Debates of Jan. 29th, 2002

The Budget

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. It is a good question because it epitomizes a lot of things that are happening. The Income Tax Act itself has another anomaly which the hon. member did not mention. I am sure he is aware that the income tax is taxed on an individual basis, yet when it comes to qualifying for the guaranteed income supplement it is done on a family income basis. There is an anomaly there which is very significant. It puts certain people in a position where they do not qualify, whereas otherwise they would. That is one anomaly.

The other anomaly is that approximately 250,000 people who are not getting the GIS may qualify. There are different estimates of that. One researcher out of Toronto who did this in a very serious way put the estimate at 330,000 people. There is a discrepancy, but we will stay with the 250,000 to be on the conservative side of the ledger.

The hon. member asked whether it should it be automatic? I am not sure it should be automatic. However, I completely agree with the hon. member that the revenue people should share the information with HRDC. The application form should be automatically made available to seniors so that they know this is something they have received. After all, if they qualify for CPP or old age security those applications are given out six months before the 65th birthday. Why would this not be possible under the guaranteed income supplement? It makes no sense to me at all. Why not be consistent?

The privacy commissioner appeared before the HRDC committee and assured us that it would not be an invasion of privacy. The real issue is why are we depriving people who are legitimately qualified from getting the income that should be theirs?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague on this side. Today I want to talk about the budget brought into the House by our finance minister.

Some members opposite were a little disappointed they were not engaged in questions and comments in relation to their own remarks. We sometimes grow weary on this side of the House in hearing how the glass is always less than half empty and constantly being told that things are much worse off than they really are.

The hon. member indicated that we are in a recession, which I believe is not true. I know it is the career objective of most of the members in opposition to predict that we are all going to hell in a handcart, and doom and gloom is nigh, but the Canadian economy seems to have a bit of bounce left in it. With consumer spending and other initiatives including the fiscal initiatives of the government, we may actually avoid a recession even though our American neighbours may actually experience one. Even that is not 100% clear yet.

However, being that as it may, our fiscal initiatives on the government side, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the finance minister, are placing Canada and our economy precisely where it should be for the benefit of all Canadians. We must remember that the budget and the debate we are having now is part of a larger financial piece that began a couple of years ago after all Canadians had succeeded in placing our government finances in order. In other words, by 1997 we had stopped spending more money than we were raising in tax revenue. That was a huge benchmark. We can all take some pride in having achieved that as Canadians.

There were careers, as you know Mr. Speaker, lost in this House as a result of the need to reduce government spending. Some areas of the country reacted negatively to that. That was perhaps expected but there was no easy way to bring us back into a balanced or a surplus budget without reducing government spending.

There was an attempt to ensure that Canadians better off than others shared that spending reduction right across the country. Inevitably Canadians everywhere had to carry that. We in the House, no matter what side of the House we were on, voted in favour of those appropriations, those spending plans, those estimates and there were political implications for that.

In any event we have come out on the other side and Canadians feel good that we have. The budget is part of a larger piece. We have an ongoing program of conspicuously good fiscal management, tax relief, low inflation and low interest rates. These are all playing their part in the larger program of ensuring our Canadian economy is doing well.

We are succeeding as Canadians and we are on course. We are investing in health care, in research and in security measures, all of which were described in the budget speech.

I want to focus on the fiscal management side. We have not had a deficit in Canada since 1996-97 and for the past five years we have had a balanced budget or better. Our program spending has been reduced to 11.3% of GDP. That is the lowest level in over 50 years. Some people may say that is not a good thing. Some people say government should be spending more on different things. There are lots of things we can spend money on but as a measuring stick we have reduced that spending level as a percentage of the size of our economy to 11.3%. That is the lowest since 1949.

The reversal in Canada's fiscal balance, that is the amount of money we have above or below the line or whether we are in the red or the black, was the most dramatic of any country in the G-7. Since going into a surplus or balanced budget we have been able to pay down about $35 billion in net public debt. That is significant.

Our debt to GDP ratio, the measuring stick used most often by economists, dropped from a high of 70% to 51.8% last year. As we speak the ratio may well be dropping below 50%. That is our target. It will continue to decline on a permanent track. The benchmark used in the European Economic Community for acceptable levels of debt is the 50% mark. We are now just going below that and heading downward. We can take pride in achieving that. It was not easy but we have all as Canadians gotten there.

I will focus a bit on trade. It is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. Trade is a huge component of our GDP. It is something like 70% to 80% of our gross domestic product. It is our lifeblood. Our two way trade in goods and services with the United States exceeds $2 billion a day. There is no trading relationship in the world of that size. Each country, Canada and the U.S., is the other's biggest customer.

