For some weeks during the fall, the government, via the Standing Committee on Finance, consults the public about its needs and expectations in connection with the upcoming budget. Because it is important for the greatest number of individuals and organizations to be heard, the committee in question travels and holds public hearings in the major cities of Canada. And I thank all those who took part in these consultations.

Then February rolls around, and the media start getting involved. Day after day we are exposed to their hypotheses on what good or bad news to expect in the budget speech. The closer we get to D-Day, the more the press and broadcast media abound with rumours and scoops.

Then the Minister of Finance's moment of glory arrives. The cameras are all focussed on him, and while he is releasing his budget to the entire deputation together in the House of Commons, the journalists are writing their stories for the next day's paper, or interviewing analysts who comment on the good and the bad news in the budget.

Year after year, the scenario never changes. Some groups are better organized than others and they are more successful at getting themselves heard by government members. They often retain the services of lobbyists, who are sometimes former members of parliament or former ministers of the party in office.

These groups manage to get themselves heard and some decisions are made in accordance with their representations. For other groups that are often have no voice, or that have no way of presenting their case to the governments, the situation is more critical. Their expectations are never met. These groups are often disappointed by the budget, because their expectations are not met, even though they were repeated in every city in Canada the committee travelled to.

For several days after the budget speech, opposition parties usually ask the government, during oral question period, about anything that was not included in the budget, or about what has been part of the public's expectations for several years.

But this year things were different. Three of the four opposition parties totally ignored the budget brought down by the Liberal majority, because of the administrative scandals that currently exist within the government, in several departments.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and all the Liberal members were disappointed by the behaviour of opposition members, but we had no choice, given the magnitude of the scandals.

In spite of this rather exceptional situation, I am taking this opportunity to say a few words on the budget.

I would be curious to know what people took from the latest budget read in this House barely a month ago. I think the operation held some striking surprises, so disappointing was this budget and in so many ways.

The money set aside in it for health care is not enough to permit the provinces to rebalance their budgets in this field. The federal government ignored the call by the provincial premiers and territorial leaders for a return of the transfer payments to the levels of 1994, and, worse yet, the cuts announced in previous budgets have been maintained. The Minister of Finance decided to put the sum of $2.5 billion, a one time grant, in trust.

There was little in the latest budget for the unemployed. The eligibility criteria for benefits remain unchanged, and seasonal workers will continue to be unjustly penalized by the employment insurance reform. The unemployed have become a real cash cow for the Liberal government. In budget 2000, the government confirms it diverted a surplus of $6.5 billion in 1999-00 and that it expects a surplus of $5.6 billion in 2000-01.

According to the government's chief actuary, the accumulated surplus will reach $31.356 billion by the end of 2000.

It is a scandal that the government is collecting over $31 billion in contributions, not to provide a temporary income for the unemployed, since 60% of them receive no benefits, but first to reduce the government's deficit and then to give the government some manoeuvring room.

Today, we can say that the pot is being used to cut the taxes of the wealthiest and to fund the federal government's invasion of the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, including their jurisdiction over health care, but not to improve the situation of workers unfortunate enough to lose their job.

As a consolation prize, budget 2000 proposes lower premiums but, strictly speaking, the government has given no formal undertaking to this effect. The worst thing in this horrific scenario is that the Minister of Finance calls this tax relief.

In addition, the current EI system discriminates against women, particularly those wishing to take maternity leave. It is true that the government is preparing to increase EI coverage during maternity leave from six months to one year. However this Canada-wide intention is not what families in Quebec have in mind. The Government of Quebec has its own plans, but the Liberals do not want to negotiate. Once again, they have thumbed their nose at the consensus in Quebec.

In response to questions from the Bloc Quebecois in the House, the Minister of Finance is refusing to make any improvements to the EI system. Like the Coalition sur l'assurance-emploi, the Bloc Quebecois has long been demanding that the EI system become a real insurance scheme again and that premiums be used only for the purposes set out in the Employment Insurance Act. But no improvements are planned.

As for social housing, the budget contains only a few scraps. The plan of the minister and the member for Moncton could be called “In search of social housing lost”. Since the early 1990s, those in inadequate housing have paid the price of budgetary restraint.

There is no way $268 million over five years—or $54 million annually—will do the trick. For Quebec, this comes to less than $20 million a year. One per cent of budgets—between $1.6 and $1.7 billion more a year—would have been reasonable. While it would not have met all needs, it would have helped to bring the number of available units into line with today's realities.

In the budget 2000 speech, the Minister of Finance said the following, and I quote:

Secure social programs that recognize that real progress is made by reaching for the top, not racing to the bottom.

Does this mean that his government places social housing and those without adequate housing at the bottom of the heap?

A lot more could be said about the inadequacies of this budget—it will certainly not be one for which the Minister of Finance will go down in history. Most observers are agreed that surpluses will be between $115 and $150 billion.

