Andy Mitchell

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member. It is good to see that he has his own private cheering section.

The member's speech demonstrated a very important difference between his party and this side of the House that Canadians should recognize. He talked about the Canadian taxpayer and the need to reduce the burden of taxation, something the Minister of Finance has been doing in his last few budgets and continues to do. We see the Reform Party's inability to make the distinction between taxpayers and Canadians.

[National Parks Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased, very proud and honoured to have an opportunity to begin second reading debate on the establishment of Tuktut Nogait National Park.

The opportunity and the sense of pride that I have in being part of the establishment of Canada's newest national park is indeed a broad pride that I have in our nation and in the program that we embarked on back in 1885 when we began the process of establishing our national parks.

This is going to be an important step in the completion of the national park system. As members are aware, it is our objective as a government and our objective as Canadians to have representation in all 39 of the natural regions of Canada. When we speak about completing our national parks system we are talking in the sense of making sure we have representation in all 39 agreements.

The process that we are engaged in today is the completion of a very lengthy process that has been ongoing for a number of years. The most important part of that process occurred on June 28, 1996 when an agreement was signed in Paulatuk in the Northwest Territories for the formal establishment of Tuktut Nogait National Park.

There was an agreement among many of the partners who have worked toward the initiation and establishment of this park. The agreement was signed by the federal government and indeed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on behalf of the Government of Canada, in fact the same incumbent who holds that position today. The agreement was signed by the Government of the Northwest Territories and by a number of representatives representing the Inuvialuit who are also signatories to the agreement.

The agreement also completed a long and lengthy process of almost seven years of study, negotiations and examinations of the issues that were evident in that area which came to a conclusion in 1996 and we are here in the House to formalize that agreement through an amendment to the National Parks Act.

One of the primary purposes in establishing this park was the protection of the Bluenose caribou herd and its calving and post-calving habitat. It has long been a priority of the government and a priority of many Canadians to safeguard the core calving grounds of caribou, not just the Bluenose herd as we are doing with this park, but indeed with caribou all across the Arctic.

We as a government and indeed the Prime Minister himself has said publicly, particularly in talking to our colleagues in the United States, how important this objective is and we have long called on the U.S. government to work toward that end.

Indeed this also represented a very special occurrence because in 1994 a resource company, Darnely Bay Resources, at the request of the Inuvialuit and others, voluntarily withdrew their mining interests within the park boundaries.

This was a very important signal of the times, that the mining community was willing to work with national parks, recognizing the importance of establishing them. They withdrew but not because they felt there was no possibility of mineral resources there because in fact the area is designated as having medium to high potential. At that time there was a request to withdraw because the important environmental considerations, the important objective of protecting the caribou herd was made persuasively and the company withdrew its interest in the area.

There are a number of important components to this park. Obviously it conforms with the Inuvialuit final agreement regarding their land claims settlement. This agreement signed in 1996 recognizes that and indeed it honours that agreement. It also provides for Inuvialuit wildlife harvesting activities. They will be able to maintain their traditional activities within the boundaries of the park.

As I said when I began my comments, the protection of Canada's special places is an important objective for this government. It is indeed something most Canadians and I would hazard to say all Canadians believe in. To date, federally we are protecting some 3% of our land and when we count that which is under protection by the provinces it is a little over 10%. We are working toward making sure we can leave to future generations these special places in Canada.

With this legislation and with the protection of the caribou, with the protection of what is one of the most beautiful places in Canada, we are working toward the completion of our national parks system. I am very proud of that.

I call upon my colleagues in the House to support this legislation. Support the formalization of this national park as a full-fledged member of the national parks family. This will ensure the protection we provide under the act will be provided to this area. I urge my colleagues from all parties to support the establishment of this very special national park.

[Option Canada, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is worried about blacked out items in documents, maybe she should go to the PQ government and ask about plan O. What happened to the information on plan O? Why was that not released? Why has a plan concocted by the PQ government at the end of the referendum been blacked out? Maybe she should ask the PQ government.

[Option Canada, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of heritage on an ongoing basis in this House has replied to the Bloc on the issue of options Canada. She has provided over 100 pages of documentation. They simply do not want to accept the reality. It has been explained in this House very clearly and the issue is closed.

