Debates of Dec. 10th, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the subamendment lost.

The next question is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is, therefore, on the main motion.

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

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions government orders will be extended by 44 minutes.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, in a way this is now somewhat redundant since I was hoping to have my motion up before the vote. However, I would still like to do it and I request that you hear me out, Mr. Speaker.

It has to do with question period today, in which we asked numerous questions on the Kyoto accord. In every instance, the minister and the Prime Minister gave answers that were very obscure and very indecisive.

I know that there was an extensive point of order before, and I do not have a whole bunch of quotations from M and M and all these other references we might use, but the House passed a motion a long time ago which stated: “That, before the Kyoto protocol is ratified...there should be an implementation plan that Canadians understand, that sets out the benefits, how the targets are to be reached and its costs”.

In questions today, in every instance the answering minister indicated that he had no answers, and in fact that all of the conditions of this motion, which was passed in the House, have not been met.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my plea would have been that you not conduct the vote at this time since it has become perfectly clear, due to answers in question period, that these conditions have not been met.

Now my request is somewhat more difficult, that is, I ask you to declare this vote null and void because of the fact that it contradicts directly a motion previously passed by this House and as such is out of order.

[The Speaker]

I am not sure that there is much the Chair can do to assist the hon. member. Even had he raised this point of order before the vote, I am not sure there is much the Chair could have done to assist.

Hon. members may disagree with the content of the answers. Occasionally there is disagreement with the content of the questions. The Chair is not here to make adjudication on whether a question has been answered or whether the House has this or that before something happens.

The hon. member is right that I have dealt with a number of points of order concerning this matter, but the vote has been held and the matter is decided, at least as insofar as the House is concerned. Accordingly, I do not think there is a point of order arising here.

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

Then, Mr. Speaker, I humbly ask for clarification and assistance in this matter. If there is a motion passed in the House and if the government chooses to go contrary to that motion and the intent of that motion and the spirit of that motion, who is it in this country that can ultimately enforce that the government has to do what the House decides to do? Is that the job of the Speaker or do we go to a higher power? I do not know what higher power there is than that which is held in your office.

[The Speaker]

I do not know what the hon. member is asking the Chair to do. The House has chosen to adopt this as is, and as the minister pointed out there was a document tabled. Members may disagree whether it constitutes the plan required in the previous motion that was adopted by the House before, but it is not for the Chair to decide whether it is adequate or inadequate.

The minister pointed out that it has been tabled and that is that. The Chair is not going to get involved in that debate. It would be most imprudent for the Chair to suggest that somehow a response was inadequate or adequate in any circumstance. That is for the House to decide. The House makes decisions and has in this case proceeded. I do not know what the hon. member is really asking the Chair to do at this point.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Prebudget Consultations

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate with a barely contained sense of joy. With your permission, I first want to extend greetings to the people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and Berthier—Montcalm, who have chosen to be represented in this House by members whom I congratulate, who will truly defend the interests of their constituents and the interests of all Quebeckers.

This is only the beginning. The Liberal government, in its arrogance, has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

Year after year, prebudget consultations allow the powerful Standing Committee on Finance to meet with many groups and individuals, both here on the Hill and during a cross-Canada tour.

There is nothing surprising in this report, except for the fact that the Bloc Quebecois seems to have won the first round with respect to the microbreweries. The report contains a recommendation to reduce excise tax for small breweries in Canada.

My hon. colleagues and the committee chair still remember the events of last spring. This time, Canadian brewers came before the committee.

In a letter addressed to me on November 15, the president and CEO of the Brewers Association of Canada informed me of his meeting with the committee chair. The Association considers this situation to be critical to the brewing industry's viability and financial well-being.

The Brewers Association of Canada lends credence to our concerns and justifies our vigorous efforts to make the Canadian Liberal government aware of this highly detrimental situation for microbrewers.

You will notice that, just to be cautious, I spoke of a first victory in this matter. In fact, despite the efforts of the Standing Committee on Finance, the Minister of Finance has the upper hand. The future of this sector of the brewing industry, an extremely important industry for the regional development of Canadian provinces, and particularly for Quebec, lies in his hands.

Some political observers joke that the Bloc Quebecois plays provincial politics in Ottawa. If we do not stand up for the provinces, then who will? The Liberal government's centralizing decisions have serious consequences on the provinces' future, and on the future of our constituents.

In the most recent federal budget, the Liberals pursued their ultimate goal, a Canada that evolves without the provinces and without Quebec. This is called nation building.

The report of the finance committee speaks volumes. We feel it completely ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. There are no measures to increase transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and assistance for seniors.

During prebudget consultations, several witnesses gave us their views on how to use the huge surplus the federal government piles up year after year.

Speaking of surplus, do I have to remind the House that the current Minister of Finance is a carbon copy of his predecessor, who delighted in playing hide-and-seek when it came to forecasting budget surpluses. You know where we stand on that. This is not the first time that we have criticized the current Minister of Finance and the former Minister of Finance, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, for doing the exact same thing.

They underestimate revenue and overestimate expenditures. The end result is a budget surplus that is hidden away in so-called funds for economic prudence and in all sorts of funds that are constantly being renamed such as innovation funds, and what not. The truth is being hidden from us.

