Bryon Wilfert

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Again, Madam Speaker, maybe the member should have sat down and not asked the question, because I am not sure what the question was. The reality is that we continue to reduce EI premiums. Every year they are being reduced. Every year money is going back to employers and employees. I will say it again: $860 million in the latest reduction.

If my colleagues on the other side have a concrete proposal that they can provide and would like us to evaluate, they should do so. Instead, all we hear is negativity. We do not hear any constructive suggestions on how they would reach that. They can say they want to reduce it by 50¢ or 40¢ and they can say this and that, but again, it is about how. How would they do that?

Again, the reality is that we have demonstrated this. We have eliminated deficit. We have reduced EI premiums every year. We continue to support health care in this country. We continue to do the types of things that Canadians want. Until this government came in, we were not seeing that. In fact, we were seeing a reversal. We were seeing a larger deficit. We were seeing larger EI premiums. But again we do not get any thanks from the other side, because of course the other side says, “Just let us do it. We can do it better. We can do it faster. We can do it more effectively”. In fact, the reality is that we are doing it. We are not just talking about it. We are actually acting.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member can make sarcastic comments but I will not lower myself to such negativity.

I would point out that we have said this over and over again and the facts prove it, there was no billion dollar boondoggle. I would be surprised if they could find the word in the dictionary. In any event, no billion dollars were lost. He knows that but he continues to propagate the myth.

We are the government that released the audit and we are the ones who said that we would have the Auditor General report to committee four times a year on HRDC. This was at the same time that issue was being debated in the House. Members were scurrying across here asking the Minister of HRDC if she could prove this or prove that but at the same time they were denouncing publicly a program that they wanted.

The reality is that there were no billion dollars lost. They know that. Everyone on this side of the House knows that. The facts prove it and, quite frankly, it is a bit tiring listening to that nonsense.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, one of the members yelled out that this information was incorrect. I am saying it nicely. The reality is that those are the facts. I know we are not allowed to use props but I have the listing of those reductions. The reality is that these are the facts.

It is funny that some people are entitled to an opinion but apparently we on this side are not entitled to give answers because those on the other side have all the answers.

What I said about the provinces apparently offended one of the members across the way. The member should check the record. The provinces have the same ability to tax as we do. They made decisions and we made decisions. We stand by our decisions and they can stand by theirs. We did not cut health care. We do not deliver health care. The provinces deliver health care.

Last year the government of Ontario announced $1.2 billion in funding for health care and $1.1 billion came from the federal government. The province happened to conveniently leave that out.

In terms of the government's commitment to health care that we made in September 2000, we make no apologies for that. We make no apologies at all as the provinces agreed to that at the time. Absolutely not.

The Minister of Finance stood in the House and talked about the reduction, talked about the savings of $160 million to employers and employees. That is not a trifle.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I was not going to enter this debate but since the member has raised a number of issues I thought I would set the record straight.

The government has been in the business of reducing EI rates ever since it came into office. The EI commission set the premium rates from 1998 to 2001, not the government. The commission is made up of representatives from labour, business and the government. It follows the criteria set out in the Employment Insurance Act in setting these rates.

Analysis done by the chief actuary at the time did not suggest that the rate could be lowered to anywhere close to the rate being suggested. Furthermore I would point out that had it been lowered to the amount suggested the federal government would have recorded a deficit in 1998 and 1999.

This is the same group across the way which talks about not getting into deficit spending. We cannot have our cake and eat it to. Either we are not going to go into deficit which the government has pledged not to do, or we are.

With the possibility of a deficit again in 1999 and 2000 it would not have been able to implement in October 2000 the $100 billion tax reduction plan or provide incremental funding to the provinces for health care in September 2000.

On the one hand if we took the advice of our friends across the way there would have been no personal income tax reductions which our friends claim they support. In fact they would like us to go further. Our friends across the way suggest to us that in fact we should do more for health care and help the provinces deliver health services. Yet at the same time they apparently are able to do all of these things magically that no one else can do. It is not possible, not even by the arithmetic suggested by the Canadian Alliance.

