Gar Knutson

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I agree with my colleagues in their concern for the debt and deficit. The deficit has reached a crisis proportion. I also agree with their concern for children.

I believe that we must move urgently to balance the budget but we must not use the budget crisis to deal with other pressing problems.

I commend the government for its commitment to lower the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP within three years of taking office. Believing that this goal is achievable, I also urge the government to move to balancing the budget in as short a time as is reasonably possible thereafter.

Some people ask why is the debt a problem. Annual interest on the debt is $44 billion; that is $44 billion that we do not have to spend on education, industrial infrastructure, research and a host of other important programs. Just as serious for more subtle reasons is the fact that the debt drives up interest rates for everyone.

Because of the size of our debt international lenders demand and receive a risk premium to hedge against a potential drop in the value of the Canadian dollar. This risk premium or extra cost affects the whole market for money and the cost for borrowing consequently is reflected in it. Consumers, homeowners, students and all other borrowers also pay this premium.

The size of our debt makes our nation extremely sensitive to a rise in interest rates in the United States. Canada is forced to pay a premium over American rates in order to attract foreign capital. When rates go up in the United States we have no choice but to raise them in Canada. Thus our sovereignty has been severely curtailed as we lose control over our monetary policy.

We are hampered from finding made in Canada solutions to Canadian problems. Losing control over our economic house diminishes our nation and everyone in it. All we can do is hope that international forces co-operate with our deficit reduction program.

Furthermore, as bad as our situation is now, it will be much worse if we do not act now with discipline and resolve.

Having outlined my views on the seriousness of the problem, I would now like to address the solution. The following remarks can be entitled a good way to balance the budget versus a bad way to balance the budget. Everyone agrees that government should cut waste. Cutting waste is a good way to contribute to balancing the budget. More often than not waste is designed right into programs and as such is not so readily apparent.

For example, the coast guard, Transport Canada and fisheries and oceans maintain separate fleets with overlapping duties. My own riding of Elgin-Norfolk covers approximately 100 miles of Lake Erie shoreline. One of the harbours in Port Stanley is operated well by Transport Canada. The other smaller harbours are managed by small craft harbours of fisheries and oceans. These harbours are often neglected due to shortage of funds. Regardless, we have two sets of bureaucrats managing a similar resource side by side. I would like to suggest that a single authority could manage the Lake Erie shoreline, do a better job and do it cheaper.

The military has recently been highlighted as having some waste. In the past this waste was designed in as we kept bases open only for political need rather than serving military purposes. While this is starting to change we need to go further to identity waste.

We spend large sums of money on high tech advanced equipment such as the CF-18. The CF-18 is not used in peacekeeping but would be used in the unlikely event of the breakout of world war III or as a token contribution to a gulf war like crisis.

Canada is currently the 12th largest military spender in the world. I believe we can cut military spending and find a large peace dividend, all the while maintaining our contribution to peacekeeping and our security needs.

The reserves offer great potential for a cheaper alternative to CF-18s and other high tech expensive weapons. In my riding the Elgin regiments have contributed nine people to the army who are now currently serving in Bosnia. These young men offer skill and commitment that represent a great value for dollar as citizen soldiers. Unfortunately the reserves often appear to be under equipped and generally under resourced.

I would now like to speak for a short while on tax policy. I accept as a given the government's apparent indication that a general tax increase is not in the cards. Certainly the middle class of this country will not tolerate a general tax increase. However, I need to point out that within this country there is a great inequity of income. The top 20 per cent of income earners receive over 44 per cent of national income annually while the bottom 20 per cent have approximately 2.7 per cent of national income. It is within this context that fairness in tax policy needs to be considered. There is nothing contradictory in fair taxation and deficit reduction. An increase in taxes on the top 20 per cent of income earners in this country I believe would entirely appropriate at the current time.

Furthermore, the government should look at tax expenditures. The government forgoes $860 million by not taxing lottery winnings. This should be changed. The marriage credit costs over $1 billion. The government should design it so that it benefits the lower and middle class primarily.

RRSPs have received considerable attention lately. My own view is that the annual contribution rate should be limited to $9,000 with corresponding change to private pension plans.

The people in my riding have just come through the worst recession since the 1930s. Very few of them can even consider saving $9,000 a year to put into an RRSP. The benefits of RRSP contributions fall most favourably on the rich, those within the highest marginal tax rates. This by itself is unfair. Without change to the current law the contribution limits are set to rise to $15,000 annually. This limit will have little benefit to the factory worker or the farmer in Elgin-Norfolk.