We often take a lot of that for granted. That is one of the reasons it was a surprise to some people on both sides of the border that we had to take prompt measures to deal with border traffic during the security problems we have had over the last few months. The Canadian and American governments have responded extremely well. Measures are now in place and in progress to improve border passage and trade procedures to levels that are better than before the awful day of September 11.

Be that as it may, our global trade is improving. Our current account is in a positive balance. It has been for two to three years. It is running at an average of 2.1% of GDP. That is an extremely important indicator for our overall trade and current account health. Economists look at that. I am not so sure traders in Canadian dollars are looking at it directly these days, but if they did they would be more sanguine and positive about the value of our dollar relative to other currencies.

I reiterate the importance of tax relief in the overall scheme of the budget. Tax relief is a stimulant to the economy, especially when it may be weakening. We are in the middle of a four or five year tax relief plan. I think the Minister of Finance is moving it up to four years from five years, but it is truly a $100 billion tax relief initiative. It is huge. Proportionately speaking it is larger than the plan for the U.S. economy which is our largest trading partner. It will be spread over four years. As I say, we are in the middle of it. The opposition says there is not much in the current budget about tax relief, but the program was announced in the previous two budgets and it is in progress.

About all the Minister of Finance can say when he comes into the House is precisely that. It is in progress. Tax relief measured about $17 billion last year and will be $20 billion in the next fiscal year. Overall tax relief measured by percentage for individuals over the tax cut plan will be a 21% reduction. The average is higher for families with children. The average tax reduction for a family with children will be 27%.

There was plenty of stimulus in the government's fiscal position and in the budget if one takes the time to read it. I know members opposite and members around the House have done so. We have low interest rates and low inflation. The environment for business creation and expansion is there. The budget was exactly what the country needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. He did the same thing all Liberals seem to do: overstate the case on the plus side in the hope that people will believe it and trust they are running the financial ship in a correct way.

Some of the statements he made are not realizable by the average Canadian. He talked about tax cuts. The Canada pension plan has been mismanaged by the Liberals since it was instituted in 1966. The original rates were set too low and there was consequently a huge overrun on the liabilities of the fund. That is now being corrected and it is about time. However it has resulted in a huge increased payment for both employers and employees to try to make up the shortfall.

Actual money in the pocket for most Canadian wage earners is not significantly different from what it was three or four years ago. The actual tax reductions are mostly words. Sure, they have been reduced in some areas but in other areas they have increased. The net result is that there is no more money in the economy. There is no more money in the pockets of people trying to provide for their families.

I would like the hon. member to set the record straight. Let us deal honestly with the Canadian people.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will not be a surprise to you to hear that I never thought for a moment I was not dealing honestly with Canadians. Nor was the finance minister ever in that position.

The hon. member raises the issue of the increase in Canada pension plan premiums. That is there. It was projected about three years ago that there would be a gradual increase in Canada pension plan contributions from employers and employees until they reached a plateau where the pension plan would achieve and maintain its viability. It was voted on. The hon. member may have voted for or against it but the measure came through the House approximately three years ago and is in place.

I think he is suggesting that tax reductions going into place in the first half of this year and later this year will be absorbed in part by increased Canada pension plan contributions. That is in part true. However I ask the hon. member and all members to look at the reductions as part of a four year program. Over the four years the tax reductions will total $100 billion. If the member wants to add them up differently and discount and leave things out he is welcome to do that. He has every opportunity to get out the calculator and do that in the House.

My speech is based on how the finance minister calculated this. This is how he calculated it for the whole country. He has been doing it well ever since he has been in the ministry. Canadians have confidence in how he operates his calculator and how he is bringing the country forward.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague on the other side of the House spoke about security, including security at the borders. He should also be aware of the security in airports. Members opposite surely heard this morning that security guards are complaining about having had no training.

Could the hon. member let us know what the government's position is in this regard? Would he support a request to provide training to security guards, the men and women working in airports or other locations, appropriate and standardized training for everyone, so that they are not put to work with a uniform on and told after two hours “You are now a security guard”. I am sure they heard about that this morning.

Especially in view of the new budget, I would like to know if the hon. member would agree that we should have more security in airports and elsewhere.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the united steelworkers are in Ottawa to make a contribution to the debate on the generation of new infrastructure for security measures at airports and in other places. The hon. member is quite right. We need to look at the federal role in this and at upgrading the training infrastructure of security guards across the country. The debate is ongoing. The transport minister has an eye on the issue as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have the chance to speak to the government's fifth consecutive balanced budget. Let us think about that for a moment. It has had five consecutive balanced budgets.

