Debates of March 1st, 2000

The Budget

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the famous and long-awaited federal budget was tabled Monday.

This budget is characterized by two things: timing and electoral opportunism. As a consequence, there is nothing for the unemployed. The municipalities will have to wait for the election goodies. There is almost nothing for social housing, and Quebec will have a $4.3 billion shortfall in transfers for social programs.

And the list goes on and on: nothing for regional development; next to nothing for rural communities, and my friend Jacques Proulx of Solidarité rurale was profoundly disappointed by this; and agriculture was, once again, completely forgotten.

Indeed, the president of the UPA, Laurent Pellerin, did not hide his disappointment. His remarks reflected perfectly well the opinion of farmers in my riding and throughout Quebec when he said “With its surpluses, the federal government could have reinvested in our farming industry, support for which has dropped by half over the last eight years. The UPA is asking that the federal government take long term restructuring measures to ensure that Quebec's farming industry can remain competitive globally”.

I would like to draw attention to the following statistics: OECD figures show that the EU and the United States are supporting their industry to the tune of $381 and $363 per capita, respectively, as compared to only $140 in Canada.

Let us talk about EI now. With the current surpluses, the federal government could have helped the unemployed. There is nothing in the budget on that. The government wants to reduce the premiums by the year 2004, again trying to misappropriate funds at the expense of the middle class and to exclude 60% of the unemployed from the plan.

In my riding of Lotbinière, there are still two regional rates. The gap between the RCM of L'Érable and that of Lotbinière is continuing to grow by 5%. And the workers living the RCM of Lotbinière are hard hit. As usual, the federal government is doing nothing while the people are getting poorer because of this unfair system.

Let us now have a look at the regional development that was supposed to result from the restoration of the Infrastructure Works Program for municipalities. Guess what? We are going to have to wait until the year 2001. Wait for what? For a meagre $100 million, $25 million of which will go to Quebec. As for the rest, the amounts budgeted will increase only in the years 2002 and 2003. This opportunistic decision essentially motivated by electoral considerations will penalize our regions.

My colleague just spoke at length about the health care issue. I will mention other statistics which, I hope, will help the Liberal MPs see the light.

Only $2.5 billion in additional funding will be given over four years. Consequently, with the reform announced in 1999, which now bases the transfers to the provinces on geographical considerations rather than on real costs, in 1994, the federal per capita contribution for health care and education amounted to $1,100. It will be $1,026 for this year, and $1,038 for the next two years. What an increase! And the MPs from Quebec have the nerve to say that the government is increasing the transfers.

They are laughing at the sick, the young and the poor. They are showing lack of respect for the people of Quebec.

I would now like to tell you about what I call the “greening” of the finance minister. Listen to the political and partisan announcements made this week: a sustainable development technological support fund, a Canadian foundation for climatic and atmospheric sciences, a green municipal investment fund and so on, $15 million for the decontamination of the Great Lakes, but not a single penny for the St. Lawrence River. Again, Ontario is favoured over Quebec.

Let us talk about tax relief. Tuesday morning, the daily Le Soleil ran the headline “Taxpayers, be Patient”.

I have here numbers that show how ridiculously small the federal tax relief is. A single person earning $30,000 will get a big relief of $64 in 2000 and a tidy $128 in 2001. A family of four earning $40,000 will get $291 in 2000 and $582 in 2001.

The needs are a lot bigger than that and the government had the leeway to make a real budget that would have given taxpayers a break and given more time to boost the economy.

Here are more numbers. Two adults and two children with two incomes totalling $50,000 will be entitled to a reduction of $172 in 2000 and $343 in 2001; where the two incomes total $60,000, the reduction will be $251 in 2000, and $501 in 2001.

How can you expect us to take this government seriously when the majority of newspapers announced on their front pages big news items like lower taxes, family benefits and so on? This is the trademark of federal Liberals. The day after the budget, we read the press releases; journalists publish what they have heard, but when we take a closer look at the budget, it is over. We do not hear anything about it any more.

This budget is so interesting that opposition members do not even rise in the House to ask questions. As far as we are concerned, the Minister of Finance missed the boat. He tried once again, through all sorts of schemes, to show that he is a good finance minister. But, when you think of it, there is nothing for the 1999 tax return. There is hardly anything for 2000, and we know what to expect for 2001. We know that an election campaign is looming on the horizon.

