Debates of March 29th, 2000

The Budget

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

He is not going to be so fortunate as to get only that from me, Mr. Speaker. I gave the government a very mild applause for resisting the temptation of spending all the money when it came its way. I gave it credit. It is quite possible that during the Trudeau years governments would have done it differently.

The member expresses some terms in a pejorative way instead of debating what we are talking about. He said that they were here to protect families whereas we on this side of the House would tax them to death. That is not so. Our 17% flat tax would give most poor people a 100% tax break. That is what would happen.

The Liberals are quite content to take $6 billion a year in tax revenue from families whose income is $20,000 a year or less, and they call themselves a pro-family government. They are taxing them to death. They are killing them.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the budget debate today. This the Liberal government's seventh budget and it is pretty much more of the same. The first mandate was high taxes and cuts to government spending. The second mandate is high taxes and increased government spending.

The Liberals are trying to give the impression that they are making massive tax cuts for Canadians. They are claiming that they are cutting taxes by $58.4 billion. That is an illusion. If we take a closer look, and they can argue the finer points, the $7.5 billion are for the child tax credit. That is a social program, the same as OAS and CPP. It is not a tax cut; it is a social program. Government members should be upfront and honest and say so.

Some $13.5 billion of this supposed tax cut is a reindexation of tax brackets. That is not a tax cut; that is just the government promising Canadians it will not be robbing them in the upcoming tax years, that it will forgo taking more tax money from them rather than giving them real tax relief.

The $58.4 billion tax cut is also offset by the $29.5 billion increase in CPP premiums. The taxpayer is actually only going to see a $7.9 billion tax cut and that is over five years. That equates to about $2.07 additional money per week for the taxpayer. If that is what the Liberals think is a tax cut, it certainly is not shared by the ordinary Canadian.

The Liberals have told Canadians that their priorities are going to be that 50% of the surplus will go to new social programs and the other 50% will be divided between tax cuts and debt reduction. I asked my constituents if they agreed with the government's proposals of splitting the money this way. Over 2,100 people responded and 73% said that they did not agree with the Liberal proposal of splitting the money 50% for new social programming and 50% between tax reduction and debt relief.

One of the individuals who said no to the Liberals' plan was a Mr. Paul Martin of Blackwood Street in White Rock. It is unfortunate that his namesake does not share his concerns that this is not the way to use the taxpayers' money.

The Liberals are very proud of the $2.5 billion in new health care spending. This afternoon in question period we heard just how proud they are of this $2.5 billion in new health care spending. If we look at it more closely, that is divided over four years which means there is only $500 million per year in new spending for health care. I do not need to remind the House that health care has been shown to be the number one concern of the Canadian people. It is the number one concern.

This $500 million a year means only an additional $81 million per year for British Columbia. That is 1% of the B.C. health care budget. That is what the federal government is adding in new money to the crisis in our health care system. This is what the government's response is to the highest priority of the Canadian people. It works out to an additional $20 per British Columbian.

It is interesting that the government in ignoring the priority of the Canadian people decided to give an additional $226 million to human resources development. This is the department that has shown over the last number of years to have completely mismanaged the Canadian taxpayers' contributions. Audit after audit after audit is showing that department has not handled and controlled taxpayers' money as it should have. And what does the government do? It gives more money to the department that the auditor general is saying has exceptional problems in controlling spending.

I ask members on that side why the government is putting more money into the black hole of HRDC than it is putting into health care. Is it that building a fountain in the Prime Minister's riding is more important than adding hospital beds across the country? I would like to believe that the government has at least heard the concerns of the Canadian people.

One of the other priorities outside of health care is that of transportation. This is one area in which the government should be increasing funding and looking at as a priority. It is an area that is completely disintegrating. The transportation infrastructure in this country is falling apart. We are consistently getting further and further behind and the government is doing absolutely nothing.

Last year the government collected $4.5 billion in fuel taxes and spent only $150 million on highways. The budget this year has put in only $150 million for highways. That works out to about 150 kilometres of road improvement over the next four years. Three years ago the transport committee reviewed the highway infrastructure of this country and reported that it would take $18 billion to bring our national highway up to a safe standard. The government is providing less than 1% of the required funds.

