House of Commons Hansard #221 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is behind the times. We already have cut $16.5 billion over the next 36 months. That was what was to happen in the last budget and the one before that. At the same time, we increased the child tax benefit to $1.8 billion. At the same time, we invested in the health care system and health care research.
The answer to the member's question on where does the Liberal Party stand is, we stand with Canadians.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have been questioning the government on the millennium scholarships issue for days, without getting any answers. Enough is enough.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is well aware that the leaders of the three parties—
Millennium ScholarshipsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. The hon. member for Rosemont.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC
The Minister of Human Resources Development is well aware that, last week, the leaders of the three political parties at the Quebec National Assembly asked that a government negotiator be appointed in the millennium scholarships issue.
My question is simple. Has the federal government appointed its negotiator, yes or no?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois may have been asking questions for days, but it has been a year since the Prime Minister of Canada and myself expressed our support for the Gautrin resolution that was unanimously passed by the Quebec National Assembly.
By contrast, it was only six days ago that Premier Bouchard expressed his support for that resolution. It has only been six days since Lucien Bouchard came back to the position that he was defending ten years ago. When he supported it, he distributed Canada scholarships, recognizing that the Government of Canada had a role to play in the funding of education in this country, and in ensuring improved access for students.
We are examining this issue. Two provinces may soon reach an agreement with the millennium scholarships foundation.
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, while Canada goes to war, the Liberal government sits at home bombing the troops' pension fund.
Will the government tell Canadians today that it will cease its plan to grab surplus pension funds belonging to Canadian forces troops, public sector workers, the RCMP and others, which is little more than a transparent ploy to cook its own financial books?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, members will note that in the recent pension plan we have increased the benefits to our workers.
In the last budget we put in hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the quality of our troops. Wherever members look, they will see that the government has not only worked to the benefit of the Canadian population, but especially to the benefit of the RCMP, the armed forces and the public service.
Jean Dubé Progressive Conservative Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a long tradition of political interference in government operations. Now, we learn that Statistics Canada has still not released its 1998 report on productivity.
I ask the minister responsible whether he can tell the House that Statistics Canada's delay is not due to interference from his office, the office of the Minister of Finance, or the office of the Prime Minister?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has in no way delayed the release of its report on labour productivity.
In fact, in 1998, its provisional estimates were released on July 21. In 1997, they were released on June 5. This year, plans are to release them in June, which is perfectly normal.
Sophia Leung Liberal Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
I am very concerned about the so-called brain drain and the effect it is having on medical research, particularly cancer research.
Can the minister tell the House what the government will be doing to keep Canadian researchers in Canada?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we offer opportunities to our best and brightest to keep them in this country, to keep young people coming out of universities in Canada. To that end, in the most recent budget the government increased substantially our investment in health research.
We announced our intention to create the Canadian institutes of health research and over the next three years to effectively double the amount of money we spend on health research. There will be $225 million for the new research institutes over the next three years; $50 million in addition for the national health, research and development fund; $35 million to the Canadian health services research foundation; and $25 million—
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct the record.
The Minister of Finance referred to a statement I made. What I actually said was that I did not like the way they accounted for the health spending, which is quite different—
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am sure the record will show that it is corrected. It is a point of debate.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 1.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-71. But first I would like to set the record straight regarding some disparaging comments the members for Elk Island and Etobicoke North made this afternoon on Quebec and Quebecers.
They took advantage of today's debate to demean Quebecers in the House; for Orangemen like these two, the temptation is great, of course. While my colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques was pleading for productive spending, the member for Etobicoke North seemed dumbfounded and asked “What is he talking about? What does he mean by productive spending?”
For the benefit of the member for Etobicoke North and several Ontarians who have been on the political scene for 25 or 30 years, and who cannot understand what a productive investment is because of their partisanship, I will explain by giving an example.
Canada was founded by today's Quebecers, who were called French Canadians at the time, but when English Canadians arrived in this country in 1760, it was said that there were two founding peoples, despite the fact that one was there 250 years before the other one, whether the member for Beauce likes it or not. And it is his own people he is trying to disown.
