Roy Cullen

[The Budget, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member opposite. Although he is a member of the finance committee and is normally very learned on these matters, unfortunately he has some of his facts on the budget slightly confused.

When we talk in budget 2000 about $58 billion of tax relief, that is an absolute minimum. If the economy continues at a rate of 3.54%, we will be able to accelerate some of the measures more closely into the years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The $58 billion is an absolute minimum.

Despite the fact that many times in the House many of my colleagues and I have tried to explain to members opposite, they will not listen. The member opposite would like to call the Canada pension plan a tax, but it is a contributions based pension system. It is based on employer contributions and employee contributions which go to a pension trust administered by a board. The revenues do not go anywhere near the consolidated revenue funds of the government. The government has no access to these revenues. They are clearly a program. Canadians value the Canada pension plan and are glad that the government put it on a sound financial footing last year.

Having heard the evidence again that the Canada pension plan is not a tax, would the member be prepared to accept that notion?

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Red Deer mentioned partisan debate and partisan politics. I am sure there are times when all of us in the House are engaged in partisan debates and we use statistics to perhaps stretch our position or stretch the facts.

I heard the member for Red Deer and his colleague earlier. I also heard the Reform-Conservative Premier of Ontario talk about the transfers to the provinces for health care. The member opposite also talked about that.

If we look at the facts, they are clear. The federal government has restored the transfers to the provinces under the CHST to a new level of $31 billion at a time when federal government expenditure has been reduced by $4 billion compared to 1993. That is the direct program delivery.

How can the member for Red Deer face his constituents with the facts he has presented in the House, when the facts are clearly not what he speaks? How can he justify saying that in the House of Commons?

[Gasoline Pricing, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, tax reductions were recently announced in Budget 2000.

We know that the price of petroleum is coming down. We know that in terms of the GST it represents one cent of the twenty cent increase over the last few months. The provinces have much more excise tax on gasoline than the federal government. We are hoping that the price of crude will continue to go down. It has not had an amazing effect; it has had a very limited effect on inflation.

[Blood Samples Act, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has expressed his concern regarding the fact that several of Canada's large banks have decided to reduce their workforce even though their combined profits reached $9 billion last year. He calls upon the government to prevent job losses and branch closures.

The best way to create and to protect jobs is to have efficient and competitive businesses. This goes also for financial institutions such as banks. A strong, efficient and profitable financial sector is essential to our economic well-being.

That is why the government announced a new policy framework for the financial services sector last June. This is a comprehensive, balanced and fair package of reforms that promotes efficiency, growth and job creation in the sector. It also fosters domestic competition and empowers consumers to ensure that the sector remains responsive to the needs of Canadians. This new framework includes measures to ensure that banks have the flexibility they need to compete at home and abroad.

We expect banks to make their own business decisions, but at the same time we also expect them to take responsibility for them. That is why we intend to introduce a branch closure process for banks and public accountability statements for all large financial institutions. The branch closure process will give communities time to react and adjust to the closure of a bank branch in their area. It provides a minimum of four months notice of a closure, extended to six months for the last branch in that community.

In its annual public accountability statements, large financial institutions will be called upon to describe their contributions to communities, including their levels of employment and their branch openings and closings.

This represents a fair balance between the banks' need to compete and the needs of consumers and communities.

[Blood Samples Act, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, in the Economic and Fiscal Update of last fall, the government announced it had agreed to set the employment insurance premium at $2.40 for the year 2000, as the employment insurance commissioners had unanimously agreed to.

It was the sixth consecutive year that employment insurance premiums had been reduced, from $3.07 to $2.40, for a total reduction of 67 cents since 1994, or a $260 annual saving for the average worker.

We recognize that we must return to the point where EI premiums cover only ongoing EI program costs, and that is what is happening.

The government's commitment to maintaining the EI program as a critical element of the social safety net is clear. The EI reforms were intended to help Canadians get back to work, and they are doing just that.

The unemployment rate has fallen from 11.3% in October 1993 to 6.8% this past December, January and February. This is the lowest rate since April 1976. Furthermore, over 1.8 million jobs have been created since 1993, with 427,000 in 1999 alone.