Prior to 2002 the government did not set the rates. That was the responsibility of the employment insurance commission. It set the rates according to the criteria set out in the Employment Insurance Act at a rate to be set at the level which would be appropriate. In doing so what did the commission have to do? It had to look at two things: first, ensure that there would be enough revenue over a business cycle to pay the amount authorized to be charged to the EI account , second, and maintain relatively stable rate levels through the business cycle.

Each year the commission received the chief actuary's annual report on EI premiums. The commissioners reach a consensus on the premiums each and every year. This resulted in the rate being lowered. In fact it has been lowered every year since 1994. The legislation passed by the House in 2001 gave the government the authority to set the rate for 2002 and as we know the rate was lowered again. The minister announced a further reduction.

We have said, and the record proves it, that we want the EI rate to be brought down over time to a point where it just covers the cost of the program. However we are not going to be irresponsible and go into a deficit, again something that the members across the way would be the first to holler about if we did.

The member should know that the employment insurance account is not an account containing cash. It is an accounting device used in setting the premium rate. The EI account has been consolidated with the books since 1986, on the advice of who? The Auditor General. Therefore any annual surplus or deficit in the EI account affects the government's bottom line in the year, but the cumulative surplus is simply a bookkeeping entry that adds up to these annual amounts.

Maybe the member has missed this and I should mention this for his edification. In 1990 the employment premium was $2.25 and the annual surplus was $.9 billion. The account balance was $2.2 billion. In 1991 it went from $2.25 to $2.80. Then we had a $4.2 billion deficit.

In 1992 it went to $3.00. Members will notice that it was going up. Then we had an annual deficit of $2.6 billion. In 1993 it was $3.00 again, a $1.2 billion deficit.

In 1994 we started to see a decline, as I said. Eventually what happened was that in 1996 it went to $2.95, then to $2.90 in 1997, then to $2.70. In other words, it was continually going down. It went down to $2.25 in 1998 and in 2000 it went to $2.40. It was $2.25 in 2001 and $2.20 in 2002. As we know, the Minister of Finance announced in the House that it is now at $2.10.

Clearly there has been a downward approach. Again, we have indicated very strongly that we believe this is the continued approach we want to take but that we want to take it in a fiscally responsible manner, which I think is very important to all members of the House, whatever side they happen to be on.

The issue before the House is the member's suggestion that somehow we can do all these things at the same time and be able to balance the books. I have clearly demonstrated the intent of the government. I have indicated what we have been able to do and how we are committed to reductions in that regard. I think that is very important in terms of looking at this particular issue.

I do not think there is any question that we all agree the rates need to come down and that is why we have been committed to doing so. It is not, however, appropriate, in my view, to make some wide-eyed suggestion that we can suddenly reduce it by 50¢ or 60¢ and not look at the repercussions on the finances of the nation.

At the same time, we are dealing with reports, including the Romanow report. We are going to be committed to looking at the issue of health care funding and, at the same time, committed to reducing personal income taxes, which again I know my friend across the way has, with all due respect, supported on a continual basis.

Harry Houdini passed away many years ago. He is not alive and well here. We are not able to do the impossible. What we are able to do is to be fiscally responsible, to make sure that we deal with the corporate tax issue. As we know, corporate taxes by 2006 will be five percentage points lower than in the United States at the present rate. As we know, the $100 billion tax cut continues, again committed to by the minister and the government.

I would suggest that the issue before the House is whether the government is taking a responsible approach in reducing EI premiums. The answer clearly is yes. Every year it has continued to go down and every year the rate has been set. The new rate this year alone will save employers and employees $860 million. That is not exactly a small amount. I think that is important for us as members of Parliament to take note of.

If my friends on the other side wanted to criticize us, they could have criticized us if we had not been reducing the rates but we have reduced them in a responsible manner. We have indicated that we are interested in moving to the point where we will be able to reach an appropriate level but that in order to do so we have to do it in a responsible manner. I have not heard anyone complain about the fact that we have been reducing them.

