TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 25, 1994
Bill C-57. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 7144
Motion for concurrence in 42nd report 7144
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7148
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7157
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 7159
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7160
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7162
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7169
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7171
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7172
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 7176
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7177
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7179
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7179
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7180
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7181
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7181
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7182
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7182
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7182
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7182
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7183
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7183
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7184
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7185
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7185
Consideration resumed of motion 7186
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7186
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7189
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 7190
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 7190
Motion moved and agreed to 7194
Consideration resumed of motion 7194
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 7194
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 7197
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 7206
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7208
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7211
Bill C-237. Consideration resumed on second reading of motion 7213
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7215
7139
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 25, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
58 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table,
in both official languages, the government's response to the
seventh biennial report of the International Joint Commission.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in record time this
morning Canada responded formally to the seventh biennial
report of the International Joint Commission on Great Lakes
water quality.
Last spring the IJC issued a clarion call for action by Canada
and the United States to get serious about cleaning up the Great
Lakes.
(1005)
[Translation]
The Government of Canada has taken the IJC's message to
heart and we have responded in an unprecedented
timeframe-not just with words but with deeds and concrete
action.
[English]
Since last spring Canada has got its Great Lakes act together.
In July we signed and are now implementing the
Canada-Ontario Great Lakes agreement, an agreement that had
languished for three years. In September we released the
proposed toxic substances management policy. Today I wish to
announce a new action plan for the management of chlorinated
substances in Canada.
These measures are forceful responses to the
recommendations of the International Joint Commission. More
important, they demonstrate that Canada will do its part to
restore and protect water bodies like the Great Lakes. We will
work to ensure a healthy and safe environment for all residents
and, in response to this issue, in particular for the 45,000
citizens who live around the Great Lakes basin on both sides of
the border.
[Translation]
The Canada-Ontario agreement is innovative and
co-operative. It sets out schedules, targets and mechanisms for
co-ordinated action. Canada and Ontario have agreed on a
shared vision of sustainable development for the Great Lakes.
[English]
I would like to thank those people in the department who
worked very hard to bring forward this speedy response. When
we asked for a response this fall they said it could not be done.
The Department of the Environment did it and I think John Mills
and the team from Ontario deserve special credit.
In this new approach we are embracing the ecosystem
approach, cleaning up pollution hot spots and implementing
binational commitments. We cannot clean up the Great Lakes
alone. The agreement is based on the principles of pollution
prevention, shared responsibilities, openness and
accountability.
Equally important, in responding to the commission's call for
building partnerships-and I see a member of the commission in
the House today-the Canada-Ontario agreement provides a
context for the participation of other partners.
Governments cannot do the job alone. The agreement
provides a smart fiscally responsible way to resolve the complex
challenges that we face in the Great Lakes.
[Translation]
Canada and Ontario are putting in place strategies to
eliminate the use, generation or release into the Great Lakes'
environ-
7140
ment of 13 problem chemicals. The agreement targets
significant reductions for 26 other toxic substances.
[English]
We are putting our money and our science where our mouth is.
Despite serious financial restraint the federal government is
putting millions of dollars over the next six years into the
restoration of the Great Lakes. These efforts make a difference.
Collingwood Harbour in Ontario is the first Great Lakes hot
spot to be declared clean. We intend with the stakeholders group
to keep it that way. Co-operative efforts produce tangible
results.
[Translation]
Our proposed national toxic substances management policy
would commit Canada to the virtual elimination from the
environment of those substances that result from human
activity, take a long time to break down, build up in living
organisms and are toxic. In drafting this policy, the Government
of Canada paid attention to the IJC's recommendations.
[English]
I want to repeat. In response to the IJC's report we are
proposing that Canada reach virtual elimination from the
environment of all man made substances resulting from human
activity which rest in the environment for a long time,
accumulate in living organisms and are toxic.
In elaborating the policy we are in fact adopting the
recommendations of the IJC. The emphasis has to be on
prevention. There is no point in spending a small fortune to
clean up the Great Lakes, the Fraser River and le fleuve
Saint-Laurent if we turn around and pollute them all over again.
As part of our approach to toxics I am pleased to advise the
House of Commons this morning that Canada is implementing a
chlorinated substances action plan that will benefit the Great
Lakes region and the rest of the country.
(1010)
Chlorinated substances will be managed under a five part
action plan. That action plan includes targeting actions to focus
on critical uses and products. Government action will include
eliminating the most harmful chlorinated substances, taking a
sectoral approach to managing chlorinated substances and
entering into environmental performance agreements with key
industrial sectors like the dry cleaning sector and other
governments.
We will also improve the scientific understanding of chlorine
and its impacts on the environment and human health.
Following the IJC report we will develop detailed
socioeconomic and health study issues of the use of chlorinated
substances and their alternatives. We intend to improve access
to all this information for Canadians. We want to promote
international efforts for global action on chlorinated substances.
We are adopting the advice of the world's most respected
scientists. I personally want to thank Dr. David Shindler for his
very constructive contribution in the development of this action
plan.
At a special meeting convened by the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, scientists agreed to
ban all uses of chlorine that are not supported by a critical
review of the scientific evidence to protect the environment.
They also agreed that actions are needed to restrict or ban a
number of toxic persistent and biocumulative chemicals, some
of which are chlorinated.
The scientists agreed that there are some positive uses for
some aspects of the chlorinated chain, including the use of
purification processes in drinking water. At this point we have
no alternative to the use of chlorine for safe drinking water.
Certainly it is reasonable to expect that Canadians want to feel
safe about the water they drink. There is also no reasonable
alternative to certain chlorinated compounds in the
development of pharmaceutical products, including
antihistamines and anti-inflammatory medication.
The plan I am announcing today has to do with ridding Canada
of chlorinated compounds that do persist, that are biocumulative
and that are toxic. These chlorinated compounds will be gone.
We are committed to the virtual elimination in the Great Lakes
basin of nine toxic chlorinated substances identified by the IJC.
We are also committing to significantly reduce the use,
generation and release of five other substances.
[Translation]
As part of our immediate efforts, we will be working with two
important industry sectors to reduce the release of chlorinated
substances: dry cleaning and metal degreasing.
We are all in this together and the smartest route is to work
together to find solutions.
[English]
We know we can make progress. Since we determined that
chlorofluocarbons were destroying the ozone layer we
implemented a phaseout program to reduce their production in
Canada. So far we have reduced CFC consumption by 77 per
cent. The government intends to build on this progress by
introducing an accelerated ozone protection program.
We are also working with the provinces and the territories to
produce national guidelines for water, sediment and soil quality
for more than 40 chlorinated substances. We are undertaking
major initiatives to examine the alternative use to chlorine
based technology.
The government believes all Canadians wherever they live
care deeply about the environment and want to be included in the
7141
future decisions, but Canadians often feel hamstrung by the lack
of information. That is why the government will produce later
this year a national publicly accessible database with
information on the environmental release of 178 substances.
We want the public to have a say in understanding and in
developing public policy. We see the national database as a step
in the right direction in furnishing Canadians with the
information they need to make sound decisions about their own
environmental future.
[Translation]
Next spring, Canada will co-host, in Vancouver, a United
Nations' conference bringing together international experts on
the long-range transport of persistent organic pollutants.
(1015)
[English]
We will be hosting in Vancouver next spring an international
congress of experts from the United Nations on the
transportation of long distance, persistent toxic substances. It is
a direct result of our intervention at the United Nations
commission on sustainable development. We pointed to a
situation in which in the Canadian Arctic right now women face
the incredible difficulty of having excessive levels of PCBs in
their breast milk. This is not because of industrial development
from which they have benefited but rather because of long
distance airborne toxins which come from other parts of the
world. We need a global response.
When we met yesterday with the Prime Minister of the
Ukraine we underlined the importance of developing an
international approach to toxic management so the women of the
Arctic do not have to face the incredible health hazard of having
elevated levels of PCBs in their milk because the world
community has not responded with tough regulations and with
tough responses of pollution prevention.
We are also entering into negotiations with the United States
because we believe an ecosystem approach is the way to go. We
are exploring with the United States a pilot project on
chlorinated substances in the Great Lakes in which Canada and
the U.S. will focus on a dual approach to the elimination of
persistent biocumulative toxins.
Canada will continue to work with the United States in
addressing other Great Lakes issues. No Canadian program, no
matter how comprehensive, no matter how successful, can
achieve the goals set by the International Joint Commission. In a
meeting I had recently with the members of the International
Joint Commission they pointed this out to me.
Let me use Lake Superior as a microcosm. If today all
industrial input into Lake Superior on the Canadian and
American sides were eliminated, we would still see a poisoning
of that lake by up to 20 per cent as a result of international
airborne toxins.
Not only do we need a domestic approach, we need a
binational ecosystem approach to develop closed loop systems
for industrial emissions. We also need a global approach to deal
with the problem of international airborne toxins. Canada will
continue to work very hard with the United States. I know that
my American counterparts are expected to table their IJC
response next spring. They are looking forward to working very
closely with us in developing a constructive binational
approach.
[Translation]
We need joint action on the clean-up of boundary waterways
such as the Detroit and Niagara rivers as well as Lake Superior.
We are eagerly awaiting an American national program.
[English]
We are waiting with impatience for a national American
program to clean up, to prevent pollution and to deal with the
health of this vital ecosystem. As I stated earlier, it is an
ecosystem that supplies the drinking water of 45 million people,
the heart of the fresh water supply of the world.
I want to thank the International Joint Commission. Through
its carefully considered recommendations the commission
continues to provide vital advice on Great Lakes environmental
issues. The government wants to clean up the Great Lakes. It
believes the best way to encourage action from our neighbours
to the south and from other countries is to show leadership on
environmental issues in Canada.
In the last month we have tried to do that. Working with the
very able chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development we have announced a new
environmental industry strategy. We have proclaimed the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, no mean feat and one
for which special tribute is due to my parliamentary secretary,
the former minister of the environment for the province of
Quebec.
We have also introduced important improvements to that act
only yesterday.
[Translation]
We have announced new legislation for a commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development and we have
announced the proposed toxic substances management policy
and the chlorinated substances action plan.
(1020)
[English]
Canadians want the government to be a world leader in
environmental issues. We are determined to provide a balanced
ecosystem approach that recognizes the key is pollution
prevention and that responds positively to the very constructive
IJC recommendations. The goal for chlorinated substances that
are toxic, persistent and that accumulate in living organisms
should be virtual elimination. That is the goal we have embraced
today.
7142
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
International Joint Commission, a Canada-U.S. bilateral
organization created by treaty in 1909, is responsible for
monitoring the progress achieved in meeting the objectives of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement by the Canadian and
U.S. governments, Ontario and eight states bordering the Great
Lakes.
Last winter, the commission tabled its seventh report
reaffirming the recommendations in the two previous reports
and made new recommendations to eliminate pollution in the
Great Lakes. The conclusion of the seventh report was
inescapable: The Joint Commission rejected the approach
traditionally favoured by both countries. It recommended a
drastically different strategy. The commission wants a clear
action plan aimed at virtually eliminating persistent toxins
threatening human health and the future of the Great Lakes'
ecosystem.
It favoured a consultation process involving the federal
government, Ontario, as well as union and community
organizations to allow each player to participate in making
decisions on how to achieve cleanup goals. What caught the
attention of ordinary people-who do not know as much about
the environment as biochemists and scientists with recognized
expertise in this field-is probably the effect of toxins on animal
and human health.
Reproductive, metabolic, neurological and behavioral
abnormalities in humans, fish and birds which are due to water
pollution in the Great Lakes are simply inconceivable. Exposure
to these toxins increases the risk of breast and other types of
cancer. In the long term, scientific evidence shows that PCBs,
dioxins and organo-chlorinated compounds disrupt hormonal
balance in animals. Studies show the existence of similar effects
in humans.
Even more distressing are the long-term effects of these
toxins on the body; they are currently hard to identify but may
become devastating in the not too distant future. This is caused
by toxic waste spills in the Great Lakes.
We must, however, admit that the governments of Ontario and
Canada have made significant progress since the first agreement
was signed in 1971. Since then, the amount of PCBs found in
seagull eggs has gone down by 90 per cent. The iron and steel,
and pulp and paper industries have reduced their release of
conventional pollutants by 75 per cent since 1972, compared to
90 per cent for the petroleum industry.
The Bloc Quebecois is not denying the efforts of the two
governments, but would like to point out that certain problems
remain and that the Canada-Ontario agreement signed in July
has been criticized on several counts. For example, Jay Palter of
Greenpeace expressed his disappointment with the agreement.
He felt that it would not protect the health of the public and the
environment of the Great Lakes, because it ignored the most
toxic chemicals and did absolutely nothing to eliminate the most
toxic chlorinated substances in the Great Lakes.
Today, the minister is admittedly proposing an initial step
towards the elimination of toxic chlorinated substances, but it is
clearly insufficient and does not seem to meet the expectations
of the environmental stakeholders. The minister indicates that
the plan is designed to eliminate nine toxic chlorinated
substances and to reduce the use, generation and release of five
other substances, without placing a total ban on the use of
chlorine.
(1025)
The International Joint Commission proposed that the use of
chlorine and chlorinated compounds in manufacturing
processes should be restricted, gradually eliminated and
ultimately banned. Naturally, this approach was dependent on
government consultation with industry and the other
stakeholders.
The minister is basing her opinion on the results of a special
meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, from which she has concluded that it is not necessary
to ban the use of chlorine in manufacturing processes. We need
hardly remind her that this opinion is not shared by all
stakeholders in the Great Lakes' question.
At the biennial meeting of the International Joint
Commission, which was held in the fall of 1993, a big
controversy developed over the prohibition of that toxic
substance.
For example, Greenpeace and Pollution Probe challenged
claims made by American organizations such as the Chlorine
Chemistry Council, as well as the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association, to the effect that chlorine is not such a toxic
substance.
It is essential to conduct research on chlorine and its
alternatives in industrial processing techniques to put an end to
the ambiguity regarding the virtual elimination of toxic
substances which are harmful to our health.
Let us not forget that 40 million people live on the shores of
those lakes. We often hear about the damage caused to the
Amazon forest, the desertification of African land and
numerous other sites threatened by human activity. The Great
Lakes are one of those sites, since one quarter of the world's
freshwater supply is found there. A long time ago, people may
have believed that, because of its size, this body of water would
never be seriously affected by pollution, but now we have to
recognize that, after years of spillage, these toxic substances
have formed sediments and created a very real problem.
7143
The minister says that she is anxiously waiting for the
American plan. It seems somewhat strange to us, Bloc
Quebecois members, that the Canadian strategy would be
released when the American plan is not even known.
If there is an issue over which the two countries should
consult with each other it is the follow-up of the
recommendations made by the International Joint Commission.
The clean-up plans of both partners have an impact on the same
body of water; consequently, these efforts must complement
each other. As was the case when the signing of the Oslo
Protocol on acid rain was announced last May, when measures to
be initiated by the Government of Canada to deal with
transborder environmental problems are announced by the
minister in the House, it is imperative to supplement these with
an agreement with the neighbouring country in order to make
these clean-up efforts effective.
In this respect, the 1992 report by the sub-committee on acid
rain of the Standing Committee on the Environment was quite
clear, and I quote: ``Thus, while a unilateral Canadian program
of controls on acid-rain-generating emissions might carry
moral or political suasion, it is recognized that a permanent
solution to the problem in North America must include the
United States''.
The same applies to dealing with pollution by chemical
substances in the Great Lakes. The same applies to the clean-up
of the St. Lawrence River. Last week, I went with the
environment and sustainable development committee to the St.
Lawrence Centre, which implements a federal-provincial
program, with a budget of around $100 million, to clean up the
river.
We know that 40 per cent of the toxics that pollute the river
come from the Great Lakes. We therefore feel it is essential to
take a comprehensive and consistent approach. Why bother
spending all this money on cleaning up the river, if toxic
substances can come from unmonitored sources upstream?
If we do not take steps to deal with the whole problem, we are
just wasting taxpayers money. We are literally throwing it down
the drain.
(1030)
In concluding, we want to thank the members of the
commission for their excellent job in clarifying what remains to
be done to eliminate pollution in the Great Lakes. Their
determination is a sign that future generations may yet see these
magnificent waters in their pristine state.
As the commission's report said, what we do to the Great
Lakes, we do to ourselves and to our children.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today with a divided opinion on the minister's statement.
While I support action that will lead to the clean up of the Great
Lakes, I question the manner in which the minister is planning
to attain this goal.
During the last few weeks we have seen a flurry of activity
coming out of the minister's office. Some of the announcements
I have agreed with, such as the submission on environmental
assessment regulations and the commissioner for the
environment. Others I have disagreed with, such as the $57
million subsidy to the already booming environmental services
industry.
Despite the minister's recent activity I still have some
concerns regarding this government's approach to the
environment. Considerable obstacles remain before Canada can
claim, in the words of the minister, to be a world leader on
environmental issues.
Most important among them is the question of
federal-provincial jurisdiction. Herein lies the Achilles heel of
all environmental laws and regulations in Canada, this tug of
war, this fight between the federal government and the
provincial governments on environment, or who is going to have
control.
The minister will recall earlier this year she fought hard to
have the NAFTA environmental office placed in Montreal. We
have heard nothing further from this commission for
environmental co-operation. Why? I would suggest in all
probability it is because the commission is ineffective without
provincial co-operation. The Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act still requires federal-provincial agreements to
avoid confusion and duplication with provincial laws.
These are some of the critical issues that must be addressed
before we can claim to be a leader in the environmental sector.
This announcement on the Great Lakes is one which I support
in principle. However I cannot agree with the minister on its
content for it is heavy on studies but light on substance. For
example phrases like detailed assessment, improved access to
information, seeking global action, and improved scientific
understanding are all nice rhetoric and make great headlines but
they result in little action.
As my colleague has said, the Great Lakes provide one-fifth
of the world's fresh water supply. I will repeat that: one-fifth of
the world's fresh water supply is in the Great Lakes. Protection
of this resource is clearly of critical importance and there is no
one who disputes this.
Numerous agreements and reports have been produced since
the first Great Lakes water quality agreement was signed in
1972. Protection of this resource clearly remains critical.
Response to this problem to date has been a Canada-Ontario
agreement and a proposal to manage chlorinated substances.
The Canada-Ontario agreement is a jointly funded $250 million
program to clean up the Great Lakes. This is a good first step,
but we must take our southern neighbour into consideration
when dealing with the Great Lakes.
7144
Environment Canada released a report last year estimating
that dump sites along the U.S. side of the St. Lawrence River
were responsible for about 60 per cent of the most hazardous
substances polluting Lake Ontario. With facts like these
obviously a Canada-U.S. agreement is critical, but there is no
joint agreement with the U.S. to date. The minister says she is
working with the U.S. toward an agreement, however I would
like to see some concrete actions toward this goal.
This plan does not hold much water-no pun
intended-without an American agreement. We are sharing the
same water trough. Our actions are being undermined by the fact
that we do not have a joint agreement to ensure U.S.
participation and compliance.
(1035 )
The minister was correct when she stated that progress can
only be made in co-operation with other governments and
federal spending will be useful only if it levers participation by
other parties. Without American and provincial co-operation
these plans are futile.
The minister talks about discussions, but when will the
minister get beyond talk and take some concrete action? We
need an agreement, not just rhetoric.
The seventh biennial report which the minister refers to
suggested that the degradation of the Great Lakes has
potentially catastrophic implications for human health. The IJC
report noted, as the minister has pointed out, that chlorinated
substances are an integral part of the problem and link chlorines
with low sperm counts in men and increased breast cancer in
women. Although the IJC report suggested a ban on all
chlorinated substances, these conclusions lack scientific
backing. It is impractical to ban all chlorinated substances,
however we do need to manage them more effectively.
To reduce the release of chlorinated substances the minister
talks about working with two industry sectors. She mentions the
dry cleaning and metal degreasing industries. What about
Canada's number one industry, forestry? Pulp and paper mills
are major users of chlorine in the bleaching process. The
minister fails to mention this industry in her speech and I
question why. I suspect it has a lot to do with the older mills and
the precarious balance they have between the economy and the
environment. However it is a major sector in Canadian industry
and I believe it needs to be addressed here.
In conclusion, I am encouraged that the minister is taking
action on the Great Lakes. However it is not enough just to say
that Canadians want to be a world leader on environmental
issues, we must take the necessary steps to attain this goal. We
need an agreement with the Americans and all of the provinces
to reduce chlorinated toxins. We must work closely with all the
industries involved.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
delegates to the Interparliamentary Union. This report was
prepared by the official delegation which represented Canada at
the 92nd Inter-Parliament Conference held in Copenhagen on
September 12 to 17, 1994.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 42nd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of committees.
[Translation]
With the consent of the House, I intend to propose later on
today that the 42nd report be concurred in.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-57, an act to
implement the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think there would be consent to dispense with reading
of the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs concerning membership of committees.
7145
If so, and if the House gives its consent, I move that the 42nd
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I present this
petition on behalf of my constituents. They urge the government
to support a domestic ethanol industry, especially since a world
scale ethanol plant in Chatham hangs in the balance waiting for a
federal commitment.
This plant would be the eighth largest in North America. The
petitioners note that our federal government has no long term
ethanol policy, unlike the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta, the U.S. government of Bill Clinton,
Brazil, Australia, and many others. The people of Canada are
waiting for action.
* * *
(1040)
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7145
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved:
That this House requests the government to table a clear detailed plan to show
how and when it intends to balance the budget including a clear statement of its
vision of the role of the government in the economy in order for the people of
Canada to debate the plan and vision.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure for me to
talk on this motion on this auspicious day. Today is October 25,
1994. It happens to be the first anniversary of the general
election last year at which time the Reform Party laid before the
people of Canada a real plan of how to deal with the debt and the
deficit.
We presented to the Canadian people a plan that we called
zero in three, a plan to balance the budget in three years. We laid
out specifically where we would cut the money. We had a
balanced plan between growth in the economy and cuts in
government spending. In that way the Canadian people would
know that within three years we would have a balanced budget.
We spelled it out in detail that we would cut 25 per cent of
subsidies to crown corporations. We would reform
unemployment insurance to make it a real insurance plan based
on the debate and discussion between management and labour.
We talked about abandoning and eliminating subsidies to
special interest groups, and so on. We laid out a complete and
detailed plan on how we would achieve that.
On this day last year 2.5 million Canadians voted for that plan
and elected 52 Reformers to this House. It was one of the great
electoral upsets in the history of Canada. We had only one MP
before and now we are represented here by 52 MPs.
During that same election, the Liberals ran around waving
their red book. The Prime Minister said that he had a book and he
had a plan. The nature of our motion today is to ask where that
plan is. We have not seen it yet. On this the first anniversary the
Liberals have been in power for one full year and we are still
waiting for them to take action on that infamous red book
``Creating Opportunity, the Liberal plan for Canada''. We have
not seen what they intend to do with it.
The Liberals talked about reviving the economy, reducing the
deficit, creating high tech jobs. One of the first things they did
was cancel the helicopter program that was going to cost about
$5 billion and would have generated all kinds of research and
development and high technology. What did they do with the
money? They started digging up ditches, digging sewers and so
on. That will not add to the future viability of this country. That
type of plan will get them nowhere in the long term.
We were expecting big things when they waved that book all
through the election campaign. We thought it was going to be an
exciting 100 days, even though we were sitting in opposition,
but what happened? It took the government almost 100 days to
get Parliament back sitting. That type of lethargy is what has
happened. That is the story of this Liberal government in this
past year.
The Liberals have fallen flat. They have not delivered on their
promises. They have accomplished very little, if indeed they
have accomplished anything apart from their discussion papers
of course.
(1045 )
A few weeks ago the Minister of Human Resources
Development laid before us a document that said we have a
problem. Did he have any solutions? No, he had nothing. He
promised to deliver that paper in June and he did not. He took
until October before he laid that plan before us and all he could
was say was that there is a problem.
7146
We are looking for real direction from this government. We
have not seen it so far. In his plan of a review of social programs
he excluded $20 billion of old age security payments. That says
this is not even going to form part of the discussion. Transfers to
the provinces for help, let us not even talk about that. It is not
part of our social security review. Yet the whole idea is surely to
review the program to find out if any money can be saved.
The ministers of the government have to get their act together.
We are asking and pleading with them to lay before Canadians a
plan of action that shows us how they intend to balance this
budget.
He talked about a health care program. The Prime Minister
took great pains to explain and be proud of the fact that he was
going to call a premier's conference on health care in June. It did
not happen in June and it did not happen in July. By the time
October came around he finally got a few people to show up. Not
one representative from the provinces showed up on his much
vaunted forum on health care. Again it has fallen flat.
The red book said the Liberals were going to reform the GST.
The finance committee met ad nauseam from January to June. It
produced a document but we still have not seen anything. They
have no plan. They promised to get rid of the GST and they have
not produced a thing.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Stand by. A
simple tax is coming.
Mr. Williams: Small business people are struggling to handle
all the complex accounting. Yet one year later, no plan, no
proposal. The finance minister floated out the idea of a national
12 per cent sales tax. I can assure the Minister of Finance that a
flat 12 per cent national sales tax will not fly in my home
province of Alberta.
Canadians were promised good government and that Ottawa
would hold the separatists at bay through their good
government. We have 53 of them sitting here and through their
lack of leadership we now have a bunch sitting in Quebec City
which is bent on taking Quebec out of this federation. It is a
national tragedy that through their lack of leadership and lack of
direction they have allowed that to happen. If they had kept the
separatists out of the provincial government in Quebec this
country would be a lot better off today. We found out through
question period in the last few weeks that they were caught flat
footed and did not even get the documents and agreements all
signed properly. Therefore the separatists were able to make
political hay out of their lack of ensuring that paper work was
done and getting an agreement signed on Collège Lac-St-Jean.
They promised that parliamentary democracy would be
revived and we would have open government. Yet we find that
the whip is applied as soon as one person wants to step out of
line. Oh, no, that is not allowed. So much for their great
statements on revived and open government.
They did promise us that there would be action on the deficit
and the debt. By the admission of the Minister of Finance when
he brought down his first budget, within three years he will add
$100 billion more to our debt. He has not even told us or given us
any idea when he will even attempt to get to a balanced budget.
Mr. Penson: He does not know how.
An hon. member: There will be a royal commission.
Mr. Williams: My friends are also upset. We want to know
what the government is saying. What is the plan? There is no
plan. They have been around for a year and we want to know
what they intend to do. Canadians want to know. That is that they
were elected to do, yet they have not been able to produce.
The Minister of Finance talks about the deficit being reduced
to 3 per cent of the GNP within three years. It is the wrong target
because the debt will continue to grow. He has not given us any
idea how he is going to go beyond that.
(1050 )
To bring it down to $25 billion in three years is minuscule,
timid and lacks any guts whatsoever to get the job done. Now we
find by the Minister of Finance's own admission last week that
even his own small and timid target of reducing the deficit to
$25 billion is going to be out of his reach unless he makes more
serious cuts. He has not given us a plan.
We need to know what the government intends to do.
Canadians have their right surely because those members were
elected on a red book that set action and we have had one year of
inaction.
The Minister of Finance tells us about the $6 billion to $9
billion of additional cuts that are necessary to meet this target.
Yet nothing in the two documents that he tabled last week before
the finance committee, ``A New Framework for Economic
Policy'' and ``Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate'', in any way
shape or form gives us any idea how the minister is going to
tackle this job of cutting.
He could have gone back to the plan that we laid out last year,
our zero in three plan. We laid it all out there. It was quite
simple. The advice was there for free and yet even that seems to
be beyond his comprehension.
He did say last week that what we seek are jobs and growth. To
get there we must stop the debt. Our ultimate goal is a balanced
budget. He has said it. We want him to deliver. We want to know
how he is going to deliver and we want to know when he is going
to deliver on the commitment that he made before the finance
committee last week.
The minister also said that the entire role of government in the
economy must be rethought. I hope he has some kind of vision
when he makes these kinds of statements, some plan or idea of
7147
the role of government in this country and how it is going to
interact with private industry to ensure that we get back together
on our fiscal senses. Nothing has been produced.
The government has lost a clear sense of economic leadership
in a vision of what the role must be in a modern economy and
where it should leave the action to others.
Here is another quote out of the same publication. We see that
the Minister of Finance really does not know. He is asking
Canadians what they want. This is what I call leadership from
behind. He says: ``We have a problem. Everybody talk about it,
please. If I can find that there is some consensus in the nation
then I will go in that direction''. That is not leadership.
That is leadership from behind. That accomplishes nothing.
We are looking for resolute action now to resolve the deficit for
the benefit of future generations. Six hundred billion or $650
billion in debt at an interest rate averaging 6, 7 and 8 per cent is
completely and absolutely unsustainable by this country. The
Minister of Finance seems quite willing to allow that to happen.
Canadians deserve to know what cuts are to be made, when
they are to be made, how and when this government plans to
balance the budget. The Canadian people deserve to know the
vision of the Minister of Finance and the role that the
government has for this economy.
I ask the Minister of Finance now to ensure that he eliminates
all the waste in government, that he can reform the MPs pension
plan. He can start here in this House. He does not have to go out
in the street and talk to Canadians and say: ``What do you
want?''. We in the Reform say and I know that all Canadians
agree that it is time that we reform the MPs pension plan.
I looked at the public accounts. They were tabled in the House
last week. The government threw in another $10 million just to
bring up the level of money in the plan to cover the excess
payments that are now going out because 200-odd MPs at last
election are now out on the street. They are not out on the street
but they are on their own. They are out on the street with a huge
pension plan paid by the Canadian taxpayers. They are upset and
they would like to see some reforms.
If the Minister of Finance needs any ideas we say he can start
right here in this House.
An hon. member: Is he listening?
(1055 )
Mr. Williams: I doubt it. What about unemployment
insurance? We said last year that business and labour should sit
down together and revamp the UI program in order for it to be a
self-sustaining program. We hear some musings by the minister
along those lines on this the anniversary of the election. It has
been one whole year and he is just starting to get to the point
where we were a year ago.
He could target social spending to those in need. Yesterday
afternoon at the University of Alberta I was talking to people
who are faced with substantial increasing costs in their
education. As they are being asked to pay for more and more of
their education, there are retired people who are sitting on the
beaches in Hawaii or who are sitting in the sun in southern
United States and Mexico collecting old age security on top of
the whole wealth they have accumulated during their life.
I said during the election that we will cut off old age security
to senior families which earn more than $54,000. All I got from
the seniors was: ``Why so high at $54,000? Bring it down. It is
far too much''.
They had never seen that kind of money before. Yet this
government continues to pay almost $5,000 a year per retired
individual regardless of their income. They may be millionaires.
When we have fiscal problems why should we be spending that
kind of money on people who do not need it?
Consider special interest groups which get half a billion
dollars. Just cut them off. It is that simple. It does not take a lot
of guts. Just do it. The Minister of Finance should start right
away.
How about improved financial accountability in government?
Treasury Board has a policy in place called program evaluation
where programs are evaluated basically on four points. One, is it
relevant? Are we still spending money by virtue of habit? Two,
is it effective and meeting its objectives? Three, are we
delivering the program efficiently and, four, is there another
better way to deliver the program?
