Debates of Nov. 7th, 2001

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present two petitions from citizens of the Peterborough area who are concerned about kidney disease as a serious problem in Canada. These citizens would like to see the name of the Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes changed. This is our national institute which within the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is responsible for kidney research.

My constituents know that it does fine work, but they believe that it would be better if its name included the word kidney because then the public would understand what fine work it does. These citizens call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in its system to be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, vehicular theft is a serious problem not only in the large urban areas but in many smaller communities as well.

That is the case in my constituency. One person died and another was seriously injured in a recent auto theft. Citizens feel that there is no deterrent through sentences handed down from the courts and that individuals found guilty of vehicular theft causing permanent bodily harm or ultimately death should receive the utmost penalty offered by the courts.

The petitioners call upon parliament to enact changes to the criminal code governing vehicular theft whereby harsher sentencing would be applied by the courts to those found guilty as charged.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition today on behalf of several hundred residents of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, the Burin Peninsula region of Newfoundland and people from all across the country dealing with the tragic and unnecessary death of a 15 year old gentleman by the name of Joshua Doyle. Two young youths have been charged in this incident. One is 15 years old and the other is 18 years old.

The family and many friends of Joshua Doyle are petitioning the House of Commons that the 18 year old who has been charged be tried in adult court and not in young offenders court because the family and friends fear that the treatment would be a little too lackadaisical and not severe enough. This was a very tragic incident where a 15 year old young man lost his life unnecessarily.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by constituents from my riding who feel that Motion M-241 should be adopted by the House. The petition reads as follows:

Whereas Motion M-241, which reads as follows:

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.

is currently before the House of Commons;

Whereas the advisory committee set up by the Société nationale des Acadiens, in its report presented on October 1, recommended, among other things, that the Société nationale des Acadiens continue its representations, so that the historical wrongs done during the deportation be officially recognized by the British Crown; that the motion be sponsored by all Acadian members in the House of Commons, regardless of their political affiliations;

Whereas Motion M-241 enjoys a great deal of support within the Acadian community;

We, the undersigned, are asking the House of Commons to take all necessary measures to ensure that Motion M-241 is finally adopted.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees of the House

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following discussions among all parties I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. in relation to a study of airline and airport safety from Sunday, November 25 to Tuesday, November 27, 2001, and that the necessary staff accompany the members of the committee.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Prebudget Consultations

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke. It is my delight to be able to rise in the House to enter into the debate about the most important function parliament should be providing: oversight of the expenditure of taxpayer money.

We are talking today in a prebudget take note debate. The motion of the government is that we simply take note of the debate. That leaves it pretty wide open. Our leader, the leader of the official opposition, has moved a significant amendment. Besides taking note of ongoing prebudget consultations the amendment says:

and in particular, the need to increase spending on national defence and public security by reducing waste and spending in low and falling priority areas, such as the proposed new Industry Canada-HRDC strategy paper, preserve and accelerate scheduled tax reductions, restore confidence in the Canadian dollar, and avoid falling back into a fiscal deficit.

The hon. Bloc member for Drummond has moved a further amendment. She has added the words “while improving the employment insurance system” to the motion and the amendment. That is what we are dealing with today and I will add a few comments about it.

It is a man thing. We do not like to ask for directions. We will drive around looking for a place. If we happen to find it that is great and if we do not that is too bad. I must confess that another man thing has caught me a couple of times although now that I am in my mature years I am finally over it.

I had a habit of driving my vehicle until the gasoline tank was almost empty. This happened on several occasions. On probably three or four of these occasions my wife asked why I did not stop for gasoline. We were going through a town which had service stations and the gauge said the tank was near empty. I told my wife there was no problem and said we could get to the next town. On three or four sad and, shall I say, emotional occasions I ended up walking for gasoline.

The reason I say this is that when we drive through a town where service stations are ready to serve and then get out into the country and run out of gas, we have missed an important opportunity. That is what I want to emphasize today. The government in its budgetary practices of the last seven or eight years has missed a golden opportunity. I mean that in the truest sense of the word.

There is no better time to pay down debt and get our fiscal house in order than when times are fiscally good. They have been good in the last four or five years.

The finance minister, the Prime Minister and all other members of the government like to gloat and say they are the ones who were so great at managing the economic and financial affairs of the country. They say they have surpluses and have paid down the debt.

However they have dropped the ball big time on this issue, an issue we have heard about in the finance committee over and over again: the need to reduce our debt.

It is important when times are good to get rid of the debt. However the Liberal government, while gloating that it has managed the financial affairs of the country so well, has failed miserably. It has driven through town when fuel was available and run out of gas in the country. How did that happen?