These people are very partisan and they often take advantage of elections. I do not have to remind my colleagues of all we have been hearing recently about the Department of Human Resources Development. There are many reasons to condemn this government.

I will conclude by discussing the situation of social housing. This is an issue that upsets me even more. We are lagging behind. We were expecting $1.7 billion from the federal government this year. This would have meant about $380 million for Quebec. Imagine, we got a measly $58 million. This morning, newspapers all over Quebec were denouncing this lack of funding, because it does not meet current needs in any real way.

As the critic for regional development, I have to say this is a very important issue. We need social housing. There is a lot of catching up to do.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the federal government is waiting. While it is waiting, it is engaged in political and electoral opportunism. In the meantime, who is suffering? The unemployed, the students, and the sick are.

I conclude by repeating that this budget is a typical pre-election budget, which means there is nothing for the unemployed, no significant tax relief this year, a pittance for social housing and, finally, a categorical refusal by this government to make the necessary payments to ensure adequate health care in Quebec.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the Bloc member's remarks. I think he did not read this budget, the federal government's budget for 2000-01. Perhaps he read the Quebec budget or some other budget.

Let me quote him some figures relating to transfer payments to Quebec. Over the five years of the budget plan, Quebec will receive $59 billion.

That is $59 billion over the five years of the budget plan.

In 2000-01 the transfers to Quebec will exceed $11.5 billion. They will account for about 25% of the province of Quebec's estimated revenues. They are expected to be about $1,566 per person. That is about 18% above the national average.

Perhaps the member opposite would read the budget. He would discover that there is $59 billion that will go to Quebec over the next five years. In fact the province of Quebec receives almost $5 billion in equalization payments. Quebec receives that because it is a poor province. I have said in the House before that there is a reason it is a poor province.

It is because of the policies of the Parti Quebecois and the policies of the Bloc Quebecois. That is the reason.

Regarding taxes, let me give a few examples because I think the member opposite simply has not read the budget.

Low income Canadians who pay about 1% of the net taxes collected by the Government of Canada will receive almost 40% of the tax reduction flowing from indexation. For example, a one earner family of four with an income of under $35,000 will receive more in benefits than it pays in the year 2004. A one earner family of four with an income of $60,000 will see its taxes go down by 24% in the year 2004.

I am wondering if the Bloc member opposite read the federal budget for 2000. Did he read it?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have read the budget, and I can even tell my hon. colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance that I took part in the lock-up. Therefore, I was shocked before everybody else to see that this budget contained absolutely nothing.

The member opposite is forgetting one thing: all these numbers he is throwing around—he is like the finance minister, he is quoting so many different numbers, it is tough to follow; what he is saying is always somewhat obscure; the numbers have already changed over the past two days—are for five years.

I said at the beginning of my speech that this government is suffering from a serious case of procrastination; it is totally unable to make a decision in the year 2000, it has to wait until 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004.

As I was reading the budget, I realized that, by acting in an opportunistic and election-minded way, the government was penalizing the Quebec people as a whole. They will get what is coming to them, we will kick them out once again during the next election.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Etobicoke North in his question to the Bloc member talked about the Bloc member not reading the budget. It is clear that the member for Etobicoke North did not read the budget. Had he read the budget he would know that the average Canadian family will still pay $700 more in taxes after five years when these tax cuts kick in than they did when the government took office. That is a fact, the $83 billion in increased spending. For my family, my wife and I and our five children, the government will spend $20,000 more of my family's money that we pay out in tax. That is unacceptable.

My question for the Bloc member is on agriculture spending. I would like him to comment on the fact that $240 million of federal money will go to farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and none will go to any other province.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Lakeland, for his question.

I said in my speech that agriculture has been forgotten in this budget. This is the case for the whole of eastern Canada. I am scandalized when I see that the bulk of Liberal MPs comes from Ontario and that they are unable to stand up for eastern farmers.

Fortunately, in Quebec we have the Bloc Quebecois to defend Quebec farmers.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Guelph—Wellington.

I am pleased to speak to the federal budget that was tabled earlier this week. It is essentially a Canadian document. It is not radical; it is measured, it is well paced. It is irrefutably a strong pro-growth document.

This budget represents a long term strategy. The intention is not to create a boom tomorrow but it will provide sustained benefits for Canadians well into the future. I am pleased that the Minister of Finance has once again provided us with leadership, strategic thinking and prudent investment.