Some may say the pace is not as fast as they would like, but the reality is that we on this side of the House are charged with governing and we are going to govern in a responsible manner. We are going to make sure that when the EI rate is reduced it will be reduced to cover the cost of the programs, and we are going to do that effectively.

All the cheap shots that I keep hearing from across the way do not add up to the fact that we are still responsible for making sure that we do it in a responsible manner.

Maybe I should get my friend across the way a new calculator because the reality is that we cannot do what has been suggested. We cannot do it unless we go back into a deficit and we on this side of the House will not use that word. We are not prepared to do that. I have very clearly outlined the position of the government.

I certainly am prepared to go further but I think my colleagues across the way, if they ponder and review the comments that I made, will realize that we have moved, I think, quite significantly. When we talk about a rate that was $3.00, we are now down and continually going down in a responsible manner from when we came into office, I would suggest that is good governance. I would suggest that is showing responsibility, and doing so, as I said in the past, in a very fiscally responsible manner.

The issue that the member has raised realizes that we are continually reviewing all expenditures. Our colleagues across the way have made some comments about some issues that are in fact figments of their imagination.

I hear them talk about the HRDC issue, which is absolute nonsense. They know that a billion dollars was not lost but they continue to fabricate and promote a myth. That is rather irresponsible on the HRDC issue, and they know that. Some of the members who were on that committee should know better. If they do not, they should have a discussion with their colleagues who were on the committee at the time.

In any event, we are committed to making sure that we govern in a responsible manner. We made sure that the elimination of the $42.5 billion deficit was supported by Canadians. It was done with the support of people across this country. People said that it could not be done but it was done.

The opposition sometimes, particularly some in the Alliance, will suggest to us that the provinces suffered. The provinces have the same access to taxation authority that the federal government has. Governing is about making choices. If their choices were making tax cuts first while they had a deficit and not spending money on health care but tax reduction, then that was their choice, certainly not our choice.

We took a more fiscally responsible approach and said that we would eliminate the deficit first and then we would deal with tax cuts. We did that.

As I say, I have no fault with the provinces. If the Ontario government wanted to cut taxes while at the same time complaining that it needed more money for health care, more money for education or more money for this, that was its decision. It, through its legislature, was responsible to the people of Ontario.The important point here is that in terms of the transfers, we made sure that we did it appropriately.

I find it unbelievable that side of the House would suggest for one minute that somehow we should do all these things and at the same time be able to slice the EI rates by 50¢ or 60¢.

The reality is that it is about choices, and as I said, the provinces have the same ability as we do.

I know they will be after us and saying that we have to be--Madam Speaker, I think there is another conversation going on.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the pre-budget discussions.

Budgets are about choices, about making decisions that will affect the lives of Canadians across the country. Over the last nine years Canada has seen a remarkable change in the turnaround of its economy.

The sound fiscal management and prudent economic policies of the government over the last nine years have led us to a point today where we are the envy of the G-7. I point out that this has come about because of the support and sacrifices of Canadians. Canadians have made sacrifices in order to make sure that the economy grows and that we have the kind of prosperity that we all enjoy.

There was no question that when we took office we inherited a $42.5 billion deficit, so getting the finances of the nation in order was the top priority of the government. As I said, when we are dealing with the development of budgets there are tough choices that we have to make. The government made some tough choices in the mid-1990s.

With the support of Canadians we were able to eliminate the $42.5 billion deficit. I know that this is good news and I know some of my friends on the other side are not used to hearing good news which is why they keep yelling.

However there is no question that Canada has recorded five consecutive balanced budgets or better. That has not happened in this country for 50 years. That in itself is a remarkable achievement.

