There they go. I do not blame them. I would too.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 28% of the vote.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
There they go. I do not blame them. I would too.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
He did. He said earlier this decade that only the federal government should be taking the leadership. It was only the federal government that had the resources to show leadership. He mentioned homelessness in his budget. What did he about it? Nothing. There was not a red cent toward housing.
The mayors of the major cities were shocked. We all got faxes and e-mails in the last couple of days. Mr. Speaker, you will probably have a whole pile on your desk when you get back to your office. They were disgusted and dismayed. They found it unbelievable that at a time when we have not $1 billion or $2 billion or $5 billion or $10 billion but more in surplus that not a red cent was given to the housing crisis, the housing tragedy in the country.
If I were a Liberal sitting across there today, I would run out of here in shame.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
It was this finance minister.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
As my friend from Winnipeg says, we are not surprised. We are not.
I thought Brian Mulroney was kind of a wild and woolly right winger. Compared to the Minister of Finance he sounds like some kind of economic piker. He tried to move the agenda to the right but he failed.
I know my friends thought at the time this seemed a bit perplexing. As a matter of fact, back in 1990 the Minister of Finance he wrote a report on housing. He spent a number of weeks touring the country on housing and wrote a report on it.
As a matter of fact, to be fair, he used the term homelessness once in his budget. The term was actually there. There was one reference to the fact that we have homeless people in the country. We happen to have hundreds of thousands of homeless people. This has been identified by the mayors of every major city in Canada as a national tragedy. The finance minister did mention it. Here is what he had to say in 1990:
The federal role in housing must not be a residual one. The connection between housing and other aspects of both social and economic policy means that the federal government must take a lead role. Only the national government has the financial resources to address the full dimensions of the needs of this country.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to have a chance to participate in today's debate and to tell about a couple of things that happened to me in the last 24 hours.
Yesterday I encountered many of my Liberal friends in the hallways and around Parliament Hill and they all said the same thing: “Wasn't that a wonderful budget?” I said “Not the one I heard”. Maybe we were listening to different speakers on budget night. They thought it was a good budget; I thought it was a distasteful budget.
If Brian Mulroney had been sitting in the opposition gallery, he would have been cheering for almost the entire budget. He would not believe that things could get this right wing in the country.
I received an e-mail this morning—and I know others received it as well—announcing the guest speaker Saturday night at the unite the right convention in Ottawa. Guess who it is? The person that symbolizes real right wing fanaticism in the country, the single individual who has moved the right wing agenda of our country about 185 degrees to the right, the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance must be the guest speaker Saturday night at the unite the right conference because there is no better spokesperson for the right wing than the hon. Minister of Finance.
That went out this morning to all sorts of people who are curious about this weekend's events. Now we know at least who the Saturday night guest speaker will be.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act February 15th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-65.
I differ a bit from my friend who just spoke. At this second reading stage we will be supporting Bill C-65 but with a little qualification. I think it is fair to say that when we look at the formula for determining the equalization payments, it is appropriate that in committee we examine this in considerable detail. I think my hon. friend who just spoke pointed out the reason for that, that this is a complicated formula and if we are to pass this legislation beyond committee stage it is crucial that we examine that.
I want to use this as an opportunity to point out one other aspect, to simply note the various revenue sources that are identified: personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, taxes on capital corporations, general and miscellaneous sales taxes, harmonized sales taxes, amusement taxes, tobacco taxes, motor fuel taxes, non-commercial motor vehicle licence revenues, commercial motor vehicle licence revenues, alcoholic beverage revenues, hospital and medical care insurance premiums, forestry revenues, conventional new oil revenues, conventional old oil revenues, heavy oil revenues, mined oil revenues, light and medium third oil revenues, heavy third oil revenues, revenues from domestically sold natural gas, revenues from exported natural gas, sales of crown leases, sales of reservations on oil and natural gas lands, oil and natural gas revenues other than those just described, mining revenues, water power rentals, insurance premium taxes, payroll taxes, provincial local government property taxes, race track taxes, revenues from lottery ticket taxes, revenues from games of chance taxes, miscellaneous provincial taxes, provincial revenues from sales of goods and services, local government revenues from sales of goods and services, miscellaneous local government taxes and revenues.
I think I have made my point. A lot of taxes have been identified in this legislation. It seems to me that it would be appropriate for us to ask the question whether these individual taxes make sense. At the time they were introduced I think it is fair to say there was probably some rationale behind them. People thought they were appropriate social or economic policy taxes.
It is important now to identify each and every one of these tax exempt areas and factor in a cost benefit analysis. What is the cost to the taxpayer and what is the benefit? If it is not clear that there is a benefit then these taxes should be dropped. It is a recommendation that any fair-minded person would agree with.
