Jerry Pickard

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious question which has been raised by my colleague. It requires a proper response in light of the fact that he is correct.

When we talk about people putting money away, there are folks in this country who really do not have that extra capital to put away for educational funding. How do we deal with that?

We do have millennium funding that is being put in place to help those low income families pay for educational programs on the basis of need. I will have either the parliamentary secretary or someone from the department comment on that. That would be an important area for the member to raise.

When we look at student loans, there is no question that student loans are in place to help students. Some students are graduating with astronomical debts. I believe that we do have to look carefully at what we can do to help students in the best possible way to overcome the tremendous debt load they have.

One of the key issues is getting the fundamentals in place and keeping interest rates as low as we possibly can. Remember that interest on student loans does not start until a minimum of six months after the student graduates and if the student does not get a job, that time period can be extended. But with the large debt students have, it is important we make certain that we fundamentally handle this correctly. When people are young that is the time when they need a relatively good amount of income to purchase the basics they have not been able to have as students. In the workforce they have to see those benefits come about.

I agree that the issues the member has raised are important. They are ones this government is looking at.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly wrap up. It was not a specific question. He went through the growth of the economy as a problem that we are putting more dollars into. He laid that whole agenda open to be questioned. Quite frankly this is a pretty bad approach to take.

The government has done a great job. I believe that is the basis under which my response came.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Many facets of it have been brought forward and need some response. I said we were getting our fiscal house in order. I talked about the direction we have taken as a Canadian government. Those remarks were well reflected in my colleague's comments. He suggested that the growth of the economy has been very good.

How did growth of the economy occur? We have to stop and think about the trade missions the prime minister put in place. He has involved the provincial premiers and the business community of Canada. He did whatever he could to make sure Canadian companies could expand, become stronger, make more profit and pay higher taxes. All these things were actual accomplishments of the direction of the government. For someone to complain about the growth of the economy bringing in more funding to the federal government seems a little ludicrous to me. It seems a little off base.

However, we all know we have not increased personal income tax. We have not made the increases that these folks thrived on year after year.

I sat here in 1988 and I watched taxes go up and up. We stopped that. I watched how they went about with programs they were putting in place. Now they are complaining that we have made the economy grow, that we have held interest rates down, and that we have done things that have principally put Canadian business in a very competitive position worldwide. We have increased our trade dramatically. There has been a one-third total increase in trade over the last few years, thanks to good government.

How does that affect taxes? Without increases we have increased the dollar flow coming in. Most Canadians would respect that is the best way to go about this issue.

He also mentioned that there were some cuts in dollar transfer payments to the provinces. Yes, that is true, but he did not mention the fact that the tax points the provincial governments were getting were increasing because of the increase in the economy. We cut some of the tax dollar transfers but we also increased our economic value which meant that more dollars were coming in to the provinces through tax points.

As a result I think everyone in this room has to fundamentally agree that we have taken a tremendous direction. It is a very positive step for Canadians. It is a positive step for Canadian businesses. It has been a positive step for governments and it will definitely be a positive step for the programs we are carrying out.

Had we followed the right wing agenda over there, the difficulty we would be in today would be further slash and burn policies and further increases in taxes.

I remember Michael Wilson saying year after year after year “We missed the target by $10 billion this year. We missed it by $8 billion last year”.

The Reform Party is trying to say “Now that you guys have straightened out a lot of the economy in the country we are going to tell you how to spend your profits”. All I have heard the leader of that party say in the last six months is how he would manage the new situation. That is pretty ludicrous.

I listened to where the Reform Party is going now and how it is going to give tax cuts. It is going to give this and it is going to give that. Giveaways do not work. Getting the basics right is the important thing to do. The Reform Party has missed the basis of getting the fundamentals right. It would love to take credit for it all. As a matter of fact its members say that because they have pushed us hard we have done a good job. That is kind of a sidestep.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it really is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-28. I can recall not very long ago that we were debating what we had to cut, how we had to cut these programs, where we were going in the future, and everything looked dim and abysmal.

We are in a very different position financially in this country today than we were eight years ago, seven years ago, six years ago. It has been a very difficult struggle for all Canadians, for everyone in this House and for the government. By putting the information that we had to work for Canadians and by working with our finances we have been able to change the direction of this country.

There is absolutely no question when we look at financial institutions around the world and we hear other countries comment on Canada's move forward, we know that we as Canadians have done a tremendous task. We have brought the fiscal order of this country into a much better condition.