At some point, this will allow the government to hide things from the general public and maybe even prevent parliamentarians from expressing their opinions on what the government could do with these huge surpluses.

Such behaviour is a blatant lack of transparency. We are told that because of accounting measures and techniques, money has to go toward the debt even though there are desperate needs. Just look at the 1.5 million poor children in Canada, even though the government pledged 12 years ago to solve this problem. It still exists. If there are poor children in Canada, it is because their parents are poor.

Money could be invested in programs to support families who are truly in need and also in helping the provinces. It must not be forgotten that the surpluses come from cuts made to the Canada social transfer. So many cuts were made that the provinces ended up long on need and short on money. They can no longer meet the priorities of their citizens because of this lack of money and a growing list of needs, especially in health.

I can safely say that the Liberal performance is not very impressive. Since 1997, the forecasts by the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government have been off by more than $65 billion. When one is enjoying huge surpluses, as is the case for this government, $1 billion more or less is no big deal. The government is not doing its share and, considering how it is using the surpluses, it has appropriated $65 billion.

Sixty-five billion dollars is equivalent to 65 times $100 million, or 6,500 times a $1 million jackpot. At the same time, this government candidly admits that it is not providing adequate help to low income families and even less to families with disabled children. Yet, the recent Speech from the Throne was full of nice promises. This will be the legacy of this Prime Minister, a man of many words but very little action.

The main contender for the job of Prime Minister goes even further. He was the one holding the purse strings and now he has the nerve to say that the lack of a support program for families with disabled children was unforgivable. But who was the Minister of Finance in 1994-95, when drastic cuts were made to the Canada social transfer? Who agreed to everything that was proposed by cabinet and by the Prime Minister? The former Minister of Finance. Who began to play this little game of underestimating revenues and overestimating expenditures? The former Minister of Finance. So, he should not suddenly come and tell us that he finds it unforgivable not to have a support program for families with disabled children, considering that, since he was in office, the number of Canadian children living in poverty has climbed to one and a half million. He could have done something about this. He had all the tools. He could have developed programs. The public will not be fooled by the fact that he is now saying that it is unforgivable, when he is in fact trying to make political gains.

It is even worse, because people who really need help are excluded. Think about the disability tax credit. The cuts severely affected social programs. Moreover, the current Minister of Finance just cut the disability tax credit.

Even the department has admitted that 20,000 families whose net incomes are not over $20,000 cannot receive the tax credit. This is shameful, because families with incomes of under $20,000 are living below the poverty line.

According to the Conference Board figures, the federal government is going to pocket more and more of the budget surplus in future, while Quebec and the provinces face huge deficits. Why? Because Ottawa is pocketing too much money compared to its needs. That is called fiscal imbalance. This approach will inevitably take us in the direction of fiscal imbalance.

The Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance has of course not commented on the brutal reality of fiscal imbalance. The federal government has the means to remedy the situation, but not the political will to do so. The ultimate objective is starve out the provinces so they can be forced to renew the social union pact and continue the so called “nation building”.

We are well aware that the government, with its centralist bent, wants to get its hooks into all the powers of the provinces. It needs all these levers in a world of globalization. It no longer respects the Constitution. Health care, for instance, is a provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution. The starving provinces are being forced to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. The needs are too great and they are being forced to be accountable. Fortunately, Quebec did not sign the social union pact. This is the plan for the next budget, to present it to us saying “We have the money. We are going to impose conditions on you, because we want to build a nation.”

We know that the federal government plans to keep on helping itself to the surplus that has built up in order to invade the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. The people in our ridings need to know that what the federal government is doing comes at a price. What is that price? Fifteen billion dollars. That is the amount the Liberals have spent without justification in areas that are not under their jurisdiction, multiplying the waste, the overlaps and the squabbles.

The findings of the Romanow report are an excellent example. This spendthrift government, which has no understanding of accountability, would like to manage the health care system. This government, which thinks that money grows on trees and is incapable of properly managing its own programs, would like to tell the provinces how to run their health care system. That is called mismanagement. The federal government cannot even manage programs within its jurisdiction.

We can talk about the gun program. It cost $1 billion to set it up, and it has yet to be completed. Half the objectives have not been met, and this has already cost taxpayers $1 billion. The message to the provinces is “Give us all the means and powers, and we will manage it”. This is completely outrageous.

Employment insurance is another issue that is important to me. The member for Shefford is right to hide behind the curtains. She was the chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which tabled a unanimous report on creating an independent employment insurance fund. She is so influential with her colleagues and her government that the report was shelved.

My constituents shared a comment with me that I would like to repeat here. They said “Instead of strutting from one riding to the next and attending photo op after photo op, the member for Shefford should have been busy doing her job and putting pressure on her government. This would be better for her personal record.”

The Bloc Quebecois believes that employees and workers have a right to their contributions. To that end, one suggestion is for the fund to be jointly managed by representatives of contributors. This needs to be an independent fund, an independent employment insurance fund.

It will mean $3 billion less for the federal surplus, but $3 billion more for men and women who really need the money. We are talking about $3 billion per year.

This report tabled after the budget consultations contains nothing to support older workers who wind up without a job. They are often unable to find a job because of their age. On numerous occasions, the Bloc Quebecois has come out in support of the Program for Older Workers Adjustment, POWA.

