Karen Redman

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, provinces are allowed the autonomy to do that in order that those moneys can then be redirected to that target group of people. I would also add that is one of the reasons last week was so exciting for all members of this House. With the signing of the social union we see a demand for transparency. Any money flowing from the federal government to the provinces will then go directly to the people it is targeted at.

I think we will see this government continue to refine federalism in a way that is meaningful to all Canadians in partnership with the territories and the provinces.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as we travelled across Canada one of the things we heard from economists, everyday Canadians and business people was that they embraced the kind of prudent forecast the finance minister had made. In fact revenues have consistently come in over budget. It is that kind of forecasting that has led us to a balanced budget and being able to pay down the deficit.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the opposition motion concerning poverty and the tax burden. I will be splitting my time.

They are matters of real concern for Canadians and they deserve the full attention of the House. However, I am worried about the underlying assumption of the hon. member's motion, that the government is in a position to take extreme action, to take action to dramatically bring down our national tax burden.

There is no politician, certainly not on this side of the House, who does not want to bring tax reform to Canadians, especially to help reduce poverty. But, and there is a very big but, appealing politics often does not make good public policy. The national pocketbook can simply not pay for the wish lists many of us have. If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it.

Too many governments in the past have had good intentions that have outweighed fiscal reality. As a result of two decades of deficits we had a national debt that was the second worst, the second highest among G-7 major industrial nations. It affected our growth. We lagged in growth and there were too many Canadians, despite the spending, who remained in need. That is not to deny that easing Canada's tax burden must be a priority. It is a priority for the government. Tax cuts should be focused first on those in the greatest need. That is just what we did in the last budget.

Canadians made it very clear in the last two federal elections that it is a fundamental priority for them that the government continue to give good financial management, both of the nation's resources and of government itself.

When I speak to my constituents in Kitchener Centre as well to Canadians from coast to coast, which I have had the opportunity to do being a member of the finance committee, I have not heard any voices saying that cutting taxes is more important than maintaining the gains we have made.

Canadians remember too well the price we paid for relying on deficit spending, resulting higher interest rates, lower economic growth and the jobs that have been lost. A key priority for the government is to avoid returning to the vicious cycle that was dominated by federal policy in the two previous decades.

Priorities are neither simple nor self-evident when it comes to the budget of a government. This debate attempts to focus on a single issue, an issue dealt with in isolation, and even one as compelling as poverty can make this conversation simplistic and self-serving.

Let me again emphasize that we are committed absolutely and aggressively to tax relief, especially for low income Canadians.

We will not do so through knee-jerk decisions that ignore fiscal reality, the world environment and the appropriate role for government.

The finance minister addressed this in his October economic update before the House finance committee. Our work as a government reflects that the pursuit of frugality had to become a defining feature of everything we do. This is a principle that must govern all policy making and debates such as ours here today.

Given the volatile condition in many parts of the world economy, we are in a situation that calls for great care and extreme caution. We must be realistic about the resources at our disposal.

Some seem to believe we have mountains of money to spend, that we should step back and take action immediately. I suggest we need to continue with a more balanced look, a look that takes global trends into consideration.

As a government we need to continue to make hard choices. I suggest we will continue to do that.

The minister pointed out what has happened in the average forecast of economic growth by private sector experts over the past year. In January 1998 they were estimating a nominal income growth of 4.7% for that fiscal year. By the fall, it was revised downward to 3%. For 1999, a 4.9% nominal income growth was projected. By the fall, that too was down significantly, reduced to 3.5%.

What do these revisions mean in the size of the possible fiscal surpluses projected by the private sector? The answer is it would take out over $5 billion of government revenues in the coming fiscal year, 1999-2000. This is what next week's budget will address.

In our last budget many criticized us for being too prudent, too cautious in their estimation. We are hearing that same criticism in today's debate. We have been attacked for not moving quickly to slash taxes but the dramatic downward revision of private sector forecasts illustrates that as a government we must stick to a careful approach to budget planning.

We simply cannot afford the risks associated with the changing of planning assumptions so drastically month by month. This is not an academic argument or some arcane point from economic theory.

Consider the result if we followed the advice of some not long ago to take $9 billion to $10 billion of tax burden action, action they claimed we could afford.

If they were wrong, the result would push us back into deficit virtually overnight. It is easy to be wrong. Projecting government revenues and spending pressures, very large numbers, is dealt with in a matter of a mere 12 months. The fact is government revenues and spending, including interest payments on the debt, are both in the range of $150 billion.

