Debates of Feb. 25th, 2003

The Budget

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, with regard to infrastructure, I would differ with him in terms of which level of government has been more responsible certainly in funding basic infrastructure needs.

If we look at basic fuel taxes, the provinces spend, as my party's transport critic pointed out, over 90% of the fuel taxes raised on infrastructure. At the federal level it is less than 5%. Less than 5% of the federal fuel tax has been put toward roads and highways. That is the record.

Which level of government do I trust more to deliver on infrastructure needs? I trust that level of government which is closest and understands the infrastructure needs of Edmonton and understands the infrastructure needs of Ottawa and the smaller communities in Canada. The closer governments are to the people, the better they understand their direct infrastructure needs.

In terms of the debt, a lot of members on the opposite side have said they have reduced the debt since 1996-97. The government took office in 1993. It has actually increased the debt since 1993 and I think that needs to be pointed out again and again. The debt to GDP ratio has decreased, but as I said earlier, when times are relatively good, those are the times in which we should be making some substantive payments toward our debt.

In terms of health care, I know our party's health critic will offer a substantive speech to which the member can certainly listen.

In terms of the fiscal situation, what was most disappointing is that the government did not reduce corporate welfare in this budget by one dollar. It did not address the whole fiscal mismanagement of the gun registry, the GST audits or any of those areas in which it could have truly saved money. As I said earlier, cut corporate welfare and put money into priorities like health care. That is what the government should have done in the budget and unfortunately it did not.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks by my friend from Edmonton. I would like to put at least some of the points from his remarks into context.

He mentioned a number of times that we failed to deal with corporate welfare. He did not define corporate welfare. I do not know what he means by corporate welfare.

The gentleman comes from Alberta. I think we all know that there are some pretty favourable tax provisions for the oil industry in Alberta. I am not opposed to that. Is he suggesting that we should pull the rug from under the oil industry in Alberta? I would doubt it but I would love to hear his remarks.

He said that we have no long term vision for employment insurance. Well, we have had 10 annual reductions since 1993. I would say that it implies vision. That is a reduction of several billion. There is one more thing. He talked about there being not one cut in the budget. I recall back in the middle 1990s that we were cutting contributions to the provinces and all we heard were howls from the Alliance.

We Liberals from the west have been fighting proposed environment department cuts to weather stations in Kelowna, in Saskatoon and in Winnipeg. I wonder, would the member from Edmonton be appreciative of cutting out the weather stations in those three cities?

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure members opposite are just waiting in anticipation to hear my answer.

First, in regard to corporate welfare, I thought I had defined it in my speech. It was the government picking certain companies within certain industries to favour with public subsidies. For an example of that, take a look at technology partnerships Canada, a program that invests millions in certain companies picked by the program. Of those so-called loans or investments, as the Minister of Industry states, 1.6% have been repaid

Can we and Canadians in the gallery see how much has been repaid? No, because we are not supposed to see the books of these companies to which the taxpayers in the gallery have lent the money. This is the example of the government giving billions and billions to certain companies in certain industries. That should be stopped, or at the very least it should be transparent and accountable.

In terms of the tax regime for the oil companies. I do not know whether he is referring to the oil sands taxing that was put together by the former natural resources minister, who is now the Minister of Health, or actually the resource tax which is now made equal to the other corporate taxes. We certainly support that. This is not corporate welfare to set up a tax regime which is equal to other corporate taxes here in Canada.

If cutting 2¢ off EI premiums counts as a long term national vision for an employment insurance program, I think the government is sadly mistaken.

It is about prioritization of spending. It is about moving money from programs like technology partnerships Canada which are clear examples of corporate welfare into other high priority areas in terms of cutting the debt, lowering taxes for all Canadians, and into areas such as health care.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to speak today with regard to the federal budget. As the member for Yellowhead and official opposition health critic, I would like to speak to the largest expenditure in the budget, which is the proposed investment dollars for health care and the future of Canadians.

The government has a very dismal track record when it comes to health care, because it really has done nothing except pull money out of it in the mid-nineties and watched it struggle and wrestle and flap in the wind as the provinces dealt with intense problems and intense pressures as they tried to follow their mandate of delivering health care to Canadians.

Health care is number one as far as the priority of Canadians is concerned, yet the government has failed to recognize that over the past number of years. The budget is a failed opportunity by the government to drive accountability and sustainability into the health care system. I will explain that a little further as I go through my deliberations and a review of what has actually happened.

