well. He is starting to feel the crushing burden of the national debt which has topped $580 billion, 94% of which was rung up since 1975. Each year two out of every three dollars he pays in income tax are gobbled up by interest charges on the national debt.

His family is feeling the pinch of these high taxes. Despite having the same household income as his neighbour, he is paying 24% more in taxes. That does not even include the cost of living expenses.

Feeling somewhat overtaxed and under appreciated, our friend went to the hospital to see what ailed him. When he got there he was told there would be a small wait. “No problem”, he said. Then he asked how many people were ahead of him. “Only about 188,000 or so”, said the nurse. “If you would please sit down, we should get to you within the next year”.

Instead of resuscitating Canadians with the tax relief they deserve, the Liberal government continues to spend, spend, spend. The budget announced $14.1 billion in spending initiatives over the next four years, including the remainder of this fiscal year. The government is expected to reap $156.5 billion for 1998-99, about $5.5 billion higher than what the finance minister predicted last year and about $12.5 billion higher than what he predicted the year before.

The finance minister calls these differences errors of prudence. This sleight of hand accounting will allow for plenty of new spending initiatives.

A recent poll taken by Compas showed that between 96% and 98% of people in each of the provinces believe that controlling taxes, spending and debt are important. Nine out of ten say that tax relief, not new spending, is their number one priority. These numbers are not at all surprising when one considers that the average taxpayer pays $2,000 more in taxes today than what he did when the Liberals took power six years ago.

The country needs to get competitive again. In December 1998 the chief economist of CIBC Wood Gundy said:

From a tax competitive standpoint, Canada ranks dead last in the G-7. While virtually every other G-7 economy lowered its personal income tax burden over the last 15 years, Canada's rose sharply, both as a percentage of GDP and of household income.

If there is one message that I want to hammer home today, it is that Canada needs a tax break and it needs it now. Canadians cannot wait for the finance minister's grand plans of tax breaks spread over the next 15 years. We need them now.

Here comes the person the parliamentary secretary was asking about. Just a week or two ago a constituent of mine, Professor Kurt Ellenberger, an accomplished musician and respected instructor at the University of Lethbridge, accepted a position with an American university. Kurt told me that he could not turn down the chance to double his after tax income. He said he could no longer bear to see his wage increases gobbled up by bracket creep. As a result, the University of Lethbridge and the community have lost a talented musician and teacher. That is just one example of brain drain in this country.

How many more Canadians are going to have to leave before the government wises up and implements some tax breaks?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support the motion of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to delete lines 13 to 43 in clause 4.

In essence, this would re-establish the calculation formula planned at the time when the Minister of Finance announced the Canada social transfer in 1996. I must point out what the Canada social transfer is, or what it was, since it has just been changed again.

The Canada social transfer is a set of transfers to the provinces made by the federal government in the past for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance. I remember that the 1995 reform of the social programs took two years. At that point, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which travelled around the country consulting people. I recall the type of consultations we had. There were demonstrations everywhere, because people were concerned about what was going to happen with the cuts to employment insurance and the changes to the social programs.

By putting all that into a single fund, the government seized the opportunity to cut payments to the provinces. Quebec was hit particularly hard. There was nothing to be proud of, but it is a fact. There were more unemployed and poor people in Quebec than the Canadian average. I might point out as well that there is a link between cuts to employment insurance and the transfers to the provinces and today's debate.

The intent of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in his motion is to bring things back to the way they were in the 1996 budget. It must have meant something. It was planned.

I will mention it in conclusion, but we had not just the word of the Minister of Finance but his written word that the government perhaps did not agree to it all, because there were cuts, but there was a formula. This is the commitment the Minister of Finance made to carry out this reform, to bring everything together in the Canada social transfer.

With its 1996 budget, the federal government established a mechanism to reduce current disparities in per capita entitlement between the provinces by half by 2002-03. The mechanism in question would have increased the per capita weighting from 10% in 1998-99 to 50% in 2002-03.

That was what the Minister of Finance promised. But, in the 1999 budget, without a word of warning to Quebec, the federal government is proposing to completely eliminate these disparities in three years. The new increases under the CHST, including the one for this year, will be distributed equally, per capita, in every province and territory.

The budget proposes a weighting of 70% in 1999-2000 and 100% in 2002-03. Because of this unilateral decision by the federal government, Quebec will lose out on more than $350 million annually. This explains why Quebec is getting only 8.3% of the $11.5 billion increase in the CHST over five years, while Ontario will get 47.2% or almost half.

In the circumstances, we should not be surprised to see Ontario MPs take turns applauding this measure, because it is to their advantage.

They have short memories. Now they have harsh words for the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, when all he is saying is that this was not what was promised. These were not just idle words from the Minister of Finance. This was a promise made in the budget. That is all the member is saying.

Today, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is being called all sorts of things I would rather not repeat, is accused of being nuts, wrong, unfair, and told that the concept of need took precedence over the concept of per capita distribution. That was the Minister of Finance's plan and philosophy in 1996.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot merely raises this point. Great consternation is stirred up on the other side. They say “My goodness, what he is proposing is insignificant, wrong, and far-fetched”. Is the Liberal side saying that what the Minister of Finance proposed scarcely three years ago was far-fetched and wrong? All those adjectives can be applied, for that is what the commitment by the Minister of Finance was.

Recently, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claimed that the provinces had called for this change on June 15, 1998. There is a connection with the social union, which was accepted by the other provinces, but not Quebec. The others accepted that in future provided there is advance notice of three months, I believe, the federal government can change provincial social programs as it sees fit. Quebec did not accept this, because it is unacceptable to Quebecers, and the premiers of the other provinces accepted so that they would get some money.

I know that there are some words that cannot be said in this House, but when principles are cast aside in favour of money, there is a word that springs to mind: intellectual prostitution, at the very least. This is terrible, scandalous.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claims the provinces asked for this change. This is no excuse for the government's not giving any advance notice of its intention to modify the transfer formula in its 1999 budget. There was no advance notice. At any rate, had there been one, it would have been only seven months, whereas the social union framework agreement calls for a minimum of one year. The Liberals reneged on their own signature on social union.

That is not all. The Prime Minister said that the premiers' letter of January 23, 1999, concerning the reinvestment of the new transfers in health satisfied him and that he considered it a sort of agreement on health.

The Prime Minister broke his word in the weeks before the budget, since the letter on health care asked the government to totally reverse, within a reasonable timeframe and through existing arrangements under the Canada social transfer for health and social programs, the cuts it had made in its transfers in recent years.

One aspect concerns me increasingly and that is respect for and the promotion of democratic process. One of the conditions of democracy is that information be provided. There is, however, another condition. People who give their word or who agree on a commitment must honour it afterward. Otherwise, it means nothing.

Again yesterday—I would just refer to this matter of particular concern to me, shipbuilding—we debated for an entire day a motion of the Progressive Conservative Party, which, in the end, had used word for word the resolution passed by Liberal Party faithful at their latest convention. Most Liberal members were probably in the hallway, sipping coffee or something, but I asked whether they remembered being at that convention. They did not say yes, of course. They nodded their heads, but did not recall having voted on this resolution. However, they did vote in favour of it.

But in the House, that means nothing. It is like the election promises in the red book. They are meaningless. The Prime Minister said he would scrap the GST. He did not do it. At one point, he also said he would tear up the free trade agreement and change it. He did nothing of the sort.

We could make a long list of such commitments and broken promises. We could talk about promises made during election campaigns and at conventions, but the issue today is a commitment made by the Minister of Finance in his 1996 budget to reform the Canada social transfer.

To put all this together and to make his cuts more palatable, he said “I will tell you in advance how the amounts will be calculated and how much the provinces will be getting”. He said that for two or three years and then, suddenly and unilaterally, in another budget speech, the minister said “This is it. It no longer works that way”.

We must condemn this kind of about-face. People are losing confidence in the Canadian political system because they are increasingly aware that it is plain rubbish.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget that was tabled recently in parliament.

While this bill has many parts to it, I intend to speak primarily to concerns that I have with part 1, regarding the Canada health and social transfer, and part 5, regarding the tax on fuel and tobacco for some aboriginal bands. I am particularly concerned with the sections of the bill that affect my riding and will therefore address these concerns.

My constituents in Nanaimo—Cowichan, indeed all Canadians, find it galling that this Liberal government has the intestinal fortitude to actually feel good about its historical actions with the Canada health and social transfer.

The Liberals are big on emphasizing that they are putting $11.5 billion back into the health care system. Let us be very clear about this. This is money that the Liberal government took out of the health care system to start with. This was money that was in the health care system to begin with.

When the Liberals came to power in 1993, the Canada health and social transfer per taxpayer was $1,453. By the time this budget is fully accounted for, this amount will have dropped by 31% to $1,005 per Canadian. Anybody who can do the simple math realizes that the Liberals are putting in less than half of what they took out of health care in the past five years. These are the facts.

The Liberals can point fingers in any direction they want in trying to spin doctor this, but the undeniable truth is that they have taken far more out of the Canada health and social transfer than they have put in. They laid the groundwork for our present two tiered health system and they must be held accountable for their actions.

I know they will squeal and probably bleed over this accusation, but the truth must be spoken. They have slashed the Canada health and social transfer to the point where it seems to be beyond repair without a major overhaul of our health care system in Canada.

I know that every member on this side of the House could tell horror stories about the quality of health care in their riding. Let me offer an example from my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is the main hospital for central Vancouver Island. It directly serves a population of approximately 85,000 people and offers support to a further 60,000. In the past weeks, the hospital has experienced a serious overcapacity of intensive care patients and patients on ventilators. This is nothing new. Due to Liberal cuts in the Canada health and social transfer, this life-threatening situation has been ongoing for some time.

The most perilous date recently was Wednesday, April 7, only a few weeks ago. Chaos reigned supreme on that day. At one point, four ambulances were lined up outside the emergency room. Inside, the intensive care patients and heart monitor patients were backlogged. In total, the 12 intensive care beds were filled with critical patients. Half of them were dependent on ventilating machines. Another four intensive care patients were being attended to in the emergency department. Six telemetry patients were in the recovery room because the hospital's ten telemetry beds were full.

I know this is beginning to sound like a very bad soap opera, but it gets worse. In the waiting room there are another four patients experiencing chest pains who have not yet seen a doctor.

The Nanaimo hospital was so full that other Vancouver Island hospitals were looked to for assistance. Guess where the only available bed was? Port Alberni. That hospital is almost two hours away by road, and it is not the best road either I might add.

Sadly this is not a Hollywood soap opera. This is a real Canadian nightmare. Elective surgery patients are being cancelled three, four, up to eight times. Think of the mental anguish to those patients. This is unnecessary pain and suffering. It is lost productivity. These are lives hanging in the balance. Why is there such chaos? Why are lives hanging in the balance?

Of course the Minister of Health would have a variety of excuses, but let us say it like it is. There is a lack of money in the system and the system itself is in need of massive reform. The Liberal government has taken a world class medical system and ruined it.

On February 12, almost three months ago, I called for a review of Canada's health care system. Canada's health care system is in crisis. We need an immediate overhaul of the entire system. Today, in the House, I reiterate my call for a full review of Canada's health care system.