[Canada Shipping Act, April 2nd, 1998]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Canada Shipping Act, April 2nd, 1998]

moved that Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability), be concurred in at report stage.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in this debate on the budget implementation bill. I noticed that my colleague from across the way was talking about which way the wind was blowing. I was pleased to see last night which way the wind was blowing in British Columbia. It seems to be a very Liberal wind after that byelection.

I wanted to talk a bit about one component of the budget. It has to do with tax reduction. I do not know and I do not believe there is a great deal of argument in the country about the desirability of tax reductions. Regardless of whether one is in the centre or in the left or right of the political spectrum, most Canadians would see tax reduction as a desirable goal.

However, I think what is important is the way tax reduction is to be achieved. One of the important aspects of the budget was that there are some very important principles underlying the types of tax reductions in that budget. I would like to take a moment to enunciate some of those, give a couple of examples of how that works. Then if I have a moment toward the end, I am going to compare that to some of the suggestions which have come from some of the opposition members.

The first principle upon which the tax reductions are based is that tax reduction should begin at the bottom. As we have the fiscal manoeuvring room to provide tax reduction, it should be provided first to those Canadians at the lower and middle income levels. We start at the bottom with those who can least afford to pay tax and then expand the reductions upward as our fiscal dividends expand.

It is a very important principle. We saw that clearly enunciated in the budget with the raising of the basic personal exemption. This will take some 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. In addition we saw it with the 3% surtax being eliminated for those people earning under $50,000.

The second principle in respect of tax reduction is that it is important to target tax reductions to achieve important social objectives. Again we saw that in the budget. In the budget we saw such things as the $850 million tax credit being provided to low and middle income Canadian families with children. That is in addition to the $850 million that was provided in the previous year.

We saw that in a series of tax reductions in respect of obtaining post-secondary education. We saw a targeted tax reduction to achieve the very important social goal of providing access to post-secondary education. We saw tax reductions to help Canadians with disabilities in addition to the actions that were taken in the previous budget. We saw other specifically targeted measures such as a caregiver tax credit. On a smaller basis a tax reduction is being provided to volunteer emergency workers which is particularly important in a rural area like mine.

Another principle which the finance minister enunciated, developed and crafted his budget around is the importance of providing tax reduction in line with one's fiscal needs. We saw that very clearly. We saw a government with the help and support of all Canadians bring a balanced budget to this country for the first time in a generation and a half. Then once the fiscal dividend was at hand, the government started to provide the tax reductions. That is the appropriate way to do it, to make the reductions once the government is in the fiscal position to do so.

The fourth principle is a principle which some of my colleagues who sit across the way should listen to very carefully. The government has the responsibility not just to taxpayers but to all Canadians. If it simply takes all of the government action on the tax reduction side, then substantial numbers of Canadians will not be impacted and will not benefit by that action. In putting whatever type of fiscal plan together within a budget, one needs to remember the principle that not all Canadians are taxpayers, but all Canadians deserve to be considered for support by the federal government as they may require. We clearly saw that in the budget.

We saw $2.5 billion for the millennium fund, direct spending to help people access post-secondary education. When you come from a rural riding like mine, Parry Sound—Muskoka, the cost of post-secondary education tends to be higher because students need to live away from home. That is a particularly important thing.

We saw the increased funding to the granting councils. We saw the $1.5 billion restoration of the previously scheduled reduction to the CHST.

Those were non-tax measures, but they were measures that were important to Canadians. They were able to benefit Canadians who may not necessarily be taxpayers.

It is interesting to look at those principles. They are important principles. They are Liberal principles. They are principles the finance minister crafted within the budgetary measures.

It is important to look at what some of our colleagues across the way were suggesting in terms of budgetary action. Many were enunciated during the previous campaign.

First of all it was interesting to note that both the Reform Party by 1999 and the Tory party which had a date of 2000, were projecting balanced budgets far after we were able to achieve it. When talking about one of the principles, the interesting part is they wanted to provide tax action before they were willing to balance the budget. In essence they wanted to borrow money in order to provide tax cuts rather than bring the fiscal dividend forward and provide tax cuts in a sustainable manner. This is clear in both parties' platforms.

Looking at some of their tax measures, they certainly would not result in a bottom up process.

The Tories' 10% across the board tax reduction means the more you earn, the bigger the tax break you get. That is the exact opposite of the principle the finance minister is using, which is from the bottom up. The Tory approach is to provide the largest tax decrease to those who earn the most. We who come from Ontario know full well the results of that type of approach.