We have to understand where health care is right now. In examining the facts and figures, we see that wait times have increased. Tens of thousands of Canadians lack the ability to access a family physician. Right now in Canada we have an intense problem with the human resources side of health care. Looking at the budget and looking at the accord, and whether it was signed or not does not really matter, whether agreed to or not by the provinces and the federal government does not really matter, we recognize that precious little was done in this area.

It is no wonder that earlier this year the finance minister was forced to actually concede that his last attempt at putting dollars into the health care system, which was the September accord, was a failed attempt in the sense that it did not shorten wait lists at all or improve access to health care in any significant way. I would suggest that we will be sitting in this same Chamber a year or possibly two from now, having the same debate and examining the same problems with the same significant dilemmas when it comes to human resources in health care.

The new money is now on the table and it is time to get on with the job of real health care reform. The Canadian Alliance will hold the federal and provincial governments accountable to ensure that the new health care funding the new health spending buys genuine reform and does not allow more of the same status quo, which is not a sustainable factor. Looking at the demographics that will hit the health care system and the number of people crowding in at the age of 65 and beyond, we will not start to see any relief from that pressure of that aging demographic until the year 2040.

Therefore we have to discern very carefully the intense dilemma that we are going to be in as we move through the next 20, 30 or 40 year period. In doing so, we have to do our very best to sustain the health care system. In light of that, we have to discern whether the dollars placed in health care in this budget were appropriately placed there and whether there is appropriate accountability for those dollars.

The official opposition welcomes the health accord. We have to understand that it was really the budget for health care. The health accord was reflected within the budget; they were just two weeks away from each other. Nonetheless, it promoted and pushed forward a national agenda of health care reforms.

First and foremost, we think that Canadians will benefit when the provincial and federal governments stop their squabbling and stop their jurisdictional disputes around health care and get on with delivery. If we were to look at the numbers the day after the accord, there was some confusion in this country as to how many dollars were actually spent on health care. We should not really worry about that, because if we did not like the numbers we saw in one paper, we just had to pick up another paper to see a different set of numbers. It was that confusing. After we discern the package in the budget for health care and in the accord, there is still some confusion because there is a lot of negotiation and a lot of fuzzy areas that are yet to be determined as we move forward in the next couple of years. Nonetheless, we know that for primary health care reform there is at least $12 billion.

However, the real change in health care, the real significant paradigm shift that we need in the 21st century, is to put the interests of the patient first. We need to get on with that and we need to stop the fighting between the federal and provincial governments as to whose dollars are going into health care. Let us just start focusing on some of the things that have come out of the accord which we really agree with. I would like to talk about five of them and very briefly go through them and explain why they are important and why we agree with them.

First, the new cash infusion is very important. I talked about the $12 billion that is going into primary health care reform. We have to discern whether it is really $12 billion, because $3.9 billion of that was part of the social accord just prior to the last election. We still get this attempt by the federal government to play politics with the money by re-announcing money previously announced. I do not know how it determined that this is an ethical way to deal with taxpayers' dollars, but regardless of that, I would suggest that we quit arguing about that number. Let us just say there is $12 billion more, even if $3.9 billion of it was previously announced money and actually only $8.1 billion is going into primary health care reform.

It is absolutely pathetic when we see the number of dollars that are going in and discern that this new money is the first real, solid cash injection of money since the mid-nineties when $25 billion was pulled out of our system. Now we have provinces in which 40% of every provincial dollar goes to health care, whereas the federal government, according to Mr. Romanow's report, only contributed 12¢ of every provincial dollar that was spent on health care this last year.

We have this large injection. Some of my Liberal colleagues would say that this is not quite true because they put in all of this money in the September accord, but not really, because that was a five year accord and not one nickel of the money for health care reform went in until April of the first year. We are only now just crowding in on the third year of that. We still have two years to go on that past accord and we are re-announcing new moneys.

One thing that is important is the flexibility we see within the dollars that are being implemented into the new programs suggested by the accord and by this budget. Because provinces are the deliverers of front line health care services, it is very important that they be allowed the flexibility to apply those dollars to where they are most suited to their provinces' needs.

An example of that is New Brunswick, which has a very extensive home care program. Regarding the new dollars that are supposed to be applied to home care, at least it has the opportunity to take those dollars and apply them in other areas. That flexibility is there and we applaud the provinces for holding fast to their constitutional right in delivering health care, for not allowing the federal government to remove that from the accord or from the budget.

The third thing I want to talk about is restoring core funding to health care. It is very important that those core funds are allowed to be applied where they are most needed. It is really interesting to me to see that $243 million has been spent by the government for just studying health care over the last 10 years. That is a horrendous amount of studying.