We have paid down more than $46 billion of the national debt. Our debt to GDP ratio has dropped from 71% in 1995-96 to 49%. That again is the largest debt to GDP ratio of any G-7 country. I would compare that with Japan, which has been going up, and is now up over 130% of GDP. We are obviously, as a government and as a country, doing the right things.

The government's fiscal policies have been prudent and they have demonstrated a clear and unwavering commitment to make sure that we do not go back into a deficit. There is no one on this side of the House that wants to see us go back into a deficit. The last short term deficit we had lasted 24 years. Therefore there is no such thing as short term deficits. The days of deficit spending are behind us.

Canadians want us to continue with balanced budgets. They want us to continue with debt reduction and they want us to invest in key sectors of the economy, including health care, children, families and our environment.

The basic facts are that the second quarter growth in 2002 was 4.3%, annualized rate after a 6.2% growth in the first quarter. It was very significant.

The IMF and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development both predict that Canada will lead the G-7 this year and next year in terms of economic growth.

Employment for the month of November rose by 42,000, bringing job gains to over 502,000 for the year, an increase of 3.3% in manufacturing employment, 33,000 new full time jobs in November. Real GDP grew at a slower rate but it was still a healthy 3.1%.

Exports and residential investments picked up strength and business continued to invest in machinery and equipment. Compare that situation to other G-7 countries and south of the border. In the first three quarters of 2002, the Canadian economy grew at an average rate of 4.4%. It was a full percentage point above the United States.

If my colleagues across the way would listen for a bit they might learn that the economy and the government have ensured we have been on the right road. We are ensuring we have a balanced approach in terms of responding to the needs of Canadians.

I mentioned the OECD and I would like to make a comment here. The OECD expects that Canadian real GDP growth would be about 3.1% for next year. It is positive about Canada's economic growth and notes that the Canadian economy is doing extremely well to date. The OECD predicts that Canadian growth would rank number 1 in the G-7 in both 2002 and 2003; not number 7, not number 10, but number 1. I know this is too much good news for some of my colleagues across the way, but these are the facts.

This reflects sound economic policies and I am sure my colleague here would agree that it is those kinds of policies that are sending out the right signals to Canadians.

We must look at the economy and realize that the support we have received across the country from Canadians has made possible the economic gains that we enjoy today. The government brought in a $100 billion tax cut, the largest tax cut in Canadian history. This year alone $20 billion of that cut was put into the system. That means more money in the pockets of Canadians. That means more opportunities for Canadians to invest, to spend, and to use for their families. It is important that the government has taken that initiative.

I am sure my colleagues would all agree that putting money back into people's pockets has resulted in more consumer confidence. As we are into the Christmas season we see people showing that confidence by spending and investing. That is really very important.

Governing is about choices. As we move toward the 2003 budget we must make some decisions as to what kind of Canada we want to see in the future, in terms of where we want to invest our priorities. I mentioned that one major area was health care.

The Prime Minister and the premiers had an historic agreement back in September 2000. An additional $21.5 billion was pumped into the system over five years. Although the federal government is responsible for the five principles of medicare it is not the deliverer of health care services. That is up to the provinces.

Recently we have had the Kirby report and the Romanow commission. Those are two important documents in evaluating the direction of where we will go in terms of ensuring that health care services remain number one. It is what has identified us as a nation compared to the United States, where 44 million Americans have no form of health care insurance of any kind, and where over 12 million poor American children have no coverage. In this country we do not ask for Visa, we ask for a health care card. That is important.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that, at his upcoming meeting with the premiers at the end of January or early February, we will sit down and deal effectively and responsibly with the issue of health care. We will be there to do our share, along with our provincial partners. Investing in health care is extremely important and the government is committed to it. These investments cost money and we will ensure we do so in a fiscally responsible manner, not going back into a deficit.

It is too bad that some of my colleagues across the way had not listened earlier about fiscal management. They would have learned how positive the economy has been and how the government has managed very effectively the finances of the nation.

I will not go into Kyoto because there is enough hot air across the way, but I would point out that the environment is another important area. Canada has again stepped up to the plate rather than sitting back. We are doing our part in the area of the environment. That will require support and another choice that we must make.