The Reform Party had a similar approach. It suggested a flattened tax regime and an average $2,000 savings for a Canadian family. When there is a flattened tax regime with an average of $2,000 it means the more you earn, the higher your income, the larger the tax reduction you will receive.

One of the most interesting and telltale signs of not adhering to those principles that I enunciated should be in the budget, was the Tory suggestion that the corporate tax rate, not the small business tax rate, but the corporate tax rate be reduced from 28% to 24%. This would mean that companies such as Canada's chartered banks, those cash starved corporations, would receive more than a 10% tax reduction.

The Tories, rather than suggesting that tax reduction come from the bottom up, suggest a corporate tax reduction from 28% to 24%. The impact of that is to put oodles of money into those cash starved institutions, Canadian chartered banks. That is the type of principle they want to bring to tax reduction.

Let me summarize. As we deal with the budget and the component of tax reductions, what makes it a successful budget, what has brought the support of Canadians to this budget, what has brought that Liberal byelection victory in British Columbia yesterday is the principle of providing tax relief from the bottom up. It is targeting tax relief to achieve important social goals. It is achieving our fiscal dividend first and then providing tax relief. Most important, it is remembering we have a responsibility to all Canadians and not just taxpayers but also including them.

Those are the reasons this budget has the support of the Canadian people. This was very clearly demonstrated yesterday in British Columbia.

[National Parks Act, March 30th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 18th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other Acts as a consquence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today on the occasion of this second reading of Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence.

I can certainly say on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and on behalf of myself and all Canadians that we take great pride in our national parks system, in our national historic sites and those other special places that we protect and for which we provide stewardship.

The proposal of Bill C-29, the development of the Canadian parks agency, is indeed a type of new beginning. We have had as part of the Department of Canadian Heritage, as part of the Department of Environment before that and as part of the Department of Indian Affairs before that, Parks Canada. Over those years the men and women who have worked in that department have done an excellent job in protecting our special places in ensuring that our special places are there for the benefit of Canadians.

There is a need to bring certainty and permanency to that organization so we can move into the future reflecting the realities of the 1990s and making sure that we are prepared to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. That is what developing and producing a Canadian parks agency is all about.

In my comments today it is my intent to talk about why we are developing an agency and what we have done so far in terms of consulting and talking to Canadians about how we should approach this issue. I am going to talk about some of the components of the legislation which is before the House today.

My connection to parks and our other special places has certainly preceded my time as Secretary of State for Parks and the time before I became a member of this House.

In my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka we are pleased to host the smallest geographic national park in the system, Georgian Bay Island National Park which is in the southern end of my riding. I and all of my constituents take great pride in that facility and what the men and women who run that facility have accomplished and the thousands of visitors who come to that area.

In my own hometown of Gravenhurst we have the birthplace of Dr. Norman Bethune as a national historic site where we recognize the achievements of one our most famous Canadians. Also as part of my riding and making up part of the southern boundary is the Trent-Severn Waterway one of the historic waterways which is administered by Parks Canada.

Beyond this hometown experience I have been able to build on my appreciation of what Parks Canada has done in the past. I have had an opportunity to talk to Canadians from coast to coast to coast this past year. We consulted with large numbers of stakeholders and employees about the proposed Canadian parks agency. In doing so, I have come to appreciate even more the importance of these special places, the importance of how Canadians view our national parks, how they view our historic sites and all of the other special places.

As I deal with the ongoing files that are part of the administration of Parks Canada, I see on a day to day basis why it is that Canadians place a high value on our national parks and historic sites. I have come to learn and to understand why our national parks are the third most recognized symbol of Canadians. It is because of the importance and the special place they have in our nation and the special place in which Canadians hold them in their hearts.

This agency is going to allow us to produce an organization that will be able to achieve our two primary mandates. The first is to ensure that Canadians have an opportunity to enjoy our national parks and other special places today, so that they can learn about our history, so they can learn about our heritage and experience the very specialness that is uniquely Canadian. That is indeed our mandate and this agency will allow us to carry it out.