During or before the 1993 election who would have believed we would come to the point in such a short time, eight years, of being able to talk about surpluses and five consecutive balanced budgets? During and before the 1993 election people said to me they would not see the end of deficits in their lifetimes. They said we would never have a balanced budget because things were so bad, deficits were so large and the problems were so great that we would never get there.

It took a lot of sacrifice. Canadians all shared the pain of that sacrifice but amazingly enough we got through it. We are better off for it. The economy became stronger because of it. Because the government was no longer constantly borrowing new and greater sums of money each year the governor of the Bank of Canada was able to lower interest rates to a point where they are now around 2%. This should help us through what is now a time of economic uncertainty. If we still had huge deficits every year the government would still be borrowing huge amounts of money every year.

When the government borrows enormous amounts of money on the money markets it means there is less available elsewhere or it must raise interest rates to attract investment in those dollars and get people to buy its bonds. This causes interest rates to rise. Having our finances in order is a huge improvement. It has helped a great deal in improving our economy and is getting us through what is now a difficult time.

Let us talk about that time. Let us talk about the budget of December 2001 and put it in context.

As we all know, last year on September 11 we saw an awful and horrendous event. It had human repercussions and took a terrible human toll on New York and on families around the world whose members were killed. However let us also remember that it had an economic impact. In bringing forth its budget in December it was the responsibility of the government to deal with both the economic impact of the events and the economic climate that was already occurring. Last summer we saw somewhat of an economic softening and the beginning of concerns about our economy. This was added to a great deal by the events of September 11.

When we look at what was done in the budget we must remember we were in a time of great uncertainty. There was great concern in Canada about the possibility of further attacks. Can we be absolutely certain there will be no attack of any sort today, tomorrow or the next day? Of course not. However it is important for the government to take the best steps it can to prevent such attacks by investing in the equipment and measures that will make air travel and our borders more secure.

What did the government do in the budget? First, it provided a timely and necessary boost to our economy. It invested in Canada. The government announced in the finance minister's budget that we would have a strategic infrastructure foundation. The foundation will boost the economy and respond to the needs of communities across the country such as my own community of Halifax, Nova Scotia.

During much of last year I spoke of the need for the Government of Canada to help out and invest in the cleanup of Halifax harbour by way of the Halifax harbour solutions project. For 250 years or so untreated sewage has been flowing into Halifax harbour. It is a disgrace and an embarrassment for Halifax. It has also become an important environmental problem for the nation. Problems like it need to be addressed across the country, especially in major centres. They need a new kind of flexibility which the foundation provides.

In the past the infrastructure program required that each level of government contribute equally. One-third, one-third, one-third was the typical shared funding approach in each case. The great thing about the new foundation is that it is more flexible.

For instance, in the case of Nova Scotia and the Halifax harbour solutions project, the province has said it will not take part in or support it. That is alarming to me and very disappointing. I hope the province will reconsider and come to realize that it is important to invest in the Halifax area, not just in the rest of the province, which I recognize is also important.

However the Nova Scotia provincial government is rurally based. Most of its members are in the rural areas. It is important that the government also pay attention to the problems in Halifax. One of the big ones is the need to clean up the harbour. I hope it reconsiders its view on this and comes to the table and shares in the investment in that project.

However the great thing about the Strategic Infrastructure Foundation is that it provides more flexibility. It does not insist on a one-third, one-third, one-third sharing. There may be opportunities to do things a little differently directly with the municipality, the city itself, to solve this enormous and very important environmental problem.

The budget also builds personal economic security by keeping us safe as Canadians, by keeping terrorists out and by keeping our borders open and efficient. Some may ask why are we so worried about investing in keeping our borders efficient. Let us consider that something like $2 billion a day in trade crosses the Canada-U.S. border. More important, consider the millions of Canadian families whose incomes are reliant upon our products being sold to the U.S. Maybe then we can begin to understand how important it is to keep the border open and maintain the free movement of goods from Canada to the U.S.

It is not just a question of pure economics. It is a question that can hit home to families all across our country. My province of Nova Scotia has Michelin Tires, a company that exports a great deal to the U.S., as well as many of the fish companies.

I do not want to give the impression that our economy is commodity based. This raises the question of the dollar these days. In fact, in Nova Scotia resource industries are much less a proportion of our economy than they used to be. What is a much larger part of our economy right now is the offshore industry, which is a resource industry, but more important it is the fabrication of oil and gas platforms and the building of offshore supply ships. A whole sector of the Atlantic economy now is beginning to boom and has a great opportunity to take off in the next few years.

