[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
Our most powerful weapon has been the co-operation that has existed between all the stakeholders. So far we have received over 16,000 signatures on a petition to save our air base. This grassroots support is echoed across our community. It extends from the affected employees and their local unions to our city council and our business community.
This support has been essential in allowing Mayor Jack Burrows and I, along with the valuable assistance from North Bay MPP and Ontario Premier Mike Harris, to bring a strong and unified message to Ottawa.
This issue crosses political and ideological lines as we fight collectively to save hundreds of jobs in northeastern Ontario and northwestern Quebec.
The minister has slashed $7 billion from health care, education and welfare. In fact health care has been cut 40 per cent. This is how the finance minister focuses on health care.
The minister has gouged the average family's after tax income by $3,000. Parents are working longer and harder just to make ends meet. This is how the finance minister focuses on children.
And jobs? Our unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per cent compared to Japan at 3.4 per cent and the United States at5.4 per cent. If the minister taxed less and left more in the hands of those who earn it, this would increase consumer spending and drive the economy and businesses to create jobs. Instead, through 36 tax increases this minister takes $24 billion more every year, killing jobs in our communities. This is how the finance minister focuses on jobs.
The finance minister's words and his record conflict.
The people ticketed for very minor violations cannot pay the fines even if they wanted to because these fines are not set in advance. They have to immediately sign a guilty plea, which is referred to the Court of the Sessions of the Peace for a judge to set the amount of the fine and additional court costs. Failing that, the documents will be served on them.
This is a costly procedure for all taxpayers. It is high time that The National Battlefields Commission of Canada updated its procedures. This is another good way of saving money.
scientists. The Medical Hall of Fame was founded in November 1993 and is located in my home city of London, Ontario which has earned an international reputation as a leading medical centre.
Inductees to the Medical Hall of Fame are all outstanding Canadians, both men and women, who have distinguished themselves with extraordinary careers to the benefit of mankind. Perhaps the best known example is Sir Frederick Banting, the discoverer of insulin, who started his work in London, Ontario.
Today I am pleased to welcome to Ottawa several distinguished laureates of the Medical Hall of Fame, accompanied by J. Allyn Taylor, honorary chair, Ted Eadinger, board director, Betsy Little, executive director and Barbara Tomlin, administrative assistant.
Today I am proud to announce that elementary and secondary schools all over Canada from coast to coast actively participated in the award contest. A special ceremony was held at the Canadian Museum of Civilization to honour the 1997 winners. We all congratulate Skye Smith, Caitlyn Doyle, Crystal David, Marie-France Pare, Kimahli Powell, Marie-Claude Latreille, Warren George Lefthand and Michael Lomenda.
Along with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, I invite all members to join me in celebrating this truly unique initiative which fosters a shared sense of Canadian identity.
Dr. Henry Barnett from London has been recognized for his work in stroke and clinical trials.
Dr. Douglas Harold Copp from Vancouver discovered the hormone calcitonin which regulates calcium levels in the blood.
Dr. Jacques Genest from Montreal has been recognized for his research on hypertension.
Dr. Herbert Jasper from Montreal has been recognized for his work in electrophysiology and EEG.
(1405 )
Dr. Charles Leblond from Montreal has been recognized for his research in anatomy and cell biology.
Dr. Robert Salter from Toronto has been recognized for his work in orthopedic surgery.
These individuals are our best and brightest. It is a wonderful and fitting tribute that they are here today. We owe them an immense debt of gratitude. I encourage all members to show their gratitude.
Following the incident the hon. member for Beaver River was involved in yesterday, I would call upon each and every member of this House to behave like a mature adult.
The House of Commons is a forum for debating ideas. The fact that the two sides of this House hold diametrically opposed views is normal.
There is nothing wrong with heated debates per se, but I wish the respect we owe one another would always prevail. This way, unfortunate events that do nothing to improve the opinion the public has of parliamentarians could be prevented. This is another responsibility that rests with all of us.
The Minister of Finance says that he has not raised taxes. Oh, really?
What about the tax increase on life insurance premiums, gasoline, air transportation, private corporation dividends and securities?
What about the elimination of the lifetime capital gains exemption, the income test for age credit, and the lowering of the withdrawal age for RRSPs?
What about the 70 per cent increase in CPP premiums that will deliver $9,000 a year to Edmonton pensioners while the MP pension plan yields five to six times that amount?
Call it what you like but it is still a tax, T-A-X. By increasing overall taxes for Edmontonians 30 per cent and personal taxes40 per cent, the Liberals have picked an extra billion dollars out of our pockets.