The Liberals have decimated the level of health care for Canadians. Something needs to be done, and done soon. Although the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is one of the most drastically affected in all of Canada, the same story may be heard at any number of locations all across the country.

This simply is not good enough. It is not acceptable in a country of our stature. This bill is simply band-aid treatment for the life-threatening wounds the Liberals have inflicted upon the Canadian health care system.

Now I turn my attention to part 5 of Bill C-71, which allows some first nations bands the right to impose a 7% value added tax on fuel or tobacco. Besides being, as a Reformer, philosophically opposed to any new or increased taxes, I feel that I need to explain to the House one example of a similar situation in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.

Not long ago one of the local aboriginal bands wanted to impose a tax on all tobacco sales. Under Bill C-93 they were allowed to make a bylaw imposing a direct tax on consumers of tobacco at a rate prescribed in the bylaw. This was to be used as a means of raising funds for the band. Under Bill C-93 clear guidelines were laid out as to how the band could proceed with this.

At first glance, this may not seem to be much of a problem. However, to say that there was intimidation in this whole scenario would be an understatement. In this case the band bylaw has never been published, nor was it publicly advertised as Bill C-93 stated that it had to be. The contents of the band bylaw are then unknown. Therefore, the tax collection, calculation and distribution are all unknown. Talk about misrepresentative taxation.

Furthermore, the vote by the band members was held on welfare cheque day. Lo and behold, to receive one's cheque, one had to vote. This kind of thing goes on time and time again at the band level and it is directly a result of Liberal bills like this one.

According to the information I have, as of last June the band had collected $1.6 million and the distribution of these funds was to include housing for individuals through the welfare office of the band. Despite requests by band members, this information does not appear to be forthcoming.

At that time no housing was being worked on and nothing was projected. Big money and no action.

This story has an all too familiar ring to it. As we have seen all too often, if one is not a part of the chosen circle within the band, the support services do not come one's way.

As can be seen in this case, and as has been brought up time and time again in the House, the real issue at stake is one of band accountability. The media is filled with cases of band money disappearing, being unaccounted for or misspent. This simply will not do.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can say all she wants, but the Indian affairs system is broken even worse than the health care system. Today the health care and Indian affairs systems are prime examples of why there is such a high level of mistrust among many Canadians over the Liberal government's action. Let us remember that 62% of Canadians voted against the Liberal government in 1997 and these are good examples of why they did.

Democratic leadership of all stripes must be accountable to the people it serves. The grassroots aboriginal people are crying out for real leadership, accountable leadership, leadership that can look at the grassroots concerns and bring solutions to them. Accountability is a large part of such solutions.

The health care system affects everyone at some time. Whether we use it on a regular monthly basis or sporadically every few years, we will all use it. The problem is that in creating the crisis in our health care system the Liberals just do not get it. They do not have a solution. They do not know how to get themselves out of the quagmire they have created. It is out of their control.

Much the same could be said about the sad way the department of Indian affairs has paternalistically dealt with our first nations people. This bill is only a small example of the problem that exists. The Nisga'a agreement is another example. Once the doublespeak and rhetoric is wiped away we find another bureaucracy out of control.

In matters of both health and Indian affairs the government has failed. For these reasons I cannot support Bill C-71.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in today's debate on Bill C-71, the Budget Implementation Act, 1999.

First, I must say that this is the first time I have spoken to the 1999 budget brought down by the federal government. I am pleased to speak today because, through its budget, this government has implemented measures that have inevitably had a major impact on Quebecers.

I say this based on what we see in our ridings when we visit our constituents during recesses, when we go door to door, when we meet with local citizens and organizations.

Last week, I met with representatives of the Comité logement de Rosemont, an organization that has for many years called on the federal government to invest in housing. In ridings such as mine, the list of applicants for social housing grows daily.

For years now, these groups have been fighting to increase the availability of social housing for the neediest members of society, and have called on the federal government to back large housing projects and invest in housing. If poverty is to be eliminated, people must be able to do three things: put food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their head.

Since 1994, this government has frozen all spending on housing. Quebec is not receiving its 25% share under existing programs and projects. Local organizations have told me that the federal government must include new funding in the 1999 budget. Unfortunately, this budget contains nothing for the poorest inhabitants of my neighbourhood. It contains nothing for Quebec's neediest.

There are nine different parts to Bill C-71 to implement the budget. First, there are the fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the provinces. The second part concerns the pension plans of the Canadian armed forces and of the RCMP. The third measure is the suspension of arbitration. The fourth concerns the management of public funds. The fifth involves the Sliammon first nation. The sixth part concerns the child tax benefit.

Finally, the ninth part concerns farm product marketing programs.

Today, I would, primarily, like to draw the attention of the House to the changes in the formula for calculating the transfers the federal government established in the latest budget. The transfer calculation formula in the 1996 budget provided for a demographic weighting of 10% for 1998-99.

This figure increased to 50% for 2002-03. What we have to understand today is that the 1999 budget will have the effect of increasing the demographic weight criterion in the calculation of the transfer to 100%.

The members of this House from Ontario, those on the government side, among others, are perhaps unaware of the effect these changes in calculation may have on Quebec, but the changes are significant and unacceptable. They are unacceptable not only for the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec, but for the people of Quebec, in health care, education and social assistance services they will receive in the coming years.

It must be pointed out that these changes in calculation will penalize Quebec considerably, by reducing its share of the $350 million yearly. Inevitably, other richer provinces will profit from this penalization. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia will get a larger share.

In the forecast increase in the 1999 budget, transfer payments are raised by $11.5 billion. Only 8.3% of that will go to Quebec. Let us look at what will go to the other provinces. Take a neighbouring province, Ontario, as an example. Quebec will receive 8.3% of the $11.5 billion. But what will Ontario receive? It will receive 47.2% of the $11.5 billion. This does not make sense. The only consequence of changing the calculation is that the richer provinces will benefit.

Earlier, while in my office, I heard the parliamentary secretary comment “What do these Quebecers have to complain about? The decrease in transfer payments will be made up with an increase in equalization”. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance needs a reminder of what equalization payments are for. They are there to help the poorest provinces. Does this mean Quebec is a poor province?

If this government really wants to help the people of Quebec with health, education and social assistance, it will not only have to increase equalization payments, it will also have to increase what I might call productive spending.

We know what productive spending means in Montreal area ridings: they are what goes to purchase goods and services. They are what gets the economy going and encourages economic growth. They are what makes cities like Montreal able to compete with other major world cities.

The only consequence this budget will have for Montreal is to place it in a non-competitive position. There must be major changes in this method of calculation, which has never worked in Quebec's favour.

Not only is the formula unacceptable, so are all the measures in this budget.

The people hurt most by this budget are the unemployed. The Liberals opposite had promised help for the unemployed. I remember hundreds and thousands of Quebecers rallying on Parliament hill five years ago to tell the government that the reform by the then Minister of Human Resources Development would have a major impact on women, youth and the middle class. These Quebecers were looking for a sign of hope, some breathing room, in this budget. They found nothing.

I will be told that, five years ago, these people had no cause. But that was not the case. The statistics speak for themselves. In the case of youth alone, 75% qualified for EI in 1990, as opposed to 25% today.

In conclusion, there is nothing in this budget to improve the situation of Quebecers. The formula offers nothing for Quebec.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion by the Bloc party which says it would like to delete the component of clause 4 dealing with the provincial share of the cash contribution under the CHST from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2004.

At the outset I would like to say that my party opposes the motion. While we are on the subject of the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer, let me dwell on the issue.

Contrary to what the government has been saying, that it is restoring funding to the CHST, it is actually restoring partial funding. In 1993 when the Liberals took power the CHST per taxpayer was $1,453. Taking this into account, today the CHST transfer after what is stated in the budget will be $1,005. There is a decrease of $448, a 31% decrease compared to the year 1993. I fail to understand how the government can say that it has restored the funding.

Perhaps many of us saw the documentary on the CBC last night on the health care crisis in our country. The nurses across the country, the front line health care workers, are saying enough is enough on the cuts. The documentary clearly pointed out what is wrong with our health care system. It all started with the federal cuts to the transfers to the provinces which resulted in the provinces cutting as well. This was when the federal government could have easily changed its spending focus and capped the health care funding, but no, it elected not to do that.

In last night's documentary the nurses were saying that they were sick and tired of cuts, of overtime, of part time jobs. The stress and the pressure were so heavy that they could not do their jobs. The nurses feel they need to create a personal bond with the patient and they cannot do that because of all the cuts.

One of the nurses pointed out that all the governments are saying that they will hire more nurses. Where will they get the nurses? It takes four years to train a nurse. Where will the trained manpower come from? Not to mention the fact that nurses are now moving south. We have heard time after time that headhunters from the U.S.A. are in our country offering incentives, bonuses and career development for them to move south.

Naturally we are facing this crisis in our health care system as a result of the government's cut in the budget. Now the Liberals will probably say they are going to throw some more dollars toward it, but it is not going to address the issue.

I got a call last night from a constituent of mine in Calgary. She said she was scared of the erosion of the health care and education systems. This woman has contributed and lived in this country for over 70 years and she is expressing fear for the future. Her exact words were “I do not know what is in store for my grandchildren”.

Canadians are scared. It arises from the fact that the government is not able to get its spending priorities in order. It has cut health care when it could have cut something else. Now it is putting money back.

There is the education system as well. Imagine the government coming out with this millennium fund. It is only going to look after 300,000 students. What about all the rest? I have two daughters in university. They are not going to be subject to anything. How are they going to be helped? Right now their debt is $20,000 and they have not even completed their degrees.

Yesterday I got another call from a constituent who is fiercely concerned about high taxes. Actually, I get calls every day in my office. Constituents walk in every day with one single theme, high taxes. They are tired of working harder and their standard of living does not seem to be rising. Their disposable income is not right.

One constituent said something very interesting. He said “Perhaps we should let Canadians have the gross amount they actually earn and then 15 days afterward they can send the taxes in that are charged to them. Only then would Canadians recognize how much money they are losing in taxes, how much money the government has been taking from them time after time”.

Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister say there is no bracket creep. That is something new we have heard. Canadians are facing higher taxes and deterioration of health care and education. Canadians are saying enough is enough.

Lately we have heard the debate on productivity. One minister is saying productivity is low due to higher taxes. The finance minister is saying that everything is hunky-dory. He was not taking anything seriously despite the fact that all evidence indicated there was something wrong with our productivity, that there was a brain drain.

The Leader of the Official Opposition talked about the brain drain last year and the finance minister would not acknowledge it. He only woke up when Nortel and the big guys said “Yes, there is something wrong. We are going to look at this whole situation”. Then he woke up. Now he has said he is going to meet with the high tech leaders to see what is wrong.

Let me say what is wrong. I was in Toronto last weekend and I visited individuals in a high tech training program. The principal told me that in that class over the last six months they had lost six students who had moved to the U.S.A. Canadian taxpayers are paying for it. Why have they moved to the U.S.A.? Because of the lower taxes. It goes back to their disposable income so they can address the needs of their children.