When the Celanese plant closed in the riding of Drummond, we asked questions and used every means at our disposal to inform the Minister of Human Resources Development at the time, in order to help older workers. These workers had given 35 or 40 years of their lives to the plant, sometimes more. The plant closed and they had paid EI premiums all of their working lives, for 40 years. When they needed employment insurance, the government refused outright to help them.

We asked that POWA be reinstated. What we wanted was an improved program for older workers. The program had already been tried. The government had dropped the program during its cuts, promising to come up with an improved version of the POWA. Nothing was done and there is nothing to indicate that this type of program will be reintroduced.

The prebudget consultations led to a weak report, one that gives the Minister of Finance all of the latitude he needs. One might think that the Liberal majority is unanimously behind the Minister of Finance, who will likely be a candidate to succeed the Prime Minister, if not the heir apparent.

In terms of infrastructure, the environment, international assistance and the airline security charge, there is nothing. The committee does nothing but pay lip service. We need a joint infrastructure program between the federal government and Quebec and the other provinces.

The federal government has to offer incentives for the renewable energies industry. This could be done, for example, with significant and tangible support for wind energy generation. It is not enough to run ads on television showing wind mills turning. We need more than pictures, we need more than wind, we need a support program and investments that will allow us to save the environment and create employment.

My colleague, the member for Jonquière, has already introduced a bill to promote the use of public transit. The Liberals rejected it out of hand. We are again calling for a tax credit for public transit users.

As for international aid, the Government of Canada has a pitiful record internationally. The report of the Standing Committee on Finance does not even go so far as to require the federal government to respect its international commitments. It contains no deadlines for reaching its aid objective of 0.7% of the GDP.

It is important to remember that of the 4.6 billion people who live in developing countries, 800 million do not get enough food, 850 million are illiterate, one billion have no access to clean drinking water and 2.4 billion have no access to basic services.

I still have much to say, but in conclusion, I hope that the Minister of Finance demonstrates that he is capable of being bold and that his next budget proves to be more daring than that of his predecessor.

I hope that he will acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance and that he will accept to solve this untenable situation. If not, we will invite Quebeckers to support the Bloc Quebecois. We will invite the sovereignists to join forces, as they did in Berthier—Montcalm and in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, to elect members who have Quebec's development, and our interests at heart.

In closing, right now, the only real change for Quebec is sovereignty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened as carefully as I could to the member's speech and I have a question with respect to what she expects from the federal budget.

She closed her speech by saying that the only option was for the province to separate, which has been the Bloc's theme. I guess I would congratulate the Bloc members because in the nine years I have known them at least they have never dropped their theme. They have been consistent, although I profoundly disagree with what they are saying.

Given that she is asking the federal government, in its budget, to fund different programs, and she went through a number of them, including child poverty and others, does she really believe that if the province were to separate and the money would then be cut off, that her province would do as well or would it do worse? I think it is time to be realistic.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for his question, because it will give me an opportunity to clarify certain points.

What we want, and what we have come here to get, is recognition of two peoples. We are a people, and we recognize that there is a second, and even a third, the aboriginal people.

When the Constitution was signed, certain jurisdictions were recognized as belonging to the people of Quebec. Over the years, these were totally ignored because the government arrogated spending power to itself. This resulted in a lack of recognition by the other people. It no longer respected certain areas of jurisdiction and kept sticking its foot in the door. This is the situation we see shaping up now with respect to health and the Romanow report.

This goes for the other provinces as well, and their areas of jurisdiction. The Romanow report clearly recognizes that there has been a fiscal imbalance for some years now. Nevertheless, the Liberal government has always denied its existence.

It took a number of reports, such as the Clair report. The taxpayers of seven provinces paid to commission reports on health. They all were aware there was a fiscal imbalance. So many cuts had been made to the Social Transfer that the provinces found themselves with less money for health. I could also mention social assistance and postsecondary education, but we are talking about health.

The federal government slashed the Canada social transfer, particularly where health is concerned, so that the provinces found themselves being bled dry. They were unable to meet people's health needs—they being the ones who administer health care—because of their greying populations and the cost of state of the art technologies which were not around 15 or 20 years ago, although some technological advances had already taken place. Nowadays, as soon as a new technology becomes available, another one comes along. That is the way things are, which is good, because it makes it possible to provide people with better care. These technological breakthroughs and this research come with a price tag, however. Drug prices are also on the rise.

The government tells the provinces “We have just recognized that you are suffering from a fiscal imbalance. We will give you some money, but you will use it according to our conditions. As well, we want to create a national health council, which will look after the priorities of each province.”

In Quebec, we have CLSCs, which do not exist in the other provinces. They provide primary care. We also have pharmacare. We have home care. These are our priorities, the priorities that we set for ourselves.

Some might say that it is not perfect. We hear about some problems. Sure. However, we need money to improve the system. But the federal government says “No, we are prepared to give you money, but get out of home care, get out of pharmacare and get out of everything you have set up to meet all the needs of taxpayers”. The federal government copies all the ways that we are using to improve our system in Quebec and then it says “get out”.

There is currently no will on the part of this government. During the prebudget consultations, the Standing Committee on Finance drafted a report and there is nothing in it on health. The report is silent on the needs of the provinces in education. There is no recommendation for the 1.5 million Canadian children living in poverty, and there is no mention of any means to support and improve conditions in the regions and in the provinces, which support the regions.