In Mr. Romanow's study, which went on for 18 months, we see virtually a blank stare when it comes to dealing with the most significant problem in health care: the mounting wait lists. Over a million people in Canada are waiting just to try to access the services and the system. There are a number of shortages of physicians and nurses in our health care system. I have just come from a meeting with a group of physicians who were saying that the problem is much more acute than we originally had thought.

It is very important to talk about the alternative delivery system that the provinces need and must have the flexibility to be able to deliver on. Monopolies never work, whether they are private or public monopolies. We need to make sure that the provinces are allowed to be able to drive efficiency, accountability and sustainability into our health care system. Thank goodness that they have retained this under the accord.

We also are very appreciative of the dedicated health transfer that is going to happen by the end of this next year, in regard to which the Auditor General said that we do not even know how much federal money is going in because the CHST has such fuzzy numbers. It is going to be split. To be able to add accountability to the health care system, we should be able to know how many dollars actually are being spent there.

It is very important that we discern and understand that we are on the right track, but we absolutely have to make sure that now that we are on solid footing, we put the interests of the patients first as we move forward in the 21st century to sustain health care.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and appreciate his comments, particularly those on health care. I point out to him that this accord is very important. It is the second major accord that the government has been able to reach with the provinces, the first one being the $23.5 billion in September 2000, and the recent one earlier this month.

The hon. member is absolutely correct when he says that it is the provinces that deliver health care, except for the federal government doing it in areas such as aboriginals and the armed forces. That is absolutely correct. Also, the accountability aspect of the accord is extremely important to Canadians, not to governments but to Canadians. It is very important that they understand. We could get into the numbers game with the 14% and the 40%, and I have all of those figures and would be happy to talk about them, but the real issue is delivery of health care to Canadians. They want to know that they have a health care system they can rely on.

I would like the hon. member to comment, if he would, with regard to the issue of the accountability aspect. Knowing that these transfers are going to go to the provinces and they are going to have to account for these dollars, how will that better improve services in his community?

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question, because I did not have time in my 10 minutes to get into this in some depth. Hopefully I can answer this in such a way that the member will understand and discern the missed opportunity by the government with this allotment of money. Not only did it miss the opportunity in the September 2000 accord when two or three months prior to the election it supposedly threw $23 billion at the health care system, none of that money hit that system until the next April. It was just an illusion, no strings attached, nothing following that money.

Supposedly this accord was to attach some strings from the federal government. Let me tell the member something. It will not work when strings are attached from the top down. What we need to do is demand an explanation from the provinces as to where that money is going to be spent in order to drive sustainability, efficiency and accountability into the system. Then we need to make sure that the provinces put the postmarks in a place where we can record them, so we can find out exactly where they should be and then hold them accountable before the people of Canada. That is from the bottom up, and let me say that it will be very difficult for the provinces to back down on an agreement where they take money and apply it to where they say it should go.

They are in a much better position to be able to place that money than to have the federal government demanding where the money should go when the provinces are quite alienated and cannot apply the dollars where they should go. The government has the right idea but it is going in the wrong direction and it is doomed to failure. Mark my words, two years from now we will be in the same position and health care will not be on the sustainable course that we could have placed it on at this moment, and that is unfortunate.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear a lot from time to time about the issue of spending and debt. The fact is that we are the only G-7 state paying off the national debt. I remember a number of years ago when the official opposition talked about the article in The New York Times that said we were the basket case of the G-7. Now we are the envy of the G-7. We have gone from 71.5% of GDP for the national debt down to 44.5% and we are going down to 40%. It is the lowest it has been since 1984.

We have been able to invest strategically in things that the member is very concerned about, such as health care. The other member was concerned about skills development and we were able to invest significantly in that area. We were able to make prudent investments in families and at that same time balance the books. That is something, and six balanced budgets or better, I defy anyone to suggest that any other government has been able to do that. The fact is that we have been watching the books very carefully.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question in terms of the issue of debt. There was a comment made about the amount of money being spent on the debt. For this year we could be looking obviously at another significant $3 billion or $4 billion. In the hon. member's view we are not going fast enough. What would he suggest we do in order to accelerate spending on the debt, which has already dropped by almost 30% in the last five years?

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants me to talk about the debt. There was a change to accrual accounting in the budget. The day before the budget came down the debt was $536 billion, but because of the accrual accounting it moved to $563 billion in one day.

When we factor in that money my hon. colleague says that we are moving down and we are not in deficit. The only reason is because of the surplus that was there which is an overtaxation. It is not a government that has put its priorities on health care, which is the number one priority of Canadians. It is a government that has just dipped into the surpluses which is overtaxation and thrown it at the problem. That is an absolute abomination and will not be sustainable.