Then we come along and say “No, no, but we have the health care and you have got to pay for all those things”. Yes, but there is also frivolous spending by this government. There is the millennium project where the government is spending money. I do not know why we are spending money on that project.

The Minister for International Trade today in committee said that he was very proud to take young entrepreneurs to the Silicon Valley. That is great. I applaud him for that initiative, it is good. Our young entrepreneurs need that. I understand he also said “We are a good exporter. We are a good exporter of our bright young individuals”. We are good exporters after we have spent so much money on them.

Our economy has high taxes, brain drain and low productivity and the government has been refusing to acknowledge it but the government is slowly acknowledging it as the opposition parties keep hammering it. It needs to be addressed, but not with a band-aid solution, not with the government saying that it will throw a little money here and a little money there. It needs a comprehensive solution.

I hope that the finance minister when he wins his leadership bid will try to give tax relief as an election goody. The days of election goodies are over. Canadians will challenge that. They now know not to put their trust in the government any more.

Before I sit down I must say that something has to be done about Revenue Canada which is becoming more and more unreasonable in going after Canadian taxpayers.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this particular motion.

I should say at the outset that we oppose this motion. We oppose this motion because it deals with certain provisions of the budget and it introduces provisions which are contrary to the priorities and values of the New Democratic Party. We recognize that the Liberals' political choices are certainly not the choices of our party.

This budget was touted as a health budget. The government put forth this health budget on the basis that it was injecting $11.5 billion to health care funds. We have to look very closely at what this really means.

We note that this money is spread out over a five year span. It will only bring health care spending back to 1995 levels in five years, and even then only back to 1995 levels. This budget is not attached to any comprehensive long term planning. Rather it allows the pressure for two tier American style health care to grow. There is no delivery on the Liberal promise to build national home care programs or a pharmacare program. In reality it provides only a perception that health care needs are being addressed.

We know when we look at our health care system that there is a lot of pressure. People are overworked. People are underpaid. More and more is demanded of the system. There are long waiting lists in various hospitals. This budget does very little to address those issues.

The finance minister has given the wrong prescription for the health care crisis. The dosage is too low and the recovery is too slow. This was supposed to be a health care budget, yet we see no real leadership when it comes to health care.

Let us put this budget in perspective. We note that the Liberal cuts to the Canada health and social transfers, that is, the entire social program funding envelope, since 1995 now amount to $21.5 billion and more than half of that has been in health care. This year's budget puts back only $2 billion, not quite the cause for celebration that we have been led to believe.

Members of the government keep repeating $11.5 billion, $11.5 billion. In reality they have not emphasized the amount that has been cut from this budget. What they want us to believe and to forget is that the $11.5 billion will be spread over five years.

This budget also failed to address a number of very important issues. It failed to help the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are still looking for work. It failed to improve benefits for the unemployed. In fact what we have seen take place in the past is just the opposite of helping the unemployed. We have seen the government seize funds belonging to the unemployed. It wants to put these funds into the general account to pay down the debt.

This budget has failed to combat the homeless crisis. All we have to do is walk down our streets. Even as we walk from the House of Commons down Rideau Street we see many homeless people who are sitting by the side of the road. Yet this budget does not really deal in any concrete fashion with that particular problem.

It has failed to reduce the GST. It has failed to provide federal funding for our highways. In many parts of our country the highways are in severe need of repair. In my home province of Nova Scotia there is a need for highway work. We know that if the highways are not in good shape it reflects upon the potential for tourism. Tourists do not want to come to a province or to a part of the country to drive on poor highways. The government has failed to address that particular issue in its budget.

It has failed to provide proper tax relief. Instead it has eliminated the 3% surtax for people earning $50,000 to $65,000. It addresses the concerns of those who perhaps least need it, whereas the poorest in our country do not receive any real relief from this budget.

One very important issue which has not been addressed by the budget is infrastructure money. The government had a program, which has now come to an end, whereby infrastructure money could be shared among the federal government, the provinces and the municipal governments. This program certainly aided in providing much need infrastructure in many of the small communities throughout our province.

I can tell the House of a need in my riding, a need that is felt by a small black community. The families do not have adequate water. We may think that in this day and age how is it possible that people do not have an adequate water supply? What makes it even more striking is the fact that this community lives and borders the lake that supplies water to Halifax and Dartmouth.

The main water supply is directly adjacent to this small community, yet it is not hooked into the water supply. The people are drinking from wells where the water has been deemed to be unsafe and lacks the proper aesthetics that drinking water should have. People have wells that run dry in the summertime. Quite often they have to call upon the local fire department to deliver water to them. They live next to this large, pure lake which boasts the best treated water in North America and they are not hooked up to it.

These people have been attempting to obtain a hook up to the main water supply. Unfortunately, because they did not come in on time under the previous infrastructure program, they now do not have access to that kind of money to assist them with this project. The cost of the project is very difficult for people who are living on fixed incomes, many who are widows, older people, people with only a small income. To hook up to the water supply may cost many of them $20,000 or $30,000 because of the frontage charges for their properties.

It comes down to a matter of priorities. I have been pursuing this issue on the federal level. I have tried to seek whatever funds might be available from any of the programs that the federal government might have in the area of health, the environment and so forth. However, I have been unable to secure any meaningful funding from the federal government to assist in this project going ahead.

Where does the government put its priorities? Where are the priorities when it comes to serving the needs of people? When I see projects being approved under the millennium partnership program, such as projects to fund a dumb blond joke book, projects to establish mermaids for western towns which are not even near the sea and various other projects, I question the validity of the priorities of the government in meeting the real needs of people.

People can be without water, yet we can find funds to create books which poke fun at various segments of our society. This, to me, is wrong. The government has the whole process of its priorities wrong and this budget simply illustrates that fact. We have to start getting back to the meaningful things in a budget, the things that will assist those people who are unemployed, that will give aid to people who are in need of health care, that will provide home care for people who need it, medicare and so forth. These are the kinds of issues that must be dealt with in a realistic way in our budget.

It is for this reason that I find it very difficult to stand and support a motion which calls for CHST payments to be made to any province because the CHST payments are not being directed in the proper direction and they are not being used to help people. We must get back to the real root causes of helping people to accomplish the things that must be accomplished to enable them to lead full and productive lives.

We see right across our country all kinds of examples of things going wrong in our society. A lot of these things stem from the quality of life within our communities and homes. It is incumbent upon the federal government to provide the kind of financial support and programs that make it possible to have a good quality of life in our homes, communities and throughout our country.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-71. A number of things were said on this bill and many more could be added to stress the importance of this legislation, which deals with several aspects of the federal government's finances.

I want to emphasize three points. First, I will discuss the issue of the transfer of federal funds to the provinces. Then I will deal briefly with the national child benefit, before concluding with a suggestion to the government to improve public finances.

As for transfers to the provinces, earlier, someone who is rather thick and who sits across the floor accused the Bloc Quebecois of not having any respect for the per capita formula. It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois and all the democrats in this House respect that principle, but this is not what is at issue when we are dealing with transfers to the provinces.

The federal government was petty and dishonest in the way it went about changing the formula. That formula was based on a number of factors, including population, but also on other factors that are not strictly related to the population. There were even some clearly defined agreements and announcements. In the 1996 budget, the government clearly stated that, if changes were made to the formula used to calculate transfers to the provinces, 50% would be based on population until 2002-03.

That is not what happened. In fact, the federal government changed the formula used in the calculation of transfer payments without telling Quebec and the other provinces, and the new formula it imposes upon them will come into effect in 2001. Not only was this change not announced, but there was an agreement in place. At least, that agreement was mentioned in the 1991 budget. Moreover, this was done only a few weeks after the signing of the social union agreement, which stated clearly that the federal government would not change the formula without giving the provincial governments at least 12 months notice.

Again, the federal government did not keep its word and changed the formula, which means that Quebec will lose $350 million a year for three or four years. Quebec will lose nearly $1 billion, maybe more, because of a cheap trick by the federal government.

What I find particularly appalling is that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, the two most powerful people in this government, are not protecting Quebec's interests, in spite of the fact that they both come from Quebec and that Quebec has the right to demand that the formula be maintained as agreed, in other words that it not be changed until 2002-03. This is a cheap and dishonest move, and the Bloc Quebecois has stirred up a lot of discussion on this issue.

I see this as anti-Quebec behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. And there are more examples of anti-Quebec behaviour. For example, I could speak for some time on the social union, the millennium scholarships, and the way the government is trying to harm Quebec's interests.

On the one hand, these attacks have been more pronounced since 1995 and the referendum. On the other, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister seem to lack the courage and political will to develop fair economic policies.

A case in point is the national child benefit. As we know, the needs are huge in Canada. In spite of the fact that the government had promised it would reduce it, child poverty in Canada is worse now, in 1999, than it was in 1993 when the government came to power.

There are many other examples. The member for Rosemont mentioned housing, from which the federal government withdrew completely. Employment insurance is another one. These are instances of gross social injustice. On the one hand, this government has been multiplying its attacks against Quebec, there are countless examples of this. On the other, it seems to be somewhat indecisive, weak, and lacking in courage when it comes to social and justice issues across the country.

I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister something that might help him be remembered in the future. I read this morning in La Presse that he was bemoaning the fact that very little was made of his accomplishments. The fact of the matter is his government did not accomplish anything. He has done nothing we might remember him by.

If the Prime minister wants to do something that will stick in the memory of Canadians and Quebecers, I suggest he abolish the other place, where people sleep and snore, wasting $60 million of our hard-earned money. If the Prime Minister had the courage to do what has to be done to abolish the other place, he could recover the $60 million wasted on 104 senators, who do very little work, and use this money to meet the needs of the poor, the children and the unemployed, as well as for housing.

To illustrate how the $60 million could be better spent on other projects than for those 104 friends of the government, this amount could be used to create some 20,000 summer jobs for young people.

If, as he says, the Prime Minister is really concerned by the future of young Canadians, he should take his political responsibilities and abolish the other place, take the money and spend it on summer jobs for youth. If 20,000 jobs could be created in one year, this means that over a period of ten years 200,000 jobs could be created for young people by using the money which is presently being wasted on the other place to maintain 104 friends of the government.

There are ways of doing this. Indeed, I sent a document in my riding of Quebec East, in which I proposed a way to empty the other place.

The solution would be to reduce the other place's budget, which now stands at $50 million, to $104, that is $1 per senator per year. There is not one single senator in the world who would accept such a budget. This would encourage senators to retire and to enjoy a comfortable pension.

If the Prime Minister introduced in next year's budget for the Senate a provision allocating $104 for the next fiscal year, I am convinced that a majority of members of the House would vote for it. We have the authority to do so, because we have political legitimacy and we represent voters. This budget could not be rejected by the Senate.

Senators do not represent anybody. They represent nothing but political parties, special interests, or the Prime Minister's interests. This would be a way to emptying with the Senate without abolishing it. This kind of budget would encourage senators to retire. Those who wanted to stay on with a salary of $1 a year could do it on a voluntary basis, or for the love of their country, but not to collect a big pay cheque and numerous costly benefits for very little work.

