Roy Cullen

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, with respect, I think the member for South Shore is somewhat confused about the motion. Frankly I am not surprised because I was as confused earlier as many other members of the House.

When I asked the member for Calgary—Nose Hill earlier in this debate whether she would cut HRDC she responded by saying no and indicating that there were other elements in the federal budget under grants and contributions that should be cut. She acknowledged that some of the work was of real benefit to Canadians as they make the transition into the workforce.

I would like to point out what would really be cuts in grants and contributions if we accepted the Reform Party motion. They would cut $900 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation. They would cut $900 million for 2,000 research chairs in our universities so we can have the best and brightest in Canada and prepare Canadians for the economy of the future. They would also cut $160 million to Genome Canada, a biotechnology institution that is on the leading edge of research in this area. They would also cut $700 million for environmental improvements so that we could have cleaner air and cleaner water and could prepare ourselves to reduce greenhouse gases.

I think the member for South Shore, knowing this, would realize that there would be significant cuts in some very desirable programs. Maybe he would like to reflect on this in his answer.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would interpret from the remarks of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle that he will not be supporting the Reform motion, and I congratulate him for that.

He mentioned some of the programs that would be cut implicitly by the motion that was presented by the Reform Party. I will name a few, for those who are interested in what is in the budget.

For example, there is an additional contribution of $900 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which helps universities and research hospitals acquire the infrastructure they need to help prepare our economy and to prepare Canadians for the new world in which we live.

Another example is the $900 million which will go to fund research chairs for new positions in universities and colleges so that we can be at the leading edge of new technologies and attract and keep the best and the brightest.

Another example is the $160 million for Genome Canada, which will put us at the leading edge of the biotechnological thrust in which Canada will have a very competitive position.

These are all grants and contributions. This is not some obtuse theory. This is what is in the budget. This is what would be cut if the Reform Party's motion went forward. I could go on and on.

Another example is the $700 million for the environment, which will be dealt with through grants and contributions so that we will have clean air and clean water, and we will be able to prepare ourselves to eliminate greenhouse gases and meet our Kyoto commitments.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle talked about topping up the CHST, which of course he knows is at an all-time high. In fact, the federal contribution is around 32%. He mentioned reducing the GST and topping up the CHST. Where would he find the money? If he were to reduce the GST and top up the CHST, how would the arithmetic work?

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, it has been pointed out in the House that there were many grants supporting various organizations, institutions and other groups in the riding of Calgary—Nose Hill which created jobs that helped people return to the workforce, easing the transition. I just wanted to make sure that I understood her correctly. Is she saying that the administration of the grants in HRDC needs to be tightened up?

The minister has stated quite clearly that she has a plan in which the auditor general is involved and that she is coming in to clean that up. Perhaps the member could clarify what she is saying. Is she saying that all the grants and contributions which went into her riding would be part of this $1.5 billion and that she would be happy to completely cut them out?

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member opposite with great interest.

As I said earlier, our Minister of Finance has indicated that he is prepared to come to the table once the Minister of Health has met with his provincial colleagues and has worked up some kind of plan to make sure that the health care system will operate as efficiently as possible.

I do not stand in the House and claim to be an expert on health care, but we would all agree that health care delivery is a provincial responsibility. If there are problems in the deliver of the health care system, that is a provincial issue.

The question is: Is there a funding issue or a finance issue? That is what is under debate in the House today.

I had the opportunity in the late 1970s to work on health care cost containment. I am speaking now as a citizen of Canada. It was amazing. We looked at health care from the acute care bed, which is the most expensive part of the health care system, right through to intermediate care, long term care, home care and home makers, down to where someone needed a helping hand to make lunch. We looked at the low cost solutions and the very high cost solutions. That was 20 years ago and we still do not have it right.

We have patients in acute care beds who should be in home care. We have elderly patients in acute care beds who should be in long term care or extended care. We all know that. I know it is not an easy problem to solve. I accept that. However, we have to deal with this and other issues, like prevention, promotion and lifestyle issues, on which we have made some progress.

The member opposite said 50%. My question to him is, 50% of what? Where are health care costs going?

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the statements made by the member for New Brunswick Southwest. He talked about Mike Harris. Mike Harris made some choices. He said his priority was tax cuts.

Last year our government put $11.5 billion into health care and this year we are putting in another $2.5 billion. We hear about the investments the Ontario government has made in health care. They are one time severances. They are one time restructuring costs because the health care system has been gutted. The Harris government laid off 10,000 nurses and a couple of years later hired them back on. I guess that is why the Harris government has to increase the budget of the health care ministry in the province of Ontario.

I am staggered and I am sure the hon. member if he were candid would also be staggered by the way the health care system is used. There are people at different levels of the health care system and they are not really at the appropriate level. If we could move people from acute care hospital beds to a lower cost delivery system, it would save the health care system millions of dollars.

I would like to make one final point. Let it be clear that once the health minister has sat down with his colleagues, we are also prepared to come to the table with more cash.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite still has not got it. I thought I had made it quite clear that tax points are the same as cash. The hon. member continues to quote the cash. The reality is that the CHST funding has been fully restored to 1993-94 levels.