It is quite conceivable that the prairie provinces will have to turn paved roads back into gravel roads because they cannot afford to maintain them. Urban areas and border areas are going to recognize and have to deal with complete gridlock in their transportation systems.

Transportation systems are instrumental in helping our economy with its trade obligations and its trade patterns. Trade is a key contributor to Canada's economic well-being and transportation systems are essential in moving our goods in order to create this wealth. It is the creation of wealth through our economy that allows us to sustain the social safety nets we have in this country. It is imperative that the government recognize the need to improve our transportation systems to ensure that the economic growth can be sustained and will support the economic growth of the future.

I would suggest that it is time for the government to show leadership. It should show leadership by creating a safe, seamless and integrated transportation network, not just nationally but internationally and continentally.

It is only by the federal government showing leadership and working with the other partners, the provincial governments, the municipal governments and the private sector, that we will be able to enhance our transportation system and ensure that there is no gridlock, that the trade can move, that the wealth is created so we can continue to afford the support for health care and education that our citizens are demanding.

I would hope that the government would listen, would readjust its priorities and would consider that perhaps spending more money in HRDC is not what the Canadian taxpayers want. They want their money to go into priorities like health care, education and improved transportation systems.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the bill which was introduced by Mr. Klein in Alberta, a bill which will open ways for a second tier of health care, I want to ask my colleague from the Reform Party a pointed question. Does she support the bill introduced by Mr. Klein in its present form? Does she support the five principles of the health care system?

While she is on her feet I want her to tell me which part of the budget she does not like. Does she not like the fact that we have eliminated bracket creep? Does she not like the part of the budget that reduces taxes for middle and low income Canadians? Does she not like the part of the budget that puts more money into the pockets of families with children?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Ottawa Centre, I am not an expert in health care nor do I profess to be, and I am not an expert on a bill coming out of the province of Alberta. However, I will tell the hon. member that the system we have had for 30 years is not working.

The member is fooling himself and the Canadian public if he maintains that there is not already a multi-tier health care system. Anybody who has the financial wherewithal goes south to the United States for treatment. In my riding which borders the United States, when people are told they are going to have to wait 8, 12 or 18 months for treatment, they go to the United States to get that treatment within days or weeks, if they can afford it.

There is already a multi-tier health care system. The government deludes itself when it thinks and tells Canadians that that does not exist and that every Canadian has the same access to good quality health care in this country. It is deluding itself if it thinks that. The health care system that has been in place for 30 years does not work. It has been proven that it does not work.

The government would be well advised to open its eyes and its brain and look at alternatives of how we can make our health care system really work. The one it is supporting does not work. As the leadership in this country it should be trying to find a system that does work. All Canadians deserve access to the care that they need regardless of where they live or how much money they have. They do not have that in today's health care system.

The government should not be asking me whether or not I support it. Canadians are asking the government what it has to offer that will ensure they have access to health care when they need it. They do not want to wait two years or 18 months or 15 months for that care. They are looking for leadership and they are not getting it from the federal government.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, tempted as I am to jump into the current debate, I think I will take advantage of the very few minutes I have to make a few comments as I have every year since I came to the House in 1993.

I will begin by congratulating the finance minister, members of the House and literally thousands of Canadians who participated in the development of this budget. They participate every year. One of the things I particularly admire about our current finance minister is that he instituted a process some years ago to open it up. He took it out of the secrecy of a few backrooms and put it in front of the Canadian people for comment, discussion and debate in the committee rooms, church basements and school gymnasiums across the country. That is what happens.

We are participating in a process which is extremely important. I want to offer a couple of comments to my friends in the official opposition.

The House of Commons in our history, which is British parliamentary history, came into existence to oversee the taking of taxes from people, to comment on and to act as a control and accountability structure for the money that was taken from people and given to the king. The watching, monitoring, criticizing and the acting as a check and a balance on the government has been an important function of this Chamber since its inception, yet this year we had a situation that I have not seen before.

I am in my 12th year of elected office of which I spent five years in a provincial house and I have never seen a situation where the day after the budget was read, the official opposition stood and completely ignored it. It could find nothing to criticize or comment on. It is absolutely incredible to me how the official opposition party, which has long prided itself on being different and into some new politic, immediately realized it did not have much to criticize and it switched tactics. It got back onto something which it thought was a more fruitful political ground but not necessarily more fruitful for the people of this country.