Today, in 1999, we have no need—and it is even scandalous to keep it—for the other place, we do not dare and are not allowed to name in this House. In my view, it is an abomination that a proud democratic country should tolerate such an institution.

This proposal is on the table, and concrete and realistic means have also been suggested. Now, it is only a matter of political will, a political will the government could muster to meet the needs of all Canadians. If the Prime Minister wants to leave an achievement of lasting memory, let him take up this challenge. Let him reduce the budget of the other place and use the savings to create jobs for young people. With 20,000 jobs a year, we could get 200,000 over a period of 10 years.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to the implementation of parts of the budget and to the proposed amendment, which we oppose for many reasons.

Basically, I would like to talk about the budgets over the last six years and to what I feel budgets are supposed to do.

For about 30 years, I have always felt that budgets were supposed to be drawn on a priority basis. We were supposed to collect the money through revenue sources and then determine how to spend the money in a manner that would be beneficial to Canadians across the land. It is not how we spend this money to benefit a few here or a few there, but how we spend the money where Canadians will receive the best benefit possible from the revenue collected, keeping in mind that we must determine what some of these priorities are.

I will come up with a list of priorities by saying we should add health care to that particular list. It certainly plays a major role in the lives of most Canadians. We all want to be healthy. We all want to have access to maintain that health.

Education certainly has to be high on the priority list. It is something that will benefit all Canada. The better educated our youth are and the more we offer in opportunities for education, the benefits will be felt throughout the country for the good of all Canadians.

One of the most elemental duties of the House of Commons or a government is to make legislation that will provide for the protection and safety of the lives and property of its citizens. This is pretty elemental and should be a high priority.

When we have a military unit, the primary purpose forever being in existence for defence is to protect the sovereignty of a nation and to be ready to go to arms if ever necessary to do that.

Then we have our industries which we want to make sure provide good jobs that will make our communities feel much better in their standards of living and the lifestyles that we would all like to be accustomed to.

If we take a look at the industries around, we recognize agriculture as being the number one industry in the nation. It has to be looked after, as most Canadians agree, because it is very beneficial to keep a vibrant industrial base going in this land, particularly at the agricultural level.

If we looked around the nation, we would see people who are in genuine need. We would see the poverty and say “we must address this”. There is no reason why we should live in the greatest country in the world and still have poverty to the extent that it is in many places, particularly on native reserves.

On the reserves I have visited, I have seen the conditions that our native friends are living in, the grassroots people who are fighting hard for some accountability and for a lifestyle that their children can grow up in and enjoy, that can give them some hope, education and opportunity for their futures. Instead, we see people living in squalor and committing suicide. We are doing a very poor job. This should be a high priority.

What about the environment? There is nothing better than to live in the greatest country in the world and have an environment that is liveable, with water that is safe to drink and air that is good to breath. We have to work on all those things. Those are the kinds of things that I believe a budget should be addressing.

Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, I have seen a deterioration in these priorities, particularly over the last six years. This federal Liberal government took around $20 billion in transfer payments from the provinces. Instead of looking at the public accounts and finding out where the billions of dollars were being spent, and not necessarily for the good of all Canadians, it cut immediately from the priority lists. This was done to the point where we now have a health care system with line-ups and people suffering because they cannot get the treatment they need. I have a family member who will not get an urgent operation until August.

People begin to point at the provinces and say “Shame on, you, Mike Harris, Ralph Klein and all the provincial premiers, for having done this”. Nobody remembers that it was this Liberal government that cut those transfers and put the pressure on the provinces to do something as a result of a decision made here and one that was not beneficial to the Canadian people.

We hear about all the difficulties in the education programs being delivered in our primary, elementary and secondary schools and what they are causing.

Because of the depletion in the police forces, they are no longer able to do the job. The RCMP, where a number of officers are needed in the field, no longer have the staff available because their numbers have been decreased.

Here we are on the verge of a war and we have a military unit that is not properly equipped. It is outdated. That needs to be reinforced and helped. It is a priority.

We have an agricultural industry that is nearly collapsing in the west in particular, but in other parts of the country as well. There were people who suffered last summer. We have debated in here on how to deal with it and we have done that dismally.

We hear of 1.5 million children living in poverty in this land. I heard that in 1993 when I came here. Nothing has been happening there.

Every day we get reports. Recently, we received one from the auditor general stating how deplorable it was the way the government deals with aboriginal people on reserves. It stated that there was no excuse for them having to live under the conditions they do and that we are not doing a good job.

What I am saying is that we are drawing up budgets that attack the very things that ought to be priority while we continue to fund special interests and give away free flags because it is such a wonderful thing to do.

We strike all kinds of weird committees. When I look at the public accounts, I cannot help but wonder why we spend thousands of dollars for a committee to figure out what kind of recipes we can use blueberries in.

There is one committee that always rips me up, I guess because of my age. When we put together a committee to study seniors and sexuality and spend thousands of dollars for this committee to do that, it makes absolutely no sense.

We give grants to big business. Since when was a government ever supposed to be in the business of supplying money to the private sector big business companies in order for them to survive and thrive? I always thought that in an entrepreneurship one invests and takes one's chances. If one does a good job in management, it will work.

CIDA comes up with all kinds of projects. It just amazes me when I look at public accounts and see where we spend the money.

Multiculturalism. It is a wonderful thing that we have multicultural people in our country. In the beautiful community of Strathmore, Alberta, they put on a program once every year, which I attend at a cost of $25. I was more than pleased to put up my money.

Fourteen nations were recognized in the community the last time I was there. Many have different cultural backgrounds and different roots. They put on illustrations of food from the old country. They put on arts and entertainment to show us what kind of a background they come from. They all had a great weekend working together and doing this. These people were from all walks of life and from all backgrounds. It was a great weekend and we all paid for it ourselves. We paid admission and it went well.

After it was all done, each one of the participants congratulated each other, patted each other on the back and said “Well done”. They went back into their communities and became Canadians. They are Canadians.

We spend thousands and millions of dollars because we, the government, have to promote this or that. It is time that we started lining up these priorities. If we did that, and if we remembered what this country is all about, then we could take a look at these budgets and not only address these priorities, but also provide the kinds of tax cuts that the Canadian people deserve.

We are completely out of proportion with the rest of the world in taxing our people, and it has got to stop. We have to start putting budgets together that implement addressing priorities. We must stop the foolish spending that the government is so capable of doing and start today to look after the needs of Canadians.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-71, the budget implementation act, 1999. I am pleased to enter the debate because what I hear from the opposite side is not really reflective of what the 1999 budget is all about.

The Bloc Quebecois continue to whine about the per capita adjustment in the budget. Let me go over some of the history of the equalization payments and the CHST transfer.

Over the last number of years there has been a cap on the transfers from the federal government to the provinces of Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia to deal with health care, secondary education and welfare. That cap was there because of the economic prosperity in those provinces.

Now that we have returned to a point where we have some fiscal responsibility and have eliminated the deficit, it makes absolute sense to go now to an equal per capita payment on the CHST. It means that we are returning to equity.

A member of the Bloc Quebecois said that he would not support the aspect of the budget which dealt with bringing the budget back to a fair and equitable arrangement under the CHST. The provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta would be put on an equal footing with the other provinces. They have not been over the last many years. His argument seems to be totally illogical, but we all know the motivation of Bloc Quebecois members. They want to create an impression that Canada is not working and is unfair. Their agenda is to promote the single minded issues of Quebec.

Let us talk about equalization. If we look at transfers from the federal government to the province of Quebec, not only do we have the CHST which deals with health care, secondary education, post-secondary education and welfare, but we have equalization payments. The equalization payments for the province of Quebec in this budget are around $5 billion. They are more than 50% of total equalization payments given to all provinces and territories in Canada.

What a shame. What a disgrace. The province of Quebec was strong; it was an economic powerhouse before the separatists became engaged in Quebec. What a tragedy that Quebec, because it is a have not province now, has to participate in the lion's share of equalization payments from the federal government. Why? It is a poor province. Why is that?

Unfortunately, Quebec is a poor province because of the policies the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are implementing there. It is unfortunate. It is a tragedy.

I would like to talk about some of the positive aspects of the budget because members opposite totally ignore them. The member for Wild Rose spoke about the model he sees in budget building. In other words, a budget should reflect the priorities of the Canadian people.

Perhaps the member for Wild Rose did not read the last budget. It had $11.5 billion directed into health care, one of the largest single transfers under the CHST in modern history. Of that $11.5 billion, $3.5 billion goes to the province of Ontario. The people of Ontario were saying very loudly that we need to deal with health care. We have hospitals that are crowded. We have waiting lists.

The delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility, but we provide funding to the provinces through the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer. I will try to clarify some points around that.

Although the member for Wild Rose is from Alberta, he postulated that the reason health care was threatened in Ontario and other provinces was that the transfers from the federal government had been reduced. What a neat little theory. I hear it in Ontario from time to time, more often than I would like, and I would like to correct the record on it.

If we look at the reduced transfers under the CHST to the province of Ontario since 1993, they amount to less than $1 billion per year. In contrast I will outline what the Government of Ontario has done. It implemented tax cuts, which is great. We have been implementing tax cuts. We would like to implement more tax cuts.

In the last budget we had to redirect more money to health care because the Government of Ontario said explicitly and implicitly that it values tax cuts five times more than topping up federal transfer reductions. The 30% tax cuts in Ontario, and I gather Mr. Harris will announce more today, are great.

We will be announcing more tax cuts, but we have to keep topping up health care and education because the Ontario government keeps gutting those programs. One day, hopefully in the next budget or the budget beyond, the federal government will get into massive tax reductions.

We have already provided for $16.5 billion over the next three years but we need to do a lot more. When the Government of Ontario says it will reduce income tax by 30%, it costs the federal treasury about $5.5 billion a year. Our reductions in federal transfers to the Government of Ontario were less than a billion a year. That says tax cuts are five times more important than topping up the federal transfer reductions to the Government of Ontario.

It is very simple. When the member for Wild Rose talks about priorities, the Government of Ontario is reflecting those priorities. In the next month or so the people of Ontario will have their chance to express their view on whether that was the right set of priorities.

In the gallery are some school children, young adults from my riding of Etobicoke North. They attend Mississauga Private School. I would like to give them an insight into what the government is doing about youth employment.

The 1999 budget builds on the Canadian opportunities strategy announced in 1998. It makes available an additional $455 million over three years for the youth employment strategy used to create employment opportunities for young Canadians. That money is providing youth internships and summer jobs. In my riding of Etobicoke North right now I am signing off a Human Resources Development Canada program that will create 170 summer jobs.

We have also shown some leniency with respect to student loans. We allowed tax deductibility of interest on student loans in the 1998 budget. We allowed for deferral of repayment of student loans. We made tax provisions so that Canadian families could put more money into their registered education savings plans which are tax deductible, put together a little nest egg to help educate their children.

In the last budget the Prime Minister and our government announced the Canada millennium scholarship program of $1.3 billion or $2 billion. It is a huge amount that will be used to help students who have good academic records but maybe not the means to go through university or college. Our government is responding to youth.

