Roy Cullen

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the last time we had this debate in the House I went back to my riding of Etobicoke North and spoke with police officials at division 23, the main police office in my riding. It was during the last election campaign. The police in my riding are familiar with this type of problem because they had the Peter Whitmore case.

Because the issue was being debated in the House I asked the police at division 23 how bad CPIC was in terms of a sex offender registry and what kind of priority they would attach to it. They told me they would rather see modifications to CPIC than some new grandiose scheme. They said it was not the biggest priority facing them. They said offenders were being registered on CPIC and it was working quite adequately.

We have been hearing comments across the floor that this should be a top drawer issue. Opposition members say the system should be scrubbed and a new system built. They say this is a consensus among police authorities and provinces. I am puzzled by that. In my riding we have had a lot of crime and murders in the last year, yet this is not a priority. Where are the members hearing this?

[Airline industry, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

The compensation period for third party war risk liability for air carriers is about to expire.

What does the minister intend to do afterward to ensure that air services in Canada continue uninterrupted?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there is no fund. He talked about the program spending increase in 2001-02 and about $2.7 billion of that is for increased EI. There is a reason for that. Unemployment increased somewhat and there were changes in the benefits that members on this side fought for in terms of the clawback and the intensity rule.

Some on the other side would say it was a retrograde step. We do not agree with that. We think that we must treat workers fairly. The government made changes to the EI on the clawback and the intensity rule. The member opposite was talking about expenditure increases, $2.7 billion of it came from EI.

I would like to comment on the business of the surplus in pension plans. When we look at the EI account or the public service pension, we have to look at times when those pensions were in deficit and were carried by the taxpayers of Canada. We cannot just look at it through one end of the telescope.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member opposite has been under stress lately, but he has performed quite well notwithstanding his comments just now.

When we look at international aid we first must ask if it the right thing to do and if we need to help people in other countries and not just in Canada,. We must also look at it from a pragmatic point of view. Many people leaving their countries to come to Canada would prefer to stay in their countries of birth but must leave because there are no economic prospects. We could look at it from another level in terms of our own security and safety. If we keep people down for too long they will come and get it.

For a whole range of reasons it is right that we help people in the developing world help themselves. However we should not tolerate corruption. That is why our policies are geared to countries that have good governance.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate. I have sat here in amazement listening to the debate on the budget. I cannot understand fully although I can understand partially why members opposite do not describe the budget in December as one of the most extraordinary budgets of all time. We know their partisan nature. We know they would not say that, particularly if we look at the context of budget 2001.

The Minister of Finance had to stand in the House after the events of September 11 and with an economy that was declining and in trouble. Any objective analysis would show that the budget he delivered on December 10 was an excellent budget, particularly in that context.

Members opposite talk about how the budget was not responsive to the views of Canadians. I can tell the House why they say that. It is because they are on the opposite side of the House. That is why they are on the opposite side of the House. It is because they do not listen to Canadians. As a member of the finance committee I travelled across Canada and listened to what Canadians had to say. They said a few important things.

First, they said they know the government must deal with the security agenda. They know the government must respond and it must be a top priority. They said they would like the government to protect the $100 billion tax cut announced in 2000 and the $23.4 billion agreement with the provinces for health care and early childhood development. They said they do not want to go into deficit.

Second, there was some debate at the edges about whether the government should get into stimulative spending. That point seems to have eluded the hon. member for Medicine Hat. There are many bright economists in Canada and around the world who would argue that we should stimulate the economy and go into deficit at a time like this. However the government said no. The government listened to the caucus and to many Canadians who said they did not want to go into deficit.

Having said that, the minister and the government were able to provide $3 billion in stimulus to the economy. As a result of those actions and as a result of protecting the tax cuts announced in 2000, there will be about a 2.4% stimulus in the economy this year in relation to the GDP. Next year it will be 2.8%. That is more than the stimulative measures that have been announced and some that are still being debated in the United States senate.