If we ask Mr. Average on the street whether we have less debt now than we did when the Liberals were first elected in 1993, most people would say yes, they have paid down a whole bunch of debt.

I will point something out for Canadians who happen to be listening on CPAC or in the hope that the people in the press gallery will report it. When the Liberals took power in 1993 our net debt was $508 billion. Under their watch the debt grew. Four years later in 1997 it reached a peak of $583 billion. In the last couple of years the Liberals have paid down a bit of it so our net debt is now down to $547 billion.

This is my old teaching career coming out here but I wish I had an overhead so I could show this on a graph. The best I can do is make a picture. The debt grew until 1997. It has since come down a bit. However if we compare our situation now with our debt in 1993, we have a net debt which is $39 billion more than it was in 1993.

We have almost $40 billion more debt now than in 1993. It would not have been possible for any government, no matter how well intentioned, to have stopped borrowing immediately on the day of election. I concede that. It would have taken two or three years for even a prudent government to stop borrowing. However the Liberals drove through town without filling up the tank. They failed to pay down the debt when we had substantial surpluses.

I am miffed about this. When I look at the numbers, I am upset that the Liberals have paid down so little of the debt. By now it should have been down at least to what it was in 1993. It was achievable.

An interesting number threw itself at me when I looked at this. It so happens that our peak debt in 1997 went down by $36 billion to reach the level it is at now. I thank the Liberals. I praise them. I congratulate them for doing at least that. They have reduced the debt by $36 billion.

Do members know what number surprises me? During the same interval the amount of money the government took out of EI contributions minus what it paid in EI happens to be $36 billion. The amount of money the government used to reduce the debt happens to be, to the nearest billion, the same as the amount it took from employers and employees through excessive contributions to the EI fund.

The economy has been rolling. Income tax revenues are way up. Despite its highly effective communication skills the Liberal government has managed to spend all that extra money while taking EI money to apply to the debt. It should have done a great deal more. It should have reduced the debt substantially more than it did.

There is another thing we ought not to forget. During this term of office the government has taken some $30 billion from the public servants pension fund which it managed to spend. It did not apply it to the net debt. It managed to spend it.

Perhaps not all of it belonged to the employees. I argued when the bill was in front of the House that it should have been shared because the employees contributed to it. The taxpayers also ostensibly contributed via the government. However the government took all $30 billion. Where is it now? It is down the tube.

I charge the government with financial mismanagement and missed opportunity.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. I would remind him that in 1993, if I understood the way he couched his remarks, the government inherited a situation which is extraordinary when we think of it now.

We were taking in about $120 billion and spending $162 billion every year. Every year a shortfall of $42 billion was stacked on to the debt, as the hon. member stated. That is almost a billion dollars a week. However the momentum of that enormous debt is something the hon. member mentioned but did not give sufficient emphasis to.

With regard to paying down the debt, the member used the pleasant folksy analogy of driving his car. I have great sympathy with him, particularly because when the price of gas was high I did exactly that. I once ran out of gas 200 metres from a gas station because I hoped it would be cheaper somewhere else.

I will give another analogy of a family which finds itself in a home with an enormous mortgage. It may be no fault of its own but for whatever reason the family has an enormous mortgage and must decide what to do.

We would all love to finally pay off our mortgages. I would love to. Perhaps the member has already done it. The family in this home discovers it must fix the roof. The parents must feed themselves and their children. Their kids must go to school. They need transportation. They need to do a great variety of things in addition to paying down the mortgage.

The hon. member says we should have paid down the debt. What would the member have done? Would he have starved the children, let the roof leak or given up personal transportation? What would the hon. member have done to pay down the debt?

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member's thoughtful question. We would have done just what our plan suggested. I do not know if the hon. member remembers, but in 1993 our election platform included a plan to get rid of the deficit in three years. Zero in three was the plan. That is what the government happened to do.

Our projections were more accurate than those of the finance minister. At the time the government said it could not be done. It said it was bad, anti-Canadian and so on. Our plan was methodical. We would have continued to meet the needs of Canadians in social areas just as the Liberals did when they adopted our plan and implemented it in three years.

The election was in the fall of 1993. That parliament started in the fall of 1994 and lasted three years until 1997. During that time the government did exactly what we would have done and what the hon. member has now suggested.

However we would have done it differently from 1997 until now. That is what I was talking about. A great deal of surplus money was available. All the government did was take money out of EI and pay it against the debt. It managed to spend all the rest.

That is like a family with bills that exceed its income. The budget was finally balanced and the government was earning more than it needed for all the necessities of life.