Of course not, it is all about retaining power and paying lip service by making simple recommendations. At the end of the day, it is the minister who will decide where the money goes.

He is already asking parliament to take money away and our constituents, in our respective provinces, are unable to present their priorities and requirements in their respective jurisdictions.

Money is taken away and set aside for economic prudence. This year it is economic prudence, last year it was a reserve fund. Innovation funds and funds for all purposes are created. These amounts are not used and when the government has closed the books, it ends up with a surplus in the billions. Then programs are created that overlap or duplicate existing provincial programs. That is how $15 billion never made it to the table.

I hope I answered my hon. colleague's question. I have so much to say that it is difficult to answer this question.

Every year in this House—this is not the first time, and my hon. colleagues will continue to do so in other matters—we show that we would be better off leaving and becoming a sovereign nation.

To answer the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance, Quebeckers pay $38 billion to the federal government each year. We feel we do not get a good return and we do not get our fair share. Just think what we could do with $38 billion.

Despite all the cuts, Quebeckers have made some good progress. The economy is booming and we have a lot of talent. Quebeckers are innovative, creative, talented and have internationally renowned expertise.

When we see the cuts, and know that we have been left out, not recognized for our true value, we are in favour of Quebec sovereignty.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

I am happy to take part in the prebudget debate. It is a great occasion for members of Parliament to comment on what they feel some of the priorities should be in the upcoming budget that will be presented by the Minister of Finance probably in February 2003.

The House of Commons just voted to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Now the hard work begins. The government must establish a central agency, body or department that would take the overall responsibility for coordinating the government's implementation plan. There are still many details to be spelled out.

In the 2003 budget I would like to see some economic instruments that would result in some signals to the economy and to Canadians. I would like to see some incentives, even perhaps some disincentives, although I favour the carrot to the stick. Incentives would offer encouragement for Canadians to change their behaviour and that is Canadian business, Canadian consumers and Canadian citizens. We will have to change our behaviour. The 2003 budget would provide an opportunity for the Minister of Finance to provide some well targeted and strategic tax incentives, and other economic instruments to facilitate the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

There is no point in signing a protocol if we are not going to meet its objectives. The Kyoto objectives are ambitious ones. We need to start dealing with greenhouse gases. The Minister of Finance would have an opportunity in his upcoming budget to do some work that would assist us in meeting those goals.

I am a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Every year we travel across Canada to do our prebudget consultations. The committee talks to Canadians across this great country and asks them what the priorities should be for the upcoming budget. The House of Commons finance committee recently tabled its report to the House and set out a framework for the Minister of Finance, and indeed for the House, to consider in the fiscal plan to move forward.

There were some key messages there that we heard and that are reflected in the report. Canadians will not tolerate going back into deficit. We have worked too hard to get to a position where we have surpluses in our budget. We will be going into our sixth year of budgetary surpluses. We cannot even contemplate going back into deficit.

We do know that there are significant expenditure pressures on the government. We have the Romanow commission report on health care. We also have the Kirby report from the Senate dealing with health care. We should pick and choose some of the best recommendations from both reports. It does not have to be all or nothing with each report. There are excellent recommendations in both reports and the government should find the optimal solutions in working with the provinces on how we will bolster health care.

I have said from the start that we must put more money into health care. The health care system needs some re-engineering. We have patients in long term care beds which are costing taxpayers about a thousand dollars a day because there is no home care, no long term care or extended care facilities across Canada.

Recently I talked with the person in my riding who manages hospital beds. He said that 20% of the patients should not really be there. They should be in lower cost alternatives. That would be better for the patients and more cost effective as well.

Canadians have told us that we need to protect the $100 billion tax cut that was brought in by the former finance minister in 2000. This tax cut was the largest in Canadian history. Some would argue that we should go further. Perhaps we should go further in this budget. I am not so sure that it would be feasible. Certainly we should be looking at personal income taxes which are still out of line with the rest of the world. We should also take some steps to deal with the resource sector.

When the government brought the corporate tax rate down or phased it in over a number of years to 21% the resource sector was left at 28% and not for an illogical reason. They do have other tax incentives, such as the exploration tax credit, accelerated depreciation, and the resource allowance.

There has been enough discussion with the oil and gas industry and the mining sector that we should be able to deal with this comprehensively in the budget. It is especially important, given the Kyoto protocol, that the oil and gas industry and the mining industry are going to have some cost pressures on them. It is time that the minister announced in the budget a tax package that deals with the higher statutory rate that exists for those industries.

We should also not forget about the fact that we need to reduce our debt. Right now the level of debt to GDP is at 49% which is down from a high of 71% in 1995. The finance committee suggested that we set a target of 30% because we still are very heavily indebted as a nation and that is costing us a lot of resources annually just to service the debt. In fact, by having paid down what we have paid so far, $46 billion, that is saving $3 billion a year, each and every year. Those moneys could be redeployed for other higher priority uses.

There are also a couple of pet projects of mine that I would like to see the minister deal with in the budget.