With that kind of stimulus, the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada and the fiscal stance of the government we are starting to see the economy turn around. This is because of the budgets of the Minister of Finance and the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada whose interest rates are at their lowest level in many years. There has been a reduction of 350 basis points this year which is causing businesses to invest and consumers to spend. I think in the year 2002 we will start to see the economy grow again and in 2003 we will be back on track.

Amidst all this, and unacknowledged by the members opposite, the country has low inflation. Canada is the only G-7 country that will balance its books this year. For the first time in 17 years our debt to GDP ratio, the size of our federal debt in relation to the size of the economy, will be below 50%. In 1995-96, soon after we came into power, it reached 71% of GDP. In other words our debt in relation to the size of our economy was 71%. It will now be less than 50%.

Is it still too high? Of course it is, but the performance has been spectacular. The paying down of our debt in relation to our economy is the best of any industrialized country. We have low inflation.

Our unemployment has crept up to 8%. That is something none of us enjoy, appreciate or tolerate. However we now have the mechanisms in place to move forward and reduce the unemployment rate again.

We have heard much in the Chamber and elsewhere about health care. Canadians deserve more than the partisan debate and points that have been made in the House and by the premiers of some provinces. They throw out numbers and say the federal government is contributing 14% of health care when it agreed and committed to 50%. That is hogwash. The federal government never agreed to contribute 50% of health care costs. It agreed to participate at the rate of 50% in terms of insured programs such as hospital care, medical services plan, et cetera.

I concede that there is a growing area of prescribed drugs and home care that is uninsured and is starting to eat up more health care dollars in the country. It is an issue the federal government, the provinces and all Canadians must face. I am looking forward to the report of former premier Romanow, as are many of us on this side of the House, when he looks at health care in depth instead of offering the superficial analysis we tend to hear in partisan debate.

The contribution the federal government makes to health care in terms of direct expenditures, whether in research or aboriginal health, is even greater. We all know that everyone who gets into the debate, apart from members on this side of the House, conveniently ignores tax points. They say it is a technical issue and maybe Canadians do not fully understand it so we will conveniently forget it.

I will take this opportunity to remind Canadians what tax points are. If we add tax points to the federal contribution and the direct expenditures the federal government makes on health care, we get very close to 50%. A figure of 14% is totally scandalous to even mention.

What did the federal government do? Some time ago it transferred 13.5 percentage points of personal income tax room to the provinces. In other words, the federal government said it would tax 13.5 percentage points less and the provinces could tax 13.5 percentage points more. To average taxpayers it is totally seamless. They would not know the difference. Instead of the federal government taxing them the province would tax them.

Why did the federal government do that? In retrospect it was a huge mistake. The money still flows to the provinces, yet in partisan debate it is ignored and Canadians get a wrong picture. Why did the government do it? It said the provinces and territories are responsible for the delivery of health care, post-secondary education and other social programs and that it should transfer the tax points closer to the source. It was done in the belief that the funds would be used for health care, post-secondary education and social programs. To suddenly say we do not factor it in is totally disingenuous. Canadians deserve better than that.

I was happy that in the budget there was stimulative spending on infrastructure. This does a couple of things. We know we are getting behind with our infrastructure. We have an infrastructure deficit, if one likes. At the same time as we are increasing our infrastructure capacity, which makes us more competitive, we are providing jobs and economic activity. I was happy to see that. We will need major investments at our borders, national highway systems and many other national projects to help stimulate the economy and get out of the downturn.

I was glad to see provisions in the budget for mechanics' tools. Some things may seem small to us here in the House but are perhaps not so small to average Canadians. The government responded to many members on this side and to private members' bills that had been circulating in the past to give a tax break to mechanics who must fund their tools.

Rather than the lavish programs and fiscally irresponsible proposals that were presented on the other side of the House, the caucus worked with the finance minister to include a mechanism in the budget for mechanics to get a break on their tools up to a certain limit. It is the apprentices who are targeted. Apprentices are the ones who need help with their tools.

The budget also delivers $680 million for affordable housing. This is desperately needed, especially in the Toronto area and other urban centres where the need is great.

The budget has incentives for renewable energy. That is a positive thing. We heard the remarks of the hon. member about the natural resource sector. I am sympathetic to his views but tax incentives are available to those sectors that are not available to other industries.