When the government was first elected in 1993 this nation had a $42 billion deficit and an unemployment rate of 11.5%. Canadians elected us because they wanted leadership, strategy and action. We have met that commitment and prudent planning has become our hallmark. Inflation is low, interest rates are low and our unemployment rates are at record lows. My riding of Kitchener Centre has an unemployment rate of only 4.6%.

Canadians understood in 1993 that we were between a rock and a hard place and that the government had to make difficult choices. Today the economic situation of the country has changed dramatically. It is because of the sacrifices made by middle class Canadians that the government is now able to give back to its citizens through tax cuts, indexation, investments in social programs, research and development and support for small and medium size business.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak with an economics professor from the University of Waterloo, Mr. Larry Smith. It is his view that restoration of indexation has restored a sense of equity to our tax system. He indicated that indexation was a prudent approach for stimulating our economy. Moving too quickly with tax cuts would be dangerous and may cause the Bank of Canada to have to raise interest rates.

I would like to take a few moments to highlight how this budget will benefit my riding of Kitchener Centre. Let me begin by stating that the focus of budget 2000 is the middle class. This budget is for the middle class families of Kitchener. Restoring full indexation to the personal income tax system protects against inflation. This will benefit every Canadian family.

I am pleased that Kitchener families receiving the Canada child tax benefit and GST credits will no longer see these things eroded by inflation. The government has set out a plan that reduces personal income tax. The middle tax rate will go down to 23% from 26%. This will cut taxes for nine million Canadians.

We have also increased the income thresholds at which personal income tax rates apply. We have increased the amount of income Canadians can receive tax free to at least $8,000.

On an annual basis residents of Kitchener will see personal income taxes reduced by an average of 15%. Low income Canadians will see an 18% reduction. For families with children, net personal income taxes will be reduced an average of 21%.

The Liberal government heard clearly from Canadians and I heard directly from my constituents how important the Canada child tax benefit is to families. By 2004 an additional $2.5 billion annually will be provided to low and middle income families with children, bringing the investment total to $9 billion per year.

Last October in the Speech from the Throne the Governor General stated, “The government will extend and make more accessible employment insurance benefits for parental leave, to help parents take more time from work to spend with their children”. We have now met this commitment. Maternity and parental leave will be increased to one year starting December 31, 2000. This leave will be made more flexible and accessible. This measure will provide additional benefits of about $900 million a year.

The government is also fulfilling an earlier announcement to provide $753 million to aid in finding solutions for homeless Canadians.

We have also invested in programs and tax relief for disabled Canadians. In Kitchener the Independent Living Centre has received funding from the opportunities fund. According to director Paula Saunders, those in the program found full time, part time and self-employment opportunities with a success rate of 80%. The government has renewed its commitment to the opportunities fund, investing $30 million a year to ensure that groups such as the Independent Living Centre can continue this good work.

The federal government has also allocated funding to cover 75% of the cost of diagnostic assessments for Canadians with severe learning disabilities.

Finally, in the area of assisting special needs people, the government has expanded the disability tax credit and the medical expense tax credit. In total these measures will increase tax assistance to persons with disabilities by an estimated $45 million annually.

This is not wasteful spending as the opposition would have us believe.

Kitchener is a hotbed for small business and high tech industry. We have strong dynamic companies in our area such as GFI Control Systems, Research in Motion, Devtek and Intelli-Tactics. The government's five year tax reduction plan will assist companies such as these to become more competitive. Our tax system is now more conducive to investment and to innovation.

Kitchener's high tech businesses will benefit from the reduction in corporate tax rates to 21%. Smaller area companies will also benefit from the reduction on small business income between $200,000 and $300,000.

We know the importance of risk taking and the greater access to finance for small businesses. Therefore we are responding by reducing the capital gains inclusion rate from three-quarters to two-thirds.

We are postponing the taxation of gains on qualifying stock options to when the shares are sold rather than when they are exercised. Finally, we will allow a tax free rollover of capital gains on qualified investment from one small business to another.

The government has been working hard to put in place the key measures to improve the economic environment for aggressive business growth and competition. This exciting news should be good news for all Canadians, especially young Canadians. They want to be part of a dynamic business industry where there is opportunity to learn, expand and prosper. If the economic climate is right and graduates see the growth of aggressive companies in their own backyard, such as Research in Motion, they will choose to stay in Canada.