If the government does not pay down its debt in good times when it has surpluses, when will it pay it down? It never will be paid down.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, despite the criticism of the official opposition and the distortions which inevitably come with having to adhere to negativism as it is inherent in the makeup of the role of the official opposition, I would submit that this budget is in the best Liberal tradition. In a way it is an historic budget for children and families. It is a document of social significance, of social cohesion, and of recognition of the needs and aspirations of Canadians.

It puts Canada among the advanced nations in making progress with social, economic and environmental issues coming together. These are the three ingredients of sustainable development. This is also an encouraging and positive aspect of the budget, that the three are mentioned at the same time. The budget is not concerned only with the economy or with other aspects of the economy alone, but brings together social, economic and environmental objectives.

Much has been said about health by other speakers. I would only add that the dimension of provincial accountability in matters of health expenditures represents a real victory for Canadians and for strong federalism. In this respect the Romanow report was a great help in setting out the health care component of the budget. To the former premier of Saskatchewan goes our gratitude and I suspect that of the Canadian people who have benefited from his inquiries, research, and of course, his report.

The Canadian Council on Social Development writes:

The federal government is showing leadership which will benefit parents and children alike.

It notes that 70% of women with preschool age children are working outside the home in Canada, and yet only 12% of children have access to licensed care. It states:

Moreover, research clearly shows that quality early education and care programs make a positive difference in the growth and development of children, especially those from low income families.

Marcel Lauzière, the president of the Canadian Council on Social Development, states:

We are very happy about this announcement but we are concerned that a mere $25 million has been allocated for the first year. Given that Quebec alone spent $1.1 billion on child care in 2001, and that the overall price tag for a quality, national child care system is estimated at $10 billion, we can only hope that all governments will be committed to increasing their support to child care in the years to come.

On the national child benefit the same Canadian Council on Social Development writes:

The NCB has provided financial assistance to low income families in Canada, but for far too long, has not reached many of Canada's poorest children--an estimated 700,000 in 2000--who live in families that rely on social assistance. These children have been losing ground, as the value of welfare benefits to these families have fallen by 23% since 1991, and in most provinces, the NCB has been clawed back.

That is something that is profoundly upsetting. The council comments further:

With the budget announcement, the value of the combined Canada child tax benefit will fully replace child benefits under social assistance. For the first time, children in Canada's poorest families should see an increase to their families' incomes.

Katherine Scott, the senior policy associate for the council, states:

Their work isn't done on the child tax front. The federal government must continue to make new and substantial investments in the Canada Child Tax Benefit, including the NCB. The benefit needs to reach at least $4,200 a child before we will see a significant reduction in the rate and depth of child poverty in Canada.

The same council recognized the fact that something had been done in this budget regarding housing, that one of the greatest needs of many Canadians has been addressed, namely that of affordable housing. It adds that an estimated 200,000 Canadians are homeless and 1.7 million families are in poor housing need. Council President Lauzière states:

The budget commitment of $320 million over five years will be insufficient to build the number of housing units estimated to be necessary, but at least it recognizes there is a problem that cannot be ignored. We also welcome the $270 million allocated to fighting homelessness through an extension of the Supporting Communities Partnerships Initiative.

The 2003 federal budget represents the first truly activist budget of the Prime Minister's era according to the council. The new investments in Canada's families will begin to counter the growing gap between rich and poor.

It seems to me that, coming from an independent body, these comments are relevant and also encouraging. This is certainly an institution that has served Canada well and is known for its independent thinking.

I would like make some comments on the budget and the environment, climate change and Kyoto, which received a considerable amount of attention at this point in time. This is thanks to the plan which was produced last October and the ratification of the Kyoto agreement which was given a massive yes vote in the House on December 10.

The budget is positive in terms of allocation of funds. There is this large figure of $1.7 billion. It is intended to meet Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol. It now needs the decisions necessary to determine how the money should be spent in a specific manner. That is something that would probably be carried out or achieved in the near future.

Let me draw the attention of members to the fact that four ministers: the environment minister, the natural resources minister, the agriculture minister and the transport minister, all have access to these funds. It would seem from public statements that they would have to compete to obtain these funds.

The Minister of the Environment has already warned of a danger with this process last week. Kyoto money intended to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions could be spent by other ministers for what has been termed hobby horses or pet projects which would not necessarily have the full impact and priority that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions require.

It would be desirable against this background perhaps to recommend that a central agency be in charge of the allocation of this very large fund. Possibly the Privy Council Office could perform the task of being in charge of the climate change funds so as to ensure the funds are used to the best possible effect in reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

The budget offers a range of possible programs, and it is quite interesting to go over them, to reach our Kyoto goal. However it does not specify which programs will be implemented.