Next week it starts all over again. Next week we will begin a series of meetings with people. We have looked at the initiatives in this year's budget. We have looked at initiatives that we would like to have seen in it. We are thinking anew about some of the concerns that people have raised with us as we have discussed these issues around the country. We will go once more back into the same process.

I would like to use a very simple example just to highlight how useful and how important this process is. The current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and I have had an interest in employee stock ownership programs for some time. It is an interest that was brought to each of us differentially. In his constituency people approached him and started raising the issue with him. In my constituency in Winnipeg people met with me. Interestingly enough I wrote about it once in one of my householders and a gentleman living a few blocks up the street from my office came in to see me because he had written a book on it.

We began a discussion. We did a little work on it. We took it to the finance minister in that first year and it was felt that there was not a lot of information on it. It was a complex topic so we put it off for a year. During that year we went to work on it. We met with more people and we built a database on it. We had a better understanding of it and we made a presentation on it again.

It is interesting that in this year's budget plan we are beginning to see movement toward it. There is actually a development of some stock option programs and a reference to employee stock option programs in the budget plan, which forms the basis of the work we will do this year. We will go back into it one more time, drawing together experts from the community and looking at how we might make it help small businesses in this instance.

That is what this process is. Literally thousands of people across the country will be invited to participate in the process. In my constituency they come together two or three times during the budget cycle in the fall. We will add our voice to that of everyone else who comes before the committee. We will go to the minister with our ideas about how we can improve the country.

That is what the budget is all about. There is no secrecy in it. The finance minister has consciously run a very open and transparent process, and I think he deserves an enormous amount of congratulations on it.

This is why the budget has come through with such ease. People see it as their budget. People see their concerns reflected in it. There will always be demands for changes and improvements. We will continue to work on that. We will continue to go back into the cycle. We will continue to invite Canadians into the process. It would be interesting to see if the official opposition would take its responsibilities and not hide from them.

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the stage of consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

Under the provision of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Budget

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his speech because his words were very encouraging. He reminded all of us in the House of something in which I firmly believe, that the role of parliament is to limit the ability of the government to tax and to spend.

We all know the history. Originally it was the king and his horsemen around him who went around with a mace, the symbol of which we have here. If people did not pay their taxes, I guess they were clubbed on the head with the mace. We have that symbol of authority in the House. It used to be that the king taxed people too much. The people said that was the end of it and parliament came into being.

As a member of parliament I would like to ask the member a couple of questions in that regard. Has he ever voted against the current king's requisitions? I say that advisedly. The Prime Minister and the finance minister seem to come up with a budget. It seems the only member on the other side who has ever voted against a budget measure sits right now beside me over here. He was censured by the government for doing exactly that.

Has the member voted in favour of an amendment to reduce it? For example, in an previous budget the Reform Party at the time put forward some amendments to reduce some departmental budgets of billions of dollars by $10,000. At that time we made the point that it was symbolic, just to show that parliament had the final control on expenditures. Did he vote in favour of it? Does he represent his constituents as an MP when he supports by his votes the spending of money to make films like Bubbles Galore and to hang dead rabbits on fences?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, actually on the final question I am quite proud to say yes, I do. The rabbits were hung on fences in my riding. I supported the display wholeheartedly. I thought it was a very creative and interesting piece of art.

The member asked a question and I will take it very directly. Have I ever voted against a budgetary motion of the government? The answer is no, I have not and I will not. I am a member of a team, a member of a community. Teams work together. That is how this place runs. That is how the government runs. That is how human society runs.

We think that somehow this organization, this government, will work with a bunch of independent members controlling their own destinies all the time. It is a foolish, foolish symbol. The reality is life. When more than one person is involved in any exercise, it is an exercise of compromise.

We have processes for that. The processes are sometimes called parties. We come together. We think. We work. We fight. We argue. Do I fight? I fight strongly. I think some members will tell the House that I am not the least bit shy when it comes to discussions in my caucus, but when it comes to standing up with my team, with the people whose values I support, yes, I support them.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite. One line in the budget of this year referred to the net public debt. We heard the Minister of Finance say during question period today that money was put toward the debt and the debt is being reduced.