If forecasts are off by merely 1%, an amount statistically not particularly significant, in each of these sectors, if the revenue is out 1%, it is lower and costs are up 1%, the answer is that they are out by $3 billion. That is $3 billion we do not have.

If we committed the $6 billion to $7 billion in tax cuts with little more than 1% shortfall in revenues and 1% again in costs, we would be back into the world of deficit financing. To get out we would simply have to raise taxes. Then they would be higher and we would be back into that downward spiral.

It is these risks based not on ideology but mathematics that the finance minister must consider when planning his new budget. That is why I share his concern that the fiscal dividend over the next two years must be estimated to be modest, much less than would be required to provide sufficient funding for the types of initiatives on tax reduction that today's motion calls for. Clearly careful consideration and choice in allocating that dividend will be required.

Again in the words of the finance minister, the very reason that we have met our targets, the very reason we are now able to say that despite the global economic crisis we are still on track not only to balance the books but to have a dividend, all this is anchored in the caution we have applied from the very beginning.

Some have said we should implement major personal income tax cuts, for example, an average of $600 annually per taxpayer. That comes with a price tag of about $9 billion per year. Others are demanding that employment insurance premiums be reduced to a so-called break even level. That comes with a cost of $6 billion per year. Still others are saying we should mount a larger attack on the debt. That would cost in the neighbourhood of $3 billion a year. If we add that up, our total bill would be $18 billion each and every year.

This is not a complete inventory; this is merely a highlight of some of the requests that have been made of the government. Adopting all of these principles very clearly would put the country back in a situation of serious chronic deficits. Adopting any one of these proposals could put us in financial difficulty.

Let me again emphasize, I do not intend to understate the significance that Canadians and our government put on easing taxes and reducing poverty. It is only by looking at the sum of our priorities that we will be able to give long term security to all Canadians. That is why it would be irresponsible of us to accept, as this motion does, the easy assumption that government has all kinds of money at its disposal.

[Ymca, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride I rise today in the House to talk about an opening that will be happening in Kitchener Centre. This weekend the A. R. Kaufman family YMCA will be having a ribbon cutting ceremony at the grand reopening of its facility.

The YMCA has had a presence in Kitchener since 1895. It started out with recreational facilities as well as housing for soldiers during the second world war. Currently they are in partnership with the federal government providing day care, services to new Canadians as well as youth employment strategy programs. The YMCA is a sterling example of a community choosing the projects that it wants to make its place a caring and safe community.

I am very proud to have had a lifelong membership with the YMCA and I look forward to its reopening this Saturday.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River. I had the distinct privilege this year to be part of the Standing Committee on Finance and to have toured across Canada. We heard that Canadians want and expect from this government integrity, accountability, consistency and above all that their voices be heard as part of this budget process.

The finance committee met with Canadians from all walks of life. While it is important that we meet from time to time with the leaders of national organizations, we also met with grassroots Canadians across the country. One of the things they said loudly and clearly is that they do not want quick fixes. Canadians want us to operate on prudent estimates. They want us to use realistic targets which are reflected in the finance committee's recommendation that the government continue to employ a contingency reserve by setting aside $3 billion per year. As at present, the contingency reserve should be used to fund neither increased program spending nor tax cuts but that it should go toward the debt.

I did a survey in my constituency of Kitchener Centre. Eighty per cent of respondents indicated that the government needs to work on paying down our national debt. We must be attentive to this issue. Our committee also recommended that the government establish a long term target for a sustainable debt to GDP ratio.

Again we heard Canadians say “Give us realistic targets so that we can move forward in a measured pace”. This government has demonstrated its ability to do that by paying down the deficit and we are now ready to take on the debt.

Our committee also recommended the establishment of an interim debt to GDP ratio, a target of 50% to 60%, that should be achieved in this mandate.

Another issue I heard about from my constituents in Kitchener Centre was the lowering of personal income taxes.

Last spring the finance committee had the opportunity to deal with the Mintz report which looked at Canada's corporate tax structure as compared to the other G-8 countries. While the report did make some recommendations, it also pointed out that our corporate tax system is in the mid-range of other G-8 countries, roughly where we would hope to target.

Our payroll taxes in comparison to other G-8 countries, despite what we read in the media, are on the low side. As a matter of fact this government has in four consecutive moves lowered EI premiums to the point where as of January 1 of this year they were lowered to $2.55.

One of the areas where we need to be attentive is in our personal income taxes. That is something the finance committee suggested we look at as we can afford to do it. Again, it has to be a change that is sustainable and one that Canadians can count on.

