Jean Dubé

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-36. It has been nearly a month since the Minister of Finance marvelled to all who would listen to the upside of his balanced budget.

My message today for those who find their conscience in favour of this bill is to reflect on the tired but relevant cliche, that this budget is only as strong as its weakest link.

Let us not fool ourselves by standing here in the House and declaring this country has a cause to rejoice. Let us examine some of the weakest links of this so-called balanced budget, which even the auditor general cannot endorse.

As of this day, Canadians are still the highest taxed individuals in the G-7. While Canadians' personal disposable income decreased, the incomes of our G-7 neighbour to the south increased. The Canadian standard of living is 25% lower than that of the United States and this gap continues to expand. Youth unemployment figures are staggering yet the government continues to lack a plan to address the issue.

Just last week the CIBC reported that some 200,000 unemployed youth do not appear on the government's books. All the wonderful news of 85,000 new full time jobs being created did nothing to help young Canadians support themselves. Our current statistics show that our youth unemployment rate is twice that of the United States.

These points tell me the minister has become obsessed with this new agenda and sweeps the issues of the individual under the carpet.

What did the budget do for tax relief in this country? We see the 3% deficit surtax being slowly eliminated. Leading Canadian economists agree that tax relief is essential to job creation and prosperity. In fact, the Minister of Finance has said so on different occasions himself.

Catherine Swift from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who shares a key factor of the Progressive Conservative platform, stated that further tax cuts would help business create jobs, something the government should listen to: “We are still not seeing a major job creation agenda here and from a small business job creator's standpoint, that really should be the prime target”.

This government lacks transparency in the area of employment insurance. The auditor general criticized it for using employment insurance to reduce the deficit when the system was not set up for this purpose.

In the budget the government boasted of reducing all taxes by $7 billion over three years. Yet the same government is taking $6 billion annually out of taxpayer pockets. To my knowledge this is the only government to establish an unemployment plan for Canadians. It creates more unemployment, raises taxes and taxes employment insurance. That is what its policy is doing.

When the Liberals are asked to reduce contributions they say no, that does not work, it will not create real employment. Yet in the budget they are doing just that for people between the ages of 18 and 24 for two years only. When they are asked why, it is to create employment. If it works for young people aged 18 to 24, will it not work for people aged 45 to 55? Unemployment is too high in Canada? No, they believe only in minor measures and always to save face.

The minister had an opportunity to follow his own wisdom and make substantial cuts to the surplus, cuts that would have given every wage earner in the country more disposable income and therefore given businesses the cashflow essential to create jobs.

Even more shocking, if the Minister of Finance had consulted his own cabinet colleagues he would have found the industry minister agrees with the PC Party that tax cuts in Ontario have increased job creation and spurred economic growth. Instead of aiding Canadians directly with significant payroll tax relief, he elects only to respond to their needs by phasing out the 3% deficit surtax.

What Canadians do not know yet is that the Liberal government will soon be introducing the single largest tax hike in Canadian history by increasing Canada pension plan premiums. What has taken place here is that we see the 3% surtax totalling $1.6 billion phased out and replaced with a tax hike that dwarfs all its predecessors, bringing it to $2 billion.

It is as though we are at a carnival. While Canadians guess which cup the peanut is under the minister continues to shuffle and dazzle the crowd. In the last election we saw the carnival booted out of Atlantic and western Canada. Ontario and Quebec are his last stage because sooner or later people will see the costs of the minister's games.

Let us take a look at another weak link in the budget, the great Canadian brain drain. Provincial premiers made it clear they wanted from the budget a return of the billions in cuts from transfer payments that devastated health care, social programs and education programs.

For years now education has been a responsibility of the provinces. At a time when we have another potential national crisis on the horizon, the Liberal government elects to drive a wedge into interprovincial relations by creating the millennium fund. It has set aside for the fortunate class of 2000 and beyond $2.5 billion to assist some 7% of all students to further their education. In my mind it is a modern day Avro Arrow program.

If substantial tax cuts are not made to create jobs, we place graduates on graduation day in Seattle. Someone should point out to the Minister of Finance that “sleepless in Seattle” was just a figure of speech in a movie. At the present time Bill Gates at Microsoft has extended a standing offer to all Waterloo computer science graduates and the result is that over 80% of them are going to the United States.

My home province of New Brunswick, which has invested significant dollars into information technology training schools, cannot retain the graduates it produces because it is not able to compete with the U.S. market. We see the same exodus across the country. It is disturbing to think that a large portion of the $2.5 billion will benefit the U.S. economy.

Why go to the U.S. one may ask. For one the jobs are there. Wages are higher and taxes are lower. Yet other students were forgotten. What about the students of today and next year? They were simply forgotten, not to mention the 97% who will not benefit from the millennium fund in the next century. They will not forget on graduation day as they watch Canada customs in their rear view mirror.