There were reportedly two founding peoples: the francophones, who arrived in 1534, and the anglophones, who arrived in 1760, 226 years later. However, to please everybody, it was said that there were two founding peoples who were equal, and I accept that. But we cannot brush away our past and our history so readily.
When the four provinces that formed Canada joined together to found the Canadian federation, Ontario was not what it is today. It even had huge budget deficits. Ontario needed money under the Union Act, 1840, and Quebec, or Lower Canada as it was called at the time, agreed to lend Ontario considerable sums of money, which were never repaid as a matter of fact.
From the moment the Canadian Constitution came to be—and this is where productive spending becomes important—for example, when the automobile was first introduced at the turn of the century, the federal government started to invest a lot of money in the Windsor area, in Ontario. It supported the establishment of the automobile industry in Ontario.
A few years later, Quebecers were told to be patient, that it would soon be their turn. They were told that, for them, it would not be the automobile industry, but the aviation industry. The francophones waited patiently, knowing that there were plenty of francophone MPs, mostly Liberal, at the time, for their turn to come.
Some 25 years ago, Michelin Tires wanted to set up business in Quebec. They were told “No, go to Nova Scotia. We will give you $52 million if you do”. That was a good incentive. They were paid not to set up business in Quebec. Yet this was a French multinational which would have had a natural tendency to gravitate to Quebec, where their language was spoken. But no, the government of the day invested $52 million to send them to Nova Scotia.
History has not yet shown whether this was a good decision, but we do know that, over the years, relationships had been particularly complicated, if only from the language point of view. Michelin's investment in Nova Scotia was not the best investment it ever made.
At around the same time, Quebec was again being told “Your future lies in aircraft construction. Ontario has its automobile industry, Quebec has aviation”. But when the famous CF-18 contract came up, the rule changed once more.
They were told “Too bad, the planes will also be built in Ontario, but there will be economic spinoffs for Quebec”. What kind of economic spinoffs? There was talk of $850 million, maybe $900 million. That was acceptable, but once again when the project was completed and the planes were being flown—and there were some crashes, but that is a whole other story—there were between $250 million and $300 million in economic benefits for Quebec. All the radio control knobs we made pretty well accounted for that $250 million. So much for the technological spinoffs, the productive spending. Once again, none for us. We just got the crumbs.
I heard what the hon. member for Elk Island had to say. He takes the cake. He needs a lesson in history. Between 1880 and 1900, 1.2 million Quebecers were forced to leave Quebec. They left the country and went to the northeastern American states and New England, because they were starving in Quebec.
At the same time, the Government of Canada populated western Canada. It brought people from eastern Europe and gave them land, two horses, sheep, a cow, chickens, all paid for by the taxpayers of Quebec and Ontario at the time. And now the member for Elk Island is telling us that Quebec is asking for too much and that our claims for equalization payments are unfair.
In 1870, Canada bought what was then called the North-Western Territory from the Hudson's Bay Company for 300,000 pounds Sterling, a considerable sum for Canadians at the time. But when the ancestors of the member for Elk Island, and probably those of many members here, settled there they were given land paid for in large part by Quebecers. In those days, Quebecers constituted about 50% of Canada's population. In other words, they paid about 50% of the taxes.
The member for Elk Island is denying this. While we cannot live in the past and constantly relive history, we can recognize that Quebecers can hold their heads just as high as anyone else. They contributed more than their share to this country. They anted up when it was time to do so. In wartime, they risked their lives in the battlefields of Europe.
We need offer no excuses to the member for Elk Island. Because of the policies of the federal government, which has always given Quebec the wrong end of the stick, we have a population of poor children in Montreal, which presupposes poor parents as well.
I see the member for Beauce watching me all in a state. This is what is happening in Quebec. It is the result of the policies of the Liberal Party of Canada, which started in 1973 to get into overblown deficits with its Minister of Finance at the time, who is now, ironically, the Prime Minister, the one most opposed to accumulated deficits.
