Wayne Easter

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member started by saying that it was a relationship of physics. I was wondering where he was going in terms of his physics lesson in the beginning.

In terms of the three last points he made including the feed freight assistance program, yes, they were cut in the previous budgets, but the fact is that we paid funds to compensate producers. Now they have been able to build some additional industries because of the money we put into those areas including his home province of Quebec.

The dairy subsidy is one of the benefits, and he knows it, of the supply management system in Canada. When that subsidy was dropped over a period of time, farmers were still able to get a return on their cost of production plus a fair return on their labour investment. He should look at the number of dairy producers in his home province of Quebec that benefit from that kind of scheme.

In terms of his point on research, the fact is that with our matching initiatives we have been able to considerably increase the funding going into research.

If the member would have held meetings in his home province in terms of how much Canada as a nation was transferring to Quebec, he might have seen some better discussions in terms of those meetings.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora.

I am most pleased to participate in this debate on this budget. My seatmate, the member for Vancouver Quadra, in his response put it quite appropriately when he said and I quote “On the budget it is a defining moment in our history”. It is indeed a defining moment in our history.

After almost three decades of deficit financing that clearly handcuffed our ability to govern in the interests of communities, people and the nation as a whole, we now have a balanced budget and have greater flexibility in making decisions in the future.

I heard the remarks of the members for Vancouver Island North and West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast earlier. They talked about their concerns about dredging and some other concerns they had in fisheries and oceans. I would agree. There are concerns in that area. Now that we are in a position that we are able to balance the budget, I would hope that they would be onside in terms of spending in some of those areas instead of giving tax deductions to the wealthy.

Gaining this position has not been easy. The last four budgets from a personal point of view have not been easy, especially in the region where I come from, Atlantic Canada and in rural areas. In getting to the position of balancing the budget, rural Canadians have had to share a greater part of the burden than people in other areas.

Now we have accomplished our goal. We have a foundation which we can build on in the future. I have been accused of a lot of things. On this, I will clearly say that it is good to see a real Liberal budget again.

I quote from Giles Gherson of the Ottawa Citizen on February 25. He said:

How better to define Liberalism for the 1990s than closing the widening income gap between rich and poor by giving the country's poorest people not just a tax cut, but help to get the training needed for high-skilled, high-paying jobs of the new knowledge economy.

What he clearly says in that statement is the direction that we have gone in this budget. We have balanced the budget. We have targeted more to the low income people. It has been called an education budget in terms of looking at the future. It goes in a very different direction than members opposite seem to want to go with greater and greater tax relief for the wealthy instead of looking at all the people of this great country.

In the general sense, this budget is an education budget with its emphasis on youth, education and training and a lot of initiatives. I just want to list a few: financial assistance to students through the Canada millennium scholarship foundation and the Canada study grants; support for advanced research and graduate students through several granting councils; helping to manage student debt loads through tax relief for interest on student loans and improvements to the Canada student loans program; helping Canadians to upgrade their skills through tax free RRSP withdrawals for lifelong learning and tax relief for part time students; encouraging families to save for education through a Canada education savings grant; supporting youth employment through EI premium holiday for youth employment and youth at risk; and, connecting Canadians to information and knowledge through the SchoolNet and community access programs.

Those are measures targeted at the people of tomorrow, the people who are going to build this country into the future. That is the kind of forward-looking budget and forward-leaning government that this government on this side of the House is. Such measures show foresight and are indeed building for the future.

In my province of Prince Edward Island the increase in the cash floor of the CHST from $11 billion to $12.5 billion is extremely important. I know others have argued that it is not enough. It is never enough, but the fact that we are increasing the cash portion of the transfer means a lot more to Prince Edward Island than to some of the other provinces. Because of our smaller population base, just transferring tax points to Prince Edward Island as we have traditionally done would not be as important to us as is the transferring of the cash itself. That is extremely important to the health care issue in the province of Prince Edward Island.

One member opposite said there was no tax relief in this budget. He is clearly wrong. I believe there is $7 billion of tax relief over the next three years to those who need it most. That is the difference between Liberals and Reformers. We are targeting it to those people who need it the most, not those who need it the least.

The number of taxpayers in Prince Edward Island who are going to benefit from tax relief will be about 70,000 people; that is 97.2% of taxpayers in Prince Edward Island who will benefit from the tax relief measures outlined in this budget. That is good news.

I should make some other points on tax relief in part because of members opposite who are trying to leave the illusion that there is no tax relief. There is an additional $850 million to the child tax benefit program. The child care expense deduction will go from $5,000 to $7,000 for children under the age of seven. There is the new caregiver credit. There is the Canadian opportunities strategy. I do not want to take a lot of time on this but the list goes on and on.

What about rural areas? I do not mind putting on the record that I still have a grave concern about cost recovery and where it is going to lead in the long term. I would hope that in future budgets and in future government initiatives that we can move to reduce the cost recovery measures. I am concerned that cost recovery over the long term can kill the very economy that we are depending on for growth with the cost recovery fees, in particular in agriculture and fisheries.

I put out a caution that I would have liked to have seen more done in this budget, especially in the area of cost recovery.

In terms of the budget working for rural Canada, we ought to recognize that many of Canada's most important industries, such as agriculture, energy, mining, forestry and fishing, are based in the rural communities.

These primary industries account for almost half of Canada's exports. Canada's improved financial situation helps to keep interest rates low, encouraging small businesses, farmers, fishermen and others to invest in rural areas. That is one thing that certainly a balanced budget will help us with.

The group that will benefit most from the 1998 budget initiative to allow self-employed Canadians to deduct the cost of health and dental insurance premiums is rural Canada. That is a very important initiative, especially for the farming community.