Across this country in every province we heard concerns regarding health care, the universality of our health care system as well as the standards of our health care system. It is that message that the finance committee carried forward in recommendation 17, recommending that the government strengthen its involvement in health care by further increasing the cash floor by $1 billion starting in 1999 to the year 2000.

It is important that we add money and help to give a federal presence and federal leadership in health care. But the problems facing health care are far greater than merely money.

Previously I served at other levels of government as well as on a district health council. I know that health care, not only in Ontario, in Kitchener Centre, but across this nation is changing. It is evolving from an institutionally based health care system to a preventive health care system. We need to look at how we fund health care. It is not just a matter of dollars.

We also heard in many communities, my own included, that we need to be attentive to the issues of both home care and pharmacare. But again I hear the people of Canada asking for a vision, for a strategic plan, not just merely dumping money on problems.

Recommendation 19 recommends that the federal government fund health care research and that this research money be doubled. This should be achieved within five years.

The issue of standards of reporting in health care is very popular and certainly something which Canadians are interested in seeing. A demonstration that has benchmarks so that we can measure the kind of health care we as Canadians enjoy needs to have the kind of research and statistics behind it in order to make those yardsticks meaningful. Funding to medical research will help to get us halfway there.

The finance committee also heard that research, not only on behalf of government but to encourage the Canadian private sector to enter this important industry, needs to be encouraged. It is on that note that we suggested the networks of centres of excellence program have their funding raised as well as technology partnerships.

The community that I represent was largely manufacturing in its historic base. I see that base evolving. My community is looking for highly skilled technical workers. These are the workers who will be needed to partner with business in the next millennium.

The committee also recommended that the government enhance its financial support for the National Research Council. There are two universities and community colleges in my riding. There is talk about the brain drain. Giving funding to research and especially the granting councils because of the peer review aspect is the way not only to enhance research and the end product, but also the way to create a milieu where we will keep the best and brightest in Canada.

Poverty is an issue that I heard about across Canada. It is an issue I care about deeply and certainly one that I have heard about in my community. We are trying to address this issue through some of the recommendations in the budget.

The committee recommended that we build on the 1998 measures which increased the basic personal amount and spousal amount by $500 to again increase it this year by a further $200, bringing the amount to $700 of additional income that can be earned tax free.

The committee also recommended that we increase the basic personal and spousal amount by $500 for lower income people.

We also suggested that we continue to take away the 3% surcharge which was partially taken off in last year's budget, and it is an issue of credibility that we now do it for earners above the $30,000 level.

The committee recommended that the government reintroduce indexation when the fiscal situation improves. In the meantime, measures should be taken to offset the impact of deindexation.

Measurable, predictable actions of this government are what has put this nation on a stable footing. It is essential that we continue down the path that looks at the impacts of global and domestic trends and that we respond to the evolution of health care and our social system.

I am very proud to be a member of the finance committee that brought forward what I think is a very thoughtful, forward-looking prebudget document.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions regarding the institution of marriage.

Both petitions call on parliament to enact Bill C-225.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the second petition was prepared by Canadians of Serbian descent.

They request that parliament take a proactive role in ensuring equal rights for all citizens of Serbia, including Serbs within the boundaries of international and Serbian laws.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present four petitions on behalf of the my constituents in Kitchener Centre.

The first petition is regarding the sale of Candu reactors. The 42 Canadians who signed the petition call upon parliament to oppose the sale of these reactors to the state of Turkey.

[Violence Against Women, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today is international day of disabled persons and I would like to draw attention to violence against women and disabled women.

Violence is felt in every Canadian community. In my riding of Kitchener Centre, Anselma House, a women's shelter, marked its 20th anniversary with a fundraiser supported by all sectors of the community, both by men and by women. Anselma House took 950 crisis calls this year. Its 20 beds are always full. It has been forced to refer almost 600 women and children to other facilities.

For women with disabilities violence can be frighteningly frequent. Eighty per cent of women with disabilities will be victims of sexual abuse in their lifetime. These statistics are shocking but they cannot lead us to despair. They must spur us to action. Women with disabilities may face barriers to reporting abuse or seeking help because fewer resources are available to them.

On December 6, as we remember the 14 women who died in Montreal, let us renew our commitment to end violence for women of all backgrounds and abilities.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a colleague.

Members of the House deal with many different issues on a day to day basis. During any given session we could be talking about bank mergers, agricultural subsidies or assistance to northern communities. The topics are as diverse as the physical and human geography of the country. Each is important in its own way because each impacts on the communities and the people we represent.