The line item in the government's own documents from last year indicated that the net public debt was $576.8 billion. This year it is the same amount and next year it will be the same amount. If money is being applied to the debt, why is it not showing up in its own documents?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I spent five years in opposition. Members could go through some of my statements about budgets and the way I would take particular terms, twist them around and throw them back, so I cannot be too critical of some of the things said here.

If we examine what has gone on in the fiscal management of the country, the reality is that we are far better off today than we were in 1993. Growth is at levels we never predicted it would reach.

Let us look at unemployment. I recall in the 1993 campaign one leader saying unemployment could not fall. This was the leader of the party that had been in power at that time for nine years. He predicted that unemployment could not fall below 10%, and yet we are substantially below that today.

Taxes are coming down. The debt is coming down. Employment is up. There are some significant problems and there are problems looming over the horizon as there will be throughout our lifetime and into the future. What we have here is a very responsible, reasonable and balanced approach to managing those problems, and I have no trouble supporting it.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. member is very simple. As a member of parliament who was elected in 1988, although I am not absolutely certain of that, he is accountable not only for his current views but also for his views on issues and policies that were debated fiercely at that time and ultimately helped shape the country. The Economist magazine 1998 preview listed several policies of the previous government and indicated that those policies provided the current government with the ability to eliminate the deficit. I believe the article indicated that credit for deficit reduction in Canada belonged to the structural changes made to the Canadian economy by the previous government, the Progressive Conservative government.

It listed free trade, the GST, and deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. More specifically it identified free trade and the GST as the two policies which most fundamentally allowed the current government to eliminate the deficit. Where did the member stand on the issues of free trade and the GST?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear members of the party, which I think is the most discredited party in the history of Canada, say that deficit reduction was because of their policies.

They were in power for nine years, during which time the debt went up, costs escalated and unemployment went up. Things got worse and worse and worse until Canadian voters threw them out. Only one sitting member was re-elected and one new member was elected. It was the lowest return of any government in the history of Canada.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I asked the hon. member where he stood on free trade and the GST. According to very sound economic analyses, including probably the most credible economics and current affairs publication in the world, The Economist magazine, credited the structural changes made by the previous government with eliminating the deficit, free trade and GST, being the most important ones.

Unless the hon. member wants to be accused of being the patron saint of hypocrisy in the House of Commons today, I suggest he answer the question and tell us where he stood on the free trade and GST policies that his government would not have had the vision or courage to initiate.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is very simple. When this government came to power it changed its fiscal policy. The former governor of the Bank of Canada, supported strongly by the previous prime minister, kept jacking up interest rates in some forlorn hope that it would somehow solve all the problems. They reaped the rewards. Their understanding of how to manage the economy was so weak and so meaningless that they earned their just rewards.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, some days the debate in here is better than other days. I will be sharing my time with the hon. leader of the Canadian Alliance.

As we talk about what was and was not in the budget, one thing we ask Canadians to do is to check their pay stubs. Compare those of January this year with those of January last year and those of January next year, and then factor in just what kind of a tax cut they are getting from the Liberal government. It will not add up to very much.

I want to touch on the concerns that people have brought to my attention as we talk about the country and the well-being of Canadians in general. The number one issue that keeps coming up is health care. It has been on the table for a long time.

Canadians fear that the health care system is not going to take care of them when they need it. They are worried that family members who become ill will not get the care they need and that it will not be available to Canadians on a universal basis.

We need to put into perspective what has actually happened. While the government was cutting billions of dollars out of health care since it was elected in 1993, the grants and contributions to departments like HRDC were going up. We need to keep in mind that the waiting lines are growing, that 212,000 people are on waiting lists for health care in this country because of cuts that the government has made. All the time it was doing that, it was increasing the grants and contributions to departments like HRDC. That is not the way Canadians expect their government to act.

We are looking for solutions to the health care problem and we have heard a lot about Bill 11 in Alberta lately. I do not believe we have seen legislation that is going to solve Canada's health care problems. We have not seen it yet.