Claude Drouin Liberal Beauce, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am in a state over the hon. member's comments because he has not once mentioned the aboriginals—
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
This is not a point of order.
1999 Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
This is not a point of order but a point of debate.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Madam Speaker, the truth hurts, as evidenced by the reaction of the member for Beauce. It may not always be a good thing to tell the truth, but it is more often hard to hear it. This is why the member is getting all worked up. Every now and then, he demonstrates to us that the truth is not always easy to hear, and that it would be much easier, out of extreme courtesy and abnegation, not to say anything. Perhaps the members of the Liberal Party would be less frustrated, but that is the way things are.
History keeps repeating itself. In 1867, Quebecers were fooled into joining a federation and have never been able to get out of it. This is the impression we have. Why? Because of things like this.
At one time, the Liberals held 74 of the 75 seats in Quebec. This is when they decided to unilaterally patriate the Constitution, without the agreement of Quebecers. Incidentally, the Constitution has yet to be signed by Quebec. If they are waiting for Quebec's signature to share the equalization system, it will never happen.
Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of Canadians, and my constituents in particular, to oppose the Bloc motion which would delete a component of clause 4 dealing with the provincial share of cash contributions and CHST from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2004.
Bloc members believe that this disbursement of funds occurs too quickly and would like to spread it over a longer period of time. They believe that the time line criteria for cash contributions should be weighted in favour of demographic changes.
The motion amends the bill we are debating today, Bill C-71, which is legislation intended to implement many of the programs announced by the government in the 1999 budget.
Just for the information of those who are watching, the bill is divided into nine parts. Part one amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations Act to implement $11.5 billion, which is an increase in the CHST for the purpose of health care. It is an important part because it is dealing with the health care aspect on which I will be elaborating later.
Part five enables some first nation bands to impose a 7% value added tax on fuel or tobacco.
Part six increases the maximum national child tax benefit by July 1, 2000 to $1,976 for the first child and $1,775 for each subsequent child. The other measures are simply housekeeping changes.
I will talk about the health care and child tax benefit aspects, but before doing so I would like to talk about the CHST. In 1993 when the Liberals took power the CHST for each taxpayer was $1,453. In gross terms this was $18.8 billion. Taking into account this budget, the CHST for taxpayers now will be $1,005 or $14.5 billion that they will try to restore. There is still a $448 decrease, which is 31% per taxpayer compared to what it used to be in 1993.
Compared to the $11.5 billion that they will put back over the next five years, the Liberals are removing $3 billion from the system for every $1 billion they are putting back. It is a ratio of 1:3.
The government will raise the income threshold at which the child tax benefit begins to be phased out to $29,590 from a front level of $25,921. The child tax benefit was announced in the 1998 budget and implemented in July 1998. It replaces the child tax benefit and working income supplements.
The new Canadian child tax benefit began clawing back benefits at lower levels of income than the existing system. When announced in 1998, the CCTB clawback began when a family's after tax income exceeded $25,921.
This budget states that spending would increase by $14.1 billion over the next four years, including the remainder of this year. We also know that the revenue is now expected to rise to $156 billion for 1998-99.
What I am driving at is that our tax system is failing. We heard already the debate on productivity. The Minister of Industry is on one side and the Minister of Finance is on the other side, and the Prime Minister is somewhere. We do not know what the government is doing.
They are hiking taxes. Productivity is falling. The standard of living is falling. The government has no sense of where it is heading or what it is doing. We pay the highest personal taxes of all G-7 countries. This is killing jobs in Canada.
My constituents agree that what we are looking at is a pay more, get less budget. The Liberals balance the books on the backs of the taxpayer. I do not call it balancing the budget. It is not balancing the budget at all. It is matching the budget.
The Liberals try to match the revenue to the spending level. That is how they balance the budget. If that were the criteria to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers without reducing spending, without eliminating duplication or waste, it could have been done 29 years ago. Why did the Liberals wait for 29 years?