It is of great concern to me that the government may be looking at negotiations with the EFTA countries, members of the European free trade association who are not in the EU. That includes Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. My concern is that as part of this deal we potentially could see a removal of the present tariff on ships and marine structures coming into Canada.

At the moment it is preserving for Canada the benefits of our offshore industry. This extends across the country because suppliers in other provinces are supplying these companies. Companies in our regions that are building these platforms and supplying goods to the offshore industry are doing a tremendous business. It is just beginning and it is creating a great economic boom in Halifax, Saint John and it is spreading across the region.

It is important that we maintain that. I hope the government will ensure that in any negotiations with the EFTA countries it preserves that tariff and the industry to ensure that Canadians will benefit from the development of our offshore. That is a major concern in my area. I am looking forward to the government responding to that concern as I am sure it will.

Another aspect of the budget is that it keeps our finances healthy. I talked about the fact that it is the fifth consecutive balanced budget in the history of the government. How long had it been before that? It had been something like 25 years since there had been a balanced budget. That is a sad fact, but it is important understand the context of the accomplishment we have achieved in balancing the budget. We have a balanced budget again and another one next year. It is important that we keep balancing our budget in the future.

I hope hon. members will agree with me and will support the government's budget.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, three things bother me a great deal. Perhaps he could help me out, being a member on that side.

Just before September 11, on both sides of the border, Americans and Canadians screened people and they were given cards whereby a 12 hour port could become a 24 hour port. The system has worked so effectively. There is an electronic device, they show their card and so on. That has been cancelled. However that action has cost Canadians hundreds of thousands of dollars. They can no longer cross there. They have to travel further to get to another port.

Why can I not get a response to that item because it could be solved. These people on both sides of the border are honest people.

Another thing I would like the hon. member to comment on is this. It is wrong to deduct EI from kids who work a two hour shift at a Dairy Queen. They know very well that they can never collect it. That is totally wrong.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the question of the member for Souris--Moose Mountain with regard border and electronic cards, I think he would agree with me that it is important that we keep the border open. Obviously he recognizes that. It is important that the government continue to look for ways to do that. If electronic cards were being used in the past then they may be the answer. However it is important to keep looking for ways to overcome any concerns the American government may have about the use of those cards or about how those cards are assigned.

That is one reason why the government has invested more dollars in security, including dollars for security clearances and for the RCMP and CSIS to look into not only people who are coming into the country but also to ensure that we find terrorists who might try to operate from our country.

On the question of employment insurance, it is important to understand that we have a system which encourages employers to hire part time. However, if we say to them that they will only have to pay premiums for someone who works more than 15 hours a week, then the incentive is there for them to only hire people part time. People need to have full time, regular, good jobs with good benefits. That is so important to people, and it is important to have an incentive for that.

He makes a good point about the students and the impact on them. Let us remember the overall impact of this is an important and positive one.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member's commitment to his area and his province. I was somewhat surprised to hear him commend the finance minister for having succeeded in balancing the budget. He could also have talked about the surpluses.

I would like him to comment on the fact that $40 billion was saved during the same period through cuts to employment insurance; that $35 billion was saved during the same period through cuts to transfer payments made by the Government of Canada to the provinces.

I know that his province, Nova Scotia, like other maritime provinces, is suffering as a result of the cuts to employment insurance; it is also suffering as a result of the cuts to transfer payments to provinces. How can someone like him, so committed to his province, commend the government and his party for having done that?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the people in my part of the world, the people of my province, see themselves as victims. I think they are proud to be Canadian, proud to be Nova Scotian.

They realize that some hard things had to be done to solve Canada's financial problems, that budget cuts had to be made, that changes were necessary. In my riding, there is considerable support for the changes to EI.

Certainly, there were some who were against it. At the same time, however, it needs to be understood that the changes were necessary. I think most people know that the system needed changing, needed some reforming, some transformation. People in the provinces, in Nova Scotia for instance, also know—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying how pleased I am to be able to speak to the House of Commons on the budget of the Minister of Finance. I would also like to say how distressing it is to see my colleague over there, who comes from the maritimes, boasting about five surplus budgets since 1993.

This is not the first time I have said such a thing in this House, but this surplus has been created at the expense of workers who have lost their jobs. The Liberals say in this House that the people of Nova Scotia are pleased and understand there has to be some belt tightening. This is unacceptable, and what is more, it is not the truth.