What did it do? Did it pay down its mortgage as rapidly as it could so it could manage it better when things turned tough? No, it did not. It found new ways to spend it. The kid wants a TV in his room. Another kid wants new hubcaps for his car. The government wasted the money on a bunch of frivolous things Canadians do not generally support. As a result the money used to pay down the debt was about half what the government could have used.

We could have been back down to at least the debt level of 1993. We would not still have to pay, as we are paying this very day, some $40 billion a year on interest. That is a huge drain on government coffers. It prevents us from doing what we should be doing in terms of helping to fund education and health care. It prevents us from looking after the defence of our country, which is such an urgent matter these days.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise in my place on behalf of the people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke to take part in this take note debate on the budget that will be presented later this year by the Minister of Finance.

First, let me say that while we are delighted, we in the official opposition are not surprised that the Minister of Finance has decided to now come forward with a budget document. It has been very clear that since the opportunistic election call of November 27, 2000 the government has been pursuing a leaderless agenda. It is obvious to Canadians the agenda that has been set is the one being driven by the official opposition under the very able leadership of the Canadian Alliance.

Members of the Minister of Finance's party have been saying they are looking for suggestions, not just criticism of the government's lack of leadership. While that demonstrates an ignorance of the role of the official opposition, I am pleased to make a number of suggestions for the Minister of Finance to follow through on.

In reality, the government will only say what is necessary to get re-elected. Remember the broken GST promise? Let us face it, that is a credibility issue for the government. Every day the Liberal PC/DRC GST tax remains in place is a day which the Liberals demonstrate that they are no different from the PC rump that voters said enough is enough to. If the minister had ever truly wanted to demonstrate to the poor beleaguered small business owners who were turned into tax collectors by the government to collect this tax that there is a difference between this government and the last one, he would have cut the GST as promised in 1993.

The minister and his party campaigned on cutting the GST. Well, Canadians all know about the campaign promises of that party and honesty in government, particularly when they look at how the finance minister and his leader have shamelessly embraced the GST, the same tax about which they were so adamant that they would eliminate should they get into government.

Is it not ironic that even the Liberal government's big business friends, in this case the banks, are telling the government to cut the GST. If the past is any indication, usually when the big banks talk, the government listens.

While in the past we in the official opposition have warned of the sellout of the government to big business at the expense of working Canadians, it will be interesting to see whether or not the minister listens to his big business friends. I am sure they expect something for all those political contributions to the party, and I suspect to his leadership campaign coffers as well.

Publicly the Minister of Finance is saying that he would resist any call for an expensive spending package and he is right in taking that position. That does not mean the government should not continue to make stimulative investments in our economy. Nor does it mean that the Minister of Finance should use the events of September 11 and the fact that our economy was already headed into a recession prior to September 11 to continue to avoid paying the federal government's fair share toward health care.

The federal government may now cry that it does not have the money to properly pay for health care, but it is all a question of priorities.

If the government had not spent $500 million, $600 million, $700 million, or whatever the figure is on its hated gun registry, that money could have been available for health care.

In the same way, if the government had not spent the $500 million or $600 million cancelling the PC helicopter contract, only to turn around and purchase the same helicopter for $700 million, that money would have been available for roads, clean water and quality health care with no need to raise taxes the way the finance minister has 63 times since 1993.

When it comes to health care, the fact is that the government is spending less as a percentage of actual spending than it did six years ago.

At 14% of public health care expenditures, the federal government is a long way off from the 50:50 split that was the original agreement when the provinces and the federal government signed the Canada Health Act. It remains $2 billion less than the 18% that the premier of Ontario is asking for on behalf of the province of Ontario and all other provinces that face the same crisis in health care funding.

In my riding, due to health care funding cuts by the federal government, one of the local hospitals in the city of Pembroke was closed. Now the remaining hospital, in its effort to provide quality community health care, has embarked on an ambitious expansion program. Is it fair to ask a community of 15,000 people to raise $8 million for health care service that city dwellers take for granted? Obviously the government thinks its fair by its actions.

We are now raising the funds locally for a CT scan, old technology. We can only dream about an MRI.

The finance minister is well aware of the health care situation in Pembroke as he has two aunts who are locally in our care. The minister should be able to show some compassion and help us to eliminate the two tier health care situation that we have and which is a reality for too many Canadians in rural Canada.

Ontario has done a reasonable job in tackling the chronic underfunding of health care by the federal government because in Ontario good health is a priority.

The down side of this is that while Ontario and the other provinces are forced by the federal government to allocate more and more of their revenues to pay for this underfunding, other areas of importance face cuts. The decision by the federal government to not properly fund health care is having an undesired ripple effect on the people who depend on these services. The Minister of Finance needs to correct this imbalance.