Members in opposition can, on the same day, call for billions of dollars of spending cuts while at the same time call for billions of dollars of expenditures, because they do not have to account for a dime. That is one of the problems. On any given day in the House I often hear some hon. members across the way calling for us to spend and at the same time saying that we need to reduce in an area. That is certainly a role that the opposition has, but on this side of the House we want to ensure that we continue the strong performance that has made this country number one in terms of economic growth.

Other areas of investment would include the military. Over the last three budgets $7.6 billion has been added. Defending Canada's sovereignty and ensuring that our troops have state of the art equipment is important and that is why there have been increasing investments, over the last three years in particular, in national defence.

One of the most important initiatives of the government over the last nine years has been the investment in our cities through the national infrastructure program. This is a program that languished for 10 years under the Tories and that the Alliance did not support. However the government, in collaboration with our cities and provincial partners, developed a strong national infrastructure program investing in sewers and water, and ensuring that we had roads and bridges. Transportation is very important.

In 1983, when the national infrastructure program was proposed, we had a $17 billion deficit in infrastructure. Today there is over $40 billion and that is why we have been responding now. Had the previous government responded when it was originally proposed, we would have been able to reduce that even faster. This has been one of the most effective and important programs, particularly for communities across the country, whether they are in Alberta, Ontario or Nova Scotia.

In the Speech from the Throne the government committed to another 10 year national infrastructure program. Why? Because it would help our communities plan effectively for investments in the infrastructure field, which is important to the quality of life for Canadians, whether they live in rural or urban areas.

I would point out that we have the strategic infrastructure fund, which is also important in terms of ensuring that we look at investing in major projects in this country. There are spinoff effects in ensuring we are putting people to work and that businesses are able to grow because of those important investments.

I know this is a lot of good news that some of my colleagues across the way find difficult, but again the facts speak for themselves.

One of the areas that I wanted to mention which is important is research and development. Canadians have been asking that we pay more attention to research and development and we have responded. Investing in research and development, ensuring that Canadian ideas and know-how are developed in this country, is extremely important. It is important to our universities, businesses and communities. It is also important for young people to know that as they go through the educational system there would be opportunities in the research and development field. Many of them would be able to do that. In fact we have committed over $4.5 billion, the highest level ever in terms of R and D development. Our priority is to ensure that we respond to the needs of Canadians.

Nearly $3.5 billion since 1997 was put in the Canada Foundation for Innovation and Genome Canada. This is extremely important because it is helping to put in world class equipment for research. The chairs of excellence across the country, CIHR, are strategic investments which make opportunities for Canadians. That is a very important commitment.

The government, in a balanced approach in terms of tax reductions and strategic investment, has demonstrated that it is a world leader. We have been attracting not only the best and the brightest to stay in the country, but attracting people from overseas to come here.

Hon. members should not take my word for it. They should look at the University of Toronto and what the president of the University of Toronto has said in terms of the research dollars that have meant so much to that university in the fields of science and medicine. It is important to the government and to Canadians that we continue to respond effectively in those areas.

The budget is about choices. We will be faced with the fact that we will have all of these issues on the table. A responsible government will have to ensure that we prioritize. I can tell hon. members, having been involved in the prebudget consultations both here in Ottawa and across the country, that there have been more than 400 presentations by people who are commenting about what they would like to see in the budget. Because of this debate, we will also be able to hear what our colleagues on both sides of the House would like to see in the budget.

The watchword is no deficit. It is important not to go back into a deficit. My colleagues on this side of the House support that. I am sure my colleagues across the way believe in a responsible approach and that whatever we decide to do, deficits are off the table.

In terms of the debate we will be conscious of the fact that as we move forward, health care, environment and investing in families are key issues. Continuing the personal and corporate tax cuts that we have been implementing is important. In fact, corporate taxes would be down to five points lower than the United States by 2006.