The Bloc Quebecois' conservative estimate puts it at $137 billion over five years. We therefore think it obvious that the Minister of Finance could have done much more with the surpluses than he did this year. For instance, he could have come up with $3 billion annually over the next five years for an infrastructure program. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance did just what he needed not to get his name in the history books.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the member. Certainly the comments about lobbyists and special interest groups reflected the reality of a democracy. That is why, as legislators, we have to be open to the input of all Canadians and balance the legitimacy of their claims with the needs and priorities of all Canadians.

The comments with regard to health care were appropriate because health care is the most significant priority for Canadians. We know that health care costs will rise in Canada. They are rising already, due to population growth, due to the aging of our society, due to the cost of new technology and certainly the cost of pharmacare.

However, I want to ask the member about EI. It is an issue that continues to come up in this place. The member said that we should return EI to a true insurance plan. Those were her words, a true insurance plan, and the premiums to be used only for the purposes prescribed in the act.

As a statement of principle I would agree with that. However, there still seems to be this question, which should be addressed by all legislators in this place, as to whether EI is meant to be an income supplement program as opposed to income replacement program. The member understands the difference between the two, certainly with regard to seasonal workers. I would appreciate the member's comments on the true insurance plan for EI and how she sees it.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for his question and comments. This is very interesting.

The former Minister of Human Resources Development, the hon. member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, was quoted in Le Journal de Montréal , in February 1999, as saying:

There is no employment insurance fund. Let us be honest. The money was spent. If we no longer have a deficit in Canada, it is because these funds were used as indicated in the budget, for the health sector and for other investments made by the government.

People are told that if they work and have to contribute, it is so that they will have an insurance if they have the misfortune of losing their job. It is so that they can collect that insurance until they can get another job.

In order to make it easier to contribute and have that protection, the government made it a universal insurance. Everyone must contribute, even though not everyone can benefit from employment insurance, because some people are protected by collective agreements and are very unlikely to lose their job, or because there will always be work in their field of activity.

We should have an independent fund to manage the contributions made to the employment insurance program. Since these contributions come from employers and workers, a joint labour management group could look after the fund, like those that manage retirement funds in companies, and that fund could be used by those who lose their job.

A reserve could be built up for bad years, but the fund would truly be managed independently. In some cases, money could be invested to promote employability if an activity sector has no future and it is necessary to retrain people so they can find new jobs.

This would offer much more flexibility than using the employment insurance fund like communicating vessels, like the government's cash cow. Therefore, 60% of the people who work week after week, who put money aside, thinking that they will get help if they have a problem. But they come to realize that they contributed for nothing and that their money was invested in other things.

I think it is outrageous to do this. If an insurance company had done this in the private sector, it would have been taken to court a long time ago for misappropriation of funds.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the budget.

After starving the provinces, Quebec, the population, and the poorest in society in particular, with its latest budget, the federal government is setting the table for a five course election-minded meal.

Unfortunately, not everyone will be invited at its table. Once again, the less fortunate, the homeless, low income earners and those in a precarious situation are not invited.

Moreover, the federal government's menu does not necessarily suit all diets, especially not all constitutions. Also, so much time will elapse between each course that a number of things might go wrong. Naturally, the turn taken by our economy may not be as positive as the finance minister seems to expect it to be.

Speaking of food and calories, according to CGA-Canada, the Minister of Finance has served us a low calorie budget. This organization told us the following:

It is the opinion of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (CGA-Canada) that the Minister of Finance dissipated his efforts in the federal budget unveiled today. The minister's fingerprints are all over this budget, which give a little bit to everyone but not enough in each case. It reflects the prudent, optimistic and clever tinkering the government has become a master at.

That is what the chair of the fiscal policy review committee of CGA-Canada said. He stated further:

The federal budget will modestly lower the tax burden on individuals, especially middle income taxpayers. This year, the tax break for a couple with a total income of $60,000 could amount to approximately $108.

To digress for a moment, the increase alone in the price of oil, gasoline or heating oil this year will go well beyond the basic tax relief families in Quebec and Canada may enjoy. This is not the case just for the first year, but perhaps for the five years provided in the federal government's budget.

The association also observed:

—although this budget sets Canada firmly on a tax reduction course, it could have delivered those cuts faster and deeper if the federal government had curtailed its spending.

This document also refers to the owners of small businesses, and states:

Some of Canada's small business people may like this budget. for example, their tax rate will drop by 7% for small businesses with business incomes between $200,000 and $300,000. But many small businesses do not earn that range of income and won't benefit.

These, in short, were the main remarks of the certified general accountants.

The Bloc Quebecois carried out prebudget consultations in all regions of Quebec. We fulfilled our responsibility as members and as a political party. Then, after the budget was presented, we consulted people as well to find out what they thought of it. When we asked people if they were satisfied with the Minister of Finance's budget, it was pretty clear.

I will quote the main observations made. First we were told “It was smoke and mirrors”. We asked “Were you satisfied with the budget?” They said “No, because there was nothing in it for health care, education and income security”.

