Bryon Wilfert

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my friend across the way. He is a former mayor. He and I fought a number of battles together on the issue of infrastructure when we were on the FCM together. I am rather surprised to hear his comments. It is like a pyromaniac giving lessons on fire safety. That party over there of course, we take no lessons from them either.

My friend should remember that in 1983, when the FCM proposed the infrastructure program, his government in 1984 let it lie dormant for nine years. Since this government came in we have had three very successful national infrastructure programs.

The member says that it is not enough. Let us take a look at the facts. First, we have a commitment for the first time in history of a 10 year national infrastructure program. The member forgot to say anything about leveraging provincial and municipal dollars. He also forgot to say that the minister said this was a down payment. I am quite astounded that my friend would make such comments, knowing the struggles we had in the early 1990s when his party was in power and it refused to do anything.

I would like him to comment on leveraging and how, with co-operation and partnership, we will work with the provinces and municipalities to deal with national infrastructure issues.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I know in politics it is better to have a thick skin rather than a thick head, but I would suggest to you that I was quoting what the member opposite said and the other member ought to pay attention to what his colleague was saying. In any event, I would like the member to comment on the facts which deal with spending versus his view that we are spending far too much.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is much that I would like to comment on, but I was surprised to hear one particular comment from the member about the fact that the government spends like drunken sailors. The facts clearly show that is not the case. In 2000-01 spending was 11% of the GDP. Today it is 12.2%, the lowest since 1950. The budget projection figure will fall below 12% over the next two fiscal years.

The hon. member knows that the one blip this year in spending was because of health care. The agreement was for $34.8 billion over five years with $5 billion up front this year. We are no where close to the 1970s, the 1980s or the first half of the 1990s. Program spending amounted to around 15% to 20% during the seventies, eighties and early nineties. Today, it is down sharply. We are at 15.7%. It has not been that low since 1984 and it is predicted again to fall to 15.2% by 2005.

Total spending is down sharply, from 20% to 25%, to 15% of GDP. Those are the facts. To suggest that we are spending like drunken sailors is totally false.

We had massive deficits during the seventies and eighties. We have no deficit in this budget. We have no deficit projected for next year or the year after. If the member is going to talk about spending he should get his facts straight. At the same time the member suggested--

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about provincial jurisdiction. I am somewhat confused as to what she determines as provincial.

On one hand she talks about the Canada graduate scholarships, which is not an intrusion of provincial jurisdiction, certainly not in terms of education because the money goes directly to students.

On the other hand, she says that there is not enough money for infrastructure, which is not true. It is a revelation to me that the Bloc is supportive of the national infrastructure program. For years the Government of Quebec was very negative with regard to the position of the UMQ on the issue of support for municipal infrastructure.

At the same time the member talks about gasoline pricing which is a provincial jurisdiction. In fact, as we all know, in March 2000 the government suggested that we suspend the GST on gasoline for a period of time and only one province bothered to respond. In terms of also suspending the PST, the Province of Quebec was not one of the respondents.

I have pointed out what I think is a clear contradiction in her views with regard to education on the one hand and infrastructure and gasoline on the other hand. I would be interested in her comments.

[Microbreweries, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to look at all forms of taxation. Whether it is personal income taxes or corporate taxes, we are continuing to reduce them.

We have heard representations and in fact we value those representations. We will look again at those comments that have been made, but I suggest to the member that he knows full well we have been in dealings with the microbreweries, and we will continue to do so.

[Disability Tax Credit, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the opposite is true. We have widened the provisions for people in terms of assistance for dietary needs, but there has to be some balance. Individuals will not be eligible for the DTC solely because they are having difficulty finding specific food requirements within their specific area.

The fact is that we have widened it. We have listened to the House and the minister has responded effectively by also listening to the groups involved.

[Disability Tax Credit, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a tremendous record when it comes to working with the disabled community: over $1.9 billion in assistance in total, close to $4 billion in terms of programs.

I suggest that the hon. member should take a look at what the government has been doing. Instead of criticizing the government, she should be congratulating us on the work that has been going on.

[Persons with Disabilities, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has responded in a positive manner. It is not as restrictive as what was originally proposed. The government has set aside $25 million for 2003-04, in addition to $80 million for 2004-05 in terms of tax assistance for persons with disabilities.

We are in the business of providing assistance for people with disabilities, and the member knows that.

[Employment Insurance, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced that there will be a process put in place. The minister has made his intentions very clear.

This member, I hope, will be part of the process and part of the solution, instead of continually getting up and criticizing the fact that we are obviously moving in the right direction, continually going down for 10 years, which I cannot say was the previous government's approach. It was continually going up.

[Employment Insurance, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to again indicate that the minister has announced that premiums for next year will be $1.98, down from $2.10, for the tenth consecutive year in a row.

I also would point out to the member, yes, there will be consultations. The minister has indicated very clearly where he would like to see this go. It is very important. The EI is coming down and it is coming down in the direction that we want to see and that Canadians want to see.