I have seen youth internship work in my riding of Etobicoke North at Humber College which trains students to work in the tool and die industry. Our government subsidizes the company which hires them so that they can be trained on the job. They take classroom instruction and go to the tool and die company. Some 95% of those students get jobs. I have been at some of the ceremonies where students receive awards.

This budget is a good news budget. While the Bloc Quebecois keeps whining, if I can use that term, about the transfers, the province of Quebec is a net beneficiary and the province of Ontario is back to a fair and equitable transfer of funds under the CHST.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member who just spoke will remain in the House to listen to my speech. I have rarely heard so many falsehoods. Maybe ignorance is bliss.

This morning, the Globe and Mail reported that Quebec business leaders are highly optimistic. I quote “Quebec business leaders are more optimistic than they have been in five years. Not since the election of a sovereignist government in Quebec has the province been basking in such optimism. Quebec anticipates increases in sales, profits, price reductions, an increase in employment and a drop in inventories, all conditions needed for economic growth”.

When the hon. member says that Quebec is poor, he is treating Quebecers like a colonized people. This is exactly why we want out.

The hon. member should come to Quebec. He should see how we live, how dynamic a people we are, how we are getting known, especially Montreal, as the best centre in Canada for the new economy.

The members opposite should stop thinking that they are the fathers of Canada, that the rest of the country relies on them. I happen to think that the attitude of the federal Liberals from Ontario is one of the main reasons we will leave the country. We are sick and tired of their paternalistic attitude, especially when they convey falsehoods like the previous speaker just did.

Why are we so disgusted by the CHST? Because it will cost Quebec $350 million every year. The federal government has unilaterally decided to change the rules of the game and now Quebec will only get 8.3% of the extra $11 billion in transfers over five years. How can you expect Quebecers to be satisfied and say “we have 24% of the population and we get 8.3% of transfer payment increases, so everything is fine and dandy?”

I think there is something positive in all of this in that it has inspired the Bloc's position. In our view, now that these types of transfers are based on the population, we will simply keep the GST payments and the federal government can keep the corresponding Canada health and social transfer, and that will allow us to put money into productive spending. This is a fundamental problem in Canada: for 100 years, productive spending has been going to Ontario and that province has been systematically benefiting from the establishment of high technology centres. The maritime provinces and Quebec have had to make do with transfer payments. That is the kind of balance that Ontario has imposed upon Canada, and it is unacceptable for the country as a whole.

With regard to the budget, yesterday, the Prime Minister told Quebecers “I do not understand why people are not aware of the good things we do. We are unable to show who we are”. When a bill that gives Quebec only 8.3% of the $11 billion increase in CHST payments comes before the House the very next day, one can understand why Prime Minister is not welcome.

One can understand also why he is not welcome when he lets the issue of the millennium scholarships drag on for a whole year just to gain visibility. There were actions on the part of the Bloc Quebecois, the Government of Quebec and the Quebec National Assembly in this regard. The latter was unanimous on the millennium scholarships, not only the sovereignists, but also the Quebec Liberals, who are federalists, as well as the ADQ. The leaders of the three party wrote the Prime Minister of Canada to tell him “You absolutely must respect the resolution adopted by the National Assembly. Our jurisdiction over education must be respected”.

Maybe we will finally get results because Quebec is united and able to formulate requests, but let us think of all the time lost because we must always spend more energy than Ontario to get our fair share.

It is the same thing with productive spending. Anybody here would be ready to replace transfer payments with productive spending. If the federal government gave us our fair share of productive spending, it would not take us long to outpace Ontario in terms of economic development.

I will point out what I would have liked to see in the budget. I would have like a new balance in EI. Last week's consultations in the regions by the federal Liberals regional prove me right. The Quebec section of the Liberal Party of Canada is travelling around Quebec right now. There, as elsewhere, their own grassroots members are telling them that what they are doing does not make sense.

For example, a former liberal candidate in the 1997 elections, Jean-Guy Doucet, asked the Liberal establishment to re-examine some aspects of EI. “There are major irritants and unfair elements that need to be corrected” he said during the preliminary meeting leading to the provincial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The message is coming from their own grassroots members. You saw it in Trois-Pistoles, where there were more demonstrators than people interested in the consultation. It was the same kind of reaction in Trois-Rivières. In Gaspésie, the Minister of Human Resources Development was even shut out. Are they waiting to be shut out, to be unwelcome everywhere in Quebec before acting and coming up with answers? We were hoping the budget would include something on employment insurance so as to give back some credibility to the program, but not so.

We were also hoping to find a shipbuilding policy. This is the kind of productive spending we had in mind. The federal government is sorely lacking in initiative and innovation; all it had to do is copy a number of measures that are implemented by the provinces, particularly Quebec, to revitalize the economy.

Why does the government not do so? Perhaps because the weight of federal Liberal members from Ontario is too heavy, they are just cruising along or they do not particularly care about nationwide development. Whatever the reason, the results are obvious. The government continues to want to send transfer payments to the regions while setting aside productive expenditures for Ontario. This is a fundamental option that leaves no choice to Quebecers but to leave this country.

There are also more concrete elements. Last week, a report was tabled on amateur and professional sports. I want to draw the attention of the House on a specific measure in that report. That measure could easily have been incorporated into the budget. We could have had the consent of the House to incorporate that measure and give it immediate effect. I am referring to the granting of a tax credit to parents whose children are involved in competitive sports.

Such action would have clearly reflected our belief that the physical and mental health of our children are perhaps the best way to avoid unacceptable situations.

The government could also have included measures to promote regional economic diversification. Again, there are no such measures in the budget. This is a straightforward budget, a budget that allows those who have more money to keep it.

With all these shortcomings of Bill C-71, clearly the Bloc Quebecois will be forced to vote against it. The interests of Quebec are at stake.

No member from Quebec will vote in favour of this bill and agree, with the increase in Canada social transfer payments, to Quebecers having only 8.3% of the $11 billion increase. Not one of the members from Quebec voting in support of it, when visiting their riding and being asked whether they did their job this week, whether they defended the interests of Quebecers, will be able to stand and say “Yes, we did a damn fine thing. We arranged for Quebec to get only 8% of the increase in the Canada social transfer payments”.

Nobody on the other side will be able to say that. When the Prime Minister of Canada says “No one knows about the good things we do”, it is true, because, when it comes to good things like that, there is not one member on the other side with the courage to mention it in his or her riding and reveal that he or she has become more the defender of Ottawa in Quebec than the defender of the interests of Quebec in Ottawa. That is the difference between the members of the Bloc Quebecois and those of the majority, who keep limiting our rights, trying to put a straitjacket on Quebec.

The member from Ontario who spoke before me would do well to take note of this message. Perhaps, in the next federal election, the federal Liberals in Ontario will hang on to a certain number of important ridings. However, the way things are going, they will certainly not have the small majority of five members they have at the moment. They will receive a clear message from all the regions in Canada “Out with the current Liberal government”.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to stand in Canada's parliament this afternoon to debate the issue of the budget.

If I go by the things that people in my riding talk to me about, then the budget, taxes and the way the government spends our money are the biggest issues.

I had the privilege of standing at a couple of trade fairs a few weeks ago. One was held in Sherwood Park in my riding, which is probably the largest trade fair in the province. Around 25,000 or 30,000 people came through in the two and a half days we were there. In Fort Saskatchewan there was another very large sample of people. Almost all of them brought up the question: When will we ever get a tax break?

To speak to Bill C-71, which is a budget implementation bill, is indeed an honour and I think a high responsibility. I will do my best to represent the wishes of the people in my riding as I speak.

In a prologue to my speech I would like to comment on some of the things that have been said here. Until today I have said to many people that one thing about the Bloc members is that they are very focused. Their issue is one issue. They want to take their province out of our wonderful country and every speech which they give, every time they rise to speak, is focused on their goal of separating from Canada. I profoundly disagree with that goal. We know that the majority of people in Quebec do not want to leave Canada. Bloc members are really riding a dead horse. They are flogging it to try to make it run, but it will not go anywhere. However, today they have switched horses. Today they are not talking about separation. Today they are talking about wanting more from Canada.

Unfortunately, the whole program of transfer payments to the provinces is very convoluted. I have done a little study of it and the more I study it the more convoluted it seems to become and the more difficult to understand. However, the public accounts indicate that in proportion to the population Quebec has had above average transfers, that is, averaged over the population of the whole country. If we take the total number of contributions and divide that number by the population of the country, we get a smaller number than the contributions that are given to Quebec divided by its population. Quebec is above average. I do not think Quebecers would generally want to acknowledge that, but it is the truth.

Today we hear them talking about being against this one part of Bill C-71. In fact, what we are debating at report stage is their amendment to remove that part where the federal government transfers money to the provinces for health care, for the CHST. The reason they are giving, and it has been quite clear in their speeches, I do not think they have tried to obfuscate it, is because the amount of money they will be getting will be going down and they are against that.

I have a lot of respect, not only for the people of Quebec, but for the members of the Bloc party who were sent here by their ridings to represent their ridings. I have a lot of respect for them individually. I believe they are doing well to speak this way and to put this amendment forward because they are doing it to protect their constituents, which is a legitimate role in debate in parliament.

However, if we look at the larger picture for all of the country, and of course this is where they are sort of out of the picture, it seems to me eminently responsible and eminently fair that the amount of money that is transferred by the federal government to fund programs, which in some cases are administered by the provincial governments, should be equal with respect to a per capita contribution.

I regret that in the House we cannot use props. I taught for 31 years and I would have been lost without the use of a blackboard in the old days, or the whiteboard with all the colours nowadays and the overhead projector and the computer generated image on the screen. I wish I could show a chart of some of these things because I think we would communicate much better. It is unfortunate that we cannot do that in the House, as they do, for example, in the Congress of the United States.

If I had the ability to communicate in that way I would draw a picture of a huge barrel. All of the taxpayers of the country would contribute money which would be put into that barrel. Some time ago I computed at what rate we were putting money into that barrel. Actually it is not a difficult thing to do. I think we have around $150 billion a year in government expenditures. Clearly money goes into the barrel if we are going to spend it, either by borrowing or from another source. We have in the neighbourhood of 15 million taxpayers, so it works out very easily to about $10,000 per person that we put into this barrel.

My question to the members of the Bloc party and to all members of the House is, what is an equitable way of distributing that money with respect to the support of education, health care and social services in the different provinces?

When it comes to health care and education, I really think an equal per capita grant for all of the provinces would be pretty fair. The cost of educating a student, whether in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick or any one of the other provinces, would be reasonably close. It would not be exact. We know there are different costs of living. There are different costs of getting an education in different parts of the country, but it would be really close.

The same is true for health care. There are some variances. If there is an area with a dense population it is more economical to provide health care to that population. If there is a larger area with the same population it costs a little a more. There could be a small adjustment for a sparse population.

If we talk about a sparse population, I do not think that Quebec is more sparsely populated than any other province in the country. We have more densely populated areas in the south of my province and in all provinces. When we get away from the south there are sparsely populated areas where we have the costs of medical helicopters and so on.