Let us set things right. Hello, Edmonton North.
Getting Carrière Glendyne back into operation will give new impetus to the economy in Saint-Marc-du-Lac-Long. The initial stages involving rock scaling activities have resumed, and it is expected that all of the company's 60 employees will be called back to work by March 17.
Quebec is among the world's ten largest mining countries, and the first one in the Francophonie. To be a master in one's own home is to have at one's disposal the means to make decisions and to fully benefit from them.
Instead of jobs, there is $3.2 billion in further cuts to social programs scheduled this year. Instead of helping to reduce child poverty now, there is another red book promise to help children in need effective July 1998, only 18 months from now. And if it does materialize, it is only 20 per cent of the commitment the B.C. NDP government has made to help end child poverty now.
The Liberals have taken $14 billion out of the economy through cuts to social programs. Now they insult Canadians with a snow job pre-election budget. This budget offers nothing for struggling families who are looking for stable employment and no hope for their children's future.
The Liberals have achieved one thing. In 1993, the last year of the Mulroney government, 5,250 taxpayers earning over $70,000 per year paid no taxes. Under the Liberals, there has been a 400 per cent increase: 21,270 Canadians earning over $70,000 a year paid no taxes.
(1410)
The movement began with one woman, Adelaide Hoodless, and her response to the death of her 18-month old son from drinking impure milk. Impelled by her personal loss, Mrs. Hoodless became an activist campaigning for clean milk. On February 19, 1897 at Stoney Creek, Ontario the Women's Institute began, creating a movement to educate women in the home sciences.
The local movement spread quickly to become the pre-eminent women's organization in Canada. At the turn of the century the concept spread to Britain and throughout Europe. In 1933 the organizations joined forces and the Association of Country Women of the World was formed.
Over the years, issues have changed and the WI continues to make a difference. I am honoured to acknowledge those who continue that important community based work which was started a century ago.
Yesterday we were presented with a workable budget, a budget that invests in jobs, health care, education and children.
The government has long recognized that children are our greatest resource, that they are our future and we must invest in them. The government has made the investment.
The national child benefit system is an innovative approach to reducing the number of Canadian children who live in poverty. The new system will provide a total of $6 billion in assistance to low
income families across Canada which will improve the living standards of hundreds of thousands of Canadian children.
The national child benefit system is a step forward in the fight against child poverty. It is exactly the type of program that will give our children a fighting chance for a better future. It demonstrates our commitment to our future: Canada's children.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance announced that his budget does not include any tax increase or new tax affecting individuals or corporations.
Yesterday, the minister also showed that it is possible to manage public finances effectively, while also helping the poor in our society. And I do mean the poor in our society.
Our government has once again demonstrated that the solution to our country's economic and social problems does not lie with extremists, but is based on a good Liberal government establishing a balance between economic and social needs.
The Bloc Quebecois expects the minister to raise the topics of democracy and human rights in his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. A climate of peace and democracy is essential to prosperous trade between our countries.
We hope the minister will take advantage of this trip to obtain, from the Palestinian authorities, the letters promised during consideration of the bill to implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement. We are still waiting for these letters.
This Middle East visit is therefore important and the results of the minister's meetings during this trip must be made public and will be of the greatest interest for the future of the Canadian and Quebec economies in this part of the world.
[English]
The finance minister has raised tax revenues by $24 billion and has reduced spending by $13, billion, a $37 billion gain. But lo and behold, we will still have a $17 billion deficit. Why? Where did the $37 billion go? It has gone to pay big interest on Canada's ever growing debt.
The finance minister blew it by not making cuts in the first year. He blew it by not reducing the size of the government faster. He blew it by not including businesses and regional development grants in his spending cuts.
Under Reform with spending cuts in the first year we would have balanced the budget today. Under Reform we would be talking about budget surpluses to share with taxpayers, hospitals and universities.
Yes, yesterday's budget only proves that Reform's zero in three plan was after all the best vision for Canada versus this slow pain for no gain, two year roll over, let us hit you somewhere else targets of this Liberal government.
[Translation]
[English]
Let us not forget, as our colleagues from the opposition often do, that Quebec continues to receive 31 per cent of transfers when it only represents 25 per cent of the population. Moreover, Quebec receives over 45 per cent of all equalization payments.
[Translation]
Our government has therefore done its part to preserve social and health programs. Our recent budget is a clear indication of our intention to work with the provinces to ensure sustainability.