I remember what happened in the 1997 election, when almost all of Nova Scotia elected not one Liberal to the House of Commons. They were not pleased with the Liberal government's cuts. In 1993, before being elected, the Liberal leader, now Prime Minister, said that the Progressive Conservatives ought not to have made the cuts they did to employment insurance.

The hon. member opposite, from Nova Scotia, should stay in the House to hear my speech and listen to what I have to say. During the last election, the Prime Minister said himself that EI needed changes because he had lost support in the Atlantic provinces. So how can the member stand in the House today and tell us that the people of Nova Scotia are happy?

I am sure that what goes for Nova Scotia goes for New Brunswick. Most of the time, people work seasonal jobs. Maybe it is because the member lives in Halifax that he is defending this position. He should go to Cape Breton and see if the folks are happy. He should go to Cape Breton, to the Gaspé Peninsula and to where I come from, the Acadian Peninsula.

On September 11, tragic events took place in the United States. Everyone was shaken by this. However, there are tragedies taking place every day here in Canada because of the Liberal government's cuts. People are committing suicide. Instead of planes slamming into buildings, bullets are being fired into peoples' heads because they are unable to provide food for their family.

The Liberal government itself turned around and went and bought boats to solve the problem of the aboriginal fishery. That is one thing that I agree with. It provided shipmasters in the crab fishery $2.5 million. It gathered the fishers and those who worked on these boats, the deckmen, as they are known, and laid them off, forcing them onto welfare. That is what the Liberals did.

About 15 minutes before I was to give my speech, people from my riding called me to say that they were worried because they no longer qualified for EI.

The member from Nova Scotia has the nerve to rise in the House and say that the people of Nova Scotia are happy. It is disgraceful the way the Liberal government goes after workers who have lost their jobs and tells Canadians that they will have to tighten their belts. It is not Canadians who are tightening their belts, but the men and women who have lost their jobs. The Liberal government promised changes to the EI legislation.

During the 2000 election campaign, it promised amendments to Bill C-44 with Bill C-2. The Liberals said that we should pass the bill quickly because other changes were in the works. All parties in the House of Commons made recommendations to the House and to the minister. The Liberals, who were elected on the strength of their promises to make further changes to the EI legislation, made recommendations as well.

The member for Madawaska—Restigouche was elected on the strength of this promise. The member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, the son of the former Governor General of Canada, said that if he were elected, he would make changes to the EI rules. He has not made even the tiniest change since being elected, nor has he said a word about it.

It is not enough that they have gone after EI recipients. Now they are sending out forms. As the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Halifax know, the government is now sending out forms to disabled individuals so that they no longer qualify for tax credits. Everything is done on the backs of the least fortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention that I would be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I did not wish to forget this, nor do I wish to speak for 20 minutes. I think that ten minutes will be all the Liberals can take.

The Liberals have the nerve to say that they are happy that there have been five budget surpluses, which were obtained at taxpayers' expense, not to mention the cuts imposed on the provinces. They could have said “We will use this budget to start taking care of the economy. We will help the disadvantaged, we will help small and medium size businesses. We will help people find jobs, we will put them to work”.

But no, they prefer to boast, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, about having a surplus, when people commit suicide, when families have no money, when there are no transfers to provinces. Social assistance benefits were not raised; no premier is willing to raise them to give money to the poor. Some 1.4 million children go hungry in Canada. Eight hundred thousand persons cannot get employment insurance benefits. Meanwhile, the Liberals are boasting. Shame on them.

Shame on those who come from the Atlantic provinces and praise the Liberal government. What the Liberals are doing today is shameful for Atlantic Canada, it is shameful for Canada. It is utterly shameful.

The issues that I mentioned are human realities. They are things that people are confronted with on a daily basis.

Last week, I met fishers to whom the government said “Buy boats, to the tune of $2.5 million, but we are not responsible for dockhands working on these boats. Get organized now. Contact the Department of Human Resources Development”. The fishers went to the Department of Human Resources Development and were told “This is no longer our responsibility. We have agreements with the province”. Then the province said “What do you want us to do with them? They have to do like the others and go on welfare”.

What a nice transfer. This is how the issue is solved. This is how they solve the dispute between the two peoples, the whites and the aboriginals. The Liberals truly did a great job there.

So I hope that, in their budgets and in their thoughts, they will begin to show greater sensitivity than they have done so far. They must stop boasting about having asked Canadians to tighten their belts. They did not ask Canadians to tighten their belts: they did it for them. They robbed the workers who lost their jobs. They even bragged about having surpluses. This is highway robbery. The biggest robbery in Canada's history was committed here in the House of Commons by the Liberals.