Program evaluation is a policy that is currently being used a
small amount by the Treasury Board, but could be used much
more in order for Canadians to find out how the programs are
working and how they can be revamped and regeared to ensure
we are getting maximum bang for our buck, that those in need
are receiving the assistance and we are spending Canadian
taxpayers dollars efficiently, well and wisely.
These are just some of the things we and the Minister of
Finance could do, but unfortunately he is going to wait another
six months until he tables his budget in February before we
know what his next nickel of cuts is going to be. Even by his own
admission he is already missing his target.
Let us take a look at some of the figures we have so far. The
1994-95 spending estimates show old age security costing $20.6
billion. Next year it will increase to $21.4 billion. Transfers to
provinces were $26.3 billion last year, increasing to $26.4
billion. Grants to natives of $3.8 billion last year are up to $4.1
billion. Grants to international assistance remain the same at
$2.6 billion. Other subsidies and transfers at $4.5 billion are
going up to $4.9 billion.
There is not a single cut. We wonder why this country is in a
mess. We wonder when this government will take serious, real,
concerted action. That is what Canadians want. It is long
7148
overdue. We call upon the Minister of Finance to table his plan
and his vision now.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I looked forward to this
opposition motion today because it gives the Government of
Canada a chance to put on the record in a factual way not only
the vision this government has in terms of putting people back to
work and getting this economy going, but some of the specific
initiatives that have been passed in the last eight months since
we have taken power. It is important that we focus on the deficit
and debt of this balance sheet for Canada and we are doing that.
The Financial Post, which no one would ever claim to be a paper
sympathetic to the Liberal Party, in the Saturday edition had a
masthead saying we are heading in the right direction. The
Reform Party should take note of that.
(1100)
I want to be very specific. We need growth in the economy. As
a government we have said pre the red book, during the red
book, in the last eight months that small business represents the
greatest hope of putting Canadians back to work.
I am not going to use this report from the industry committee
called ``Taking Care of Small Business'' as a display, but I do
want to say that the Reform Party, which worked on and
supported the report, has to acknowledge that already the banks
are acting on some of the recommendations we have put in the
report.
At the same time I do not know how the member who was the
lead speaker for the Reform Party could stand in his place and
not acknowledge that our exports have been up four months in a
row, our manufacturing sector is on the rebound. All the
statistics and all the numbers show that. Our tourism deficit is
coming down.
By the way, I am not standing here claiming victory. That is
not the point. The point is that we have created an environment
not only with specific actions but a psychological environment
which is important in any economic equation. We cannot go
around here cut, cut, cut without using our creative ability to
cause growth specifically in the small business sector.
I hope the remaining speeches put forward by the opposition
parties today will be a little more balanced. Confidence in the
economy is an important factor in the equation. Reformers have
to acknowledge, if they are going to be looking at all of the facts,
that there are many good signals in the economy today. I believe
that the government has assisted in creating those positive facts.
I would like the member of the opposition to stand in his place
and acknowledge that manufacturing is up. Exports are up. The
tourism deficit is coming down. House starts have been up the
last four months in a row. It is a fact that 300,000 new jobs have
been created in the last nine months. If he would just
acknowledge those things, we could begin having a truly
constructive debate here today.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the selective statements by the
parliamentary secretary certainly seem to bolster his case. He
talks about the masthead in the Financial Post at the weekend
supporting his vision. It was from that particular article that I
thought about leadership from behind.
The article talked about the fact that there is a consensus
among Canadians that the Minister of Human Resources
Development should move ahead and reform UI even though he
has not laid a plan before us as part of his social services review.
The survey said go and go now because the people want
something done.
As for the psychological advantage, businesses want cuts,
cuts, cuts. As I said in my opening remarks we could start by
cutting the MPs pension plan. We would get applause from
Canadians just by doing it right now. That is the type of
demonstration which would send a strong signal to all people in
Canada, not just small business people, that the members of
Parliament are serious about reining in the deficit. If we are
talking about austerity let us start right here. It is a wonderful
opportunity that the government is missing.
(1105)
He talks about vision. We have not seen any vision from the
Liberal Party. We are asking for a plan. We hope the Liberals can
deliver one very soon. I know that Canadians are getting fed up.
They will run out of patience and find somebody else to do the
job if the Liberals cannot.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
the record show that the Reform Party did not acknowledge any
of the facts I put on the record in my previous comments.
I would like to show that we are prepared to debate the tough
issues openly. As the Minister of Human Resources
Development said quite clearly on many occasions, his
document is not a fait accompli. It is a discussion paper. It is a
debating tool. It is an instrument to get people involved as we
restructure the government's social service programs.
Quite frankly that is the way to go. I know Reform Party
members really think that is the way to go. They are known for
their 1-800 numbers and their fax machines where they get their
questions for question period. The point I am trying to make is
that Reformers should go back to the way they started where
they were going to be a bit more constructive about debate.
I want to acknowledge one area. It is an area in which I have a
personal interest and it is the whole issue of tax reform. I was
absolutely amazed at the opening speech today. The Reform
Party campaigned vigorously on a single tax system to reform
the tax system. All of us believe that the tax system of Canada
needs reform. I would like it to show on the record that the
opening speaker today never once talked about the single tax
system or as they call it, the flat tax system.
7149
In the whole year Reformers have been in the House of
Commons they have done very little to honour the campaign
pledge which they made that they were going to work diligently
to reform the tax act of Canada. I hope the member today is not
symbolic of the whole spirit of the Reform Party, that it has
deserted its campaign on comprehensive tax reform.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to confirm for the hon.
parliamentary secretary that no, we have not abandoned or given
up in any way, shape or form our desire to reform income tax.
We would not stop there of course. We want to reform many
more programs, far beyond just the income tax system. We
include elimination of subsidies to special interest groups,
reform of the pension plan for members of Parliament,
downsizing government, downsizing subsidies to crown
corporations, bringing in competition to ensure that we have
effective and efficient government. Why stop at just reforming
the tax system? The whole system needs reforming from top to
bottom.
The hon. member talked about the Minister of Human
Resources Development's plan as being not a fait accompli. My
goodness, he did not even get started, beyond saying there is a
problem. We have said in our motion today that we are looking
for a vision.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very rare that as Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance I actually want to jump to
my feet to participate in a debate. After listening to the first half
hour of debate, we have to bring a little intelligence and hard
work to this debate, with the exception of the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Industry whose interventions were
both intelligent and thoughtful.
There is an obligation in the House of Commons when we
have these debates that the opposition brings to bear a different
perspective than that of the government and does it through
research, through common sense and through bringing to the
attention of the House the concerns of their constituents.
(1110 )
I happen to know the city of St. Albert and I know how
intelligent its voters are. The member who preceded this
member is a very intelligent person from the Conservative Party
and a very wise man. I am sure the people of St. Albert would
want their member to bring to the House some facts and figures
to support their case and not just sitting here and talking.
My hon. colleague behind me from Peterborough can tell the
House, as he too, like myself, taught at a university. From our
history departments, we all know that if we do not learn history
we repeat the same mistakes of an earlier generation. In fact, the
opposition is repeating so many mistakes that the former Prime
Minister from Alberta was quoted in the papers this morning as
saying that he thinks it will be quite easy for the Conservative
Party to come back. When a party of one person or two people
think they can overtake the new opposition it just shows
everyone how weak they think it is let alone how we think it is.
Does the parliamentary secretary realize that this is the first
opposition day offered up by the Reform Party since we have
come back this year?
Mr. Williams: It is the first one you gave us.
Mr. Walker: What topic do they choose? They choose the
financial structure and budgeting process of the country.
Mr. Penson: That is what Canadians choose.
Mr. Walker: What is the great strength of this government?
Mr. McClelland: You tell us.
Mr. Walker: It is the financial structure, the reorganization
of the government, the production of an excellent first budget
and, for the first time in the history of any government, the
production of a prebudget process with documents from the
Minister of Finance to show Canadians exactly what we have to
do to get ourselves reorganized.
On our anniversary date they give us our strong hand to talk
about it. Thank you very much, team. This is exactly what we
need.
Let me just talk about some of the things that we have done for
the last year. In this very instructive book called ``The First
Eight Months of the Liberal Government-Promises Made,
Promises Kept'', 43 areas are mentioned in which we said before
the election we would proceed. These areas range from fairer
taxes, federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, GATT, the goods
and services tax, job creation, North American free trade,
prebudget consultation, reducing the deficit, removing
interprovincial trade barriers, child support payments, literacy
initiatives, social security reform, unemployment insurance,
youth employment and learning strategy, the Atlantic
groundfish strategy, building Canada's infrastructure, Canadian
space program, protecting fish stocks, the reintroduction of the
residential rehabilitation assistance program, the science and
technology review, supporting small and medium sized
businesses, the commissioner of the environment and
sustainable development, international leadership, protecting
Canada's
7150
wildlife, the end of tobacco smuggling, the enhancement of
Canadian cultural identity-
Mr. McClelland: It's like talking to a divorce lawyer. You
have done nothing.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, in this document are the most
amazing facts about how the government has worked hard in the
first year.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Walker: In category after category we have set out a plan
of action which opposition parties, not only in Canada but
anywhere in a democratic society, would ask how these guys
accomplished so much so quickly. I would say that it is through
the hard work of the Prime Minister. He has set the standard for
the rest of the caucus and we have proceeded to work on our
plans.
The motion today asks us to move toward a balanced budget
immediately. I would say to the Reform Party that everyone in
the House, I think, and judging from what happened in the
finance committee, is absolutely committed to making sure that
we get our House in order. There should be no doubt about it.
The Bloc has said the same. The Reform Party has said the same.
Therefore, the question becomes one of how do we do it. What is
the best topic? What is the best strategy? That is where I return
to the organized strategy of the government.
We set out in our first budget certain objectives of how to
manage the deficit. We are right on course. The Minister of
Finance has said on several occasions that we will meet our
target each and every year. The critical issue facing Canadians
after the last 10 years of government has been the complete lack
of credibility in the financing of the country. We have proceeded
to deal with the issue of credibility.
I am very proud to be working with the Minister of Finance
who has in every statement systematically re-established a
credible framework for the governing of the country and putting
our financial House in order. The strategy was reaffirmed last
week in our economic and fiscal update. This important paper
set the parameters for a public budget consultation that is both
unprecedented and fundamental to fostering economic growth
and jobs.
(1115)
Let me remind the opposition that when the Minister of
Finance spoke to the House committee on finance he zeroed in
on our fiscal challenge. He said:
Facing up to the debt challenge is the keystone of responsible economic
policy. If we fail at that, we fail at everything else. It is not a question of focusing
on jobs or the debt. It is a question of focusing on both.
From time to time we hear the opposition party taunting. We
have asked the opposition parties on several occasions to give us
some ideas, to help us out with this very difficult process. There
are going to be tremendous tradeoffs. There are going to be a lot
of people hurt in the process. The purpose of government is not
to hurt Canadians. It is not the fault of the poor that we are
bankrupt. It is not the fault of the elderly that we are bankrupt. It
is the fault of government after government which has refused to
deal with the fiscal crisis.
It is a question of fair taxes. We set out that we would deal
with fairer taxes. We started out by dealing with the $100,000
capital gains exemption. The corporate income tax deduction
and the GST tax credit for meal and entertainment expenses
were reduced from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. Large private
corporations with capital over $15 million are no longer eligible
for the small business deduction.
New measures will prevent Canadian based companies from
using foreign affiliates to avoid paying Canadian taxes. We will
ensure that the income from securities held by financial
institutions is measured appropriately for tax purposes.
Corporate tax rules relating to tax shelters, research and
development incentives, debt forgiveness and asset sales are
tightened.
The first $25,000 of life insurance benefits provided by
employers will no longer be tax exempt. The threshold for the 29
per cent tax credit on charitable donations is lowered from $250
to $200. The age tax credit for hiring seniors will be
progressively reduced over the next two years. The taxation of
family trust, a very difficult issue in which I know the Bloc has a
particular interest, has been reviewed by the House of Commons
finance committee. We know there will be positive
recommendations for change coming out of that.
The difference is that we have our facts and we have organized
a program to achieve success. We are not just rambling on. We
are not just using up the time of the House of Commons for
polemics and rhetoric. There is a real job to be done.
At the time of the first anniversary of the last
government-and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Industry was there-there was no reason to celebrate. It had
not kept its promises from 1984, let alone the promises from
1988. It was met with dull silences. Its members wore little
flowers to promote the Prime Minister, but what did that mean in
terms of substance? It meant absolutely nothing.
There can be no doubt about our commitment to meeting the 3
per cent deficit target we have set out for 1996-97. There should
be no question that this is a vital first step forward toward an
ultimate goal: a balanced budget.
I am sure the House needs no reminder of the price Canadians
are paying for decades of surging deficits and debt. It is
measured in higher taxes, high interest rates, too few new jobs
and too little growth. We have started out on the deficit
reduction track to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP in
three years. Canadians should understand why that 3 per cent
target is so important. In the words of the Minister of Finance,
we will reach that target come hell or high water.
7151
Reaching that level will mark a turning point in the battle
against the debt. It will mean that the economy will be growing
faster than the debt. In other words the debt will finally begin to
shrink in relation to Canada's economy. This will be happening
only for the second time in more than two decades.
We can look at the issue in another way. The federal deficit
currently near 6 per cent of GDP has not been as low as 3 per cent
since 1974-75. There is another point that is just as important to
emphasize. It underscores why it is better to move ahead by
concrete steps than to issue wishful, long term plans for deficit
elimination. Setting firm deficit targets for the near future
represents a major change from the past.
Because Canadians have become cynics about federal
deficits, because they have suffered too many years or rosy long
term promises, we have set out realistic targets and will take the
actions needed to deliver bottom line results. Our success will
strengthen credibility for our long term objective: eliminating
the deficit completely.
(1120)
This strategy is based on fundamental, political and public
reality. We believe it is best to set out short term targets,
concrete milestones and hit them. With short term targets there
is no excuse for delay and no acceptable grounds for not taking
tough action to address the problem. When unrealistic long term
goals are set, we can always find a reason to avoid tough action
today, tomorrow and the tomorrow after. That was the Tory
record and it is a legacy we refuse to accept.
I want to highlight another aspect of the political and public
reality of deficit fighting. The previous government believed in
imposed solutions that did not draw upon real national
discussion and consensus. Now it is Reform that looks for
instant slash and mash solutions.
Our government is a national government committed to
democratic principles of openness, access and consultation. It is
those principles at work that govern our approach to winning the
deficit battle. The Minister of Finance made that point clear
when he addressed the House of Commons finance committee. I
quote the minister:
During our first round of prebudget consultations, Canadians told us they
wanted clear targets to which they could hold the government accountable. We
have provided those milestones.
Canadians can now judge if we keep our word. That is why our target is not
cast ahead into the fog of some far off future. It is only two years away.
That is why we have set year by year milestones on the way to that target-so
that we can be held to account. That is why we have used very prudent
assumptions in determining how our targets can be met. And that is how we will
restore confidence in the financial credibility of the Government of Canada.
These are not just words. It is a formal pledge. That is why we
took several concrete actions in the last budget and that is why
we have achieved our targets.
Several issues are still confronting the government. For
example interest rates, triggered by the U.S. federal reserve
fight against inflation and compounded by worries about
Canada's fiscal burden and the Quebec situation, are much
higher than anyone expected. Because of the size of our debt
even small changes in interest rates have mammoth effects on
our carrying costs.
The fiscal update sets out the dimension of the challenge we
face under different and increasingly prudent interest rate
assumptions. Based on the current outlook and the average of
private sector forecasts we would still need an additional deficit
action of $2.3 billion in 1995-96 and $5 billion the year after.
If we assume interest rates that are half a percentage point
above the average private sector forecast without any new
budget action, we risk falling short by $3.1 billion of our target
next year and by $6.3 billion in 1996-97. The numbers are even
worse if we assume interest rates a full percentage point above
the average forecast and growth that is half a percentage point
lower. Then the deficit could be $5 billion above our target next
year and $9 billion off the target in 1996-97. The combination of
high interest rates and a large debt poses a major challenge.
In the discussion in the finance committee last week the
Minister of Finance indicated several principles. First, the
deficit reduction must be part of a strategy to create jobs from
growth. Second, the actions must be fair, making sure that the
most vulnerable are not left behind. Third, deficit reduction
measures must be selective and strategic reflecting clear
priorities. Fourth, we must be frugal with taxpayers' dollars
and, finally, budget action should weigh on the side of cuts and
spending rather than increases in revenue.
As we seek these reductions we should keep another thing in
mind, another lesson from the past. Under the previous
government the problem was not the 10 or 15 per cent that was
lopped off in each year's last minute frenzy. Rather the problem
was that no one paid attention to doing better with the remaining
funds. We will not make that mistake. Canadians do not expect
smaller government. They demand smarter government. That is
why the Minister of Finance went to the finance committee last
week.
I want to take a minute to explain the significance of this
action. Under Standing Order 83(1), accepted by all members of
the House last spring, the government committed itself to the
first prebudget review in the history of any western democracy,
particularly in the parliamentary system. It has not been done in
Britain. It has not been done in Germany. The American model
7152
is much different. It has been tried in selective ways in the
provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan.
(1125)
We want to have Canadians involved to understand how
difficult some of the choices in front of us might be. There is the
law of unintended consequences that we learn when studying
history wherein we do one thing and have a number of side
effects that we did not want. We want Canadians to get into
active discussion with us about what those tradeoffs might be.
We have presented a two part plan for creating jobs, for the
reorganization of the government and for the establishment of
new priorities. When the Minister of Finance was before the
committee he raised three questions he wanted the committee to
look at. First, are the economic assumptions for growth and
interest rates appropriate? Second, what should be the balance
between cuts in spending and measures to raise revenues? Third,
what specific actions should be recommended? We want to
move away from the scenario of not in my backyard.
I am sure members of the House hear the reactions, for
example to the social security review. People are saying that we
should not touch a particular program, not even discuss it. When
we move into financing the country we cannot have little
cubbyholes or little special tax situations that we cannot talk
about. We want everything on the table.
We want opposition members to participate in the round table
discussions we are to have across Canada. We want to hear their
suggestions. When we report back to the House in December we
want all members of the House of Commons to have an
opportunity to make their own contributions. In late December
and in January when the serious work on the budget begins to
take a shape the Minister of Finance can look at the report of the
House of Commons finance committee, thank Canadians for
their support and thank the House of Commons committee for
organizing their comments in a constructive fashion.
It is not an easy process. I thank members of the Reform Party
for bringing these issues to the attention of the House. I wish
they would be able to contribute a little more positively. Perhaps
other speakers during the afternoon will go back to their
research bureau and say that the parliamentary secretary for
finance was correct. We do need some more ideas. Let us sit
down, maybe for the first time. I do not know how that party
works but let us sit down, take a look at the problems facing the
country, and use the time of the House of Commons effectively.
One of the great frustrations of Canadians watching the
parliamentary channel is how many people are really
contributing ideas. In our platform for the last year, the 43 areas
in which we have taken initiative and the nine tax changes I
think we provided a very specific idea. I see the lead critic for
the Bloc Quebecois is beginning to warm up for his contribution.
We will listen for his specific ideas.
We have in front of us an opportunity to debate and to present
ideas on reduction. I know the Bloc has changed its views in the
last couple of weeks and is now on the bandwagon. It is nice to
have Bloc members aboard. We will look for specific
suggestions. When it came to certain budget measures in the last
budget-and it was difficult-Bloc members were on their feet
in the House complaining about this cutback and that cutback. It
would be good to have them understanding that in the overall
framework everyone has to pay a price and everybody has to
contribute in re-establishing the physical health of the country.
In conclusion I thank the House for the opportunity to
participate today and for the opportunity to put forward some of
the areas in which we have made major accomplishments. I look
forward to the contributions of my colleagues on this side and
my colleagues on the other side. Through questions and answers
and good debate we will have a better idea of how to put the
country back together.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the dissertation of the
hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. He is a
very influential person within the finance committee. He sits at
the right hand of the Minister of Finance. Would this not then set
fear into the hearts of the innocent when they wonder where is
the plan?
(1130 )
It is not like these people came here yesterday. They were in
opposition for nine years. They were the architects of the
disaster we are living in today trying to get elected 35 years ago.
They have had one year of power and what have they
accomplished? Absolutely nothing.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance stands
there and says: ``Well, what are your ideas? You are trying to
smoke us out''. They are going to get our ideas in black and
white but they are going to get them after they finally put theirs
on paper, finally.
What we have here are the Liberals in a new olympic Liberal
sport: low hurdles. You set the hurdle low enough and you can
crawl over it, which is about what they are doing. They are not
going to wear themselves out jumping over high hurdles; they
are going to wear themselves out tripping over low hurdles.
I ask the parliamentary secretary who has given us a litany of
the 47 things they have consulted on so far to tell me one specific
thing they have accomplished. Not the 47 they have talked
about, just one they have accomplished.
7153
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the willingness of the Reform
Party to give me an opportunity to expand on our good activities
for the last year is exceptional. I appreciate the goodwill with
which these questions are lobbed toward me.
Where do you start? You start with what we-
Mr. McClelland: Where do you start?
Mr. Walker: I appreciate the inexperience of the Reform
Party members in the House but it is still no excuse for not
having any ideas on the table. They are adults and they should be
able to participate.
Let us just talk about the infrastructure program. Let us talk
about the way Canadians finally had a government that said:
``You people need to get back to work. What we are going to do
is we are going to start this project''. In a classic Liberal fashion
which I am very proud of we started out with a number of
projects across this country-and you are smiling-
Mr. McClelland: Spending other people's money.
Mr. Walker: Do you know what they do not talk about in the
House? Have they ever asked a question about Alberta projects
in question period? They just say silent. Why? Because they
understand that for Albertans the only piece of good news from
any government is what this government is doing on
infrastructure. It has not come from the provincial government.
It has not come from this opposition party. The only good news
has come from the minister of energy and her colleagues who
work very hard for the province of Alberta. The best evidence of
that is in infrastructure.
I know that in Winnipeg-
Mr. McClelland: Liberal road kill.
Mr. Walker: Liberal road kill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. In this-I do not
know if I dare call it-I will just say it is the first anniversary
and leave it at that.
Clearly, we want to continue what we have established over
this first year as parliamentarians from both sides of the House
and that is a respectful way of conducting debate, vigorously
and sometimes more animated than others. Ultimately however
we do want to retain decorum and respect for one another and for
this great institution.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I share your respect for this
institution. I apologize to you and to members of the House if
my animation toward the good infrastructure program seemed to
be-
An hon. member: You could not help it.
Mr. Walker: It is hard not to get excited by this program.
I come from Winnipeg and quite frankly mine is one of the
poorer constituencies in the country. Last summer is the first
time since I was elected to this House that anybody has come up
and thanked me that they had an opportunity to work.
Some people are snobbish about building roads, but there are
a lot of people in this country who work building roads and they
need those jobs. There are a lot of people who drive cars and
buses over those roads. There is nothing to be ashamed of for
creating a better infrastructure.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry stays
on top of all these issues. He points out that in Winnipeg we are
going to be rebuilding the road system which allows trucks to
exit from the airport more quickly to the south. Part of our
overall plan to rebuild the Manitoba economy is around the
airport and transportation. We used to be the gateway to the west
but that economy has changed. We are now going to be the
gateway to the south.
You cannot walk away from the project. It requires capital. It
requires investment. The minister for human resources, who is
responsible for western Canada and Manitoba, came forward to
the provincial and municipal governments. Their response was:
``Thank you for putting this together. Thank you for giving us
the opportunity. We will throw in some money. We think it is
important. Yes, we know it is borrowing money and we know
this is expensive, but sooner or later people want to see their
governments do something for them''.
(1135)
When I passed by people working this summer one came up to
me and said: ``Mr. Walker, I have been in Canada for 15 years. I
am a little embarrassed. I am still just a road construction guy.
My kids are going to college. However, I am working this year''.
It is important to him. He is not going to be doing anything else,
but he is going to be working.
The cultural community in Winnipeg which is so important
does not have the capital. However we came up and said: ``We
are going to help your fund raising effort. We are going to put
some money into this. You go to the provincial and municipal
governments and the private sector. Let us see if we cannot
rebuild your facility. Let us see if we cannot build it up for the
first time in a decade''. From the looks on their faces it was
apparent we were doing something so they might have an
opportunity. I can only say this with passion. It must be
understood that the relationship between Canadians and their
governments requires governments to act on their behalf. There
are some very needy people who need our response.
7154
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, It is interesting to listen to the hon. parliamentary
secretary. I would encourage him not to break his arm patting
himself on the back however.
On this first anniversary I find it interesting that the Liberals
come to the House of Commons saying: ``Give us your ideas''.
After being in opposition for eight years and burning to take
power with all they had to offer the country, they end up asking:
``Well, what are your ideas?''.
I find the credit they take for the infrastructure project
interesting. This project will add $6 billion or $8 billion to the
debt. It will provide jobs for a few months which our children
will end up paying for. I find this very interesting.
The question on my mind is with regard to the consultation
process. Two of these processes are taking place right now, one
by the Minister of Human Resources Development and the other
by the Minister of Finance.
The first consultation I mentioned is one for which Canadians
are asked to give the government their ideas, but it is a process
that makes it extremely difficult for Canadians to take part.
After the minister's announcement they were given until
September 7 to get their briefs in. This was after applying for the
information on the proper procedure to follow.
As far as the people of British Columbia are concerned, these
consultations are being held November 16 and 17. It seems to be
a very short timeframe for filing briefs, one that is impossible
for anyone but the special interest groups who already have their
briefs in. As a result, members of Parliament are having to
gather the information, take it out to their ridings and perhaps
return it to the minister.
With regard to the consultation process with the Minister of
Finance, it seems to be much more an exercise in rubbing
people's noses in the mess that has been caused by previous
governments over the past 25 years, to soften them up for the
process of what is to take place. I really question whether
consultation is being required as much as preparing people for
the onslaught of what is to come.
The Reform Party provided a program during the election
campaign a year ago in which by focusing resources upon those
people most in need we would be able to eliminate the deficit in
three years. This would be done without the harsh consequences
the Liberals keep trying to portray us as bringing onto the
country.
The question I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary
secretary is when will the Liberals really take seriously the
process of consultation and open the doors for Canadians as well
as opposition members to provide the ideas they keep calling
for?
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, first the addition of a $6 billion
debt to the country is simply Reform Party arithmetic and has
nothing to do with the substance of what happened.
On the question of consultation, if for some reason the
member thinks the public is not being given a chance to be
heard, I would ask the member why he did not read his House of
Commons order book? That order and the description of the
consultation process has been on the books for nine months. It is
clear to everyone who is a concerned parliamentarian how the
process is going to work. I can assure him on behalf of the
Minister of Finance that everyone who wants to be heard will be
heard. He might also be interested to know that next week when
we are in Vancouver it is totally booked.
(1140)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleagues from the Reform Party for
providing an opportunity to return again to the topic of public
finances and to discuss a motion they introduced today
concerning a detailed plan, or should I say the lack of a detailed
plan, to be tabled by the federal government outlining its
approach to the budget.
In contrast to my Reform colleagues, I would say that there is
most definitely a plan and that it has been in place since last
February 22 when the Liberal government tabled its first budget.
If we are to believe the initial measures introduced by the
federal government at that time, and if we are also to believe the
various measures it has introduced and the numerous proposals
it has made since then, this plan consists in slashing benefits to
the very people in Quebec and in Canada who can least afford to
do without them-the unemployed, recipients of social
assistance, those with health problems and senior citizens as
well.
There is clearly a plan, a very detailed and specific plan, to
transfer the financial problems of the Canadian government
onto the backs of those who least deserve them, who certainly do
not deserve the insult of being abandoned by a government that
won the election on a campaign that emphasized the dignity of
having a job, the dignity that we owed the least fortunate in our
society. This is the very group of Canadians that the government
is insulting today.
What most struck me in the speech by the Minister of Finance
was not the size of the deficit and of the debt; this is not news to
us or to anyone else. We know that the federal government has
been in the red, not just for one year but for ten. For ten years
now, this government's approach to public finances has been
building up to this impasse. I would remind the hon. members
across the way that it was under a Liberal government that things
first began to go badly. The deficit began to grow between 1970
and 1985. And it was when the present Liberal Prime Minister
was Minister of Finance that the financial problems started.
7155
Between 1970 and 1985 the deficit grew from 0.3 per cent of
the Gross Domestic Product to 8.7 per cent. Fifteen years of
Liberal rule led us to disaster. It is this legacy we are dealing
with today. This Liberal legacy has led to drastic cuts-again,
Liberal cuts-to solve the very serious public finance problem.
I noticed that in his speech the Minister of Finance mentioned
a serious matter, namely that the current problem is essentially a
structural one. It means that even with ideal conditions for
economic growth and employment development, the system is
so tainted and its financial and economic impact so serious that
Canada's unemployment rate can never go under 8.5 per cent
and that the structural deficit-again, even in ideal economic
growth conditions-will stay at a minimum of around $30
billion year after year.
The minister's response to these structural problems was to
propose more cuts, which will not do anything to solve these
structural problems because what is needed-as Quebec
sovereignists, and the Bloc Quebecois in particular,
understood-is a comprehensive reform of the system.
Sovereignists have decided to get out of the vicious circle by
reforming the system. This system is impossible to sustain. It is
also impossible to reform because if that had been the case, the
Liberals across the floor would have spent their first year in
office trimming off the fat, reducing the bureaucratic structure,
eliminating inefficiency, and decentralizing as much as possible
by transferring to the provinces all levers of economic and
social development.
(1145)
Instead, they take drastic measures that hurt, that show their
lack of compassion for and attack the unemployed without
solving Canada's fundamental public finance problems.
How much credibility can this government have, when all the
commitments made by the Liberal Party of Canada during the
election campaign are not being honoured? I will give you a few
examples.
In the last week of the election campaign, the current Prime
Minister said that a Liberal government would never increase
taxes in its first two years in office. What did the Minister of
Finance present us with last week? The possibility of tax
increases.
The Prime Minister also said in this House that he did not rule
out the possibility of tax increases this year. What credibility
can this government have, when in less than ten months those
people go back on the commitments about taxes that they made
to the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada?
What credibility can they have when the Prime Minister and
all his ministers led Quebecers and Canadians to believe during
the election campaign that they would abolish the GST? What
have they done since then? Not only have they started to
soft-pedal on the promise of abolishing it but they have tried to
find an alternative to the GST in a sneaky, even dishonest way.
Not abolishing the tax but an alternative that is as bad as the
original tax and even worse in some respects. Month after
month, they have tried to make the provinces, Quebecers and
Canadians take it.
What credibility can those people have? What credibility can
the Minister of Finance have when he talks about the largest
process of consultation ever undertaken by a federal
government since Confederation? We had a consultation process
before his budget was tabled: forums here and there and
everywhere. I participated in those forums. Of course, a few
representatives of organized labour and community
organizations were invited to each of these forums, for the sake
of appearances. Ultimately, what happened is that $5.5 billion
was cut from unemployment insurance and $2 billion from
funds allocated to the provinces.