Now it is up to the Premier of Quebec and his Minister of Finance to show us that they in turn can reduce Quebec's deficit while maintaining our social programs, as several other provinces have already done.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance had such a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate to us his government's real belief in a decentralized federalism which respects provincial areas of jurisdiction. Why, then, did he prefer to follow his usual pattern, the usual habit of the Liberals, and to announce still more overlap, still more duplication, still more waste?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, could the Leader of the Opposition tell us which measures in yesterday's budget did not please him? Does he believe that the federal government ought not to have used the taxation system to help the disabled? Does he believe that the federal government ought not to have used the taxation system to help those who give donations to small charities?
Does he believe that the federal government ought not to have created a new and greatly enhanced benefit for the poor children in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec? Does he believe that the federal government ought not to have bowed to Quebec's demands for an infrastructure program?
Which programs does the Leader of the Opposition find unacceptable for helping Quebecers and Canadians?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will tell him what I find unacceptable. It is that his government has, over the past two years, cut $4.5 billion from transfers to the provinces for social services and education. Today he imagines that a few million dollars are going to make us forget the $4 billion in past cuts.
As for the details, I will get to shortly, but just now I have three questions for him. Here is my question for the moment.
What we want to find out from the Minister of Finance is how he can justify, on the one hand, that he is short of money and therefore needs to cut transfer payments to the provinces, when these are mainly for health care and education services and, on the other hand, he can at the same time justify sprinkling a few million here, a few million there, in areas in which he has no jurisdiction at all?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. In 1997-98, Quebec will receive $10.3 billion, 31 per cent of federal transfers, which is more than any other province. In equalization payments alone, Quebec will receive close to $4 billion, 46 per cent of the total payments. From 1993 to 1998, transfers to Quebec have dropped about 11 per cent. Our own cuts exceeded 14 per cent.
(1420)
Two weeks ago, the Bloc Quebecois asked us to increase assistance to students who need student loans. They asked us to increase tax credits for parents who wanted to finance their children's education. This we did in yesterday's budget. I am waiting for the Bloc Quebecois to congratulate us.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that characterizes the fundamental differences between us, this is it. For the Minister of Finance, for Liberals, it is incomprehensible for the federal government to play its true role of distributor of the wealth, as they often describe it, while at the same time minding its own business.
Can the government not respect the areas of jurisdiction set out in its own Constitution? That is where the problem lies. How can they imagine that they are better placed to look after prenatal nutrition? Ottawa will look after prenatal nutrition. Ottawa will look after literacy, the disabled, poor children, family policy. These are provincial areas of jurisdiction. Can they not grasp that, on the other side?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Ottawa is involved, it is because Quebec asked for it. Where assistance to students is concerned, it is the Bloc Quebecois who asked us to increase student aid. If we are involved in infrastructures, it is because the President of Treasury Board got a letter from Bernard Landry asking Ottawa to get involved in the infrastructure program in Quebec.
If we are in research and development, allow me to point out that, in 1993, the Government of Canada funded 22 per cent of Quebec R & D activity. Quebec's share was a mere 8 per cent. A good thing, then, that we are involved.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, because if they were not, Quebec's deficit would be down by 60 per cent.
The Liberals, who were elected three and a half years ago to the shouts of jobs, jobs, jobs, have nothing to offer one million and a half unemployed workers in Canada today. Yesterday's budget had nothing better to offer than a paltry $25 million in new money for job creation measures for the coming year. This is an average of 90 cents per Canadian.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that he has given up doing anything about high unemployment, does the Prime Minister have anything to offer 1.5 million Quebecers and Canadians who are looking for jobs, besides wishing them a cynical good luck?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for three years we have worked very hard on job creation, and Canada has created more than 700,000 new jobs, which, I repeat, is more than Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy combined.
I agree the demand is enormous, but we managed to reduce unemployment from 11.4 per cent in January 1994 to 9.7 per cent. We want to do better, we always do.
Today, for instance, Canadians benefit from interest rates that have dropped by five percentage points in two years and are now two and a half percentage points lower than interest rates in the United States. When you look at the Canadian economy, you can see the results of this policy, because today, car sales, housing sales and construction, and industrial expansion are all benefiting from the lowest interest rates we have had in Canada for 35 years.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister forgot to add that this year we had a record number of bankruptcies in Canada. He forgot to say that.
(1425)
My question is this: Why will the Prime Minister not admit that he failed on job creation? Why will he not admit that his slogan ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' was just that, like the other slogan on abolishing the GST: ``scrap, scrap, scrap''? He no longer has any credibility.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Once again, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member forgot to ask his question.