Obviously I am not arguing against the principle of the bill. The whole principle of equalization and having a level playing field for Canadians no matter where they live in terms of access to social programs, education, health care opportunities and economic opportunities is absolutely crucial.
Canada is all about the Canadian family. It differentiates us from any other countries. Whether one lives in an isolated part of Canada, on the east coast, on the north coast, on the west coast or in central Canada, one will have relatively the same access to programs. That is what the country is all about. That is what a civilized country is all about. That is what Canada is all about. This program helps facilitate that whole idea.
Let us not be so arrogant that we think it cannot be improved. That is what we are saying. While the principle is fundamental to the Canadian ethic, it is imperative when the legislation reaches committee that we determine whether this is the most appropriate way.
I have heard my friend and others raise the point about the Premier of Newfoundland and how it would appear that there has been some monkeying around with this equalization bill in order for him to say he had a balanced budget just days before the election, which resulted in a more favourable election result. These are the abuses of the system that if in fact they were the case we have to find ways and means of mitigating them in the future.
In conclusion, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I say that we will support the bill enthusiastically at this stage of principle, but we have many serious questions that we want to ask in committee. We look forwarding to getting it into committee, although not quite in this much of a hurry. We are under time allocation which is, let us face it, an undemocratic use of the rules of the House of Commons.
I would not want to say we can hear jack boots echoing in the hallways just around the corner, but there is something fundamentally wrong when the government starts muzzling Canadian representatives, when it starts saying to the people of Canada that it does not want to hear the view from some part of the country because it has heard enough and wants to close the place down. It wants to muzzle parliament. It wants to bring to an end the democratic process. There is something fundamentally wrong about a government that decides it has heard enough.
I remember a little while back when the Conservatives were on that side and the Liberals were on this side. They would go into a state of absolute hysterics every time some form of time allocation or closure was brought in. They would stand and say this was an element of fascism, undemocratic and un-Canadian, that this was wrong, not right and ought not to occur. Lo and behold there is an election and they flip across to the other side and now they do the same thing more often.
When the Liberals said before the last election that if they became the government they would not act like the Conservatives did in the matter of muzzling parliament we thought they meant less time allocation. We thought they meant less use of closure. They meant more use of closure, more abuse of parliament.
We have to pay very close attention, as my friend said in his presentation, and listen closely to what they are saying. When they say they want to change parliament let us ask them if that means improve parliament or make it less democratic so as to make it perfectly clear in the future.
It is not with much enthusiasm that we now look forward to a vote at the end of the day, but the sooner the bill gets to committee and we find out some of the details, the better we will be able to change and amend the legislation.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act February 15th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to my friend for interrupting his remarks.
Unfortunately we have just been informed that we have reached the 10 minute period during which the standing orders do not allow for any questions and comments. Because of the interesting exchange we have been having, I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent to allow 10 minutes at the end of the member's presentation to have questions and comments.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act February 15th, 1999
Madam Speaker, when we are discussing equalization payments, what we are trying to do is establish a level playing field for Canadians no matter where they happen to live in the country.
One of the critical areas as we enter the knowledge based economy of the 21st century is access to education.
Does my hon. friend share the view that perhaps it is time to be bold when it comes to funding education and eliminate tuition fees? Tuition fees across the country come to about $3 billion. We have a surplus of between $10 billion and $15 billion. If the Minister of Finance wished, we could actually eliminate all tuition fees from post-secondary institutions like most of the other OECD countries did long ago. Would the member support this notion?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act February 15th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend's remarks with interest. I wonder if he shared the same observation that I made when I was looking through the transfer payments that were made to the province of Saskatchewan over the years. My friend will know that Saskatchewan in some years has been a have province and in other years it has been a have not province. Did he notice the correlation between which political party was in office during the have years and which political party was in office during the have not years?
If my friend did not read the reports, it is interesting to notice that subsequent years of Liberal and Conservative governments inevitably resulted in the province becoming heavily indebted and therefore qualifying for equalization payments. Then the CCF or the NDP would be elected and over two or three years balance the books and get into a situation where there was no deficit and therefore lost the status of a have not province.
There is a curious relationship between political parties and being in and out of debt. Did my friend notice that when he was looking at these statistics?
Petitions February 15th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I must say that my aunt's name is not on this one; if she knew about it she would have signed.
I have a petition to present on behalf of a number of constituents from the Shuswap Lake area adjacent to my constituency.
They are concerned about the various bilateral agreements that fail to protect Canada's social programs, environmental programs and a variety of benefit programs. They point out in particular the MMT issue.
The petitioners are suggesting that parliament reconsider these various agreements on these grounds.