Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, a bill that the government feels must be put through early in this session so that we can address many of the concerns which we are hearing about today with regard to the transfer payments to the provinces and the condition of our health care and education systems.
First I would like to make a couple of brief remarks about some of the comments made this morning. It is nice to see the member for Kings—Hants here. I am having my office courier the dozen or so copies of
Hansard
containing the previous speeches I have made. That was not my maiden voyage in this place earlier today.
His remarks when he talked about revisionism and the viewpoint on the economic things which have happened in this country since 1993 are quite remarkable.
The people sent a clear message, as has been pointed out, to the Conservative Party in 1993. That message did not change a lot in the last election, even though it did add a few members from eastern Canada. Some may be delighted to see them here and others perhaps not so much.
One of the things which is interesting is that we have heard about people's viewpoints from different parts of the country. I conducted a session in my riding. I invited people to come in as part of a budget consultation process to decide whether or not we really should stick to the election promise which was that 50% of whatever surplus would go toward two issues; 50% would go toward debt reduction and certain tax reductions and the other 50% would go toward program spending, most notably toward issues like health care and education.
Rather than just assume because we were elected with that as a major plank in our platform that everyone agreed that is how we should carry on, I thought it was important to poll people from the communities of Mississauga and Brampton. Some of the municipal leaders, educational folks, business people, the boards of trade, local business people, interested citizens of both the cities of Brampton and Mississauga came and we discussed that particular issue.
We hear calls from all sides. The NDP says we should spend more. The Reform Party says we should cut more. The Conservatives are simply saying we should reduce taxes. Without the balance which is needed in this place, I thought it was important to go to the people and find out if they still supported the general thrust and direction that the government was following. We came up with a number of very interesting facts and statements.
If members saw the list of participants in the round table discussion that we had, they would know that many of them were people who perhaps would be classified as more right wing than left. Perhaps some of the people from the educational side would be concerned more about social issues. If members knew the community I represented, they would understand that the majority of people in the room would be more business oriented and in my view they would be more concerned about reduced taxes, less government, all of those issues.
We simply reported the facts. My colleague from Mississauga South and I were there to listen to what the people had to say about the 50:50 plan. Let me share some of the results.
In the area of general impressions there was a clear consensus that the government had made excellent progress in putting its fiscal house in order and had achieved it in a fair and balanced fashion.
Once we did this and compiled the data, we shared this with the participants. We were delighted to find that they agreed that we had indeed recorded that consensus accurately.
It was felt that the approach we were taking would provide sufficient latitude to meet the need to reduce the debt and to make targeted tax cuts to restore some social spending and to make stimulative investments in programs.
Let us talk about restoring some of the funding, the restoration of the floor as it is referred to in the case of the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer which replaces the CAP, the Canada assistance plan to a level of $12.5 billion. I believe it was the member for Kamloops who said that it was somewhat deceitful, that it was trickery. It is not at all.
We clearly announced in the election campaign that those transfer payments had been reduced to $11 billion due primarily to the fact that we had inherited a $42 billion deficit, an overdraft of $42 billion. Canadians would understand that. Often there is confusion and discussion about what is a deficit and what is a debt. A deficit is an overdraft and a debt is a mortgage. We had a $42 billion overdraft that the Conservative Party under Mr. Mulroney left as its legacy to the Canadian people.
We simply had to make changes. I will admit that the transfer payments were indeed reduced to $11 billion. However, as progress was made due to the leadership, due to the financial strength that this government was showing, due to a commitment to stick to the guns, to follow the policies led by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, due to the improvement in our financial situation and nothing else, we were able to restore the funding levels and put back the floor in the transfer payments to $12.5 billion.
Perhaps more significantly, we have made a commitment. It is a five year commitment which says that the level of transfer payments will not fall below $12.5 billion. I would hope that all future governments would be able to live up to that kind of a commitment. One of the things I have found in my 20 years or so in elected office is that the most difficult thing to do for any government be it municipal, provincial or federal, is to plan properly and far enough in advance so that the hiccups and bumps that occur when certain crises occur can be avoided.
As a federal government we must be the leaders. We must say to our provincial partners who in turn work with their partners in health care and education and at the municipal level. We want to be able to say to them “Here is something to count on. You can be assured that the CHST transfers will never fall below the floor of $12.5 billion”. The ability that then gives the provinces in knowing what their per capita share might be or what their total revenue pot might be in my view gives them a better opportunity to plan. I think that is an obligation we have as a federal government and is something I am pleased to see we are doing.
Somebody else also made reference to the fact that there would be some damage that would occur in certain parts of the country because of changes in the amount of money that was transferred to certain provinces or territories based on a per capita formula. Someone said that it was unfair. We talk about representation in this place. We talk about equality in this place. We talk about providing services for all Canadians. With a mind to certain adjustments that may need to take place due to certain geographical problems, transportation problems and other issues of concern such as climate or problems in the economy, what could be more fair in determining a floor, a base, a guaranteed amount than doing it on a per capita basis?