They said “No, because the cuts to income tax do not take effect until next year, while the government has the manoeuvring room to cut taxes this year”.

They said “No, because the unemployed and the provinces got nothing”. They said “No, because it is clear that they are going for visibility and votes”. They said “No, because the priorities of Quebecers were ignored; no, because the government is determined not to take Quebec into account when it comes to child welfare and families, although child welfare clearly comes under Quebec's jurisdiction”.

What did the Bloc Quebecois want? Nothing very complicated. We could have easily put together a budget. We were asking for an increase in transfer payments for health, education and income assistance. Quebec is now out $1.7 billion annually. It was therefore important to reinvest in social programs and it is clear that that was what all Quebecers wanted to see.

As a result of this consultation, the Bloc Quebecois called on the federal government to put $3 billion into an infrastructures program, including $1.7 billion for social housing. These requests were ignored. The government is offering a meagre $268 million over five years for social housing.

We also called for an improved EI system, greater accessibility, a larger reduction in premiums, higher benefits, and an improvement in parental leave. What we got was a ridiculous ten cent decrease.

The Bloc Quebecois also called for tax cuts and indexing starting right away, not in 2001, the election year. Indexing is not synonymous with tax cuts.

In addition, when we asked people what they thought the federal government was doing wrong, it did not take them long to answer “It ignores Quebecers' priorities. It continues to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It creates a private, independent trust with which the provinces must negotiate in order to obtain their money. It wants to impose the social union on Quebec when it has refused to sign”. They were also critical of the Minister of Finance for cooking the books: the surpluses are always larger than forecast.

It was clear from the prebudget consultations that people wanted to see four main things in the federal budget. I will repeat them because this is very important. I referred to this briefly earlier, I come back to it and I will come back, if I have time, to the specific cases in the riding of Sherbrooke, to what people, including social and community groups, said when we consulted them.

We cannot say often enough that the social transfer must be significantly increased to enable the provinces to reinvest starting this year in health, education and social assistance. We will keep calling for a significant cut in taxes, for improvements to the employment insurance plan and for a big investment in infrastructures.

The Bloc Quebecois listened to the people, while the federal government decided to ignore people's needs. With the federal government, Quebec and the provinces do not have a whole lot to meet the needs of the people in health care, education and social assistance.

Instead of fully restoring the transfers to the provinces, which have needs to meet, Ottawa is satisfied with a meagre refinancing. The federal government is injecting $2.5 billion over four years, when it should be reinvesting $4.2 billion for this year alone in transfer payments to the provinces.

With the federal budget, the cuts already planned in the transfers to the provinces will be maintained, and half of the cuts will be on the back of Quebec.

Quebec's meagre share of the $2.5 billion set aside by Ottawa is not going to fix things. Furthermore, Quebec taxpayers will have to wait because, for all intents and purposes, they will not see any real tax cut this year.

Indexing for inflation, which costs the federal treasury $3 billion, means only that people will not pay more taxes this year. But the federal government's refusal to introduce indexing sooner, as the Bloc Quebecois requested, means that taxpayers have already paid close to $15 billion too much. Instead of providing tax relief now, the federal government has decided to wait until the 2001-2002 election year to cut taxes.

I will not be able to buy a lot with my tax cut or tax refund this year, certainly not two or three full tanks of gas for my car, but I might have just enough for a nice little toilet down which I will gently flush the Minister of Finance's budget, just so I will feel a bit better.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. Having been on the health committee with him, we have shared some experiences and he knows I have a particular interest in children and family issues.

I was a little surprised by his comment that the Bloc had pushed and asked for improvements in benefits and family leave. He concluded that all we got in the budget was a 10 cent reduction in the premium rate. Actually that is not quite right. I will explain why.

Two years ago I put in a private member's bill, Bill C-204, on increasing maternity and parental leave from six months to a full year. He will recall that in the throne speech, in the Prime Minister's speech and in the budget that program was adopted by the government and included in the budget at a cost of some $900 million in additional benefits for Canadians. I wanted to raise that for him.

I asked his colleague a question and I do not think I got the answer. Maybe he can answer it. Does the Bloc have a position with regard to the issue of whether EI should be an income replacement system and a real insurance program? How would he feel about the whole question of it being an income supplement as it relates to seasonal workers? How will we address this dilemma with regard to EI benefits?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

What we have shared, more specifically, is a round of consultations across Canada, from Vancouver to Halifax, where the Reform Party had asked whether there were inequities for individuals earning the same income, depending on whether this amount was divided between two people or was the income of only one person.

During these consultations on employment insurance and parental leave, a lot of representations were made, which probably inspired the Minister of Finance to introduce some tax relief or programs. These measures might be described as steps in the right direction, but they do not go far enough.

Looking at the limitations of employment insurance, given the number of people who, following the reform, qualify for benefits under the program mentioned by my hon. colleague in connection with parental leave, the vast majority are basically denied employment insurance benefits because they are unable to qualify. Even when they can, these are often poorly paid jobs that do not therefore guarantee a reasonable income on which they could afford to stay home on parental leave.