Let me tell you that in the past four months, we created 85,000 new jobs in this country in the private sector alone. The vast majority of these jobs are permanent. According to most economists, this year in Canada we will create between 300,000 and 350,000 new jobs, and the same number again next year. According to most economists, according to the OECD, Canada will create more jobs than any other country in the G-7, including the United States.
Now, about the budget. Let me just quote Gérald Ponton, president of the Alliance des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du Québec: ``No new taxes: good news for business and the Canadian economy. Clearly, when the government uses its fiscal flexibility as it did with the infrastructure program and the innovation fund, it is setting an example Bernard Landry would do well to follow, which he can do without increasing taxes''. That is what this government has done.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's budget there were a lot of questionable statements, but the biggest whopper of them all was the finance minister's claim of not raising taxes. Just days before the budget, the government raised compulsory Canada pension plan premiums, payroll taxes, by 70 per cent.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, income tax revenues have risen by over $15 billion, corporate tax revenues are up by almost $7 billion and the hated GST is bringing in almost $2 billion more.
How can the finance minister possibly claim that he is not raising taxes when federal tax revenues have increased by over $24 billion and the Canada pension payroll tax is being raised by 70 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Reform Party has a different set of values than most Canadians and the fact that the Reform Party does not believe in the Canada pension plan certainly does not give it licence to misconstrue what the Canada pension plan is all about and how important it is to Canadians.
The leader of the Reform Party knows full well that not one penny of Canada pension plan premiums comes to government, neither to the federal government nor to the provincial governments that joined with us. It is invested for the retirement savings of Canadians in exactly the same way as with other retirement schemes.
Just because the Reform Party does not believe in the basic institutions of the country, it is no reason to stand up in the House and deliberately misconstrue what the heck they are all about.
The Speaker: I wish the hon. Minister of Finance would withdraw the words ``deliberately misconstrue''.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the net impression of all that ranting was for the minister to be saying that he does not interpret the increase in CPP premiums as a payroll tax.
(1430 )
The economic analysis and forecasting division of his own department publishes papers-I can give him copies of them-in which it describes CPP premiums as a payroll tax. It has computer models for running that payroll tax and determining its negative impact on job creation when it is increased.
Last night, Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business discussed the CPP premium increase as a payroll tax. If there is any group in the country that can recognize a payroll tax when it sees it, it is the CFIB.
The only people that do not believe a 70 per cent hike in CPP premiums is not a payroll tax increase is the Minister of Finance and the gullible gang across the way.
I would appreciate a straight answer to my question. Given the views of his own department, why will the minister simply not admit that CPP premiums are a payroll tax and that he has raised them by 70 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party, in his effort to destroy the Canada pension plan, consistently refers to the increase in premiums of the pension contribution that would be made.
The other day he said that these premiums would go at full maturity for a person at the maximum earnings from $945 to $1,635.
What the hon. member, the leader of the Reform Party, has not done is provide Canadians with a calculation of what his alternative would cost. Let me do it for him, in case it has slipped his mind.
In the agreement with the provinces that amount would go from $945 to $1,600. The Reform Party alternative would take it from $945 based on the Chilean model, which they have adopted, to $2,150.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has a plan for preserving both the CPP and increasing retirement income for Canadians at a lower cost than what the government proposes.
An hon. member: It is not like the MP pension plan either.
Mr. Manning: I want to come back, Mr. Speaker, to the ethics of this issue.
I am sure that the finance minister, as an aspiring Prime Minister, realizes the importance of being honest with the Canadian people. All I am doing is cautioning the government that it is heading down the same road on this CPP premium as it went down with the GST. The Liberals have almost convinced themselves that a tax is not a tax, just like they convinced themselves that the Prime Minister never said he would kill, scrap, abolish the GST.
Will the finance minister stop and pause before he gets too deeply into this and admit that he has raised payroll taxes by 70 per cent, the greatest single tax increase in Canadian history?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the leader of the third party, as the aspiring leader of the fifth party, would like to put his own numbers before Canadians so they can make the same judgment.
We have stated that contributions to the Canada pension plan are not a tax. They are an investment in Canadians' retirement savings.
One thing is very clear. The agreement the federal government has come to with the Government of Alberta, and I notice that the hon. member has not got the courage-Mr. Speaker, I am sure he does-the hon. member will go to Alberta and will campaign against Ralph Klein because Ralph Klein signed the deal.