Let us consider the comments of Sherry Cooper, chief economist at Nesbitt Burns, who said broad based tax relief was crucial to our economic future. She said:

We are pouring all this money into education and scholarships, and then the better and brighter will go straight to the United States where taxes are massively lower.

The Liberals have feed the brain drain from this country. Instead of taking measures to be at the forefront of an emerging information technology industry, they have decided to finance another country's efforts. When one steps back and examines the links in this chain, one comes to a quick realization that the government has abandoned our social policies.

Our society expects government to take care of the elderly, young people, workers and other individuals facing personal crises and in need of a helping hand. These values are not to be sacrificed. Canadians will not allow what makes the country so unique to be altered, yet they know these values come at a price.

The goal for any government is to balance values against fiscal responsibility. Some may think this is blatantly obvious, but as I read the budget I realize these fundamental principles or links in the chain were well worth repeating.

The government has ignored these concepts and values. It claims to be sympathetic, yet it threatens seniors with a hidden project it never unveiled as part of its platform.

Canadian seniors rely on three basic sources of income. The government has systematically attacked the retirement savings systems since it has taken office. It has done so in piecemeal fashion with the bottom line as its consideration. It has not addressed the fundamental questions of what kind of retirement assistance Canadians need and want or what are the best ways for government to ensure Canadians are secure in their retirement.

Some would ask why the seniors benefit is an issue. Let us state the obvious. It certainly was not an issue in the budget. In fact, the government has gone back to the drawing board because of the flaws my party exposed in the seniors benefit. The Liberals proposed to eliminate the OAS, the pension income tax credit, the age credit and the GIS. To date they have refused to provide a full and proper analysis of how these measures would affect retired Canadians in the future.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is committed to forcing the government to disclose fully to Canadians the financial impact of the proposed seniors benefit. Canadians of all ages must understand its consequences. The Liberal government must not be allowed to destroy the foundation of our national pension system.

The government claims to be concerned about workers, but the budget has nothing to do with the famous Liberal election battle cry. Not so long ago a chant fell on Canadians' ears shouted by the Prime Minister proclaiming jobs, jobs and more jobs. In the budget it resembles less than a flattering wailing of a trombone.

Middle and lower income Canadians needed to hear from the budget a trumpet of hope, for hope is what keeps the disparaged committed to protecting the values of our society. When hope is lost so are our motivations, our strength and our willingness to endure.

In closing, we share with the Prime Minister of Canada and so too taxpayers that the budget was one trick pony where even the word balanced could not be endorsed by the auditor general. The minister may feel that his spread sheet's bottom line is balanced, but his trust to serve and protect the values of the people have been wrapped in chains with many weak links. Once broken they will break free and bring true balance to our economy.

My party believes that it is time for Canada to have a strong plan for growth in our economy. We need to get our foot off the brake. For us this means lowering taxes by reducing EI premiums by about one-third to create jobs and lowering taxes by increasing the basic exemption for Canadians to $10,000 to allow lower income Canadians to earn more and buy more of the essential goods they need.

This is a government which has a great opportunity to launch us on a new path, to close the chapter of deficits, and to start us on a new path. It should set a target for debt reduction so that we are able to measure our performance and to live in a political environment where we can go to our neighbours and say that together we need to limit spending to keep it under control. If we do, we will meet a specific target. When we get there we will be able to reduce taxes further.

If we create that kind of political environment we will all increase our chances of succeeding. Those should have been lessons learned in the budget. Our party firmly believes that we need a plan for economic growth. The budget is more than just about numbers. It is about values. It is about the choices we make. It is not good enough to shift numbers around.

Some parties would say they would put more money into education but then they would cut equalization. The position we have taken is that there would be more money put into education by building a new deal with provincial governments. Then there would be a health care guarantee for all Canadians and we could leave provincial governments alone.

We believe in a plan for stronger economic growth. We can reallocate priorities. We can put the emphasis on education, health and guaranteed services to Canadians. It requires the political will, the vision and the foresight to make it happen. I am sorry to say this is something that was not part of the budget.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and I cannot and will not support Bill C-36 because it was merely a numbers game that has left our country and our people suffering today with little hope.

One could conclude that the budget should be judged by its weakest link or by the missing links of the Minister of Finance.

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, I brought to the attention of the House the fact that courts in the Restigouche region were overloaded.

Let me give a brief historical overview of this issue. In 1992, the number of judges sitting in Campbellton dropped from two to one. A few months later, the only judge serving the region was transferred to the judicial district of Fredericton.

While waiting for a replacement, the region of Campbellton was without a permanent judge for about three months. The ensuing backlog would probably not have been insurmountable, except that the court registered an increase in the volume of cases, including family law cases.