Granted, we have a very large debt. That debt is the next major struggle that this government is going to have to handle. There is no question that we have to look at business operations in this country. We have to look at all social programs and social transfers as we are doing in this bill. We have to look at the whole operation of this country and monitor it on a very regular and steady basis.

It is very good though that we can stand here today and not argue about what is to be cut and what we have to do to alter the development of our programs. We can say yes, we are moving in the right direction and now we need adjustments to those directions. That is what this debate today is about.

We are talking about Canada social transfers, transfers for health payments and moneys that we are going to move from the federal coffers to support provincial programs which are most important for all Canadians.

I do not believe there is one person in this House who opposes that the federal government must do what it can to help provinces carry out their plans for social assistance and health. I believe every member of the House is consistent on that, but I guess we all have differences on how it should be done. The outline that has been placed here is clearly the government's position on how these transfers should occur.

We have set a floor for the cash transfers to the provinces by the federal government this year and for the next five years of $12.5 billion. We have also suggested that there are going to be other transfers to the provinces of tax points. Those tax point transfers will be in the neighbourhood of $12.7 billion. The total transfers from the federal government to provincial governments will be over $25 billion.

People have to understand what tax point transfers are before they can understand how that money is sent to the provinces. When we talk about social programs we realize that those programs are supported by provincial and federal coffers. Provincial governments and the federal government have worked together on personal and corporate income taxes since this country was founded.

If the federal government decides that it will lower its tax revenue and allow the provinces to increase their tax revenue, at a percentage point, the provinces actually get more of our income tax, with the federal government getting less. A balance occurs to the taxpayer, but the number of dollars going to the provincial governments is higher and the number of dollars going to the federal government is lower.

We have always maintained that we will support the provincial governments through tax point transfers, allowing an adjustment at income tax time for the provinces to get more dollars and the federal government to get a few less.

At the same time, we have looked on the cash transfers as an additional balance. We have suggested to the province that they are going to be guaranteed over the next few years $25 billion in health and social transfers.

In the campaign we heard time after time from the Reform Party and from the Conservative Party that we have cut the cash transfers to the provinces. They never once talked about the tax point credits that were maintained, the tax point credits that the provincial government got.

They took one side of the story and one side only and did not deal with it in a fair and reasonable way, which I find has been the case by both those parties over the years. They take one part and dwell on it. They are very adamant about one part of the whole equation without dealing with the whole issue, the total number of dollars available to the provinces from the federal government.

Quite frankly, that total number of dollars is there to make sure that our health programs and our social transfers are there for Canadian citizens.

There is no question that in the last while one of the major issues in Ontario as well as in all the provinces of Canada has been what is happening to our health care system, where are we going with that health care system and where will we end up in the future.

What we need to do and what we have done with this legislation is make certain the provinces know what the funding will be for the future. The provinces can plan and look exactly at where they are going with that funding. They know the programs they can carry out and they know the dollars that will be flowing in for that program.

I have no question, when I start looking at making dollar amounts, base levels there, that we are following the recommendations that were brought forth by the national forum on health. We are following the recommendation of health care specialists across this country. We are following the recommendations brought forward to the federal government and the finance minister to make certain that the health care system stands well in this country and will stand well in the next several years.

We must also realize that when we come to looking at what we are doing with setting a balance of floor value of $12.5 billion on the base, that does not mean those transfer payments may not increase.

Quite different from that, it is saying that there will be a base level. There may well be increases to those programs as required. There may well be increased funding. We are projecting at this point in time a 2.5% per annum increase from present day until the year 2002.

When we look at transfer payments to the provinces, I think it is important to understand what I am talking about with regard to these tax points. I have an estimate of the transfers that would go to the provinces. The province of Ontario would receive tax credits under this legislation of $5 billion. They would also receive cash transfers of $4 billion which, to the province of Ontario, gives a total of just over $9 billion for health and social programs.

That is quite a sum of money. It is there to make sure that those programs are maintained at the highest level. All Canadians can be assured we will have programs today and in the future that will meet the needs of each and every Canadian.

Our health care system, as it is administered today, does not make differences in Canadians. It does not act in the same way that we might find the system doing in the United States or in other countries where those with a lot of money are able to access the services and those who are less fortunate, less wealthy, are unable to access the services.

Our system is blind to wealth. It is blind to other factors outside the risk of the patient. The more the need of the patient for an operation, the more the need of the patient for service, those are the patients who are treated first. It is a priority list of the health needs of Canadians.