The real balance in the budget is reducing tax levels, reducing spending and trying to match them. This is matching of the budget, not balancing the budget at all. The Liberals have not made the size of government smaller. They have not controlled or significantly reduced spending levels. Duplication and waste are not eliminated.
The government is boosting the health care budget. Let us talk about the record. The Liberals must pay back the billions of dollars they have been taking out of health care spending. As the new official opposition deputy critic for health, I will not allow the Liberals to forget that hospitals are closing, there are fewer beds in hospitals, waiting lines are longer and longer, 1,400 doctors and 6,000 nurses have left the country since the government took over. There are about 200,000 patients on the waiting lists for medical services. Waiting times for Canadian patients to see a specialist, for example, are up by 38%. That is appalling.
Who are the people who are waiting? They are our loved ones. They are our relatives. They are real people. They are human beings who are waiting on the lists to get treatment. What have the Liberals done to help Canadians since they caused the health crisis? They have done absolutely nothing.
In the budget for 1999, which is the pay more, get less budget, Canadians are paying $2,020 more in taxes than they did in 1993. Let me tell the parliamentary secretary that the Liberals have increased taxes by that amount but in return they have $1,500 less to spend per Canadian on health care.
The government has its priorities wrong. It caused this health care crisis by slashing health care spending. It is the root cause for what we see happening currently in the health care system. Now they are trying to act very generously by trickling money back into health care, not even restoring what they have cut so far.
What they are not restoring is the $21.4 billion they cut from health and social spending since 1993. They are simply putting in $11.5 billion over the next five years. That is peanuts to improve the system. That is half of what they owe Canadians for health care.
The cumulative decrease in federal funding will grow to $21.4 billion in 1999 from $17 billion in 1998. Canadian taxpayers are paying $42.1 billion more in taxes in 1999 than when the government took over in 1993. In my view, which is shared by the Auditor General of Canada, by leading accountants and by economic editors around the country, the Prime Minister and the finance minister are cooking the books. The auditor general has refused to sign the books for two years in a row.
When the Liberals were running the government at a budgetary deficit they backloaded the federal government's annual budget. Then they were busy cooking the books. They started frontloading the budget. Whatever the surplus was, they are trying to show that the surplus is getting smaller and smaller. The Liberals even budgeted the millennium scholarship endowment fund money, which is supposed to be spent in the year 2000, in this account.
In conclusion, this is a pay more in taxes and get less in health care and benefits budget. Despite the increase in CHST we should remember that it was the Liberals who gutted and savaged the health care system.
The budget did not contain any significant debt or tax relief measures, increase disposable income, or create investment opportunities for entrepreneurs. It completely ignored small business. The budget perpetuates the discrimination against single income, two parent families in the tax code.
There are many examples I could give but just to summarize—
1999 Budget Implementation ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Madam Speaker, on February 16 of this year, the Minister of Finance tabled his sixth budget in the House on behalf of the Liberal government. Year in and year out, Quebec pays over $30 billion on a budget of some $160 billion, including borrowings and so on.
You will certainly agree with me that Quebec is a real cash cow for this government in that, according to the books, we pay a lot more than we receive.
I would like to give you an example. In my riding, an asbestos mine, the BC Mine, was closed. It employed 300 workers, 200 of whom were over 52 years of age at the time of the closure. On June 26, the Minister of Human Resources Development, accompanied by the godfather of my riding, the good member for Beauce, came to announce that $1.1 million would be spent to help workers aged 55 and over. This spring, there were coal mine closures in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. The same Minister of Human Resources Development has allocated $111 million. The $1.1 million for Thetford became $111 million for coal miners.
Another $68 million will come from Canada Economic Development and $80 million from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Add it all up and you will get a total of $259 million for Cape Breton coal miners, compared to $1.1 million for asbestos miners.
I listened to the Prime Minister, who addressed last night 1,500 guests who paid $450 each to attend a fundraising dinner in Montreal. He urged Liberal senators and ministers to criss-cross Quebec to spread the good news. Try to go and ask the Minister for Human Resources Development to come back to Thetford. He is scared to go.