The judge who is currently sitting is making superhuman efforts to hear as many cases as possible, but it is now obvious that his valiant efforts are not enough to ensure quick processing of the cases. Not a single small claims case has been heard for a year now, and some civil cases will not be heard before 1999.

Some members may think this is a provincial matter. Normally, I would agree. However, there have been a number of developments in which politics clearly impeded the judicial process.

The new chief justice in New Brunswick did everything within his power to find a solution to the court's backlog. Now, the bar association in Restigouche, the crown attorney's office, the chief justice of New Brunswick and the New Brunswick bar association all agree on the solution: Campbellton needs an additional judge. The two levels of government are the only ones dragging their feet.

When I raised the issue in the House, the solicitor general—the Minister of Justice was not present—said that the federal government was aware of the situation. If so, what is it waiting for to act?

We were told by the federal Department of Justice that nothing can be done until a written request is received from the provincial government.

Meanwhile, the New Brunswick justice department tells us that the request was made and that they are waiting for a reply from the federal government.

It is my hope that the provincial and federal governments will quit passing the buck on this and will finally accept their responsibilities, so that access to justice will no longer be jeopardized in the region.

The government's inaction impacts very heavily on the human level. Mothers can wait up to eight or nine months for a support order to allow them to feed their children properly.

Since small claims court cases have not been heard for a year, business owners really have no recourse when they have been wronged. I have also heard of accident victims who have had to go on welfare while waiting for their cases to come up.

This situation cannot continue. The people feel there is no longer any justice for them, and it would seem, unfortunately, that they are right.

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to the motion by the hon. member for Kamloops calling on the government to extend veterans benefits to Canadians who served in the Spanish civil war, the surviving members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion, also known as the Mac-Paps.

This is a motion which on the surface has some merits. It is one which many people have mixed feelings about. However, my first difficulty is a tendency to revisit history and try to apply retroactive judgments about who fought on the right side and who fought on the wrong side.

At the time Canada was not at war with Spain. We had laws prohibiting our citizens from fighting in this foreign war. This matter has been debated in the House before. In 1980 a motion similar to the motion presented by the member for Kamloops was presented by Bob Rae, the then member of Parliament for Broadview—Greenwood. The issue was also debated and discussed in great lengths in 1986 at the standing committee on veterans affairs.

The committee concluded that the losses incurred by the battalion are indeed to be mourned and the qualities, endurance and courage shown by the battalion are to be admired. These were brave individuals fighting for a cause they believed in and we should definitely not fault them for that.

The standing committee concluded, however, that these Canadians, the Mac-Paps, cannot be considered in the same light as Canadians who served in the wars in which Canada was involved as a nation. The committee also concluded that there can be no thought of treating them in the same manner by making them eligible for benefits under the veterans legislation.

Those men who went to Spain and waged war on the fascists are to be commended for their efforts. One can applaud their bravery in the face of a better manned and better equipped enemy. Spain has publicly thanked these men who joined the international brigade. However, the indisputable fact is that they were soldiers of conscience. They went on their own to fight the fascist aggression.

At the time of the Spanish civil war, Canada chose to be neutral and did not recognize the war. Canada was not at war. The Canadians who participated in the Spanish civil war did so on an individual basis. They let their conscience be their guide. These men went to Spain in defiance of the laws of Canada at the time. They fought on behalf of their own conscience, not on behalf of the people of the Government of Canada.

We recognize the sincerity behind this motion. This debate allows us the opportunity to once again say to these men that they are not criminals and what they did was what they honestly felt was right. No one can fault them for that.

They were courageous individuals. However, this House cannot say that the laws are wrong. We as a country did not support this war. We salute their bravery but simply cannot agree that men who fought in a war not sanctioned by Canada are entitled to benefits which are reserved for people who answered their own nation's call to arms.

We should think for a few moments about what it would mean internationally if this House recognized officially the fight of these volunteers.

Whether we want it or not, we would be approving the actions of other people who may want to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. The government would create an extremely dangerous precedent by recognizing officially these volunteers as Canadian soldiers.

Where would we stop? How could we justify giving benefits to all Canadians who fight in other countries for what they consider to be just cause? I would not in any way want to encourage Canadians to feel that they would receive sanctions to take part in, let us say for the sake of argument, the conflicts and violence that are occurring in Ireland or Israel for that matter.

We believe it is appropriate that we recognize their valour and ensure their memory as a part of history. However, we do not feel that it is right to bestow the status of Canadian war veteran to members who were not part of the official Canadian force.

We in our party support the rule of law and do not view it as appropriate to advocate a position which would in effect legitimize that which was illegal at the time. This would set an untenable precedent.

[Seniors Benefit, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to gouge Canadians through excessive EI and CPP premiums and refuses to cut income taxes. Now it wants to impose an unbearable tax burden on Canadians through the so-called seniors benefit.