If we look at the United States, Americans comment on our system and we want to keep it that way. It is one of the principal tenets of the government. It is one of the principal tenets of our party. Canadians can be guaranteed that our government will continue its commitment to health care in Canada.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the National Forum on Health which was convened a couple of years ago did a vast amount of research. Experts in health care compared our expenditures in Canada. They looked at a variety of issues. They concluded that the per capita expenditure on health care in Canada was greater than most other countries with the only exception being the United States.

The parties opposite talk about the health care system in the United States. We all know the problems with accessibility which my colleague the Minister of Health and others have quoted. Not only are there problems with accessibility but there are the administrative costs in the United Sates. Because it is privately funded, many patients in hospitals and clinics end up filling out forms ad nauseam because the health care insurers are not anxious to pay the claims. Fully 30% of the cost of the health care system in the United States is administrative costs.

If the member opposite is going to quote new figures, he should also look at the expenditures we made in health care last year and this year. It was $11.5 billion last year and another $2.5 billion this year.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity that today's motion offers to join my colleagues to reinforce for all Canadians our government's absolute commitment to health care and to present the facts about the federal government's contribution to health care in Canada.

Our priority is clear and concrete. It is to work through partnership with all orders of government and all stakeholders to provide Canadians in every region with the health care system they need and the health care system they rely upon.

Budget 2000 is based on previous budgets. It provides for the injection of an additional $2.5 billion dollars into the Canada transfer for health and social programs in order to help the provinces and territories fund health care and post-secondary education.

When we add this new $2.5 billion to the $11.5 billion CHST investment in last year's budget specifically for health care, we find that the cash portion of the CHST will reach $15.5 billion in the coming year, almost 25% higher than last year. This is the fourth time that the federal government has been able to turn better finances into a better quality of life through greater support for the CHST.

The budget provides an additional $1 billion in 2000-01 and $500 million in each of the following three years. The provinces and territories will have the flexibility to draw from the $2.5 billion that is being added to the CHST as they see fit. They can draw upon it to meet the most pressing needs in hospitals or universities or at any time over the course of four years as they see fit.

Some have said that this additional $2.5 billion for the CHST transfer is small potatoes. I cannot agree because $2.5 billion is not an insignificant amount of money. It is even more significant when added to the funding increases we made in previous years. As I just said, because of our CHST investments in the 1999 and 2000 budgets, in the coming year CHST cash will be almost 25% higher than last year. This is just the CHST cash portion.

Too many Canadians forget, because our critics often try to push it aside, the fact that federal support for the CHST also includes tax points. Tax points are converted into cash and paid to the provinces. They are the same as cash. Members opposite need to understand that. When the value of tax points is taken into account, total CHST transfers in the coming fiscal year will reach $31 billion, a new all time high.

The Canada health and social transfer has been fully restored to 1993-94 levels. At the same time the federal government's own direct program spending is down $4 billion from the levels when we first came into office. This clearly demonstrates our commitment to health and the priority we attach to health care.

It is not an abstract issue. What is a tax point transfer? As hon. opposition members should be aware, it simply means that the provinces can collect a portion of the taxes that would otherwise go to the federal government. Put differently, it allows the provinces to collect a higher share of taxes while federal revenues decrease by the same amount. Ultimately the individual taxpayer still pays the same amount.

There is an excellent reason why the provinces accepted these tax points and why they hang on to them today. I have not heard the provinces saying that they do not want the tax points. Why is that? It is because as the economy grows so does the value of these points. While there have been economic ups and downs, each of those tax points is worth much more today than when the programs they fund were introduced. In other words, it is a form of federal assistance that keeps on giving and keeps on growing.

When we hear calls for the federal government to hand over billions more for health and social programs, we should remember that this ignores the fact that provinces enjoy significant additional revenues from tax points already in their pockets each and every year.

The excellent performance of Canada's economy has significantly improved the value of the two other main transfers to the provinces and the territories.

Equalization payments to less prosperous provinces, for example, are up $500 million for this year over last year's budget projection, taking entitlements to $9.8 billion from the $9.3 billion previously projected. Territorial formula financing is nearly $100 million higher this year than was projected, taking entitlements to about $1.4 billion from about $1.3 billion previously projected.

When we combine these major transfer programs, the CHST, equalization and territorial formula financing, we see that total transfers to the provinces and territories will reach an estimated $39.4 billion this year. This will allow the provinces and territories to strengthen health care, post-secondary education and other social programs important to Canadians. The provinces can use the equalization payments for health care, education or social programs.

It is also interesting to look at federal transfers in terms of the contribution to estimated provincial and territorial revenues. I will give just a brief rundown. In 2000-01 federal transfers will account for about 45% of Newfoundland's estimated revenues. The corresponding figures for the other provinces and territories are approximately as follows: 40% for P.E.I., 42% for Nova Scotia, 37% for New Brunswick, 25% for Quebec, 20% for Ontario, 35% of the provincial revenues for Manitoba, 22% for Saskatchewan, 17% for Alberta, 20% for British Columbia, 81% for the Northwest Territories, 94% for Nunavut, and 71% for Yukon. These are significant contributions to the economies and the provincial revenues across Canada.