(1435 )
I am sure he will go into Ontario and will campaign against Mike Harris because Mike Harris signed the deal. I am also sure he will explain to Canadians why his alternative will cost $500 more than the federal government's changes to the CPP.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance told us in his budget that the deficit for the current fiscal year was $5.3 billion less than his target last year, on the same date, in his previous budget. With this manoeuvring room, the minister could, among other things-because there are a lot of things to do-pay Quebec the $2 billion it cost to harmonize its sales tax with the GST.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that the McKenna formula, concocted in secret after the Government of Quebec made its requests known, serves simply to justify more unfair treatment of Quebec by the federal government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member would look back at the speech I made with the announcement, he will see that I set out the formula for compensation to the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
At the same time, I explained why Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta would not be receiving compensation. They did not lose over 5 per cent of sales tax revenues. The reason is quite clear.
We are prepared to compensate a province if losses are involved. The hon. member will understand that, if no losses are involved, there will be no compensation. Quebec has all the information. We gave them not only our figures, but the provinces' as well.
I am prepared to sit down with the hon. member, as we did with the officials of the Quebec ministry of finance, to explain exactly how the formula works.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have a minister of finance in Quebec too. And he says harmonization with the GST would have cost Quebec $2 billion had the corporate tax burden not been increased accordingly to compensate. In Ottawa, on the other hand, the Minister of Finance says that is not so, that in fact Quebec made money in the process.
If the Minister of Finance thinks Quebec minister Landry is lying to the public, would he rise and say so?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information in my reply comes from Government of Quebec statistics. If the hon. member would care to look at sales tax revenues in 1990, 1991 and 1992, he will see that Quebec lost no more than 5 per cent of its revenues at the start.
He will also see that, in subsequent years, Quebec made money. These figures are public.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister did a pretty good impression of George Bush with his no new taxes line. Unfortunately here are the facts.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, federal tax revenues have increased 20 per cent while the average family income has decreased by 10 per cent. Liberal years have been good years for the finance minister but hard times for Canadian families.
(1440 )
Let me ask the finance minister this. How can he possibly claim that there have been no new taxes when the average income of Canadian families has dropped by 10 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that over the course of this government's administration our revenues have gone up. Absolutely. They have gone up because we have had a stronger economy. Economic growth brings higher revenues.
If we want to fight the deficit surely to heaven it is better fight the deficit by having a stronger economy than by adopting the kind of scorched earth policies Reform would advocate which would absolutely destroy the economy.
The fact of the matter is that overwhelmingly the majority of increases in this government's revenues has come from increased economic activity primarily in the corporate sector because it is making more profits and as a result of those profits we are getting more revenue.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the argument here is not over growth, it is just who is going to get the benefit from the growth. This government is getting 20 per cent of the benefit while the Canadian public and taxpayers are losing10 per cent of it.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993 the average family income has dropped by $3,000. I do not think families could be convinced that this is growth or that it has been really fun for them.
Let me ask the finance minister again how he can possibly claim no new taxes when the average family income has dropped by $3,000 per year and its Canadian pension plan payroll taxes have been hiked 70 per cent. How does it work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been in certain areas increases in taxes, increases in tax revenues. The Reform Party has opposed these. The Reform Party has gone on the web and said ``these are the tax increases brought in by the federal government that we oppose''.
The Reform Party opposed the elimination of the tax advantages for family trusts. It opposed the elimination of the preferential rate for large corporations. It opposed the measures that were taken to combat the underground economy. It opposed the elimination of the $100,000 lifetime capital gains tax exemption.
These are the tax increases Reformers opposed because they hurt their friends. Heaven help them if they had to help poor or middle income Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question os for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday's budget epitomized this Liberal government's inaction in the area of taxation. Three and a half years after taking office, the Minister of Finance has made no major changes; he has no real tax reform to propose to the people of Canada. Taxation is a powerful tool available to the Minister of Finance to achieve social or economic objectives.
How can the Minister of Finance explain that, despite a golden opportunity to create jobs through taxation, nowhere in his budget did he use either personal or corporate taxes to do so?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. In yesterday's budget, we presented highly targeted tax breaks amounting to more than $2 billion over a three year period specifically for persons with disabilities as well as substantial breaks for students or parents who want to save for their children's education. There is also the child tax benefit.
The vast majority of measures contained in yesterday's budget were precisely tax measures, tax breaks designed to help Canadians.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last November, the Bloc Quebecois released a corporate tax analysis, which clearly showed that up to $3 billion could be recovered and recommended this amount be invested in job creation incentives.
