Andy Mitchell

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to question the hon. member on a very specific component of his speech. He talked critically about the fact that we were spending money on strengthening communities. I was quite surprised to hear him say that.

One of the measures in the budget that my constituents were very pleased with was the increase from $500 to $1,000 for the tax exempt portion of income for volunteer firefighters.

The member may not be aware of it but in rural Canada, in communities like Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Parry Sound, fire protection is provided by men and women who volunteer as firefighters. Without that volunteerism, without the dedication of those volunteers, we would not have the kind of fire protection and safety we have in our communities.

It is positive and important for this government to recognize that volunteerism by increasing the tax exemption by 100% from $500 to $1,000. The recognition of those individuals is important. It is critical and it strengthens our communities. Why is the member against assisting those men and women who are the volunteer firefighters in our rural communities?

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will not get involved in the courting of the Reform Party and the Tory Party. I will let them deal with that on their own.

The record is very clear. This government has managed to bring the deficit probably down to zero. We will know next week if we have reached zero or if we are just short of it. We have made a commitment to debt reduction and tax reduction. We will invest in the types of programs Canadians believe in. Programs related to education, job creation and health care are the kinds of investments Canadians have asked us to make and those are the investments we will make.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget we saw the foundation for innovation, an $800 million investment into exactly that type of thing.

In the last budget a series of measures were introduced to help Canadians pursuing post-secondary education. There was an expansion of the registered education savings plan; 100% increase in the education tax credit; changes in the tax system to allow a carry forward of the tuition deduction; expansion of the tuition deduction; and the interest relief period being increased from 18 months to 30 months. When added to the original six months, the period becomes three years. This government has taken very specific measures.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have deluded himself in believing that the management of the economy between 1984 and 1993 was so great, but Canadians did not buy it. They did not buy it in 1993 when there were two Conservative members and they did not buy much more of it in 1997 when there were only 20 of them. They understand what was there. Employment down 100,000. Real disposable income down one and a half points. Real disposable income per capita down 6.6%. Canadians understand.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the motion. It will allow me to talk about some of the economic progress the government has been able to achieve with Canadians over the last four years. It will also give me an opportunity to deal with the absolute, total and complete hypocrisy of the Tory Party that put forward the motion.

The Tories have a very selective memory. I do not blame hon. members every time it is brought up for saying “Let's not talk about that. We will just point toward the future”.

Many of the challenges we have in the future are the result of their total incompetency in managing the Canadian economy for the nine years in which they were in power. In fact it is to the point that back in 1994, shortly after we had taken over, the Wall Street Journal described what the Tory government had done to this country by saying that Canada was then a candidate for membership in the third world.

That is a party which with the very words of its motion says volumes about the way it thinks. The Conservatives do not look to the historic progress Canada has achieved over the last 50 years in creating social policy that is the envy of the world. No, they do not look toward that. What they look toward is the United States.

The Conservatives look to the model of the United States. It is a model where we see millions of people without health care. It is a model where they create employment by simply driving down minimum wages so that people are not able to live on those wages. It is a country where the inner cities are totally crumbling. That is the model that party points to and it totally ignores what this nation has been able to accomplish.

More important, when we talk about a party that does not honour Canada, that is the party which just last week in this House totally abandoned the interests of Canada and voted with the separatists. It abandoned Canadians. That is what that party across the way did last week. It is total hypocrisy. I am sorry to use that word again, Mr. Speaker, but that is what that party did. What does not help the country is voting with the separatists.

But let us return to the debate. This debate is about what Canada has in fact been able to achieve over the last few years. Again, there is faulty memory.

The Tories came to power. And they are right. There was a deficit. It was around $38 billion in 1984. Boy, they worked to bring it down. They had policies to bring that deficit down. They were going to clean up the finances of the country. They inherited $38 billion and what was it when they left nine years later? Had they eliminated it? Had they made progress on it? Yes, they made progress right up to $41 billion. That is the progress that they made. In the process of doing that they more than doubled the national debt. That is the type of progress the Tory party made in terms of controlling the deficit.