Some people leave their families behind to find work. They are forced to go out west. Children are crying, because they want their daddies back home. When they do go home after six months, the federal government sends inspectors and investigators who make them lose their employment insurance benefits. It is despicable for the Liberals to do this instead of doing what they said they would.

Prior to 1993, before they were elected, the Liberals were telling Brian Mulroney “That is not the way to solve economic problems. It is not done by picking on the little guy who has lost his job, it is done by boosting the economy and putting people to work”. That is where the Liberals did not meet their responsibilities when they did get elected. Today they are boasting “Yes, but we have won elections”. Still, they have a human responsibility. That responsibility is to get people working. When people do not have work, the Liberals have a responsibility to help them meet their needs, as they said they would while campaigning.

Thirty-five days before the election, they were prepared to give Canadians anything. The day after the election, they were prepared to take everything away from them, and they have continued to do so for three and a half years. It is shameful to see the suffering and discord they have caused for families. In my opinion, what is going on in Canada under the Liberal government is worse than the events of September 11. It is shameful. I could never repeat this enough.

The Minister of Finance knew there had been a recommendation from all parties. My colleague from Madawaska--Restigouche has been on the committee. So has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development. They have all made recommendations, including the Liberals. They knew that a change was needed to help Canadians out.

Hopefully, my colleague opposite, who comes from Nova Scotia, will rework his speech and next time, will not praise the Liberals, who deserve no praise for making Canadians suffer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. member's comments. It seemed that we were in question period with such riled up puffed up anger being displayed. I am not sure it was actually sincere but that is for him to determine.

He asked about EI. He said first of all that I was claiming that everyone was happy with EI. That is not what I said at all. People were concerned about the changes to employment insurance. That is why last year changes were brought in by the government, as the member knows but wants to conveniently ignore right now.

Let us talk about the fact that he wants the government to spend, spend, spend. He does not think that the government needed to do any of those fiscal changes to bring our budget into balance, to get our finances in order, to get our debt down a little bit, which is saving $200 million every year for our taxpayers. The NDP would sooner have us have huge deficits, a huge growing debt, less ability to pay for health care, education, transfers to provinces, et cetera, and enormously high interest rates. What would that do to families in his riding, in my riding and all across the country? What would that do?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what happened to the Liberals of 1988 to 1993? When they were on this side of the House they made the same speech that I made today.

What happened to Doug Young when he said they had to fight against changes to employment insurance because it would be a disaster for New Brunswick? He knew at that time we had seasonal work. I have said that many times in the House of Commons. It is the same thing for Nova Scotia. We cannot get codfish under Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal. We cannot cut trees in the middle of Yonge Street in Toronto. This work is done at home by the seasonal workers. The Liberals said that they would not cut EI, that they would not do it.

I am not saying the government should go to a big expense, but I am saying stop scaring the working people. It is fair to say that. The Liberals when they were in opposition made the same speech as the one I made today. The Prime Minister made the same speech too.

Do not take it out on the small people. Work on the economy and put people back to work. That is what will create a good environment for Canadians. That is what was said.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing here is a plea straight from the heart. The member needs to catch his breath, his face is so red that he is worrying me. I know that his appeal comes from the heart, and I respect that.

I do not want to make him repeat it, but in the case of a series of broken promises or a government that does an about face once it has been elected, particularly when it can be proven, would the member support a parliamentary measure that would require those responsible to appear before a special committee?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good idea. There are parliamentary committees.

I would like to come back to this and say how despicable it is. There was a parliamentary committee and everyone agreed to changes to be made to EI that would help Canadian families, and the Liberals refused to act on them. They even voted against them. They went against them when they themselves knew that these changes were needed.

The problem is we need to get the Minister of Finance to stop bragging. He tells us all we need to do is tighten our belts in Canada, yet he himself does not even pay taxes in Canada. How he can boast? How can he ask us to tighten our belts when his own companies are not able to pay their taxes? He should find the money from the pockets of the rich and help ordinary people. That is what would help Canadians.

I think that such a committee would be a good idea. At least Canadians would get to hear the truth. We could expose the people who really abuse the system. I say that the real abusers are across from us here in the House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst for being a consistent champion on behalf of people on the issue of EI. No one in this place knows the issue better than he does and no one is more passionate in their advocacy than he is.

I would ask him one thing. The changes to EI pulled $20 million a year out of my riding of Winnipeg Centre alone. What is the impact, the dollar figure per year, of the changes to EI in the riding of Acadie--Bathurst?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In his riding it is $20 million a year. In my riding it is $69 million a year. It is $69 million a year that the small and medium sized businesses are losing. These statistics are done by Statistics Canada. I hope the government will agree with Statistics Canada because most of what they get done is through Statistics Canada. With a loss of $69 million can you imagine how many businesses went under?