How does the minister justify not having done his homework in that area, in spite of this recommendation?
(1445)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was done long before the Bloc's report was tabled. I could quote, for example, from previous budgets, measures like the abolition of the lifetime $100,000 capital gains exemption, the broadening of
the minimum replacement tax base or the elimination of the tax advantages offered by the use of trusts.
As I said the last time, the list goes on-
Mr. Gauthier: For three pages.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): That is right, I tabled it myself. I submit that the hon. member should ask the Table for the three pages I mentioned.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the government campaigned on the issue of jobs, jobs, jobs.
In the budget yesterday there was not a word about jobs. There was nothing for jobless Canadians. There was just 80 minutes of self-congratulations.
The finance minister did not even mention the 9.7 per cent unemployment rate, the 1.5 million unemployed, the one in four people underemployed or who are worried about losing their jobs.
When will the finance minister come down from his mansion on the hill and realize that by relentlessly driving up taxes he is killing jobs in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what was done in yesterday's budget was to very clearly outline a comprehensive jobs program.
First of all, we started out with the absolute necessity of cleaning up the nation's finances. Our interest rates have gone from two and a quarter percentage points higher than the United States' to where they are now, two and a quarter to a half percentage points lower than the United States'.
This is as a result of the actions of this government. That is why people are now saying that Canada will have the strongest job creation record of any of the G-7 countries.
Second, we put in place a short term program, infrastructure, roads, sewer mains and highways in order to create instantaneous jobs. More money went into the tourism sector because it is a massive creator of jobs.
The Prime Minister's missions abroad have led to the highest level of exports in this country's history. We have put in place a long term job program, helping students finance their education, a very large research and development program for Canadian universities.
This government has put in place a comprehensive job program and it is paying off.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if there is job creation in this country, that is news to the 1.5 million people who are still unemployed, the same number as when the government came to power.
The last Tory government and the present Liberal government have left this country with a legacy of joblessness that has not been paralleled since the Great Depression. Seventy-six months in a row of unemployment over 9 per cent is a disgraceful record and the minister should be ashamed.
The Liberals have broken their promise to create jobs. When will the minister realize that high taxes are killing jobs in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is expected that when an hon. member rises in this House the premise of their question will reflect the policies of their party.
The Reform Party seems to have forgotten this fundamental piece of legislative responsibility. Therefore let me simply say that since we have taken office, as the Prime Minister has said, there have been over 790,000 jobs created in the private sector.
Is that enough jobs? Of course it is not. Are we worried about job creation? Do we want to see more young Canadians go back to work? Absolutely.
However, let us understand what the alternative was. In 1993 in Penticton the leader of the Reform Party said that if they were elected and their economic plan, their scorch and burn policies, were put into effect, that at the end of three years there would be fewer jobs in Canada than there were in 1993.
We are 800,000 jobs ahead of the Reform Party.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister announced that $150 million would be provided over a three year period to support provinces that will implement new initiatives, such as home care and pharmacare programs. The fact is that such initiatives have already been taken in Quebec.
(1450)
Is the minister going to do what he did with the GST and tell Quebec that, since it has already implemented such reforms, it will not get one penny? Is he going to do that again?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised both at the tone and the substance of the hon. member's question, asking the Government of Canada not to provide moneys for citizens who reside in the province of Quebec who would be interested in participating in a national home care program or in a program for national pharmacare, thereby extending medicare.
I am rathersurprised that the hon. member would deny the citizens of the province of Quebec those kinds of economic opportunities.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the minister did not understand the question.
This is despicable. The minister is putting $300 million into health, which does not even come under his jurisdiction, after reducing by $2.3 billion, in the last two years, transfer payments to the provinces for health.
How can the minister expect to be taken seriously by the public when he is giving a measly $300 million with one hand, after cutting billions with the other hand in the last three years?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Minister of Finance, not in this budget but in the last budget, provided to the provinces something which they had been asking for for quite some time, the stabilization of transfer payments.
The Minister of Finance clearly did that and for this fiscal year we will be providing both cash and tax points totalling $26.9 billion.
The hon. member should remember that as a result of this government's policies as they relate to interest rates they will save the provinces $1.8 billion. Equally so, under the auspices of equalization, the provinces will now receive $8.6 billion in this fiscal year. That is a hell of a lot of money for the purposes of health care and other social programs.