We certainly feel as a federal government that it is the only way to go about making certain that Canadians have services available to them.

There are other issues with regard to the bill which may have been neglected. Charitable donations is one area that has been included. There are amendments in the legislation to help with gifts and donations that will help more charitable organizations and other groups which need cash.

We can think about what just happened in this region of Canada when tremendous problems were caused by the ice storm of recent weeks. There are people who contributed gifts to those areas. The increase in support for those who make charitable donations is very important to the operation not only of disaster funds but of the heart association and all other groups that go to the public on a regular basis to support the people who need extra support in our communities. There is thought given to helping those individuals.

As well, proposals have been made in the area of registered educational savings plans to help the families who wish to send their children to school. They know the costs of education will be going up astronomically over the years. There is an opportunity for families to put more money into educational savings plans which will over time help society to better educate young people. It certainly will help families to send their children to school. It will help to finance education.

I have heard young people complain a great deal about the costs of education today and the future costs of education. In a small way the bill will help young people to cope.

There are key important points in the bill that will help the underprivileged and people requiring health care and that will improve our social programs. I would like to make certain that each and every Canadian understands that the bill is doing a great deal to bolster our funding to the provinces and to make certain the provinces are able to handle those most important costs, those most important programs of the future.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

I certainly appreciate the fact that the Bloc has seen that it is important that back to work legislation should come in at this time.

I believe they have suggested along this line too that we do need to maintain the process of reasonable collective bargaining. The result is that this is a balanced approach. We brought the legislation in as soon as it was reasonable to do so.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is fundamentally important that the Reform party realize that there is a collective bargaining system in this country. What it intends to put forward here is that there is absolutely no collective bargaining process that is acceptable.

Quite frankly, there is a system and that system must be maintained. We must give opportunity for systems to resolve the problem. As the Minister of Labour has said over the last week in which the strike has occurred, it is ultimately our goal to make certain that the union and Canada Post had opportunity to resolve those problems by working together. That will best serve Canadians in the long run. To legislate workers back to work is not the optimum goal as these folks would like to suggest. The optimum goal is to have the workers and the company resolve the problem and come up with a proper solution that all parties agree to.

However, realizing that it was the ultimate goal that we could reach and it was unachievable over the short term, we have moved to bring in back to work legislation. There is a necessity when we start looking at the damage that is created by this strike to bring in back to work legislation.

Quite frankly, we introduced the back to work legislation within a week of the time the strike was going on. Forty-eight hour notice was required and it was introduced last Friday.

That is not a question when we start down the road to the system that is being suggested by the Reform Party. They are saying no collective bargaining in this country any longer, let's just close the door, jam it shut and say we will legislate anybody back to work in the civil service or anywhere else who disagrees with the process.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga West.

Let us look at what this debate is about, at what this legislation is about and at what the negotiations up to this time have been about. They are about who manages and controls the workplace. There is absolutely no question that the management and control of the workplace is ultimately very important.

Our government has set a mandate for the Canadian postal service that it is to be self-sufficient, that it is to operate by a most viable productive method to provide mail service to all Canadians at a reasonable cost. When we get into discussions of the direction of government policy it is very important to realize that this government has told Canada Post there will be no increases this year and next year. That is clearly the mandate of this government. We have a direction in which to go to provide no increase, positive services and increased service where possible.

Let us examine the other side of the question. The union has its national postal workers handbook which contains its national constitution. I will put this statement on the record because it is very critical in the explanation of why the negotiations have broken down: “The Union views as a primary direction the accomplishment of workers control of the workplace. This principle ensures that the union and its members will seek at all junctures to limit the power of the employer to organise our jobs and the methods of production and planning of the work. In its place, the union will seek for its members full control of the work they perform and the environment in which they perform the work”.

If we think about that statement, the union has said that Canada Post will no longer control Canada Post, the union will. The union is saying that it will not accept any control over jobs or any control over the directions it takes. It will control the workplace and everything its members do. Canada Post cannot manage its workplace nor penalize its workers for not performing their jobs.

We tried very hard to get negotiations through. We tried mediation and conciliation. We tried to provide room between the union and Canada Post to resolve the problem. But where the attitude is and written in the national constitution that Canada Post is not to control Canada Post any longer, then legislation had to be brought in. We had to look very carefully at what was happening within the jurisdiction.