On the subject of employment insurance, in general, the member mentioned that I spoke of 10%, but it seems to me I said 10 cents.

We can count ourselves lucky if we have a job these days. Ideally, contributions should be as low as possible, while the majority of the people needing them can draw employment insurance benefits.

But, initially, let us set contributions aside. People who work already have the distinct advantage of having a job. I am convinced that, in a spirit of co-operation, people are prepared to contribute to enable those who have the misfortune of losing their job to collect benefits. So the plan must be improved in terms of its benefits.

In this regard, I believe that the Minister of Finance has not gone far enough. He has taken the surpluses and put them in other programs. In the past, the employment insurance plan managed the POWA program, which must come back. Increasingly, businesses are closing their doors, laying off older workers. There are surpluses in employment insurance. There must be a program for older people again.

The employment insurance money must be used for those who have worked. Those who have the pleasure of working are prepared to contribute so that those who lose their job may benefit.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in today's debate on budget 2000. I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe—Grey.

Let me begin by adding my words of congratulations to the hon. Minister of Finance for delivering a budget that charts a course to greater prosperity for Canada in this 21st century. Budget 2000 builds on the government's commitment to better the lives of all Canadians. This is why we are all here. This is why we are doing the work that we are doing.

I am encouraged to see that budget 2000 reflects the concerns of my constituents, the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, who were very much a part of the prebudget consultation process. During meetings held in my riding I heard my constituents, who come from the social agency groups, from community organizations, from small and medium size business groups, say to me that they want government action in three principal areas. They want us to give them some opportunity for tax relief. They want to see some reform to the tax system. They want more spending on social infrastructure and greater economic productivity for Canada.

I was happy to share with them after the budget was delivered that budget 2000 responded to their concerns. The budget is based on four key principles: sound financial management, tax relief, building an innovative economy and investing in skills and knowledge.

Today I will speak briefly to the initiatives in budget 2000 which echo those concerns of my constituents. I will begin with tax relief. The first priority in all the discussions that I held was a tax relief plan in budget 2000, a measure that Canadians have come to expect from the federal government. After many years of sacrifice in order to eliminate Canada's $42 billion deficit, my constituents are beginning to see more of the money they earn returned to them. I was pleased to see that.

My constituents were also pleased to know that budget 2000 introduced a tax reduction plan that will provide real and lasting tax relief for all Canadians to the tune of $58 billion. This five year tax plan is based on two key significant measures which brought changes to the federal tax system. First, the plan will restore full indexation. My constituents were concerned about indexation and bracket creep. Budget 2000 addresses these concerns. My constituents will see the benefits, especially those in the low and middle income bracket. They will see an end to automatic tax increases and an end to the erosion caused by inflation. They will see the results of budget 2000 in deindexation.

Second, the plan will reduce the middle income tax rate to 23% from 26% beginning with a 2% drop to 24% on July 1, 2000.

These changes are real and permanent. They will benefit families with children and low and middle income families in Etobicoke—Lakeshore. It is important to note that low and middle income Canadians in my riding will see their taxes fall by at least 18% and families with children will see their personal income taxes reduced by 21%. This reduction in taxes for families with children is symbolic of the direction in which the federal government is taking in its long term reinvestment in Canada's children.

In addition to the decrease in personal taxes for families and children, the government has made its third significant investment to the Canada child tax benefit. Those of us who sat on different caucus committees were asked to look at the situations of families and at the child tax benefit to see what we could do in that respect. We see an investment of $2.5 billion annually by the year 2004. The Canada child tax benefit will increase maximum benefits to $2,400 for the first child and $2,200 for subsequent children. This is not as high as we can go but it is a move in the right direction. It provides additional funding to support low and middle income families of $9 billion.

Other tax measures in budget 2000 that benefit my constituents are the registered pension plan and the registered retirement savings plan. We will see the elimination of the 5% surtax for middle income Canadians earning up to $85,000. There are several things within the tax relief measures that will benefit my constituents and I want them to know this.

A second area of priority to my constituents is the issue of productivity and the building of a strong and competitive economy. We are living in an urban area with access to the business sector and my constituents want to ensure that we are competitive and that our young people have an opportunity to prosper in the economy.

As Canadians living in a global economy with global challenges and rapid advancements in technology, we are compelled to take advantage of opportunities by developing our country's human capital.

It is the people and countries who excel in innovation, who develop and use new ideas and who use their skills and the tools they need, who will enjoy the brightest future. Canada must continue to invest in research and innovation and must continue to support our small businesses.

At a recent info fair in Etobicoke—Lakeshore we had over 1,000 people participating in workshops to see what can be done and what the federal government is doing to assist small business. I know that budget 2000 will help Canadian businesses to become more competitive internationally by making the tax system more conducive to investment, growth, job creation and innovation. The fair was quite a show and tell in terms of what the federal government has to offer in this regard.