Reformers and others have been complaining that bilingual labelling and packaging adds millions of dollars to the cost of doing business in Canada. Could the minister tell the House the real cost of doing business in the two official languages of this country and the benefits to Canadians?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the study that was done by the commissioner indicated quite clearly that the advantages are much larger than the cost. In fact, even the enterprises themselves indicate that the cost is very small and is well worth the advantages.
In his study on the costs of bilingual packaging and labelling to small and medium size businesses, the Commissioner of Official Languages found that the average cost of compliance with federal laws and regulations is one-fifth of one cent per dollar of product revenue.
So those who scream against it are completely unjustified. The firms themselves find it is necessary because there are health, safety and security advantages to it and because the cost, once again, is one-fifth of one cent per dollar of revenue.
Why does the finance minister not come clean and admit that Canadians today are far worse off than when the Liberals came to power in 1993 because of their tax, tax, tax policies?
(1455 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, heaven forbid I should speak for the government. Simply let me quote David Crane, one of the more astute commentators on the political scene, referring to the budget. He said the budget can almost be called an investment budget that focuses almost entirely on people, making sure that children get early support to be good learners when they start school; providing more money for parents to raise healthy children; giving more deductions to post-secondary students and boosting innovation in the universities and industry.
That is what a non-partisan and objective commentator has to say about this budget.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that commentator has a Liberal membership. There is no doubt about that.
The simple truth is, and the finance minister should know this, taxes, payroll taxes, kill jobs in this country. Unemployment is at a record level in this country and he has offered no tax relieve to take care of that. Only last Friday he imposed yet another $10 billion tax grab on hard working Canadians.
Will the minister explain for the benefit of Canadians how this $10 billion CPP tax grab is going to help Canadians keep their jobs,
help the 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work to get jobs? Does he not know the simple truth by now that taxes kill jobs in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Tim O'Neil, chief economist, the Bank of Montreal, is forecasting well over 300,000 new jobs this year. Maureen Farrow from Loewen, Ondaatje, McCutcheon Limited international investors whom I talk to every day is looking at Canada as if it had sort of risen from the ashes. It is fascinating because it is the deficit, the debt and the current accounts, the contained inflation environment, the overall competitiveness, the restructuring of the export centre. We have gained enormous market shares across the board in export markets, particularly in the Asian markets, including Japan.
The hon. member talks about people who have Liberal cards. This from Deutsche Bank: ``The Canadian economy has enjoyed massive monetary stimulus. We expect GDP growth to be more than doubled to 4.1 per cent this year, more than 1 per cent in excess of the United States, nearly two times greater than the average of the G-7. The longer term prospects beyond 1997 are favourable''.
Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy that you are going to cut me off.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance who, we will all remember, four years ago stood in his place and said that jobs were a priority when 1.5 million Canadians were out of work. This afternoon 1.5 million Canadians are still out of work; youth employment is at 70 per cent; bankruptcies are at an historic high; 1.5 million children live in poverty because their parents live in poverty. I could go on.
Would the Minister of Finance admit that this budget gives no hope to those who are unemployed or underemployed and that the only jobs he is creating are con jobs and snow jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who sat in this House with a lot of us under the previous government, knows full well the economic situation in Canada when we took office in 1993. There was no hope. Taxes were going up. Interest rates were going up. Job creation was virtually a thing of the past.
I know he will understand, being a fair person, that looking at Canada today the fact is not only have we created over 700,000 jobs, not only are we being touted as doing better than any other OECD country, but our interest rates are down, our companies are exporting, consumer confidence is up. The foundation is there.
Now, are we satisfied? Absolutely not. Is there pain and suffering out there? Yes, there is. I know the hon. member, unlike those around him, understands and shares that feeling, as do we. We are going to continue to work on this because government is about people. It is about providing them with the sustenance they require and we will continue to do as we have done.
(1500)
[Translation]
[English]
These individuals have made outstanding contributions to medical science. Excellence in advanced research and scientific discovery have earned them a place in the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame located in London, Ontario. Their achievements are a source of pride for all of us.
I will ask them to stand as I call their names and I would ask you to withhold your applause until I have introduced all of them: Dr. Henry Barnett of London, Dr. Harold Copp of Vancouver, Dr. Herbert Jasper of Montreal and Dr. Robert Salter of Toronto.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I invite you to join me in Room 216 after question period. I would like you to meet these distinguished Canadians at a small reception. If you have time you are cordially invited.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the practice of budget secrecy. The delivery of yesterday's budget represents a marked departure from the practice that has been followed in the House for many years, certainly since I was elected to Parliament.