Who said to do that? Who presented such a recommendation
in the pre-budget forums that year? No one. But those forums
made the Minister of Finance look good. Again he will make
himself look good by saying that he consulted Canadians and
that they said to cut another $7.5 billion from post-secondary
education, health and, once again, unemployment insurance.
That is how the Minister of Finance consults.
Who will believe in that? Who will believe in this desire for
democracy expressed by the Minister of Finance and his
government?
I think that after a year of this government, Quebecers and
Canadians are starting to realize that those people have lied to
them and not told them the whole truth, that they are going back
on their commitments and throwing them in the garbage. They
are not inclined to keep the commitments which got them
elected.
Several months ago, I heard the Prime Minister refer to the
unemployed and welfare recipients as lazy beer guzzlers who
should go back to work. I understand why: the Liberals' detailed
plan is to cut at the expense of the unemployed and the poorest
people in society. That is the plan. Since the last budget came
down, I have gone to my riding and met people who suffer as a
result of the savage cuts this government has made to
unemployment insurance, which force whole families onto
welfare. Whole families are discouraged and depressed and
have lost the dignity which the Prime Minister says they should
have regained with his government.
(1150)
I suggest to Liberal and Reform members that they go back to
their ridings and talk to people affected by these cuts. I would
advise them to go easy on slick rhetoric and go out, maybe once
every couple of months, and meet some of these people in your
ridings. It is important that these members go and talk those who
suffer, and who will continue to suffer, because of them. I have
met some of these people, as have my colleagues from the Bloc.
I can tell you that I was deeply moved to see mothers rush to get
social assistance when they had never contemplated such a-
7156
Mr. Cauchon: Bleak reality.
Mr. Loubier: -bleak reality.
Mr. Speaker, Liberal members are cynical to the point of
putting words in my mouth to describe their own harmful
actions to Quebec and Canadian families. It is terrible to see
them behave like that!
The Minister of Finance tabled an elaborate strategy to solve
the problem of the deficit and the debt, a problem which
everyone recognizes, but that strategy targeted the poorest in
our society. Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois made detailed
suggestions which respect the dignity of people, of the poor, of
those who are looking for jobs but cannot find any, and of those
who are depressed and who get even more depressed when they
see the Liberal Party of Canada continue to make them pay a
price which they should not have to pay. I did present these
suggestions to the Minister of Finance and to those cynical
members opposite.
In fact, we presented an eight-point proposal to the
government. The minister should stop saying that we only
complain. We do make constructive suggestions which could
allow us to recover over $12 billion in the first year alone,
without making the plight of our poorest ones worse.
For example, we suggested to the Minister of Finance and to
the Liberals that the government should completely withdraw
from fields which fall under provincial jurisdiction, instead of
continuing to invest in those, as proposed in the Axworthy
reform regarding education and health, but-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I simply want to point out,
in the course of this vigorous debate, that hon. members should
remember to refer to the minister by his title and not by name. I
know it was an oversight, because the hon member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has acquired some not inconsiderable
skills during his first year in the House. I simply wanted to
remind him.
Mr. Loubier: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. It was said in the heat
of the debate. Everyone refers to this reform by the minister's
name, so I forgot we were on the floor of the House and that
ministers should not be referred to by name.
Last week, we suggested to the Minister of Finance that the
federal government withdraw from all areas of provincial
jurisdiction and not, as is the case in the social security reform
proposals presented by the Minister of Human Resources
Development, maintain and reinforce the federal government's
involvement in areas that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the
provinces, such as health care and education.
Since in its discussions on relations between Quebec and the
federal government, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission
concluded that at least $2 billion could be saved by getting rid of
all this duplication and overlap, I do not think it would be an
exaggeration to say that at least $3 billion could be saved in the
process. For a start, the government could do, as suggested by
the Bloc Quebecois last June, and abolish the GST, give this tax
space to the provinces and let them be responsible for
introducing a consumer tax. As a result, hundreds of millions of
dollars in GST administration costs could be recovered. Our
second constructive suggestion for the minister was to cut many
of the subsidies now being given to businesses. As you know,
these subsidies represent a total of $3.3 billion. I am not saying
they are all useless, but many are given as a form of patronage to
businesses that are not efficient and not competitive, at a time
when the stakes have changed as a result of globalization of
world markets and international competition. There is a
potential savings of $3.3 billion here for the Minister of
Finance.
The same goes for the defence budget. In its election
platform, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a 25 per cent reduction
in the National Defence budget. So far, we have seen a 10 per
cent cut in the last budget, or $1.1 billion. We have other
positive and constructive suggestions to allow the Minister of
Finance to cut another $1.6 billion from the defence budget.
(1155)
According to all Quebec and Canadian experts we consulted,
it is possible to get this extra 15 per cent without reducing or
watering down the Canadian Forces mandate. Fourth, we asked
the Minister of Finance to immediately stop government
financing of Hibernia.
A total of $3.3 billion has already been sunk into this project
without any prospect of profits and without knowing when the
first barrel of oil will be extracted. If I remember correctly, the
price of a barrel of oil must reach $26US for the Hibernia project
to merely get to the point where it is no longer losing money on
every barrel of oil is extracted from this drilling rig, without
considering past losses. This year alone, another $250 million
will be sunk into this project. Next year, another $250 million or
even $300 million could be spent on this project, according to
the finance minister's projections, without any hope of
profitability.
How many more billions of dollars will the federal
government sink into this project, when it is asking all
Quebecers and Canadians, especially the poorest, to tighten
their belts? Fifth suggestion, we asked the Minister of Finance
to read again the last three reports from the auditor general,
which reveal blatant carelessness, again, in government
program management as well as a bureaucracy which-in some
respects-is still overspending and wasteful in 1994, when we
are told that public
7157
finances must be brought under control and be more balanced
over the next three years than they have ever been. This is our
fifth suggestion to the Minister of Finance.
Sixth, we suggested that the Minister of Finance improve tax
collection and tackle the recovery of bad debts. The auditor
General says that there is $6 billion to pick up here. This amount
of $6 billion does not even include contested debts. This is $6
billion that the federal government could get, but because of its
laxity, we have a deliberate shortfall of over $6 billion this year.
The same goes for our seventh suggestion to the Minister of
Finance and, strangely enough, these suggestions do not appear
in his documents. We asked him to reform the Canadian tax
system, but not by cutting the age credit, not by taxing RRSPs,
not by attacking the middle class and the poor; we asked him to
eliminate undue advantages for family trusts which benefit
wealthy Canadians. I would recall a rather significant statistic.
Ernst and Young surveyed 121 trusts-we only have surveys to
go on because the Department of Finance and the Department of
Revenue do not want to do a comprehensive analysis of family
trusts-and I will give you some figures about them.
The average value of the assets in 121 trusts was $47 million.
These are not family trusts for middle-income or high-income
people, according to our own definition; these are $47 million in
assets belonging to very rich Canadians. These family trusts
held up to half a billion dollars. Indeed, that was the amount held
in Trust No. 121 in the sample, which was the highest one. Five
hundred million dollars. Five hundred million dollars in a trust
which, year after year, and possibly until the death of the last
beneficiary, benefits from a tax exemption on capital gains. If
this beneficiary is lucky and lives to the age of 84, he may
benefit from this tax exemption until he is 80 years old, on
capital and assets which may be in the millions of dollars.
The same goes for tax conventions. We told the Minister of
Finance but he is refuses to listen because he does not like the
idea of targeting his friends, the friends of this government. We
said that, even after the changes made to the taxation system last
February, Canada still had tax conventions with 16 countries and
these are considered to be tax havens.
(1200)
The government loses hundreds of millions because Canadian
corporations and very high income earners use these countries to
avoid paying taxes. It is time to eliminate such loopholes and it
is time this government realizes that it was not elected by major
corporations or by those very rich Canadians who have family
trusts with, on average, assets of $47 million and sometimes as
much as half a billion dollars. It was elected by those people
whom the government has been targeting since it took office.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
member of the Bloc Quebecois.
Just imagine for a minute that Quebec is a separate country. I
would like to ask him what kind of system, what kind of tax
reform he wants for Quebec? You referred to problems arising
from Canada's complex system. I would like an answer to the
following question: As far as tax reform is concerned, what kind
of system would you have if you became a separate country?
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question
reflects the tendency of these people to evade the issues. Today,
the issue is not Quebec's sovereignty. We are talking about their
government's budget process. We are talking about their
government's inertia. We are talking about the flabby approach
of the Minister of Finance, who has spent the past year-I want
to say this because it is true-colouring the Conservatives' blue
book purple because they are even more conservative than the
Conservatives and telling us we are in the red.
So the issue is the consultation process that is going on now.
The issue is the measures this government is taking at the
expense of the most vulnerable in our society. Sovereignty is not
the issue.
However, I would like to answer a small part of his question.
Look at how the sovereignist movement has operated in Quebec
for the past 30 years. It has not operated on the basis of a rightist
philosophy, like our Reform Party friends have done since they
were elected a year ago. It has not operated on the basis of a
philosophy that is very close to the right, which is the approach
being taken today by the Liberals. It has operated, from the
outset, in accordance with the views of Mr. Lévesque. It has
operated on the basis of a profoundly democratic society that is
intent on the well-being of its most vulnerable members and
that wants to provide for a fair distribution of our collective
wealth, and I think that once Quebec is sovereign, we will have
some really exciting projects.
As soon as we get out of this system, we can go ahead with
some very exciting projects to create full employment, increase
our collective wealth and regional development and give people
new hope and dignity. We will provide real projects to help
people recover part of that dignity, without pretty speeches like
the Prime Minister gave us when he referred to people who had
lost that dignity as beer drinkers.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
curious about a couple of comments made by the hon. member.
One was with respect to business subsidies. He said that in many
cases subsidies are made to businesses that are uncompetitive.
7158
I guess he is implying that it is okay to make subsidies to
businesses that are competitive. In that case, it is kind of
redundant in my judgment. I have to wonder whether the
member, given his remarks, can justify any subsidies to business
at all.
Is the hon. member so committed to deficit reduction that he
would give up his MP's pension, should he ever be lucky enough
to get that far, given the Bloc's stand? Would he go on record
today saying that he is opposed to MPs pensions as they stand
now, especially considering his stand on things like family
trusts which he would argue confer special privilege?
Obviously that is what MP pensions do. Let us hear what the
member has to say on that issue.
(1205)
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, about the $3.3 billion budget for
subsidies to business, during the year we have been here, we
have asked the Minister of Finance to put everything on the table
and allow a parliamentary committee to look at federal
government spending in a very thorough and specific way. We
have always included the $3.3 billion in subsidies to business, in
order to scrutinize what type of subsidies were involved and who
the beneficiaries were. Did they really have a structural impact
on the economy enabling us to face the challenges of
internationalization and international competition?
We never received a reply from the minister in this regard.
But, as you said, logic dictates that a normally competitive
business should not need subsidies. However, we are now faced
with radical economic changes.
The mere fact that the latest GATT agreement signed last
December will bring about tariff reductions of about 75 per cent
over the next six years is already a lot to deal with.
Although tariffs between the most industrialized countries
already averaged five or six per cent, it still makes a difference,
especially when, according to most experts, the value of the
Canadian dollar remains very high despite some drops in recent
months.
We are again in a situation where the slightest tariff protection
can compensate for the fact that Canadian businesses are not as
competitive, probably in part because of the Canadian dollar.
I submit to you that a normal, competitive business should not
be subsidized. Often, all these subsidies to business do is
generate competition between Quebec or Canadian firms
because one received a subsidy while the other did not. I think
that this system must be totally revised. I would say to you that
most of this $3.3 billion should go.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to return to my opening question. The member who is the
finance critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition criticized
some of the areas in the tax design with which he did not agree.
By the way, I share his views in a couple of the areas.
However, he is here to lead his province out of Confederation.
He stated that in his speech. That is his democratic right, but
Quebecers and Canadians would like to know what type of tax
regime, tax design, tax system Quebecers will have in this new
country that they are designing?
It is very important for the member, who has this lead role, to
tell Quebecers what this system is. We would also like to know
what this system is because it might contain a couple of ideas we
could implement now. Specifically, what will the tax regime
look like in this separate Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, we would have a normal tax
system for a normal modern industrialized country. We would
surely have a more equitable system that would not favour only
the very, very, very high incomes. I am not talking about high
incomes in the definition we have. I just gave you the example of
family trusts, with an average of $47 million in assets and as
much as half a billion. It is not right that these people pay no
capital gains tax year after year for 80 years.
As we have shown from the beginning, sovereignists care
about tax fairness, and I suppose that in a sovereign Quebec such
treatment would be called into question. The same goes for the
3,400 Canadians who did not pay a cent of income tax to the
federal treasury last year, even though they had a very high
income. I think that we would also try to correct that effectively.
I would remind you-I know that I have only a minute
left-and you will tell me that it is not related to the question,
but it is related to the question, quite a bit in fact; I would remind
you that sovereignists care about the collective well-being. We
have also shown that we want to reduce the contribution of big
corporations and big lobby groups to the financing of political
parties as much as possible. That is why the Parti Quebecois,
just as the Bloc Quebecois, is financed by the people.
(1210)
That is why a sovereignist government in Quebec, unlike the
Liberal government in Ottawa, is not subject to undue pressure
and influenced by gifts, in some cases, from lobbyists for very
rich Canadian families with assets of $47 million to half a
billion that are not taxed for 80 years.
This already gives us a good idea that the prime concern of a
sovereign Quebec will be the majority of the people, not an elite
who provides the funding, as it does for the Liberal Party of
Canada, so that this government has its hands tied and the
7159
Minister of Finance does not put the real tax loopholes in his
paper but goes after the tax breaks affecting middle- and
low-income people.
So this gives you some idea of what sovereignty would mean
for us.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the whip of our party and pursuant to Standing Order 43(2),
Reform speakers will be dividing their time.
In speaking to the resolution before us, presented by my
colleague from St. Albert, we must recognize its focus and
concern. The major focus is a request that the government look
at balancing the budget. Instead of meeting targets that leave
major deficits, it must look at balancing the budget and bringing
the deficit to zero. That is what we are focusing on today,
indicating to the government that there is some urgency in
working toward that kind of target.
The other thing we make reference to in this resolution is a
plan which the government could implement. We are requesting
the government not hide behind the 3 per cent that it set for
Canadians, that it will reach supposedly and hopefully in three
years. We are saying it is owed to Canadians that we should go
further, that the red book plan should be extended to a point at
which it details and outlines programs within departments, the
priorities which will be set with regard to social spending, the
projections with regard to growth in the economy that will move
us to the most important target, balancing the budget.
No government can sit and wait beyond one term to reach
necessary objectives. The way the government is moving at the
present time it is saying to Canadians: ``We are going to leave
you at the end of our term with at least a deficit of $25 billion''.
It wants to go back to the people at that point and say: ``We did
our job. We reached our 3 per cent''. That is hiding behind the
real problem, which is a truth that must be revealed. I hope the
discussion on this resolution today reveals some of that truth.
Today is the anniversary of all of us being elected to the House
of Commons. At this point we all have more confidence as to our
purpose, our focus and the reason we are here. As finance critic,
I have been given the responsibility of dealing with the finances
and the budget of Canada.
One of the motivations and the reason I left my
responsibilities in the Alberta government, moved to seek the
nomination for the Reform Party, got elected and came to the
House of Commons was a very focused purpose. When I lived in
the city of Edmonton a number of young people from the
University of Alberta were in my home day in and day out.
Those young people were good, quality students with very
excellent averages and tremendous abilities.
They said to me day after day: ``We are going to get an
education. We are going to be qualified to do something. But
what is there out in the Canadian community that will offer us a
chance to perform as we wish, to use our talents and our
abilities? Will there be a job available?''.
(1215)
I examined that discussion and thought about it. I said to those
young people that I thought there was only one place where we
could resolve the problem we have, that is in the House of
Commons and in the federal political arena. That was one of the
reasons for making the decision to come to this assembly. I am
here now and I believe the job must be done.
What do I believe? What do I believe is the secret or the road
to dealing with the problem? Much of it is set out in the rhetoric
and comments in the document presented in the finance
committee called ``Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate''. A lot of
good objectives are established by the Minister of Finance and
the Government of Canada. They want to work toward balancing
the budget. That is a good objective. They also say that some
very immediate things must be done. They set out a relationship
between bringing the deficit into line, bringing it to zero,
dealing with the debt and balancing the budget. In turn if those
things are dealt with they will bring about growth in the
economy and job opportunities for Canadians.
That is the sequence I agree with. I was very disappointed, I
must say, with the red book plan of the government. In the
campaign a year ago it was clearly stated by the candidate in my
constituency, and I am sure by other Liberal candidates and
those who were elected, that they were going to create jobs for
Canadians. That is the wrong approach to job opportunity.
Government cannot create jobs. It absolutely cannot create jobs.
The government initiated a program of infrastructure for
Canadian municipalities in a variety of jurisdictions in Canada.
Certainly there were jobs made available to Canadians. Those
jobs were short term, for six months, a year or maybe two years.
They were jobs made available to Canadians. They were not jobs
created by the economy that would be there for a long period of
time, would be self-supporting and would be part of the private
sector or the private economy of our country. If those kinds of
jobs are created they are long term and will will benefit our
country. Certainly the Government of Canada will benefit by
increased revenues into its coffers to take on its responsibilities.
In this term of office, between now and the next election, we
have the opportunity to reach the goal of bringing the deficit to
zero or near zero. The government must be more aggressive. I
looked back on this year's performance of the Prime Minister
and of the Minister of Finance. I thought about that last night
and I asked myself how I could describe what they were doing.
Why is it that the Prime Minister on his first anniversary is high
7160
in the polls, at 60 to 70 per cent in terms of popularity? That is
very high. Why is he so popular?
If we re-examine what is being done there is not very much
being done in Canada, not very much in terms of the
government. There are a lot of studies, a lot of reviews and a lot
of procrastination. The only concrete thing I can see is with
regard to infrastructure. That was put forward by the minister. It
is implemented and it is there.
How do I describe it? We have what I would call sort of a pied
piper syndrome in Canada at the present time. We have this
popular leader who is leading us down the road while playing a
beautiful piece of music. The people of Canada are saying:
``Things are okay. It is all right. Things are going to work out''.
A nice song is being sung but they are not focusing on the
problem.
(1220 )
The deficit is being ignored because of the comfort zone being
given to Canadians by our Prime Minister and the Liberal
government. Some day they will wake up to the fact that the pied
piper is taking us down the road. I recall my father telling me the
story many times. The pied piper led the children into the river
and they all drowned. My father had another innovation where
they went into a cave and a heavy rock rolled over its entrance
and the kids were lost to the families of the town.
The same thing is going to happen here. The people of Canada
are being led down the road to where they will fall into the debt
hole. We are going to have a crisis because we are going to fall
into the debt hole and the government is not dealing with it. That
was said in the document presented to the finance committee
called ``Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate''. Page 25 of that
document states very clearly what the circumstances are. This is
the government's document. The Minister of Finance presented
it to the committee on October 18, 1994.
It says that by fiscal year end 1994-95 the net federal debt is
expected to be $548 billion. It also says that if program spending
remained roughly in balance with revenue, compound interest
alone at today's average rate of about 8 per cent would cause the
debt to grow by almost 50 per cent, to more than $800 billion
within just five years. That is before the turn of the century,
before the year 2000. It goes on to say that by then the annual
interest payment would be about $64 billion or $20 billion more
than this year's forecasted debt charges. Can we imagine $64
billion out of the budget? Our budget now is $127 billion in
terms of revenue, and $64 billion will be paid out of it. That is
how serious it is.
The Prime Minister is getting all the laurels, all the credit, but
he is leading us into a debt hole and into a crisis. The
government must come up with a plan and give the people of
Canada some details on how we are to be led out of this grave
and difficult situation.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make one short
comment and then ask a question.
I think the member is not being reasonable on the
infrastructure program. During the establishment of
infrastructure the job time might be for three, six or nine months
but the actual completed infrastructure provides an
environment. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance said, the new transport system from the airport in
Winnipeg will be there for 30 or 40 years. It will allow for the
economy in that sector to move forward in a more efficient and
productive way in terms of exports to the southern United
States.
However I want to ask the member a question about the deficit
and the debt. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance said in his remarks this morning, if our interest rates
were to go up by half a point it would cause an added burden of
approximately $3.5 billion in service charges. Obviously we
have to create an environment where we can stabilize our
interest rates and create a system that would put downward
pressure on interest rates, which subsequently would allow us to
have a lower cost in servicing the debt of the country.
Does the finance critic for the Reform Party believe a tax
system that is fair and promotes entrepreneurship could reverse
capital flows that are currently leaving the country? By capital
flows reversing and coming back to Canada a downward
pressure could be put on interest rates. Does the finance critic
believe that comprehensive tax reform could create that
possibility?
(1225)
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his questions.
In terms of the infrastructure question that he raises, if a
government must invest in some type of job opportunity or in
some infrastructure project maybe jobs are created as a side
benefit. However, if our country has good infrastructure such as
roads, et cetera, the private economy has a good base from
which to work. That is a very proper function for government
and I agree with it.
The point I was making with regard to infrastructure is that it
is not the solution to the problem. It is very short term. It is not a
long term solution. We cannot keep borrowing money and
investing it. Somewhere the hole gets a little too deep and we get
into trouble.
I will deal with last question the hon. member raised.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): With regard to
the downward pressure on interest rates and tax reform.
7161
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): A fairer tax system would
have a reflection on interest rates. What has to go along with that
is certainly the deficit reduction we are talking about to deal
with confidence in our country.
A number of investors in our country right now are looking at
us. Those who judge our credit as a country are asking if we have
dealt with the deficit and saying if we have not it looks like it is
getting out of control. Then our interest rates go up and we have
some problems. It is not only a proper tax system that deals with
a rise in interest rates. It is certainly a question of whether the
government has shown the will and dealt with the matter of the
deficit.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to participate in debate
on the motion brought forward by the Reform Party requesting
that the government bring down a plan of action.
I was going through my files today on this very subject and
found a headline that caught my eye: ``Slashing the Deficit in
Just Two Hours''. This was the heading of a column in the June
13, 1994 edition of Maclean's magazine by Diane Francis. She
has a plan. I might not agree with all the things in her plan, but at
least there is a plan and there are topics that can be discussed.
We are here today to find out some ideas and put some
thoughts on the table about how we can reduce the deficit and the
debt. As we all know politics is the art of possible. Let us try to
make things possible by reducing the deficit and the debt. For
far too many years the country has been living off its credit. Like
other spendthrift debtors there comes a time when they finally
have to pay the piper. They either quit spending more than they
earn and begin to repay their debts, or the banks foreclose on
their homes, seize their cars and they are bankrupt.
The bank is getting ready to foreclose on our mortgage, to
repossess our car and to cut up this nation's credit cards. Finally
the country and its government have to wake up and face this
reality. No longer can it be ignored. The finance minister has
finally heard this message and I congratulate him for having the
courage to admit it in his statement.
The Reform Party was catapulted here one year ago by
common sense Canadians. We have been trying to get this
message across to the government from the first day of this
Parliament. Decades of spendthrift management and extremely
poor decisions have entrenched programs and attitudes that have
led the nation to spend its birthright and mortgage its future. We
must for our children's sake get this mess under control.
(1230 )
The finance minister has said that each one of us must decide
which government services we personally can do without. No
longer can Canadians take refuge in the attitude that someone
else can pay, that someone else's services can be cut. We must
let Canadians prioritize our spending, prioritize our programs,
something again that the Reform Party and its members on this
side of the House campaigned for rigorously during the last
election.
Governments have often sought to supply services through
crown corporations because it was felt these were necessary,
that these services could not be provided by the private sector.
Perhaps at one time this was true. Perhaps there was justification
for pouring funds from the public purse into these uneconomic
businesses, but it is an expensive proposition and one that has
stifled competition.
This philosophy has also cost this country greatly in dollars
and lost opportunities. Over the years crown corporations have
contributed mightily to our monstrous national debt and high
taxes which have stunted growth and discouraged innovation in
this country. There comes a point when these crown
corporations no longer fill any real need, when inertia is their
prime reason for being. We can no longer afford this.
Today we are a nation of some 28 million people. Times have
changed. Our needs have changed. Yet still we ladle public
money into ventures best left to the private sector and in the
process we smother competition and eviscerate the
entrepreneurial spirit. The people of this country have been led
down a perilous path.
The plain and simple fact is that goods and services are
provided more efficiently, more effectively and with better
quality by the private sector in a competitive environment. Why
then do we still maintain crown corporations and agencies that
meddle in the free marketplace on the strength of huge dollops
of money from the public purse?
Even at a time when there was justification for government
owned broadcasters which gobble up close to $1.2 billion a year,
how can it be justified today? For instance the CBC was created
so that Canadian culture was sure not to be lost, but things have
changed. Technology has changed. An example of that is the
private cable companies.
Private cable companies across this nation supply community
access channels. In my own riding of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Shaw Cable provides
access to a community channel for cultural programming, for
interest groups to make programs. This is something we should
look at. How can $1.2 billion a year to the CBC be justified?
Would this money not be better spent on educating and training
our youth so that they can have productive futures, so that they
will have no need for expensive UI programs or welfare?
We must set realistic priorities. We no longer have the luxury
of wasting precious tax dollars on foolish spending. Of course
the other side will criticize me by saying: ``The hon. member is
saying he is just going to cut everything''. I want to make it very
clear that is not what I am saying. I am saying that every single
government department, agency, crown corporation and
marketing board should be evaluated for its relevance in today's
economic climate. If the same function is or could be provided
7162
by the private sector, that government body should be disbanded
immediately.
Organizations such as the Canada Council defy common
sense. When we are talking about shrinking funds for education
and health care, how can we as responsible members of this
place support any endeavour which is not necessary for the
well-being of the people we represent, all Canadians?
Last summer the Minister of Transport announced a move to
place more of our transportation system in the hands of the
private sector. This is a positive change which will benefit all
Canadians. The minister has recognized the fact that these
services can best be provided by the private sector. The people
of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt have supported this
concept in town hall meetings across my riding. As well the
same thoughts were heard at every one of the government's
prebudget consultations earlier this year.
(1235)
In the prairies farmers are demanding that the Canadian
Wheat Board be reformed and that producers be given the
opportunity to sell their grain to whomever they choose. One
producer who operates a small milling operation with its head
office in Penticton has detailed years of interference with his
business by the wheat board. This interference has severely
limited his opportunity.
Let us explore this for a minute. The Canadian Wheat Board is
an interesting topic. It is widely known that western Canada
produces the world's best durum wheat. It is ideal for pasta
products. I am not a farmer. I am a common type of person, but I
must scratch my head in wonder. It would seem there is a
tremendous opportunity in western Canada for someone to go
into the pasta production business. It is also interesting to note
that there is not one pasta producer in western Canada. Why is
that? Let us look at some examples.
North Dakota, which grows about as much durum wheat as the
province of Saskatchewan in a good year, has four prosperous
pasta operations. This House should know about a real success
story for the North Dakota growers in the village of Carleton.
They built a plant without any state or federal government
assistance. They have the most modern equipment. It runs 24
hours a day and has 240 employees. It processes 250 tonnes of
wheat daily into highly valued privately packaged pasta
products that are shipped all over the United States. There is
more good news: expansion plans are under way.
Why then does western Canada not have a pasta producer? In
western Canada, durum growers owning their own mill would be
in the same position as if they were trying to sell their wheat
product independently. They would be forced to sell it to the
Canadian Wheat Board at the board's prevailing initial price.
Then their company would be forced to buy that wheat product
back at the board's selling price.
Durum wheat growers could not legally sell directly to their
own company in this country, nor could their company buy their
own wheat. It is just ridiculous. In other words, any benefit
durum growers who are also the investors in the private
company would have in the pasta plant would have to be shared
among all the wheat producers in Canada.
I am not saying that the Canadian Wheat Board is stifling
competition in this country. Just a minute, maybe I am, but then
again maybe I am not. What I am saying however is that we
should put it on the table, discuss it and evaluate it. It appears
this country is missing yet another golden opportunity.
My time is running out so I will close by saying it seems that
the national economics elude the test of common sense every
family must face when handling their finances. Canada's
deficits are not insurmountable. Canada's deficit and debt are
merely symptoms of an inept and cowardly leadership.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will begin by commenting on
the last point the member made on creating a value added pasta
plant for our durum wheat. The member has brought a new
insight to me. I will give him an undertaking that I will take his
point up with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
(1240 )
I do not know the issue well and there may be some technical
points which make this not as easy as the member describes it.
However, I think the member has raised a very insightful point.
Any time we can create a value added opportunity with a
resource like this we should look at it.
This goes back to the point I wanted to make. In the last nine
months this government has taken on a very thorough review of
all crown corporations. If they do not meet the public policy
objective that we all believe in then a lot of those crown
corporations have had their budgets cut, some of them severely.
It would be inappropriate to leave Canadians with the
impression that we are not reviewing and evaluating all crown
corporations.
In fairness to the member, he did acknowledge that the
Minister of Transport has done a very good job in
commercializing all the airports in Canada, privatizing and
offloading them to local authorities. Some would even argue
that he is moving too fast. I know the Reform Party feels quite
comfortable with that. However, I caution members opposite
that when we are dealing with a complex department like
transport, which traditionally has galvanized the spirit of this
country and helps pull this country together because it deals
with rail, transport and sea, before we just cut and offload it we
have to make sure we are doing it in a manner that does not
fracture the very fabric of the country.
7163
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the hon.
member. Whenever we come up with value added ideas such as I
have mentioned here today we should explore them at every
possibility.
There is a misconception on that side of the House of what the
Reform Party is saying should be done. We have said this very
clearly but it has fallen on deaf ears at times that the items
Canadians feel are the most important should be prioritized. It
should look like a balance sheet. I know the hon. member has
spent many years in business. It is very similar to what someone
would do in their own business when they found that their
outflow of money was larger than what they were bringing in.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): This is not a business.
Mr. Hart: The hon. member says that this is not a business.
But Canadians are saying they want government to use common
sense principles like the average person uses in Canadian
society, whether it is in a business or whether it is when they are
working out their family budget at home. These things have to
be prioritized and then everything else should be put on the
table.
What the Reform Party has been saying is the items which
should be saved and protected for all Canadians are things like
the federal funding for the health care system, federal funding
for the Canada pension plan and for old age security where it is
directed to those people who are most in need. We are saying
that funding should be maintained for those areas and possibly
more if need be. We are saying that education funding is a
priority in this country.
There are about three or four items on the balance sheet that
pertain particularly to things that should be saved. On the other
side are the things that should be cut. Those things are the things
we are talking about that are on the table.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, there is a
housekeeping matter I would like to dispose of.
I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
33(2)(b), because of an earlier ministerial statement
Government Orders will be extended by 32 minutes.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak to this supply day motion. It
allows me to review a very important policy paper concerning
the government's economic strategy that the Minister of
Finance presented to the Standing Committee on Finance just
last week.