Social infrastructure is another area that the budget has addressed quite strongly because we recognized that it was a high priority for the citizens of Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Canada. Health care and education are also high priorities for the federal government at this point in time.

I want to remind my colleagues also that budget 2000 has committed us to the improvement of the quality of life of Canadians and will support those things that we cherish and hold dear, like our health care system.

In summary, budget 2000 represents a balancing of tax relief and further investments in the areas of priorities to Canadians, such as health, innovation, skills and knowledge. The budget has responded to what we have heard from our constituents. For those of us who are committed to our constituents and committed to bringing their views back to the national level for a response, I think we were all pleased to be able to tell our citizens that their quality of life will continue to be unmatched in the 21st century.

I stand in support of budget 2000. I join with all my colleagues and all those who were pleased that this budget did respond to their concerns.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and I congratulate her on her speech.

One of the things that she did not mention, but one of the things that I believe many of her constituents would be concerned about, is the growing concentration of foreign ownership in this country in recent years.

From the many studies that have been done, there has been a virtual explosion in foreign ownership as a result of the low Canadian dollar and the impact from the North American Free Trade Agreement and other international agreements to the point where many of our leading intellectuals are very concerned about the future and viability of this country. Constituents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore and certainly in Palliser ought to be gravely concerned, especially the young people, whether there will be jobs here in this country or whether they will have to go to New York, Chicago or Denver in order to get work in the head offices that used to be here.

I just wanted to ask the member if she too is concerned about this trend toward foreign ownership in Canada.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Palliser for his question. I know his concerns are very much like my own, which are for our constituents and for employment opportunities for our constituents.

The whole issue of the free trade agreement is almost a two-way street. We benefit as much from that agreement as do our business people who have the opportunity to operate on the other side.

On the issue of foreign ownership, I will respond by saying that we live in a global village. The world is becoming much smaller as a result of new technologies. Our business people are able to move goods and services across borders which has created opportunities for us to be innovative. We cannot really close our doors or pull the drapes down, as I often say, and keep the lights out because there is just no way we can keep ourselves in a situation where we cannot respond to the free movement of goods and services and people.

As I have expressed, as a Canadian wanting to see us keep our sovereignty and not lose a whole number of things, including culture, et cetera, there is, at the same time, a recognition that we are living in a global village.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment for my good friend in the NDP regarding foreign investment. He might want take a look at my own riding of Simcoe—Grey, at the billions of dollars that Honda has invested in a plant, and ask those 3,500 or so employees if foreign investment is a good thing or not.

Aside from that issue from the NDP about countries investing in Canada, I will now address a question to my good friend and colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I must first qualify that by saying that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has truly been a role model for us in the class of '97 insofar as how vocal she has been in caucus and how she has truly demonstrated and carried forward a message, not only from her riding and not simply from Canada but from all across the world, on what the priorities of this country should be, both economically and socially.

Going more specifically to the question at hand, I wonder if the hon. member would, for my benefit and certainly for the benefit of the members of the Canadian Alliance, extrapolate on the benefits of extending the parental benefits from six months to one year, and if in fact she thinks this is a good thing for newborns and infants.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for his compliments. We do work with the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on population and development. We also work with a number of the issues as they pertain to the foreign affairs agenda.

In terms of the specific question, I think anything that would enable a woman to get back into the workplace, anything that would facilitate the nurturing of children, anything that the government, through its policy and through its policy direction, can do that would say that we care about our children in their early years, that a woman can have the choice to remain in the workplace, to get back into the workplace or to be facilitated into the workplace, would be good policy.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today and address what I believe to be the best and the most effective budget speech that has been presented in the House in Canadian history.

Comparing it to previous budgets, there is close to unanimous approval in the House that the budget effectively raised the quality of life for Canadians and, more importantly, for their children. I think that was evident in the fact that the opposition party, the Reform—I have to get used to the new name but I will not use the acronym—simply did not ask any questions about the budget. Obviously, by virtue of that fact, it was in total agreement or almost in total agreement with the budget.

I had a prepared text today to present to the House that identified many incredibly great points for Canadians that were contained within the budget. As I was sitting here listening to my colleagues speak to the budget, I decided to break with tradition, fire that speech aside and talk straight from the heart about process, platform and policies, or lack thereof, from some of the opposition parties.

What I thought I might do first is give Canadians an opportunity to appreciate the process that goes into creating a budget and the amount of grassroots involvement that is involved in creating a budget, the calibre of which we recently saw on February 28.

I should first take this time to congratulate and acknowledge the hard work of my Liberal colleagues from all across this country, the one truly national party.

What happens is, as the member of parliament for Simcoe—Grey, I host exhaustive, extensive and very informative consultations within my riding, from Alliston to the town of Blue Mountain to Wasaga Beach to Collingwood, to allow constituents within my riding to bring forward their issues, directions and ideas on which direction this country should take both economically and socially. Like many of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, we spend exorbitant amounts of time to ensure that Canadians, the people within our ridings, have an opportunity to have their ideas, suggestions and values incorporated in the minister's budget each and every year.