Lowering the limit will raise government revenue by an estimated $750 million to $1 billion annually. It will also restore in small part fairness and integrity to the tax system.

As we work toward a balanced budget there may be instances when for very good reasons spending more, not less, on a program is entirely appropriate. I would like to recommend that the government treat child poverty as an urgent crisis that requires more resources, not fewer, nor even a freeze. This may appear like a contradiction. I would like to assure the House that it is not.

The government has said that it needs to find over $6 billion in annual cuts within the next two years to meet its target to balance the budget and another $30 billion to $35 billion in increased revenue or decrease in expenditures. Within this context how difficult can it be to find an extra billion dollars for hungry Canadian children?

The Department of Human Resources Development has produced a supplementary paper to its green paper that outlines as an option an enhanced child tax benefit that would raise the benefit to $2,500 per child and be clawed back starting for incomes of $15,000 and dropping to zero for family incomes at $55,000. The cost of this program would be approximately $1 billion.

I would like to remind the House with the greatest respect that all Canadians are not participating in the recovery, nor are they likely to. If the government does not play a fair role in redistributing income this recovery will drive a wider wedge between the well off and the disadvantaged. Families that cannot compete in a quickly changing, knowledge based economy will be unemployed and their children will suffer the worst of the consequences.

In absolute terms over 1.2 million Canadian children, nearly 20 per cent of the child population, live in poverty in this country today. In most cases their parents are working. Even worse, in some provinces one-quarter to one-third of all children are poor. This is an obscenity. Even in times of cutbacks the issue needs to be addressed. The consequences of child poverty need to be addressed just as the consequence of the deficit need to be addressed.

Poor children are often poorly nourished. The Canadian Institute of Child Health states that without adequate nutrition children will suffer from stunted growth, intellectual impairment and a variety of infectious diseases. They will put an extra burden on health care and on prisons as they grow up.

To sum up, I agree with my colleagues that the debt and the deficit are serious problems. So too are a host of other problems and the one I have identified most significantly is child poverty. That is why I ask everyone in this House to join with me and ask the government for an increase in the child tax benefit and for some real solutions for child poverty.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not think that if we cut government spending too quickly given that government spending makes part of overall aggregate demand on the economy that it would slow down growth and perhaps put us into a recession?

[The Economy, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, lately when discussing the country's financial situation with groups in my riding it became clear to me that the message of fiscal restraint has been heard by Canadians. People in my riding are ready for the government to make the tough choices that are needed to get our financial house in order.

I have also been disturbed by how some people, especially from the far right of the political spectrum, are using the present financial difficulties as an excuse to advocate brutal measures against the poor.

The debt and deficit remain real problems. The medicine will be no doubt bitter but I have every reason to believe that the government will be looking for ways to make our social security system more fair and equitable without hurting those most in need.

I condemn those who use our present financial difficulty as an excuse to impose their right wing agenda on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

[Crimes Of Hate, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and praise Bill C-41 that has now passed second reading and has been sent to the justice committee for consideration.

Bill C-41 clearly states that acts of hate shall be considered for additional punishment over and above the original crime that has been committed. In other words if the intent of assaulting an individual is not only to inflict pain but to intimidate others, then two crimes have been committed, one of violence and one of hate.

I fully support this legislation. It will benefit all Canadians since every Canadian has a colour, religion, age and sexual orientation. I urge all members to support Bill C-41.

[Armed Forces, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, traditionally nations have defined security by the size of their armies. However, the Liberal red book states: "A Liberal government will adopt a broader definition of national and international security, encompassing such goals as sustainable development, global economic prosperity, capable defence and the eradication of poverty and social inequality".

What this resolution is truly about is the need for Canada to look at the evolution of its security needs. Less and less we see the armed forces as a military combatant. More and more the armed forces must be viewed as a useful resource in times of public emergency, disaster and participation in international peacekeeping efforts.

The United Nations Security Council has stated that while the instability of the cold war is over, the non-military sources of instability, economic, social and humanitarian have become greater threats to peace and security.

Our armed forces have shown themselves adept at flexibility in the past. I encourage the minister of defence and this House to reflect on the need to evolve the Canadian forces further.

[United Nations, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago last week the United Nations was formed. While there have been many changes to the form of the UN its basic goal has remained the same.

Together nations of goodwill can offer assistance and help in the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Peacekeeping is a Canadian invention and I am ever so proud to have eight members of the Elgin Regiment located in my riding going to war torn Bosnia to assist the civilians who are not war lords nor combatants but simple civilians caught in a crossfire.