One is tax policies that would encourage the formation of employee share ownership plans. In years past we have introduced policies that are supportive of the taxation of stock options and that is a positive development. We have also reduced the capital gains inclusion rate and the capital gains tax. Those are very positive developments but employee share ownership plans reach everybody in the company, from the receptionist, to the mail clerk, to the middle manager, to the driver, right up to the top. They are the people we need to reach.

We do know that companies with employee share ownership plans improve their productivity by 30% or beyond. We need to implement these policies so that we can improve our productivity because we still have productivity challenges in Canada.

I would like to see us help the voluntary sector more than we have done already. We have taken some very bold steps but I would like the government to eliminate the capital gains tax on the donation of marketable securities to charitable organizations. I also would like to see a level playing field with respect to private foundations. Right now private foundations do not have the same benefit as a public foundation with respect to the capital gains inclusion rate.

I would like to see a basic exemption on employment insurance of up to $2,000 a year which would allow students and others to be employed by restaurants and hotels. Companies would not feel they were being penalized by bringing in young people to work in their restaurants and hotels. It would be a job creator and the public purse would not be affected that negatively.

I support the recommendation in the finance committee report that the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act recognize refugees for student loans. My riding of Etobicoke North has a very large Somali Canadian population. Many of the women and children are stuck in their apartments. They cannot really reach out and be employed. Their children do not have access to student loans because they are refugees. These people are here to stay. I and others are trying to work with them to get their landed immigrant status but in the meantime, we should be encouraging them to get a higher education. If we do not, there will be a problem for society in the future.

With respect to more money for the provinces with the CHST, clearly we are heading down that road. It is the right thing to do but I would resist our government not calling for a greater transparency and greater accountability from the provinces. It does not mean we have to micromanage the health care system, far from it. However, Canadians need to understand where their money is going and what results and outcomes they are getting, They need to know for example, how the outcomes and results in the Yukon compare to the outcomes and results in Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces so that there are some benchmarks by which Canadians can measure the performance of the health care system.

Those are some of my pet projects. As I said at the outset, we need to not go into deficit. We need to protect the tax cuts. We need to give money to the provinces for the CHST, but we need more transparency and accountability as we transfer huge amounts of money to the provinces and territories.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech which I thought was very good. He raised a number of very constructive suggestions. I want to add something to what he said.

Today in our country there is a vast number of individuals on fixed incomes, particularly those with incomes of less than $19,000 a year such as people who are retired. Those people are taxed.

I wonder, in keeping with the member's statements, would he approach the finance minister with the suggestion that people who make under $19,000 a year not pay any tax? In my view, people who are below the poverty line should not pay any tax. Allowing them to keep their money would go a long way in helping them to provide for themselves.

Also, what has the finance minister's response been to the member's proposed changes to the tax system?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government, in the tax policies that have been introduced in budget 2000, the economic statement and prior to that, has focused on middle and low income Canadians. That is where most of the tax cuts have taken place.

I agree with the member's comments regarding seniors on fixed incomes. There are many seniors, including in my riding of Etobicoke North, on fixed incomes. Their property taxes are increasing and they are at risk of losing their homes. My riding also has many seniors who live in apartments. The rents are at the point where they are having to look at whether they can sustain those rents, as they are well in excess of the 30% benchmark that is often used.

We need to deal with the problems faced by seniors on fixed incomes. The demographics are telling us that this will become a bigger and bigger problem. As it becomes a bigger problem, it becomes a more expensive challenge to deal with.

Our government has taken many Canadians off the tax rolls over the years. In the last couple of budgets, 900,000 Canadians who used to pay taxes are not paying taxes. We need to deal especially with low income Canadians, medium income Canadians and especially the seniors on fixed incomes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's persistence. He has been on the finance committee. For a while, as we all know, he was the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister. He is a competent person. I almost find it difficult to say that because he is on the wrong side of the House.

I observed earlier today that he voted in favour of the Kyoto accord. Undoubtedly that is going to impact the budget, especially because of the cap the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry are proposing. We probably will see a huge dollar amount in the budget because of that cap if Kyoto actually is implemented, yet the member voted for it as did the member for LaSalle--Émard. Those people are very inconsistent. I wonder whether the member has any comment on that.

Another thing that I need to say is that I appreciate his persistence because in the last prebudget report in which I was involved on the finance committee, of the 60 or 70 recommendations we made, I think the finance minister used only two or three of them. It really is a scattergun approach. I congratulate the member for working on such a dead end project.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the years I have enjoyed working with the member for Elk Island on the finance committee. He is not on the finance committee any longer.

Today I was very pleased that the Prime Minister reached out to the premiers to see if there was some compromise or some way in which we could make the Kyoto accord ratification more feasible. For that reason I was happy that we brought in the cap. Frankly I do not think we will have to use it. I do not think the taxpayers will be on the hook, but it does a lot in terms of investor confidence. We want investment in Canada because that will grow jobs.

I should say that with respect to the finance committee report, it has influenced budget decisions. I know that for a fact and it will continue to do that. It is a very good process. I look forward to participating in that exercise in the years to come.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the budget should reflect the Speech from the Throne. I am reminded of another budget today and that is the one in 1995 in which we had some major cuts. I believe that a good many of those cuts affected the social programs in this country. Canadians paid dearly for the fact that we had deficits which we now no longer have.