It is important to note that federal assistance for health care does not begin and end with transfers. For example, almost half of the grants from the federally sponsored Canada Foundation for Innovation have gone to health research. It is now a $1.9 billion foundation.

Good health and effective health care are much more than an issue of hospitals and clinics. My colleague the Minister of Health has spoken very eloquently today and many times before on this subject. This is why the 1999 budget announced an additional investment of $1.4 billion in health information systems, research, first nations and Inuit health services and health problem prevention. The 1999 budget also provided significant funding for a number of other important health initiatives like the national health surveillance network, the Canada health network and a variety of other initiatives.

The government's commitment to a strong health care system is a key priority and the reason that increasing funding for health was a central theme in the 1999 budget.

Governments both federal and provincial recognize the necessity of ensuring that Canada's health care system continues to meet the needs of its citizens into the future. The federal government has invested significant amounts of money in the CHST. However, money alone will not solve the long term health care problem.

In the report of the National Forum on Health to the Prime Minister not too long ago, it was noted that by international standards Canada's health care expenditures appear high among industrialized countries. Only the U.S. spends a higher share of its GDP than Canada and we know the reason. A full 30% of health care expenditure in the United States has been on administration, filling out forms.

Ottawa cannot do it alone. This is particularly important as Canada's baby boomers approach their senior years. This is why the federal and provincial health ministers have agreed to meet in the spring of this year.

I think I can speak for all my government colleagues when I say that our priority is to help sustain a health care system that meets the needs of all Canadians. This is why we will continue to apply the values of partnership and co-operation, values based on the recognition that health care is the responsibility of all of us. This is a responsibility I am confident will never be abandoned by the government and my party.

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the Bloc member's remarks. I think he did not read this budget, the federal government's budget for 2000-01. Perhaps he read the Quebec budget or some other budget.

Let me quote him some figures relating to transfer payments to Quebec. Over the five years of the budget plan, Quebec will receive $59 billion.

That is $59 billion over the five years of the budget plan.

In 2000-01 the transfers to Quebec will exceed $11.5 billion. They will account for about 25% of the province of Quebec's estimated revenues. They are expected to be about $1,566 per person. That is about 18% above the national average.

Perhaps the member opposite would read the budget. He would discover that there is $59 billion that will go to Quebec over the next five years. In fact the province of Quebec receives almost $5 billion in equalization payments. Quebec receives that because it is a poor province. I have said in the House before that there is a reason it is a poor province.

It is because of the policies of the Parti Quebecois and the policies of the Bloc Quebecois. That is the reason.

Regarding taxes, let me give a few examples because I think the member opposite simply has not read the budget.

Low income Canadians who pay about 1% of the net taxes collected by the Government of Canada will receive almost 40% of the tax reduction flowing from indexation. For example, a one earner family of four with an income of under $35,000 will receive more in benefits than it pays in the year 2004. A one earner family of four with an income of $60,000 will see its taxes go down by 24% in the year 2004.

I am wondering if the Bloc member opposite read the federal budget for 2000. Did he read it?

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, one could cover a lot of ground in commenting and rebutting the speech of the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. I will not speak about the CHST transfers to Ontario because I know my colleague from Mississauga South is champing at the bit to get into that debate.

I will not mention the fact that if Mike Harris in Ontario had reduced taxes by 25% instead of 30% on the first go-around, he could have topped up the transfer reductions that went to the province of Ontario. I will not get into that.

However I will talk about the tax cuts because I think the member opposite has her facts wrong. Yesterday in the House the Leader of the Opposition cited the example of Paul and Fran Darr, a retired couple with an income of $28,000. They were complaining about the taxes they pay. As I reported to the House yesterday, Paul and Fran Darr, wherever they are, will save with this budget 45.2% of their federal income taxes. I could go on and on with examples.

Let me give the example of a one earner family of four with an income of $60,000. Its federal income taxes will go down by 24%. Another example is that a one earner family of four with an income under $35,000 will receive more in benefits than it pays in taxes in the year 2004.

I would like the member opposite to contrast this with the flat tax proposal. I will give two quick examples, with the indulgence of the House. Under the flat tax proposal, solution 17 as it is called, a single taxpayer earning $30,000 would receive a tax reduction of 12% while a similar taxpayer earning $200,000 would receive a tax reduction of 39%. Is that not interesting?

As another example, a two earner family of four under the flat tax proposal, solution 17, with an income of $75,000 would get a reduction of 28% in federal taxes. A similar family with an income of $200,000 would benefit by 35%.

Could the member for Calgary—Nose Hill contrast the lack of progressivity in the Reform tax proposal? Would she be prepared to acknowledge the huge tax savings Canadians will benefit from with this budget?