(1245 )
Obviously the member proposing today's motion must have
been occupied elsewhere when the Minister of Finance tabled
``A New Framework for Economic Policy'' on October 17.
Perhaps the length of the document, 87 pages, was too much for
him to absorb. He may still be waiting for the Cole's notes
version. I know on their side of the House it is all about simple
problems with simple solutions that pop into their heads, so they
must be right.
If I appear a little sarcastic, frankly that is the only reasonable
response to a motion that calls for the government to table ``a
clear statement of its vision of the role of government in the
economy''. That comprehensive statement has already been
tabled. It made headlines across the country.
If the hon. member or any Canadian phones the distribution
centre of the Department of Finance, the phone number is
613-995-2855, a copy will be provided immediately.
I suspect if the hon. member takes the time to study this
document, which he has not apparently, he will appreciate its
significance. Canadians have seen only too often what happens
when a government implements policies without clear guiding
principles. The result is like building a house without a
blueprint. It is chaotic, it is costly and the roof leaks.
Canadians deserve to know the principles which guide the
Canadian government. That is why this government has set out
the framework for the economic policies we intend to build
upon. This paper, ``A New Framework for Economic Policy'', is
a clear statement of objectives that will guide what the
government will do and what it will not do. It provides the very
vision that the hon. member wants Canadians to debate.
Before I get into details, let me set the scene by describing the
underlying principles of the framework. This government has
one overriding goal: jobs and economic growth. While a strong
economic recovery has taken hold, the fact remains that our
unemployment rate is too high with Canadians paying a tragic
price. That price includes lower government revenues and
higher costs, problems that contribute directly to the deficit
dilemma they are so concerned about and we are concerned
about.
Sound economic policy and good social policy are linked.
Sustainable social programs depend on a sound economy.
Canadians need more jobs and better jobs. Jobs create dignity
and wealth and enable us to sustain our commitment to social
justice.
Common sense suggests, and the hon. member must agree,
that a country that is to continue to care for its citizens must be a
7164
country that pays its bills. That means living within our means
and creating jobs through economic growth.
The fact is the logic and approaches of the 1960s simply are
no longer good enough in a 21st century arena. We cannot afford
them and we will not succeed with them. Previous generations
responded to the challenge of their times by building the
physical and social infrastructure of Canada. We have a similar
challenge and our own responsibility to create the infrastructure
for our times and for that of our children, the infrastructure of
ideas and innovation.
It is innovative combinations of people, capital and ideas
which will place us at the cutting edge of economic change and
growth. Working people harder and making government meaner
is not the key. Working smarter and making government more
effective is what Canadians want and need. To work better and
smarter the very nature of government itself must change. The
time is long past when governments can or should do
everything.
We need a partnership that gives responsibility to those who
are best able and suited to do the job, be it government, business,
labour or the volunteer sector. That requires a government that
knows where its true potential lies and what its real limitations
are.
There is a difference between Liberals and the member who
sponsored this motion. We believe government has a role to play
as catalyst, as facilitator setting goals and monitoring
performance. I believe government should get out of the way but
not stand aside. That is Liberalism for the 1990s.
Like countries everywhere Canada must adapt to the powerful
trends that are shaping the global economy, the global financial
market, the dynamic growth of economies in the Pacific rim and
parts of Latin America, South America, and the impact of
information technology. Each of these has dramatically
increased the competitive stakes. The bottom line is clear, to
become more competitive Canada must become more
productive.
Productivity is about how well ideas, workers, resources and
investment are brought together in a country's economy.
Productivity is about ingenuity, about better management,
paying attention to the common sense of workers. Productivity
growth is the basis for a better standard of living for every
Canadian.
Some Canadians fear that productivity is a code word for
fewer jobs, greater hardship. They are mistaken. History shows
the compelling relationship between productivity and
employment. Between the fifties and early seventies
productivity growth was high, averaging 2.3 per cent. During
those decades unemployment was low and incomes rose at a
steady pace. The picture changed from the seventies to the
nineties. Productivity dropped by more than half,
unemployment soared and the growth in incomes slowed to a
virtual halt.
(1250)
How do we improve productivity? First, we improve skills.
We must become more innovative and provide a welcoming
climate for investment. We must remove the disincentives we
have created for business and individuals, disincentives that
hold us back because they encourage dependence or block
opportunity.
There is another critically important imperative for a more
productive, prosperous Canada, as our framework paper
emphasizes. We must get our fiscal house in order.
Let me turn now to the objective for jobs and growth the
government has set out in ``A New Framework for Economic
Policy''. There are five key areas which we must focus on. I will
be interested to hear if the hon. member opposes any one of
them.
The first is helping Canadians acquire skills, the skills to get
jobs, keep jobs and find better jobs. The facts are clear. Jobs for
people with high school education or less are shrinking while
jobs for those with beyond high school education are growing.
In fact projections show that almost half the new jobs created
during the nineties will require more than 16 years of education
and training combined.
I should add that there is a particular element of this challenge
that engages small business. They do not have the resources that
large firms have to help employees acquire the new skills that
the information age demands, much less basic abilities in
literacy and numeracy. Small business depends on a public
education system that is doing its job.
In terms of education, the challenge in Canada is not money.
We spend more on education than just about every other country.
What we need are better results. Individuals, employers and
government must co-operate and share responsibility in
improving education and training.
The second part of our framework is encouraging Canadians
to adjust to change. Economic progress depends on a
willingness to embrace new opportunities. It is our view that
protecting and subsidizing business is almost always the wrong
way to go. For that reason the government may change the entire
approach to subsidies.
Equally, we believe regional economic assistance should
focus on genuine opportunities such as tourism that have great
potential to be self-sustaining. Government should focus on
winning industry sectors, not specific enterprises. Government
has not been terribly good at picking individual winners.
At the individual level the existing unemployment insurance
program must be changed. It is bad economic policy today and
bad social policy. We intend to take measures to bring it back to
what it was, insurance, and to create programs that foster job
readiness.
7165
Further, we believe high payroll taxes are nothing more than a
tax on hiring. We have taken steps to reduce UI premiums and
will do more in the future.
The third element of our framework is getting government
right. Our attitude is straightforward. It is time to make choices.
We must eliminate or reduce lower priority activities and target
scarce resources to the highest priority programs, helping those
in need, ensuring that people get the training and the
opportunities they require.
We are also trying to drain the swamp of federal regulations
which costs Canadian businesses tens of billions of dollars each
year. Regulatory reform has the potential to increase
productivity, stimulate investment, create more cost efficient
government. We have reviewed more than half of the 3,000
regulations on the book. We have eliminated more than one
quarter and left another one quarter in place. The rest are in the
process of being revised and examined.
Providing leadership in the economy is the fourth objective.
While the private sector creates jobs, the government has a clear
role in creating a healthy economy which gives the private
sector the confidence to add jobs.
In our knowledge based economy success depends on skills
and innovation. The government can contribute by gathering
and disseminating information and ideas about technology and
new markets. As well, it can play an important role in bringing
businesses together, something that is critical in an economy
where many new firms are small and highly specialized.
One priority is to do more to harness science and technology
in order to improve productivity and growth. Government can
help by building better links among industry, universities and
government labs. It also has a particular role in making sure
small business benefits from the latest know-how in the high
technology sector in particular.
Trade is another area where government involvement is
essential for success. Today more than ever Canada is an
exporting nation. It is vital that more companies become
exporters and that we look beyond our traditional markets to the
emerging economies of Asia, Latin America and eastern Europe.
Here the government can help by providing more information
and ensuring that small business has access to export financing.
We must work toward an end to export subsidies by foreign
countries. Until that day we must do what is necessary to ensure
that our exporters can compete with foreign competitors.
(1255)
The fifth and final objective is absolutely essential to the
others. We must create a healthy fiscal and monetary climate. If
we do not, as the finance minister told the Standing Committee
on Finance, we will fail at everything else. That is why we have
staked out a firm commitment to bring the deficit down to 3 per
cent of GDP by 1996-97, effectively cutting it in half from its
present level. That is why we have also made it clear that this
deficit target is an interim step in meeting the ultimate goal to
eliminate the deficit completely.
It would be absurd to claim that a single policy paper has all
the answers to secure Canada's economic future. Other papers
on specific issues are being completed. I suggest that no
government in recent memory has demonstrated our
commitment to providing Canadians with factual, accessible
information on its economic principles, its strategic agenda and
the fiscal situation.
Examples include not only the framework document, but its
companion financial update entitled ``Creating a Healthy Fiscal
Climate''. There is also the first ever annual financial report of
the Government of Canada that was released earlier this fall as
suggested by the Auditor General. To me and I hope to all
Canadians the evidence is clear. Our government has a vision of
the role of government in building a more prosperous nation.
The hon. member opposite would better serve his mandate
and the interests of the entire nation by providing meaningful
alternatives, if he has any. Motions calling for statements that
already exist do nothing but pass our time. Let us dismiss this
motion and get on with the real business of future building.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech. I did not
hear him comment too much about the fact that given the
government's current plan for budgetary spending, our debt will
grow by $100 billion in three years and our deficit will still be
$25 billion a year after three years. These are the government's
projections. Our annual interest bill will go from about $40
billion to $50 billion a year. This is in spite of a time of
economic growth in Canada. At the end of these three years we
may face a recession given the cycle of business and the
international marketplace.
Would the member comment on whether he thinks the current
3 per cent of GDP deficit ratio is acceptable in light of those
statistics?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is not only acceptable, it
is achievable. It is an interim step on the way to addressing what
I know the hon. member opposite wants to address, the overall
deficit and debt problem. We are starting down that road in the
right direction with an achievable target and we are going to get
there.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I see that the Liberals have one more member of their
olympic low hurdles team thinking that 3 per cent is just fine.
I listened with great interest to most of the dissertation of the
hon. member for St. Paul's. A good deal of what he said about
what the legitimate role of government should really be would
find favour on all sides of the House as we are searching around
now with yet another study to find out what the legitimate role of
government should really be.
7166
The reality was however that it was 10 minutes of platitudes
disavowing 35 years of Liberal history. That is the route. That is
the reality. It was 10 minutes of platitudes disavowing 35 years
of Liberal mismanagement of the economy that got us into this
mess.
My question to the hon. member for St. Paul's is this. After
nine years in opposition, one year in government, is it not time
that the government came out with specific responses to specific
problems rather than yet another consultation? Does the hon.
member opposite consider it the legitimate role of government
to pick winners and losers in the marketplace? This is a very
simple question. Is it the legitimate role of government to pick
winners and losers?
(1300 )
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's
last question, no, and I said as much in the speech. We should
pick winning sectors and that is what we are going to be doing.
With respect to the member's suggestion that we are
disavowing Liberalism or the Liberal viewpoint or policy of the
last 35 years, absolutely not. We still put the Canadian people
first and foremost. As we attack the debt and deficit, which must
be addressed, we keep the Canadian people clearly in focus.
Unlike members opposite, we know how complex the issue is.
We know that Canadians want to have a say in what we are
doing. Many have asked to testify before the finance committee
in the prebudget consultations-we are oversubscribed
already-and I for one welcome hearing what they have to say.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hear
that the hon. member opposite is proud of the $275 billion that
the Liberal government contributed to this wonderful national
debt.
If they are going to blame the Conservatives for a portion of it
we really believe that these members should take their share as
well.
My question for the hon. member is when it comes to the
deficit and to balancing the budget, which they claim now after
they have listened to the Reform Party long enough, what sense
of urgency does the member opposite have to getting to a zero
deficit and a balanced budget? What sense of urgency does the
hon. member have in getting to a balanced budget?
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.
member got his lead into the question. I do not know if he was
listening to the debate or not.
However, on the second part which was the urgency of getting
to a zero deficit or balanced budget, clearly that is set out in the
documents that I was discussing in my speech earlier. The 3 per
cent figure by 1996-97 is clearly stated and has been stated on
numerous occasions by the Minister of Finance as an interim
target. We are going to hit it. We are going to get there and then
we will move on.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not be quite as harsh with the hon. member for St.
Paul's as my colleagues.
I would like to ask him a couple of direct questions. I am
reading from a speech given by the transport minister. That is
my big concern. It says U.S. rails have higher labour
productivity than Canadian rail, 64 per cent higher actually. I
appreciated the comment that we are going to become
competitive.
The other excerpt I would like to read is this: ``Rail has more
than 200 separate kinds of actions or decisions that must be
approved by the National Transportation Agency''. Then he
goes on and says: ``In Canada, the approval process for
conveyance can take up to six months. In the U.S. approvals are
granted in as few as seven days''.
How is the Liberal government going to make us competitive
with these kinds of hindrances? These have been injected into
our system during the last 25 or 30 years. All of a sudden are we
going to do it in a six-month period? I have been after the
transportation agency to stop the back-tracking. It has been
almost a year and we have not been able to stop that yet. What
action can we take?
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. That is precisely the kind of example that we are
looking at in transportation policy. The Minister of Transport is
conducting reviews that are precisely addressing those
impediments to business, productivity and competitiveness that
I was speaking about earlier in my comments.
These reviews are going on throughout government. We are
getting on with regulatory reform. We are getting on with social
policy reform. We are addressing this in the context of
prebudget consultations. All of that is under way. I know the
hon. member is impatient and I do not blame him.
Canadians understand that we do not fix problems overnight. I
know he has some colleagues who think it is all simple
problems, simple solutions. We will do it, we will wrap it up
tonight and it will all work out tomorrow morning.
However, on this side of the House we know things are
complex. Canadians want to speak to us. We want to listen and
we want to do the best for all Canadians.
7167
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to address our motion requesting the government table a
clear, detailed plan to show how and when it intends to balance
the budget.
For years the Reform Party has been saying that the deficit
and the debt and the interest costs to service that debt together
constitute the single most critical problem facing Canada today.
We have been saying this loud and clear for the past year in the
House as well. As the debt clock continues to tick its way into
the second half of a trillion dollars, we are increasingly aware
that the old way of doing things in Canada simply does not work
any more. The Liberals are standing firm on their policy of
status quo federalism while the Bloc Quebecois continues to
push its separatist agenda.
(1305)
Reformers believe that these two approaches do not cut it for
Canada. There is another option for a new and better Canada and
we would like to invite people to have a look at what we intend to
build on our side of the fence. Like a house, Canada is
mortgaged to the tune of $534 billion. The interest payments on
this mortgage alone eat up one-third of our tax dollars, leaving
less money for social programs and for government services.
That is why there is a need to balance the budget.
Even in the red book the Liberals have pointed out the dangers
of continual deficits in the $30 billion range. What have they
planned to do this year? Simply add $39 billion to the debt. By
the end of the first three years of their mandate they will have
added another $100 billion to the debt.
The time has come to build a home that we can live in
comfortably without adding further to our mortgage. We must
start by having a foundation of responsible spending and set
priorities so that we can afford things that are really important,
like strong walls and a good roof instead of wasting money on
frills like gold bathroom fixtures and swimming pools.
Our building plan trims the size of the federal government,
carefully prioritizes social spending, and cuts out frills like
multiculturalism funding, subsidies for businesses and special
interest groups, the gold bathroom fixtures to which I was
referring.
On this note I would like to focus attention on where and what
to cut in the area of special interest groups. As many of you
know, the Reform Party does not court special interest lobbies
and is opposed to the subsidization of such groups with
government funds. The reason for this is straightforward.
Political interest lobbies have a singular political purpose and
that is to advance their own agenda. We feel strongly that
taxpayers should not be shouldering the cost of their activities.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women for
example receives about $5 million a year of taxpayers' money
while claiming to represent the interests of all women in
Canada. What have Canadian women received for this money?
Calls for pay equity, which pushes the country away from
embracing hiring practices based on merit and not gender,
demands for a national day care system when the majority of
parents would prefer to raise their children themselves, given a
better tax situation.
The fact is that based on recent polls more than half of
Canadian women have not even heard of NAC. NAC has about
2,000 card carrying, money donating supporters. They claim
higher totals but this is because every member of the YWCA is
automatically added as a member of their organization.
These 2,000 supporters are a stark contrast to the women's
group called REAL Women which has over 40,000 members,
collects no government subsidies and gets its money from the
people it purports to represent.
The fact is that when the government subsidizes political
lobby groups it subsidizes only some and not others. Mr.
Speaker, through you to the finance minister, cut funding to
NAC.
On another front the Canadian taxpayer is paying millions of
dollars annually for union leaders to understand the importance
of the Canadian labour movement. The total handouts by the
Department of Labour during the period of 1989 to 1992 to
unions was almost $18 million. If unions would dedicate their
members' dues to union business rather than political action
they would not need handouts from the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker,
through you to the finance minister, cut funding to unions.
As a businessman I have seen people take advantage of
government subsidies and grants, not because they need to but
because the money was served on a gold platter. Here it is, take
it. It is called incentives. Staggering sums continue to be ladled
out in handouts to businesses despite the fact that national
business groups have called on the federal government to stop
giving them money. This money usually comes from giant slush
funds known as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and
the Western Economic Diversification Agency. The 1994-95
estimates have almost $1.3 billion being funnelled through
these agencies on pork barrel programs.
Mr. Speaker, through you to the finance minister, cut funding
to pork barrel agencies, including his own federal office of
regional development, a $400 million program in the province
of Quebec.
I have a question. Why Olympic Saddledome renovations
when Calgary needs $60 million worth of sewer repairs? The
infrastructure program simply puts Canadians $6 billion further
into debt and the jobs they create are over when the money runs
out. Mr. Speaker, through you to the finance minister, cut out
infrastructure immediately and quit tempting Canadians with
my grandchildren's money.
7168
(1310)
The government is tilting the playing field, giving financial
assistance to just those groups it wants to hear from. The idea
that the government is looking out for the interests of all
Canadians is just a smoke screen. It is only a select few that
count.
A perfect example of this will become apparent in the next
couple of months with the much talked about consultations
across Canada on social and economic reforms. The government
favoured special interest groups have already been given their
advance notice to prepare their presentations while ordinary
citizens have been left to their own devices.
The game goes on and it is habit forming, so much so that the
government even continues to give money to groups to lobby for
things that the general public actually agrees with. Here is a
good example. I do not smoke and the majority of Canadians do
not smoke. The health minister and her department clearly want
to put an end to smoking. I do not have a problem with that but
can someone tell me why we paid $200,000 to the
Non-Smokers' Rights Association to tell us what we already
know? Incidentally, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association has
just 300 paid up members. That is not what I would call
significant public support. Mr. Speaker, through you to the
finance minister, cut funding to the Non-Smokers' Rights
Association.
The simple truth is that we are now on the verge of losing our
home to foreign creditors. We simply cannot continue to give
borrowed money to people who have no proper claim to it.
Direct government subsidies to business distort the
marketplace and punish success in order to subsidize failure.
Money is taken from successful people in businesses and
reallocated to unsuccessful people and unsuccessful businesses
in the name of job creation. In the same way that government
subsidies to business distort the economic marketplace,
subsidies to political lobby groups distort the political
marketplace of ideas.
In a true democracy this is intolerable. That is why the Reform
Party believes that people should be free to express their views
but use their own financial resources. That is why we are against
special interest funding. If an idea has merit and is deserving of
public support, that idea will rise on its own with financial
assistance from the people who support that view. If not, then
the idea will fade away as it deserves. Let the people speak
rather than the subsidized lobby groups.
It is time to cut spending and stop giving money to those who
do not deserve it. It does not take months of consultation, task
forces, studies and commissions to understand this fact. The
Liberals, three years prior to becoming the government, wrote
studies and went across the country. The Prime Minister asked
them too. They have already consulted with people and they still
do not know what the people are saying. I do not know when they
will get it.
People at the grassroots level are saying quite clearly that they
will no longer subsidize special interest activities with their
hard earned tax dollars. Gone are the days of needless
government frills and fancy fixtures.
Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Finance, if the
government wants to start cutting it can start right here. Cut
spending on special interest groups and save taxpayers a half a
billion dollars. Cut spending and stop direct business subsidies
and save taxpayers $1.3 billion.
Mr. Speaker, through you to the finance minister and to the
Liberal government, let us build a mortgage free home that we
can all afford and pass on to our children and our grandchildren
with pride.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to all parts of the speech of
the member opposite and I have a couple of comments to make
and a question to ask.
At the beginning of his speech he talks about, and quite
rightly, our grave concern about interest payments. He
suggested that if we were responsible, somehow we should be
able to eliminate it overnight. It is inappropriate that we should
be incurring more debt and more interest payments tomorrow,
the next day or the day after. However, I want to make it clear
both to the member and to the people out there in the audience
that to accomplish that tomorrow would mean we would have to
cut $40 billion out of government expenditure. The member
opposite is suggesting that we cut $40 billion out of the federal
budget tomorrow.
That is an unreasonable approach. We want to cut the $40
billion but we are going to do it over a reasonable period of time
with reasonable policies that protect individual Canadians while
we are doing it, not overnight.
Mr. Hermanson: That is the Tories all over again.
Mr. Ramsay: We have been listening to that for nine years.
Mr. Mitchell: The member across suggested a number of
ways he thinks we can do it. Let me enumerate some of them. He
talked about the fact that he wants to eliminate day care. To him
daycare is not important. Let us sweep it off the table. That is not
of any interest to anybody.
(1315)
According to the member pay equity is not important. Let us
sweep that off the table. That is not something we want to have
anything to do with.
We do not want anything to do with unions or with economic
diversification in the areas of this country that are hard hit
economically. No, we do not want to help any of our
disadvantaged regions. That would be something we would not
want to do.
7169
Finally, he talks about special interest groups. He mentions
that we do not want to fund them. He suggests that we should not
have to do that because they would pay for it themselves. I agree
there are occasions where I would like to see somebody who is
able to afford to make a case to the government pay for it
themself, but not everybody has the financial resources to do
that.
If we use the member's scenario, the rich would have an
opportunity to present to Parliament and an opportunity to make
their voice heard, but the poor would be shunted aside because
they would not have the money to be able to do it.
I do not think that is the kind of representation we want to
encourage as a government. I bring these points up to the
member opposite and suggest that he might want to re-evaluate
and take a second look at some of the suggestions that he is
making to the hon. finance minister.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely humorous that I
have to re-evaluate. We have proposed for the last three years to
balance the budget over a three-year period. It is through a
combination of spending cuts and growth in the economy. If the
hon. member opposite and all of his frontbench cabinet
ministers would listen, the Reform Party policy is the following:
We would cut about $18 billion, $19 billion, $20 billion over a
three-year period in various ways, shapes and forms, listening
to the people. When we get in we would expect those cuts,
especially making those cuts in the first year of our
mandate-which the party opposite did not have the political
will to do-would help to stimulate the economy.
It is not $40 billion in one year. Is that very clear, Mr.
Speaker? I know you understand it, but through you do the
members understand that? It is not $40 billion in one year. It is
$18 billion to $20 billion over three years and the rest comes
from growth. I hope I have put that to rest and that I have been
quite clear.
I am letting something affect me which as a professional
football player I was told never to do. I am developing rabbit
ears. While I am speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, I am hearing
noises from the members opposite. We are not supposed to hear
that. We are supposed to give our speeches and answer the
questions. I am trying to do that.
Do we have any time left on this?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just a little.
Mr. Silye: I will entertain another question if the members
opposite have the courage to ask me.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one very
short question. I still do not believe we sit in this Chamber to put
all of our energy toward helping those people in our society who
are advantaged. I believe that a good part of our responsibility is
to make sure that those people and regions in our country that
are disadvantaged from time to time get our attention and our
support.
I would like to ask a very simple question of the member.
Does he believe in that fundamental view, yes or no?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, yes I do. Not only do I, but there is a
comment I would like to make with all respect to the hon.
member who asked me that question. He has made a suggestion
to his government and he has been making suggestions to the
Canadian public for the last few years.
Nobody with any intelligence or any brains over on the
government side even gives this man the time of day or the
attention that his ideas and suggestions deserve. After we make
the proper cuts that are required, after we find out what the
government needs to spend, whether it is $100 billion or $80
billion, then get rid of the Income Tax Act and replace it with a
flat tax, a proportional tax. Our tax is a little different than what
he is proposing, but we would definitely support him. He is not
being listened to. He must be about the most frustrated member.
He is not a backbencher and he cannot get the attention of the
government. I would be embarrassed to be sitting on that side of
the House.
(1320)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Far be it from me to fuel
any more cynicism than there already is in this place at times,
but some might say that was kind of a long question. In any
event, resuming debate.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for those Canadians who are watching this debate on television I
would like to read again the motion that has been put forward
today to the House for debate by the Reform Party:
That this House requests the government to table a clear detailed plan to show
how and when it intends to balance the budget including a clear statement of its
vision of the role of the government in the economy in order for the people of
Canada to debate the plan and vision.
There are a few things we need to point out about this process
that Reform's motion suggests and proposes. One is about this
whole question of public debate and consultation.
I have been rather amused to hear the government keep
playing the violin about consultation, talking to the people,
wanting Canadians to draw up a blueprint for reform of social
programs, which is the area I am involved in the most, but not
having anything to debate.
7170
If we have a debate there is a proposal, a question, some sort
of statement and people take the pro and the con and they debate
it. How can we debate a nothing? There is no debate.
This government has made a fetish out of debating and
consultations and put no meat on the table, put no clear
proposals on the table, no question to be debated. It is just:
``What would you do about social program reform? What would
you do about budgets?''. People are going to come from all over
the map on that type of question.
What we have suggested in this motion today for debate is that
the people of Canada be given a plan and a clear vision to debate.
The government should come forward and say: ``After talking to
all of our experts, after examining all of the options, after
examining all of the facts and figures and knowing all of the cost
benefit of what we might do and what we might not do, we think
we should do this. However, because this is a democracy,
because we want to truly represent the people who are paying the
bills and whose futures are going to be affected by this plan, we
are now going to you the people and we are saying this is our best
judgment about how we should attack and address this problem.
But we want to know whether you are willing to support it, given
all the information that we can make available to you and given
sufficient time for you to examine our proposal''.
That is what consultation is. It is not just: ``What do you
think?''. We definitely need leadership from people in charge, a
plan and a proposal and some direction, vision and purpose. We
need to get that out for debate.
We do not have that from this government. That is one of the
things that is sorely lacking. I am afraid quite frankly that the
Canadian public will become very cynical, very disenchanted
and very disrespectful of this whole business of consultation. It
is going to become a dirty word. What it means is just pooling
our ignorance, just ``whatever you think''. That is not good
enough.
Consultation has to be focused on something concrete,
something specific and something with some vision and a plan.
Therefore I urge this government not to debate the notion of
consultation with this kind of open ended, whatever you think,
throw it at us. Let us show as parliamentarians and leaders,
particularly those members who are representatives of the
government party, that there is some leadership, a plan and a
focus and that we are going somewhere so that we as Canadians
can say: ``Yes, we agree. We support that. It makes sense to us'',
or ``No, we would like to see changes''. At least we would know
what we are talking about.
There has been a lot of talk about balancing the budget.
Goodness knows our party has been talking about it for seven
long years. They say seven is the perfect number. I hope it is
because some time or other you would like to see this vision of a
balanced budget coming to fruition.
(1325)
We have been labelled as hackers and slashers, wanting to gut
social programs, and all of the negative things that can be
thrown at people who have one very sensible, very common
sense proposal, and that is that we live within our means.
Why on earth would representatives, leaders and public
officials want to borrow from the future? We do not want to
mortgage our country. We do not want to lay the burden of our
spending on our children. Why would that be such a difficult
concept to accept? We do not know.
Why would it be such a difficult concept for the government
to accept? We do know because it is still believed that
governments can scoop up our national wealth and reallocate it
in a way that is beneficial to Canadians. If the last 30 years have
not demonstrated that that is a foolish and fallacious notion,
then I do not know what will convince people.
If you had done something for 30 years, if you had scooped up
billions and billions and billions of dollars of our national
wealth and had it spent by bureaucrats, politicians and social
engineers and then seen the mess we are in today, you would
have thought that someone would stand up and say: ``Gee,
maybe this isn't working. Maybe we should do something
different''.
No, Mr. Speaker. What do we have from this government?
Instead, the same old cant about ``Well, maybe we just need
different programs. Maybe we just need to spend it differently.
Maybe we just need to do this or that or the other thing''.
Maybe what we should do is run this country like any sensible
business or household is run, that is living within its means, and
letting people have the freedom to define their own futures, to
look after themselves and their families, to help each other and
their communities instead of this notion that somehow the state,
mother government, the bureaucracy, the central planners, the
wise men from the government can do everything.
It is not working and it is time that we acknowledge that. It is
time that we started to say that we can do better in this country.
We can do better than giving billions and billions of our hard
earned dollars to government, politicians, bureaucrats,
programs, and social engineering experiments that are simply
making the situation worse.
When we talk about balancing budgets we are simply talking
about taking the money that we have and using it with some
common sense. We are talking about taking the money that we
have and using it for what needs to be done, not what
governments and bureaucracies and industries of different sorts
think should be done with it.
This talk about balancing the budget is going to be just so
much talk until something is done. I remember as a brand new,
some would say very green, parliamentarian sitting in this
chamber in February and listening to the finance minister. One
thing that the finance minister said struck me very powerfully.
7171
He said: ``We are no longer going to nibble around the edges of
our deficit.'' I thought, wow, this is great. What happened at the
end of the day? He cut just over one billion from spending. A lot
of people said that was by smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand
and kind of mixing and matching the numbers. When you are
spending $160 billion and you cut it just over a billion, is that
not nibbling around the edges?
Canadians are sick and tired of governments and politicians
who say one thing and do another. It is time that this government
and this House got a grip on this country, started using some
common sense, started using some principled behaviour in the
way they manage this country and its wonderful resources, and
started balancing their spending.
I urge this House to strongly support our motion today.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like many thousands of
Canadians I listened intently to this speech and I would like to
use a western analogy: Where's the beef?
(1330)
All we heard was an outright condemnation of the existence of
every system in place, everything we have worked for in
Canada. I have not heard any solutions or proposals from the
Reform Party. They are actually condemning the consultation
process which has been put into effect.
The opposition held a number of failed electronic town halls
across Canada to try to gauge the population, but to its surprise a
number of things came out of that. Often the population in
Canada was in total disagreement with its own policies.
Reform members tell the Government of Canada that it is not
doing its job. I have seen what happened on their side over the
past few months. Every time they have tried to consult the
population in their fashion they failed.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to
those terrible distortions of what is happening with the Reform
Party.
I am amused and in disbelief that member of government, a
parliamentary secretary, would ask: ``Where's the beef?''. The
government has had no beef for one full year after working
away. It has no beef at all in its social program reform. It has no
beef at all in a plan to balance the budget or even get it down to
its feeble target of 3 per cent of GDP. I would have thought the
parliamentary secretary would be standing up telling Canadian
people where their beef is, not demanding that a third party
supply him with the beef.
If the member wants to see some beef, perhaps he should look
at the plans put forward by the Reform Party and tabled in the
House. For the benefit of the government perhaps he should get
a report on the consultations of our party with his finance
minister to try to give him a bit of hand holding in coming up
with a sensible plan to do what he is supposed to do. Those
concrete proposals were put forward by a brand new third party
of 52 green, untried MPs, and the government still says: ``You
tell us what to do''.
