Bryon Wilfert

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the tirade of the hon. member across the way. Let us deal with health care. The reality is that health care is delivered by the provinces. The province of Ontario last year announced $1.2 billion in new health care funding, to which $1.1 billion were federal transfers. While it was busy cutting taxes before it dealt with its own books, it was busy slicing up the health care system. It reorganized the hospital system and fired 5,000 new nurses, not us. I would like the member to respond to that.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's comments. I must say that his definition of compassion and ours on this side of the House are entirely different.

This is a government which makes no apologies for the fact that we have reduced the national debt from 71.5 % of GDP to 44.5%, and going to 40% by 2005, and that we have had six balanced budgets or better.

What areas in which the government showed compassion would he cut? Would it be the investments we made for people who have low incomes, child poverty, or the homeless? Would it be the military, our urban communities, or health care, which is the number one issue of Canadians? In terms of compassion, is that what he would cut?

Clearly, a government must be accountable. When in opposition, one can rattle on and say one would do this, that and the other thing. The bottom line is that we have shown a balanced approach. We have been able to cut taxes and reduce debt. We have been able to invest in key areas of this economy and continue to provide so that Canada today is the envy of the G-7, not the basket case it was viewed as in 1995.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments. I am a little disappointed because the fact is we have made strategic and significant investments in health care, which is what Canadians wanted. We have been able to do it without a deficit. We are the only G-7 state paying off the national debt, down to 44.5%, and spending is at 12%. It was at 16% in the 1990s and it will decrease to below GDP in the next two years.

If we did everything the Canadian Alliance said, we would spend ourselves broke. At the same time, if we cut everyone's taxes, there would be no more revenue coming into the government and therefore we could not invest in the areas that the hon. member has suggested we should do.

The hon. member forgets that we have a $100 billion tax cut in five years, and we are presently in the third year. In the budget we have dealt with the issue of the capital tax, again responding to small business. The hon. member should know that the finances of the nation have never been better.

We go back to 1995 when the New York Times said that we were a basket case. Today we are not. I would like the hon. member to respond to the issue that in June 1995 the New York Times said that we would almost have to go to the IMF because we were in such dire financial straits. Today, we have no debt. We have six balanced budgets or better. We are able to cut personal income taxes and invest in Canadians. Could the member respond to that?

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I was going to say that it is sustainable because it is only 12%. It was 16% in the early 1990s.

Could the member very quickly comment on the budget from an environmental standpoint? I know the member is very strong in this area. How will it help her community in terms of the initiatives for spending targeted for environmental purposes?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I hear a lot from time to time about the issue of spending and debt. The fact is that we are the only G-7 state paying off the national debt. I remember a number of years ago when the official opposition talked about the article in The New York Times that said we were the basket case of the G-7. Now we are the envy of the G-7. We have gone from 71.5% of GDP for the national debt down to 44.5% and we are going down to 40%. It is the lowest it has been since 1984.

We have been able to invest strategically in things that the member is very concerned about, such as health care. The other member was concerned about skills development and we were able to invest significantly in that area. We were able to make prudent investments in families and at that same time balance the books. That is something, and six balanced budgets or better, I defy anyone to suggest that any other government has been able to do that. The fact is that we have been watching the books very carefully.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question in terms of the issue of debt. There was a comment made about the amount of money being spent on the debt. For this year we could be looking obviously at another significant $3 billion or $4 billion. In the hon. member's view we are not going fast enough. What would he suggest we do in order to accelerate spending on the debt, which has already dropped by almost 30% in the last five years?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and appreciate his comments, particularly those on health care. I point out to him that this accord is very important. It is the second major accord that the government has been able to reach with the provinces, the first one being the $23.5 billion in September 2000, and the recent one earlier this month.

The hon. member is absolutely correct when he says that it is the provinces that deliver health care, except for the federal government doing it in areas such as aboriginals and the armed forces. That is absolutely correct. Also, the accountability aspect of the accord is extremely important to Canadians, not to governments but to Canadians. It is very important that they understand. We could get into the numbers game with the 14% and the 40%, and I have all of those figures and would be happy to talk about them, but the real issue is delivery of health care to Canadians. They want to know that they have a health care system they can rely on.

I would like the hon. member to comment, if he would, with regard to the issue of the accountability aspect. Knowing that these transfers are going to go to the provinces and they are going to have to account for these dollars, how will that better improve services in his community?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I pick up on the member's last point with regard to infrastructure. We have in fact delivered a 10 year program with a down payment of $1 billion leveraged with the provinces and municipalities.

The reason the member's suggestion is not a good one is that from past experience I can tell him that when provinces like Ontario get transfers, they tend to squander it. Cities complain in Ontario that the province simply offloads and they do not get the dollars. I will give a good example of that. On the housing initiative, we put money on the table for housing in this country and the province of Ontario did not put a quarter down, not a quarter. It simply had municipalities put in their share instead of coming to the table. We believe in partnership over here and we believe in working effectively.

The hon. member has raised some very important issues on skills and innovation. The government certainly has moved forward on the skills and innovation agenda. We did it all by balancing the books, by not going into deficit and by continuing to reduce the national debt, the only G-7 country to do so, down to 44.5% and below 40% by 2005.

The major issue that Canadians raised was health care. We have delivered in partnership with the provinces and the territories. I ask the hon. member, because that was the most expensive part of this budget, what would he have not done, or done in his case, in terms of not delivering on health care? Where would he have put the priorities?

The priorities seemed to be that health care was number one and continuing to balance the books was number two. We think that is extremely important because we are never going back to a deficit situation again.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer back to an issue that has already been raised in the House and that is the issue of spending. I know my colleague is concerned about good fiscal management.

In 2000-01 spending was 11% of the GDP. In 2003 it will be 12.2%, the lowest since 1950. The reason for the increase is the $34.8 billion for health care, something that people on the other side said we needed to do. We deliver and as soon as we deliver, they are not happy. The budget projects figures will fall under 12% in the next two fiscal years. We are the only G-7 country paying off the national debt. It has gone from 71.5% to 44.5% in 2003. I believe it will go below 40% in 2005.

Could the hon. member comment on what he sees is the government's ability to balance the books, pay for health care and still deliver quality of life to Canadians.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Actually I want to talk about spending, Mr. Speaker. The member unfortunately is totally wrong, but I want to make a comment with regard to the issue of gas tax. It was this government in March 2000 that proposed suspending the GST on gasoline. We wrote to each province. How many provinces responded? One. Because they would not suspend the PST. There is no documentation to show that if we were to suspend it without the provinces doing the same the prices would go down. In fact, New Brunswick is a good example, where they did that for 2% and the oil companies raised the prices.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's comments and I want to first congratulate him on his clarity with regard to the issue of the urban agenda.

It is safe to say that there was no urban agenda until this government came into office in 1993. That is very clear because of the three national infrastructure programs that the government has brought in, in conjunction with the provincial, territorial and municipal governments. The member talked about people who live in the cities, and 80% of people live in urban areas.

The member is from Vancouver. I heard the very positive comments of the mayor of the city of Vancouver in general with regard to the budget, how it would affect poor people and how it would help infrastructure in his community.

Could the member give us some specific examples as to how he sees what I would like to call the cities' budget affecting the quality of life in urban communities such as the city of Vancouver?