Incentive programs to encourage for instance homeowners and businesses to make their buildings more energy efficient would go a long way in reaching the Kyoto target. Such type of program aimed at reducing the losses in energy would not be expensive and would pay off in the medium term, and sometimes in the short term, in energy savings for both the homeowner and businesses.

I would like to draw the attention of the House that the city of Toronto for instance has already a prototype program of this kind. It is called the Toronto atmospheric fund. It is a revolving fund which provides or revolves $10 million of public investment which has apparently triggered some $126 million in energy savings and improvements. I am sure that other municipalities are adopting this model or probably thinking of moving in that same direction.

There are many other incentives that could go a long way in moving Canada toward its Kyoto goal. An increase in the wind power production incentive and expansion of that incentive to include all forms of renewable energy would be very helpful. We had a measure already in the last budget of 1.2 ¢ per kilowatt hour. Industry has indicated that the incentive needs to be increased. I would imagine that is an item that requires attention in the next budget as well.

We need to promote energy conservation to educate consumers on energy efficiency and more careful consumption and are items that remain still to be specified in the budget.

I must point out that a large sum of money devoted to the implementation of Kyoto and reducing greenhouse gas emissions would have a limited effect unless it is accompanied by an overhaul of our taxation system. Our current taxation was designed for the pre-Kyoto era. What we need now is to adopt a system that is tailored in a manner that will help to achieve the Kyoto objectives; in other words, a system of taxation that will remove the obstacles that stand in the way in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, at the present time the federal government through the taxation system of course subsidizes the oil sands industry which is an industry that in the production of oil produces a high level of greenhouse gases. Preferential tax treatment is a tax that consists of accelerated write-offs and deferrals. A considerable series of measures need to be dealt with and gradually phased out, because that industry can compete and can do very well without being subsidized in what could be described as a rather socialistic regime, and of all places it is happening in the province of Alberta.In other words these are perverse subsidies that ought to be removed.

Therefore a level playing field needs to be established to deal with the greenhouse gas producing sources. Removing these subsidies would have the effect of letting all prices reach their level at the marketplace, reflecting the cost of production without being favoured by what is obviously becoming rapidly an outdated taxation system.

I know that this may not sound like very good news to members opposite, but I do not think that members from Alberta need to fear. That industry can stand very well on its feet without subsidies, without corporate welfare and without the help of the Alberta government and, in the case of the taxation system, without the help of the Government of Canada.

One of the tenets of the Alliance Party is to promote free enterprise and a capitalistic society. Therefore I cannot understand why some members of the Alliance want to defend the taxation subsidies, which are actually the product of a socialistic ideology.

The government's tax expenditures to the oil sands industry amounted to some $585 million between 1996 and the year 2002. The removal of the subsidies would save Canadian taxpayers a considerable sum of money. This is an item that our friends in the official opposition always preach. They would like to have a reduction in taxes and if they are to be consistent with their desire to reduce taxes, then they would also want to have the removal of perverse subsidies which stand in the way in the achievement of the Kyoto objectives.

One has to also mention the importance of energy innovation in this debate. There is a very brief reference in the budget to innovation in general, but I submit, in the limited time available, that there are two departments and two ministers key to the success in Canada's achieving its Kyoto objectives. One, as I mentioned, is the Minister of Finance. The other one is the Minister of Industry, because the innovation program, if it were to be designed in a manner so as to give energy innovation a key central role, it would help considerably in achieving the Kyoto objectives.

Therefore, I would take the opportunity in this debate to call on the Minister of Industry and to urge him or her, whoever it might be at a certain time, to design an innovation program in the Department of Industry that would take into account the absolutely urgent necessity of adopting and including an energy innovation component for that program.

In doing so, by redesigning the tax system and by adopting a strong policy of energy innovation, we can look forward with a certain degree of confidence to the year 2012, which is our next appointment with destiny in the implementation of Canada's commitment to the Kyoto agreement.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague for Davenport for his extremely important contribution of many decades to environmental issues. Our hon. colleague did not wait for us to experience the consequences of our abuse of the planet before speaking out. I want to pay tribute to him.

I would also like to take advantage of his expertise to ask him if my perception of the consequences of Kyoto are correct. I think that, ten years from now, we will reach and even greatly surpass Kyoto objectives, in view of what we are seeing now, particularly in the auto industry, where there is a demand to increase use of fuels other than those currently available.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he feels quite optimistic about reaching and, I hope, greatly surpassing Kyoto objectives.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madame Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention. The question he asked is very difficult to answer. I can only tell him that increased use of other fuels as soon as possible is probably a key issue for meeting the Kyoto protocol objectives.