I am sure we would all agree that Canada's social union is an issue that touches both the hearts and minds of every Canadian in each corner of this great nation. I am happy the Reform Party has taken an active interest in the social union framework. It is certainly an issue which the government and the Prime Minister take seriously.

Today's motion neglects to mention that the idea of the social union framework arose not from the Saskatoon agreement but rather from a meeting between the Prime Minister and his provincial colleagues in December 1997.

The government has always supported the initiative from the start. While I understand the opposition's desire to speed things along, I cannot support the motion. Nor should the House support it. Negotiations are still ongoing and we must resist the temptation to rush recklessly forward. There are important issues on the table and it demands that they be addressed both thoroughly and thoughtfully.

Thomas D'Arcy McGee, one of the architects of our modern system of government, once characterized federalism as a great principle that speaks to the very foundations of human nature. I like this. It shows the kind of spirit that went into the development of this great country.

The principles at the heart of the federal idea are noble ones: mutual support, understanding and accommodation. These are the principles upon which the country was built and helped make Canada what it is today.

But when we focus on disagreements and disputes, we lose sight of these principles. We lose sight of how we all benefit from federalism.

Our parliament and our country were not built by men who kept saying that it was beyond their ability or wondering what they would get out of it. They were built by people who focussed on what they could accomplish together.

We need a bit more of this kind of enthusiasm today, because Canada is constantly evolving. It is a work in progress. We have a solid foundation, but we must keep building.

That is exactly what the government is doing. The Reform Party asked about our plans concerning the social union framework. The answer is straightforward. We are negotiating with our partners. It is that simple.

The government is confident that we will negotiate a framework agreement that is good for the country and all citizens. That is how the government operates. We take a reasoned approach designed to produce maximum benefits for Canadians.

That is certainly the approach we are taking toward renewing the federation. We promote national unity by building a better Canada for all Canadians. That is what Canadians want. If we ask people on the streets of Kitchener, Halifax or Drummondville what their priorities are, we will get the same answers: jobs, safe streets, good health care and a healthy environment for themselves and their children. That is what Canadians want and that is exactly what we are working on giving them.

Despite what some may be implying, building a stronger Canada does not mean focusing exclusively on the Constitution. The Constitution is a useful tool for state building that continues to serve the country well. It needs to be respected, but constitutional change is not the only way to improve the federation.

The government has worked very hard over the past five years to improve our country. It has worked systematically in partnership with the provinces to address the needs of Canadians. Negotiation of the social union framework is part of the these efforts.

A number of our initiatives have been introduced on a variety of different fronts. They have been developed with the goal of better positioning Canada as we enter the 21st century. We have a plan that we outlined in the Speech from the Throne. We are following that plan systematically.

First I will discuss some of the advantages we have made on the fiscal side of things. Getting our books in order is fundamentally important because it allows us the freedom to pursue our goals. Then I will identify the principles that underlie our current efforts toward renewing the federation.

We must look at the initiatives the government has undertaken which prove that progress has and will continue to take place. That should give members of the House a good idea of how much has already been accomplished over the past five years.

The government has made historic inroads in deficit reduction and has worked with Canadians to balance our books. I am proud to say that the world has taken notice. The financial gurus who were disparaging us just a few short years ago are now changing their tunes.

Thanks to the sacrifices that Canadians made and the conditions we have set in place to ensure a strong Canadian economy, we have continued a five year tradition of beating every one of our fiscal targets. The federal budget balance has improved from a deficit of $42 billion in 1993-94 to a surplus of $3.5 billion in 1997-98, a $45.5 billion turnaround in just four years.

While unemployment is still too high it has fallen from the 11.4% in the fall of 1993 to the 8.1% of today, the lowest level in eight years and a record improvement exceeded only by the United Kingdom among the G-7 nations.

Throughout the decades of the seventies, eighties and the early nineties our deficits were much higher than those of the U.S. Now we have a surplus. Interest rates on long term government bonds which directly affect mortgage rates and business loans are at their lowest levels in three decades. A good economy goes a long way in promoting a strong and unified Canada.

The opposition motion fails to recognize that when we are in a partnership it takes agreement and it takes consensus among all the players. While it is true that there has been consensus reached and the government will build on that coming from the Saskatoon meeting of August 7, there is not the unanimous consent the motion is predicated upon.

The government has shown that it is willing to work in a meaningful way in a partnership with the provinces and territories to continue to have a government and a nation that are relevant and good for Canadians both today and into the next century.