We and other Canadians have to allow ourselves to open up our minds and get into the debate. Our country has a huge resource of very knowledgeable people in the health care field, people who know how to deliver it properly. We have to open our minds and allow ourselves to create a system that is sustainable and universally available to all Canadians. If we do not allow that to happen, if every time someone comes up with an idea that is a little different from the status quo, we jump on them and try to beat them down, we are going to end up perpetuating the trouble we have now forever.

Let us allow ourselves to have that debate and come up with some sustainable solutions. Health care must be put at the top of the priority list. Canadians want that. They are demanding it. It is a concern to everyone.

As our population ages, as the seniors who helped create this country need more and more care, it has to be available. As people of my generation age, there will be a huge bubble of people to take care of. All of these things have to be factored in when we are looking at solutions.

I mentioned the trouble we have seen at HRDC with the unaccountability of the government in handling taxpayers' dollars. One thing Canadians are extremely disturbed about is that the government takes money out of their pockets, takes it to Ottawa and then mismanages it. We cannot have that.

We are hurting. We are paying the highest taxes of the industrialized countries. The government takes the money and mismanages it and we cannot track where it went. Grants were given when there were no applications. No follow-ups were done to see if jobs were actually created.

Day after day the HRDC minister stands in the House and drags into this debate hardworking, honest, volunteer organizations in all of our communities. She drags their names into this debate. They are not the problem. The hardworking organizations that do a great job are not the problem. The problem is the government and the minister that is mismanaging their money. I feel sorry for the groups that have been mentioned by the minister. She is bringing them down to her level instead of raising herself up to their level of accountability and hard work.

A little earlier I asked a question of the member opposite about the debt.

Again today the finance minister said the debt is being paid down. However in the five year projection that was in this year's budget documents, the debt does not go down; it stays at $576.8 billion. It takes over $40 billion a year in interest payments to service that debt. In a five year period that is $200 billion just for the interest. According to the document I am looking at which was produced by the government, the principal does not go down one nickel.

When we think about the $40 billion that is being spent on debt charges, what happens if the economy turns a bit and interest rates go up a couple of percentage points? That will cause a change in a hurry and it will hurt every program. Every worthwhile need that citizens in the country have will be affected.

The high cost of fuel is a huge issue from coast to coast to coast. Certainly in my riding it is. A group of people has come together to raise the awareness of the cost of fuel. There is a tax component both provincially and federally in the cost of a litre of fuel. That should have been addressed in the budget. Where is the break for people who are on fixed incomes who try to get by when their cost of living keeps going up?

On transportation, our highway system has degenerated to the point where doing trade east and west is becoming difficult. It has been run down. There are $4.5 billion collected in fuel taxes and only a small percentage of that is put back into the highway system. We have to do something about that.

Concerning our airports, the local municipality in the county of Lethbridge negotiated with this government to take over the operation of the airport on one condition, that the expense of the on-site fire services be taken away. That was done. The county took it over and now there is talk about putting that back in. That is a $300,000 expense that was negotiated in good faith by the local municipality with this government and now the government is turning its back on it.

The whole air transportation industry is in turmoil. We have not seen any solid answers from the government on that.

On the grain transportation system we have had the Estey report and the Kroeger report. There have been many hours of debate across the country by many organizations. The grain transportation system on the prairies has to be reformed and it has to be done immediately in order to bring some relief to our beleaguered producers. Where is that? It is tied up somewhere. The minister has not made an announcement on that.

We could go on and on. Recently programs have been announced over and over by the government such as money for the disaster in agriculture on the prairies and across Canada. Of the money that was put aside to service the disaster component of the problem that agriculture has right now, only 26% has got to the farmers. Sixty per cent of the people who applied, who felt they needed help, have been rejected. The system has failed.

We have held meetings across the country with farmers and farm groups. These are quotes from people in Unity, Saskatchewan: “AIDA created hope and then it slam-dunked us. AIDA takes your figures and then invents its own and disqualifies you”. These types of comments about a program that this government developed are coming from people who are on their last legs struggling to keep their heads afloat.