Speaking specifically to this amendment, I think the House of Commons should be against it. If I may be so bold, I am going to appeal to the members of the Bloc who represent their ridings and constituents to consider voting against this amendment, in the interest of fairness, in the interest of getting along with each other in our country. Rather, let us look at budget implementation which gives fairness on a per capita basis.

I would also like to say that while they want to amend this bill because their actual contributions are going down, that is a tacit recognition that their per capita contribution from the federal government is higher. If we move to an equal per capita rate and theirs goes down, logically they have admitted that theirs is too high in comparison to other Canadians.

I would also point out that in the same budget, but in a different bill, we implemented the matters of the transfers to the provinces through the transfer payments. In that particular instance Quebec is getting a great deal more money, while the transfers to provinces like Manitoba are being reduced, and we did not see those members proposing amendments to change that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-71 and in particular to address the amendment proposed by the Bloc.

Let me begin by starting where the Reform Party left off. I take some umbrage with the last speaker's comment. What we are dealing with here is more than a mathematical equation. When we address health care needs, if we are at all serious about formulating good policy, we have to look at need. Surely the member from the Reform Party understands that a straight cap will not necessarily reflect the needs, particularly the acute needs in various regions of this country. It certainly would not reflect the third world conditions that we now see in northern and remote communities in all parts of the country.

We must go beyond looking at a straight per capita formula and start looking at questions of ensuring that our publicly administered health care system can be funded to the extent to which it is the dominant mould by which we provide health care in the country.

I would urge the members of the Reform Party to look very carefully at how the ratio between public and private spending is shifting. Under the present system and under the formula proposed by the Reform Party, we will soon see private control over our health care system dominate completely.

It would put at risk the fundamentals of our health care system, the very notion of a universally accessible health care system. Certainly if not in a direct way, in a most insidious way we would see the end of medicare, the end of the five principles under the Canada Health Act and the end of our system that is the envy of the world over, a single tier, universally accessible, publicly administered health care system.

Having made those introductory comments in response to Reform's proposition, let me say how important it is to have this opportunity to participate in the discussion on the 1999 budget particularly because it has been called the health care budget. It is important to have this debate because the government has denied us opportunities on every front to ensure that we hold the government accountable for its expenditures particularly when it comes to health care.

I want to say for the record that if it were not for this opportunity today, we would have little chance to scrutinize the government's expenditures in any area, particularly health care. The estimates process at the committee level has become a charade. There is very little opportunity at the committee level, because of the way the government controls the committee process, to ensure that we have ample time to scrutinize the expenditures of the government. That particularly applies in the area of health care. Based on the committee of which I am a member, given the dictates of the Liberal government and its hold over the committee system, we will be lucky to have four sessions, maybe eight hours of discussion on an incredibly large and costly part of our system.

I want to take every opportunity I can to speak on health care because of the arbitrary and autocratic way in which this government has operated. It has taken away so many opportunities for true participation by members of the House and for true democracy to prevail.

This government has tried to portray the 1999 budget as a health care budget. The question for all of us today is does it in its details actually accomplish that objective and meet that description? We have heard today and from Canadians everywhere that it does not. One could actually say that the government has presented us with another example of smoke and mirrors, another attempt at illusory politics, another way to disguise the real issues.

What the government has done in this budget when it comes to health care is that in five years time it will get us back to the level we enjoyed in 1993 when the government began its very massive cutback and offloading in health care. I do not need to repeat the statistics. Canadians are fully aware of them. They were as shocked as we were when we realized the full impact of this budget and what it actually meant in terms of federal support and federal responsibility for quality health care.

The best way I can put it is to recognize that when all is said and done, federal spending as a percentage of all health care spending amounts to 12%. Just think back. That is a long way from the notion of 50:50 cost sharing as was once the case. In actuality it truly happened; we used to have a 50:50 federal-provincial cost shared arrangement on health care. That is certainly a long way from the 25% goal that many experts in this field have recommended as the bare minimum for government.

Where are we at? We are at 12%. Where is private spending in this country? It has grown to 30% of all spending on health care. It does not take much calculating to figure out what that actually means and what kind of system we end up with. We end up with a two tier health care system, no ifs, ands or buts.

Some would say that we already have a two tier health care system. Absolutely. Why do we have a two tier health care system? Because the federal government dropped the ball, offloaded responsibility, cut back to the point where it has created a wide open climate for private investment to insert itself and encroach on a whole area once considered absolutely sacred as a public service. How does that show up in the lives of ordinary Canadians?

It shows up in Alberta where the provincial government continues to advance the notion of a private hospital. There has been no retreat from that despite public outcry. It shows up in Prince Edward Island in the form of the possibility of a hospital that will be run on one of the so-called public-private partnerships.

It shows up in the fact that privately funded MRIs, magnetic resonance imaging machinery, are springing up all over the country and are available on a two tier basis. People who have the money can get access. Those who do not, tough luck. It shows up in the form of private eye clinics springing up all over the country.

[An hon. member]

So blame them.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I blame the Liberal government. But Reform members who are advocating and talking about accommodating the notion of a parallel private health care system are seeking the same objective as the Liberal government. Both parties are seeking the dismantling and erosion of medicare to the point where we will have nothing but an Americanized, privatized two tier health care system.

Our plea today is to reverse this agenda. The federal budget made a tiny step in that direction by putting back some of the money it took out of the system in 1993. But it is not enough to stop that encroachment on the private sector. It is not enough to stop the waiting lists. It is not enough to ensure access to quality health care services for all Canadians. It is not enough to take the stress off nurses who feel they are not able to perform their lifelong goal of providing quality care for patients because of the financial pressures on the system.

If we all share that goal and for the sake of medicare, if the Reform Party truly accepts this notion of the universally accessible publicly administered health system, then for goodness' sake let us join together in convincing the government that it must reverse the trend. The government must ensure there is adequate support for the provinces in our health system. The government must show leadership to ensure that the principles of the health care act apply to every aspect of our health care system to stop the emergence of a private two tier health care system.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-71 this afternoon. This is a bill which addresses certain of the provisions contained in the 1999 budget.

A number of areas are involved; in fact, the bill has nine parts. In the next few minutes, I would like to address one of them in particular, which concerns tax arrangements between the federal and provincial governments.

As we know, the federal government collects taxes, lots of taxes. Not just personal or corporate income taxes. There is also indirect taxation, the sales tax, the famous GST. As well, through employment insurance, it collects another large amount, far in excess of what is needed to operate the employment insurance program.

In fact, when one sees all the tax and employment insurance collected by the federal government, one quickly realizes that the totals far exceed the budgetary requirements resulting from the federal government's responsibilities.

This is, moreover, what prompts the federal government to habitually and repeatedly, I am tempted to say sneakily, interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction. The federal government spends money where it has no right to even be involved, instead of the provincial governments whose responsibilities these areas are.

The consequences are obvious. Individuals and corporations are being taxed excessively. Workers pay some 35% or 35% too much in contributions to employment insurance. In all this, we can draw a simple conclusion: the federal government should reduce its tax bases.

It is also clear that, in the agreements on transfers between the federal and the provincial governments, the federal government gives them money so they may assume their responsibilities in the areas of health, higher education and social services.

Very simply, what we realize is that, with one hand, the federal government recovers its money and, with the other, it gives it out, to a limited extent, to the provincial governments so they may assume their responsibilities.

There is only one justification for this approach, that of redistributing to the less fortunate provinces money collected from taxpayers in the more fortunate provinces so that each province may fully carry out the responsibilities under its jurisdiction in the areas of education, health care and social services.

This may have been the case in the past, but it is no longer so. In fact, in the budget brought down in February by the Minister of Finance, the concept of a redistribution according to need was dropped. Redistribution is now according to the number of individuals living in each province. That is what they call per capita redistribution.

If the money is given to each province on a per capita basis and not based on its relative wealth, then the federal government no longer has any reason to collect from taxpayers money it will give them back anyway.

Since health, education and social services come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, it would be much better to let the provinces themselves adjust their taxes according to their needs, instead of watching the federal government act like a Mr. Know it all and take it all and then try to redistribute the money.

About two weeks ago, I attended the Bloc Quebecois general council, in Rivière-du-Loup. We talked about tax issues, among other things. We discussed the Canada social transfer, which is of course mentioned in the 1999 budget, since the government just changed its nature by redistributing the money under an equalization system.

In one of our workshops, it was suggested that Quebec should let Ottawa deal with the Canada social transfer and opt out of it, but be compensated by getting the full amount of the goods and services tax. The GST revenues are more or less equivalent to the Canada social transfer. In other words, under that arrangement, Quebec would neither win nor lose from a financial point of view.

However, both sides would win in that the duplication of the tax collection process would be eliminated. In Quebec, rather than collecting both the GST and the TVQ, there would be only a single collection, and the total amount collected would remain in Quebec.

As we saw this morning, we often hear comments to the effect that Quebec benefits from the Canada social transfer and similar money transfers between the federal government and our province. This issue would become a moot point. It would no longer apply, since Quebec would no longer benefit—if you will—from the Canada social transfer, since it would get an equivalent amount through the GST.

But there is more. It will be recalled that, when the federal government implemented universal medicare just over 20 years ago, it agreed to share the cost with each province. But, over the years, the federal government has reneged on this arrangement, with the result that it now pays just over 10% of provincial health expenses.

The big problem with the federal government is that its promises are never good for very long. In fact, Ottawa's share of social transfer payments has dwindled over the years.

There is no denying that, if Quebec were to opt out of the CHST and keep the whole GST, it would be safe from further erosion of the CHST by the federal government because it would control its own GST.

There are a good many advantages to the formula put forward in Rivière-du-Loup during the Bloc Quebecois' general council. The first is that it eliminates double taxation from the outset. Taxes would be collected once in Quebec, and remain there. The Government of Quebec could then adjust the amount collected to keep pace with its socioeconomic and cultural needs.

The other advantage is that Quebec would be safe from the federal government's policy changes. The federal government would be able to play around all it wants with provincial transfer payments. Quebec would not have to worry because it will have opted out.

There are many who claim that transfers are a good deal for Quebec when, as they know very well, a per capita CHST would mean disgracefully disproportionate spending by the federal government on goods and services, and research and development. A per capita transfer would mean a 6%, 7%, or 8% increase in federal spending in Quebec, which is not what it is getting.

I see that my time is up. I could go on and on.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the remarks of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois although on some matters we may see things differently.

The budget that was brought down by the government can cause us to reflect on other times. It can cause us to reflect upon times when there was a commitment by the federal government in Ottawa to ensure that there were national standards across the country regardless of what community one lived in, regardless of what city one lived in, and regardless of what province one resided in.

It ensured that the harmony of Canada—and I think that is a word we can use with some sincerity—was kept in place because people across the country knew it was a generous country. As a country we shared with one another. Those provinces that were well-to-do because of certain government policies or certain natural resources shared with the provinces which found themselves not as well off for whatever reasons, because of government policies or because of transitions in industry and whatnot.