Through the granting councils the budget will deliver $200 million to universities to help with overhead and administration costs relating to research grants. The government has put much into research and is now helping universities with overheads and administration.

In summary, the budget was an excellent response to the circumstances. Given the context it was a superb budget. I wish members opposite would be more objective in their analysis.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member for Surrey Central made some pretty serious allegations. I think it had to do with corruption or bribery in our missions abroad. I think that was the general thrust of what he had to say. Does he have any evidence of that. Have people talked to him about this type of activity? I am sure if they had he would have forwarded that information to the relevant authorities.

Is he aware of a study or are there individual cases? Would he want to table the evidence of a very serious allegation that he has put forward in the House today?

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if the premier wants to have a debate let him come forward and have a debate. He has asked for a debate. The facts are patently clear. Our government is cutting taxes as well, but we are minding our responsibilities. We dealt with the deficit first. We are cutting taxes for Canadians, but we are not laying blame and scapegoating others for any problems or situations that we have to deal with federally. That is what the premier of Ontario is doing.

Likewise, the Bloc Quebecois and the separatists, when they enjoined the debate earlier, talked about taking more tax points from the federal government. We know that the separatist cause is on weak knees. It has no support in Quebec so those members are looking for some galvanizing issue and taking more tax points from the federal government seems to be it, because they know the federal government would probably not do that. They are trying to find some rallying point in their hopeless cause. I think Quebecers will see through that and Canadians will see through that.

I do appreciate speaking today on the motion and will be sharing my time with my colleague from Durham.

As hon. members are aware, the budget is the main economic event in Canada. It is the tool by which the government signals to Canadians its plans and its priorities. This in turn helps consumers and businesses plan for the coming year.

Even before September 11, Canadians were becoming concerned about the state of the economy. The terrorist attacks on the U.S. only exacerbated these concerns. The events of September 11 have compounded the challenges facing the Minister of Finance in terms of what his budget will contain. These events have brought home the fact that we are indeed living in a global economy. The minister, in preparing the budget, must take these terrible events into consideration.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out that one thing that remains a priority with this government is its ability to listen to what Canadians want and to respond to their needs.

Consulting with Canadians remains this government's priority. Whether it be on reforms to the Canada Pension Plan, a new agricultural policy or prebudget consultations, we can count on a government that will listen.

If the measures put forward in the opposition motion meet the needs expressed by Canadians to the minister, if they are economically viable and if they respect a cautious budget management process, they could well be considered.

However, if they do not meet these requirements, then the government would not be able to include them in its budget.

Only the Minister of Finance can follow-up on this question and, given the secret nature of the budget, the minister cannot provide the Alliance with what they are asking for at this time.

As in previous years, the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, travelled across Canada in what is referred to as prebudget consultations. We heard from individuals and groups representing all regions and all sectors of our society.

Members of the hon. member's own party were part of the process. Indeed, were he to inquire they would be able to tell him what Canadians asked for.

As hon. members may have heard, Canadians eagerly awaited this round of prebudget consultations. They sent a strong message to the minister about the nation's budgetary priorities. Canadians do not take the health of the economy for granted and they told the government what their priorities were. They prepared their briefs during the summer, setting out their prescriptions for sound public policy, but alas, we all have to wait until Monday to find out what the end result will be. I do not know, my colleagues on this side of the House do not know and my colleagues opposite certainly do not know what will be in the budget on Monday.

What we know for certain is that the Minister of Finance next Monday will continue to stick to his long term economic plan, the plan he introduced back in 1993, the plan that is working, the plan from which he will not stray. He will stick to prudence in the management of the nation's finances.

Another thing is also certain. Next Monday's budget will provide a full accounting of the Canadian economic and fiscal outlook and situation.

If I may, I would like to remind hon. members opposite that their premise in today's motion is too simple, as usual. In essence they are saying to introduce these measures and the economic difficulties facing our nation will be resolved. Finding solutions to the global economic slowdown is not that simple, I am afraid. If my colleagues opposite would sit back and think for a moment, they might realize that the prudent approach our government has taken and continues to take to the management of our economy is what works best.