On the advice of the godfather, he went there as bearer of bad news, but he got so scared he had to flee in the car of the member for Beauce. Do you really believe that these ministers and senators who rely on the system to pay them fat pensions even if them do not make any effort are going to criss-cross Quebec? They are scared.
Take the millennium scholarships for example. It would appear that Ottawa is always trying to duplicate structures. In Quebec, there was and always has been an excellent system of loans and bursaries for post-secondary and university students. The Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice wants to interfere and, over a 10 year period, only 10 years, he will invest more than $2 billion in scholarships. Once again, he is duplicating structures.
There are two agriculture ministers. If your cow produces processing milk, it comes under the federal agriculture minister, but if it produces fluid milk it is up to Minister Trudel in Quebec to deal with it.
Same farmer, same cow, but two different agriculture ministers. Dairy farmers now have what is called mixed quotas. So both ministers have jurisdiction over the same cow. Two revenue ministers, two finance ministers, two health ministers for the same patient, the same Quebecers. Two natural resources ministers and we could list scores of departments which are duplicated.
To issue cheques with a maple leaf, the Prime Minister is prepared to duplicate our system of loans and bursaries, which is working perfectly well.
In order to save on taxes, the millionaire Minister of Finance, who is very familiar with the legislation, will register his boats in tax havens, and then he will tell us to tighten our belts. This is the same individual who helped himself to the $21 billion EI surplus, and who is going to grab the $30 billion surplus in government employees' pension funds.
The Prime Minister, who yesterday urged his ministers and Liberal senators to spread the good news throughout Quebec, should have a look at the article in today's Le Droit about the increasing unavailability of low cost housing. Not in the riding of Saint-Maurice in Shawinigan, but in the nation's capital, in Ottawa-Carleton. One in five tenants—or 20%—are spending more than 50% of their income on rent. Can we imagine having to spend more than half of what we earned just on accommodation?
This is news to the Prime Minister. He has no living expenses, because he has an official residence. I imagine it has been years since he set foot in a supermarket. If a couple has to spend half of their income on rent, there is no way they are going to be eating steak once a week.
On the topic of the GST—I see the member for Beauce listening closely—at least two of the women who elected the Prime Minister call me regularly, and they called again last month, to ask when he would keep his promise and abolish the GST. I told them that he made the promise in order to trick them into voting for him, but that he lied. So that he could save face once he was in office, the member for Hamilton East resigned, only to be re-elected three months later at a cost of $500,000 to taxpayers. These are the reasons I will be voting against the sixth budget brought down by the Minister of Finance. These are only a few of the things I want to mention, during the ten minutes I have.
I could also talk about the Minister of Human Resources Development, the man who is often out to throttle the neediest in society, our young people. Did members know that 100% of working youth contribute to the EI fund? They pay $2.55 for each $100 earned. Even though all the young workers pay, only 15% of them qualify for EI benefits. That represents a net profit of 85% for the government, on the backs of our young people.
The Liberals will go around Quebec spreading the good news. When he came to Thetford Mines, on the steps of the town hall, the hon. member for Beauce saw what the good news was. He is the one who so badly advised the Minister of Human Resources Development by inviting him to make his $1.1 million announcement on the steps of the town hall.
Asbestos miners know about Liberal fairness: $1.1 million for them and $259 million for coal miners.
I will leave you to ponder this and to ask yourself questions about the Minister of Finance's sixth budget.
Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-71 at report stage. I speak in opposition to the Bloc Motion No. 1.
In terms of health care it is ironic that the Liberal government on taking power in 1993 at that time basically trashed the health system and now claims it is saving it from what it did back in 1993. I remember very well. The Liberals took away $22 billion from health care which had a huge impact back in 1993-94. The provinces had to deal with this crisis. They shut down hospitals and closed beds.