My colleague from Elk Island did say he had a small bouquet for the folks across the way. I would like to give them one on bracket creep.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce lobbied hard and we have lobbied hard for years to get the tax brackets indexed with inflation. Finally it has been done. But what the government did with that figure is it took the savings that we will realize from bracket creep because our taxes will not be going up and said it was a tax cut. That is not a tax cut. It is just money the government will not get its hands on. That has been factored into the figures it has used in this tax cut of $58 billion, or $85 billion, or whatever it is. It does not add up.

I will end my comments with that.

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

Madam Speaker, in reference to the comments from the member opposite, I recall when the former leader of the former opposition party, or to be more clear, the member for Calgary Southwest, was in this House at the start of the budget debate, he used the example of a retired couple, Paul and Fran Darr of Calgary, Alberta with a total income of $28,000. He related how this couple had come to him and said that they were paying too much in taxes and they were tired of paying taxes. It was the old pay stub or equivalent debate that the Reform Party, or the alliance or whatever it is called, was putting forward.

I asked the tax department how much in federal income tax Paul and Fran Darr of Calgary, Alberta would save with this new budget 2000. The answer was they would save 39% in their federal income taxes.

When opposition members talk about pay stubs and all that stuff, I ask them to check whether the pay stubs reflect even the budget measures we brought into place in 1998-99. They certainly do not reflect the budget measures we introduced in 2000.

Another thing is the transfers to the provinces for health care, the CHST. For Canadians who are actually listening to the debate they must be hopelessly confused and I do not blame them. There is a way of twisting and contorting the facts. Let me again put the facts on the CHST on the table.

In 1993-94 the total CHST transfers to the provinces were $28.9 billion. Forget equalization. In 1999-2000 they are now at a level of $29.4 billion. They are completely restored from the levels when we came into office. At the same time our direct program delivery budgets are down $4 billion. Does that not say something about the priority the government attaches to health care?

In the intervening time, perhaps the member has had a chance to go back to check the budget notes. Perhaps he would like to clarify the points he made earlier.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify a couple of points especially about family taxes, tax cuts and the whole idea of getting the government's hands out of the pockets of hardworking Canadians.

We put out a proposal on a 17% single rate tax. An income of $28,000 has been mentioned. Let us look at a single income family of four. This is federal personal income tax payable in the year 2004. This is after the implementation of the proposals. Let us look at a family of four earning $30,000. Under this Liberal status quo budget and tax regime this family would pay $2,541 annually. Under solution 17 the family would pay $387.

That is substantial tax relief. That is the kind of tax relief Canadians are expecting when revenues and budget surpluses are going to be in the tens of billions of dollars, approaching $100 billion. That is the kind of tax relief Canadians expect from their government, substantial tax relief that will leave more money in their pockets, $200 or $300 a month, instead of the $200 or $300 a year that has been proposed.

Let us look at a family of four earning $40,000. Under this Liberal government's status quo tax regime, that family will pay a little over $5,000 a year in tax. Under solution 17 a single rate tax, it would be $2,000. That is a 60% saving in taxes. That is the kind of substantial tax relief Canadians are expecting from their government when they are looking at huge surpluses.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to be the last speaker in the budget debate.

I sat through the spring session which began on February 7 and it was interesting to think about what it was this budget was trying to accomplish, what the great fanfare was all about. We heard about how wonderful the budget was, how there was going to be tax relief and how every Canadian would actually feel better when they went to bed at night.

As members know and have watched, superseding that we have witnessed in the House day after day questions and serious concerns about the actual financial mismanagement of the government. Of course the Liberals brag all the time about how they are great managers of our money, and yet we saw a billion dollars not go missing or lost, as the HRD minister likes to accuse us of suggesting, but go to many of the wrong places. It has gone for political motivation, maybe buying a seat if someone was in close danger of losing a seat in any particular election.

People have asked me why I have not actually asked a question about the budget. This scandal and the billion dollar boondoggle is the budget. It is about unbelievable spending and unbelievable waste, and yet I noticed in the budget that the government in all government departments will spend $13.3 billion on grants and contributions. That is a pile of money. As people across the country have watched the HRDC scandal and this amazing boondoggle, they have said that they resent working hard, sending their money to Ottawa in the form of tax dollars and then having it disappear to various places.