The Minister of the Environment has already made proposals to the automobile industry recommending the need to meet new performance standards in the vehicles manufactured by 2010.

That is an aspect of the budget that should be raised and underscored because transportation is very significant. More than 30% of green house gas emissions come from transportation activities.

The parliamentary secretary raised a very central issue. It is a key issue in the debate on our performance in this area.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, my colleague will be aware from most of the research that has come, in particular from urban areas, that there is an indirect health consequence to the existence of persistent organic pollutants and the effect of climate change. This indirect effect is in the form of premature deaths. All of this has been detailed and chronicled. There have been cases of chronic bronchitis. It is estimated that 320,000 asthma symptom days have resulted from smog and in emergency room visits. This is as a result of environmental pollution.

Given the angst that has been demonstrated from urban leaders, from his knowledge of the plan of the budget, could the hon. member indicate what instruments would be available that would over the next number of years make a serious approach to deal with the problems of smog and the implications with respect to health, particularly in urban areas?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, a plan was launched I believe in the year 2000 in terms of achieving clean air objectives in order to deal with the premature deaths to which the member referred. The Minister of the Environment has, on a number of occasions, made public statements on the desirability of achieving a healthier environment and improving the longevity of Canadians through initiatives that would reduce air pollution.

In that respect, both of us coming from the province of Ontario, we cannot help thinking of the Nanticoke coal fired plant, which, along with another plant, contributes considerably to the poor air quality, particularly in the summer months, in southern Ontario. Definitely there has to be, sooner or later, at least that would be my hope, an agreement between Ottawa and Queen's Park for a joint initiative that would modernize these two coal fired plants, reverse them or transform them into natural gas fired plants or to another type of technology that would be less polluting. In doing that I would hope that perhaps we could earmark some of the funds mentioned on page 150 of the budget plan to that particular end in order to improve the quality of air that the constituents in York South--Weston and Davenport have to breathe and suffer under on certain occasions.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and he made some rather strong statements on the tax system in place regarding the oil and gas industry. I want to clarify a couple of points. I think I know the answer but I want to get the member on record.

Does the member support or oppose the finance minister's proposal to reduce the resource tax to equalize it to other corporate taxes? Does he support or oppose the oil sands tax regime that was put together in large part by the current Minister of Health?

At the industry committee we are studying the implementation of the Kyoto accord. While we are on opposite sides of the accord, I think we can agree that there needs to be some sort of an implementation plan. We do not sign something without having a plan.

A member of the Sierra Club said quite explicitly that if the federal government had been serious about Kyoto it would have been more detailed and explicit in this federal budget about how it was going achieve Kyoto and what specific credits it would give to homeowners for whatever. It is very disappointing to see this large fund which is just an open-ended fund. Does he think the finance minister should have been more specific as the Sierra Club advised?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, to answer the last question first, I am sure everybody would like the finance minister to be more specific. I suspect that the specificity with regard to Kyoto will emerge gradually with the next budget because the government machinery needs time to adjust and the ratification of the Kyoto agreement took place only in December. We cannot redesign the taxation system that fast, but time I hope certainly will bring forward the specifics.

As to the reduction of the resource tax from I believe 28% to 21%, to which the hon. member referred, yes, this measure was promised. We brought the natural resources sector in line with other industrial sectors that have the same level of taxation treatment. It is because of this reduction from 28% to 21% that I would say, and bring to the attention of the hon. member again, that the subsidy to the oil sands industry, amounting to $585 million between 1996 and 2002, could now be gradually phased out because they are subsidies which encourage the production of greenhouse gases which are the ones that we would like to reduce rather than encourage.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech on the budget by making it clear that this year's budget must have hit a new low as far as any excitement or interest was concerned.

We MPs, even on the government side, get all excited at the prospect of the Minister of Finance coming to announce what we hope will be something interesting. He turned up with a fresh rose in his button hole, but I did not have a chance to look at his feet. According to tradition, he is also meant to have new shoes on.

It did not take long for people to realize several things about the budget's contents. The main one is that it had nothing to their advantage in it. I will explain.

People are beginning to understand that the Minister of Finance has for some time been intentionally underestimating the end of year surplus. When there turns out to be a surplus, like this year's $12 billion or so, people's reaction is that these mistakes have been happening for some years now. The day after a budget, I never notice anything different about my pay cheque, or anything in my community either. Yet, if there is a surplus, that means that I had too much tax taken off my pay cheque, and paid too much in other kinds of taxes to the federal government but it does not take advantage of this opportunity to give it back to me. Instead—and we all must agree on this—it goes out and makes investments, it reduces the debt. That is what has gone on in recent years.