This party is going to have a plan ready to give the Canadian
people and to run the country in the proper way after the next
election.
The member talked about town hall meetings. It is interesting
to note that just last evening the Liberal Party imitated Reform's
electronic town hall by trying to get out and consult with the
people. We have led the way in public consultation and in
innovative ways to get the true input of Canadian people. We are
delighted the government is catching on that this needs to be
done, but I certainly think it is inappropriate for the member
opposite to suggest that somehow our electronic consultations
are not working when his party is aping them or imitating them.
That does not quite make sense to me.
I might add the consultations that have been done with the
Canadian public have given valuable input not only to our party
but to the governing party. I hope he is paying attention to what
is being said in those consultations.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that a lot of
Canadians are not listening to the Reform Party. We have seen it
in terms of the percentage of the popular vote it actually has
according to recent polls.
I would also like to raise other things. How about regional
economic development? That seems to be an area where the
Reform appears to be really lacking. I am from eastern Canada. I
am from a very rural part of Quebec. The fisheries industry has
gone down. There is no longer any fish. We are having problems.
We cannot find the various resources we once took for granted.
What do we do?
What do we do with these people? What do we do with the
50,000 people of Newfoundland and the maritime provinces
who were laid off? Do we just tell them to go away, it is their
problem, there is no fish and we cannot do anything? After all
this is a compassionate society, is it not? This is why the
government has to make sure we address the issues and the
needs of all Canadians, but especially those who are having a
harder time than other Canadians.
To say that it is inappropriate for me to make comments, the
fact is that we know the results of the Reform Party. People have
7172
passed comments and judgments on the way your people look at
policy and on the way you people look at governing Canada.
(1335)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I hate to intervene
when anyone has the floor but again I must remind all colleagues
on both sides of the House to make their interventions through
the Speaker and not directly to one another.
I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to wind up his
question so the member for Calgary North can give a short
rebuttal.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, in summary, I am still waiting on
this side for concrete proposals from the opposition instead of
its usual rhetoric that everything done by the government never
works.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, it always makes me a little
concerned when I hear members say things like ``you people''. It
is so easy to hang facile labels on people, to somehow suggest
there is something not quite acceptable about a group. That is
called bigotry and it is called labelling.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I am not a bigot and I have never
used those words in reference to the Reform Party. I was only
alluding to the form and substance of that party, which is not
necessarily reflected in its policy.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I was listening very
attentively to the debate. Clearly the member used the word
bigotry but in no way in any instance referred to anyone in the
House being a bigot.
I would remind all of us to be conscious and selective in the
words used in vigorous debate. I would ask the hon. member for
Calgary North to conclude her remarks.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I urge hon. members opposite
to look at proposals, ideas and suggestions without labelling
people or attacking people who make them and suggesting that
somehow proposals are invalid because of where they are
coming from.
It is not helpful to the debate. It does not help us work together
as parliamentarians to solve the very real difficulties in the
country. I suggest that we need to spend less time on attacking
each other and more time on attacking the difficulties that face
our country and coming up with concrete and positive solutions
together.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by picking
up on some of the remarks the member made in her speech. It is
very important for Canadians and for the Reform Party to
understand that the Government of Canada cannot be run in the
same way as a business.
The Reform Party mentioned earlier that I have had a little
business experience and I would like to deal with that. The fact
is that I have had a little business experience. In business the
preoccupation is with earnings per share per quarter, and profit
and loss is the bottom line. The bottom line for the board of
directors of the House is not profit. The bottom line that we are
responsible for is the people of Canada.
My colleague comes from an eastern part of the country, a
rural region. He spoke earlier with passion because he has been
sent to this boardroom to speak for his people, not unlike my
colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has to
come to the Chamber and speak for the people of his region who
right now are going through a hell that very few of us in the
House can imagine. If the House becomes preoccupied with
cuts, cuts, cuts and eliminating the deficit entirely, who will
speak for and who will look after Canadians who are truly
disadvantaged and in real pain?
(1340)
When General Motors decides the earnings per share per
quarter are a little low it lays off l,000, 2,000 or 10,000 people.
Who picks those people up? It is the programs designed by the
men and women in the Chamber. General Motors does not pick
them up.
I had the privilege of working for two years with one of the
most successful companies the country has ever produced,
Magna International. Its latest report was published about two
weeks ago. It made pretax about $400 million and paid about
$140 million in taxes. Its net profit was about $240 million. In
the middle to late seventies Magna was one of those companies
the taxpayers of Canada supported. It developed computer aided
design and computer aided manufacturing that allowed it to be
one of the greatest companies in North America, one of the
greatest exporters. Today that small company employs 20,000
Canadians.
In debate in the House on better public policy we cannot focus
on just cuts, cuts, cuts; lean government; efficient government;
and wasteful government. I am not going to support waste. No
one in the House would. We all want lean government but we
must have a caring government, as my colleague from New
Brunswick said earlier. She said that it could not be a mean
government.
What concerns me about the debate today is that there is not
enough focus on growth. We have tried with concrete activities
in the last year not to focus just on deficit and debt. We have also
focused on growth.
We said in opposition and during the campaign that small
business was the greatest hope for driving this economy and
putting Canadians back to work. We said the 900,000 men and
women who own and operate small businesses across the
country represent our greatest hope for putting Canadians back
to work. The government acted immediately in the industry
committee to work on their greatest difficulty, which was access
to capital. We heeded; we were told by them.
7173
We consulted them in opposition and they said that if we
became the government we had to have the courage to challenge
the financial institutions because as small businesses they
needed access to capital not just on the debt side but also on the
equity side. We did that. I am happy to say that we did it with the
help of the Reform Party and with the help of the Bloc. We
recognize that. We acknowledge it publicly. It is concrete action
that we took.
When members of the Reform Party stand today they should
not be shy in acknowledging that a specific action has taken
place that affects the business lives of about 300,000 small
businessmen and women who employ possibly millions of
Canadians. Do not just focus on the negative, do not just get
caught up in opposing for the sake of opposing.
(1345)
Since coming into power we have taken specific action on the
information highway. In terms of that activity we are probably
one of the most advanced countries in the world. It allows us to
hook up, network and interact with companies all over the
world. This is a tremendous aid to our export activity. The
results are shown in the hard numbers. These are not Liberal
numbers nor are they Government of Canada numbers. These
numbers are acknowledged by independent agencies. Our
exports have increased dramatically in the last year and no one
can deny that.
We should be looking at those export numbers. We should be
encouraging them even more because we cannot reduce the
deficit and attack the debt unless we get those 1.5 million
Canadians back to work. We are not going to leave them
hanging. Jobs have been our central focus before the campaign,
during the campaign and in our first year as government. The
facts are that over 300,000 Canadians have been put back to
work not by us directly but by assisting in creating some hope
and an environment where we were serious and were focused on
a direction.
I did not pull those numbers out of the air. They are real
numbers reported by independent agencies. I am not standing
here saying that we are satisfied with those numbers. We are not
satisfied. How could we possibly be? However, progress has
been made by this government in the first year of its mandate.
There is another thing this government has decided to push.
The Prime Minister is in Vancouver today announcing our
renewed focus on tourism activity in Canada. After the forestry
and automotive sectors tourism is our greatest job creator. There
is not one member of Parliament in this House who would stand
up and speak against tourism.
We have taken action on tourism. From a piddling little
budget of $13 million in the Department of Industry for tourism
for all of Canada, the Prime Minister today will announce that
we are going to make tourism a priority sector. He is announcing
a further $50 million for partnerships with the private sector.
As every member in this House will stand up and say, tourism
can generate a return in less than four or five months, once we
get out there and market it and tell people to come to Canada.
And it is not just for tourism, it is for trade shows and
conventions, activity that will support other business
opportunities. Sometimes people think tourism only concerns a
family on holiday but it is more than that. Tourism is making
sure we get our share of trade shows and conventions. This
government has taken specific action and the Prime Minister
will announce that commitment in Vancouver today.
I have been around this town. I have been an assistant to a
prime minister and this is my second term as an MP. I watched
the Tories when they governed here. I sincerely believe our
government has been one of the most effective and hardest
working governments I have ever seen in this town.
This government is making decisions almost at the speed of
light. I know it is never fast enough and I will be the first one to
admit that. There is a transition period and it takes a little bit of
time. Many in the Reform Party are business people. You do not
just go in and take over a business and make all your decisions in
the first month or the first quarter. You have to get a handle on
things. We have been able to get a handle on things very quickly.
The numbers are starting to go in the right direction, but is it
enough? It is never enough, but we will press on.
(1350)
There is another thing I want to take on today in challenging
the Reform Party on its motion. One of this government's
commitments has been to support Canada's export activity. I
cannot remember when another government has done so much
as this one in terms of selling products and services abroad,
especially in the Asia-Pacific region and the eastern European
countries. We must be one of the most export oriented
governments Canadians have ever seen.
In reflecting on one of the reasons that our exports have so
dramatically improved, we can trace a lot of this export activity
back to Pierre Trudeau's multiculturalism policy of 1971. I will
explain this to the Reform Party. In 1971 when Pierre Trudeau
stood in this House and said that we were going to have a policy
in which no culture was less than or greater than another culture
and we were going to encourage people to retain and promote
their cultural heritage, this was something no other country in
the world was doing. The United States had its melting pot
theory and we did the opposite.
7174
Today there are Canadians who have retained their language
and culture of origin. We have a trading advantage into every
part of the world because of that facility with language and
culture that no other nation on earth has. A close analysis of our
trading activities abroad will trace a lot of that success back to
that multiculturalism policy, the very policy the Reform Party
wants to strike and cut saying that it adds no asset value to
Canada's balance sheet.
I suggest to member's opposite that multiculturalism is not
about dancing, it is not about books. It is about turning
Canadians into assets for Canada's balance sheet. Those people
who have been able to use their links and their roots back to their
country of origin have provided tremendous success for our
exports side.
My point is that in this last nine months we have acted
aggressively on some very specific issues. We appreciate the
constructive tone of the members opposite during the debate
over the last year. There have been times when they have not just
opposed for the sake of opposing and the debate has been very
constructive.
In many respects I am quite comfortable with some of the
Reform Party's thrusts, especially in the area of tax reform. As I
said earlier, there are only a few years to get things
accomplished in this Chamber and the greatest catalyst for
making things happen in this place is a constructive opposition.
I say sincerely that if it focuses, the Reform Party has a chance
to act as a real catalyst for tax reform in Canada, which is the one
thing we have not yet taken on. Even though we have
accomplished all these other things in the last year I hope the
Reform Party will not give up challenging us on tax reform.
(1355)
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): I thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to comment on
the dissertation of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood
this afternoon. I want to acknowledge the fact that this hon.
member does have a very real interest in the debate today. It is
not just a matter of his having to be here to speak about it. I am
sure the hon. member is here because he wants to be here and he
is doing what is in his heart to do.
During his dissertation the hon. member mentioned that when
a company takes over a business it had better take its time to find
out what is going on before doing anything. It is a good idea, if
you can afford it. However it would seem to me in my
experience that before a business decides to take over another
business, those taking over the business have a pretty good idea
of why they are doing it and what they intend to do.
The analogy of course is that this government in getting ready
to accept power had nine years in the wilderness. It has had one
year in power and what has it accomplished? I would suggest
precious little. I am afraid I have to chalk up one more member
of the Liberal olympic low hurdle team. If you make the hurdle
low enough, anyone can stumble over it.
I ask the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood should all
social programs in Canada be based on want or need?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to answer the last part of the member's question first. Of
course we have always based any government expenditure on
need and not on want. As I said earlier in my remarks,
governance is not to be focused on those who are advantaged. It
should be focused on those who are disadvantaged.
I challenge the member's approach to taking over a company.
He mentioned that you have a pretty good idea of what you are
taking over. Generally speaking that is the case but I can say to
the member, and he knows this, that when we took over there
was close to $7 billion on the deficit that had never been talked
about during the election campaign.
If the member was-
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member will have more time
after question period to share his views with the House.
[Translation]
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
7174
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to point out that, one year ago today, this government
received its mandate from Canadians. Since then, numerous
commitments have been fulfilled, including the Canada-Quebec
infrastructure program, which has resulted in the
implementation of several projects.
Thanks to federal contributions of some $90 million, this year
the city of Montreal was able to start urban infrastructure
projects of over half a billion dollars. On top of improving the
residents' quality of life, these infrastructure projects will result
in the creation of some 4,800 new direct and indirect jobs,
during the construction work itself as well as in the following
months.
During the first year of its mandate, the government strived to
create jobs, restore confidence and rebuild the credibility of the
federal administration. Contrary to the Parti Quebecois
government-
7175
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
hon. member for Verchères has the floor.
* * *
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
United Nations is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary. The Bloc
Quebecois takes this opportunity to highlight the work of this
organization, which is a source of great hope for many peoples
and nations.
Whether it is by helping developing countries, promoting
human rights, or preserving peace in the world, the UN
strengthens international unity, which is currently a major
priority.
The United Nations is also at a crucial time in its history. It
must undertake a major reform of its structure. It must also face
new challenges, including the emergence of numerous new
players with whom it will have to deal with from now on.
We present our sincere congratulations to the United Nations
Association in Canada and to all Quebecers and Canadians who
have helped build the UN and make it so respectable.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one
year ago today Reform defied the odds, confounded our critics
and thrilled our supporters as 52 of us were elected to the House
of Commons.
Canadians saw in Reform the fresh wind of change. They saw
men and women just like themselves who believed in what they
believe in. Live within your means. Protect honest citizens.
Listen to the people. In short, use common sense. That is exactly
what they told us.
That is exactly what we intend to do. While the government
wrestles with change and fights it every step of the way, we
embrace it. While it takes tiny steps and as my hon. friend says,
sets the hurdle very low, we stride ahead. While it breathes each
other's air, we say: ``Crack open the doors and let the fresh
breeze of Reform blow in''.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to thank the Canadian Order of the
American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association or
AHEPA for honouring the Prime Minister and the members of
Parliament at a banquet last night.
At this event, the Prime Minister was presented with the
order's highest honour, the Socrates Award, for promoting
democratic ideals and institutions and exemplifying the finest
traditions of leadership.
As a Canadian of Greek origin, I am proud of the honour that
has been bestowed upon my Prime Minister and moreover, of the
many accomplishments and contributions that AHEPA has made
to Canadian society.
[Translation]
This association recognized the contribution made by the
Prime Minister in his more than 30 years of public life.
Canadians also recognized the merit of the Prime Minister by
electing him one year ago today to lead this government.
Congratulations to the Prime Minister and to all Liberals.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Saint-Boniface): Mr. Speaker, in
the red book, the government indicated that it wanted to improve
the standard of living of all men and women across Canada.
Women and, of course, children.
In my riding we have an agency called Network which does
advocacy work in economic, social, political, educational and
cultural areas, for instance. It has some advice for the
government, and I would like to quote: ``The federal
government has announced its intention to amend the Alimony
Act; since the vast majority of alimony recipients are women
and their children, these women call upon the minister
responsible for the status of women to pressure the government
to find an equitable solution that takes into consideration the
real needs of women and children''.
Mr. Speaker, I support this proposal.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October
25 marks the first anniversary of our election victory. At that
time we said that women's health issues would receive proper
attention.
The proclamation of October as Breast Health Awareness
Month will raise awareness of one important health issue for
women. Each year more than 16,000 Canadian women develop
breast cancer. It is the most common type of cancer in women
and their leading cause of cancer death.
New initiatives on breast cancer have been implemented by
the federal government in four main areas: funding for breast
cancer research, support of prevention and screening activities,
treatment and care, and support, advocacy and networking of
women with breast cancer.
7176
Breast Health Information Day was successfully held in my
riding of London West.
(1405 )
Events have been organized for this month across the country
to help Canadian women and their families become better
informed about the issue. I urge Canadians to attend and support
these activities wherever they may be in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased and proud to draw the attention of the House to
yesterday's results in the Saint-Jean by-election. The election
has confirmed the mandate given to the sovereignist
government of Quebec.
The election was mainly about the future of the Collège
militaire royal de Saint-Jean. The verdict is clear, in that the
people of Saint-Jean see the agreement initialled by the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the former Quebec
Minister of Education as a bare minimum.
The Government of Quebec therefore has a mandate to
improve on this agreement by ensuring that the CMR maintains
its military avocation. The federal government will have to go
back to the drawing board, and we urge it to respect the decision
of Saint-Jean's voters and reverse as soon as possible its
decision to abandon officer training at the Collège militaire
royal de Saint-Jean.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has done nothing in the
area of parliamentary reform in its first year in office. The
thinnest part of the Liberal red ink book is a chapter on integrity
and parliamentary reform. Once again the Liberals set low
standards for themselves and failed to meet them.
The red ink book talked about giving MPs a greater role in
drafting legislation. It has not happened. Whenever a committee
begins to show any independence, government members are
whipped into line.
The red ink book talked about giving committees greater
influence over government spending. It has not happened.
Committees could not reduce the estimates by one dollar.
The red ink book talked about parliamentary review of order
in council appointments. That has not happened either.
The red ink book also promised to change the outrageous MP
pension plan. In good Liberal fashion, they have talked about it,
they have studied it, but they have done nothing. They will not
even allow conscientious MPs to opt out.
That just about sums up the Liberal's first year: All talk, no
action, just broken promises.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to speak today on this, the first anniversary of the
Liberal Party's great election victory of 1993.
On a different note, as Hallowe'en approaches it is fitting that
we pay tribute to the members of Canada's Confectionery
Manufacturers Association. This industry has annual sales in
excess of $1.4 billion, exports of more than $235 million and
employs over 70,000 Canadians.
The confectionery caucus consists of MPs who have
confectionery manufacturers in their ridings. We in
Lanark-Carleton are very fortunate to have a Hershey Canada
facility in Smiths Falls which employs over 600 people.
I encourage all my hon. colleagues, their staffs and families,
to come trick or treating at our first annual ``Hillowe'en'' party
tomorrow evening at the National Press Club.
On behalf of all attendees at this event the Confectionery
Manufacturers Association of Canada will be making a donation
to the Children's Wish Foundation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is Small Business Week, and I would like to draw the
attention of the House to what is being done by the Federal
Office of Regional Development-Quebec.
I want to take this opportunity to mention the strong
commitment of the Government of Canada and, more
specifically, of its various economic departments that are
involved in job creation in Quebec. Federal departments are the
key to, and the strategic allies of, growth in Quebec's small
business sector.
7177
The Federal Office for Regional Development will also give
more assistance to businesses in developing and conquering new
foreign markets, like China, for instance. Too bad Mr. Parizeau
will not be on the trip!
We must realize that the Federal Office for Regional
Development and the Government of Canada support the
extraordinary culture of entrepreneurship that we find
throughout Quebec and Canada as a whole.
The development and continued support of small businesses
in Quebec is a priority for the Government of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this year an application was put before the National
Energy Board to convert an aging oil pipeline that runs across
southwestern Ontario to natural gas. A number of my
constituents of London-Middlesex appeared before a hearing
of the NEB to object to the potential environmental risks this
conversion posed to their land.
In hearings such as this, property owners are up against large
companies with unlimited resources to prepare their
applications. Affected landowners have no choice but to spend
their own money to cover legal fees and expenses in preparation
for an NEB hearing.
In all fairness, access to intervener funding would ensure a
more level playing field. I urge the government to amend the
National Energy Board Act to provide the NEB with the
authority to award intervener funding to landowners who are
forced to intervene in such proceedings.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the first anniversary of the Bloc Quebecois in the House
of Commons.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): One year ago, Quebecers gave a
resolutely sovereignist party a mandate to protect their interests
at the federal level. This is precisely what we have done by
fighting cigarette smuggling and obtaining a reduction of taxes,
by opposing the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean, by
supporting the poor, by questioning the government on the
activities of the secret service, and by forcing it to repay the
costs of the referendum on the Charlottetown accord.
From issues of defence and social justice to the need for
responsible fiscal policies, the Bloc Quebecois has won battles
on several fronts.
The message given to us by our voters is clear: Keep on going!
This is exactly what we intend to do.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as this
freshman Liberal government prepares to graduate into its
sophomore year, our party feels that the time has come for a pop
quiz. Backbenchers, feel free to participate.
Have the Liberals eliminated the gold-plated MP pension
plan?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Silye: Have the Liberals introduced long overdue social
reform?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Silye: Have the Liberals cut spending?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Silye: Have the Liberals introduced legislation to make
our streets safe?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Silye: Have the Liberals ended patronage appointments?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Silye: Have the Liberals ruled out once and for all the
taxation of personal RRSPs?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Silye: Have the Liberals cracked down on those abusing
our immigration system?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Silye: Therefore, should the Liberal government not
listen more to Reformers' suggestions?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the government, the
current national debt clock is $535,664,978-
The Speaker: I think we got into the question and answer
period a little bit early.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, N.D.P.): Mr.
Speaker, on this important date, Canadians have a right to ask: Is
today
7178
the first anniversary of the Liberal government or is it really the
tenth anniversary of the Mulroney Conservative government?
Why? The Tory Prime Minister put his friends in the Senate.
The Liberal Prime Minister is putting his friends in the Senate.
The Tories ran an annual deficit of $40 billion a year. The
Liberals, the same deal. The wealthy friends of the
Conservatives received tax breaks through family trusts. The
wealthy friends of the Liberals receive the same deal. Tens of
thousands of profitable corporations paid no profit tax but found
lots of cash to give to the Tory Party and to the Liberal Party.
Under the Tories, prescription drug prices have risen 12 per
cent. Under Liberals they have risen 12 per cent. The Tories cut
UI benefits. The Liberals have cut deeper the UI benefits.
Liberals, Tories, same old stories. Mr. Speaker, can you see the
difference? I cannot.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the
Prime Minister and my hon. colleagues, one year ago today we
were elected to serve Canadians.
During this year the federal government has kept its promise
of good government. One of the red book promises, the
infrastructure program, has paved the way to considerable
investment and job creation in my riding of Provencher.
This year I have been to Pine Falls, Steinbach, St. Agathe, St.
Malo and Emerson in my riding, to name a few of the 40
communities I serve. Throughout this time the people of
Provencher, even those people who did not support us, have had
many good things to say about our government and our Prime
Minister.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the good people of
Provencher for their support. I look forward to seeing and
serving them again in the upcoming year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to rise in this House to mark the first anniversary of the
Liberal government. The year has been filled with many
important achievements.
There is not enough time to list all the initiatives of this
government, particularly in Quebec. More than 20,000 jobs
were created, thanks to the national infrastructure program. The
Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Co-operation
in North America was also set up in Montreal. The issue of
cigarette smuggling and the future of the military college in
Saint-Jean were settled in a matter of months. Those are just a
few of this government's achievements.
(1415)
I especially want to congratulate our Prime Minister, the
Right Honourable Jean Chrétien. Thanks to his leadership and
integrity, Canadians are regaining confidence. I also wish to
thank my family for its patience and support. Hon. members are
all aware of the sacrifices made by their spouses and children so
that they can have the honour of serving this great country of
ours.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, P.C.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know if I am supposed to thank the people in Saint John for my
being here or not. Anyway I am here.
Recently it was brought to the attention of the House that the
federal government plans to switch admission fees on entrances
to Canada's national parks from vehicles to individuals. That
means if there are five individuals in a car each one will have to
pay to enter the national park. The fact is that these new user fees
can actually be viewed as nothing more than a deceptive tax
increase.
The Liberal government should change course from proposed
fee hikes and adopt a straight shooting approach to cutting the
deficit, not the sneaky little approach of back door tax increases.
The premier of the province of New Brunswick has quietly
increased over 1,000 different fees and taxes since 1987. The
people of New Brunswick have caught on. I urge the government
to learn from others and reverse this new tax on admissions to
our national parks.
_____________________________________________
7178
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Official Opposition asked the
government many questions about the illegal espionage
activities attributed to the CSE in recent revelations on the CBC
and from former spy Mike Frost. The government
systematically hides behind the CSE's obligation to obey the
law.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that no law
prevents a foreign power from intercepting telephone calls from
Canada and that no law then prevents the CSE from picking up
the information thus collected, so that the CSE can legally do
indirectly what it cannot do directly?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have
already
7179
said, I must assure the House that the CSE is not authorized to
target Canadians, including political parties.
[English]
With respect to the specific aspect of the hon. member's
question, we do not believe it is in the national interest to talk
about the administration and the methods employed by CSE.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, things are becoming more confused instead of
clearer. The minister refuses to confirm that foreign
governments spy for Canada and in the same breath, he says that
the CSE does not spy on Canadians. So how can the minister
explain that the CSE has a large data bank with information on
thousands of Canadians?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have said a number of times that the Privacy Act has to be
obeyed by all Canadian agencies and that includes the CSE.
The databank at the CSE is exempt from the provisions of the
Privacy Act. That does not obviate the fact that all activities of
the Communications Security Establishment follow the law
explicitly. This has been affirmed by the former privacy
commissioner, Mr. John Grace.
At the present time the privacy commissioner is conducting
an ongoing audit to update him and his agency with respect to
the activities of that particular organization as it applies to the
Privacy Act.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I did hear the minister say that an audit is under
way in the CSE to determine what the CSE did in recent years. If
I understood the answer correctly, I would like the minister to
confirm it for me and to tell us at the same time when this audit
report will be released in the House of Commons?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I believe the privacy commissioner is an officer of the House or
reports through the statute to the House of Commons. There was
an audit done by the former privacy commissioner. It is done
every number of years.
There is one that is ongoing. In the fullness of time I assume
the present privacy commissioner will have the same opinion
the former privacy commissioner, Mr. Grace, had which is that
the operations of the CSE fully conform to the privacy act.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
same subject. Serious allegations have been made about the
existence of a section called ``French Problem'' within the CSE.
In response to the questions the opposition has been asking in
the past few days, the government hides behind official secrecy
and flatly refuses to answer, saying that the CSE reports only to
the Prime Minister.
Can the Minister of National Defence at least tell us if the
government checked if a section called ``French Problem''
existed in the past?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I stated in the House that it is not our intention to discuss recent
operations of the CSE.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the Office of the Prime Minister is the only link between the
people targeted by a so-called ``French Problem'' section and
the CSE, if the government did not look into this, who can find
out and reassure people that they were not spied on?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I, as the
responsible minister for the operations of the CSE, have given
those assurances.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I point out that this is the first anniversary of the
election of 52 Reformers to Parliament, which is worth
celebrating.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Manning: On this day last year the federal debt stood at
$489 billion. After one year of so-called Liberal restraint the
debt now stands at $535 billion, an increase of $46 billion. For
all the talk of deficit reduction and spending restraint the
government has put Canada deeper in debt than it has ever been
before.
My question is: Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the
government has wasted this last year in its mandate by not acting
vigorously enough to reduce spending? Will the government
commit to a more vigorous spending reduction program in its
second year before it is too late?
7180
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada was elected one year ago today with an overwhelming
mandate to create jobs.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Copps: I am happy to report that we have delivered on
that promise of jobs: 327,000 new jobs created since February;
manufacturing shipments, the strongest six-month growth since
the start of the survey in 1981; real growth, 6.4 per cent, far
outstripping the performance of any other of our G-7 partners;
and business confidence, up to its highest level since 1979.
Some hon. members: More, more.
The Speaker: I think this is going to be a long question
period.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister labours under a delusion
with respect to job creation. Until recently Liberals have
claimed that job creation is primarily stimulated by government
spending. Now the finance minister and others are saying what
Reform has been saying all along, that debt, taxes and
government overspending kill jobs and that deficit reduction
and lower taxes are what stimulates private sector job creation.
(1425)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now admit that by creating $6
billion of additional federal, provincial and municipal debt
through the federal infrastructure program the government has
killed more long term jobs than it created? Will the government
commit to a Reform job strategy based on deficit and tax
reduction?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
stated in the House and repeated it again yesterday to all
Canadians that he has a reasoned, reasonable approach to deficit
reduction.
What he did say yesterday and what we want to repeat in the
House is that if we followed the leader of the third party's recipe
for deficit reduction it would drive the country back into the
recession the Liberal Party is finally pulling us out of.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we told members of the government months ago that
social programs had to be overhauled. Now they are staggering
in that direction. We told them that immigration levels were too
high. Now they are talking about reduction. We told them that
the spending cuts in the February budget were not sufficient and
now they are making repairs.
The government has been forced toward Reform positions in
the social and fiscal areas. Can we now count on the Liberal
government to steal the rest of our platform, in particular our
democratic reforms such as free votes, referendums, citizen
initiatives and recall?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing that has
been staggering in the last 12 months has been the staggering
number of people who have fled the Reform Party because they
finally see the Liberal Party as the party that delivers.
If we talk about productivity, as a result of the government the
unit labour costs show the best performance in 40 years for
Canadian products. We have the highest rate of growth in
employment and the strongest growth in output of any of the
G-7 countries.
The unemployment rate has fallen from 11.4 per cent to 10.1
per cent. This is not strong enough and we want to keep going.
We think the infrastructure program has contributed to the
improvement in the confidence of Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A year after the election of the Liberal government, we have
come to realize that its employment strategy simply amounts to
setting up an infrastructure program that creates only temporary
jobs, reducing access to unemployment insurance and passively
benefits from the economic recovery. Considering population
growth, we are still over 800,000 jobs short of the pre-recession
level.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that her government's
approach to job creation is coercive, reducing access to
unemployment insurance and UI benefits and to forcing the
unemployed to re-enter the labour market and try to find jobs
which simply do not exist?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question. It gives me an opportunity to say, I am sure
with some great satisfaction, to her and her constituents that as a
result of the efforts of the government the unemployment rate in
her riding has gone from 12.1 per cent down to 9 per cent.
If we keep it up, at that rate she will have no unemployment by
the end of our term.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the government be so smug and proud when there are still
7181
over a million unemployed workers in Canada, not counting all
those who have precarious, very short term jobs?
(1430)
How can the Deputy Prime Minister pretend that her
government has restored hope and dignity for the unemployed,
when in Quebec alone, 22,000 unemployed workers had to resort
to welfare after the 1993 cuts in unemployment insurance, and
since then, her government has never stopped forcing those who
are no longer eligible for UI benefits to live on welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to that question
I want to pose this one: How can that member make the
statement she just did when she and her party continually oppose
every effort of this government to invest in better training,
better job creation, better development? They are against any
attempt to reform. All they want to do is keep people on
unemployment insurance, keep people on benefits. They do not
want people to have jobs. That is their position.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the
Financial Post reported on a memo from the
government's finance department which concluded that this
government's immigration policies are worsening the
unemployment crisis. It said that current levels which are twice
as high as any other nation on earth are not creating jobs but
creating competition for them.
Will the minister of immigration heed the conclusions of the
finance department and dramatically reduce immigration
levels?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some of the thoughts
contained in that report are by no means new. We heard those
representations being made during the eight month consultation.