The question is not whether some of the HRDC programs are good. There are benefits in some of the things that have happened, but that is a debate for another day. What we and Canadians across the country are critical of is this unbelievable waste and unbelievable sense that government has largesse and is free to hand this money out to whomever it pleases for either political or personal purposes.

That is the frustration which I think people feel across the country, and it is probably not just in ridings that are not held by Liberals. I have spoken to Liberal members of parliament who have gone home to try to pump the budget as being wonderful, and yet the question that comes back to them is about the money that is being mismanaged. I think that all of us have been asked that question.

I was at the Alberta Land Titles Registry just before the budget came down. A fellow who was standing in line and did not recognize me or my husband said “Maybe I should get an HRDC grant for this”. We know, if people are hanging out in offices or coffee shops or whatever and the level of discussion from parliament has filtered down to the ground level so that people are using it as buzzwords and saying things like “Maybe I should get an HRDC grant”, that the public is starting to register their frustration. They are saying that it is their cash and they want a few answers.

When the budget talked about tax relief and told Canadians about tax relief, I am not so sure they were convinced. People right across the country are saying “Don't tell me, show me”. They want to see physical proof on their paystubs that they are getting tax relief.

I have to tell members that I have not been swamped in my constituency office or on an airplane or in a washroom at Pearson airport or on Parliament Hill with people saying that the tax relief feels good. In fact I have not had one person tell me that. They are hearing about that tax relief, but they are not seeing it. The government has told them how wonderful it is, but nobody has come thundering down to my door saying “I love this tax relief. It feels so good”.

Let us look at some of the numbers. We were told, with trumpets on budget day, that taxes will decrease $58.4 billion. That ought to feel good. That is a pile of cash. That money is not just going back into peoples' pockets, it means that the circle is complete by not having to send that money to Ottawa in the first place. The finance minister thought that $58.4 billion was wonderful and that people would feel much better and happier.

I have never been good at magic, but what I saw happen that day and in the ensuing weeks was probably one of the best magic acts we have seen in a while. We put our hand in the hat, pull it out and say “Wow, there is $58.4 billion in tax relief”. However, if we look at it, the rabbit that came out of that hat has a different thing to say.

The finance minister said that the $58.4 billion in tax relief was going to be over five years, but if we look at the numbers and scratch a little deeper this is what we find.

Sure, we have the Liberal claim of $58.4 billion in tax relief over five years, but then we have to do the math, the real math, not the new math and not the Liberal math. If we did that we would find that there is a minus. Over five years $7.5 billion will be used for social spending on the child benefit. That is not really tax relief. It is a social program, so we cannot really say that it is tax relief. Off the top we have to take $7.5 billion.

Then of course there is a mere $29.5 billion that has to be subtracted in increased Canada pension plan premiums over the same five year period. If a person was a responsible finance minister or any other member of government they would say “Whoops”. That really does need to be fit into the equation because $58.4 billion is not all that it is trumpeted up to be.

Off that amount we have to take $29.5 billion because with the shell game that the Liberals are playing they say they are giving us $58.4 billion, but they forget to say that they are taking $29.5 billion off in increased CPP premiums. Every single Canadian who is working knows that since the beginning of January they have had a few more dollars snapped off their paycheques in CPP premiums. This could have been an oversight, it could have been an accident, but we do have to figure the $29.5 billion into the mathematical equation.

We have to make another subtraction from the $58.4 billion. There is $13.5 billion in scheduled tax hikes which have been cancelled. There are some pretty hot semantics. “We are giving Canadians an amazing deal. We are giving Canadians $13.5 billion in tax breaks, but in fact”—and this is the new math, the Liberal math—“what we are doing is cancelling what Canadians were going to be hit with”. Canadians really had not paid that money anyway. They would have gotten stuck with paying it if the program had carried on. The government is not really taking this money off taxes. It was going to nail us with that, but decided not to. I suppose that could be called a tax break.

I taught English, not math. Math is not my finest suit, but I could figure that much out. If someone said they were going to hit me with something and then said they were not going to hit me, then I am not really getting a break. I am then told that I will not to be hit quite as badly as planned by scheduled increases. That is not exactly terrific. It is not a tax break.