It will also allow us to carry out our second fundamental mandate which is to ensure that Canadians of future generations, Canadians of the 21st century and beyond will be able to enjoy those special sites as well. It is an obligation we take seriously as a government and which I believe Canadians take seriously as a nation to ensure that we can pass on those assets in an unimpaired way to future generations.

With this legislation we are going to be developing an organization that will be designed in a way that will allow us to deal with the economic realities of the 1990s. It will allow us to organize ourselves efficiently so that we can meet the challenges and we can do our job, do it effectively and do it with less financial resources. We are going to create with this agency an establishment that will provide our employees with the tools they need to be more efficient and more creative in doing their jobs.

In the 1996 budget, the Government of Canada announced its intention to create the Canadian Parks Agency. Two rounds of consultations ensued in the months that followed, at the request of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Indeed we undertook that consultation with the belief that we had to include a wide range of Canadians. We ensured that the various stakeholders who have an interest in our national parks and those individuals who work within our national parks and other special places had an opportunity to talk to us and provide us with some of the important ideas and components on how we should proceed in creating this agency.

During the last two years there have been two rounds of consultations. Over 150 stakeholders have provided testimony. In addition over 300 of our staff have had an opportunity to provide direct input to us on what they believe should be part of this agency.

As I mentioned earlier we took the opportunity to go across Canada. We took the opportunity to hear Canadians in Atlantic Canada, Canadians on the west coast, Canadians in the Arctic and Canadians in central Canada so that we could have a full understanding of what Canadians in general want to see in this agency.

I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and myself to thank all of those employees and stakeholders who took the time and the opportunity to provide their valuable input. We have listened to what they have had to say. Many of their comments and suggestions have found their way into the legislation before the House today.

What did we hear? We heard a number of very important messages and a number of very important principles which Canadians believe should be in the legislation.

None has been more important than the belief shared by Canadians from coast to coast that the parks portfolio needs to be under public stewardship. Our special places, our parks and national historic sites, are a public trust and public stewardship needs to be exercised in a public way.

I state clearly to the House and to all Canadians who are watching or will be reading this debate that the creation of the Canadian parks agency is the creation of a public agency that is fully accountable to the House and to government.

During our consultations we heard that the public and our employees wanted us to ensure we had a mandate that included firm commitments to ecological and commemorative integrity and that we reinforced the programs we undertake in terms of interpretation and education.

They told us that not only was it important to maintain these special places. It was also important for Canadians to learn about them and understand the history. Whether or not Canadians have the opportunity to travel to these locations they can collectively take pride and joy in the reality of these special places.

As we travelled across the country we heard that message over and over again. Let us ensure that Canadians generally have an opportunity to learn about and to experience our national parks and other special places.

They also told us that they wanted to be engaged on an ongoing basis. They did not want the consultation to be a one time opportunity. They generally felt very good that there was a forum in which they could provide the type of input they thought was important in terms of the management of our national parks. In that respect they suggested there should be some sort of permanent structure in place to allow for that input to be ongoing.

In the bill to set up the Canadian park agency we see a call for biennial forums so individuals or groups of Canadians have an opportunity to evaluate the ability of the agency, to measure our performance in fulfilling our mandate and to provide input in terms of whether we have been able to fulfil it in the way they think best.

This is almost unique among government initiatives. We will proactively and on a mandated basis allow Canadians to evaluate the work we will be doing as the Canadian parks agency. It is mandated in our legislation. It is not subject to regulatory change. That is an important component of the bill. It was suggested during our consultations. I am pleased we will be able to move forward with it.

This will be a public organization in terms of its transparency and accountability. The legislation will ensure that there cannot be and will not be any degradation of the roles of parliament, the minister or the government in exercising their stewardship of our special places. Parks and our other special places like historic sites and historic waterways belong to all Canadians and will be managed on behalf of all Canadians by Canadians.

With the creation of the Canadian parks agency, we wish to attain four key objectives.

Those four objectives are very important. I will take a moment to summarize them. The Canadian parks agency will be a separate ongoing service organization which, under the direction of parliament and the government, will provide continuity in managing Canada's special places. I emphasize the concept of continuity. One of the challenges those who have spent their careers in parks have had to face is that it has gone from ministry to ministry, from department to department.

With the creation of this service agency we will bring some certainty and some continuity to ensure we will be able to manage our national historic sites and our national parks in a sound ongoing way. I believe this is a very important objective. It will be a very important accomplishment of the legislation when it passes the House.