As a mother of four school age children, I know that Ontario's teachers are working hard to provide quality education for students. Teachers tell me that we need to make more public education investments.

It is all a question of priorities. While the government always seems to have money for its pet projects of social engineering, the money never seems to be there for things like health care and education.

In my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke we have a stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway which local residents refer to as the killer highway. The federal government has sadly neglected infrastructure investments in things such as highways. The water tragedies in Walkerton, Ontario and North Battleford, Saskatchewan mean the provinces need the funds to make investments in clean water infrastructure and in the environment.

Communities throughout my riding have been waiting on the federal government to make a decision with regard to the federal share of the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program, money that has already been announced. There is a rumour among Ontario municipalities that since the government has already taken the credit in press announcements for this program, it intends to pull out and not provide any of the promised funding when the program was announced. I hope the Minister of Finance issues a press release with that announcement if that is going to be the case. If not, get on with it. Let the cash flow.

I have had representations from the town of Petawawa for its Trillium Four Seasons Trail project which is an excellent proposal with significant community backing. The issue is one of safety. As well it provides local economic stimulus.

The municipality of Bonnechere Valley is looking for funding to renovate the Eganville and area community arena building. This building has been the focal point of community sports and cultural activity since 1950. It generally needs upgrades such as the ice-making equipment that dates back to 1968.

Nearly all the municipalities in my riding have submitted proposals for water and/or sewage project upgrades, including the towns of Deep River, Renfrew, Petawawa, Arnprior, Laurentian Hills and the city of Pembroke. The townships of Whitewater Region, Madawaska Valley, Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards, South Algonquin, Admaston/Bromley, Sherwood, Jones and Burns and the municipality of Bonnechere Valley have also submitted proposals that would see upgrades to their water and/or sewage facilities.

The county of Renfrew and the township of South Algonquin are looking to repair bridges. The township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan wants to upgrade the fire hall. The township of North Algona Wilberforce wants to construct a salt spill containment structure.

My suggestion for the Minister of Finance is to leave announcements already made in place and start funding the applications in this program.

My next suggestion for the Minister of Finance that promises to pay substantial dividends to the Canadian economy now and in the years to come is the construction of the Canadian neutron facility in Chalk River, Ontario.

My constituents have been told for well over a year now that the project has been approved in principle by cabinet. We are still waiting for the necessary funds that were promised a year ago. This was a campaign promise the minister's party made in the last election to the voters of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke. The people of my riding are watching very closely to see whether or not the minister intends to keep his promise and provide the necessary funds.

It is clear the Minister of Finance will have some tough choices to make in his upcoming budget.

I have not spoken about funding the war on terrorism yet, which will require a substantial funding commitment from the federal government. Many of the suggestions being made are things that should have been done regardless of September 11, such as proper staffing and training for employees at all of Canada's border crossings. Maybe now after years and years of underfunding Canada's military, the Minister of Finance will provide--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member. On questions and comments, the hon. member for Dewdney--Alouette.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, her speech last night on the softwood lumber debate was a good representation from the member, and I have one question which also relates to prebudget consultations.

I am quoting from Hansard , page 7067. The member said: “Noted military historian Gwynne Dyer said recently in a speech in Pembroke that the price of free trade has been a loss of Canadian sovereignty”. I am wondering if this is something she agrees with since she quoted it. It seems to be contrary to the Alliance's position on free trade.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that quote was made in my speech last night to give an indication to Canadians what people out there are thinking.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member on the subject of health care. I heard her echoing the thoughts of the Ontario government that this was a problem caused by the federal government. I would like to suggest two facts and see what her answer is.

First, she may be aware that recently, just before the election, the federal government put an extra $23 billion over five years into health care. This year alone the increase for Ontario was $1.2 billion which was 100% of the increase in Ontario government spending this year on health care. Effectively the federal government this year covered 100% of the increase.

Second, I would have thought that governing was a question of choices. The Harris government chose to have major tax cuts long before it was into a surplus, when it still had big deficits. It is choosing to implement a corporate tax cut of $2.2 billion on January 1 next year. Surely it is equally or more the case that the problems it has in health care are a function of its own rapacious tax cutting long before it got out of deficit.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the accord by the provinces with respect to health care, even with that dedication of money, when the final phase is in place it will still be below the point of funding in 1993.

The Ontario government has done a fabulous job of putting money back into health care. In fact it has shored it up and put in even more than the amount of the federal shortfall. It did this by cutting taxes. Cutting taxes creates jobs. More jobs for people mean more revenue. More revenue means that there is funding for our necessary health care. It is our hope that the government will follow through with its promises and like the economic engines of Canada, Ontario and Alberta, it will continue to cut taxes to grow the economy.