Peter Stoffer

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one of my favourite backbenchers of the Liberal Party is speaking again today. I do appreciate the fact that being a mother of three she has a great concern for this particular subject.

My question is very simple. She admitted that we have to work more. We have to find new solutions to help not only dual income earners but also the single income earner with a family. Why then did her government break its 1993 promise for day care facilities across this country to help those people who are in poverty and in tight situations? Why did her government break the day care promise which was the red book platform?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley for his comments. Being from B.C. at one time, I have travelled through his riding quite extensively. It is a beautiful spot in Canada.

One thing he keeps mentioning, and I have heard it on several occasions, is that a person who stays at home has made a terrific sacrifice. On an economic level, he is correct. When my wife and I made the decision to have children and to have one of us stay at home, we never considered that a sacrifice in terms of the economy, we considered it an investment in the raising of our children.

I thank the Reform Party for bringing the motion forward today. I can stand here quite proudly and say that I wholeheartedly support it.

We know the Liberals discriminate when it comes to pay equity for their own workers. We know they discriminate when it comes to regional rates of pay. Why does he think it is any different to discriminate on a tax basis?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement. One of my favourite pastimes is ripping into the Liberal government. Although I have some personal friends on the other side and I respect a lot of them greatly, fact is fact.

The member is absolutely correct. When it comes to health care spending, the $11.5 billion over five years, they did not take into account inflation or the fact that we have an aging population. They certainly did not take into account the needs of rural Canada when it came to the budget.

When they talk about the major urban centres and the health care crisis of downtown Toronto, Montreal, Halifax or Vancouver, they certainly forget areas like Medicine Hat, Sheet Harbour, Whitehorse, Yellowknife, et cetera. The government should not be very pleased with what it has been doing to rural health care.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. He knows very well that the provinces claw back some of that money. He knows darn well that is exactly what happens. He is shaking his head but those are the facts. Francine Cosman, community services minister of the Liberal Nova Scotia government, stated quite clearly that it claws back some of that money. That is exactly what it does.

They are very proud of the national child benefit. I admit it was a good first start to helping low income families but it is nowhere near enough. If that money went directly to the families and not through the provinces, it would have a much greater effect.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

I am glad to see the debate livened up a bit. That is the way it should be. The government has completely ignored the future of our nation.

I will quote for everyone an article which is hot off the press, from Internet. Statistics Canada released information on family incomes today. This is dated March 3 at 4.40 this afternoon. It supports the old saying about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Between 1970 and 1995 average family incomes in Canada rose by 32% but that affected only the richest 30% of families. For the rest there was a slight decline. Hardest hit are families with a single female parent. Such families have almost doubled in the past 25 years and about 40% of them are in the bottom 10% of income earners.

This information is from Statistics Canada. I took it off Internet about an hour and a half ago. Those people are seriously affected by what is not in the budget. The federal government can talk about the budget benefiting its friends like John Cleghorn and Al Flood, but the fact is that it does absolutely nothing for single parent families and working people. It is a sin.

The hon. member for Palliser did not get the opportunity to mention the fact that family farmers across the country are devastated and hurt terribly by what the budget has done. There is a lack of commitment by the government to help them in their time of need.

The European Economic Community came up with $60 billion and the United States came up with $7 billion in aid for their farmers. What does our government do? It hems and haws. It even comes to the point where it denies its promise of a few months ago and reduces it by almost $300 million. It is an absolute disgrace.

I would like government members to speak to Mr. Ray Martin of Flin Flon, Manitoba; Carol Ferguson of Louisbourg; and Alex Handyside of Porters Lake. Government members are bragging; they are proud of the budget. I can give them phone numbers so they can call these people and tell them how proud they are of the budget. These are only three people from across the country who have called me to say that they are very disgusted with the budget and very disappointed in the federal government.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

I love the heckling. I have got them going. This is great.