Also we have as an objective the creation of an organization committed to some very important goals we have established as a government to complete Canada's system of national parks. This is something we have committed ourselves to work toward as we move toward the 21st century. The organization would be committed to expanding the system of national historic sites and to creating and maintaining marine conservation areas.

This is a unique concept, one that we are near the lead in the world. With the creation of marine conservation areas we will translate ecological standards and re-create the work we have done in protecting our terrestrial areas to our marine areas. I look forward later in this session of parliament to tabling legislation which will allow this agency to proceed with that very important task.

The legislation will also create an organization that has the necessary financial and organizational flexibility which empowers our employees to fulfil their mandate in a creative and efficient manner.

As I travelled from coast to coast consulting with our employees I learned how fortunate we are as Canadians to have men and women who have dedicated themselves to careers in Parks Canada. They have dedicated themselves to protecting our special places. They have dedicated themselves to ensuring that Canadians have an opportunity to enjoy our special places and to see what is truly unique about the country.

The legislation will establish an agency as a separate employer or a structure that will allow us to meet the very specific organizational and environmental challenges that are unique to Parks Canada.

We will provide a human resource regime that makes sense for Parks Canada, a human resource regime that understands Parks Canada operates from coast to coast to coast seven days a week, 24 hours a day, in all kinds of geographic and climatic conditions.

We will ensure through the creation of the Canadian parks agency that we have a human resource system which will be able to meet those challenges. We are working at creating that system, not in isolation but in partnership with our employees as we have gone across the country on consultations, in partnership with the unions that represent our employees, and in partnership with the Canadian stakeholders who believe in and about the Canadian parks agency.

We are working on this group to create a human resource regime. I am pleased the partners have come together over the last few months and are working diligently in creating the type of HR regime that works not only for the agency but for employees within the agency.

Now, if I may, I will describe the new agency.

Let me explain for a moment some of the important changes the agency will bring to the operation of our portfolio.

We will be able to flatten the organization. We will go a system where we have a field superintendent who is responsible to the head of the agency, who in turn will be responsible to the minister.

This will allow us to see decisions made far more quickly, more efficiently. Decisions will be made, taking into account local conditions and local challenges. We will provide to our field superintendents increased levels of responsibility so decisions can be taken in a way that reflects the needs of local areas.

The Canadian parks agency will have a number of financial authorities not traditionally associated with government departments. These authorities will allow us to operate in a business-like manner but remembering we are not a business.

We need to operate efficiently but remember that we do things as part of the Canadian parks agency that are not done solely for profit. When we establish a national park in the far north of Canada, we do so because Canadians believe it is important to protect these special places. It is not because we believe we can turn a profit. That is not what we are all about. However, with this agency we have created a number of financial authorities which will allow us to be more efficient in carrying out our tasks.

We will be able to maintain the revenue generated by Parks Canada within the portfolio of the Canadian parks agency. This will allow us additional financial resources that can be used in the creation and expansion of our national parks system and our system of national historic sites.

With the new authorities being granted to this agency we will be able to establish a non-lapsing capital account which will allow us to keep the proceeds from gifts and endowments, or the sale of excess assets such as vehicles or buildings, and use them for investment into new Canadian parks.

This is important. In the past the funds would simply have gone back into the consolidated revenue fund. Under this agency the revenue will be there and available for investments into important priorities which Canadians place on the shoulders of the Canadian parks agency.

The Canadian parks agency will be working on what we call a two year rolling budget. It will be able to carry forward its budget from one year to the next. No more will we have the scenario, which many of us have seen all too often as we approach the end of the fiscal year, where expenditure decisions are being made not on sound business practice but on the calendar. We will put a system in place by going to a two year rolling budget that will allow our managers in the field to make the best possible decisions in utilizing their budgets.

Something that will be a special authority to the agency and is particularly important, given our mandate in the Canadian parks agency, is the ability to advance funds from appropriations up to a certain limit from future years. If an opportunity presents itself in this fiscal year, for instance to purchase property in terms of establishing a national park, we can do it this year because it makes economic sense, whereas in the next fiscal year it may not. This will give the management team the ability to make decisions based on sound business practices. I am pleased these financial authorities will be granted to the new Canadian parks agency.