The province of Ontario of course represents the largest area in terms of population. The grant formula will provide $9.1 billion to the province of Ontario. The second largest population area being the province of Quebec it comes in at $6.8 billion and British Columbia at $3.1 billion and so on.
The point is that the provinces, under the somewhat difficult arrangement we have in the federation of Canada, deliver the services. They are on the front lines in making sure that health care is delivered to the Canadian people. Therefore it is our responsibility to set standards and to provide the funding based on the fact that we collect tax revenue from all Canadians.
By and large the system works reasonably well. Where we run into problems I would submit is when we get into the one-upmanship of partisan politics where somebody decides that because they want a headline, they want to look better or they want to win an election, they are going to dangle something like a tax cut out front.
The people clearly want to see tax relief. I believe they will see tax relief in the Minister of Finance's budget. We have said we are committed to reducing taxes in this country. I happen to represent a community that is a prime example and provides the proof of how it should never be done. It should never be done across the board and it should never be done on a flat percentage.
People understand that the Conservative proposal of a 10% tax cut across the board will clearly benefit people who earn in the six figure range dramatically more than it will the people who earn $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000, the examples that the so-called compassionate right, the Reform, is throwing out on the table. It is trying to pretend to the Canadian people that it is concerned about people earning $15,000 a year and whether or not they should pay taxes. This is a born again political vision that we are seeing in this place and is really quite remarkable.
The Reform Party would support an across the board cut. All we hear about are the cuts instead of being responsible and standing up and saying that we have to ensure that the strength of our health care system is maintained. I would suggest that comparing our way of life, in listening to the member opposite almost acting like a cheerleader for the United States way of life, frankly worries me.
It worries me when I hear elected representatives telling the Canadian people that life is so much better in the U.S.A. I am not an American basher. I happen to think it is a wonderful nation but it is fraught with economic problems and its debt. I do not know anybody who could even figure out how many zeros there are in trillions, and that is its debt we are talking about here. We are talking about trillions. They have more serious problems and yet we hear members of the Reform Party saying that all the solutions are there.
A young man 28 years ago, who was the best man at my wedding, moved to the United States with his wife. His wife was diagnosed with cancer. His wife is fine today. The cancer has been beaten back, but it cost that family a quarter of a million dollars to deal with that health care crisis.
I heckled and yelled don't get sick in the States and it is true. Yes, people can buy health care plans, but the operative word is buy.
What we have here is the envy of the world. Are there problems? Yes, there are problems. There are problems in the province of Ontario because the current government has decided it is more important to deliver a 30% tax cut than it is to provide fair and equitable health care treatment.
We have the five pillars of medicare in this country, accessibility, portability, universality, public administration and public funding. I have a bit of a concern about whether we need to expand those pillars. We continue to provide a base floor and a level of grant structure for the provincial governments to deliver health care. However, if they in turn take the money and simply cut other areas while delivering the health care dollars to the point where they can deliver a tax cut, and they take money out of the mental health treatment programs in Ontario, I want to say to Mr. Harris and Ms. Witmer, for whom I have a lot of respect, that they are on a very dangerous slippery slope. They are closing 2,000 beds in psychiatric care facilities, most of them in the greater Toronto area.
What is the result? We can see it. We wonder why there are 7,000 people living on the street in the city of Toronto. We should ask ourselves are those people healthy. Who would live on the street in February in Canada?
We have to recognize that those people are sick. They need help. They need community resources. Elected representatives at all levels must be prepared to take a stand to provide the kind of care they need, but we cannot do that.
Minister Witmer has said they will study the situation as a result of a seven part series done by the Toronto
Star
. They are going to study it, but they are going to go ahead with the bed closures anyway. It is scary, frankly, when we think about society's most vulnerable people.
I have colleagues in this place who also served in the Ontario legislature, as did I, who would tell us that it is absolutely mind boggling what the Tories are doing in Ontario in the area of health care and they are blaming it on cuts to transfer payments. However, we know it is a result of their desire to pass on a tax cut.
In the session we had we talked about tax cuts. Someone earlier referred to the brain drain. Let me share the message which I got from those people. This is exactly what I heard from that group. Concern was expressed about the issue of brain drain and the inadequacy of incentives for our best researchers to remain in Canada. A strong case was made to restore funding for our social humanities and medical research granting agencies.
How do we do that? Do we do that by cutting taxes? Do we do that by reducing the revenue that is available to the federal treasury while on the other hand increasing our commitments to research? You cannot have it both ways. This government, like any government, if it is responsible, should find ways to trim the fat. I think we have done that. The results are there. The job is not nearly over.
It is my hope that when the finance minister comes out with his budget we will see a plan that clearly outlines—I am confident—a commitment to repaying that $600 billion debt which, when the provincial debt is added, is $800 billion. That is unacceptable. It is too high. We have to attack it and we will.
I hope we will see a plan to provide some tax relief to hardworking Canadians but not abandon this Liberal Party's traditional commitment to better education and better quality health care for all Canadians. That is very much what Bill C-28 is about, restoring the level of funding and in putting forward other programs to help our charities and our young people to build a stronger economy.