However, changes adopted by this government and begun by the prior Conservative government began to erode public confidence in the harmony and in the fact that whether one lived in rural Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan one had entitlement to the same benefits as those who lived in urban centres.

When I discuss the new funding formula based on a per capita basis it leads into a discussion about who is entitled and who is not, and what is the real hidden agenda of a government that says it will pay so much money per person without taking into account all kinds of other factors such as unemployment in a particular region or health care concerns in one province or another.

It reflects a move toward an urban Canada. Not only the per capita funding but also the decrease in funding coming from the federal government over the last 10 years has forced the provinces to realign their priorities. The downloading of cuts on to many provinces has meant that they have had to slash health care, about which my colleague in the New Democratic Party has already spoken so eloquently, and to cut back in terms of education and social assistance.

The people listening to this debate or who will read Hansard should be aware that there was a time when the federal government cost shared with the provinces on a 50:50 basis the costs of social assistance. This to me was only fair in light of the fact that many government policies have a direct impact upon whether or not people are employed. If people are not employed they fall on to social assistance rolls, sometimes through no fault of their own.

I come from a community and province which have a great understanding of that. I can point to the recent announcement in January by the Minister of Natural Resources in my own community that will result in the end of the coal mining industry in Cape Breton, resulting in perhaps 1,100 people falling on to the provincial social assistance rolls.

The federal government has decided that it is no longer committed to the economic welfare of the people in Cape Breton. That is a decision it can make. It has a majority. It can decide if it wants to abandon those who are most in need. That appears to be a decision it makes with very little remorse and indeed very little concern.

What does that mean for the province of Nova Scotia as the government turns its back on men and women who have been employed in a crown corporation in my community for some 25 or 30 years? There are men and women, miners who have gone underground, who have injured themselves and are no longer able to retrain in the new technological workforce.

What does it mean when the government abandons such people in the cavalier and callous manner it has chosen? Many of these families will fall on to the provincial welfare rolls or provincial social assistance rolls.

What does that mean for the province of Nova Scotia? Not only does that province lose the $300 million a year spin-off from the Cape Breton Development Corporation mining industry. It means that it has to come up with the social assistance money to provide for these families that have been abandoned by the federal government.

Somewhere in the resources of a province that is already considered a have not province we have to find the money to provide for these families. That means that the province has to cut further in other areas of its jurisdiction. That means that the children of the families on provincial social assistance because of the abandonment of the federal government will go to schools with fewer resources than the children in Ontario. Perhaps I should say in Toronto because the northern parts of Ontario and Manitoba and the rural parts of Saskatchewan will find themselves suffering the same fate as we move to two solitudes. Those two solitudes will not be French and English but urban and rural. Because of the measures brought in by this budget people who reside in large urban centres will perhaps find themselves with the necessary resources to complete the social safety net that we have grown to know. By urban I do not mean cities of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000. I mean large urban centres of one million, two million, three million or four million.

In reality, those who live outside those urban centres will find themselves in a struggle with scarce provincial resources for things like education and health care. They will find themselves forced to migrate to the urban centres where those services may be provided.

That is essentially what is happening if we look at the country. This is why the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland was so adamant in his objection to the type of funding and the formulas proposed by the government. He understands that his province is suffering an outward migration, as are my own community, the province of Prince Edward Island and all other have not provinces.

Within provinces the rural communities are suffering from the migration of their young people, the greatest resource they have, to the urban centres, which I think is the underlying policy of this government.

I go back to what will happen in my community, to the province of Nova Scotia, as a result of this federal government's abandonment. I talked about the impact on schools. Let me talk about the impact on the environment. There was not a shred of evidence in the budget to indicate a commitment by the government to clean up the environment or to ensure that we have a sustainable environment for the next generation.

I appeared before the Standing Committee on the Environment to talk about a major concern of mine and I think of most Canadians, the tar ponds in Nova Scotia. I urged members of the committee to see the tar ponds for themselves. I was well received.

The chair of the committee asked a pointed question of me. He asked what was the municipality's commitment to clean them up. It told the chairman that the municipality had no money. The municipality just had most of its tax base hived away by the Minister of Natural Resources when he decided to lay off 1,100 coal miners in my community.

What is the municipal commitment? It is to try to sustain some sense of order in a community which finds itself reeling because of federal government's decisions reflected in its budget and budget priorities.

I want to make a few other points. There is a real lack of creativity in the budget. We talk about how to stimulate economic growth, but there was nothing in the budget to look at community economic development. There was nothing in the budget to talk about tax credits for investment in communities with high rates of unemployment. We are not only talking about the maritime provinces. We are talking about every province in this federation which suffers regions of high unemployment and unfair conditions.

Let me conclude by saying that I welcome debate on this legislation on behalf of the constituents in Sydney—Victoria. I urge the federal government to reconsider its commitment to ensuring that Canadians in every part of the country, whether they be urban, rural, eastern, western, French or English, have a national standard of which we can all be proud.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate today has been fairly wide ranging. We are discussing the Budget Implementation Act for the 1999 budget and in particular the Bloc motion that refers to the speed at which the government dispenses money.

For the first time in a long time I have heard the Bloc arguing that the government is dispensing money too quickly. That is usually something Reformers are arguing in spades. In fact, part of the reason I rose today was to talk about how the Budget Implementation Act authorizes the finance minister to spend far too much money once again and far too quickly for most people.

A couple of weeks ago we received a rather lengthy document sent out from Heritage Canada telling us about all the spending that has been done at the millennium bureau of Canada. I remember the Prime Minister making the promise in the House a year or so ago that we would not be having a big send up party and nothing left at the end of it.

In looking through the spending at the millennium bureau of Canada I have come to the conclusion that it is an almost unbelievable binge of questionable spending. To me, it looks like a bunch of giveaways that have absolutely nothing to do with leaving us something after the party. I can give some good examples. The folder which came from Heritage Canada had each province in a separate booklet. I made a quick scan through it. It was unbelievable some of the spending that was going on.

The millennium bureau seems quite happy to have been dispensing $145 million on all sorts of crazy projects. The bureau is quite proud of the spending. It is almost guaranteed that the average taxpayer would be appalled at what is going on with the dispensing of money to special interest groups, especially as many of the projects have only the vaguest connection to the start of the new millennium, especially when we consider that the true start of the 21st century is not until December 31 in the year 2000. It is not at the end of this year, it is at the end of next year. Everyone has been caught up in this millennium fever in the wrong year.

I will give some examples of the sort of spending at the millennium bureau which in my opinion and my constituents' opinion is the dispensing of money far too quickly and is a complete waste. It should not have even been in this budget at all.

There are impressive undertakings such as $15,000 to detail the experiences of garment workers in Canada. Tell me how that relates to the millennium. There is $300,000 for concerts featuring a separatist singer; $15,183 for the Apple and Cider Interpretation Centre in Quebec; and $5,333 to build two giant mastodons in Carroll's Corner, Nova Scotia. Any of these projects may be justifiable as standalone projects, but they do not have anything to do with the millennium. They are an excuse to spend money.

I will give a few more examples from B.C. and Ontario in particular. McDonald's Corners/Elphin Recreation and Arts will receive $2,003 to help organize the building of a labyrinth on the grounds of the 1868 McDonald's Corners schoolhouse. They claim that the project will be constructed of willow bushes which grow about two metres annually allowing them to be harvested for use by local artisans, and that this living labyrinth with its roots in earlier millennia will provide lasting effects into the new age. Frankly I am absolutely convinced that the artisans will forget to harvest the willow, so we are going to be on the hook for more grants next year to trim the bushes. Of that I am pretty sure.

There is a really big one in the Vancouver area. The Vancouver Symphony Orchestra thinks it would like to break three Guinness world records with a grant of $129,667, almost $130,000. They are going to amass the world's largest collection of musicians to perform O Canada, Beethoven's 9th Symphony and a new work which will reflect the music of the future.

According to the project description “The orchestra along with more than 21,000 students and possibly as many as 40,000 from throughout British Columbia will enjoy a once in a millennium experience”. We can be sure of that because the millennium only comes once in a millennium. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. This is a project description to justify $130,000. “It will increase their appreciation for music and their self-esteem and over the long term discourage crime, drug abuse and participation in gang violence, a worthy legacy for a new millennium”. That is a quote directly from the project.

Another example, “The Canadian Canoe Museum will steer unerringly into the new millennium”, says the millennium bureau, “with $1,057,933 to develop a new 15,000 square foot exhibit in the Canadian Canoe Museum in Peterborough”. The project summary states, “The travelling and educational exhibits will focus on the canoe as a unifying national symbol that brings Canadians together as we enter the new millennium”.

If members are not yet convinced that these projects are a complete and utter waste of money, let me give another one. The Friends of the Ruins of St. Raphael's will spend its grant of $146,000 on ensuring that the fire gutted ruins of St. Raphael's Church survive as an interpretive site well into the new millennium. This church burned down 30 years ago. I do not know why nobody has rebuilt it but obviously not too many people are interested. For some reason a special interest group has managed to extract $146,000 from taxpayers to ensure that it remains as an interpretive site well into the new millennium.

The Waterfront Trail Artists of Etobicoke are guaranteed not to have any problems with bird droppings in its project. The Flight of Passenger Pigeons, thanks to a $13,614 grant from the millennium bureau, involves only birds made of papier mâché. The project organizers hope to convince, and they still have to do this, 2,000 students from 13 area schools to make life size replicas of the extinct passenger pigeon for display in their schools and public places.

In addition, “those too young to sculpt will draw their passenger pigeons”—sketch them instead—“and have their messages attached to the sculptures, bringing the total number of messages to 4,000”. The project says “the replicas will remind people of the fragility of our environment and the importance of nurturing it in the next millennium”. I suspect that the papier mâché pigeons, once they get a little wet, will gradually disintegrate and the paper will blow all over Etobicoke, Ontario and make a huge mess, probably more than the real passenger pigeons would have made if they were alive today.

This is another big one also in B.C. Unfortunately, some of the big ones have gone to B.C. The Leadership Initiative for Earth will use $599,514 to help finance the building and sailing of a sustainable Lifeship 2000 tall ship. “The life story of every tree used in its construction will be documented”. This is very worthy. I do not how they are going to get the life story of every tree. I know if we cut them in half we can count the rings and that tells us how old they are, but I have never read anything else in there that tells me what they were doing along the way. I am not sure if we are going to get $599,000 worth of action out of that project.

In an absolutely rare display of common sense, the millennium bureau turned down a project that emanated from North Vancouver. It was called the Multicultural Mask experience. It was submitted by Earth Muffin Productions of North Vancouver. I think most of us know what earth muffins are. It was submitted by Earth Muffin Productions but it was turned down mainly because the proposal, and I quote from the turn down letter, “did not demonstrate a sufficient level of support from the community or other financial partners”. I wonder why. I did read about the project and it was appalling.

That is the millennium bureau. It is a big excuse to spend money and is a real example of the waste that is in this budget.