We have had incredibly good and positive ideas come forward from the riding of Simcoe—Grey. However, the process only works if we have a minister who will do two things. The first is to listen. He certainly did that, by virtue of the fact that he presented such an incredibly positive budget, which speaks yards to the amount of involvement that all of my Liberal colleagues have participated in and contributed to.

The second, and equally important, is the fact that he incorporates these ideas, values and economic suggestions about how we might better the lives of Canadians in the budget. Again, the budget exemplifies how he has done that. My hat goes off to him. He has demonstrated over the past seven years a precedent that will be difficult to match. He has offered a balanced approach to governing the finances and the social priorities of this nation. We have truly seen what was at one point a country which was near economic ruin turned into one of the countries that is put on the mantle of the G-7 or G-8 countries. Again, my hat goes off to him for that.

However, the process at the end of the day only works if we have one person who facilitates caucus and members of parliament going to their various regions and ridings and who supports the Minister of Finance and involves himself with the minister's budgetary process. We are fortunate enough that the Prime Minister offers the Minister of Finance that kind of support on a day to day, week to week and month to month basis.

We talk about how the process works. At the end of the day, I believe that the people who we truly have to recognize are the Canadians who have taken the time to bring forward their ideas and suggestions. The key point that many constituents in my riding have brought forward is that they want a balanced approach. They realize that there are those on the extreme left who would have us do one thing. They realize that there are those on the absolute extreme right who would have us do another. What they are looking for is a balanced approach. They realize the gravity of the situation if there is not a balanced approach. The key word from my constituency was balance.

We talked about health care and the need for a collaborative effort in health care. There was no finger pointing, as has been done by the provincial Tories, that it was their fault or how Mr. Klein has said it is their fault. They talked about a collaborative effort. That is what they want. They did not want simply to increase spending, they wanted the provinces and the federal government, along with the municipalities, to work collaboratively to make sure that medicare, the thing we are so proud of both within our country and abroad, is sustainable, accessible and honours the five principles of health care. That is a message that I delivered loud and clear.

We also talked about such things as tax reduction and the absolute need for it, insofar as creating a competitive environment, not just within Canada but as we try to attract investment dollars outside Canada and to ensure that the brightest and best within our country stay here. On February 28, when I witnessed the largest single tax reduction budget in Canadian history, I could not have been more proud and more pleased to know that our country now has the foundation for incredible growth and incredible opportunity.

There were many other issues addressed through my consultation process with my constituents, the third I have conducted since being elected in June 1997. We talked about a children's agenda and, again, the need for a collaborative approach. We need to work with the provinces, the municipalities and non-profit organizations. Our ministers, including the minister responsible for homelessness, the minister for HRDC, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, have clearly indicated that that is exactly what they are going to and what they want to do.

When Canadians across the country are examining the budget and the processes leading up to and after the budget, they have to compare what our policies are as opposed to those of the opposition, or lack thereof. I might cite as an example the new party which was introduced in the House a few short days ago.

I might draw an analogy of how I view my role as a parliamentarian with the role of everyone else in the House, as well as the parties. Quite frankly, I view myself as an employee of the constituents. I believe that I am here to do good work for them. I view the role of the party as being the same. My analogy would simply be this. Imagine if an employer had an individual who for 10 years brought forward an enormous amount of rhetoric, changing from one day to the next, flipping from right to left, doing whatever he or she possibly could to try to satisfy or appease the electorate. At the end of those 10 years the electorate would finally realize exactly what the capacities and capabilities of that individual were. I speak most specifically to incompetence.

Imagine if one day that person, whom we will call Mr. X , walked in and said “It has all changed. My name is now Mr. Y ”. Would that provide some incredible level of comfort? Would that make it better? Has the platform changed? No. Has the party changed? No. It is the same person sitting across the way, with the same ideas, the same rhetoric and the same right-wing policies.

I ask Canadians when they examine that party, whatever the final name will be, to examine it on its platform and on its policies and, going back to my key word, to look to see if it has a balanced approach. I truly believe that this is one of the most balanced and most effective budgets we have ever witnessed in this great House of Commons.

I would like to direct my closing remarks to the future, something which the Reform Party, the alternative or whatever, fails to deal with, fails to focus on. My pledge to the future is simply this. I intend to make sure that from February 29 forward the constituents within my riding, in fact Canadians all across this great country, will continue to have an opportunity to bring forward their ideas, their suggestions and their values so that we might continue on this path of phenomenal success, not only building on the greatest country in the world, but also providing incredible opportunities for young people. That is what we are here to do. We are here to build a foundation. We are here to build a country which will be better off than that which we were handed by our fathers.

When I asked my first question today in the House of Commons about the budget and the focus on debt reduction, I was pleased to see that the Minister of Finance will be focusing on exactly that priority.