Now, it is doing something even worse: increasing spending in areas of activity that have no impact on middle or low income people. The public says “The federal government had more money this year again, a surplus of $12 billion or $13 billion. That is the same as always, and yet I see nothing around me that shows that this money has been well invested”.

All the sympathy and enthusiasm was short lived. People figured out in no time that nothing had changed. When then get their pay cheques, they will see that nothing has changed, and when they make purchases, they will see that nothing has changed: there are still taxes and they have not been reduced.

But there were means available to the government to help the mainstay of Parliaments, that is the middle class. These are the people who contribute the most to the governments' budgets. This is not only true at the federal level, but also at the provincial level, including in Quebec. The middle class is the one paying. These people leave home with their lunch boxes to go to work in a garage, a hospital or the private sector. They are the ones paying, but also the forgotten ones.

The government had an opportunity not to forget them. What would it have cost the public purse in Ottawa to reduce the GST? Let us talk about our Liberal friends. We all remember the promise they made in 1993 to scrap the GST if they were elected. It would have been a good thing for us, for the taxpayers to scrap the GST. It would have put more money into circulation, more money into the pockets of voters and taxpayers. It would have fueled economic activity in all the regions.

That is not what they did. They maintained the GST. They did so again in the latest budget. Since they took office, the Liberals have maintained the GST and have been counting on this money. They could have afforded saying, “Instead of having a $12 billion surplus this year, let us reduce the GST by a few percentage points and give people a chance to pocket some of this money. It will revive the local economy”. This could even have been beneficial to the federal public purse.

A budget entails political choices. We feel that, year after year, this government falls short in its budget. Yet consultations have taken place. It cannot be said that this government is not consulting.

We, as parliamentarians, also conduct consultations. But we often caution the middle class and the disadvantaged, saying “We are prepared to convey what you will tell us to the government, but it is highly unlikely that the Liberal federal government will grant your requests”.

I would even say that it is a very rare exception when the government does so. So, the government had an opportunity to slowly reduce the GST, but it did not take it.

There is something else, namely employment insurance. The minister says that he will lower the premium rate to $1.98, but we know that the system would be self-funding with a rate of $1.60. Why does the minister do that? Again, it is because he wants to accumulate surpluses, at the expense of the jobless.

The government is silent about improving the system. The program will remain the way it is and premiums will go down by a few pennies, since the minister announced that they would go from $2.10 down to $1.98. But the government had already mentioned that they would be set at $2. So, it can be said that employment insurance premiums will go down by about 2 cents.

And the minister is waiting for another consultation later on. Why? To once again accumulate surpluses at the expense of those who need the money the most, and there are a number of people who currently find themselves in that situation. Just think that, when the Liberal government took over this program, seven people out of 10 qualified, whereas now only four out of 10 do so.

The government is far from having improved the program, because it has reduced the number of weeks of benefits. In some cases, it has also extended the number of weeks required to qualify. There are even students who will never qualify for the employment insurance program even though they are contributing to it. Imagine all the money that the government is accumulating, but not redistributing to people.

There are also other examples relating to the employment insurance program. What is the government waiting for to make the program an independent one? The government does not make any contribution. It is the unions and the employers who pay, but the government sets the rules. There is something very wrong here.

If the government gave that independent fund to those who contribute to it, to workers and employers, there would be no need to worry, because they would adjust the fund according to the needs. At that point, the two sides would negotiate, probably with a view to improving the program.

I am not sure whether, for once, workers and employers would agree to improve Quebec's parental program, which is something that we have been asking for for a long time. The Quebec government is prepared to make a little money available to allow young mothers in Quebec to extend their maternity leave by a bit under decent conditions.

But once again, the federal government refuses because that means helping the middle class and the less well off. Multimillionaires do not necessarily need this help. But the federal government is telling those who do that they are out of luck.

It is the same thing for self-employed workers and forestry workers who are grappling with the softwood lumber problem. They are being completely forgotten.

The government could make the transition easier for them. Yes, it was announced that $300 million is being given, but this $300 million is for the entire country.

There are villages in Quebec currently having difficulty coping with the closure of their lumber mill. They are forced to beg the government and ask them daily to share a little of the surplus, but the government does not want to help these people.

These are examples where the government could have intervened, but it chose not to.

There is another very interesting, and very current, aspect and that is gasoline. In my riding, people are telling me that they cannot pay more than $40 every two weeks to fuel their vehicle. Now they will have to put their vehicles away a few days a week because there was an explosion in gas prices at the pump.

