Steve BUTLAND

BUTLAND, Steve, B.A., M.Ed.

Personal Data

Party
New Democratic Party
Constituency
Sault Ste. Marie (Ontario)
Birth Date
March 26, 1941
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Butland
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=9215f31c-20f9-48ea-b0c0-7ecd25041e42&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
school principal, teacher

Parliamentary Career

November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
NDP
  Sault Ste. Marie (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 73 of 76)


May 23, 1989

1. For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, has the government tabulated the annual net federal revenue cost for all tax deductions available to corporate tax filers in each Canadian province and, if so, what is it?

2. For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, has the goverment tabulated the annual net federal revenue cost for the tax deduction of capital cost allowances by corporate tax filers and, if so, what is it for the average corporate tax filer employing (i) fewer than 10 individuals (ii) between 10 and 20 individuals (iii) between 20 and 40 individuals (iv) between 40 and 60 individuals (v) between 60 and 100 individuals (vi) between 100 and 300 individuals (vii) over 300 individuals?

3. For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, has the goverment tabulated the annual net federal revenue cost for investment tax credits claimed by corporated tax filers and, if so, what is it for the average corporate tax filer employing (i) fewer than 10 individuals (ii) between 10 and 20 individuals (iii) between 20 and 40 individuals (iv) between 40 and 60 individuals (v) between 60 and 100 individuals (vi) between 100 and 300 individuals (vii) over 300 individuals?

4. For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, has the goverment tabulated the annual net federal revenue cost for the tax deduction of capital cost allowances by corporate tax filers and, if so, what is it for the average corporate tax filer employing (i) fewer than 10 individuals (ii) between 10 and 20 individuals (iii) between 20 and 40 individuals (iv) between 40 and 60 individuals (v) between 60 and 100 individuals (vi) between 100 and 300 individuals (vii) over 300 individuals?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Full View Permalink

May 18, 1989

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-ll, although I am sure my message is going to be very depressing.

I wish to speak on the borrowing Bill and on the $25 billion it requires to run this country. We accept that, but we certainly do not accept the method by which the money is raised and certainly not how it is spent.

Very often we in the New Democratic Party are accused of being quite negative. We accept that criticism simply because this Government leaves us little reason to be positive. There is little reason to be optimistic. The Budget is totally negative, and I shall provide a litany of negatives in a few moments. We as politicians are all guilty of rhetoric from time to time, but the danger is when one starts to believe one's own rhetoric. My genuine fear is that this Government believes itself. I believe that if you say something often enough, loud enough, even if it is less than truthful, you start to believe it. I sincerely feel that this Government has put blinders on and refuses to see what is really happening to this country, despite the fact that everyone else can see it.

The Budget is a complete contradiction of what government members told the country in October and November, 1988. They were in their pre-election mode. These surely are not the same people who spoke then. Surely they must have dual personalities. Dr. Jekyll has indeed turned into Mr. Hyde.

May 18, 1989

As to the Budget itself, I heard a Tory Minister say that everyone is against this Budget, that nobody likes it and therefore it must be a good Budget. What sort of bizarre reasoning is that? It could only be Tory reasoning that would suggest that this is logical. They are correct that everyone is against it. We have an unlikely ally in the director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Roger Hamel, who says that this is the biggest tax grab in Canada's history. He is against the Budget, as are the Canadian Chamber Commerce, environmentalists, foresters, women's groups, the military, people involved in transport, the unemployed, the provincial Governments, New Democrats, and Liberals, although yesterday evening the provincial Liberals in Ontario added insult to injury. They are against the federal Budget, but indeed provincial Liberals in Ontario are certainly bringing to Ontarians the same thing the Conservative Government brought to the country federally.

I could list more and more groups ad nauseam that are against this Budget, but the bottom line is that Canadians are against it. If I could be parochial for just a few moments, how does it affect northern Ontario? Everyone will have to pay more tax, but in particular the middle class and the lower class group. It was suggested by one of the Members across the way that we have closed many of the tax loopholes. That begs the question: Why not close them all immediately?

The Canadian Ontario provincial forestry agreements will die. They are being bought out. I thank the Hon. Minister of State for Forestry for his efforts. I believe that he is convinced but helpless to do what he wants to do for the forests of the country.

The insidious sea lamprey will proliferate unless we immediately receive $2 million to address the issue. One in three fish presently caught are already wounded by this parasite. I wonder how many have died. This is aggravated or complicated by the fact that millions are spent in stocking these very same waters.

Universality and the claw back on Old Age Security and family allowances have been attacked despite the Prime Minister's assurance that social programs would be enhanced by the ill-conceived, ill-negotiated, ill-

Borrowing Authority

contrived Free Trade Agreement. This was simply not true.

Sault Ste. Marie is a border city. Many people thought that they would benefit immediately from the Free Trade Agreement, that they could go into Michigan and buy many products at lower prices. This has obviously proven to be totally false. Grocery and food products would save each family $200 a year. That has proven to be false. One of the great supporters, Galen Weston, has suggested that indeed food prices have to go up. That is another contradiction. I had best stop myself from getting into my free trade tirade and harangue. It has already been exposed for what it is worth-nothing.

The Budget gives us double indemnity. The Government got us coming and it got us going. The Budget is full of negatives and cut, cut, cut. There is not one positive initiative in the whole document. At least the Government could have taken one initiative and said: "All right, Canadians, we are cutting you everywhere, but we are going to give you one initiative". There was none. The one I continually espouse as a municipal affairs critic is: Why does the Government not take the one-cent increase in gasoline tax and the extra one cent in 1990 and give it to the municipalities whose infrastructure is crumbling? Those municipalities can ill afford to put a further tax burden on to the citizens in the municipalities. There was not one positive step in the whole Budget.