The Association of Canadian Pension Fund Management says that the seniors benefit should be structured to prevent an effective tax raise of over 50%. Is the finance minister listening?

[Seniors Benefit, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government is going ahead with its seniors benefit scheme.

Because of this new plan, some financial experts are advising middle income Canadians over 50 years of age against buying RRSPs. The reason is simple: what they will be saving in income tax today will not make up for the income tax they will have to pay later.

Why does the Minister of Finance stubbornly insist on discouraging saving for retirement?

[The Late Mr. Alfred Hales, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Alfred Hales retired from the House of Commons in 1974 after a full parliamentary career which was similar to those of many who served in the House.

He worked hard to protect the interests of his constituents and his community. He was chairman of the public accounts committee where he worked to promote economy in public expenditures. He lived up to his belief that community service is the rent we pay for space on earth. Had that been the sum total of Alfred Hales' parliamentary career, we would be justified in saying well done.

However, Alfred Hales has left a legacy to the House of Commons and to Canada which for over 25 years has returned great dividends to parliament, to Canada and to hundreds of people who have gained a unique insight into parliamentary life in Canada.

It was Alf Hales who gave leadership to the establishment of the parliamentary internship program which operates under the auspices of the Canadian Political Science Association. That program has been mirrored in other parliamentary assemblies in many provinces.

As a new member of Parliament who has benefited from the work of an intern, I consider it an honour to be able to salute Mr. Hales' vision and to express my thanks for his work which continues to bear fruit every day in parliament.

To his family, Mrs. Hales, his wife of 62 years, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, I offer the sympathy of my colleagues in their personal loss. I hope it is a comfort to them to know that Mr. Hales was one who truly made a difference. The rent has been paid in full and more.

[Broadcasting Act, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question I asked on November 24 called on the government to substantially lower EI premiums.

Since even the EI fund's actuary says that the fund could be sustained with $2 premiums, I still do not understand why the government is stubbornly continuing to block job creation with overly high premiums.

The government is congratulating itself on having lowered EI premiums by a paltry 10 cents in December. They are perhaps going to say they have lowered them from $3.30 to $2.70, but this is 1998. So we will be listening to what my hon. colleague has to say.

Payroll taxes, however, CPP and EI premiums, were $5.50 when the Liberals took office. They now stand at $5.90, or 40 cents more. And that is just the beginning, because with the CPP amendments, Canadians will be paying $11 billion more over the next five years.

It is hard to believe that the government could be so arrogant as to claim that employers and workers who will have to pay these additional premiums are happy with the situation.

The second part of my question dealt with the auditor general's mandate regarding the CPP investment board. His access to the board's books is limited to the information needed to audit the fund's general accounts.

He is not allowed to conduct value-for-money audits or check if the board abides by the law, and report his findings to Parliament. This is of great concern.

A few months ago, the auditor general informed Parliament of abuses within the Canada Labour Relations Board.

He will not be able to do the same regarding the CPP investment board, which manages the money of thousands of Canadians. The stakes are much higher. And yet, as elected representatives, we will not have a say.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the comments by the government member.

My question is about transfer payments. Listening to the comments by the Liberal member, he seems to be praising the government for this budget. In reality, seven of the ten provinces will lose money with this budget.

In my province of New Brunswick, the health system is deplorable. I myself was at a hospital in my region this past weekend, and I saw beds out in the halls; people were waiting for operations.

The hon. member says it is a good budget. New Brunswick will lose another $11 million by the year 2001 or 2002. That is $11 million, Mr. Speaker. Seven provinces out of ten will lose money. Quebec will lose $333 million.

Does the Liberal member believe that his government is right to continue to make cuts, or should it not put its finger on the problem and put an immediate end to the cuts in transfers to the provinces affecting the health system?

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly something wrong with the memory of this member from P.E.I. I would like to ask him a question about what his party's position was on free trade and what his party's position was on the GST. They were supposed to throw it right back and did not. That is the reason we have a surplus today.

Does the member from P.E.I. say we should cut back transfers even more in his province? Is that what you are saying? That is what I thought I heard.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

There was no question there, but I will certainly reply to the comments regarding inheriting a debt.

I think the hon. member should go back a little further to when her idol, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was prime minister of this country. When we took power in 1984 we inherited the debt. We had to deal with that.

We talk about a balanced budget. We are certainly applauding a balanced budget today, but I will tell the member how we got there. The Liberals certainly did not got there in three years. We got there because of the measures put in place by the previous Conservative government.

The member mentioned transfer payments. Is she from Atlantic Canada? I am from New Brunswick. I have seen the devastation in the health care system, in education, in high unemployment. New Brunswick will lose $11 million in cash transfers in the next four years.