The balance sheet is not the only thing we ought to be looking at. I know the Tories certainly do not want to look at it. In half the time it managed to go from that $42 billion deficit which we inherited to a point, and I will quote the finance minister who I believe said “on the cusp of a balanced budget”. That is $38 billion to $41 billion in eight years and $42 billion to zero in four. I think the Canadian people were quite appropriate in the choices they made back in 1997.

Let us look at another important measure which is the measurement of job creation in the last four and a half years. We have made some progress but it is certainly not enough yet. Unemployment is at 8.9% although that is a lot better than the 11.2% when we took office. It is still not good enough and more progress does have to be made.

Let us make that comparison in job creation. In the first 51 months of this government's mandate there has been over one million net new jobs created in this country. Most are in the private sector and most are full time. What happened in the last four years of the Tory government? We saw much the same progress as we saw on the deficit, a 58,000 decrease in net new jobs in this country in that period. Let us compare the record: 58,000 jobs lost, or over a million jobs created.

I think Canadians understand that the economic policies of this government have meant progress for Canada. Increasingly better economic ideas have meant a better country economically for the people of Canada.

Let us talk about taxation for a minute. We believe in reducing taxes. In fact the last budget saw a number of significant tax decreases. But they were tax decreases, not as the Tory party suggests across the board where those who earn more get a bigger tax break, they were targeted tax decreases.

They were tax decreases that were important to Canadians who needed it. For example, $850 million to low and middle income Canadians with children. Tax reductions for Canadians with disabilities. Tax reductions for Canadians making charitable donations. Tax reductions to help individuals pursue post-secondary education.

We believe in applying principles when it comes to tax reductions. One of the most important ones is that low and middle income Canadians will benefit first from tax reduction. Second, tax reductions will be provided when we have the surpluses to provide them, not by going out and borrowing the money as the Tory party has suggested we do.

Let us just talk about one particular tax reduction the Tories did suggest during the campaign. I want everybody to listen to this because this is almost unbelievable. The Tories suggested that corporate income tax would be reduced from 28% to 24%. That is right in their platform.

What would that mean? That would mean that those paupers of Canadian society, those hard done by people in Canadian society, the Canadian financial institutions, the Canadian banks, would receive a $300 million tax reduction under the Tory plan. That is what they were suggesting, that we reduce taxes for Canadian banks by $300 million. That is their idea of progressive tax reduction.

Canadians saw the type of ideas that they were trying to put forward and they were not fooled. Canadians understand something and they understand it well. Although we continue to have difficulties in this country, and we do—I do not think anybody in this House would suggest that we do not—Canadians understand that the policies of this government have worked to improve the situation.

We took over in 1993 at a time when the previous government had put this country close to economic ruin. We have restored the health of the nation's finances. We have seen employment increase. We have historically low interest rates as compared to the Americans. We have a sustained low inflation rate that is the envy of the industrialized world. In fact we have had economic growth in the last 12 months near the very top of the OECD.

There is one conclusion that Canadians have, and that is that the Tories' incompetency in managing the financial affairs of this nation is matched only by their audacity in trying to re-write history.

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, February 5th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian parks agency and to amend other acts as a consequence.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage a bill entitled an act to establish the Canadian parks agency which will modernize the framework for preserving, protecting and expanding national parks, national historic sites and related protected areas.

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

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a very good point. During the last budget there were measures which were directed at rural Canadians.

The community access program had an extra $30 million put into it so that rural Canadians could be hooked into the worldwide web. One of the difficulties is this. Although that type of technology is easily obtained in a large urban centre, it is just now that we are having an opportunity to place that infrastructure into rural Canada. Those types of things are important. I would like to see that type of initiative continued through the next year.