Let us do the mathematical equation. I have a mathematician sitting behind me, one of my colleagues, who knows his math better than I do and some others in this Chamber. If we take $58.4 billion and subtract $7.5 billion, and then subtract $29.5 billion, and then subtract $13.5 billion, that equals $7.9 billion in tax relief. That is not quite as glamorous as it seemed when the budget was being delivered.

This will happen over five years, so we need to divide that amount by five, which equals $1.58 billion per year. If we want to work that amount down a bit, because that is still quite a few zeros, let us look at it this way. This wonderful tax cut which everyone is bragging about, while they are waltzing around the country telling people how wonderful they are, equals $107.06 per year per taxpayer. If that does not seem quite so glamorous, it equals $8.97 a month or $2.07 a week.

I can understand why people have not been coming like rolling thunder into my office out west to say they are thrilled with $2.07 a week. A person cannot even go to McDonald's on that amount. That is why people are not praising the government for this wonderful tax relief which the Liberals bragged about in the budget.

The Canadian public want straight answers on the billion dollar boondoggle and where that money has gone. Canadians are far more concerned about that than the $2 a week they will be getting with this hotshot tax relief.

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

Madam Speaker, maybe the new Canadian Alliance has some new math, but under the old math of the Reform Party, if we look at its tax plan, it said that in year three it would give $26 billion worth of tax cuts and $26 billion worth of debt reduction.

If we look at the surpluses that are being projected by eight of Canada's leading economists, the way I read it, in 2002-03 we should expect surpluses of $12.5 billion.

This is the same party that was asking for increases in expenditures for the military, the RCMP, infrastructure and aid for farmers. If we add $26 billion and $26 billion we get $52 billion, and then we have to add the additional expenditures which the Reform Party was pursuing. It seems to me that would be quite a bit more than $12.5 billion, which is the amount we would actually have in surpluses. Maybe the Canadian Alliance has some new math.

A person came to my office who was very excited and said “I have heard about Reform's solution 17. If the government would implement a flat tax, I would save a lot of money”. It turned out that under the Reform Party's proposal for a flat tax that person would save 39%.

I scratched a little more and, lo and behold, that person was earning $200,000 a year. I scratched a little more and I compared that with someone under the flat tax who earned $30,000. They would only save 12%. Yes, there was someone who was quite excited about the flat tax proposed by the Reform Party, but they happened to be earning $200,000.

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

That is who they like.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Exactly, those are their supporters. But the poor person and the middle income Canadian would not get the benefit of that.

I am wondering if the Leader of the Opposition could rethink the math on her tax proposal and clarify things for the House, because I think Canadians must be very confused.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Madam Speaker, boy, there is a ramble. If that is how the Liberals do math on the other side I can understand why we have some pretty serious problems.

The hon. member is talking about a tax plan and $26 billion in surpluses. The member would know that the most conservative estimates of 2.5%, 3%, 3.5% in economic growth are very, very conservative, so we have estimated those surpluses probably not quite as hugely or as magnificently as the finance minister. I think he was talking about $95 billion a year.

The member asked me a question about our solution 17. I would like to tell him, as I certainly hope he knows, because I know he does his research well, that WEFA, the economic forecasting think tank, said that the solution 17 which we have proposed under the Canadian Alliance would be absolutely workable. WEFA ran the numbers once, twice, perhaps even three times and said that this would be a workable solution.

I know the hon. member would jump up if he had another chance to be recognized and ask who these people are who we found to come up with numbers the way we wanted the numbers to be. In fact, it is the very same group that does the economic forecasting and think tank work for the Minister of Finance. That group ran exactly the same numbers for him.

I put my faith in solution 17. It has been verified by the very group that verifies the budget, the finance minister's plan. I think if solution 17 were implemented it would be terrific. There would be a basic exemption of $10,000 for person A , and then the spouse would get another $10,000.

What if a person is not married? I was not married for it seemed like forever, but I am now and I love Lew. If a person does not have a spouse, he or she could claim a child as a spousal equivalent. People would get a $20,000 exemption before they would even have to think about paying tax.

I think the couple in Calgary to whom the member referred earlier would be wonderfully blessed by solution 17.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Ways and Means Motion No. 5.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 1254

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.