People in northern Ontario do not need regressive taxes. In fact, we do not need regressive taxes in Canada. We require assistance, but direct government assistance with little or no strings attached. There are no strings attached, but there are very large coarse ropes attached.

I speak of some of the smoke and mirror programs that have been announced across the country.

For example, I wish to speak of the much touted Community Futures Program. There is a board of directors in my community that makes decisions about initiatives. If an initiative passes that board of directors, it goes to another board of directors in Thunder Bay. If it passes that board of directors, it goes to yet another board of directors in Sudbury. If it passes that board of directors, it must go to Toronto and to the southern Ontario board of directors. If it passes that board, it then comes to Ottawa.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1989-90 MEASURE TO ENACT
Full View Permalink

May 18, 1989

Mr. Butland:

Every one of them is a Tory appointee. It is a shame. However, if it makes it through all the boards of directors it can still be turned down. The Minister may say: "I am sorry". Despite all those Tories saying that it is a good idea, it can still be turned down at the drop of a hat.

I could go on for hours, and I would like to. It is depressing to speak in this manner, but the Government leaves us no alternative. It is a depressing Budget. It is a depressing Government. The ads are depressing. The Minister of Finance is depressing. His message is depressing. The economy is depressing. Canadians are depressed, and very soon our whole economy will be in depression.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1989-90 MEASURE TO ENACT
Full View Permalink

May 17, 1989

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault St. Marie):

Mr. Speaker, I understand that some of my comments and criticisms earlier in my speech were inappropriate, and it was agreed upon by government Members to allow us to

speak, and they agreed not to speak. So I apologize for those comments.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR ACT
Full View Permalink

May 17, 1989

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):

Mr. Speaker, it was perhaps divine coincidence that I went to my office about 15 minutes ago and found on my desk a news release about Phil Latulippe, a 70 year old gentleman who is going to run across Canada. One can appreciate the abilities of older people. He is 70 years of age. I wonder what the 55 to 64 year old group can do.

For a moment I would like to talk about the antithesis of older workers. I think we often look at the two extremes of society: the plight of our young and the plight of our old. I look at my community of Sault St. Marie. We have lost 2,000 young people aged 18 to 21 in the past four years. I think that plight is quite similar for the old people, except they cannot escape to another community to seek out work as readily as the young, although both situations are probably as deplorable.

On this side of the House, we have noted that only the Minister himself has decided to speak on this particular issue. We are wondering if the Government is not terribly proud of its own legislation. It makes one wonder whether we will see it on television in the form of ads to introduce it and convince us that it is good for all Canadians.

With the young, they are either too young or inexperienced. With the old, they are too old or too set in their ways, untrainable, and perhaps too experienced.

Labour

We talk about the Free Trade Agreement. We have words like "rationalization". Just yesterday, we had a new word, "reprofiling". There is also "deregularization". These words are damaging. It is resulting in closures of long established plants, laying off people who were doing specialized labour for years and years.

These people become unwanted. In fact, I suppose they almost become outcasts, in their own minds, untouchable by the new hustling, bustling industry as introduced by this Government through the Free Trade Agreement. It is exacerbated by the Free Trade Agreement, which even the Government recognized. It suggested that displacement through free trade would be a fact of life. This legislation will perhaps help to alleviate the situation, but it is much too little to address the problem truly.

We have an ageing society, but as we age, I think we are doing it more gracefully, more energetically, more exuberantly in our zest for life. Older people are not prepared to be put out to pasture but want to be an integral part of our workforce. They do not want to be treated as an afterthought. They want to continue to be a true force in society and part of the workforce.

This particular legislation makes reference to major lay-offs only. It leads one to think about what happens to the group of two, the group of five, or the group of ten lay-offs in plants. These people will suffer the very same consequence as individuals or groups of individuals of 500 strong. They will suffer the very same consequence, but apparently their concerns will not be addressed with this legislation.

It mentions the word "proportion" as a test for qualifying for this particular legislation. What would the proportion be? Two out of one hundred to qualify? Fifty per cent? I am sure it is going to be at the upper levels of percentages before these people will qualify.

Is it universal? Is it sacred trust? It certainly will not be universal. It will be as universal as Old Age Security and family allowance, but at least those are being dismantled on a piece by piece approach. This program, which should be universal, is not. At least it makes no pretence to be.

One really has to wonder about the consultation process. If one puts a figure of $125 million up for grabs, the amount is set and then one negotiates the program

Labour

around the amount. May I suggest that this is a backward approach. One should put the program in place to approach the problem and then set a figure to it.

I suppose the number of applications for this particular program will have to be divided by three, regardless of the need for the program.

A real surprise to me when I asked which Minister across the floor would be introducing this legislation was that it proved to be a man renowned as the ex-president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The Minister was loud in his cry and lobbied very hard for the 1,200-plus municipalities of this country to have the Government introduce the "big fix", as it is called, which would produce 60,000 jobs in five years for young, middle aged and old people, and would bring the infrastructure of this country back into place.

I am sure he must have been saddened today when he introduced this legislation and compared it to what he previously talked about and espoused.

In 1984 the allotment was $50 million. In 1989 it is $42 million. This is obviously the antithesism of what should be in place. There is less money now and the population is ageing very quickly. In fact, the amount should be much greater.

We on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party agree with the principle of this bill. We encourage its speedy passage. We are very concerned that if we do not pass it quickly the Government might take it back, which would be very consistent with its actions as of late.

It is rather unfortunate that the senior population of this country basically has to beg for every crumb, every hand-out, and has to lobby very diligently. Indeed, it has become a very strong and effective lobby group with government. Let us get on with it. It is not exemplary or acceptable, but it is a great improvement over what we have.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR ACT
Full View Permalink