We talked about the investments we made in the Business Development Bank of Canada. That was an excellent example where we saw a targeted program aimed specifically at tourism operators operating in rural areas. That is the kind of initiatives that I talk about when I say we need to design our programming in a way that reflects the needs of rural Canadians.

It was the same thing when we saw the extra investment made in the Farm Credit Corporation, again recognizing the needs of rural Canadians, recognizing the need to develop programs that are in the best interest of rural Canadians.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate very briefly what I said in a speech when I introduced the Saguenay-St. Lawrence bill. We have not contemplated, are not contemplating now and will not be introducing into this House any measure that will privatize Parks Canada.

We as Liberals understand that the maintenance of our special places in this country is a public trust, a public trust that is exercised through a minister and overseen by this Parliament. That is the way Parks Canada operates and that is the way Parks Canada will continue to operate.

I would be pleased at any time to have a discussion with the member to clearly demonstrate that that is the way we operate.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

To begin with I must say to the hon. member for Kings—Hants that I am proud on behalf of all vertically challenged Canadians to have an opportunity to stand in the House to speak in this prebudget debate.

This initiative was established by the Liberal government in the last mandate in 1993. It was to give parliamentarians an opportunity to gather in the House to debate the budget during its formulation process as opposed to the previous practice of having a budget debate after the tabling of the budget. I am pleased that we as members of Parliament have the opportunity to be here because of this Liberal initiative to have a prebudget debate.

I would like to congratulate all the members of the finance committee, particularly the chair. They did a fine job. They travelled across the country soliciting views from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members of the committee ensured that the perspectives of Canadians were brought forward and were part of the analysis in putting together the report.

During its first mandate over the last four years the Liberal government made significant progress. Some of the items I mentioned earlier in debate. When we began our mandate we inherited a $42 billion annual deficit. I was pleased, as I know all Canadians were, when the finance minister was able to make his report to Canadians and indicate that the deficit would be eliminated no later than the next fiscal year.

In reality, several hundred million dollars have already been paid on the debt. We will actually be in a surplus position very shortly. That is a significant accomplishment when we consider it has been a generation and a half since we have been in that position as a country.

I talked a bit about setting strong economic conditions, which we have established in Canada over the last four years. I would like to take a look at some of those achievements in terms of maintaining a low, sustained, constant level of inflation to allow for an economic environment where investment can occur.

Let us take a look at interest rates. If we go back to the beginning of this decade, in 1900 three month treasury bills were at 11%. Today they are at 3%. We were looking at a prime rate in 1990 of 14%. Today it is under 5%. Canadians can very much relate to the rate of interest they pay on their mortgage for their new home. In 1990 a five year rate was around 13.5%. Today it is just a little over 7%.

We have made some good progress. Because of that progress, because this Liberal government has managed the economy of Canada prudently, effectively and efficiently, we now as a nation, as a Parliament, as a government have some important choices to make about where we go from here.

During the election campaign many suggestions were put forward by many parties and many individuals. This government put forward the very straightforward proposal that once we get into a balanced position and we have a surplus, we will take a 50% portion of that surplus and apply it to debt and tax reduction. Over the period of our mandate we will use the other half to invest in the types of programs and priorities wanted by Canadians.

We have been having that discussion with Canadians in order to hear their perspective, to hear what they think about our proposals. Over the past couple of months I had the opportunity to hold two forums in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka. One was in the town of Huntsville which was attended by a large number of individuals from the Muskoka side of my riding. The other session was held this past week in the town of Parry Sound which was attended by a large number of people from the Parry Sound side.

We talked about those options, about debt reduction, tax reduction and expenditures. I will summarize what some of those individuals were saying. There was not only a belief but an insistence that we do not ever return to deficit financing in government, that we should bring to an end what had been going on in this country for a number of decades, the deficit financing where we basically use the assets of today for our use and burden our children and grandchildren with the cost of that. Canadians in my riding were very clear to say that must come to an end.