In the spring of 1997 I had a personal experience with a health care system that was in tatters. I got sick in the spring of 1997 and ended up in the hallway of a hospital waiting for care. Believe it or not, at that time I was the mayor of the community in which I lived. It shows that even the mayor back in those days had to experience the hardships of the health cuts.
Unfortunately we still have the same problems. Even though the government has reinjected many millions back into the system, it is going to take at least two years. I am sure the Liberal government expects that by the time the next election comes around the system will have solved many of its own problems.
The government does not understand that the taxes it collects really do not belong to the Liberal government. They really belong to the people. That is where the government gets them from. In today's question period it was ironic that the health minister stood in the House and said that he gave $900 million to Mike Harris, the premier of this province. It certainly sounded like it was the Liberal government's money. We all know that this $900 million really belongs to the people of Ontario.
One thing I have found in the House is that governments at the federal level do not understand the meaning of planning regarding our debt. This country's debt is an extreme hardship on all of us as taxpayers. Last year I believe we spent about $42 billion of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on debt interest. We all know that personally we certainly could never operate or succeed if our debt was at that level. The government needs to plan in terms of how to retire that debt.
It is quite obvious from the estimates this year and as we talk about this bill that the government is back to free spending. We know that the annual budget has been balanced from a deficit of $42 billion. The government keeps pointing a finger at the Progressive Conservative Party. The PCs should be accountable for half the national debt, but so should the Liberal government which, starting in the 1970s, created the first half of the almost $600 billion worth of national debt.
There is no shortage of money. The money keeps flowing in. People should check their monthly statements and their cheques and they will know how much the government gets. It still gets a big pile from the GST, the CPP, and EI. In fact, the government is so tax hungry it wants to rob us of the $30 billion in the pension fund.
There are examples of the free spending attitude the government still has. The estimates this year contain about $1.7 billion worth of open spending. In other words, the floodgates are open again and the government is back to spending. We need to seriously look at how we spend. Just for the interest of the House, these are some ways we are spending taxpayers' money, probably not in the most responsible manner.
We will write off outstanding immigration loans to the tune of about $3.7 million. Additional operating costs for the Immigration and Refugee Board come to about $2.6 million. Environmental remediation of leased crown site is about $13.4 million. Canada's tenure on the United Nations Security Council will cost the country $1.4 million. Additional operating and capital costs for DFAIT are $15.8 million. Our contribution to international environmental organizations is $255,000, and that is a small number compared to the other ones. The Canada Commercial Corporation amount is $5.08 million.
We are going to forgive the debt of the following countries: Honduras, $18.1 million; Costa Rica, $2.2 million; Colombia, $2.75 million; and Dominican Republic, $1.4 million. The creation of the Canada industrial relations board will cost $350,000. The debt write-offs for Indian Affairs and Northern Development is $389,000. Canadian Intellectual Property Office of Industry Canada will be $15.4 million. ACOA's increased contribution will cost taxpayers $8 million. Liabilities under the Small Business Loans Act is $23 million.
The grant to Conseil québécois des entreprises adaptées to create a development fund is an additional $5 million. Additional capital costs to the NRC come to $16 million. Grants and scholarships will be $270,000. The firearms control program for the registration of long firearms at the justice department will be an additional $13.7 million. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is $692,000. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as well in the Department of Justice will be an additional $624,000. We will end up spending another $1.75 billion of taxpayers' money.
During the past week I was asked by the teachers federation whether I support the child care program. My response was that perhaps the best way to support child care and make sure that children have a good start in life is to give families a break, in other words give families a tax break.
We all know that for many of us in the House who have both spouses working that the wages of one spouse are used to pay the tax of the other one. We know that the children of the country should come first. Their care really should be paramount in the minds of the members of the House as well.
Last week I received the response from the government on the sports report. In the response even the heritage minister indicated in her letter to the chairman of the standing committee that low and middle income Canadians need a tax break before professional hockey players.
We all know that taxes kill job creation and that taxes also create dependency. It is time the government recognized that taxpayers of Canada are tired of paying taxes. I am sure most members of the House have the same feeling about their taxes.