Next Tuesday the government will be presenting its plan for
1995 in large measure based on the things we have heard and
discussed with Canadians. I ask the member to wait until
Tuesday and render an opinion then.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
a year now this minister has been telling Canadians that high
immigration levels are okay, even when unemployment is high.
We have said there is a level at which immigration hurts the
economy and the finance department agrees with us.
Will the minister wake up to the facts, show some political
will and cut the numbers? Will he do what is right for Canadians
and not just for the immigration industry?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member
read the entire document. To say that it agrees entirely with
Reform Party policy is exaggerating one great leap.
Immigration generally has been a positive force for Canada.
On page 74 of the red book it is stated very clearly: ``We will
continue to support an immigration policy that balances our
demographic and economic need with our capacity to settle and
absorb immigrants''. In other words it means a balanced
program which we do have and will continue to have after
November 1.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
During the last days of the federal election campaign, the
Prime Minister promised to reduce the deficit without raising
the taxes of Canadians during the first two years of his mandate.
Last week, however, in another about-face by this
government, the Prime Minister referred in no uncertain terms
to the possibility of raising taxes, contrary to his campaign
promise.
How can the Minister of Finance account for the fact that
exactly one year after it came to power, his government has
already reneged on its commitment not to raise taxes and that the
minister himself is feeding speculation about the possibility that
his government will tax RRSPs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has said repeatedly, in no uncertain terms and as
recently as yesterday, that we are firmly committed to bringing
the deficit down to $25 billion in 1996-97.
The Prime Minister also said that we wanted to proceed
mainly by cutting spending, but if we had to change this, we
were prepared to do so because the main objective is to avoid the
burden of higher interest rates.
The Prime Minister also made it very clear that he wanted to
close tax loopholes, a process we started in the last budget.
(1435)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government talks about eliminating tax loopholes,
but not the right ones, only those that benefit people on middle
7182
incomes, not those that benefit the very wealthy Canadian
taxpayers that the minister is protecting in his Budget and his
pre-budget consultations.
Why will the Minister of Finance not admit that you do not
change the rules halfway through the game and that he will have
to stop these damaging speculations by telling the House quite
clearly that he will not tax RRSPs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said
repeatedly that I want the consultation process referred to by the
hon. member to be successful, and in that case, the Minister of
Finance cannot afford to comment on specific suggestions.
The hon. member said that we were attacking the middle
class. In fact, in the last Budget we eliminated flip flop deals by
large corporations and multinationals. We eliminated the
preferential tax rate for large corporations. We eliminated the
$100,000 capital gains exemption. And we introduced new rules
for foreign affiliates. We made promises and we acted on them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
past year boccie courts, the Saddledome and a canoe hall of fame
have all been funded under the guise of infrastructure. By the
minister's own figures we have only seen 7,000 long term jobs
created. However in the same time and in spite of government
interference the private sector has created over 300,000 long
term jobs.
When will the minister admit that his program has not lived
up to the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs but indeed has dug the debt
hole deeper?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have delivered on this program as we promised in
the election campaign that ended a year ago today with our
successful election.
We said we would respond to local needs and local priorities
as established by municipalities. That is exactly what we have
done. We have done it right across the country with the support
of all the provinces, and do you know what? We have done it on
reallocation, not on increasing the debt of this government.
Most of those municipalities and provinces have done the same
thing.
In the course of this program we have put 100,000 Canadians
back to work. We anticipated most of these projects would put
people to work on construction in the short term but they would
also create spin-off jobs which will put still another 100,000
Canadians back to work.
With over 7,000 permanent jobs that have been created so far,
this program has been a great success.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 100,000
short term jobs means one day or one week for some workers.
Yet every Canadian family is paying $800 for this program.
How does the minister justify those few jobs at such a high
cost to our taxpayers?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suspect that many of these jobs are going to be longer
term than the member's job.
When it came to the projects in his riding of Simcoe Centre,
which included an arena and a library, the hon. member not once
protested any of them. The member was sent memorandums
asking to respond if he had any disagreement. He responded to
absolutely none. He supports all the projects in his area.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. For the past year, in his
efforts to cut spending, the minister has targeted unemployment
insurance benefits and transfer payments to the provinces for
social assistance, post-secondary education and health. The
federal share of these social programs amounts to $32.6 billion.
Why is the Minister of Finance making cuts in these social
programs which represent $32.6 billion when it could instead
reduce its operating expenditures, business subsidies and
further reduce the defence budget which all together amount to
$34.5 billion?
(1440)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. The
member is very precise, but unfortunately inaccurate.
In the last budget, we cut government operating expenditures,
we cut business subsidies, but we did not cut transfer payments
to the provinces. We gave notice to the provinces that in
1996-97 we were going to freeze transfer payments at the
1993-94 level. I must say that the provinces were really thankful
to be given ample warning.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance seems to be saying that the provinces were
really happy to learn that there were going to be cuts.
7183
After one year in power, does the Minister of Finance
recognize that he has reached a dead-end with respect to the
election promise to do away with the GST, since several
provinces are refusing to go along with his proposal to create a
12 per cent national sales tax which is nothing more than the
GST in disguise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed, the
provinces were very happy to be treated with some decency for
the first time in more than ten years and to be given ample
warning, contrary to the previous government which just made
cuts without any warning.
I must add that we have been having extremely productive
discussions with the provinces on the GST and that we will
continue to do so, since, unlike the Bloc Quebecois, we want this
country to work.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Port Perry, my home town, was the sight of a gruesome bank
robbery this last Thursday. Three police officers and two
civilians were shot.
Port Perry and Durham want to know if the minister is going
to require mandatory sentencing for the possession of illegal
firearms.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
will know, there are already sections in the code that create
offences in relation to illegal firearms, some of which provide
for extended maximum sentences. The member will also know
that the whole firearms policy has been under review by this
government intensively in recent weeks.
I will be introducing proposals in the coming weeks before the
House of Commons that will deal among other things with
illegal firearms entering Canada and the sanctions in the
criminal justice system for those persons who use firearms in
the commission of crimes.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the finance minister about a promise that he has
not kept.
In the red ink book on page 92 it states that committees will be
given greater influence over government expenditures and
individual members of Parliament will be involved in an
effective prebudget consultation process.
Since the minister is a co-author of this red ink book, will the
finance minister keep his promise and allow committee chairs to
request that officials-
The Speaker: Order. The question itself and the way it is
being phrased now, the government is not responsible for
committees. Perhaps the member could rephrase his question.
Mr. Silye: Would the Minister of Finance agree to allow
members, if requested by motion of the opposition parties or by
motion of the party opposite of the government, to have
department officials appear at a committee to review-
The Speaker: I think I will pass this until tomorrow.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The minister claims that the Government of Quebec does not
understand the federal proposal for manpower training. Indeed,
it is the minister himself who does not want to understand and
who refuses to accept the Quebec consensus expressed at the
employment forum which brought together all stakeholders
from the business, educational and labour communities in 1989.
Does the minister not realize that what he is offering Quebec
perpetrates confusion between the federal and provincial
governments and in no way reflects the general consensus in
Quebec? Does the minister realize that he is the one who does
not understand Quebec?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, as you know, my
colleague signed an agreement with the Mohawk band to have
them become partners in setting priorities for human resource
development. It was not a question of transferring funds but
helping them to set priorities. The Quebec minister responded
by saying: ``Why can Quebec not have the same thing?''
I want to point out that we have already offered the province
of Quebec much more in terms of responsibility for managing
human resource programs than we have offered to all the other
provinces. We said to all the provinces that we would invite
them to take planning responsibility for close to 60 per cent of
federal manpower expenditures, that we would transfer the full
responsibility for deciding on training programs under the
CEGEPs and community colleges, that we would ask the
provinces to take the responsibility of setting up a single
window, guichet unique, and we would also look at sitting down
with provinces and talking about transferring certain federal
pro-
7184
grams as they relate to education, such as stay in school
programs and other areas.
In other words, the offer that we made to the province of
Quebec, as we made to all the provinces, goes way beyond the
proposals that have been made to the particular Indian bands
across the country.
I hope now that we have clarified that matter we will get a
positive, co-operative response from the Government of
Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is confusing this with his evaluation of
the administrative agreements which he proposed to 10 native
Indian groups. According to former minister André Bourbeau's
estimate, his stubborn refusal to transfer federal responsibilities
will waste more than $750 million in the next three years and
maintain the present confusion which penalizes Quebec's
unemployed. Is he aware of that?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not the one
who caused the confusion. We made it very clear. My deputy
minister has written to his counterpart in the Government of
Quebec again underlining that we are quite anxious, willing and
open to sit down with the Government of Quebec and the
governments of other provinces to negotiate based upon the
proposal that we have submitted for manpower training just as
we are prepared to co-operate on helping to support strategic
initiatives, helping to support new child care initiatives and
helping to support a changeover so that we can develop a way of
assisting on the very active and very useful program in Quebec,
APPORT, which is a social assistance program.
In all these cases we have indicated time and again that we are
prepared to co-operate with the province of Quebec to find new
ways of solving problems. That stands in stark contrast to
members of the opposition whose only position is to defend the
status quo. They do not want to make any changes at all. We are
the party and the government that wants to make the changes. It
is about time they joined in.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as we have heard, today marks the first anniversary of
the election of the 35th Parliament. While we have seen nothing
but foot dragging on social reform, deficit reduction and
replacement of the GST, we have seen some minor promises
upheld.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is why has the
government decided to put funding of special interest groups by
way of reinstating the court challenges program ahead of much
more urgent and wide ranging promises such as meaningful
deficit reduction?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, probably the greatest
legacy of the first year of the Prime Minister's government is
that Canadians are starting to believe in the public process
again.
Part of that public process means living up to your promises.
The decision of the Government of Canada to reinstate the court
challenges funding was a direct result of a promise made not
only in the red book but a direct promise by the Prime Minister
because of his belief that it is important that every Canadian
have the right to have their rights defended under the charter.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last night the Prime Minister stated he wanted people's
money to be used productively.
(1450 )
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how spending tax
dollars to sue the government thus triggering the spending of
even more taxpayers' money can be described as productive?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party and
the Government of Canada believe in human rights and fairness.
We think that the court challenges program at a cost of
approximately $3 million annually is a great investment in the
right of Canadians to have their rights respected under the law.
The court challenges program is a good investment. It is a
smart investment. It is a wise use of Canadian taxpayer dollars.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the President of the Treasury Board who last night
delivered the keynote address to open Technology in
Government Week.
Technology costs money. How is the President of the Treasury
Board going to make use of information technology to improve
services to the Canadian public and at the same time reduce the
cost of these services to the taxpayer?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The real
credit for Technology in Government Week goes to the many
public servants who are on the leading edge of bringing
information technology to better use for the benefit of the
taxpayers of this country.
7185
Just a few months ago I released a report called The Blueprint
for Using Information Technology in Renewing Government
Services with a vision of making government services more
affordable, more accessible and more responsive to the needs of
the public.
There are a number of flagship projects in this regard that we
are going to carry out. Indeed, it is not only going to reduce the
cost of government but it is going to improve the services that
are provided to the taxpayers of this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. The minister recently indicated that, in all likelihood,
the bill on the second phase of the copyright reform will not be
tabled before the beginning of next year. Yet, that reform has
been long awaited, over six years in fact.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm that the
tabling of this bill is postponed to 1995, while he had pledged to
present that legislation before the Christmas recess, and will he
tell us why?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confusing two different
things: The basic decisions regarding the object of the bill
which, as I said, will be made by the Canadian government
before the end of this fall, and the actual tabling of the bill,
which requires a substantial amount of work by the Department
of Justice.
I did not contradict myself. We are on schedule. We are on
course and we are following our timetable.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the postponement of the
copyright bill is due to the struggle between the Minister of
Canadian Heritage and his colleague, the Minister of Industry,
regarding the issue of neighbouring rights?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no postponement. The hon. member
misunderstood what I said. I think that she wants to look like she
is trying to protect the artists. But I will tell you: She can try all
she wants, people will not be fooled.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
For a year now Canadians have been pleading with this
government to make changes to the criminal justice system.
Canadians want a tougher Young Offenders Act, they want
serious offenders off the street and behind bars and they
desperately want a life sentence to mean life.
(1455)
Will the Minister of Justice reassure the people of Canada and
tell this House today that tougher and more certain sentences
will be put into place for all criminals and for all age groups?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the year that we have
been here and in connection with the justice agenda we have not
only introduced specific changes to the Young Offenders Act
which are now before the committee on which he makes a very
constructive contribution, we have also asked that committee to
undertake a complete review of the Young Offenders Act to
ensure that we still have the best model of juvenile justice in this
country.
In addition to that we have introduced comprehensive
changes, improvements to the sentencing provisions of the
Criminal Code and we have passed through this House of
Commons an omnibus amendment to the Criminal Code with
over 100 changes to modernize and make criminal law more
effective.
Beyond that response through legislation with my colleague,
the Solicitor General, this government has also created the
national crime prevention council recognizing that crime
prevention is a very important part of making our communities
safer. That balanced approach is succeeding and is going to
succeed further in making our communities safer.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks of making changes. How about
Allan Kinsella and Serge Damien who escaped from the Bath
institution who should have been held in a maximum security
prison and should not even have had a hope of parole for 25
years?
Will the minister tell this House whether or not he would
support the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code and
therefore make life indeed life?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made my position
clear some months ago.
The government's position on section 745 is crystal clear. We
introduced an amendment to section 745 to provide plainly that
whenever an application is brought under that section that the
court is obligated to hear from the families of the victims.
That is the change we propose in section 745. It is contained in
Bill C-41 and that is the policy of this government.
7186
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs
concerning his meeting with the home affairs minister for India
tomorrow, Wednesday, October 26.
There are many Canadians who are concerned about human
rights in India. The human rights report and the Asia watch
report have both detailed violations.
Does the minister intend to discuss these with the home
affairs minister for India when he meets with him tomorrow?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon.
member for monitoring human rights violations, not only in
India. I know she is doing this in other parts of the globe.
Members of this House will be happy to know that yes, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs will be addressing this with the
minister visiting Canada. Canada is taking advantage of its good
relations with India to make continual representations to that
country regarding our concern about the human rights
violations.
At noon today members of the New Democratic Party, the
Reform Party, the Liberal Party and the Senate met with a
representative from Amnesty International concerning these
human rights violations. I think all members will be happy to
know that Canada has made representations for Amnesty
International to visit other parts of India, not only Bombay, but
Punjab, Kashmir, et cetera.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, N.D.P.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. Last week the Prime
Minister opened the National Health Forum by stating:
``Canada's health care costs must be cut or medicare could be
destroyed''. Today we saw a study that showed that drug prices
have increased 11.6 per cent.
What is the minister's position? In opposition it was
opposition to Bill C-91 which hit the consumer with increased
drug prices for provinces and territories and the federal health
care plans. Does this Minister of Health want to save Canada's
health care plan and if so, will her government rescind Bill
C-91?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there were a number of questions there. I do not know
which one to start with.
First, the Prime Minister stated that we must preserve the
principles of medicare that were put in place by the federal
government many years ago. We have to effectively and
efficiently spend our dollars in order to guarantee those
principles.
(1500 )
Second, the report that came out today definitely concerns the
increase in terms of usage of newer drugs, not necessarily just an
increase in prices.
Again, we must look to ensure that the drugs we use are the
most cost effective.
The Speaker: Order. I would hope that we will continue as we
have since the beginning of this Parliament and have the
courtesy of not only listening to the question, but also having the
courtesy to listen to the answers.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order under Standing Order 37. I believe the question I
was asking was fully in order. Yet the Speaker-
The Speaker: Order. I would advise my hon. colleague with
all respect that in the view of the Chair the question he posed
was out of order. I asked him to rephrase it.
If the hon. member would care to pursue this he can either
address himself to the clerks for the specific rule in question or I
would invite him to speak with me in my chambers. This point is
closed.
_____________________________________________
7186
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Industry had approximately six
minutes left on questions and comments.
Are there any further questions or comments for the
parliamentary secretary?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that you
have acknowledged I had some time left in answering the
question from the Reform Party.
The question had to do with the comparison the Reform Party
tries to make quite often that running a government is very much
like running a business. Of course I do not agree that running the
Government of Canada is like running a business at all.
The member said we should have had a pretty good idea when
we took power about what was happening with the books and
records of the country. The member knows that when we took
7187
over the books and records, there was close to a seven or eight
billion dollar difference in the real numbers.
I really believe the Reform Party should acknowledge that. It
should likewise acknowledge that our very aggressive handling
of the deficit and the debt is something for which we should be
given some marks.
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to the motion tabled in this House by my
colleague from Saint-Albert. The hon. member for Saint-Albert
sits on the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, and I want
to let him know that I share his point of view on the sorry state of
our public finances and on the finance minister's inability to
resolve Canada's public finance crisis.
I also agree with him that the government should table in this
House a detailed plan to show how it intends to balance the
budget as well as its action plan schedule. The Bloc Quebecois,
however, does not agree with the ways advocated by the Reform
Party to balance the budget. The Bloc Quebecois does not share
Reform members' vision of the role government should play in
the economy either.
In our opinion, the government must not only create a healthy
competitive climate encouraging people to develop skills and do
their best, but also protect society's poorest and most vulnerable
and help them get out of the vicious circle of poverty and
dependency. Where are we as taxpayers today, a year to the day
after the election of a Liberal government? The two papers
tabled last week by the Minister of Finance simply note the
deterioration of Canada's public finances.
The minister merely describes the state of government
expenditures and revenue without proposing any vigorous
action plan to correct the situation and substantially reduce the
deficit. Yet, the red book, which all ministers misquote almost
daily to save face in response to the questions asked by the
Official Opposition during Question Period, contains many
promises, and I quote: ``The basic elements of our approach
include fiscal responsibility and fairness, deficit reduction, and
a balanced and stable monetary policy''.
The deficit forecast for this year is still close to $40 billion,
more precisely $39.7 billion, while the forecast for next year is
$32.7 billion. Even if the Liberal government met its target of
reducing the deficit to $25 billion in 1996 and 1997, it would add
$97.4 billion, almost $100 billion, to the $500 billion-plus debt
already accumulated.
Even if the government met its goal of 3 per cent of GDP in
1996-97, it would still raise the debt to over $600 billion. Is that
the deficit reduction promised by the Liberals in the red book? It
is more and more unlikely that the government will succeed in
keeping the deficit below the $40 billion level this year and
below $33 billion next year.
The government recognizes at last, but a bit late, that the
increase in interest rates, which was partly offset by the
recovery this year, will entail additional cuts of up to $4.7
billion in 1995-96 and $9 billion the following year if it is to
reach its objective of a deficit of no more than 3 per cent of the
GDP before the end of its term.
Can we honestly talk about fiscal responsibility as the
government promised in the red book? According to us, it looks
more like chronic irresponsibility. In such a context, the red
book looks more and more like a jumble of wishful thinking
prepared just to seduce some disillusioned constituents
throughout the election campaign. In that same red book, they
also talked about fiscal equity.
Well, let us talk about it. The government's budgetary
approach is based on the social security reform, that is on
cutbacks in transfers to provinces and in social programs that
will merely penalize welfare recipients and students, the
unemployed and the elderly. The overtaxed middle class, which
historically served as the milking cow for government taxation,
is not reassured when even the Prime Minister talks about a
possible hike in taxes, as opposed to what he promised during
last year's campaign, and when the Minister of Finance is
juggling with the idea of taxing RRSPs.
Naturally, this government lacks imagination in the fiscal
area as in all other areas of management. They also promised a
stable and balanced monetary policy. Interest rates have
increased since spring and should increase some more during
the coming months because you have to reduce the deficit if you
want to relieve the upward pressure on interest rates and give
more flexibility to the Bank of Canada so that it can, in turn,
lower interest rates. So goes the vicious circle of indebtedness.
(1510)
We in the Bloc Quebecois agree that government finances
must be overhauled to reduce the risk premium Canada pays on
interest rates, mainly on foreign loans. The government's
budget policies should aim for a far more substantial reduction
in the federal deficit. The Liberals are not on the right track and
will not be able to keep their campaign promise of a balanced
and stable monetary policy.
The red book says, and I quote: ``A number of government
programs and tax expenditures-some of which have been
identified by the auditor general-are inefficient, poorly
managed, or motivated by purely economic reasons. Just as we
are proposing new measures to grow the economy, we will
examine such programs with the objective of reducing waste and
inefficiency and promoting economic growth. Expenditure
reductions will be achieved by cancelling unnecessary
programs, stream-
7188
lining processes, and eliminating duplication. This effort will
take place in partnership with provincial governments''.
How ridiculous this sounds when we read it again today, a
year after the Liberals came to power. Ridiculous, especially
when we compare the red book with the two instruction manuals
it spawned last week: A New Framework for Economic Policy
and Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate. Upon reading these two
documents, which list a set of principles and indulge in a lot of
wishful thinking and which are to be used for consultation
purposes, we realize that, for the government, social security
reform remains the cornerstone of deficit reduction and of
improving the state of government finances.
According to the Minister of Finance, improving the state of
government finances will be achieved, as we said earlier,
through cuts in unemployment insurance, student loans and
social security. The jobs and growth strategy, says the minister,
is based on the following main themes: encouraging Canadians
to adapt to change; rethinking the role of the state; putting the
economy on the right track; and creating a healthy fiscal and
monetary climate by reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GSP by
1996-97, the ultimate objective being to balance the budget.
Aside from a few very general principles, the government's
new policy framework merely reminds us once again of the red
book's objective which is still to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent
of GDP before the end of the government's mandate. There are
no concrete proposals for meeting this objective, aside from a
number of haphazard budget cuts.
Given the sorry state of Canada's finances and the resulting
prohibitive foreign debt, the Liberals' target of $39.7 billion in
1994-1995, again barely under the $40 billion mark despite the
strong economic recovery, strikes the Bloc Quebecois as overly
cautious and irresponsible in view of the size of the problem.
In order to point up the reduction in the deficit, you will recall
that the Liberals overestimated the deficit in 1993-1994, the last
year the Conservatives were in power, at $45.7 billion. The real
deficit that year, however, was $42 billion. Without a change in
policy, the government told us, the projected deficit that year
would have been $41.2 billion. In our view, the minister's
deficit reduction objective is still not high enough.
In a context of economic recovery, with Canadians willing to
do their part, what kind of leadership is it to lower the deficit
from $41.2 billion to $39.7 billion? This is a paltry $1.5
billion-it is laughable, really. The minister is not even certain
that his timid attempts to improve the situation will achieve
their purpose. As he told us last week, these two documents will
be submitted for consultation. I, for one, have always believed
that the government was elected to make decisions and to
manage. The Liberals are trying to change the art of governing.
For them, it seems to mean consulting.
Not only has it set its sights too low, but the Liberal
government is erratic and hesitant when it comes to specific
measures to eliminate an uncontrolled debt that has become
uncontrollable under their leadership.
To reduce the deficit, the government must find enough
manoeuvring room to meet its budget goals, which we find, as I
said earlier, a little too ambitious based on the following
measures. The government promised to tackle waste,
duplication and mismanagement in order to reduce operating
expenditures. Yet, year after year, the Auditor General finds
numerous cases of waste and mismanagement. Many of his
recommendations are not acted on. What about program
assessment? Program expenditures now exceed $120 billion,
while most federal programs evaluated cost less than $250
million.
(1515)
No large-scale program has been evaluated yet, either in
government departments or Crown corporations. On what basis
and under what criteria will the minister responsible for
reviewing all government programs conduct the promised
review? Will this review integrate the Auditor General's
recommendations? We do not know any more than that.
You will agree with me that the measures proposed by the
Minister of Finance to create a healthy financial climate are not
exactly innovative and ambitious. As the Bloc Quebecois
already said, the minister only describes the government's
balance sheet without proposing any concrete measure to reduce
the deficit.
The reform of social programs remains this government's
framework to reduce the government deficit. Although the
government made a commitment not to increase taxes, the
minister says in the document that ``broadening the tax base is
preferable to raising tax rates''. What does this position mean
for the future?
In the same document the minister says that given the scope of
the measures needed to meet its deficit-reduction goals, the
government must contemplate tax initiatives. This means that
we must expect new tax increases at some point.
Tax breaks on retirement savings, or RRSPs, represent almost
$15 billion, $14.9 billion to be more precise. The Liberal
government must be tempted to eliminate RRSP deductions,
which would reduce its annual deficit by 37 per cent in one fell
swoop, without any additional streamlining effort. RRSPs
account for 55 per cent of all the government's tax expenditures
including the credit for charitable donations, the tax credit for
research and development, the exemption for injured workers'
compensation, and the largest, making up 55 per cent of the
total, is RRSPs. How tempting to eliminate just one, that one,
which would affect only one group of taxpayers. Only one group
of taxpayers would be targeted and in one fell swoop more than
half the tax expenditures would be eliminated.
7189
The government is preparing us for this type of cut that will
affect mainly the middle class. When he says that he must
consider tax initiatives, the minister is surely thinking of
RRSPs.
No offence to the member for St. Albert, with whom I agree,
but the government has no detailed plan on how to balance the
budget and will not table such a plan, nor does it have a
timetable and a clear vision of the government's role in the
economy.
To conclude, I will add that this government does not seem to
want to keep its commitment not to raise taxes, it is vacillating
and only as a last resort did it admit that it had to make more cuts
to achieve its future budget objectives.
This government prefers to re-examine government programs
instead of tackling the machinery of government as such. This
government promised us ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' in the 1993 election
campaign. Today, it tells us only about cuts and reducing the
deficit. Its rhetoric varies depending on the prevailing
circumstances, you will agree.
This government observes and consults. It gives the people no
concrete measures except for cuts in social programs and in
transfers to the provinces. It is counting on the economic
recovery in order to avoid making painful decisions, which will
be even more painful because of its indecision.
This government no doubt has a work plan that it is
developing in secret while its leading lights consult left and
right. Even the Prime Minister is consulting the health
stakeholders to define the health care system for the next
century in the absence of the provincial premiers and health
ministers.
In the end, the Toronto Star's allegations are being confirmed:
the shortfall of the next two fiscal years will be recovered
through made up for with cuts in social programs. That is what
this government's political agenda boils down to. I believe that
Quebecers and Canadians deserve better.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the interesting comments made by my
distinguished colleague, the hon. member for La Prairie. I want
to ask him if he finds it normal that a government running a
country on the verge of bankruptcy tolerate having accounts
receivable of $6.4 billion and a revenue minister who does not
do much to recover that amount?
(1520)
Does the hon. member finds it reasonable that a government
on the verge of bankruptcy play war games and spend $2 million
in just 48 hours?
Does he find it reasonable that the parliamentary restaurant,
on the sixth floor of this building, incurred losses of $2 million
last year presumably because its clients, including senators and
others, would leave without paying their bills?
Does he find it reasonable that a government running a
country on the verge of bankruptcy would have an agency such
as the CSE, which has over 1,000 employees and an annual
budget of 250 to 260 million dollars? These people are not all
spies but, seemingly, several of them are.
Does the hon. member find it normal that this same
government accept the fact that large amounts of money in
family trusts are exempt of normal taxes?
Since my colleague used to be an alderman in his home town, I
also want to ask him if he agrees that the federal government
should follow the example of municipalities and table a
balanced budget? If the government insists on playing Santa
Claus, it should not do so at the expense of future generations.
Instead, it should have the courage to raise taxes. It is easy to be
generous when you know that it is the third or fourth generation
down the line which will have to pay for the goodies handed out
now.
Finally, does he find it normal that a government borrow,
often from foreign countries, to pay the interest on the deficit for
the current year?
There are several questions. I would appreciate it if the hon.
member for La Prairie could answer most of them.
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from the
Bloc Quebecois for this array of very relevant questions.
First, I would like to tell you that I agree completely with what
you said, especially concerning the accounts payable. Naturally,
the Canadian government was often compared to a business;
thank God it is not a private business, because if it were, either a
small, a medium-sized or a large business, it would have gone
bankrupt a long time ago.
What you said about the accounts payable is also true for the
accounts receivable. How many millions if not billions of
dollars in taxes are not collected by the Canadian government?
As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I
can say that our committee has the opportunity to analyze the
recommendations made by the auditor general. Year in and year
out, the Auditor General says the Canadian government lacks
rigour in the collection of accounts receivable, meaning taxes,
as well as in the area of accounts payable.
You talked earlier of the restaurants here, on the Parliament
Hill. Recently, I read that these restaurants do not even make
enough money to pay their staff. This is absolutely absurd.
Basically, this is a sign of the laxness that the Canadian
government has been guilty of for many years. In previous
years, in collective bargaining, the Canadian government, as an
employer, never stood up to the labour unions. And we are now
7190
in the absurd situation where the revenues of the restaurants do
not even cover their manpower costs. The restaurants on the Hill
do not even make enough money to cover the fixed costs, let
alone the variable costs.
You also talked about the $2 million it costs the Canadian
government to play war for 48 hours. You were surely alluding
to the William Tell competition that was mentioned here last
week. Clearly, the whole defense policy must be reviewed. The
Department of National Defence has a $12 billion budget. We
have seen the government try to close bases here and there in
Canada. That is not the Bloc's position. We think that the
defence budget should be reduced by at least 25 per cent, which
represents about $3 billion. The government just has to say no to
these war games and to other decisions made by the generals. We
know that, historically, in Canada, as in the United States and
many other countries, oftentimes it is not the Minister or the
Prime Minister who runs the Department of National Defence
but the generals.
(1525)
When the generals submit their budgetary requirements each
year, they ask for a lot of what I would call military hardware to
play war games. As far as I know, the Second World War ended
in 1945. It is true that Canada was involved in the Korean War. It
is also true that we have sent troops to several countries as part
of a multinational force in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s,
but I do not think that it justifies a $12 billion budget today. It is
us, taxpayers, who have been paying year after year for this
military hardware to please the generals and other army leaders.
I think the time has come for the civilians to regain control of
this $12 billion defence budget.
An hon. member: The municipalities.
Mr. Bélisle: Municipalities, yes, I certainly agree with you,
since I was a municipal councillor for 11 years in Ville
Saint-Lambert, in my riding, on the South Shore of Montreal.
They never had a deficit in Saint-Lambert or in any of the
neighbouring towns or anywhere in Quebec, for that matter. If a
town runs a deficit in one year, the deficit is transferred to the
following year's budget. If this principle were applied by the
federal government, it would not have a $500 billion deficit
today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Longueuil, for a brief question.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
following question for my colleague and it is that for the past 20
years the government has been living on credit and has borrowed
nearly $1 billion for every million people we have in Canada.
Does this not prove the federal system does not work, that it is
very expensive and that instead of blaming the government,
perhaps we should blame the system? The Conservatives did not
do a better job, the Liberals before them did not, and today's
Liberals are not doing a better job either. So there is a problem,
and the problem is not the government as such but the federal
system, which does not work. Does the hon. member agree?
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the
hon. member for Longueuil. The government's financial
bankruptcy-its cumulative debt of more than $500 billion
which goes back to the end of the seventies-proves that
Canadian federalism does not work.