Another point I would like to make is about the inappropriateness of the motion at this time given the tragic events of September 11, because of course our government policies must be carefully weighed in light of how the events of the global economy changed after that day. Granted, there has been a global economic slowdown, and I emphasize the word global, in recent months. These tragic events have added a new layer of economic uncertainty.

I suggest that no one should even begin to pretend they know what the intermediate or long term effects may be on the economy or what the immediate and long term answers will be after that tragic day, but it is guaranteed that Canada's response will be methodical, well thought out and, above all, cautious. Our government is realistic in knowing that Canada is not and cannot be immune to what is happening elsewhere in the world and especially in the United States.

I urge hon. members to think for a moment about Canada and where it stands vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Canada is a competitive nation in the global economy.

I would like to point out a few facts to the opposition members.

As I said, since last winter, the global economy has slowed down in Europe, in Asia, in Latin America, and especially in the United States.

The events of September 11 and their after-effects have magnified this slowdown.

This downturn, and the uncertainty it is causing among Canadians and their families, is of concern to the government.

Make no mistake, the economic welfare of Canadians has been the preoccupation of the government over the last eight years, through a number of tough global circumstances such as the Asian and Mexican crises. Indeed, one of the main reasons the government worked so hard to put the fiscal house in order was to be able to handle this sort of economic uncertainty. As a result, the government was able to introduce $17 billion in tax cuts this year alone, tax cuts that are supporting the Canadian economy and will continue to support the economy in the months ahead.

In addition, our much improved fiscal situation, combined with our inflation record, has allowed the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates nine times this year for a cumulative decline of three and a half percentage points. As a result, the bank rate now is at its lowest level in 41 years. These interest rate cuts, half of which occurred since September 11, will help to support consumer spending and business investment in Canada in the months ahead.

Yes, there is no question that the global economic slowdown is having an impact here in Canada and Canadians are concerned about what this will mean for them and their families, but our Liberal policies and other initiatives are working, for example, the 7% corporate tax cuts. Contrary to what the member opposite said, by 2005 the average tax rate for larger businesses, including capital taxes to which this motion refers, will be about five percentage points lower in Canada than in the U.S., creating a Canadian advantage.

I would just like to finish by saying that our cuts in the EI premiums and our paydown on the debt are all having a very positive impact. I would ask members here to reflect on the motion put before the House today which calls for simplistic solutions.

This is a long term plan that our government is implementing. I certainly will not be supporting the motion and, as well, I would ask my colleagues not to.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would have the guts to invite Premier Harris to come and debate--

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey Central made reference to the premier of Ontario which provoked me as I sat here in my chair.

Coming from British Columbia perhaps he would not be fully aware of what is going on in Ontario. The premier of Ontario is trying to resolve his personal affairs and maybe not too successfully so he is taking some last parting shots. Maybe he will come to the House and take on the leadership of the crew on the other side.

He is taking shots at the federal government about health care. Maybe it is fed bashing at its finest but I am amazed at what the premier of Ontario can say. He cut taxes that will cost his government $18 billion per year by the year 2006. That is fine if he wants to cut taxes but he should not then shirk responsibilities and try to park the problems at the seat of the federal government.

Last year he signed an accord for $21 billion that would put $21 billion, and $8 billion into Ontario over the next five years for health care. Ontario's last budget put $1.2 billion into health care of which $1.1 billion was federal government money.

Is the member aware of what is going on in Ontario? Would he address the concerns that most Ontarians are raising with respect to the priorities of the premier?

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, an organization called Ducks Unlimited has been meeting with members of parliament in Ottawa. It has a proposal that would give farmers the option of converting marginal farmland into areas reserved for birds and waterfowl. There would be compensation associated with that. As I understand it, the program has worked quite well in the United States. It deals with the very serious problem of marginal farmland. Farmers would have the option of being compensated. They would take the land out of production and put those resources into more productive farmland.

Would the member for Selkirk--Interlake and his party support that proposal? I would appreciate his comments.