I look forward to any questions my hon. colleagues may have.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Hepatitis C.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Simcoe—Grey. I think I got his constituency correct, which the finance minister failed to do in Oral Question Period this afternoon.

The member helped to make the argument which I was endeavouring to make with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore when he referred to the jobs that have been created in the car plant in his constituency. What I was talking about were the head office jobs that are being lost and what is referred to by some as the hollowing out of Canada as the NAFTA kicks in.

The point the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore was trying to make was that there somehow is a balance between our foreign investment in other countries and incoming foreign investment, which is simply not substantiated by the facts.

I would point out that Statistics Canada numbers, after a decade of relative balance of inflow and outflow, in the last two years have been staggering. Last year the imbalance was in excess of $30 billion. A lot of that money is flowing into the country as a result of our cheap Canadian dollar. What we are losing is significant in terms of head office jobs, lack of critical mass and forcing some of our youngest and brightest people to other countries, with the profit flows going out of the country as well.

That is the point I am trying to make on foreign ownership and I would welcome the hon. member's response.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Palliser for his question. I appreciate his clarification, because what he said was investment and ownership, and those are two different words.

I try to encourage many members of the NDP to listen to what economists and people in the country are saying. They are telling the government to build a foundation upon which foreign investment would be welcomed.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member is speaking about white collar workers and the need to maintain and enhance opportunities for them. Based on the fact that the hon. member is representing the NDP, I am quite surprised that he does not recognize that there hundreds of thousands, in fact millions of Canadians, in my riding and in ridings all across the country, who are not white collar workers and who look forward to foreign investment. The people in our Honda plant, the satellite plants that feed it, and the countless thousands of workers throughout my riding and all across the country look forward to foreign investment because it provides good paying jobs.

Insofar as the hon. member's comments regarding white collar jobs, all he has to do is walk through some of the plants and he will see some of the best and brightest in Canada working in the riding of Simcoe—Grey. If he took a ride down Highway 417 and had a look at Kanata, for example, he would see some of the best and brightest in the entire world.

Some of the white collar jobs could be attributed to foreign investment. The reason they are occurring is because this government and the Minister of Finance have created an atmosphere in which investors from all around the world want to put their money in Canada and we are the beneficiaries.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

I am not really happy to be here today. Today is March 29. It is the birthday of my son, who is in Calgary. It is birthday of my grandson, who is in Regina. Very frankly, I would much rather be with my family today than to have to endure the lack of respect that we get from members on the other side.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the budget and the impact it will have on us and on our country in the future. I suppose in that sense I am at the best place for my son, my grandson and my other grandchildren because I am concerned about what is happening in the country and the things we are missing because of the mismanagement of the government.

There has been quite a bit of talk about what a positive budget this is. As I often do, I would like to begin my talk to that crowd of Liberals over there by saying that I would indeed give them a backhand compliment, a reluctant compliment. I know that they have a congenital disposition to spend and somehow they have been able to resist spending all of the money that has come in because of the booming economy of the last couple of years.

First, I do not think the Liberal government can claim any credit for the booming economy. I believe everything that has happened has been despite the government. If we were not next to the very buoyant economy of the Americans who have done things a little better than we have and have thereby boosted their economy, we would probably not be in this position.

Furthermore the prosperity we seem to have is also illusory. Because of the value of our Canadian dollar every one of us has taken a hit that is basically invisible since this government took power by the falling of the Canadian dollar. The value of the goods we purchase is more expensive than what it ought to be when we import goods and services.

What we get for our product is greatly lessened in its value because of exchange rates. That is just a simple fact, and it is one which is not apparent to many Canadians. We are used to calling a dollar a dollar and we forget that the dollar we are dealing with now is worth only a fraction of what it used to be.

Sometimes when I speak to students I apologize to them because of the fact that my generation and I allowed the last 30 years of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments to do what they have done to the country. I sometimes just shake my head in wonderment.

What a rich country we have. We are rich in resources, in mines and in minerals. We are rich in agriculture across the country. We have much potential. We have oil. We have natural gas. We have the ability to produce because we have a very good educational system which will prepare our young people to become productive citizens, whether it is in engineering, in the medical field or whatever.

What do we see? We see a huge debt that has been accumulated over the last 30 years. We get governments like the one we have now that are much more interested in the spin that they can put on it than in what is actually happening, thereby, I feel, effectively putting a blinder on the eyes of Canadians so that they do not know what is happening. Governments sure are successful at their messaging, at getting their message out and making everyone feel good.

This is a feel good budget. This is a political budget. There is much more in it for the politicians, for the Liberal government and for their hopes of re-election than there is in actual fact. Frankly I am very distressed when governments do this.

I have asked a number of people how much money the Liberals put into health care in the last budget. I received two answers. The most frequent one was that they did not really know, but those people who had read the paper and had taken notice said that it was $11.5 billion. This is on the verge of not being factual.