Our students are an extremely valuable resource and we have made some important commitments to them in this budget. These commitments will also benefit institutions such as Conestoga College, Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo.

Having met with student presidents from these schools, I have heard the need. I have heard them request that we move from a $500 tax exemption for scholarships, fellowships and bursaries. Students from across the country delivered a strong message. We have responded by raising the tax exemption limit to $3,000. We have also committed to maintaining the Canada student loans program.

Budget 2000 has allocated $900 million over five years through the granting councils to establish and sustain 2,000 Canadian research chairs by 2004-05. This is an important initiative that will attract world class researchers to Canada and it will keep world class researchers in Canada.

At a post-budget breakfast Dennis Grimm of PricewaterhouseCoopers commented:

Yesterday's budget is a plan to address the international competitiveness, productivity, brain drain, and the capital needs of Canada's technology triangle.

As a former regional and municipal councillor, I have seen firsthand the positive impact of the infrastructure program.

The mayor of Kitchener, Mr. Curl Zehr, said:

The federal budget provides a catalyst for partnering with the province and our municipalities, to begin to address some of our urgent infrastructure deficiencies such as transit and roads, environmental initiatives and affordable housing.

Truly we have set forward a plan on which Canadians can count and on which they can judge us by our actions. We wrestled down the deficit and now we are investing in the things which Canadians say they want. With a strong economy we will continue undoubtedly to be the best country in the world in which to live through the 21st century.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the presentation of the member for Kitchener Centre with interest. I am sure she made her comments with the best of intentions and believes them to be true. However, if the budget is as good as she says, then I would like to ask why we are still waiting for the finance minister's ship to come in and start paying taxes.

Here are some facts on which I would like the member's response.

The average Canadian family at the time of the next election will be paying $700 more in tax than when the government took office. That is a fact number one.

Spending over the next five years as a result of this budget will go up $2,800 for each and every Canadian. I have five children. My wife and I and our five children, assuming we are average Canadians, will pay $20,000 more in tax, which will be spent by the government. That is fact number two.

Canadians are worried about health care. The finance minister seems quite content to let the billions of dollars in boondoggle spending continue, such as what we have seen in HRDC, rather than putting a stop to it and putting the money into health care. That is fact number three.

There is a better option, which is Reform's solution 17. It would deliver $5,000 in tax relief for each family over the next five years, rather than this increase of $700 from the time the government took office. That is what we have to offer.

I would like the member, who made these wonderful statements, to comment on these facts.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I thank the member opposite for his questions, I despair over his mathematics. I happen to know one of his Reform colleagues and I wonder if they could get together with a calculator to figure this out.

Canadians get a lot in return for their tax dollars. One thing which the government has made very clear is that it will not run deficits. It will make sure that it is not giving tax cuts with borrowed money and that it will make strategic investments.

Health care is at the top of the list of all Canadians and we in the government are trying to work with the provinces and territories to make sure that structurally we change how we deliver health care in Canada.

There are many challenges. The problem is much more than money. I need to point out that it is not the intent of the government to make a down payment on a few hospital beds. We are creating the kind of economy that will sustain a medicare system well into the next century, and that is what defines us as Canadians.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for her wonderful speech. The reality is that the surplus which the government has, and is now deciding how to spend, was made on the backs of Canadian workers and not because the government has been a good fiscal manager. The fact is, that is where the government received its surplus and those Canadian workers have children.

I had the occasion last night to meet with the student union of University College of Cape Breton. As we speak, the students' professors are on strike because they are paid 30% less than other professors across the country.

One of the students wanted me to ask a question of the government. Why did the government not recognize the position in which students have been put in terms of high debt load and high tuition fees and why did it refuse to address that in the budget?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I have two universities in my community and I hear from them all the time.

In the last three budgets this government has addressed some of the concerns surrounding student debt. Clearly, it is a topic that we have discussed. There are the millennium scholarships. We have changed the RESPs as well as RRSPs, which can now be used at any time for lifelong learning.

This is an issue that we need to work on together with the provinces. While we transfer money to the provinces, we see very different approaches. Quebec and Ontario have deregulated tuition fees, which has had an impact on students.

I believe that the federal government is trying to be part of the solution.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important budget debate.