Many of the provisions in the budget were announced by the government in advance of the minister's speech yesterday. Moreover, it has been the practice over the years that the budget documents themselves not be released until the minister rises to his feet in the House.
Yesterday the budget documents were available approximately 15 minutes before the minister rose to his feet. People had the opportunity to obtain the documents and to release them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you review this matter because it is an important principle. The reason we have budget secrecy is to ensure that no individual or groups of individuals are able to profit from advance information they might obtain concerning an upcoming budget.
In the past, finance ministers have been forced to resign where a budget leak has occurred because of the sanctity of the principle. I submit also it impinges on the privileges of members of the House when information is released prematurely. The reason why the budget was released at 4.30 p.m. yesterday is because the stock markets had closed.
(1505)
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to review this matter. I would also like you to review the whole concept of the budget lock-up. I and a number of other people found it disconcerting that the media were reporting what was in the budget before the Minister of Finance had finished reading his speech.
Surely the lock-up should be extended until after the Minister of Finance has completed his speech to the House so that all Canadians have equal opportunity concerning the release of the information. It is patently unfair to the minister and to the House that the media should be reporting the contents of the budget before he is finished his speech.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what my hon. colleague suggests is a question of privilege. It would be my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a question of privilege.
It is no secret that the government, since coming to office, has attempted to demystify budget making. Out of respect for the traditions of budget making, it is important to remember that we campaigned based on the fact that we felt this was important to Canadians and to all members of the House. The Standing Committee on Finance has travelled the country and continues to travel the country on prebudget consultations.
The principle behind budget secrecy is to ensure that no individual profits from information gained before the budget is read. I submit there has been no opportunity for private gain. In fact, to specifically deal with my hon. colleague's second point, the documents to which he alludes were on the desks of members of Parliament. No member of the public had those documents.
Since the Minister of Finance is coming into the House of Commons to speak to members of Parliament, I submit that it would be impossible for there to have been a breach of security, a release or disclosure of pertinent information, as my hon. colleague has suggested.
The stock markets were closed at the time of the deposit of these materials. There was no opportunity for any member of the public to take any advantage. As members, we are honourable members. The materials were placed quite properly on our desks as the Minister of Finance was about to speak.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the arguments put forward by the member for York South-Weston and from the government side. I think that the arguments put forward by the government side were very weak. I am more inclined to listen to the first speech.
I have one point I would like to make. The government member said the stock markets were closed. That is a typical centrist Canadian attitude. The stock market in Alberta was wide open at the time the minister stood up. The stock market in British Columbia was wide open at the time the minister stood up.
(1510 )
It is time these people started to recognize that Canada does not end at the lakes. There are millions of people on the prairies and in B.C. who deserve the same courtesy and attention as the rest of Canada.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is just one small point I would draw to your attention. I think you would find that the members of Parliament who were in the lock-up that was allowed by the Department of Finance were not allowed out of the lock-up until the minister stood up.
In the converse, the members of Parliament who were not in the lock-up, who are all honourable people and I am sure all had honourable intentions, nonetheless had the details of the budget prior to the time the minister stood up. I cannot imagine that anyone would have abused that privilege but it is possible that telephone calls could have been made from the lobby.
If members of Parliament are in the lock-up and are not permitted out, there has to be a good reason for it. Why then were the members of Parliament in the House given copies of the budget prior to the minister standing up?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first point I would make is that this is certainly not a matter of privilege.
The second point is that I would not question the behaviour of any member of the House. I recall being in the Chamber just before the minister rose to speak. All members on all sides of the House were receiving documents as the minister arrived. Some were flipping through those documents. All members of the House were treated alike. The documents were here within the safety and security, if you will, of this Chamber with no prospect whatsoever of any kind of opportunity for anyone to profit from it.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the fact is the budget documents were available in the lobby. There were people in the lobby who are not members of Parliament. I had two people with me who were not
members of Parliament and who had the budget document15 minutes before the minister started speaking.
The Speaker: I want to inform myself about the precedents. I understood this is being brought up as a point of order, not a point of privilege. Is that correct? I address myself to the hon. member for York South-Weston.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more appropriately phrased as a point of privilege than a point of order.
The Speaker: I will deal with everything that has been said in the context of a point of privilege.
I want to inform myself about the precedents. I want to inform myself about what went on yesterday. After I have informed myself, I will get back to the House and I will share with you what my findings are.
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Williams: On the same point, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: As far as this point is concerned, I feel that I have heard enough. You are no doubt going to quote me something from the rules that we work by. I will familiarize myself with all of the rules that are involved.