If you will allow me to use the following metaphor, it is as if
Canada were a large multinational corporation with 10 branches
in 10 different provinces or countries, and for more than 30
years, there has been constant squabbling between the branches
in the provinces and the central government in Ottawa or
somewhere else, and they can never agree on how to do things.
In the private sector, to keep the shareholders happy, they
would have made the necessary decisions right away and either
decentralized or created other independent corporations for
these entities. What we are asking as Quebecers is to have an
independent entity so that we are politically autonomous, which
would not preclude administrative agreements or agreements
based on an economic union with the rest of Canada.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to participate in this debate.
I would like to start by thanking the third party for giving us
yet another opportunity to crystallize for the Canadian people
the differences that exist between the Liberal philosophy toward
the role and responsibilities of government and the Reform
philosophy in that same regard.
It was a year ago exactly today that the Canadian people
elected 177 Liberal members to this House. I believe they did so
because they believed and had confidence in our philosophy;
one that said that it is important and necessary for the
government to take fiscal management responsibilities
seriously, that we must reduce the debt and the deficit. The
Canadian people also agreed that there is more to the role of the
Canadian government. They agreed with us that part of the role
is to help create jobs and develop economic growth.
(1530)
Contrast that with the Reform Party members who, as I saw
them today in question period, were very happy to elect 52
members from one region of the country, a very important
region but one region. Their strategy is very telescopic, very
single-minded, and says that the role of government is really to
7191
get into power, slash and burn, cut the debt and deficit, fold up
the tents and get on with it, get out of town.
Every once in a while I wonder what it must be like to be a
constituent in a Reform member's riding. I think of the young
people who come to see me in my constituency, young people
who have graduated from university and have been unable to get
that important first job. They cannot get unemployment
insurance and the alternative is welfare. They come to my office
and we talk about the Canadian Youth Services. We talk about
wage subsidies. We talk about different strategies whereby the
government can impact and assist the young people in their
search and their finding of a job.
I do not know what it must be like to be a Reform member and
be unable to talk about these strategies, to talk about a
government providing these kinds of opportunities and actions
that do in fact help get Canadians into the workforce,
contributing and productive in our economy.
We are here talking about the deficit and it is important. I have
a few words I want to share in that regard. Many suggestions
have been made about eliminating the deficit. Unfortunately, a
significant number of those suggestions, including some made
by hon. members in this House, are not based on a sound grasp of
the facts.
This afternoon I would like to discuss some of these
misconceptions. Let me begin with a remedy much favoured by
certain members of the opposition, eliminating social benefits
for higher income Canadians. Of course there are some potential
savings here but they are much smaller than is often claimed.
Why? To begin with, many social programs already target
benefits on the basis of need or income. The guaranteed income
supplement is an example. So are spousal allowances, the child
tax benefit and the GST credit. Other social benefits are reduced
or recovered as income rises. Old age security, for instance,
starts being recovered at about $53,000. Unemployment
insurance is recovered at about $58,000 and the age credit at
about $26,000.
There is also an unfortunate truth faced by anyone who wants
drastic cuts to elderly benefits. The fact is most elderly
Canadians are at the lower end of the income scale. Almost
three-quarters of our elderly have annual household incomes
below $30,000. About half of all elderly benefits go to those
who receive the guaranteed income supplement. That means
individuals with incomes under $15,700 and couples under
$23,800. In short, the notion that rich Canadians collect huge
sums in social benefits is simply a myth and a mistake.
Another common belief about our social programs is that
much of the social security spending goes to cheats but that too
is a myth. Cheating is not the culprit behind the high cost of
social programs. Chronic dependency is.
The rules for governing unemployment insurance for example
have unwittingly encouraged chronic use, fostering dependency
on certain industries and regions. This is precisely the kind of
problem that calls for a careful rethinking of the way we
structure our spending. What will be achieved by a draconian
slash and burn approach? Does Reform believe that thousands of
jobs will immediately appear for workers in depressed regions
once they are forced off their UI dependency?
Another silver bullet solution held out by Reform members is
to slash government operating costs. They see Ottawa as a fat
city and the public service as an easy target for the resentment of
heavily taxed Canadians. Yes of course the reduction of
operating costs is an important goal, one to which our
government has demonstrated a commitment, but it can never be
the principal source of the savings needed to address the deficit
problem.
The net cost of running the government and delivering
programs represents only about 12 per cent of the total federal
budgetary spending, about $20 billion. That is a lot of money but
it is less than half the 1993-94 deficit. Even the most drastic
cuts, even the absurd extreme of laying off every public servant
would come nowhere close to solving our deficit problems.
(1535)
Other facts speak loudly too. The cost of government has been
repeatedly restrained in recent years including restraint
measures in the last budget. In fact we have implemented 16
specific expenditure reduction exercises over the past decade of
which 12 had a direct impact on operating budgets of the
government departments but operating costs exist for a reason
whether the mythmakers want to believe it or not. It is futile to
repeatedly cut back operating costs in isolation from the
programs that give rise to those costs.
There are other suggestions for eliminating the deficit that do
not entail spending cuts at all. Some of these too are based on
mistaken notions. For example we are often told that the
government should sell off crown corporations. There may be
good reasons for privatizing crown corporations but reducing
the deficit is really not one of them.
The impact of privatization on deficit is extremely limited.
That is because crown corporations are already recorded as
government assets. As a result the only situations in which the
deficit would be reduced by privatization are those where the
assets could be sold for more than their current book value. I
doubt whether there are many such cases at this time.
We also hear that the government could drastically reduce the
deficit by lowering interest rates. People who hold this view
forget that interest rates are not set by the government but by
investors. The Bank of Canada can influence short term interest
7192
rates but it cannot dictate long term rates or the cost of
borrowing in international markets. Who would buy our bonds
if we offered uncompetitive rates?
Occasionally the argument is still made that the government
should increase the money supplied to finance the debt but
history has shown time after time that this is a bogus and a
bankrupt solution. Printing money to pay down the debt failed
miserably. That is because it ultimately fuels inflation because
people realize that their money is worth less. The ultimate result
is that printing more money to solve your fiscal problems leads
directly to higher interest rates and higher debt servicing costs.
In the end the problem has not been solved. It has been
worsened.
So far I have focused on a number of proposals for deficit
cutting that are based on what we might call myths. My purpose
in doing this is not to accept a defeatist attitude because the
deficit must be wrestled to the ground and this government has
and will do just that. But you cannot defeat the deficit with
shallow snake oil solutions founded on illusion. What we need
as I said earlier is a careful rethinking of the role of government
and the way we spend. It is precisely what the government is
doing.
As the finance minister has said the time of nibbling away at
the margins is over. The government's comprehensive strategic
approach is reflected in a new framework for economic policy
that was released last week. It is also reflected in the
comprehensive reform of our social security system that is
already under way as well as the ongoing reviews of science and
technology, defence and foreign policy, and small business
policy.
I want to focus this afternoon on the federal program review.
To my mind this is precisely the kind of meaningful selective
approach to cost cutting that has been absent from deficit
reduction exercises in recent years. It is precisely why earlier
efforts have not succeeded.
What is program review? It refers to a fundamental review of
all federal programs and activities besides the major statutory
transfer payments to provinces and people which are being
reviewed separately as I mentioned.
It includes examining grants and contributions, tax
expenditures, cost recovery and overhead. The goal of this
review is a more effective, smaller and affordable government,
one that concentrates on its core roles and responsibility.
Each government department and agency has been asked to
review and assess its activities against six guidelines. These
guidelines are as follows: First, does a program area or activity
continue to serve the public interest? Second, is there a
legitimate and necessary role for government in this program
area or activity? Is it really ours to control? Third, is the current
role of the federal government appropriate or should the
program be transferred to the provinces?
(1540)
What activities or program should or could be transferred in
whole or part to the private or voluntary sector? If a program
continues how can its efficiency be improved? Finally, is the
program affordable in light of the current fiscal situation?
As a result of this review some programs and services will be
streamlined and some may be eliminated, particularly those that
can be provided more efficiently by the private sector or that
overlap with services provided by other levels of government.
Some of the changes resulting from the review will be
announced in the 1995 budget. Others will be implemented over
several years. The end result will be a smaller and more
affordable government, but that government will continue to
protect the most vulnerable in our society.
The federal program review is only one facet of the
government's efforts to put our fiscal house in order. I have
spoken of it at some length because I believe it provides an
excellent example of the kind of approach that must be taken to
deficit reduction; an informed, thoughtful and efficient
approach, one that contrasts sharply with the draconian
knee-jerkism proposed today by some hon. members.
I have had the opportunity to utilize this kind of approach with
the private sector and it has worked very effectively to improve
productivity, to help companies focus on what they should focus
on. The strategy that I am proud of is part of our Liberal
philosophy. It suggests that we understand that there are things
that we cannot deny and that is that straight across the board cuts
do not recognize differences in individual needs of Canadians
and our institutions.
I would like to make one final point. In his presentation last
week before the Standing Committee on Finance, the Minister
of Finance emphasized that the government has clear principles
to guide it in making the decisions necessary to achieve its
deficit target. The minister said, for example, the deficit
reduction measures should weigh on the side of program
spending cuts over revenue increases, that selective, strategic
cuts are to be preferred over across the board cuts and that the
most vulnerable in our society must not be left behind.
The minister also made it clear that the government would not
be making its decisions alone, that it wanted to hear from
Canadians. I believe that the open, democratic consultation
process that the government has put in motion is exactly what is
needed if we are to put an end to the glib solutions and nibbling
away at the margins.
7193
I have every confidence that Canadians will recognize the
importance of and contribute significantly to the kind of
thoughtful approach our fiscal problems in Canada need.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention. I thank her for
indicating that this motion gives her party the opportunity to
crystallize Liberal policy. That is exactly what this debate is
about.
We would like to know what the Liberals really plan to do. We
would like to know what the government process is going to be.
We would like to know how they are going to reduce the
spending she has talked about.
Despite the pejorative comments that have been made by the
member about the Reform policies, there are still questions
about what the Liberals are going to do. These questions are
raised by this member's speech. She has discussed crown
corporations. Should we privatize crown corporations? The
question is also can we afford to continue subsidizing crown
corporations at the rate at which they are being subsidized
today?
She talked about the open consultation process. There is real
doubt in my mind about this process. It seems as though people
are being told: ``Look how hard it is to cut expenditures''.
Nobody in this House believes it is easy, but to say to people:
``Let us see how you can do it if we cannot'' is not really a
consultation process. There is nothing being put before the
people for them to work with. Just to say how difficult it is and
``can you show us how to do it'' is not a consultation process.
(1545 )
The question still is how will the government reduce the
deficit. That is what we are asking. We are not asking more
questions about if, when and may. How will the government
reduce the deficit? How will the government regain control of
the financial position of our nation?
That is the question I put to the member, not to decry about
other policies, not to say the member has not told us how to do it.
What is in mind? The government has been waiting for years to
take power. The problem has grown in complexity and intensity
for those years. By the time all the processes are finished the
problem will be advanced that much further. We will likely need
to have more consultations.
How will the government reduce the deficit? What is its
vision? That is what we are asking.
Mrs. Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his questions. There are many in his intervention.
I think our process is very clear. I would refer him to the lilac
book, as the member for Capilano-Howe Sound called it. A
very clear set of documentation was presented by the Minister of
Finance last week. He talked about our commitment and our role
in economic development. He talked about our responsibilities
in terms of fiscal management. He identified very clearly the
areas that Canadians can address and look at as they make their
considerations and deliberations on how we should manage the
process.
In talking about the process of consultation I feel it is an
exceptionally important part of the way we want government to
behave and manage itself in the 1990s and into the 21st century.
Canadians all through the course of the election campaign talked
about feeling divorced from the government process, about the
fact that they were never consulted or asked; things were just
done to them. We are doing our best to change that. Through the
formal consultation process, the process that will be held by the
finance committee, Canadians will have a real opportunity to
participate.
I would suggest as well that each individual member has the
opportunity to participate at the grassroots level in his or her
riding; to take documentation that has been presented and
prepared for us by the Ministry of Finance and share it with
individuals, with groups and with people in their ridings; to help
work one on one with people to understand the issues; to discuss
the strategies and the possibilities; and to bring that information
to the standing committee, to the House and to the minister
directly.
As for the question on whether or not the minister and our
government will make the decisions, we will make the
decisions. They will be very clear at the time of the budget. Prior
to that the critical point is to talk to Canadians. We are talking
about the need to make changes, the type of which we have never
seen before. These issues will impact on each and every one of
us and each and every Canadian we represent. They have every
right to be consulted; they have every right to contribute.
In my role as a member of Parliament I have a responsibility
to get that information from them and I will do that. The member
should not be mistaken: our minister has made a commitment to
reach our deficit targets and he will find them in the budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks and I was
shocked by her referring to ``chronic use of unemployment
insurance'' as if implying that people who are on UI, year after
year, or rather frequently, are doing it on purpose. I could not
help but think of the peat bog workers in Rivière Ouelle, or the
hotel and inn employees in Rivière-du-Loup, or the forestry
workers in Saint-Jean-de-Dieu and wonder what they must
think of what is going on in this government.
This government, which was elected to create jobs, has not
been giving much hope to people in the regions. It has been
telling them: ``We are going to create a two-tier unemployment
insurance system which will penalize those who use it often; at
the same time, we are going to reduce the investment tax credit
which allowed regions to create permanent jobs and seasonal
workers to go on from seasonal jobs to regular jobs, all year
round''. By reducing the investment tax credit, the message the
government is giving them is this: ``It is your own fault if you
7194
are still on UI. It is your problem and it is up to you to solve it''.
The government gives them a contradictory message.
(1550)
In the outlying regions, people are reacting to the fact that the
government is getting ready to cut transport subsidies in an
unfair manner, without even looking at the economic impact.
For the past 50 or 60 years, in eastern Quebec and Atlantic
Canada, there has been a tradition of transport subsidies which
could disappear without anyone knowing the impact it will have
if the rules of the game, of the market, are not respected. People
who work in these areas and who will be hurt by these decisions
are wondering what is going on in Ottawa, and why decisions
which are detrimental to regional development are made.
The other example is the government's withdrawal from
transport, airports, harbours and railways. It is getting out of all
these areas at the same time and people are asking me what a
radio personality was asking me the other day, which is: Who is
going to stop all this? Who is going to get a handle on this? I
would like the member to tell me how she would cut wasteful
expenditures and increase revenues since, in her remarks, she
talked a lot about higher revenues and what we could all do to do
our fair share. Would she consider taxing family trusts and thus
bring some degree of fairness to our tax system?
[English]
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, again a number of
important questions were asked in that dissertation.
I want to make clear that neither my government nor I is
pointing a finger at forestry workers or seasonal workers and
saying it is their problem. Quite the opposite. We are suggesting
that we recognize the system is at fault and the system needs to
be repaired.
In response to the issue of dealing with subsidies and making
cuts to agencies and other organizations, we are clearly and
actively using a consultative approach to understand precisely
what the hon. member is suggesting. We recognize that making
cuts for the sake of cuts is not appropriate. We have to
understand that when we make subsidy cuts there will be a
response. Every action creates a reaction and we have to think
them through before we slash and burn holus-bolus. It is not our
strategy. It is not our philosophy. We will not do that.
Finally, we have to recognize that we are going through
significant change. Government is going to change. Canadians
will be dealing with change. We have to accept the difficulties
there. Part of doing a credible job, a good job, is to involve
Canadians in the process. I believe we have struck a perfect
strategy to reach that goal.
7194
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions
among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent
for the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Finance, or any of its subcommittees, be
authorized to adjourn from place to place within Canada during the week
commencing October 31, 1994 and that the necessary staff accompany the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion by the parliamentary secretary. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7194
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise and join in the debate today. Here we are one
full year to the day into our mandate. That is certainly cause for
reflection but that is all, for we have barely moved from the
status quo of doing nothing. Little has been achieved in
addressing the deficit and debt problem. As I stand here I do not
see myself slashing and burning, folding up the tent and saying
let's go home as my hon. colleague from Brant suggested in her
earlier remarks.
The presentation I would like to make today is focused. It
speaks of an ideology that all Reformers carry, that is
recognizing that we as a nation have difficult choices to make.
We are burdened with a federal debt that is more than $535
billion. This bone crushing yoke demands more than $40 billion
a year in interest payments. If we do not make some tough
decisions today we will soon be unable to deal with it at all.
7195
(1555)
This is not fearmongering nor is it self-serving as some
Liberals have been wont to say. Rather it is the tough talk needed
to make every Canadian realize the magnitude of the problem
we face. We in the Reform Party take pride in our approach,
bringing difficult issues out into the open, addressing the
problem and developing solutions.
The challenges that face us today as legislators are really
quite unique. We have the privilege to participate in the
changing of our nation. We recognize that this great country still
in its youth is growing, changing and finding its own identity.
Part of finding its identity is to throw off the old mantle of
programs that worked in the past when the nation was young and
to establish new and stronger programs that will take us further
into its next phase of maturity.
The first step is recognizing that Canada now does too much
for too many people and can no longer afford to do that. In
attempting to be everything to everyone we have gone bankrupt.
Our challenge is to determine what we need to do, to do it well,
and to encourage individuals to assume responsibility for
non-essential services.
I have always focused upon priorities during debate. I believe
today is no different as I look at the choices we must make as a
nation and as a people. We in the Reform Party care about
preserving Canada for the future for our children and their
children. We envisage a country that takes care of those not able
to do so in order that they may be able to contribute to the
well-being of their families. We envisage a country that
educates its children, ensures that they can get jobs, contributes
to the well-being of Canada and thereby focuses on its future.
There is no one in the House who lacks compassion at heart,
and that is contrary to the somewhat pejorative suggestions of
my colleague from Brant. Coupled with that compassion does
come a practicality.
There has been no better contributor to our nation's ill health
than the federal deficit and debt. The Liberals would have
Canadians believe that the Tories are completely responsible for
the debt problem, but in reality the Tories did not have the
political will to address the problems created originally by the
Liberals.
Let us consider these Liberals and their accompanying huge
deficits while in power: in 1981, $14 billion; in 1982, $15
billion; in 1983, $28 billion; in 1984, $32 billion; and in their
last budget in fiscal 1984-85 year, a deficit of more than $38
billion.
A combination of three things needs to happen to make the
finances of government more manageable. We need to spend
less. We need to spend what we have better and more efficiently.
We need to lead by example in government. Therefore I have
decided to focus my remarks today on a particular area, that is
the Department of Canadian Heritage and all its funded
organizations. It is possible to find $1.6 billion in savings there.
Let us be specific. If the finance minister wants to find cuts he
can begin with what was once the department of
multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is too costly. Canadians,
especially first and second generation Canadians, do not support
it. Multiculturalism funding serves only to disunite Canada by
sectoring off parts of society instead of encouraging them to
embrace their new nation. The responsibilities for race relations
and cross-cultural understanding should be transferred to the
Human Rights Institute and its accompanying appropriations
should be discontinued.
The community support and participation program funnels
millions of dollars into special interest groups and serves as a
tool to garner votes for the government. Its funding should be
discontinued. The heritage language and cultures program
provides grants to special interest groups and promotes the
disunity of the country. Its appropriations should be
discontinued.
These arguments also apply for the community development
program, the voluntary action program, the Canadian
Multicultural Advisory Committee, the multiculturalism
secretariat, the human rights program, the Canadian studies
program and the open house Canada program.
(1600 )
These programs provide a service only to those who use them.
These are the taxpayers who should support them, privately and
independently. The minister will save some $50 million by
cutting funding to these programs.
The single largest benefactor of the Department of Canadian
Heritage funding is the CBC. This organization has enjoyed
receiving parliamentary appropriations that have continued to
grow on an annual basis. It now receives $1.1 billion a year from
Canadian taxpayers. This creates an imbalance in a free market
setting.
Yet the CBC continually comes back with cap in hand year
after year for more money, for supplementary appropriations. It
continues to say to the government and the Canadian public:
``Oh dear, we just cannot fulfil our mandate without more
funding''.
Every year it gets an increase and every year it continues to be
dissatisfied. At what level of funding will the CBC say it has
enough to do its job? The CBC is the epitome of government
waste. Do not tell me that it has a mandate to promote Canadian
unity while it remains completely unaccountable to the
Canadian public.
It is not subject to the Access to Information Act or to the
Privacy Act. Further, it is exempt from sections 1 through 4 of
part 10 of the Financial Administration Act, which makes the
corporation also financially unaccountable to the Canadian
taxpayer. These two factors give the CBC a further special
status, giving it an even greater competitive edge.
We are looking at ways of cutting spending in government to
make government better. The CBC should be required to do the
same. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has recommended
7196
that Canadians pay a new entertainment tax to generate revenue
for the CBC. Canadians are already taxed to the hilt.
The finance minister said we do not need new taxes, we need
to spend what we have more efficiently.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has stated publicly that he
favours partial privatization of the CBC. The government
should order this forthwith.
While we are on the topic of efficiency, let us look at the
bloated government bureaucracy in desperate need of
downsizing. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is also
responsible for the Public Service Commission. In light of the
recent report in the Ottawa Citizen describing how seven people
double dipped after receiving their severance packages, it is
clear that there is much housecleaning that needs to be done.
The government should immediately adopt the auditor's
recommendation and ensure that these seven people are
appropriately punished for abusing the public trust. That is what
this is all about, the public trust. This means in the very least
recovering the amounts given in those golden handshakes with
interest and the removal of those individuals from any positions
they hold.
Going after these people is not going to save much money but
it will send a clear and unequivocal message to the Canadian
people and their public servants that the days of the abuse of
public trust are gone.
Consider also as examples of government waste the
following: the 13 members of the historic sites and monuments
board who chalked up over $78,000 in travel expenses in 1993
and the 31 members of the National Advisory Council on the
Status of Women, government appointed people, who spent
more than $133,000 travelling.
The government does have a unique opportunity. There is
consensus in this House that we need to cut our spending. What
we now need is consensus on where to cut and how quickly to do
it. I challenge the finance minister and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage to take a good hard look at those programs currently
funded by government and choose only those that the Canadian
taxpayers will support.
It is the Canadian taxpayer after all who we are here to serve. I
ask the government to support this common sense motion made
today on behalf of all Canadians.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to challenge the member for Calgary Southeast's assertions at
the beginning of her speech to the effect that this government
has no recognition whatsoever of the need to cut the debt and to
deal with the deficit.
I cannot believe the member has not been listening to the
statements of the Minister of Finance either in this House or
outside the House that clearly indicate-surely she must give
some form of recognition-that this government has recognized
the problem of the debt. I have heard the Minister of Finance
say over and over again that we cannot allow this debt to
accumulate at the rate it is. He uses the same figures as the
member uses. It seems to me that the difference is that we
recognize the debt. We recognize that we cannot go on paying
$40 billion a year in interest rates. When that represents the
huge proportion that it does of the Government of Canada's
annual spending of $160 billion it is totally intolerable.
However, I have heard the finance minister say that before.
(1605)
The difference between us is whether we go at this as a
surgeon goes at a problem or whether we go at it the way a
butcher would butcher an animal waiting to be slaughtered. That
is the difference between the government and the approach
which the member takes.
I sat and listened to her talk about the CBC, which I do not
have time to comment on. I heard what she had to say about the
heritage department and multicultural programs. I also heard
her talk about the language programs whereby the multicultural
and heritage language groups enable Canadians to maintain
their languages.
I would suggest to the member that she speak to the trade
critic in her party and find out the evidence we in the foreign
affairs and international trade committee have heard about.
There is a need for Canadians to be knowledgeable about other
cultures and particularly the value which cultures such as the
Chinese, the Koreans and others can bring with their own
language and their own culture to advance Canadian interests.
These are Canadian taxpayers spending money so that
Canadians will benefit. We will receive tremendous benefits out
of this in a future multicultural world that we are going into.
If we cut the programs the member suggests, I suggest to her
that Canada will be less rich in a future world which will require
more knowledge, more language and more competence among
Canadians in the very areas she wants to cut out with her meat
cleaver approach to deficit reduction.
The Speaker: I do not know if there was a question there.
There was surely a comment. Would you like to address the
comment?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find
it rather offensive to have comments that I have made today
referred to as butchering. Something in my mind finds it rather
repulsive when I think of the word butchering. I stood here and
said that there is not a person in this House who does not have a
compassionate heart, not one. I believe that as I stand here.
What we are involved in is a debate. Sometimes I find
responding to the Liberals like playing dodge ball with a bunch
of grade threes. Having said that, I would like to say that when I
was growing up in my household, it was a multicultural
household. My grandparents were from Norway and from
Yugoslavia. While I was growing up the motto in our family was
you pay for it as you go. All I am asking is that if you are going to
use a
7197
program or you want access to a part of Canada's heritage you
pay for it yourself.
I am not saying anything about not coming to understand your
country or coming to understand anything else about others who
live here, but you pay for it yourself. That is how I grew up. I can
stand here and speak from some experience in that regard
because I saw my family do that. It paid as it went.
I have to tell the hon. member that there sure as heck was not
very much money there sometimes either to do that but we all
survived and survived very well, thank you. I have a great deal
of compassion for others in this country who do come from other
places in this land.
The last thing I want to say to the hon. member is that I am
going to let the numbers do the talking. The federal debt
accumulated in 1974 since Confederation was $25 billion. The
total federal debt as of now at $535 billion-plus represents a
20-fold increase in 20 years. The total provincial debt is $186.5
billion. To say that we have to go slow and nibble at the edges,
slash and burn, that is not what we are talking about here. We are
talking about some rational decision making and some hard
choices. Believe me Canadians, the ones I talked to in my riding,
are certainly ready for those kinds of actions to take place.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I give the floor to the hon. member for
Longueuil. We have about a minute and a half.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): For me?
The Speaker: For both of you.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): You will have to give me the
floor another time, Mr. Speaker, because I have so much to say. I
just want to say that I agree to a great extent with the member for
Calgary Southeast.
(1610)
But there is something I do not understand. For example, she
did not talk about the efficiency of government
management-she made a point of the fact that when we pay for
a service, we must realize that we are actually paying for a
service, but when it comes from Ottawa, people think that the
money comes from somewhere like heaven, they do not know
where it comes from. People keep making demands and getting
things and do not know where the money comes from until they
realize that Canada is broke.
That is what she did not mention and that is why I ask her if
she agrees that radical decentralization would make people
realize why they are paying and I ask her whether she agrees
with me. If they realize what they are paying for, perhaps they
will spend with less abandon.
I sincerely believe that we will have a prosperous future by
decentralizing and making individuals responsible. That is what
we want to do: decentralize. We want Quebec to be sovereign
because we believe that the federal government is too
centralizing. It centralizes so much that it makes good
management impossible. That is why we want to go so far. That
is what even the Reform Party is not able to understand and the
Liberal Party has not understood it for a very long time.
[English]
The Speaker: Resuming debate. The hon. Secretary of State
for Parliamentary Affairs. Excuse me. You will forgive a rookie
in the Chair. I missed one. Excuse me, Alfonso.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you are doing a fine job. I am also a rookie. You
are an experienced parliamentarian. I appreciate this
opportunity to address the House this afternoon.
The resolution before the House requests the government to
table a clear, detailed plan to show how and when it intends to
balance the budget, including a clear statement of its vision of
the role of the government in the economy in order for the
people of Canada to debate the plan and vision.
We need that plan if we are to change the present course from
government overspending to working within our means. To
effect that change or any other change three things are required.
First, we must recognize the problem. As Andrew Coyne said
so clearly in the Globe and Mail yesterday, the deficit is not the
problem anymore. It is the debt. It was fine to aim for a balanced
budget ten years ago, but $300 billion in debt later is simply
inadequate. That is the problem, the debt and not the deficit.
The second thing that needs to be done to effect change is
understand the implications of what will happen if we do
nothing to solve the problem. Third is accepting responsibility
to do what is necessary.
These are sound principles that all people who have anything
to do with the change agree on and all sides of this House agree
on. The grey book is full of sound principles but it falls short by
failing to provide a means by which principles can be made
practical. It is time that the government took control of
accepting its own principles and put them into action, not just
talking about them but showing the courage to act upon them.
The key lies in knowing which principles are crucial, which
principles will meet the challenge of reducing spending and
create a dynamic economy.
First, knowledge and technology are the new natural resource.
Second, translating knowledge and technology into practical,
revenue generating services will provide jobs. Third, Canadians
will require training and to continue to learn throughout their
lives the skills necessary to harness the new natural resource.
Fourth, regional development will be redefined and by doing so
will redefine government relationships with industry where
industry determines its requirements and is self-funding and
lessens the reliance on government resources. Fifth, we need to
7198
incorporate the global world into our marketplace and develop
our exporting capabilities.
(1615 )
As associate industry critic for the Reform Party, I believe
much of this responsibility will fall to the Minister of Industry.
The Department of Industry will be integral in the development
and implementation of the new natural resource. However the
department has not yet adequately set its focus to accomplish
that. It must do so before it will be able to set a responsible
budget, and it will need to do that in consultation with the
Minister of Finance.
We hope the program review currently under way will result
in some answers. A noble start has been made in the recent
science and technology review across Canada. If the Minister of
Industry and the Minister of Finance truly recognize that
knowledge and technology are the new natural resources of the
country then we can reasonably expect to find answers to
creating jobs and to reduce spending.
Industry must take the lead in job creation. The beauty of
knowledge and technology based industry is that they are
globally capable, prompting an expanded marketplace and a
demand for a greater workforce. Industry in this way will
generate employment.
Better implementation of research will foster development
and Canada will begin to find practical ways of translating good
ideas into revenue generation. With an increase in production
and the revenue to support it, Canadians will be employed. Best
of all, government will be able to reduce its expenditures.
With the creation of this new natural resource there will be no
requirement for government to prop up industries and regions
which have lost their economic livelihood through the
depreciation of traditional resources. The new natural resource
and knowledge and technology based workforce will no longer
be indigenous to a particular part of the country. The have not
status of some of the provinces will no longer exist. St. John's as
well as Vancouver will be able to participate and benefit from
the ability to farm the resource of knowledgeable people.
Costs to the government of $803 million in regional spending
could be eliminated. Regional support which was created to
lessen a reliance on traditional resources will no longer be
required except on the very smallest of levels to assist industry
through transition. In fact, the very notion of regions may well
disappear and the restriction of provincial boundaries will be
transcended out of necessity.
Industry will assume responsibility and take its rightful place
as the generator of jobs and the patron of a sound fiscal
environment. It is but one solution but a very important one. It
will signal change, but a change that is essential and necessary.
It will help government meet its main objective of reducing
spending, creating employment, and ultimately fighting the
debt. Only government can set the wheels moving in this
direction but it must commit to these objectives and it must
provide a plan.
As members in an employed society, Canadians will
enthusiastically help to make that change. It can be done. I know
it can be done. But we need the conviction of the government to
do it, and we need it now.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Okanagan Centre on his
speech. Once the passions are defused from the House of
Commons, I often hear very constructive suggestions from all
members of the House, including members of the opposition.
I would like to ask the member a question concerning his
formula for prosperity. Would he not agree that what we need to
have is a strong central government to implement the kind of
programs that he is suggesting?