It is $42 billion across the country. It is $69 million for only my riding, but $42 billion--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Réginald Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I must now give the floor to the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this debate, particularly following the speech made by my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst who spoke with so much passion on issues affecting the human condition.

He truly does speak the truth regarding the federal government's inaction and the negligence of the Liberals, who are not prepared to deal with Canadians' needs as soon as possible.

My colleague from Acadie--Bathurst has addressed very clearly the fundamental issues dealing with Canadians that oblige the federal government, those members across the way, to act in response to those needs.

We are talking about institutions, programs and ideas that bind the country together and give us our identity as Canadians and that respect our values of caring, sharing, compassion and co-operation. We heard today from a member who is absolutely immersed in the issues facing unemployed Canadians today, those who have depended upon a sense of decency and morality from our government in terms of protection during times of unemployment for which they are not responsible. We have seen how the government has turned a blind eye and has refused to address those concerns and to ensure sufficient funds in the budget to protect workers and to deal with growing unemployment and economic insecurity.

Just as important as the question of a national unemployment insurance program, which is part of who we are as Canadians, is the question of medicare. What can be more important in terms of defining who we are and what is important to Canadians, and what begs for more attention from the government than the issue of health care?

How can those Liberals sit here today given what has happened on the health care front over the last few days and weeks? It threatens medicare and creates looming dangers for our most treasured national program. How can we sit here, how can they sit there, and not address those concerns? We are at the crossroads for medicare. Do the members opposite not get it? Do they not see the need to leap up and address those concerns?

We are in for the fight of our lives. It is time that the government recognized its role and responsibility in preserving Canada's most treasured national social program and in ensuring that every Canadian has access to quality health care services no matter where they live in the country or how much money they earn.

The budget we are dealing with basically ignored the number one issue in Canada. What did we get from the Minister of Finance's address last November on the budget? Two minutes for health care. Two minutes for the number one issue of Canadians. How much money did he promise Canadians in that budget for health care? It was a measly, crummy 2% of the increases that were introduced in that budget. What a shameful position for the number one issue in Canada and for a program that is on its deathbed unless the government gets off its butt and starts to act.

It is time to act. It is not too late. If the government did not get the message before it should have this past weekend, when the premiers of the country, the first ministers of provincial and territorial governments, got together with one voice to say to the Liberal government that it has shortchanged them, that it has not done its fair share and that the government owes it to the people of the country to at least restore the money it grabbed out of health care in 1995 and start to put us back on a co-operative footing in dealing with this very important issue.

Funding obviously is not the whole answer, but it is certainly one part of it. It is certainly key in terms of the very unstable footing that medicare is on today. The budget was an opportunity to correct the funding slippage that underlies much of the provincial discontent we are seeing all around us. It was a way of signalling to all Canadians that the federal government takes seriously their concerns over health care. It was a way to tell the provinces and territories that the federal government is listening, is willing to work as a partner in establishing a new foundation for the future of public health care, and that it merits a national leadership role in discussions of how financial resources ought to be allocated.

It was, for goodness' sake, an opportunity to strengthen our ailing acute care system and to flag a federal commitment to address a broken promise to put in place much needed national home care and pharmacare programs, initiatives that could be developed in good faith with the provinces. The provinces have just sent a clear signal to the government that they want a national approach. They want the government to act and they are taking action into their own hands because of the abdication of leadership by the government and the complete abandonment of health care to Canadians and provincial and territorial governments.

It goes without saying that we cannot change the way we deliver health care without paying the movers, without financing the costs of change. That is what we expected in the budget: a way to move our costs for the health care system into a more innovative, cost efficient method of delivering health care. That takes federal leadership and vision. There is none coming from the federal benches across the way that is apparent to us.

Goodness gracious, we know about the finance minister's brief, almost insulting mention of health care in the budget address last November. We know that the former Minister of Health basically abandoned this field and will go down in history as the minister of unfinished business. Now we have a new health minister who has the audacity to mutter out loud, to speculate out loud, about the advantages of opening up the Canada Health Act and about the benefits of private delivery models.