This is a budget that all Canadians can and should be proud of. It is a balanced budget in two ways. Not only is this our third consecutive balanced budget, but the promises made in this budget are also balanced. We have balanced the need to deliver tax relief and to repay the debt with the need to maintain our valued social programs.

Once again the federal government has proven that its commitment to fiscal responsibility is unshakeable and that this commitment does not prevent us from helping Canadians in need. On the contrary, it is because of this sound financial management that we have continued to improve the quality of life for all Canadians. Like the budget says: better finances, better lives.

Last fall I conducted a prebudget survey in my riding of Guelph—Wellington. I asked my constituents to identify their priorities for the 2000 federal budget. Their concerns were health care, tax cuts, post-secondary education, the environment, infrastructure and children. The government listened to our concerns and acted on them. Every single one of the priorities identified by the constituents of Guelph—Wellington has been addressed in this very budget.

Our health care system has been a source of national pride for many years. Guelph—Wellington chose health care as one of its top priorities and so did the federal government.

The provinces will receive an additional $2.5 billion through the Canada health and social transfer. This is the fourth consecutive time that we have increased funding for the CHST. In the last two years alone we have increased the cash portion of the CHST by 25%.

Here is another important figure. This year funding for the CHST will reach an all time high of $31 billion. Obviously the federal government is committed to health care. This is the highest amount ever that has been transferred to the provinces.

It is very important to emphasize this point because of false accusations made by Ontario's provincial government that we are not doing enough to fund health care. It is true that the federal government had to make some difficult decisions to reduce the deficit, but it is also true that federal transfers to the provinces in both cash and tax points are higher today than when we took office.

We have pumped an additional $4.4 billion over five years into health care in Ontario since balancing the budget. The Ontario government promised that every single penny of this money would go directly to health care. I certainly hope that the Ontario government lives up to its promise, instead of doing like it has in the past, using federal funding to pay for its tax cuts.

The federal government is also committed to post-secondary education. In addition to the $2.5 billion increase in the CHST funding, the federal government will increase the tax exemption for income, for scholarships, fellowships and bursaries from $500 to $3,000, meaning that there will be no federal tax on the average $3,000 millennium scholarship.

The federal government will also provide $900 million over five years to fund and sustain 2,000 21st century chairs for research excellence at Canadian universities. Funding for the Canada Foundation for Innovation will increase by $900 million as well. Research will also be supported through $160 million for Genome Canada and $90 million to improve Canada's ability to regulate biotechnology.

All of this is great news for the University of Guelph, its students and its faculty. The money is intended to help, and I sincerely hope that the Ontario government will use all of it for this purpose. Ontario tuition rates are the highest in the country and Ontario also spends the least per capita on post-secondary education because of the provincial government. Ontario has also chosen to claw back the Canada millennium scholarships, money intended to make post-secondary education more accessible. Instead of giving the money to the students in Ontario, it is using the money to fund its Ontario student opportunity grant.

It is important to point out all of this so that we can set the record straight about what five years of Premier Harris' style of governing has done to Ontario and to his residents.

On the other hand, the last seven years under this federal Liberal government have been very good for Ontario and for Canada. We have eliminated the deficit, balanced the budget and have started to pay down the debt. In short, we have turned the economy around. Thanks to the hard work of Canadians and sound fiscal management, we have been able to maintain our valued social programs and deliver tax cuts without borrowing a single penny, unlike the province of Ontario which chose to cut taxes before balancing the budget and as a result has increased its deficit by $14 billion. Ontario gave a tax cut and borrowed money.

Budget 2000 introduces the most important structural changes to the federal tax system in more than a decade. These changes will deliver at least $54 billion in tax relief by 2004 and will benefit all Canadians. Bracket creep will be eliminated by fully indexing the personal income tax system. On average, Canadians will see their personal income taxes reduced by 15% annually. Low and middle income Canadians will see an annual decrease of 18% and families with children will see a 21% drop.

Tax brackets have also been adjusted. The middle tax rate now begins at $35,000 as opposed to $30,000, and the top rate at $70,000 as opposed to $65,000, and the middle income tax rate will be cut from 26% to 23%.

Investment and entrepreneurship will be further encouraged by lowering the capital gains tax and decreasing corporate taxes. The foreign content limit for RRSPs will also be increased from 20% to 25% and then to 30%.