Since then, we have invested in programs in research and we have also had some major tax cuts. For instance, corporate taxation in this country by 2005 will actually be lower than that of the United States. Most people do not know that. Budget 2000 cut $100 billion of individual taxes.

We have consistently continued to pay down the debt. We had a plan where we said we would spend fifty-fifty, 50% on debt reduction and tax cuts and the other 50% on program spending and social spending. Quite frankly, I do not believe that we have actually maintained that fifty-fifty split.

It is time to reinvest in Canadians and reinvest in people. It goes without saying that one of the areas is the health care system.

We have just had what is probably the most important report since the Canada Health Act was introduced. The final report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada should not be used as a discussion paper for high level chats among Canada's ministers of health. That report is a blueprint, an action plan. The sooner we get on with the job of implementing it, the better it will be for the health of all our citizens.

I firmly believe that we must implement all the Romanow report recommendations in order to leverage real change in the health care system. We must not cherry-pick bits and pieces. Social policy, if implemented piecemeal, is like a four-legged stool; if two legs are removed, it will fall apart and it will not stand up.

The report is very holistic and addresses some very fundamental changes that need to be implemented immediately.

Canadians want and need a truly national, more accountable and comprehensive health care system, a reinvigorated system that truly reflects the Canadian values that are at the heart of our system.

I support the creation of a national health council to help foster collaboration and cooperation among the provinces, territories and the federal government.

Furthermore, I support and push for the implementation of a new dedicated cash-only Canada health transfer to be enshrined in the Canada Health Act. The CHST does not work. There is absolutely no accountability in it and it is hard to trace where the funds go. It is important that we have the health transfer fund and I support that wholeheartedly.

I also fully agree that diagnostic services should be explicitly included under the definition of insured health services in a new Canada Health Act. I also support the recommended introduction of pharmacare and home care, along with a greater emphasis on prevention and wellness.

I was very disturbed to hear that most of the provinces have rejected out of hand accountability and some other recommendations of the Romanow report. Their position is unacceptable and is most definitely not in the best interests of the citizens of their respective provinces.

Only one province, Saskatchewan, had the maturity not to be self-serving. Saskatchewan believes that Canadians are looking for their governments to provide comparable services to Canadians wherever they live. For these reasons, Saskatchewan does not agree with a call for unconditional funding. To that I say, right on.

I call on all the provinces and territories and the Government of Canada to put Canadians first in this process. I ask them to build a first class health care system for the future and to ensure the modernization of the Canada Health Act by expanding coverage and renewing its principles. I call on them to take immediate steps to protect Canada's health care system from possible challenges under international law and trade agreements.

Commissioner Romanow said that medicare is sustainable if we are prepared to act decisively. He compared the cost of our system to that of other countries and found that spending in Canada is on par with most countries in the western world.

Medicare in this country, as far as I am concerned, is also an economic program. It definitely is an advantage for investment in the country, not to mention the benefits to our people. I hope we will move swiftly on that.

There is another area in which I think it is important that we invest. It should be noted that I am not talking about spending but investing, because if we do not invest in Canadians, we will not be able to reap the kind of economic benefits that we wish.

Another area in which we must invest, and we have talked about this many times before in the House, is early learning and care. It is high time that we acknowledged the fact that there are thousands of children in Canada who are not getting the best start possible in their lives. There are parents who cannot go to work because they do not have child care, but every child, whether the parents are working are not, should have access to early learning programs, and child care is early learning. A quality, nationally regulated child care program is essential. We are behind most western countries at this point with respect to this issue. I think it is time for us to wake up and address this.

Another area is the issue of child benefits and income support for families. We started this some years ago and I was very involved. We have increased the income support for families but we must increase it even more. We must ensure that children are looked after. As has been said before, children are not poor by themselves. They are part of families that are poor.

During the finance committee's hearings across Canada, the recommendation by most organizations was that we should be looking at reaching a threshold of $4,200 per child very soon. I support that wholeheartedly.

We must remember that the children of today are the future of tomorrow, and addressing child care, child benefits and income support also addresses the issue of health and health costs in the future.

The other area I would like to talk about is housing. Affordable housing is in a major crisis. We have not built affordable rental housing units for a very long time. We just recently signed agreements with the provinces to build new affordable housing but that is only a start. I believe we must have a long term, sustainable program for affordable housing. In Toronto the waiting list for seniors is 10 years. It is impossible for families and seniors to have proper housing, so to the health of children and to the health of families goes substandard housing. Affordable housing is extremely important. I cannot even imagine my childhood without having had a proper, secure place to live with my family.

The other area that we must address, as I follow along on the people in whom we must invest and who I think have paid a major price for reaching our deficit situation, are our seniors.

The guaranteed income supplement is not meeting its target or it is not helping all seniors. We have about 647,000 unattached seniors who are living below the poverty line. In fact the poverty rate for unattached seniors has gone up in the last couple of years to 48.7%. Most of these seniors are women. It is important that the GIS, guaranteed income supplement, be increased to meet the needs of unattached seniors who live below the poverty line.

In Toronto, probably for the first time in a long time, we have seniors who are living in shelters because the guaranteed income supplement gives a person the maximum of $11,800 a year. A one bedroom apartment in Toronto costs about $800 or more per month. By the time a person has paid the rent I am not sure there is much left for food or for medicine. We now have seniors who are having to choose whether they eat and whether they buy certain medicines or not. Where do they end up when they become ill? They end up in the hospital.