Today Senator Kirby comes down with another report, Senator Kirby, who is in a direct conflict of interest position because of his ties to private health care businesses like Extendicare and who has no business heading up any kind of discussion and dialogue about health care in the country. Today of all days we need the government to stand up and say “We are absolutely committed to the principles of medicare”. It should not just stand there and say it is joining the hallelujah chorus. We need more than hallelujahs from the Prime Minister. We need some action. We need some programs behind those words. We need some leadership. We cannot just sit back and let it drift and let the situation unfold, because that is when private forces mobilize. That is when right wing provinces will want to use this time of weakness of the federal government to advance their right wing agendas. We cannot let that happen.

That is why it is so important, today of all days, for the government to address the question of budgeting and of moving toward at least a 25% share in health care. The provinces have asked for at least 18%. My goodness, whatever way we look at it we are a long way from the 50:50 partnership that built health care in the country and we are a long way from doing what Canadians want us to do.

We have a $12 billion surplus today. Do they mean to tell me that the government cannot come up with $7 billion to the provinces and the territories to ensure that we are at least able to meet the looming crisis and guarantee adequate access for Canadians right across the country? Do they mean to say that with this kind of budgetary surplus the government does not have the commitment, the wherewithal, the vision and the determination to address the number one issue of Canadians?

The challenge for the government today is to get off its high horse, get out of its confined position and say “We can turn this around today. We will address our wrongdoing of the past and this budget will see supplementary money allocated for health care and will see transitional funds put in place to help provinces deal with the kinds of difficult situations they presently have while we wait for the Roy Romanow commission”.

The government has no business saying it will put everything on hold until November 2002. We cannot wait. The crisis is almost upon us. The clouds are looming around us. We must act. The federal government owes it to Canadians to put the money on the table to ensure that medicare is sustained, preserved and protected for today, for tomorrow and for all future generations.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. Ever since I have been a member of parliament health care has been the number one priority of Canadians.

It is important to get away from the provincial rhetoric, particularly that of Ontario, suggesting that somehow we put in only 14 cents on the dollar. The fact is, and I want the member to acknowledge the fact, that the federal government and the provinces did meet and did agree upon a funding formula and that in fact, even though the budget did not specifically identify any additional money over and above that five year agreement, there was significant new money in the last year for health care.

On top of that, as an example, in the province of Ontario last year, of the additional $1.2 billion spent on health care, $1 billion of that spending was as a result of additional moneys coming from the federal government. The provincial government did not pay its fair share into health care.

The member should, first, acknowledge, I hope, that there was an agreement between the provinces and the federal government for funding, and second, that it is very clear some of the provinces are not doing their share and that mismanagement of the health system is the responsibility of the provinces and the target is the provinces.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. He has been spoon-fed a line by the finance minister and other cabinet front benchers who have not told him the truth.

The truth is that the last increase was in September 2000. That money did not even make up the difference between the 1995 cuts and the previous federal share.

In the last budget we saw a tiny bit of money allocated for a few specific projects but there was nothing for the base of health care. There were no changes to the transfer payments. That is precisely why the premiers have been asking over and over again for the federal government to restore federal health funding through the CHST to at least 18% and introduce an escalator clause. If that does not set the record straight, I do not know what does. That is precisely what the government needs to do. It needs to recognize that its 11% or 12% share of health care funding is absolute peanuts. It is ridiculous, crummy, lousy. This has to be addressed.

The member is quite right in pointing to some provinces that have mismanaged the health care system and may be giving away health dollars in tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich. Starving all the provinces into submission with sick and ailing Canadians as the victims in this war of finance ministers and this jurisdictional dispute is not the solution. The solution is to ensure that the federal government plays its role by providing its proper share of funding for our health care system and showing that kind of leadership to build for the future.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has to acknowledge that if she is dealing just with cash, she may be able to come up with a number such as 14 ¢, 18 ¢ or whatever she thinks it is. She fails to recognize that we transfer taxing authority to the provinces to make up the additional amounts. As well, the federal government is directly responsible for aboriginal health care. It is also directly responsible for prevention programs dealing with tobacco, et cetera. When we add the federal government's contribution to the total cost of health care in Canada, its contribution is 45 ¢ on the dollar.

The member should acknowledge that she is playing games with numbers. She should admit it right now.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not playing games. I am presenting the facts. If the member does not want to take my word for it, he only has to listen to the words of every first minister of every provincial and territorial government in Canada. They all said with one voice that the cash portion is critical. It is the key one, the glue which holds our system together. It is the basis upon which our medicare model is sustained. That cash portion has dropped to a dangerously low level. The government has only injected funds to bring it almost back to 1995 levels.

A lot has happened in seven years. Health care needs have changed. The provinces have dealt with more and more of the burden. The real share of the federal government is about 11% or 12%. That is the record. That is what has to be changed.