In the last couple of weeks when we have talked about the west, members on the government side still seem to think that throwing money at things is the way to make friends. They keep talking about the western diversification fund and how wonderful it is to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars, as if westerners want money spent on them. They do not. They would get rid of the western diversification fund in return for tax decreases. That is what should have been in this year's budget.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only am I pleased to speak to this bill, but I was really anxious to do so. For the benefit of those who are listening, this is the budget implementation bill. It therefore contains a number of technicalities. I will not address technicalities, but the substance of this bill, which brings into being the finance minister's budget.

In Quebec and among Bloc Quebecois members, this budget was received with anger because, without any warning, the Minister of Finance changed something that had been agreed between the federal government and the provinces. I am referring to social transfers.

The Minister of Finances has decided that the Canada social transfer, which used to be proportional, would now be calculated on a per capita basis. As a result, the Quebec government—whose health care system had been seriously affected by the federal deficit reduction efforts and cuts in transfer payments—is now shortchanged to the tune of $350 million over 5 years. That it angered the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois government and Quebecers at large was to be expected.

I suspect that, so far, nobody has understood where I am coming from. I will try to explain in a straightforward manner what the finance minister has been doing since he came to power. I will start with a history lesson.

In the late 1960s, the federal government came up with the Canada Assistance Plan to help the provinces assume the costs of poverty. In fact, through the CAP, the federal government was covering 50% of the provinces' expenditures to provide help to people in need over and above benefits. This had been going on since 1969.

When the Liberals took office in 1993, the first thing they did, in their first budget, was to cut social spending. They had just announced a major reform of social policies. They had asked a committee to travel across Canada to listen to what Canadians and Quebecers had to say about social programs.

This great desire for reform, from which no specific proposals were really expected, led in 1995 to the announcement of radical changes by the Minister of Finance, who decided to group social transfers for education and health into one single transfer. Up to that point, the large amounts of taxpayers' money spent by the federal government on health and education and called social transfers were made on a per capita basis. In other words, until the Minister of Finance decided to make changes in 1995, federal transfers for health and education were based on the population.

As I said earlier, there was also a specific plan called the Canada assistance plan, which was based on poverty. It took poverty into account. What did the Minister of Finance do as he was getting ready to make drastic cuts? He grouped all transfers for education, health and poverty into one single transfer.

Therefore, population could no longer be the sole criterion, nor could poverty in each province apply completely either.

So the government announced that it would establish an average, with the result that Quebec, which had a little more than 25% of the Canadian population, received approximately 28% of the total. Why? Because when we had the Canada assistance plan, Quebec received 34%. This means there is a real poverty problem. It does not mean that Quebec does not have a great future as a state, but that there is a serious historical problem of poverty.

It was announced that we would very gradually go from 28% to 50% only of the population criterion. What did the Minister of Finance do in his budget? He decided that in three years poverty would no longer be taken into account. The federal government does not take poverty into account in the equalization formula and we know that the poverty level is different from one province to another. The federal government will no longer take that into account. This is what we wanted to condemn in all possible ways.

I must say that the federal government used a trick to slip Quebec a lump of coal. The government took advantage of the fact that the equalization formula would allow Quebec to receive, because of good economic performance, in Ontario among others, an amount of $1.4 billion. Was this a novelty, a reform, a gift? No, it was the result of prior commitments and agreements.

The federal government, taking advantage of what was Quebec's due on the one hand, took advantage on the other hand by doing away with something that had been in place since the late 1960s, and had been planned as something quite different: the recognition of the weight of poverty and assistance to the provinces with the heaviest burden of poverty.

Under such circumstances, Quebec could not do otherwise than to react sharply, particularly since it had been hit especially hard by the employment insurance reform. This reform was also a desire to do away with inter-regional subsidies, to use technocratic jargon. This meant that, where employment insurance was concerned, Quebec got it in the neck, if I may put it that way.

In other words, in both social program reform and employment insurance reform, Quebec got more than its fair share of cuts. But it did not get its fair share on another level: productive spending. We must keep repeating this. The reason we want sovereignty is to have control over everything we produce, all of our taxes, to use as we see fit, in order to develop.

Many people see sovereignty as a means of seriously addressing the phenomenon of poverty, which unfortunately—it must be said, shouted from the rooftops even, given the way the federal government has decided to fight the deficit—has increased.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recently tried to tell us that Quebec was getting its share of federal productive spending. He used science and technology spending as his example, saying that Quebec got 28.3%.

What was extraordinary was that he proposed that the Hull-Ottawa area be excluded. What people need to know is that in the Hull-Ottawa area, 87% of expenditures are in Ontario, and 13% in Quebec. So not taking it into account was how the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs could conclude that Quebec was getting its share of productive spending.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget that was tabled by the finance minister in February.

I would like to talk about some of the things that the finance minister has done in his reign of terror, as some would say, his reign of taxation. The minister of high taxes, who sits across the way, has slashed and burned health care spending to the tune of $20 billion from 1993 to the year 2000. Since he took office that is what the minister has done and that is unconscionable. This is also the finance minister who says that he is reinvesting $11.5 billion over five years and wants Canadians to be happy about that.

Let us look at the big picture of what he is asking Canadians to do. He is asking Canadians to accept the fact that he has taken away $20 billion in spending on health care and social services, the CHST, and is putting back $11.5 billion. I do not know very many Canadians who would be happy to hear that they will lose $1 from their pocket but that they may get 50 cents of that back or a little bit more. That does not make sense, but that is exactly what the finance minister has done. He has slashed and burned health care in the country.

The Liberal finance minister, who stands in this place and tells us he is the defender of health care and the creator of everything good in the country, cannot run from his record. He can run, but Canadians are not going to let him hide from his record, nor should they. Members of the official opposition will continue to point out the facts of what the finance minister has done in his slash and burn approach to health care spending.

The minister of the high taxation that we have in the country, and who has been the finance minister for six years, has also implemented or allowed a policy to continue for years concerning the whole issue of family tax fairness. We brought this up not long ago in the House of Commons and had wide agreement on it from the members of the opposition and from members of the government as well.

This is a finance minister who says he cares about the tax rates in the country and the burden of taxation on families, yet he does absolutely nothing for those families who make the decision to have one of the individuals in the home stay home to look after and give care to their children. There is an inequality that has been entrenched in policy by this minister of high taxation and he has not addressed that for six years.

If we look at a person's words and actions, words can be empty after awhile if they are not followed up by action. We must first listen to what somebody says and then look at what they do. If what they do, does not match up with what they say, then we should be questioning what it is they are saying to see whether what they say and what they do are actually the same thing. In this case, they are not.

The minister of high taxation has told us that he cares about families and about lowering tax rates for average Canadians. However, that is not what I am hearing from constituents. That is not what I heard from the individuals I talked to in Hamilton last night or in Stoney Creek, Ontario a few weeks ago.

I have talked to individuals in Dewdney—Alouette and to many young families this past weekend at an event in Maple Ridge. They asked me how a government could be in place that says it cares about families yet has a discriminatory tax policy in place that favours one situation of care giving over another. They said to me, “It looks like the government does not see the value in the commitment we are making to have one of the individuals on our family stay home and look after our children.” That is a shame, because there are many families who are making that sacrifice and commitment to their families for the good of the country.

The Liberal government and members of the government say such things, as the hon. member from Vancouver—Kingsway did, that mothers or families who would make the decision to stay home are taking the easy way out. That is the response we hear from the government.

The member for St. Paul's referred to the individuals who came before the all party finance committee to plead their case as elite white women.

These are members of the Liberal government saying these kinds of things. They can run and they are trying to run, but they cannot hide from their record and what they have done. Canadians are waking up to the fact that the policies that are being put in place—

[An hon. member]

More Canadians think they have been abducted.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Even the Liberal members on the other side are echoing in agreement with me about their high tax policies and how they need to be lowered. In fact, the Minister of Industry just yesterday and last week said that taxes are too high in the country and that taxes need to be lowered to the rate of the American model.

We have the Prime Minister contradicting the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Finance looking both ways, as if at a tennis match, trying to figure out what is going on. The Liberals cannot even figure it out over there. The Minister of Industry has figured it out. Taxes are simply too high and they need to be lowered. There is a debate about that over on that side because they do not want to let go of those dollars. They do not want to provide the tax relief that is necessary to provide the care for families.

I hear the hon. member from Coquitlam chirping away, a man who said he was no yes-man during his byelection campaign yet voted with the government to punish families through high tax policy. He continues to chirp away, as do other members of the Liberal government who are trying to run from the record. Canadians are not going to let them hide any longer, because it is their high tax policy that is putting down a lot of people in the country, keeping them from taking their rightful place by working hard and providing for their families.

It used to be that individuals would work really hard to put some money aside for a second car or for a cottage at the lake. Today, families are working harder and harder to put food on the table and provide clothing and shelter for their families.

In conclusion, I simply say to my Liberal colleagues across the way, who seem to be deaf to the voices of their own constituents and Canadians across the country, that substantial tax relief is necessary to provide relief to Canadian families. We would have hoped to have seen that in Bill C-71, but, alas, the government continues to punish Canadians with high taxes.

[The Speaker]

It is almost two o'clock. We will now proceed to Statements by Members.

The Late Steve Chiasson

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Steve Chiasson of the Carolina Hurricanes was tragically killed when his pickup ran off the road yesterday.

Steve was born in Barrie and his career highlights included a Memorial Cup with Guelph where he was selected the tournament's most valuable player. He represented Canada at the 1987 world junior championship.

A steady two-way defenceman, Steve had 398 points in 751 NHL games with Detroit, Calgary, Hartford and Carolina. He played in the NHL all-star game in 1993 and was a member of Canada's gold medal team at the 1997 world championship.

I remember him speaking at a Canada Day Peterborough rotary meeting about being an ambassador for Canada in the States. This was a special meeting with lots of students present. As he spoke, he handed his notes sheet by sheet to his son who was sitting on the floor at his feet. He was a dedicated player and a family man.

He made his off-season home north of Peterborough. On behalf of the people of Peterborough riding and all Canadians, I extend our heartfelt condolences to his wife, Sue, and three children.

Kosovo Refugees

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to be a Canadian. This is the day our country will accept the first flight carrying over 200 refugees from Kosovo.

After an assessment of refugee camps in countries neighbouring Kosovo, our Minister of Foreign Affairs and the United Nations have determined that refugees must be removed from these camps to relieve pressure due to deteriorating conditions.

We must trust that this assessment is reliable. Soon those hundreds and thousands of Canadians who eagerly volunteered to open their homes and their hearts to these unfortunate people will be allowed to act on their generosity.

In a very direct and personal way I want to thank them all for giving in such a meaningful way. Today I am proud to be a Canadian, a citizen of a country whose people can be counted on to extend a helping hand when help is truly needed.

Dr. Crosby Johnston

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was with great pride that I attended a special presentation of the Governor General's awards in New Westminster, British Columbia, earlier this week.

Among those receiving the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award from our community was Dr. Crosby Johnston. The award was well deserved. As former mayor of Coquitlam I had the honour of bestowing the title of Freeman of the City upon Dr. Crosby Johnston in 1992.

As His Excellency stated, Dr. Crosby Johnston has indeed done a great job for the community. I am proud to know this deeply caring Canadian. There are many more Canadians like him across our great country of Canada.