Again, this goes to health care, to prevention and to wellness, and, in the long term, it saves a great deal more. I encourage the government to look at increasing the GIS. This was in the finance committee's report to the government and I hope it will be addressed.

We must also ensure that we deal with cities in Canada. Cities have to be funded properly. They need long term, sustainable financing to address the social programs that they have been asked to address. A great many things have been devolved to the cities but the property tax base cannot deal with all the problems. In the meantime, we must start with infrastructure, public transportation and housing to be able to work with them to have a sustainable program to address the most urgent needs for the cities.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to have this opportunity today to speak in the prebudget debate and to point out some of the differences that I believe exist in what the Canadian Alliance Party is offering to Canadians, what we have seen over the past number of years from the Liberal government and what has been proposed by it through the throne speech. I also want to address some of my remarks to a report that was put together by the finance committee as it travelled across Canada and heard witnesses from many sectors.

We have heard a lot lately. We have heard about the billion dollar fiasco with the gun registry. We heard about the HRDC scandal and Shawingate a while ago. We just heard about the GST fraud which came to light in the last few days. We talk in terms of billions of dollars.

My colleague from Elk Island, as we know, is a mathematician. He pointed something out to me on the weekend. He asked me what the difference was between $1 million and $1 billion. I said that it was a whole lot of zeroes. He said to me that if he had $1 million and spent $1 a second starting at midnight of January 1, that he would spend the $1 million by midnight on January 12. He said that it would take him 11 days to spend $1 million at $1 dollar a second.

He then said that if he had $1 billion and spent $1 a second, that it would take him from January 1 to September 9, 2034.

That is the difference between $1 million and $1 billion. When we talk about $1 billion here and $1 billion there, we are talking about incredible amounts of money that are unaccounted for and that have no priority for the way they are spent. The money is thrown around.

Today the Prime Minister got his wish and the Kyoto protocol was ratified by a vote in the House of Commons, a motion that I voted against. I am glad that I did because in years to come I will be able to say that I told them so, just like I have been able to do over the last couple of weeks on the gun registry. It has cost a billion dollars and it is not working.

We would like to point to four issues in the report that came from the Standing Committee on Finance: government spending; taxes and tax burden; ongoing productivity and competitiveness concerns; and debt burden.

With regard to spending, the Canadian Alliance strongly supports recommendation 2 of the report, which calls for a balanced budget; a cap of roughly 3% on increased spending, to keep that in line with the growth of population and inflation; paying down market debt; and an ongoing review of federal expenditures which is something we have called for ever since this party has been in place. Every program needs to be reviewed on a regular basis to make sure that it is still doing what it was intended to do and that the money is being spent wisely. The review of federal expenditures is a key part of what we are proposing needs to happen.

As I said, those have all been longstanding Canadian Alliance policies.

However, the recommendations in recommendation 2 can only work if they are carried out, which has not been the case to date. The significance of recommendation 2 pales when one considers the government's recent increase in federal spending. We note the concerns expressed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce about the increased government spending levels, which it states that since the annual budget has been balanced the increase in spending since 1997-98 has gone up by 25%. This is, in our minds, out of control spending.

We also strongly urge the federal government to discontinue its new spending spree. I will quote Jack Mintz, a C.D. Howe economist. He stated:

Those who believe governments have inadequate revenues to spend on critical public services have it wrong. The problem is that governments misallocate tax dollars by designing ineffective public programs.

That is what we are saying, that every program should be analyzed on a continuing basis to make sure it is effective and, if not, should be discontinued.

Rather than increasing its spending every year as new priorities are identified, the Canadian Alliance recommends that the federal government show leadership and make the required spending cuts from lower priority areas so that the overall federal spending envelope does not grow faster than the population and inflation. We have seen that spending growth outpace the increase in population and inflation over the last number of years many times.

The second point we would like to make is on the issue of taxes and tax burden. Our tax burden in Canada remains too high. Even after implementing the tax changes announced in budget 2000, Canada will still have personal and corporate tax burdens far above the OECD average. Moreover, our overall tax burden remains over 10% higher than our closest trading partner, the United States. Currently, federal revenues remain at about 16% of GDP and are slightly higher now than they were in the mid-1990s.

We note that Canada's tax burden will increase even further in 2003 through payroll taxes, such as the Canada pension plan premiums that are set to increase by 0.5%, which works out to $964 million more out of the pockets of Canadian employers and employees.

The Canadian Alliance reiterates our call for the elimination of the capital tax. This is something that the committee has called for in the past number of years. We note that the finance committee once again has recommended this move, but we urge the federal government to immediately commit to rid Canada of this damaging tax on productivity and investment. This tax kills reinvestments and it kills jobs. As companies become successful the money they need to reinvest in research, employees and in development is taken through this capital tax.

Recommendation 4 on corporate taxes is somewhat disheartening to us as the goal appears to be guarding against an unacceptable divergence with the U.S. rates. Time and again many witnesses before the committee stressed the importance of creating a Canadian tax advantage rather than just attempting to keep up with our southern neighbours. Why can we not do better than them? Why are we always struggling to keep up with them?