These tax cuts will benefit all Canadians but especially families with children. These changes will affect things like GST credits and the Canada child tax benefit. We are also helping children by allocating another $2.5 billion to the child tax benefit increasing it to more than $9 billion annually.

Maximum benefits will reach $2,400 for a family's first child and $2,200 for each additional child. Parents of children with disabilities will also receive additional assistance through an increase in the disability tax credit. We are concerned about our children's future and are making concrete investments to ensure that every child has the best possible start in life.

One way we can do this is by protecting the environment. To this end, the federal government will integrate environmental and economic policies through the development of new technologies and sustainable practices. Budget 2000 will invest $700 million in such initiatives as climate change action funds, a sustainable development technology fund, a green municipal investment fund and the national strategy on species at risk. Guelph—Wellington has always been a leader in environmental technology, and we will definitely benefit from these initiatives.

The federal government is also making a significant investment in new physical infrastructure. Most of this funding will be directed to municipal infrastructure and highways, both issues of interest to Guelph—Wellington. The Guelph council and mayor want this infrastructure program. They feel they have benefited in the past from it, and they will benefit in the future again.

We have listened to Canadians and balanced the budget first before cutting taxes. The first tax cuts went to those who needed our help the most. In last year's budget and in this budget we extended those benefits to all Canadians. This is responsible, fair and permanent tax relief.

To the critics who say that we did not fund social programs enough, I remind them that health care and education are shared jurisdictions. We give money to the provinces and they deliver the services. In Ontario, the Harris government chooses to claw back this money rather than use it to help people.

The hon. Minister of Finance has said that there will be more money for health care if the provinces are willing to come to the table. We also need assurances from Premier Harris that this money will not be used to fund his tax cuts as it has been in the past.

I am proud of the budget. It is good news for Guelph—Wellington and for all of Canada. We have done what we said we would do and we have done it well. Together we will continue to improve the quality of life of each and every Canadian.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we just heard the member for Guelph—Wellington say wonderful things about the finance minister's budget. The reality will not escape Canadians. As they look at their paystubs over the next five years what they will find will be grizzly indeed. That will be the reality check.

I want to talk a bit about $58 billion in tax relief that the Liberals claim. We have to take $7.5 billion from that over five years, which is social spending and not a tax decrease. I am referring to the child benefits. That is a social program. That is an increase in social spending and not a tax decrease. That has to be taken off the $58 billion.

The $29.5 billion increase in the Canada pension plan tax over the next five years has to be taken off, as well as the $13.5 billion which were scheduled tax increases that, according to the finance minister, will not be carried through. Is a scheduled tax increase which has been removed actually a tax reduction? The Liberals say so. I say it is not a tax reduction. That is a promise of more tax which we hear from the government all the time that will not be carried through. That is a nice thing, but it leaves as a bottom line $8 billion in tax cuts over five years. That is all.

What does that amount do for an individual? If we take it on a per taxpayer basis it amounts to $107 per taxpayer per year. That is what the promise the finance minister put in place and the member for Guelph—Wellington made sound so nice translates into. Nine dollars per month is all average Canadian taxpayers will see or $2.07 a week. It is disgusting. All these nice things are deceit in the worst way. The finance minister knows it and the member should know it.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite should have better parliamentary decorum. He should know that the word deceit is unacceptable. I would also like to point out that those people opposite with their soulmates, the Republican Party, are out to lunch.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the hon. member is getting into debate. Nevertheless, I caution the member to choose his words more judiciously.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being given the opportunity to say that deceit is not acceptable in the House or anywhere else. Nor is using the word, and I do apologize for that. I got carried away in the heat of the moment.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly accept the hon. member's apology. He also said that I was saying some nice things so that balances things out. I am okay with it. I want to address some of the points he talked about. He talked about the child tax benefit that we are giving. He talked about the environment. He talked about knowledge, innovation and families. For all of it he said “take it off, take it away”.

I am not surprised we hear that from the Reform Party. There has never been support for any of those things from the Reform Party. It has always believed that tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts are the only way of doing business, but we all know that many more things are important to Canadians. Their health care is important to them. It is important that they have their housing needs met. It is important that they have social programs to support them. It is important that we support the environment. If we do not, what will be left for our children?