Canadians have been deceived into thinking that there is $11.5 billion in the budget for health care. There is not. The Liberals announced $2 billion that year, $2 billion the next and then three years at $2.5 billion. It was not cumulative. It was the amount that is above the floor from which they started.

I feel so inhibited, having been an instructor and a teacher for many years. I would love to have a graph here to show that. When $11.5 billion per year are added year after year, most people have in their minds the idea that it is increasing year by year.

I do not think it is against House rules to use an imaginary figure as a prop. In fact what has happened is that in the first year they increased it $2 billion. In the next year there was no further increase, so that was $2 billion. Then they added half a billion and the next year there was no further increase, so that was $2.5 billion. In the next year there was no further increase, so that was $2.5 billion.

The Liberals added up all those numbers over five years and communicated that they had put $11.5 billion into the health budget. It will not be finished until long past the mandate of the present government because it was a five year projection. It is very dishonest to do that when we are talking about a one year budget.

There should be a very clear delineation so that Canadian taxpayers can understand what is annual. I think it is good to have long term planning. There is no doubt about it. The further we plan ahead, the better off we are. However, it is deceptive to claim this and then to message it when the facts are quite different. It is wrong in that it lulls the Canadian people into a deep sleep and a sense of happiness that all is well when in fact because of what is happening that is not true.

Let us look at the tax cuts outlined in the budget. The government is claiming $58 billion in tax cuts. Despite my age and my size, even I am tempted to stand and click my heels. It is incredible that we have $58 billion in tax cuts.

Let us look at what it really is. We have $7.5 billion in social spending on child benefits. While the Liberals are talking tax cuts and messaging them as such, they are really saying that they are increasing spending for child benefits. That is not a tax cut. It just is not. It does not reduce the tax bill. For someone who has no children it has no application whatsoever. They cannot claim that it is a tax cut because tax cuts have to do with people who are paying taxes. They are mixing together income and expenditures.

Let us look at the next one. During that same five year period, and here they are talking five years again, Canadian pension plan premiums will go up almost $30 billion. That too is a tax because it is taken from people and it is given, to a great extent, to people other than those who are paying it. To call it an investment, dare I say it, is a falsification. It is not an investment. It is a tax.

Then they are claiming another $13.5 billion. They are saying that if they had not done away with indexation they would have taken that much more tax away from the people. Now they say they will not take it and therefore it is a tax cut. That is absurd.

The whole reasoning of the government is based on political considerations and messaging. The facts just do not bear it out. We will see in the future the effect it has on the economy and on the taxpayer bottom line, on their paycheques. It just does not add up and Canadians will be aware of that.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member opposite. Although he is a member of the finance committee and is normally very learned on these matters, unfortunately he has some of his facts on the budget slightly confused.

When we talk in budget 2000 about $58 billion of tax relief, that is an absolute minimum. If the economy continues at a rate of 3.54%, we will be able to accelerate some of the measures more closely into the years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The $58 billion is an absolute minimum.

Despite the fact that many times in the House many of my colleagues and I have tried to explain to members opposite, they will not listen. The member opposite would like to call the Canada pension plan a tax, but it is a contributions based pension system. It is based on employer contributions and employee contributions which go to a pension trust administered by a board. The revenues do not go anywhere near the consolidated revenue funds of the government. The government has no access to these revenues. They are clearly a program. Canadians value the Canada pension plan and are glad that the government put it on a sound financial footing last year.

Having heard the evidence again that the Canada pension plan is not a tax, would the member be prepared to accept that notion?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no and I will explain why. As I said before, if it were an investment then the person making the investment would have a choice and would be able to get a decent return on his or her money.

The member is asking the wrong person this question. The field of mathematics happens to be my profession. Just for the fun of it, I sometimes solve little math and finance problems just to keep my brain alert around this place when things get dull. I have done these computations.

A young person subscribing to the Canada pension plan can expect around a 2.9% return on his so-called investment. The difference between what that is and what he could get if he were to invest it almost anywhere else in the world is a tax. Quite clearly the premiums are simply making up for the government's total mismanagement. It is not listening to its actuaries and once again is making political decisions with taxpayer dollars. It has done that consistently and it is wrong. I stand by what I say and I will discuss that subject with the member any time he wants.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I hope Canadians are truly listening to the right wing rhetoric of the member of the Canadian Alliance. Let us think about what he was saying.

He picked holes in and wanted to gut the social programs of the government that support low and middle class families who have children. Members of that party do not want to support that. They think that is not an investment and want to keep their tax dollars. It is a lot like their flat tax which will benefit the rich and not those who are in lower and middle class positions. It is absolutely ridiculous.

The member stated for the record that the government should take no credit for the financial picture the country is enjoying today. I simply ask the member to go back in time to 1993, if he can remember back that far when there was a $42.5 billion deficit. The deficit is now gone. Which party in the House brought forward the fiscal policies to eliminate that deficit? That is the only point I want to know from the member.