In my riding there are 14 small business operators on my street alone. Every one of them complain about the underground economy because of the GST and HST rules. The GST-HST was shoved down the throats of Atlantic Canadians. It ended up that the underground economy grew to over $4 billion in the country. It is an utter disgrace that competent, well meaning and honest small businesses have to compete with the underground economy. The government did not address that problem in the budget.

One of the greatest concerns of our country—it is a national disgrace—is what we are doing to hepatitis C victims. I know Joey Haché is watching us right now and wants to know why the government completely ignored the constant concerns of hepatitis C victims. The government ignored those people just like it ignored the fishermen on the east and west coasts and in our inland provinces, just like it will ignore the miners of Cape Breton, just like it ignored the miners of Kamloops and just like it will let go the Volvo workers, the garment workers, the Bell workers and everyone else.

It is absolute disgrace. The government sits here and I noticed that not one member of the Liberal Party stood and spoke off the cuff. They all had to read prepared speeches, obviously done by bureaucrats in the finance department. They sound like a broken record.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, for whom I have great respect, for pointing that out. The fact is I would like him to mention in future debates what the budget does for our beloved merchant marines who sacrificed so much and to whom the government gives so little.

It is unbelievable. The government talks about job creation. What about the garment workers of Levi Strauss who just realized they will be losing their jobs in Cornwall? What about the Volvo workers of Halifax who have lost their jobs? What about the thousands and thousands of fishermen and plant workers from coast to coast to coast who have lost their jobs? What about the Boeing workers in Toronto who in November will be losing their jobs? What about the 2,400 Bell Canada operators who will losing their jobs?

There was not a single mention from the Liberals about those workers. All they talk about is tax breaks and health care concerns. I admit putting $2.5 billion back into health care is a good first step. The fact is that spread over five years it will only match 1995 levels by 2003. It is an absolute disgrace.

Tommy Douglas, J. S. Woodsworth and all those beautiful New Democrats of before stood up and fought for health care. They were Saskatchewan's gift to Canada. My hon. friend from Palliser is absolutely correct. The premise of health care was 50% in dollars from the federal government and 50% in dollars from the provincial governments. After five years the government even admits that the grand percentage will be around 13% to 15% of federal contributions. It is no wonder that we are going to a two tier system.

An incredible amount of small business absolutely despises the budget. If members do not believe me, they can listen to Catherine Swift. I may not be a great fan of Catherine Swift but she is right.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, every time it snows outside this beautiful hallowed hall we call the House of Commons, the Liberal government gives us a snow job on the budget which we are discussing right now. It just goes on and on.

I would first like to talk about the hallowed budget surplus. The facts are the facts. Seven billion dollars has been taken out of the pockets of employers and employees in this country.

My question, which I have asked time and time again, is: Where is the money? We have heard from the minister of human resources that the money has already been spent on other programs. This government has no right to that money. It belongs to employers and employees. That is the first fact.

If the Liberals really wanted to do something about tax reduction, which all Canadians would like to see, why did they not do the simplest thing, which would have benefited the majority of Canadians, and reduce the GST, even by 1%? That would have put money in many people's pockets and it would have put money back where it belongs, into the economy and job creation.

It is unbelievable that the government could do this while food bank usage is on the rise, while the environment of our nation is being “degregated” at a rapid rate and while public service workers are not getting the equity and equality they deserve.

This government turned around in its recent budget and gave John Cleghorn of the Royal Bank and Al Flood of the CIBC a $32,000 tax break. That is what they will get for 1999-2000. Yet the chairman of the committee for SCONDVA and the vice-chair were both in here a moment ago bragging about how great this budget was for defence. The fact is that there was not one single word about compensation benefits for the merchant marines.

I would like these two to come back to the House and tell Ossie MacLean, in public, exactly what this budget does for them. It does absolutely nothing.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listen intently every time the member from Gaspé speaks of the perils of fishermen and plant workers and the crisis in our fishing industry.

What do he and his constituents think of a government that writes a letter in 1994 promising income support until May 1999 and then a year before this literally rips up that contract with thousands of fishermen and plant workers and say here is the new deal, completely destroying their hope and faith in the Canadian federal government system?