It is now time to get back to work. Many Canadians are hurting because of the postal strike. The strike is hurting charities which count on most of their support at Christmas. The strike is hurting thousands of small businesses which very much depend on the mail service. The strike is hurting hundreds of mail order businesses which, in most parts of this country, receive a majority of their business in the month leading up to Christmas. The strike is hurting people who are employed in businesses which are now facing layoffs. In short, the strike is hurting many different Canadians in all areas of the economy.

I would like to talk about the terrible impact this strike is having on charities. These organizations serve the most vulnerable members of our society and depend on the generosity of Canadians during the holiday season for the majority of their funds. These organizations do most of their fund-raising through the mail. That is the most affordable and convenient way of receiving funds and donations to help Canadians. Charities have been vastly affected by the uncertainty of the last while.

I would like to give the House some examples of what the postal strike means to some of the charities in our country.

The co-ordinator of the Christmas Seals program in Alberta, Audrey Hamm, said that the Alberta Lung Association depends on Canada Post to deliver 95% of its donations. Ms. Hamm added that a lengthy postal strike would probably mean a reduction in its revenues by some 50%.

Nicole Mirault of the Canadian Cancer Society said: “We risk a catastrophe. In Quebec alone millions of dollars come through the mail each year. We don't have the means to use couriers. We rely on direct mail service. Therefore we would be grossly negatively affected”.

The Inter-faith Food Bank in Calgary hoped to raise around $100,000 through mail donations this season, but people are not sending in Christmas donations because of the uncertainty.

As a result these organizations, be they UNICEF or the lung association, are suffering a great deal because they do not have the funds coming in.

Even those organizations which managed to get their appeals in the mail before the strike are not receiving donations at this point in time. If charities do not get the donations at Christmas they may never see those donations.

This time is very important. We must get our postal service back onstream so these organizations can get the support of generous Canadians and be certain that through this season they will be able to do what they have done for Canadians in the past.

When it comes to business, of course there are many areas which are affected. Small and medium size businesses, according to a survey carried out last week by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, are losing $200 million every day of this strike. Everybody agrees that these companies are engines of our economy. They create opportunity for millions of Canadians, yet this strike has already cost $2 billion.

Every hour that passes is costing our economy millions. When we talk about the cost to the economy we tend to focus on dollars and cents, but there is an enormous human cost as well. Thousands of Canadians have been laid off over the last few weeks by companies which depend on mail for their business. Without Canada Post, many mail order businesses, direct mailers and others simply have to close their operations and lay off workers.

Let me give some examples. The Western Producer , a familiar name to those who reside in western Canada, relies on Canada Post to reach its readers. It did not publish last week, meaning that it lost all the advertising and subscription revenue for that week. As a result it had to lay off 65 of its 80 employees.

Columbia House, one of the best known mail order companies in Canada, last week laid off 200 of its 400 employees. Layoffs will continue if the strike goes on.

GWE, a mail order house in Calgary, employs 1,500 Canadians from coast to coast. As of last week it laid off 700 members. More layoffs may follow.

Golfinn International, a mail order company specializing in golf equipment, had to layoff 17 of its employees because of the strike.

Christmas will make or break many of our small companies. It remains to be seen whether we recover from the effects of the strike. The postal strike has forced many businesses to lay off people. There is an economic cost. People are laid off, they will not be spending money during Christmas time, and in many cases the public suffers.

But there is also an enormous human cost. In conclusion, I would like to give the decision of the union not to back the work legislation. We received telephone calls in our office, through the minister's office, approximately 1,600 inquiries in the last week, of which 96% said they want back to work legislation; 96% of Canadians are asking this government to put back to work legislation in while only 4% support the strike.

We have given the collective bargaining system a chance to succeed, but seeing it is at an impasse, we now know it is time to bring the workers back to work.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I thought we were on questions and comments. I did not hear your comment about debate. I thought I was recognized as being up on questions and comments. Could the member have a chance to respond before the debate begins?

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

His party was.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I was listening very carefully to my colleague's remarks, particularly the remarks about an essential service.

I have a little difficulty reconciling the fact that my colleague's party was in power from 1984 to 1993, for nine years. It had the opportunity to bring in the kind of legislation that would say Canada Post is an essential service and workers cannot go on strike. But now they stand in opposition and say exactly the opposite of what they said when they were in government. I have a problem with that and I wonder if my hon. friend can reconcile the fact that he said one thing from 1984 to 1993 and a second thing now.