The 1998 budget confirms the four year, $20 million Canadian rural partnership initiative. This initiative will support innovative programs to help rural Canadians find community solutions to challenges such as maintaining good soil and water and charting a successful course in a rapidly changing global economy.

In conclusion, the budget has foresight. It is balanced and it is leaning and looking toward building for the future in both rural Canada and especially among our young people.

[Fisheries, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, safety is a primary concern to the Canadian coast guard.

The initiative my hon. colleague talks about is about saving lives. Current research indicates that many people when they are in the water and boating do not wear PFDs because of their bulkiness. The new devices will differ from current devices in that they are lighter and more comfortable to wear and it is assumed people will use them.

[Division No. 96, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I wonder where this member has been for the last while. On February 23 I answered this very same question for the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

In any event the resignation of Mr. Yves Fortier as Canada's chief negotiator in Pacific salmon is a matter that we on this side admit is of great regret.

Since 1993 he has worked tirelessly to achieve an agreement with the United States to implement fully the provisions of the Pacific salmon treaty. His negotiating skills, as the member has mentioned and I agree with him on this point, and his dedication to the task have earned him admiration and the respect of ministers, government officials and, most important, Canadian fishermen.

Given the high regard in which Mr. Fortier is held, he is being done a disservice by those who have attempted to use out of context excerpts from his letter of resignation and put a negative spin on his views.

Mr. Fortier's letter to Ministers Axworthy and Anderson describes his experience as chief negotiator over the past five years. He assesses the current situation and he provides advice on the direction we should go. All Canadians share his frustrations on this point.

Mr. Fortier explains why an agreement was not attainable. Primarily it was the reluctance of the United States federal administration to insist that the United States regional interests honour obligations toward Canada under the treaty. This point comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed this file over the past five years.

Mr. Fortier's letter cautions that meaningful change in the United States negotiating position is unlikely. This remains to be seen, but no Canadian is under the illusion that we cannot achieve a negotiated—

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, transfer payments and equalization account for 40% of the budgets of the Atlantic provinces. That is pretty good.

Not only has the member a selective memory, but he is also subject to illusion when he talks about the Nova Scotia election.

I have a simple question. The budget the member talks about in terms of reductions was in fact the 1995 budget. We felt we had to make choices. We did not cut as deep as some wanted us to. We had to make the choices to get to where we are today. My question is quite simple for his selective memory.

Does the member support his leader and the member for Saint John when they voted with Reform in the 1995 budget against the budget because it did not cut far enough? That is where his party leader stood. Does he support that position?

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question.

I am not surprised at the political rhetoric of the member for Kings—Hants. We know there is an ongoing election in Nova Scotia. He tried to almost belittle the current premier of Nova Scotia for supposedly not having spoken out on the budget.

Let me tell the hon. member that I was very proud to sit in the last caucus with Russell MacLellan as a member from the province of Nova Scotia. If anyone stood up for Atlantic Canada, Russell MacLellan did. We as a government had to make hard decisions left to us because of the legacy of the former Mulroney Tory government. As the Minister of Finance said the other day, we took over a $42 billion deficit and we have managed to bring it down to what it is today.

Let me say again that Russell MacLellan as a member fought hard in terms of trying to retain an employment insurance program which would be of benefit to the people of Cape Breton and throughout Nova Scotia.

I think the member has to look at the progress which we have made. For heaven's sake, he must admit that we got rid of the 3% surtax which the former Tory government implemented to deal with the deficit but did not. Can he not see that this budget is—

[Business Of The House, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by some of the comments of the member opposite. He should know full well that the government is standing behind B.C. fishermen in their quest for a settlement. However I am little surprised by the slant he is taking in terms of being very selective in the points he picked out of Mr. Fortier's letter.

Read in its entirety, however, the letter is a clear description of the history of the Pacific salmon dispute and what needs to be done in the future.

Throughout the letter Mr. Fortier's sense of dedication and commitment shine through. After five years as chief negotiator on this difficult issue, it is not surprising that he expresses frustration with past experiences. Unfortunately those statements have been taken out of context. It is important to quote some of the other statements made in Mr. Fortier's letter.

He describes Canada's position in past negotiations as “clear and forceful yet flexible and fair” and Canadian demands as “valid, justified, reasonable and practicable”. He describes how Canada only agreed to a stakeholder process after negotiating a formal framework which required a commitment by the United States to resolve through government to government negotiations all issues left unresolved by stakeholders.

Mr. Fortier refers to this as “another significant victory for Canada, one that afforded us certain opportunities”. It is those opportunities that the Government of Canada now hopes to capitalize on.

Mr. Fortier describes the Ruckelshaus-Strangway report as “the most recent positive development for Canada”. He states that we have made progress and the government has been provided the tools with which to achieve the benefits that are its due under the treaty.

Finally it should be pointed out that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are now leading consultations aimed at developing an effective negotiating process. The Government of Canada intends to stand behind B.C. fisherman and ensure that there is a negotiated settlement to this process.

[Harold Godfrey, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to inform the House of the passing of a truly great Canadian.

On February 11, 1998 Harold Godfrey of Cornwall, P.E.I. passed away. Mr. Godfrey was a leader within the farming community and Canada as a whole.

Harold started farming at the early age of 14. He and his son Donald have a beef and potato farming operation with a cow-calf operation specializing in purebred Simmental cattle.

Harold Godfrey was a strong and active supporter of farm organizations. He served as president of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture, a director of the CFA and many other maritime organizations, including the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board.

In addition to these roles, Mr. Godfrey served as a member of the Atlantic Veterinary College Advisory Board. In 1989 his lifelong contribution to agriculture was recognized when he was appointed to the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Harold was an active member of his community and his church. We thank Harold for his life's work.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a proposal by the opposition members that they split their time 10 minutes a piece. It is not the government that did that.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Read this report.