The government has put great emphasis on active measures co-ordinated with provincial programs to help Canadians return to work as quickly as possible. These active measures are also offered to previous recipients who have been unemployed for a long period.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite covered a lot of territory, but I take exception when he tries to characterize the government as being bad fiscal managers.

The Minister for HRDC has clearly acknowledged that there are administrative problems that have to be cleared up, and she is doing that. This government and the fiscal measures of the Minister of Finance, working with all his colleagues in this caucus, have eliminated a $42 billion deficit. How is that for starters?

We have interest rates that are at their lowest in 16 or 17 years. We have a rate of inflation that has consistently stayed within the range of 1% to 3% over the last many, many years. How about the level of employment or the reduction in the rate of unemployment to the lowest level in a generation?

When the member talks about a scandal, I do not know how he puts things into perspective. Of course he would love to have Canadians believe that there is a fiscal management problem in the Government of Canada, which he knows is patently not the case.

I wonder if he could put those into perspective when he responds.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, one thing the member opposite talked about was grants and contributions which is an accounting mechanism for our accumulating expenditure and for where it is going to be spent.

The member for Calgary—Nose Hill this morning, the lead Reform speaker on the topic, mentioned that she did not think that the HRDC grants and contributions needed to be touched. It was the others and the increments in the new budget.

Maybe the member would comment. Of the new grants and contributions in the budget, would he cut the $900 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the $900 million for the new research chairs across Canada and the $700 million to ensure that we have clean air, water and prepare for reducing our greenhouse gases? Are those the kinds of initiatives he would cut out of the budget?

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Dauphin—Swan River for his remarks and the very interesting readings he made.

I found it interesting that he talked about the need for more money in the health care system. Certainly the government has restored all the transfers. We could go over the same old stuff. No matter how often we say it, the opposition parties will say that we have not, but in fact the CHST has been totally restored to the 1993 levels.

We had to reduce the federal transfers to eliminate a $42 billion deficit. In fact if we had not dealt with federal transfers which consisted of something in the order of 40% of our total federal budget, it would have been very difficult if not impossible for us to eliminate the deficit completely. We did reduce the transfers but they have now been completely restored.

Let me give the example of the province of Ontario. The Ontario government under Mike Harris reduced income taxes by 30%. Reducing taxes is another good agenda item. We have been doing more of that now that we have topped up health care. If we look at the Harris Conservative government in Ontario, the first reduction in taxes it made was 30% and then it has gone on since then. If the Ontario government had reduced taxes by 25% instead of 30%, just five percentage points, it could have totally restored and topped up the federal transfer reductions that the government passed on to the province of Ontario.

When we talk about where the priorities are, rather than move from 30% tax cuts to 25%, the province of Ontario decided to let health care slide somewhat. Now it is coming to us and saying that we should be putting more money back in when it is actually still sitting on money that we gave it last year which has earned interest. About half a billion dollars is still sitting there not being utilized.

I would ask the member to reflect on that and maybe he could comment on it.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member from Esquimalt talked about the importance of health care and education. Canadians reflect that and the government has demonstrated that commitment last year with $11.5 billion to health care and this year with another $2.5 billion to the CHST.

The member opposite gave an example of nurses. In the province of Ontario where the health care system underwent severe restructuring the Ontario government laid off 10,000 nurses. Then a couple of years later it said that it did not have enough nurses and would have to hire some of them back. The budget of the province of Ontario for health shows a slight increase, but most of it is for restructuring costs. How can the member opposite talk about putting more funding into a system that is already in need of some repair managerially?

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kelowna discussed various spending initiatives in the budget. One of the things he glossed over in his presentation was the fact that direct government program spending by the federal government this year compared to 1993 when we first took office was down $4 billion. At the same time, in the last budget the Canada health and social transfer was completely restored to the level it was at when we took office in 1993.

If the member would reflect upon this he would see that this has been demonstrated in the government's commitment to transfers to the provinces, which includes the Canada health and social transfer. If equalization payments were included, he would see that transfers are up to about $40 billion.

If we look at the direct spending trends since we took office and brought the deficit under control, we find that our spending increases have kept pace with inflation and the demographic growth in the population, and that is it.

When the member throws out these percentages of direct program spending he masks and distorts the real picture. The government's direct program spending is significantly down from 1993 when we first took office, and our transfers have been completely restored, if one includes the tax points, which in an honest debate one must do.