Canada working through the UN has a long and distinguished history. The United Nations, while desperately needing rejuvenation, remains the world's best hope for conflict resolution.

I wish the young men from my riding who have chosen to wear the blue beret all of God's protection as they carry out this noble task.

[Technology, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board who last night delivered the keynote address to open Technology in Government Week.

Technology costs money. How is the President of the Treasury Board going to make use of information technology to improve services to the Canadian public and at the same time reduce the cost of these services to the taxpayer?

[Immigration Act, October 24th, 1994]

We are. Check the facts. It would merely foster the kind of misunderstanding and fear about HIV that we should be working to overcome.

The government recognizes Canadians' concerns about HIV and HIV testing for immigrants. We are addressing these concerns in the most constructive way possible, by conducting a thorough review of all medical testing with the benefit of the best expert advice and of consultations. When the review is complete the government will take whatever action is necessary to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to preserve the integrity of our health and social services.

HIV testing takes place now under certain circumstances. Under current guidelines immigrant applicants found to be HIV positive may be deemed to be medically inadmissible. Those grounds for refusing admission are based on the consequences, the impact admitting a particular person would have on Canada, whatever the person's specific medical condition.

Medical opinion does agree on the fact that a person with HIV does not represent a threat to public health or safety merely because of the infection. In other words the persons must involve themselves in a high risk activity, which normally means unsafe sex.

Refusing admission to applicants with HIV would have to be based on any excessive demand they might place on our health care system or social services. The act and regulations do not require medical officers to test for HIV. They are authorized however, to do so if they have reason to suspect an infection. As it stands now testing for HIV does take place when there is reason to do so. We must ask the question: Are the current guidelines working to protect the Canadian health care system from excessive demands?

In conclusion let me say that the government is reviewing the matter. Let us wait for the government's decision and then we can have a more focused and more productive debate.

[Immigration Act, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to a few of the comments of the hon. member from the other side.

First he attacked our motives. He said that we were merely being pulled along by some minority group. The government has announced that it is reviewing its policy on testing for HIV so I think the member who has introduced the motion should take some comfort in it.

The reason we are opposing the private member's motion today is that we want to give the government time to review the bill and make a decision. Once the government makes its decision perhaps we can have a more focused and more productive debate.

I acknowledge as much as anyone that HIV leads to AIDS and AIDS is deadly. Out of my high school graduating class of 55 people, 3 are dead from AIDS. One of them happened to be a very close friend. I do not think that anyone from that side of the House or this side of the House has the right to say that we obviously do not care, that we are sticking our heads in the sand, or to make any other personal comment.

Canadians recognize that AIDS is deadly and that it kills, but too often the debate gets mixed into other issues. Too often it gets thrown into an intolerance toward certain communities in our country. Too often it gets mixed into homophobic groups, groups that say that AIDS is a plague on the homosexual community because God is bringing down his wrath. It is that kind of thing we want to avoid. We want to have a reasonable, high quality debate based on the facts.

An uninformed decision by the House would accomplish very little. As I have said, the government is currently reviewing the extensive information we have on HIV and will be announcing its decision soon. Our decisions will appropriately reflect concerns for public health demand on the health care system, social justice and economic matters that concern us today.

We must not aggravate public misunderstanding about HIV. Too many people think one can get HIV and AIDS through casual contact. Too many people think one get it by shaking hands when in fact one can only get it through the transmission of certain body fluids, more specifically blood and semen.

We must take care to dispassionately analyse and reflect on the issues that are too often fraught with prejudice and discrimination. It is also incorrect to say that AIDS can be transmitted by simple contact. Too many people think we should not even allow visitors into the country who have AIDS. Last year for example, there was a forum on AIDS in Vancouver and certain members of the House said that we should not let these people in because they were a risk to Canadians.

In short, we must avoid being stampeded into adopting a policy based more on fear than on fact, fear that is often based on misunderstanding, misinformation and ignorance. Public misunderstanding could direct a misunderstanding toward immigrants even though immigrants are no more likely to test HIV positive than native born residents.

My friends from the other side have indicated there are certain places in the world that have an epidemic of AIDS. Certainly it is clear given the current policy that even in those places we would test for HIV and AIDS.

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

On the member's last point, he wants the cost to fall primarily on those who change their behaviour, but there is no way to distinguish them. If we toughen up the UI rules there is no way to distinguish between persons who take a longer time to look for a job than others would and persons who legitimately cannot find a job because all the factories in their towns have closed.

There is no way; the system is not that specific that we can say some persons are not looking hard enough for a job so we are going to toughen up on them.