What is the federal government doing for these people? When it was running deficits, it imposed a deficit reduction tax of 1.5 cents a litre. We have not had a deficit for five or six years and the tax still exists. Maybe it is time to eliminate it. Of course, they will say that if they do, the major oil companies will find a way to make it up.

The federal government has jurisdiction over competition—or non-competition—within the oil industry and it is doing absolutely nothing. We have been asking the government about this for two weeks, we have been saying that it needs to conduct an investigation and tell the oil companies that they are inflating their prices. We have evidence. Just stand at a corner where there are four service stations to see the prices all change in the span of three minutes.

We need to understand. It is not difficult. Once again, the government is closing its eyes and people are suffering.

Why will the government not say that it will eliminate the GST on all products? It could be taken off gasoline, forcing the oil and gas companies to operate without recovering the 6.5% or 7% GST. The government is not doing this. It is leaving everything as it is, because it knows that the higher the price, the greater the revenues from GST on gas and the 1.5% tax, to fight the deficit, it can pocket.

Do not tell me that the Liberal government members are helping the middle class. These people often need their cars to get to work. That is without counting the cost of gasoline and inflation and the increased cost of food from the corner store or the supermarket. When fruits and vegetables come from Florida, and trucking companies pay higher gas, who do you think will foot the bill? Consumers, that is who. They will pay more for their food. These people are already having problems. The middle class is saying, “We are paying for everything and we never get anything back”. Now is the time to help. But, the government has missed the mark when it comes to gas and employment insurance.

There is another group of people who have been suffering greatly for some time, because the government took money from them and did not tell them they were entitled to it. I am talking about the elderly, seniors. A thousand of them, in the Saint-Jean riding, were entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and they were not informed.

So we needed to go out looking for the seniors, the people of three score and ten. We really got them stirred up by asking them “Are you interested in this issue? If you know any people affected, let them know they are entitled to the GIS”. There were a couple of hundred people in St-Jean who got the supplement in the end. We got phone calls thanking us. “Thank you, Mr. Bachand, for helping me get my Guaranteed Income Supplement”. We called upon the government to remedy this injustice, which had been going on for nine years. If a person is now 75 and receiving the GIS, why not go back 9 years and give him or her retroactivity?

It is pretty strange. When the tax department decides it is going to look into past returns, we cannot say a word, and have to pay up. Seniors were entitled to the GIS, so why has the government not given it to them in this budget? It ought to acknowledge that it has done people an injustice, and give them their back payments.

I might point out in passing that this would inject money into the economy. It is the same thing with employment insurance. If people get help, then they spend money in their regional economy, which will help them in the end. The government has the means but does nothing.

There is also nothing in the budget whatsoever about older workers and POWA, the older worker adjustment program. Goodness knows we all have people aged 45 to 60 coming into our offices. I have people telling me, “Mr. Bachand, we have lost our jobs and no one wants to hire us”. There was an excellent program but it was done away with; no trace of it remains. There is nothing in the budget as far as any government programs that might help these people are concerned. Absolutely nothing.

Fiscal imbalance is often mentioned. Quebec should be getting $50 million each week; that is $2.5 billion a year. What happens when people need to go to the hospital? They see the emergency wards are overflowing, and they blame the Quebec government. They must be made to realize that Ottawa is the one with the money. Quebec City will not have a surplus this year. Ottawa is the one with the surplus and the provinces are the ones with the expenses. God knows that we are not alone in saying this. The Séguin commission says it, and Mr. Séguin is not the biggest sovereignist. The members of the National Assembly are also saying it. It is not just the “evil separatists” as the Liberals say. In fact, there are ADQ and Liberal members in the National Assembly. Everyone says that this situation is unfair for the provinces and Quebec. Only the Liberal government in Ottawa refuses to face reality and is bent on pocketing surplus after surplus and not helping people.

Unfortunately, I am getting the signal that I only have a minute left. I could have addressed the issue of infrastructures and the fact that municipalities could have been given a hand up. I think that in Montreal alone, infrastructure requirements are in excess of $10 billion. The government provided hardly anything. In fact, it is being questioned daily on this.

Once again, the Liberal party missed the boat. It could have helped the middle class and the disadvantaged but did not, once again telling them to keep paying because there is nothing coming their way.

It is clear that this budget is not to the liking of the Bloc Quebecois. Sadly for the Liberal party and luckily for the people we represent, we will gladly be voting against this budget that ignored what the people said and does nothing either for the middle class or for the disadvantaged.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.