Under the last point, the Canadian Alliance recommends that the federal corporate income tax rate on profits from the resource sectors should be brought in line with other sectors. This was just brought forward by the member from the government who indicated that when the last changes were made to corporate income tax the resource sectors were left out. Their rate remains higher. This issue needs to be addressed because they have already been put at a disadvantage. Today with the ratification of Kyoto it will place them at a bigger disadvantage.

We also want to talk a bit about productivity and competitiveness. The Canadian Alliance is deeply concerned with reports that tend to play down Canada's problems with productivity. Many witnesses expressed concern that the productivity gap between Canada and the United States remains wide and continues to grow. This is troublesome because it is our closest trading partner. Billions of dollars a day in trade go back and forth between our two countries and we are being put at a disadvantage through the productivity gap.

The report, however, appears to suggest that revised data has shown that the gap between Canada and the U.S. is smaller than previously thought. There is a well-documented 30 year decline in Canada's standard of living that can hardly be made up by revising data. Unfortunately, this is typical of the Liberals' denial of the role public policy has played in Canada's long term economic decline.

As we know, over the past 30 years our standard of living has continued to decline under this regime and previous ones.

According to the global competitiveness report, Canada tumbled five notches to eighth spot among the most competitive countries in the world; its worst ranking since 1996. Meanwhile, even with the current troubles in the U.S., the Americans managed to improve their productivity by 4% in the last quarter.

The most troubling matter is the government's longstanding refusal to acknowledge the failure of its own policies to encourage innovation and productivity. Liberal members, who comprise the majority of the committee, do not recognize the role that successive Liberal governments have played in hindering Canada's economic progress and development.

The last point concerns the debt burden. The Canadian Alliance believes that it is vitally important to control overall spending in order to accelerate debt repayment. Although our debt to GDP ratio has improved, our debt burden still remains very high and the interest costs to cover that debt continue to be a drag on Canadians. Twenty-three cents of very dollar go to service that debt, never mind paying down the principal.

To conclude, Canada has untapped potential for growth but Canadians need the proper environment to nurture our prosperity. The Canadian Alliance is confident that Canada can regain our prosperity and our competitiveness. However, strong government leadership is required to provide crucial fiscal responsibility. Canadians deserve a significant reduction in taxes and prudent management of government departments. Canadians deserve better.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his remarks, particularly on his reference to Canadians deserving better. He spoke of the need for lowering capital taxes, the need for lowering payroll taxes, the need, I would suggest, for the elimination of very discriminatory capital gains taxes and other means by which Canadians can be given the opportunity keep more of their hard-earned money.

What he speaks of in terms of what is missing, I would suggest, can be fixed somewhat by a change in tax policy on the part of the government, which we have not seen forthcoming now in almost a decade. We have seen very shifty priorities coupled with a very arrogant, dismissive attitude toward the provinces and an effort to download onto the provinces.

The former minister of finance has been flipping around the country pretending to be the leader of the fifth or sixth party in the House rather than taking responsibility for his own actions as finance minister. Basically if he is saying to “trust us now”, I would suggest that if he said it was raining outside I would go to the window.

Would the hon. member agree that in fact the government itself has really nothing to boast about and what we need is a change in attitude and a change in priority in terms of where money should be spent and where and when governments should get out of the way and let the private sector do its job?

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Conservative Party for the question, and I note that he said shifty priorities instead of shifting priorities and I somewhat agree with that. He also said that the previous finance minister is acting like the leader of the fifth party, but then he said sixth party. I am sure he does not want to be the leader of the fifth party.

Of course the previous finance minister was part of the government when all of the issues I mentioned happened. When money was being funnelled into the firearms fiasco quietly and discreetly, who had the cheque book? Who was running the budget for the government? When the HRDC scandal was going on, who was running the finances of the country at that time?

Today we had a vote in the House to ratify Kyoto, with unknown costs and unknown implementation processes. Canadians are left in the dark completely as to what the cost is going to be for each family to reach the goals that the government agreed to today. Once again, the former finance minister voted for that. This is a person who has supposedly been in charge of the purse strings and who has been deeply involved in the past in the failures of the government. Now, through his actions today, he has implicated himself in what is going to be another fiasco for Canadians.

There are shifting priorities. The capital gains tax certainly has to be eliminated and that has been recommended time and time again. If productivity is going to improve in this country and if the gap between us and the Americans is going to be closed, then that is one place where we can start. Investment can remain here in the hands of the people who will do the research, who will build the bigger and better businesses and who will hire people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the member, one that others have raised often. It is the question about the ratification of Kyoto and what the Kyoto implementation might cost. I wonder if the member would like to offer to the House a process that might be undertaken to establish those projected costs over that period and how long it might take before those costs were determined to his satisfaction.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is something we have been asking of this government. We have been asking it to show us a plan and how much it will cost, but it has yet to bring that forward.

We have indicated that if we need to address issues around the environment, that is something we are certainly willing to do, but to agree to a protocol that Canada will be the only country in the western hemisphere to sign leaves the whole issue of investing in Canada up in the air. Our closest trading partner is not agreeing to this international protocol and other trading partners such as Mexico are also not a part of this. We need to make sure that the provinces understand where we are going and that has not been done by the government. There has to be more consultation and a definite plan needs to be put forward.