Lost his last election, in 2000, with 34% of the vote.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 February 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the hon. member does not fully understand the tax point system. It does not give the advantage to the provinces that have more. It gives the appropriate amount to the provinces and it gives them the control where, at the present time, basically they do not have that control.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 February 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we are just debating bill C-28 and health care, not the national unity issue. I will leave it at that.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 February 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is totally incorrect. Cuts were needed. The hon. member from across the way just said that when the previous government was there spending was rampant. I think there is disagreement between both parties here and I am not sure where they are coming from. But I would like to ask the hon. member what the NDP stand would be. Excess spending seems to be the order of the day for the NDP.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 February 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way has a very selective memory when it comes to pointing out the last government's shortfall.
I would like to point out to him that the last government was the Liberal government. Come on, do not throw it back. The hon. member mentioned that now that we have a balanced budget or close to it, they are going to be reviewing. Is the hon. member saying that they will be spending more money to transfers?
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 February 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my hon. colleague across the floor.
We agree with cutting excesses to the system. The necessities should be kept there and certainly those necessities have not been kept. I cannot agree with the hon. member's comments.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 February 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, we visited constituents specifically in my riding who have faced the drastic cuts imposed because of the cuts in transfers.
People are on long extended waiting lists to get basic essential services, or people are dying because the health care system has been cut to a point where this type of problem exists. I have to say the cuts that have been made are drastic, are not acceptable and should not continue.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 February 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on this second day since our return to the House to speak on this bill which will, among other things, make changes to transfer payments to the provinces.
What I propose to do in this address to the House is to attempt to set out the facts relating to federal government support for health, social assistance and education.
The Liberals have made much of the announced new CHST cash floor, as it is called, the $12.5 billion to be paid to the provinces for health, social assistance and education under the Canada Health and Social Transfer.
In a press release dated December 8, 1997, the Minister of Finance stated as follows: “Governing is about choices, priorities and values. Our choice is clear: health care is a priority for this Government”.
Mr. Martin has said nothing about the fact that, since 1993, the Liberals have reduced the amount of cash transfers for health, education and social assistance by some $6.3 billion, that is, from $18.8 billion to $12.5 billion.
He is also not mentioning the fact that the Liberals reduced cash transfers to 1984 levels. These transfers, which the Conservatives had increased by $6 billion, have dropped by almost the same amount since the arrival of the Liberals.
Furthermore, Mr. Martin also neglected to say that, for seven of the ten provinces, cash transfers will continue to decrease over the next five years. Yes, you have understood correctly. Every province, except Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, will be receiving less money under these changes.
Finally, the announcement of a new floor simply means that all cash transfers to the provinces will not be further reduced. As payments are proportional to a province's population, all provinces, except Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, will be getting less over the years. In other words, the seven less well off provinces will be getting $384 million less annually between now and 2002.
Let us look back for a moment at the context in which transfer payments are made. Prior to 1996, Ottawa helped the provinces pay for health care and education under the established programs financing or EPF arrangement. Payments were proportional to the population of a province less the tax point value.
The tax points were exchanged in 1977, when Ottawa agreed to reduce its tax rates to allow the provinces to increase theirs. This formula replaced part of the cash transfers.
The per capita payments under the EPF were frozen for a five-year period that was to end in 1995. Otherwise, these payments would have increased by an amount equal to the growth of the nominal gross domestic product, less 3%. Ottawa was also helping the provinces to fund social assistance programs, through the Canada Assistance Plan, or CAP. Payments made under the CAP program amounted to 50% of eligible provincial expenditures. The increase in payments made to the richest provinces, namely Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, was capped at 5% per year, for a five-year period that was to end in 1995.
These restrictions curtailed the increase in payments, but they did not reduce their volume. Total transfers increased every year, without exception, while the Conservative Party was in office.
In 1993, the Liberals pledged to renegotiate the financial arrangements to improve funding stability. They never said anything about reducing payments by one-third before stabilizing them. In its 1994 budget, the Liberal government announced that, in 1996-97, total payments paid under the CAP and EPF programs would not exceed the 1993-94 level. This cut would replace the social reforms that were to be negotiated with the provinces.
The reforms in question never saw the light of day. The green paper was finally published after several delays and was quickly forgotten.
In the 1995 budget, the Liberal government announced that EPF and CAP would be replaced by the Canada Health and Social Transfer, or CHST, starting in 1996-97. By 1997, total payments under CHST would be cut by just under $5 billion with respect to 1995 levels. The amount to be paid each province would be announced in the 1996 budget, following discussions with the provinces.
The 1996 budget contains funding levels by province up until 2002. The calculation formula irritates the poorer provinces, because it forces them to shoulder a greater share of cuts per inhabitant.
It was also announced in the budget that the cash portion of payments would not drop below the $11 billion mark, which represents almost $8 billion less than the cash payments in effect when the government tabled its green paper.
We believe there is a better solution. We believe that health care is one of Canadians' fundamental values. It is too important a part of our way of life to be held hostage to the political and budgetary imperatives of the hour. We must adopt an approach that will ensure the future of our health care system.
First, the federal government should relinquish part of its taxation power to the provinces and territories so that they can fund their own health systems.