The Liberal government will absolutely continue to fund such programs but also in a balanced fashion cut taxes, wipe out the deficit, and continue on a strong fiscal path while caring for every Canadian. That is what Canadians want. That is what we will deliver.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the government's budget. I will be splitting my time with the member for Elk Island.

I am pleased that the government has finally listened to the Reform Party of Canada. We have been fighting since the inception of this party for the last 13 years to end bracket creep. I am pleased to see that end. It is good for Canadians. I am really pleased that the Government of Canada finally listened to the Reform Party of Canada.

Let us get on to a bigger and more important issue, one that I feel very strongly about. That is what this budget is really about. Let us not make any mistakes. The culture of the Liberal government is to spend, spend, spend. For the last 40 years we have seen spend. Liberals believe in bigger, bigger, bigger; more spending, more spending, more spending. I will prove that in the House with the Minister of Finance's own numbers in a minute. Let me quote from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in response to the budget:

This budget boosted overall program spending with no consideration of reallocating resources to higher priorities within an already overinflated spending envelope. By continuing to apply year-end surpluses toward future spending initiatives, it raises the spending bar in the future indefinitely.

We have seen an $86 billion increase in spending in the budget. In HRDC we have seen one of the largest scandals in decades, a billion dollar boondoggle. How did the Minister of Finance respond? He raised its budget by $226 million this year alone. That is how he responds to unaccountable, unacceptable spending. Grants and contributions from all departments are up $1.5 billion this year alone. That is completely unacceptable. Canadians are demanding some actions to bring back accountability.

We have heard Liberal members and even the Minister of Finance ask how come they are not getting any questions on the budget. The budget in every corporation including the Government of Canada is about spending every single last dime of taxpayer money. That is what a budget is. That is what we have been responding to. That is what the billion dollar boondoggle is. That is what this unaccountable spending is. That is what the slush fund is.

The government is more interested in putting money into creating new hotel beds in Shawinigan than it is in putting money into health care and creating beds in hospitals. It is absolutely unacceptable.

What happens when spending is increased to this magnitude? Guess what. We go into another deficit situation. Let us look at the finance minister's numbers. If anyone is interested, I am reading from page 46 of the budget book. There is a graph with two lines, fiscal requirements surplus and budget requirements.

Does the House know what will happen at the end of this year? The budget is what the government plans to spend and the financial requirements on its graph is the money that it will to take to meet those budget requirements. Lo and behold we are in a downward dive like a diving goose going straight into the ground. It crosses zero and keeps going into the minus at the end of this year. We are in a deficit situation. If members do not believe me, they can look on page 46 of the finance minister's own document.

Some would ask what that means. I was in London with the Leader of the Opposition and my colleague from Medicine Hat listening to the economic statement of the Minister of Finance. Do you know, Madam Speaker, what he told us there? He said “I am going to cut up the credit card. Never again will the Government of Canada get into deficit”.

He has found a new gold credit card. By his own numbers he is in a deficit situation at the end of this year. It is in black and white. I urge members to look at it for themselves on page 46 of the minister's own budget. It is right there. The minister's definition of financial requirements on page 47 states:

Another important measure of the Government's finances is the financial requirements...the difference between cash coming into the Government and cash payments made for programs and public debt charges during the year.

The cash coming in to pay for these programs is not enough to meet the government's incestuous, crazy spending habits. It is absolutely crazy. This government is crazy about spending. It is evident in its own numbers. It is planning on taking money that is supposedly coming in from taxpayers next year to pay for this year's budget. That is how people use a credit card. They do not have the cash now, slap it on the old Visa and pay for it later. That is exactly what the government has gone back into.

It has its spending programs. At the same time it is ignoring the debt. There is not a mention about the debt. Yes, there is a $3 billion contingency fund. If the government does not spend it, it may put it on the debt. It does not mention that at all. To health care, which is facing the biggest crisis in the country, it allocates $2.5 billion over four years. It is not nearly enough.

I will conclude right now in one sentence. The government needs to reallocate the money from TAGS and other programs which are unaccountable, which are definitely political slush funds that go to the government's own insiders and its friends. It should bring that money back into health care, bring back accountability and, for goodness sake, make sure that we do not go back into another deficit, as it states we will do on page 46 of the Minister of Finance's own book.

The government should be ashamed of itself for allowing the country to go back into a deficit. It is an absolute bloody disgrace.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 6.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: