House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper March 8th, 1999
Can the Department of Human Resources Development provide clarification on a recent incident in one of its offices, in St. Clair, British Columbia, where a francophone employee was apparently prevented from replying in French to a francophone client?
The Budget March 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the budget brought down with such fanfare by the Liberal government penalizes single income families.
Parents who decide to raise their children themselves are being treated like second class citizens by this government.
Will the government undertake today to do something about the tax inequalities their budget creates for single income families?
Supply March 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I heard you say my name quite clearly and I also heard the comments of the member from the Reform Party calling us a bunch of assholes, and that is unparliamentary.
Supply March 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was listening to the comments made by my colleague from the Reform Party. I believe I heard him say that our colleague on this side was using gutter politics. I believe that to be unparliamentary.
Taxation March 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the way the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions insulted women who work in the home yesterday shows just how totally disconnected from the reality of Canadian families this government is.
His words are on record, we have heard them, and all Canadian families have heard them. His response ought to be simple.
Will the secretary of state offer his apologies to homemakers for his offensive remarks about them?
The Budget March 2nd, 1999
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I take them into account. I know about tax points. I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that the day after the budget presentation the Liberal finance minister of New Brunswick applauded the budget. After we reacted to it, a couple of days later the same finance minister said that there would be shortfalls in New Brunswick.
There are shortfalls in the budget for New Brunswick as far as transfers are concerned. There are shortfalls as far as health care is concerned. If we read the fine print in the budget, we see that in five years we will be back at the same place where we were in 1996.
The member may call this a good budget, but unfortunately there are people who are still waiting for a good budget.
The Budget March 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He hit it right on the nose when he said the government had no plan.
Certainly with the recent closure of Devco in Nova Scotia one would have thought the Liberal government would have had a parallel plan like we did when the base was closed in Summerside and the GST centre was opened.
Unfortunately the long term plan of the government is not in place and there was no announcement for these workers. The superport would certainly have been great compensation for this closure.
We can look at the budget and what it says about the $11.5 billion for health care in the next five years. It is an important factor. The member has probably heard a lot about it in his own riding. People are on waiting lists, waiting for serious operations. Nurses and other workers are overworked. The $11.5 billion in five years will take us back to the point where we were in 1996.
We must take into account the aging population and inflation. Just to show how the government's long term plan works, $3 billion a year times five years is $15 billion. Since 1996 we have had a very large shortfall, but certainly the government has no long term plan. Unfortunately that is the case for Nova Scotia as well.
The Budget March 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. John's West.
I rise today to voice my disappointment, and that of the people of Madawaska—Restigouche, in the most recent federal budget. The government's intention was to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes, but most of them have seen through it to what the government really had in mind.
The chronic unemployment problem in a number of this country's regions remains unchanged. The excessive tax burden remains unchanged. The battle against poverty remains unchanged. The issues around proper use of the employment insurance fund remain unchanged.
And if this is supposed to be a health budget, as the government expects us to believe, I would like to have it explained to me how restoring funding to its 1996 level can be a cause for celebration for the Liberals. Since 1993, the Liberals have cut only 9.4% in government program expenditures, while they have slashed 34.2% from transfer payments for health.
In other words, 57.5% of program cuts made by the Liberals have been made at the expense of the old and the sick. Hospitals are short-staffed and waiting lists for treatment continue to grow. The provinces cannot improve this situation unless there is a real reinjection of federal funds into the health system.
What did this government offer them, in its budget? The Liberals will reinject $11.5 billion into provincial transfers for health care and education over the next five years. Of this, $3.5 billion will be paid immediately in the Canada transfer for health and social programs as a one time additional payment, and the provinces can use it up within the next three years.
The votes accounted for in 1998-99 will be placed in trust until the CHST legislation is passed. It is a shell game. The other votes will be paid out in stages. The floor is raised to $15 billion and will stay there.
Despite all the Liberal fanfare, spending on health care will reach only 1996 levels. The financial commitment over five years contains no indexation mechanism taking inflation and demographic changes into account leading to an annual increase of some $3 billion for health care costs, totalling $80 billion annually.
An overall plan is needed to get the health care system working again. Unable to establish priorities and a long term plan, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have managed to balance their budget on the backs of workers, the poor, the sick and the old.