Second, the federal government should recognize that it is quite possible to exercise leadership with respect to health care without being paternalistic. The federal government's role should never again be linked with taxation power. We need an approach that emphasizes co-ordination and co-operation. This can be done by replacing the $12.5 billion the federal government now pays the provinces with tax points, which would be subject to equalization.
Transferring tax points simply means that the federal government will relinquish part of its taxation power to the provinces. This approach would not change the total taxes paid by Canadian taxpayers. Instead, the portion of taxes necessary to fund health care would be collected directly by the provinces and territories rather than by the federal government.
Since the value of tax points is tied to provincial economies, we would establish an equalization fund ensuring that all regions of the country are able to provide care and services of comparable quality.
We propose that there be a Canadian pact for the purpose of creating a new framework promoting health and education. As part of this pact, the federal and provincial governments would agree on common health care standards.
Criminal Code December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-215, an act to amend section 227 of the Criminal Code. This bill has the objective of replacing section 227 in order to deal with a person who commits a culpable homicide or the offence of causing the death of another person regardless of the time at which the death occurs. Right now the code says that for a person to be found guilty, the death must have occurred within a year.
People in Quebec would remember the case of a taxi driver who was beaten to death by police officers. The taxi driver was in a vegetative coma for many months and finally died more than a year after the incident took place. The police officers could not be charged with the culpable homicide because of the time that had elapsed between the time of the commission of the crime and the resulting death.
We all understand that the amendment proposed by my colleague would cover such very sad cases, but does this House want to completely open section 227 of the Criminal Code? Do we really want to not have any time limit imposed? This House should not say yes to these questions before it reflects on the consequences of such an amendment.
By having no time limit it would become much more difficult to establish the link between the cause and the effect of the death. If a crime occurs today but the death of the victim occurs five years later, how can our police and prosecutors really establish that it was the last event that caused the death and not something else? It could become a technical battle in court, a battle between lawyers needless to say. Furthermore it is impossible in Canadian law to prosecute the same person twice for the same act. It would be impossible to charge someone with aggravated assault only to later change the charge to culpable homicide.
With section 227 written as proposed in Bill C-215, how long would a crown prosecutor be forced to wait before pressing charges? If there is no time limit, the jobs of the crown and the police are made much more difficult.
There is a further example of consequences to this amendment to section 227. What about cases where victims are comatose and the family decides to pull the plug on the life support machine? Would that be considered death following the last event? These are all only small but important examples of the consequences to our criminal justice system of the amendments proposed by my colleague.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the Criminal Code should be revised, but we also believe that it should not be changed piece by piece. It has been many years since there was a complete revision of the Criminal Code as a whole, and maybe it is time to start thinking of doing it. Maybe this House through its standing committee on justice could begin such a revision.
It is our belief that Bill C-215 has touched on a good point and that the principle behind the amendment is a good one. But it is also our belief that while section 227 should be broadened, it should not be left wide open. We believe there should be a revision of the time limit between the moment an act has been committed and the time a death has occurred. We also believe there should be a reasonable cut off time in that limit.
For those reasons and the ones previously mentioned we cannot support Bill C-215.
Access To Information Act December 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.
It is well known that the Access to Information Act does not have enough teeth and actually even the information commissioner has said so in his most recent report.
Bill C-208 makes it an offence for a person who, with intent to deny a right of access under the Access to Information Act, destroys, mutilates or alters a record, falsifies a record or makes a false entry in a record or does not keep required records. A person found guilty would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both.
This is a very simple amendment that will give more teeth to this act.
For some time now Canadians have been losing confidence in their public institutions and especially in government. Canadians need to know that their federal government is truly working on their behalf and truly working well. Otherwise, people feel that both their votes and their taxes are wasted.
The Access to Information Act is one of the tools for the public to achieve that objective and this amendment proposed in Bill C-208 is simply helping to make the law more complete. The amendment will give more visibility, more access and more teeth to the Access to Information Act by including strong penalties for those who do their utmost to prevent its application.
That is not to say that more could not have been done to improve the act. For example, amendments could have been proposed to allow the public to have access to documents of the privy council which are currently confidential. In fact, many other amendments reflecting the information commissioner's concerns and expectations could have been tabled at the same time.
I am pleased to say that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will support this private member's bill and we invite all other parties to do so. We believe that this bill is a step forward in opening up the government to more public scrutiny and giving Canadians a stronger sense of public control and identity with their public institutions.
National Day Of Remembrance And Action On Violence Against Women December 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Yukon has just stated, many Canadians will never forget what they were doing on December 6, 1989. It was a time marked with such sorrow and amazement that such a tragic event could happen, much less here in Canada.
As members all know, violence against women is all too common, but it unfortunately took such a tragedy to open our eyes to its extent. As other members have said in this House, it is truly the event that galvanized this country and the government into action.
On behalf of my party, I would like to extend our thoughts and our prayers to the families and the victims of the Montreal École Polytechnique as well as to all those who are affected by violence against women.
I agree that we have made progress in the eradication of violence against women but so much more needs to be done. As I said in a statement earlier, I do not agree that the current gun control legislation will do anything to prevent such a terrible crime from happening again.
Eliminating violence is an issue of great concern to us all, since each woman is someone's daughter, sister or mother. It is somewhat appropriate that the three most important women in my life, namely my wife and two daughters, are sitting in the gallery today. On their behalf, and on behalf of my party, I pledge to work with the government to make Canada a safer place for all Canadian women and men.