As all Canadians want to know—and it is part of our public stewardship—we will continue the use of appropriations as the primary source of funding for the national parks system. Roughly today the split is about 75:25 and that is where we intend to keep it in the foreseeable future.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the specific aspects of the new agency will be the establishment of a separate human resource regime which will allow us to create a structure that reflects the realities we face in the Canadian parks agency, the number of hours our employees work and the types of conditions under which they work, to make sure we have an HR regime that reflects their concerns and their needs. That is one of the things we are doing with this agency.

We are also going to create with the agency an organization that will have a number of simplified processes that will allow decisions to happen more quickly and in a more business-like way. As I mentioned, we will be able to increase the authorities that we are providing to our local field superintendents. We are going to simplify the process by which decisions can take place at the local level. This is important and Canadians will see a direct benefit from this.

One of the things we heard very clearly when we did our national consultation was that Canadians wanted to ensure that this new agency would have ministerial and parliamentary accountability. One of the specific components of this legislation is to ensure that accountability is there. Canadians have said they want to make sure they as Canadians have an impact on the stewardship of our special places. The accountability processes that this legislation brings forth will certainly allow that to happen.

As I believe this position of accountability is a very critical point, I am going to take a moment to review a couple of the processes this legislation brings forth to ensure accountability. First, in terms of the minister responsible, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, that cabinet position will continue to have responsibility for developing and seeking approval from cabinet for broad policy issues. It will remain accountable to the public and remain within government.

In addition, the minister will approve the guiding principles and policies under which the new Canadian parks agency will operate.

Each one of our national parks today and, under this legislation, each one of our national historic sites will require the development of a five year management plan which will be approved by the minister and tabled in this House in order to allow parliamentarians to be part of that review.

The minister will be recommending the corporate plan to Treasury Board and approving an annual report which will detail how we managed to fulfil our objectives that we established in the previous year. The minister will be approving the state of the parks report which will become a much broader report to include the ecological integrity of all the special places that we manage.

The minister will be responsible for fixing and establishing fees that will be charged at our national parks.

In terms of talking about the creation of a new HR regime, every five years the minister will be tabling a summary report on how the human resources regime supports the values established within government to management our human resources within the agency.

Beyond just ministerial accountability, this legislation builds in accountability that Parliament itself will have an opportunity and an obligation to exercise. As is the case now, we as parliamentarians approve the establishment of new national parks. We as parliamentarians do now and will continue to approve the annual appropriations which the Canadian parks agency will be receiving.

The summary of the corporate plan will be tabled by the minister in this House for the review of parliamentarians.

In terms of the corporate plan, the annual review, which will be undertaken by the minister, will not only contain our objectives but will also analyse and determine whether we are achieving those objectives.

I mentioned there will be a biennial report which deals with the ecological integrity of our special places. Not only will the minister receive and review that report but it will come to Parliament.

In conclusion, 113 year ago our predecessors made the decision to protect and preserve the newly opened wilderness around Banff. Today we are the beneficiaries of that vision and foresight. The establishment of the Canadian parks agency reflects our effort and will provide us the tools to fulfil that vision into the future.

It is important to us in the House and indeed to all Canadians that 113 years from now Canadians will look back and know and appreciate that the decisions the House will take today and in the weeks to come in terms of this legislation will lead to the protection and the creation of the special places that will be the enjoyment of Canadians in the 22nd century.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, there are two points that I would like to make to the hon. member.

First of all, she talks about taxpayers. She is right to talk about taxpayers. They are an important part of Canada. In fact, there was $7 billion worth of tax relief in this budget. What this member and what her party do not talk about are those Canadians who are not taxpayers: the disabled who are unable to work; seniors who are living in poverty; Canadians who are unable to find work for whatever reason. Those 10 million plus Canadians in this society who are not taxpayers deserve the interest of this government as much as Canadian taxpayers.

Second, and I will be very brief here, it was interesting that the member, in talking about transfers to the provinces, failed to bring up the fact of equalization and the fact that equalization payments have actually increased. Do you know why I think she may not have brought it up? Because her party's platform in the last election called for the absolute gutting of these transfer payments, of these equalization payments, so that our poorer provinces, the provinces where access to basic services are important and need the support of equalization, would be disadvantaged. That party would simply do away with it. So I ask the question: Why would she not talk about equalization payments and her party's determination to gut them?