They said very clearly that they understood we were nearing the end of our battle with the deficit, that indeed the debt was too high and that we needed to devote some of our resources to paying down that debt. They talked about tax decreases, and yes they do believe we need to have tax decreases. But they made the point clearly that tax decreases must be made in a way that is the most beneficial to Canadians and most beneficial to our economy.

They are not interested in across the board tax cuts that give the largest financial gain to those Canadians who earn the most. They want targeted tax cuts. Tax cuts like what the Minister of Finance announced in his last budget where he talked about $850 million to low and middle income families with children, where he talked about the tax cuts of over $160-odd million to Canadians with disabilities, tax cuts that would help young people with their education and help the parents who support them. Those are the types of tax cuts Canadians want, focused tax cuts that will help those who are least advantaged in society.

They are not interested in large across the board tax cuts. They are not interested in a suggestion made in the Tory campaign platform, to reduce corporate taxes which would have seen our chartered banks receive reduced taxation. They want tax cuts targeted to those in Canada who are most in need.

They talked about the need for new investment. They talked about the need to protect our social programs in Canada. They talked about the need to support programs like medicare. They talked about the need to support things like post-secondary education. They talked about the need to try to stimulate economic activity so it could lead to job creation.

One of the important initiatives that I believe needs to be addressed in this budget is the whole concept and need to deal with the issues that involve rural Canada. I represent a riding that is rural in nature. We are about 30% of the Canadian population. I think we have accomplished and made the point over the last few years that the circumstances under which our constituents live in rural Canada are different than those in urban Canada.

The realities and the economic conditions we face are unique. Things like distances, geography, population density are all factors that need to be taken into account when we develop a budget.

I made this speech on a number of occasions in past debates when we talked about the budget. I would hope that as we formulate those policies, whether they have to do with tax reductions and the type of tax reductions we undertake, or the types of investments that we believe Canadians want and we should undertake, that they reflect the needs and concerns of rural Canadians and that they reflect the economy under which we operate and that we as a parliament make sure that the needs and concerns or rural Canadians are addressed.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to have spoken on the prebudget issues. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to share some of these thoughts and concerns with my colleagues in the House. I look forward to next February when the finance minister tables his budget in the House and we see another important step on the way to the economic progress of Canada.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite. He suggested that the economic prosperity Canada was enjoying today was the result of Tory policies of the previous government.

Obviously the first question he might want to ask himself is why after the last election the Tory party returned as the fifth party in the House. If the viewers could see the full Chamber they would see the small section the Tories occupy.

More important, the member should want to ask some very specific questions. He expressed frustration in his speech about the consultative process. Maybe he would want to ask why the former Tory government had no consultative process when it came to formulating its budget. It never went out to consult with Canadians. The finance committee, under the Tory regime, never has a prebudget consultation. It was simply all done by Michael Wilson in some backroom when he came up with his budget.

How did it help Canada reach economic prosperity? When the Tory government took over there was about a $28 billion deficit, but when it left it was at $42 billion. It had increased by this massive amount.

The Tories are trying to say that we should look at them as being the genesis of our economic prosperity. The Liberal government has been in power for four years and the deficit disappeared. They were in power for nine years and it went from $28 billion to $42 billion.

The member talked about the fact that the debt to GDP was far too high, and it is. What he failed to point out was that when the Conservative Party took over it was in the 50% range and when it left it was over 70%. Again I have to ask the hon. member if that is an example of the type of Tory management which led to the great prosperity we see today.

They have talked about EI premiums. When the Tories were in power the UI premiums went up by over $1. When we came to power they were scheduled to go to $3.30. In reality today they are down to $2.70. Is this another example of how the Tory policy has led to the economic prosperity of today?

The member also talked about unemployment, a significant problem in Canada. It is a challenge for all of us to try to address. Was the fact that the unemployment rate had increased to 11.3% when the Tories left office and is now down to 9% today under a Liberal regime an example of their economic policies that have led to the prosperity we enjoy today?