The good news is that a lot has been done and accomplished, but there is much more to do. That is why we would never break the confidence of Canadians by ensuring that we again respond effectively and appropriately in terms of the upcoming budget and obviously future budgets.

I would like to conclude by saying that on this side of the House we have received a lot of input. I have heard from my colleagues and I know that they are reflecting the issues in their communities. Whether it be Winnipeg or Peterborough, we have listened and we will respond. We are ensuring that cities like Toronto are able to continue to be the economic engines of this country and that rural communities, whether they be in British Columbia or Alberta, again have the economic tools. The role of government is to create the economic environment so that people would invest and businesses could grow. That is what has been the watchword of the government.

I remind all members that we must not forget the social deficit in Canada. We must continue to invest in the lives of Canadians and Canadian families. One of the most important initiatives that the government has taken in the social policy field was the child tax credit. The initiative of this particular government has meant so much to so many Canadian families.

I look forward to the debate and the comments on both side. As we move forward, I trust we will keep in mind that we will continue a balanced approach, no deficit, and that we will continue to invest strategically in terms of tax reductions, R and D and ensure that the quality of life of Canadians remains very high. We will continue to look at organizations like the OECD and the G-7 and say that Canada has moved right to the top and that it will stay at the top because of the commitment of the government and working Canadians.

[Question No. 39, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Revenue from the charge is reported monthly in The Fiscal Monitor published by the Department of Finance. Revenue for the first four months of operation, April through July 2002,totals roughly $122 million, composed of monthly remittances of $20 million, $28 million, $34 million and $36 million, plus an estimated $1 million per month from the GST/HST. Based on collections to date, ongoing full year revenue from the charge, including applicable GST, is estimated to be in the range of $400 million to $420 million per year.

The total cost of the enhanced air travel security system is expected to be $2.2 billion through 2006-07. Budget 2001 provided that revenue from the charge would be maintained in line with expected expenditures on the enhanced air travel security system through 2006-07. The government is committed to reviewing the charge over time to ensure that revenue remains in line with the costs of enhanced security.

The government has begun the process of reviewing the charge. The government has indicated that if revenue is projected to exceed planned expenditures through 2006-07, the charge will be reduced.

Under the government’s current five year forecast, which is based on ATSC collections and air traffic data observed to date, revenue from the charge is not expected to exceed the cost of enhanced air security as set out in budget 2001. As such, there is little scope for reducing the charge at the present time. However, the government’s change to accrual accounting, possibly as early as budget 2003, could provide an opportunity for reducing the charge. Under accrual accounting, the costs to be recovered from the charge through 2006-07 may be lower than those set out in budget 2001.

[Airline Industry, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is listening to the industry. In fact, the minister has indicated that until the end of this month he is taking representations on this particular issue. He will report back at an appropriate time. We are looking at all of the information.

It is a concern, particularly to the members on this side of the House. We have addressed the issue in the past. We have said that we will make sure that it is in the best interests of Canadians.

First and foremost, however, public security while travelling on aircraft is very important to the government.

[Job Creation, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first let me point out that the unemployment rate for this month is down to 7.5%. Most of the 42,000 new jobs are in the manufacturing sector.

The total for the year, and I will say this very slowly, is 502,000 new jobs, of which almost 100,000 were created among young Canadians. What is important is that this shows that the prudent policies of the government have created the economic climate for this type of job growth.

[Finance, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are not making it easy. First, it is a Criminal Code offence and it will be dealt with. If someone steals something, whether it is from a bank or a store, the same principle applies under the Criminal Code.

Sometimes in the House props might be useful, in this case to draw the member a picture: Criminal Code, people steal, they get prosecuted and go to court, and we will deal with it.

[Finance, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if someone is defrauding the banks' customers from ATM machines, he or she is subject to prosecution by the law. Obviously they will go to court and they will be dealt with.

Now if there is in fact a widespread problem in this particular industry, it will be reviewed by the government and appropriate actions would be taken.