They are now trying to care for the sick, left through their fault on a waiting list, by putting a band aid on them. Workers and Canadian businesses were hoping for more of a break in this federal budget. Unfortunately, all they got was the usual Liberal rhetoric. The government is going to take away $3 and give them back $1, for their own good.
It is as though the government thinks that it can fool Canadians and that Canadian workers and businesses do not understand that the money now being spent by the government is coming out of the EI fund.
In this regard, the Minister of Human Resources Development seems to be seeing the light. A few weeks ago, the Journal de Montréal reported what the minister thought about the EI fund. In a burst of frankness, he admitted that the $20 billion surplus in the fund was actually an illusion because it had already been spent. He expressed his doubts about how the fund had been used and recommended that there be a public debate on the issue.
Although they are only a beginning, I applaud the minister's reflections and hope he has the courage to defend them in cabinet, because the pillage cannot go on. The Liberals continue to think that they know better than Canadian taxpayers how to spend the money the latter have earned by the sweat of their brow. The government can increase the basic personal exemption by $500 and look for praise, but the reality is that it could have done much better.
Since the 1997 election campaign, my colleagues and I have maintained that the basic personal exemption could be increased to $10,000, instead of the meagre $7,131 proposed by the Minister of Finance and his government. This would have given all Canadians some long-awaited tax relief and would have meant that 2 million low income Canadians no longer had to pay income tax. These 2 million Canadians could have breathed a little easier and put more food on the table. If raised to $10,000, the basic personal exemption would have left a single person with $700 more, and a married person or single parent with $1,500 more. What a pity that this will not happen.
The federal government's hike in Canada pension plan contributions in 1997 will add $120 in taxes on the Canada pension plan in 1999. Net social security taxes have increased $60 in 1999. Because the improved basic personal exemption takes effect only on July 1, 1999, an individual with an income of $39,000 will have to pay $3 more in federal taxes in 1999. And the federal government calls this a tax decrease.
The government is refusing to lighten the tax burden that is crushing Canadian workers and making the Canadian economy less competitive. High taxes penalize initiative, are a hindrance to job creating investment and encourage highly skilled Canadians to move on to greener pastures.
Indeed Canadians have not been duped by this smoke and mirror budget. What has been handed down has fallen short on what was needed for low income Canadians, taxpayers and workers. Canadians can take heart, however, that some of their elected officials are listening to them and are willing to offer them the much needed relief they deserve.
Unfortunately they will have to wait another few years to tell the Liberals just what they think of their so-called good news budget. Meanwhile, we as Progressive Conservatives will continue to listen, to consult and to put forward positive solutions in terms of economic development, taxation relief and social programs.
Supply February 11th, 1999
Madam Speaker, once again the member opposite, when he talked about education, referred to provincial boundaries. We all know that if our kids are going to survive in this global market they need a better education.
He also spoke about the compassion his government has for broken homes, family split-ups and school dropouts. Let me remind the hon. member that transfer payments to the provinces were slashed by his government. Broken homes, split-ups and dropouts are caused by this government's lack of job creation. That is the real problem with this government.
If the member had control of the EI surplus, if he could decide what to do with the EI surplus, what would he do?
Supply February 11th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question.
As far as measuring real poverty, yes, there is a problem with that in Canada. I do agree we have to find a way to measure the real percentage of real poor people in Canada. With the way it is now measured with the LICO, the low income cutoff, we know and Statistics Canada knows that it is not the right way to measure it. Yes, we must identify first of all what the real rate of poverty is.
As far as tax exemptions, we have spoken about the $10,000 as proposed by us today. It is certainly a first step. I do not see where a government can charge taxes to people earning under $10,000. It is absolutely ludicrous to even think that people earning under $10,000 have to pay taxes.
I would like to note something here. The 1990 Liberal caucus task force, which was co-chaired by the finance minister, recommended: more funding for affordable housing in provincial transfers; new federal-provincial programs to assist working poor with housing costs; holding a national conference on the homeless; increasing the funding of housing co-ops; looking for new ways to use housing co-ops; making surplus crown lands available below market value for low income housing; encouraging public-private partnerships to build affordable housing; and eliminating substandard aboriginal housing by 2000.
Those were recommendations made by the current finance minister in 1990. Like so many other Liberal promises, all of these remain unfulfilled.