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The
simple short answer to the question is yes, we need a strong
central government. We also need strong decentralization so
that the decisions that affect the people directly and
immediately are as close to the people affected as possible. In
many instances it requires that the local government and the
provincial government play a very significant role.
We must remember it is the central government which creates
the environment for the marketplace to operate, for industry to
find its way, and for the lower levels of government to do their
jobs more effectively so that there is not this duplication that
exists at the present time and where there is not this
predetermination to ``fight for my turf and to get out of my
turf''. We need to co-ordinate these things and that would be my
answer to the hon. member.
(1620)
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's fiscal consolidation
is an essential component of our economic strategy. We are fully
aware that the ever-growing debt has a negative impact on our
whole economy.
A growing debt leads to tax hikes, as we saw under the
Conservative government, discourages investors, pushes up real
interest rates, forces us to reduce spending on important
government programs and translates into a large external debt.
For some years now, a larger portion of our budget has been
spent on interest charges than on programs. The interest we must
pay is now the main reason why the deficit will not go away.
7199
That is why the government is determined to stop the gradual
and rapid deterioration of Canada's public finances. Of course,
our first goal is to eliminate the deficit and substantially reduce
the federal debt. But, in the meantime, we set for ourselves an
intermediate goal that we can achieve provided that we remain
vigilant and that everyone shares the burden. Within two years,
that is, by the 1996-97 fiscal year, we will reduce the deficit to 3
per cent of GDP, as we promised in the red book.
The last time the annual deficit was limited to 3 per cent of
GDP was in 1974, 20 years ago. Of course, to achieve our goal,
we must take measures that will affect everyone in one way or
another. Attitudes must change. Innovation must be
emphasized. The dependence of some groups and sectors on the
government must be reduced. We will do it by working hard on
two fronts, as we have done since we were elected a year ago
today.
We will continue to stimulate the economy to create jobs and
to increase our tax revenue; we will also continue to vigorously
tighten our spending on all fronts and at every level. The engine
of the economy is a dynamic private sector. Nevertheless, the
government also has a role to play by showing leadership. In a
knowledge-based economy, success depends on skills and the
ability to innovate, two factors that can be influenced by
government.
The government can play a complementary role to that of the
private sector. It can contribute to the innovation process,
especially in the early stages of research and development. It
can also promote the diffusion of state-of-the-art technologies
to small- and medium-sized businesses. The state can ensure
access to markets for our exporters and help them get a larger
share of emerging new markets. It can also help develop the
export capabilities of small- and medium-sized businesses.
We feel it is important to keep the inflation rate between one
and three per cent, in order to promote a stable economic
climate. We fully recognize that we want to do a good job in that
respect. In fact, our government made important decisions to
that effect in the last year and the benefits are now starting to be
noticeable. Indeed, over the last few quarters, businesses have
seen their profits increase substantially.
(1625)
The recovery is also apparent in that consumer demand
increased by 3.7 per cent in the first quarter of 1994. Confidence
is slowly being restored. Investments are on the rise and jobs are
created. From January to September of this year, more than
327,000 jobs were created. Most encouraging is the fact that
almost all are full-time jobs. This has a significant impact on
the mood of Canadians who are now beginning to sense a greater
stability and are regaining hope.
This is not to say that all the problems have been solved. Far
from it. Unemployment remains high, much too high. Interest
rates, which are largely influenced by the U.S. economy, have
maintained their upward trend in all industrialized countries.
And, more importantly, our national debt continues to increase.
Obviously, the issue of public debt in Canada cannot be
solved through economic growth alone. Some drastic measures
must be taken to reduce spending and improve our taxation
system if we are to succeed in reducing the debt.
Our main target remains spending control. In order for our
country to become more productive, the state itself must be
productive. It must learn to become more efficient to help make
our economy more productive. In this respect, I think everyone
will agree that we are doing everything we can to implement the
principles of sound management and to streamline
expenditures. We want to eliminate or at least reduce
government activities that do not have a high priority and
concentrate our limited resources on the most important
programs.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you yourself are involved in this
ambitious effort to streamline our operating procedures. In fact,
the implementation of the Gagliano Plan has already saved the
administration of this House millions of dollars. We have taken
initiatives at many levels: we use new technologies to reduce
inventory; we have eliminated redundant services; we are
asking certain sectors to be more realistic in the way they reflect
market prices. We are asking everyone who works on Parliament
Hill to do their share to reduce spending. Not surprisingly, the
level of co-operation is very high. This is largely due, I am sure,
to the spirit of fairness and equity that you, Mr. Speaker, have
maintained during this process of rapid change.
All members of this House have also had an opportunity to
help streamline federal spending in the course of the many
debates we have had for a number of weeks on the restructuring
of federal departments. There again, the achievements are
impressive.
Under the previous government, the cabinet consisted of 40
people, all heading large bureaucratic structures. Today, we are
doing a better job with only 20 departments. The best part is that
restructuring not only helps us save money but ensures that
government services are more flexible, more efficient and more
accessible to the public.
Unfortunately, not all members opposite are taking the battle
against the deficit seriously. The Bloc Quebecois members
shout and hit theirs desks with their fists to show more
forcefully that they want to fight the deficit but, everytime we
propose concrete steps to do so, they are against them,
especially if the cuts hit close to home. You should cut, says the
Bloc, but not in our backyard. Are they really serious?
7200
As to the Reform Party, their approach to deficit reduction is
not only unrealistic, it is plain dangerous. If we listened to them,
the country would be thrown into a recession which would last
our lifetime. We must continue on the path defined by the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance. We are going to carry on
with our attack against the deficit and we are going to
concentrate our efforts on job creation. Our goal is not only to
increase the number of jobs, but also to contribute to the
improvement of our standard of living and to the preservation of
our principles of social justice.
(1630)
[English]
The motion before the House leads me to believe that the
earpieces of the Reform members are not working. It is either
that or they have not been listening to the Minister of Finance
when he has spoken on the government's fiscal policy. It also
appears they have not read the grey book ``Creating a Healthy
Fiscal Climate''. Had they heard the Minister of Finance speak
to the Standing Committee on Finance or had they read the
document they would know that our ultimate goal is a balanced
budget.
Yes, we absolutely share their realization that the vicious
circle of rising debt and deficits must be broken. As the minister
noted in his recent speech to the finance committee: ``If we
don't do the job, we will fail at everything else''. We will win.
We will not fail. Our party, our caucus, our cabinet and the Prime
Minister are committed to reversing Canada's fiscal decline. I
realize the Reform is also interested in reversing Canada's fiscal
decline. However, unlike the Reform Party, we have presented a
realistic strategy so the Canadian people will realize our
objective.
The fiscal update book sets out the scope of action needed to
achieve the government's fiscal goals. It provides an accounting
of government spending together with a detailed description of
the source of government revenues. Reform does not have a grey
book equivalent. In fact it has nothing but soft generalities,
blanket statements about reducing the deficit to zero, or
borrowed prescriptions.
This document that the Minister of Finance presented to the
finance committee contains the information necessary to begin a
broad public debate on the choices to be made and the actions to
be taken in the 1995 budget. Its intention is to help focus the
1995 prebudget consultation.
Let me say here that this is the first time in Canadian history
that a government has opened the budget process to
consultation. Before, the process was that the Minister of
Finance would meet privately in his office with pressure groups
whether they were from business, labour or social groups. Only
on budget night would we learn what were his positions.
A partial process was started right after the election last year.
Through the reform of House procedures this year, we are able to
have a process where every year the House finance committee
will receive an economic statement from the minister and will
go across the country to consult with Canadians and report to the
minister. Then the minister can make his choice.
Let us not forget that Canada's fiscal position impacts on each
and every Canadian, as will the action to bring our debt and
deficit under control. That is why we are determined to work in
partnership with all Canadians to determine and implement a
solution.
The finance committee will hold nationwide public
consultation on how to create an economy worthy of Canada's
potential. The finance minister will be meeting with people
from all walks of life to hear their ideas on issues. We want to
know Canadians' budget policy views. They will assist us as we
address the difficult choices which lie ahead.
In the grey book we have laid out some principles and values
which will apply to the difficult choices which face us. I would
now like to turn to those principles.
(1635 )
Principle number one without doubt is that deficit reduction
and debt control are essential parts of our strategy to create jobs
through economic growth. Indeed there is no greater economic
priority than to resolve this issue.
Our government will reduce the deficit and control the debt.
Doing so will certainly lower taxes and interest rates. This will
ensure economic growth through increased productivity and
investment, sustained job growth, entrepreneurial vigour and
consumer confidence. However, the debt and deficit cannot be
reduced overnight. To do as the Reform Party urged during the
election and balance the budget in three years would unleash
substantial and lasting economic difficulties on all Canadians. It
would also violate the other guiding principles laid out in the
fiscal book.
For example, fairness must be a principle characteristic of any
action we take to bring our fiscal situation under control. We
must ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not left
behind. Expenditure reduction must not be an excuse to abandon
those Canadians in greatest need. That is exactly what would
happen under the Reform's draconian suggestions. They forget
that transfers to individuals was the largest component of
program spending in fiscal year 1993-94, over one-third of all
program spending went directly to individuals. That includes
elderly benefits, unemployment insurance, veterans pensions
and allowances and transfers to Indians and Inuit.
7201
In all honesty I cannot find the words when I think of the
conditions the most vulnerable would face if Reform were
sitting on this side of the House. Deficit reduction would be a
mere accounting exercise. Let us not forget it is not merely an
exercise out of an accounting book. We are talking about people.
That will not happen with this government. Unlike Reform,
we realize that deficit reduction has a significant impact on our
broader economic and social goals. That is why in the grey book
we have set priorities and made reasoned choices.
For example, we have announced an interim target of
reducing the deficit to no more than 3 per cent of the gross
domestic product by fiscal year 1996-97. At 3 per cent of GDP,
economic growth will exceed growth of the debt. We will then
have an extraordinary opportunity to move toward a balanced
budget.
The question is: What actions do we take to get there? We
believe that to hit our targets the budgetary action should weigh
most heavily on the expenditure side. Canadians quite frankly
are overtaxed. They know it and we know it. The government
must do more with less. The bulk of our savings should come
through cuts in program spending and not through higher taxes.
Of course, as the Minister of Finance noted, Canadians must
realize that if they want to avoid more taxes they must be
prepared to support smaller programs, including programs that
benefit them directly.
That is why the Minister of Finance directed the committee to
ask the specific question of Canadians who appear before it in
the prebudget consultations: Where should we cut and by how
much? Believe me, the minister is not looking for generalities.
He gets enough of those from the Reform Party. He wants to
know the trade offs, the details and specifics. He wants
Canadians to put themselves in the government's shoes and
make hard choices.
The minister also wants to know if Canadians believe that our
economic assumptions are appropriate, if our growth
assumptions and our interest rate assumptions are prudent, and
the reason is simple. We believe it is essential that government
make prudent assumptions to guide its economic and fiscal
projections.
(1640 )
In my experience, and I have been in this place for about 10
years, the Conservative government, Reform's Tory cousins,
proved that missing fiscal targets destroys credibility and
merely postpones the need for tougher measures in the future.
However, meeting targets establishes and strengthens
credibility for the future and is also considered reasonable
progress.
This Minister of Finance believes in meeting targets. He will
meet his targets and we will have a better Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech by
my hon. colleague, who described in a general way the monster
that Canada's debt has become. I wish to point out to my hon.
colleague that this monster was created by the Liberals and the
Conservatives. The Liberals created this debt under the
guidance of the hon. Peter Trudeau and raised it to almost $200
million. The Tories then brought it up to where it is today and the
Liberals, on regaining office, assure us that it will reach $600
billion very soon. We fully agree that the debt has become a
monster.
Second, my hon. colleague has just told us that we stand on
the brink of bankruptcy, another statement which we totally
agree with. I think that our comedians are often much better than
politicians at describing some situations. A Quebec comedian,
Daniel Lemire, is always saying that we should probably declare
bankruptcy and start over under a new name. That is exactly
what we will do soon.
The government is now saying that we must deal with this
monster, that we are on the verge of bankruptcy and that they
must and will make cuts. They will cut unemployment
insurance, social assistance, transfers to the provinces, increase
education costs, generalize the GST-they will give it a
different name but charge it on everything. They will probably
eliminate the only tax shelter available to the middle class,
RRSPs, and tax retirement funds. All this is sending out a clear
message: they are attacking ordinary people. The Bloc
Quebecois agrees that the debt should be tackled and that cuts
should be made. This is not a problem. But we are against
singling out ordinary people. That we disagree with.
While complaining about the lack of money and the huge debt
problem, they easily find the billions of dollars needed to
finance an unprofitable project such as Hibernia. While telling
us there is no money left, they easily find the hundreds of
millions of dollars they throw out the window every year,
according to the Auditor General of Canada. They also give tax
credits worth millions of dollars to the hon. Peter Trudeau and
Brian Mulroney for returning their papers to the government,
while telling ordinary people that tax credits will be cut.
My question is this: When cleaning stairs, one does not do
only the bottom steps. I would like to know if my hon. colleague
has ever cleaned stairs and if he realizes that he should start at
the top and work his way down?
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, first let me clarify one thing: I
never said that Canada was on the verge of bankruptcy. It goes
without saying that the hon. member opposite would love to
promote that idea, because it would serve his cause, which is
Quebec's separation and the destruction of our country. Of
7202
course we have financial problems. Every industrialized
country in the world does. So, let us not start saying that Canada
is going bankrupt. Canada is in the same situation as the all
industrialized countries-If you want an answer-Did you not
make a big fuss about proprieties of the House, about the need to
be polite-
The Speaker: I wish to remind the hon. member that he must
always address the Chair.
Order. We will hear the answer of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to provide an
adequate answer to the hon. member who made a rather long
speech.
(1645)
We will not target only one group. As I said clearly, if we are
to succeed in alleviating our financial problems, we must target
every sector in our society. This is why the Minister of Finance
and the finance committee are currently asking Canadians to tell
them how they feel the problem can be solved and where cuts
should be made to ensure fairness. Indeed, we want to be fair and
the only way to do that is to ask sacrifices not just from one
group but from all Canadians.
This has been the underlying principle of all the reforms
announced by this government, even though the hon. member
does not agree, for example, with the way we want to implement
the social program reform. We can no longer afford to pay
people to stay home. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois headquarters in
Quebec City also denounced that situation. During the election
campaign, it criticized every cut made by the Quebec Liberal
government. Now that the Parti Quebecois is in office, it has
decided that the Liberal government budget will remain
untouched and that no changes are necessary.
We are all faced with the same problem and separation is not
the solution. The problem will be solved by doing like the rest of
the world, that is by working together and trying to find
solutions and share those solutions. I am convinced that when
the new Quebec government holds its referendum, Quebecers
will vote to stay in Canada and they will continue, along with the
rest of the country, to work to solve our financial problems, to
put some order in government finances and to build a country in
which they will be happy to live.
The fact is that in spite of our major problems, the United
Nations just declared for the second time that Canada is the best
country in which to live. I keep repeating to the hon. members
opposite that there are millions of people in the world who
would give everything to come to Canada. We are not bankrupt
yet and I think Canada is still a pretty nice place to live.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): If you do
not listen, you might as well be deaf. I would submit that the
opposition benches are deaf, completely deaf. Their hearing has
gone faulty.
I say that because we have said many times that the red book
of the Liberal Party laid out a vision. For example, the red book
made it very clear we would aim for and achieve a deficit of 3
per cent of GDP by 1997. The Minister of Finance, after the red
book, after our election victory of a year ago, built on that vision
by producing a budget. The budget reiterated our absolute
unshakeable target of 3 per cent of GDP by 1997.
The finance minister laid out a strategy in the budget and it
continues. Part of the strategy is an unprecedented set of
consultations that will begin almost immediately. The minister
through the medium of the finance committee will be consulting
Canadians from coast to coast on how best to achieve the target
of 3 per cent of GDP. Can there be anything more democratic?
Can there be anything more consultative than that?
I wanted to lay that out because it seems that the opposition
parties do not want to listen. Canadians are going to participate.
Canadians are going to join in achieving the target of 3 per cent
of GDP. That is my comment. If the previous speaker wants to
respond to it, be my guest.
(1650 )
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous speaker. The government
always talks about when Canada is compared with other
countries this is the greatest country in the world in which to
live. Quite frankly, it is no contest. Canada is, when you
compare it to other countries, certainly the best country in the
world in which to live.
I would like to suggest a real test for the government.
Compare Canada as it is now with its huge financial crisis, its
huge deficit every year, its huge national debt, with how it could
be if we had had responsible government running the country
over the last 25 years.
I look over at the government and I see a mirror of the Tories.
The Tories' plan was not to reduce spending but count on
revenue growth to get us out of this fiscal problem. They merrily
spent like drunken sailors and, guess what, revenue did not
grow. We ended up another $200 and something billion in the
hole. The deficit climbed every year and the expected revenue
growth simply did not occur.
That is what the government is counting on as well when it
uses a figure of 3 per cent GDP by 1997. Theoretically by using
that figure, the government does not have to cut costs. All it has
to do is hope for the revenue growth to go up and it will achieve
that percentage. But that is no accomplishment in thrift. That is
no accomplishment in-
7203
The Speaker: Order. This brings to a close the time for
questions and comments.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the
House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Davenport-Environment;
the hon. member for Selkirk-Red River-Foreign Affairs.
Resuming debate. I understand that two speakers will be
sharing the allotted time, beginning with the hon. member for
Kootenay East.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
always helpful at the beginning of a speech to bring us back to
the starting point. I would like to re-read the motion of the
member for St. Albert:
That this House requests the government to table a clear detailed plan to show
how and when it intends to balance the budget including a clear statement of its
vision of the role of the government in the economy in order for the people of
Canada to debate the plan and vision.
I would like particularly to draw the attention of the members
to the phrase, only seven words, ``its vision of the role of the
government''. I have a vision of the role of the government,
possibly in the same way that we have the role of management in
any organization or the way a team works. We have leaders on a
team.
I would like to suggest that we think back. I guess I am
showing my age when I talk about Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr or
people like that. We saw them as leaders and as showing
leadership. When they were virtually physically disabled they
were out on the ice. They were showing leadership. They were
working at a deficit but they were showing leadership.
We heard a very interesting story from a member opposite. I
apologize that I did not catch the name of the gentleman she was
talking about in a member's statement this week. I believe it was
the chairman of the board of Algoma Steel who has the personal
opportunity to take $400,000 through a bonus system as
chairman. He is entitled to have $400,000. He is turning it back.
He is not taking the $400,000 because he recognizes that if he is
going to show leadership, if Algoma Steel is going to go ahead,
then he must exhibit selfless leadership.
I suggest that the vision of the role of government in my mind
is that of showing leadership. I believe that every member of the
House from the Prime Minister to the independent has a direct
responsibility to show leadership.
(1655 )
How does this fit together with what we are presently
undertaking under the direction of the Liberals? Take, for
example, the human resources review committee that will be
going out and around the countryside. Members of the
committee will be discussing issues like unemployment
insurance, welfare and how we are going to be helping our
children with their university educations. They are going to be
listening to witnesses from organizations like this who are very
concerned.
I have in my hand a note from one of my constituents. In part it
reads as follows: ``Numerous Canadians have lost their jobs
over the last year. In most circumstances those who are
terminated, laid off or fired do not remain on payroll''. Seems
reasonable.
``Canadians assumed when they put their x in the box one year
ago today, October 25, that those members who they booted out
of the House would be off the payroll. Not so. Canadians will be
delighted no doubt to learn that in the 365 days since they
terminated their MPs the public purse has shelled out for their
former MPs' pensions, travel expenses, retraining, moving and
severance. Add it up.
I am confident that those Canadians who are lined up at the UI
office awaiting their miserable little UI cheques for years of
hard work in companies that have folded due to previous
governments' mismanagement will be comforted in knowing
that the members of the government who put them in that
line-up are still on the public dole of another kind''.
This is the kind of hostility there is among the Canadian
people. I make no excuse for it. I simply report it.
If all members of the House are really forthcoming they will
agree with me that they have been approached by people in their
constituencies; in their constituency office or accosted on the
street or in the supermarket with sentiments of exactly that same
kind.
It is the number one issue in my constituency. I have spoken
about the Young Offenders Act. I have spoken about the deficit
and the debt. But number one on the hit parade is the MPs'
pensions.
I find it quite amazing that the vast majority of the people in
the House, with the turnover of over 200 members being here for
the very first time, are supporting what is the number one
impediment, the number one wall between members of
Parliament and the public. The public sees this whole thing as
being completely unfair.
The member for Yellowhead rose in the House and also sent
out a press release just the other day and I read in part: ``The
Yellowhead MP laid into the Prime Minister and his Liberal
government today for turning a blind eye to the fast approaching
national trough day.
On November 21, 52 current members of Parliament will
qualify to dip into the lucrative MP pension fund once they no
longer occupy a seat in the House. These pension payouts are
estimated to cost the Canadian taxpayers $53 million. Among
the 52 MPs who will sidle up to the pension trough once they are
out of office are-''. I am sure the Speaker would prefer that I do
not go ahead and name people like the leader of the Bloc.
7204
It goes on: ```Canadians find it absolutely unacceptable that
the Prime Minister says he is dedicated to spending cuts when he
continues to allow this kind of taxpayers' abuse', the member
said to a round of cheers from his Reform colleagues in the
House''.
I am rather curious. I absolutely believe it is a barrier between
good government, in other words people believing in the
members of Parliament, people believing in this place of power
and authority in our country. If the number one impediment is
simply the long awaited reforms that the Reform Party has been
demanding about the MPs' pensions, why in the world would the
Prime Minister not have come forward before this point,
particularly in light of the fact that the National Citizens
Coalition is going to be launching an MP trough day campaign.
There are going to be billboards all over the place.
(1700)
As the human resources committee goes around led by its
chairman discussing issues like UI, welfare and how we are
going to be funding university education, what kind of response
is that chairman expecting when he sits in front of students who
are going to be at an exceptional disadvantage perhaps as a
result of the changes that are going to have to happen? What
kind of response does the chairman expect from the public for
his committee when he sits in front of people who are the
disadvantaged and are presently on welfare when that member
for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso is going to be drawing $1.5
million by the time he is 75 years of age? I wonder how the
university students will feel about that.
This is a critical, crucial issue to the entire vision of where the
government should be going and how the government should be
showing leadership. Therefore, I call on the Prime Minister and
the members of his caucus tomorrow in caucus to demand of the
Prime Minister that this issue once and for all be finally put to
rest.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say that I was quite surprised by the remarks
of the member opposite. He knows as well as I do that the issue
is not simply MPs receiving pensions or even significant
pensions. The issue is one of double dipping, where an MP
obtains money from the taxpayer-
Mr. Abbott: Not so.
Mr. Bryden: The issue is double dipping in my riding. I point
out to the member, if I may, that behind him is the member for
Lethbridge who is already receiving a pension of some $63,000.
I will also point out that the $63,000 is from another level of
government. I just want to say that the taxpayers' dollars are the
same dollars no matter what level of government. I would like to
know what the member has to say about the member for
Lethbridge and the fact that he is double dipping right now.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, first off I think it would be very
helpful if we had from the member some kind of a definition of
double dipping. However, I absolutely outright reject his
comment about the fact that the issue is double dipping.
The issue is not double dipping. The issue is the fact that there
are 52 more people who are going to be coming to the trough and
this is the barrier. This is the problem.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to rise and address this issue of double dipping which my
colleague did not mention in his speech. He said the gold-plated
MP pension plan is number one on the hit list that Canadian
taxpayers do not like. I am here to verify that because that is the
attitude in Calgary Centre.
The hon. member should realize that double dipping is when a
member of the same government gets an appointment. Joe Clark
was double dipping because he got an appointment while he was
receiving a pension from this government. If Joe Clark wished
to run for the provincial legislature of Alberta then he would be
welcome to continue to receive his pension plan from the federal
government and work as a provincial MLA. That is not double
dipping.
Double dipping is defined as getting an appointment by the
same government that you serve. That is where the conflict of
interest is. There is no conflict of interest if you work for a
provincial party and then leave that party to run for a federal
party. If you then run for a federal party, you tell the people in
your riding you are running federally. If those people in the
province of Alberta elect you with one of the strongest
majorities, that is not double dipping. That is not getting an
appointment from another level of government. That is going
before the people, laying it on the table and being duly and
freely elected.
Personally, I am getting sick and tired of the whining of the
government about double dipping.
(1705 )
It says that it is going to do something about it. It has done
nothing. I asked the Prime Minister in question period way back
in January: When can we opt out of this gold-plated MP pension
plan because many Reformers want to? He said: ``Soon, soon,
soon''. He has done nothing. It is all talk. Talk is cheap but the
interest on the deficit and the debt is not.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a privilege to address the members of this
House in debate.
7205
As the member of Parliament for Cariboo-Chilcotin, it is my
duty and my privilege to represent the views and the concerns of
the people in my riding. They are a diverse group but they share
a common concern, the state of our nation's finances.
The Liberals have called upon the opposition benches, the
opposition members, to provide them with some ideas. I hope
they have been listening to this debate throughout the day. It is
quite interesting to be over here and sort of be treated like a ping
pong ball, to be asked to give ideas. Members do that and then
they are slammed because the ideas are no darn good at all.
In the last federal election, Canadians were given three clear
choices regarding the deficit. The Conservatives claimed they
could outgrow the deficit in the hopes that economic growth
would save the country's bottom line. The Liberals and the New
Democrats said that they could contain the deficit focusing first
on the campaign promises and paying the price some time down
the road. Reform stood alone in saying that we must eliminate
the deficit.
To prove our commitment, we set a target of three years to do
that. We did it in a clearly outlined program of eliminating the
deficit, zero deficit in three years. The people of the Cariboo
spoke clearly on the matter. They wanted an end to sky high
deficits, extravagant perks, government waste and yes,
gold-plated pension plans too.
They did not want to outgrow or contain the deficit. They
wanted it eliminated. The Liberals who do not share this view
received a mandate to govern though I fear many opportunities
to turn this country around have been ignored and have been
lost.
A year has passed since the Liberals formed the government
and our country is now a startling $535 billion in debt. With a
financial catastrophe ahead of us the government has to commit
itself to new ways of thinking. We are asking in this motion for
the government to describe that. It has to eliminate waste. It has
to eliminate overlap, redirect programs and then the lavish
services Canadians can no longer afford and no longer want.
One program that I am particularly concerned about is the
Canadian International Development Agency. CIDA was
formed in 1968 under an order in council to distribute aid and
help the poorest of the world's people. Since that time, however,
CIDA has grown into an enormous organization with over 1,300
employees only 250 of whom work overseas and an over $2
billion budget. That is not much if one says it fast, but
nevertheless it is $2,000 million for its budget.
Despite its size and expense, it has no official mandate from
Parliament. This agency according to the Auditor General lacks
the focus and direction to either make a concrete difference in
the developing world or build enduring partnerships.
Another report found that it is more influenced by the
bureaucratic environment than it is influential in the policy
process. It has no long term plan and thus tax dollars are being
wasted on programs that according to the report are having little
effect on those in need.
What I find most disturbing is the fact that CIDA's work is
duplicated in many areas by numerous non-governmental
organizations. Many of these organizations receive the bulk of
their funding from CIDA and this in my view is both wasteful
and redundant.
This agency is adrift and directionless, wasting thousands of
millions of dollars in the process. I call on the government to
bring a mandate for CIDA before this House as quickly as
possible to give this agency a firm direction and bring it under
the regular scrutiny of the House of Commons.
(1710 )
The Reform Party has spoken out on CIDA proposing Bill
C-250, an act to establish the Canadian International
Development Agency. By formally establishing the agency and
providing strict guidelines for its operation, Reform hopes to
bring more control and accountability to CIDA. CIDA will then
be able to focus on the tasks it must accomplish, leaving behind
its heavy bureaucracy and saving Canadians a lot of money in
the process.
I am more concerned though about one of the Liberal
government's most glamorous projects, the celebrated
infrastructure program. Reformers are committed to
infrastructure; roads, railways, airports. They are all critical for
the country. They tie the country together. They pull our
communities closer together than ever before. They bring me as
a member of Parliament from the isolated regions of
Cariboo-Chilcotin to the federal heart here in Ottawa. Most
important they keep Canada competitive in an expanding and
competitive global market.
Investments in infrastructure must be seen as just that,
investments. When starting a business, buying saving bonds or
purchasing shares, people always have to consider the return on
any investment. Governments can no longer spend money as
they sometimes have in the past. The time for catering to regions
or special interest groups is long gone. Governments today must
invest in trying to help the most people with every dollar they
spend, in other words getting the most bang for the buck.
That leads me to the infrastructure program. This program is
rooted in the myth that governments can buy jobs. The vast
majority of jobs created in this program are short term, the kind
of jobs Canadians would pass on if given the choice. Their desire
is for real long term positions with real opportunities, real
chances for improvement and real hope. The infrastructure
program gives Canadians false hope. The good news is just a
flash in the pan, careful or you will miss it as it goes by. We are
7206
left with billions of dollars of added debt for our children and
grandchildren to repay in the years to come.
The infrastructure program has lost control, coming on stream
just as provinces start into municipal elections. Municipalities
and provinces have taken advantage of the program to start on
their pet projects even though a government news release said
that any projects that are not infrastructure based will be
refused.
What do any of the following projects approved have to do
with infrastructure? A canoe hall of fame for Shawinigan,
Quebec; boccie courts in Toronto; luxury boxes in Edmonton's
Northlands Coliseum; rental cabins in Saskatchewan's Rowan's
Ravine Provincial Park; an artificial ice rink for Gilbert Plains,
Manitoba; duck and pond gardens for Winnipeg; removing
overhead wires in Shelburne, Nova Scotia to film a movie. I
could go on and on.
Infrastructure is supposed to be about roads and sewers. It is
supposed to be useful, accessible and beneficial for all citizens
in a community. How many people I wonder will be playing
boccie in Toronto? How many will be able to afford a brand new
luxury box at the Northlands? How many will be making use of
the new cabins at Rowan's Ravine?
These are not infrastructure projects. They are pet projects.
Their very existence goes against the words of those in charge of
the infrastructure program, against the Liberal red book and
against the promises of this government.
Then there is the issue of the program's cost. This $6 billion
has to come from somewhere. I can only think of two places;
either through more debt which will be repaid by our children
and grandchildren or more taxes. At a time when Canadians are
taxed to the hilt and their governments are broke, this program
pushes us even closer to the brink. As the finance minister
himself pointed out on so many occasions last week, the debt is
our biggest obstacle to long term security and prosperity.
Why the government is making the obstacle harder to
overcome for the sake of boccie courts and cabins is beyond me.
To close, I believe the key to eliminating our deficit is to focus.
To succeed the government must commit itself to cutting the
deficit, not to some ambiguous floating target, but to a simple
number and that number is zero. It is only then that we can begin
to start pulling ourselves out of the deep pit that we are now in.
(1715)
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to what the hon. member from Western Canada had to
say about how the government should balance the budget and
spend its money. The member talked in particular about the
infrastructure project and I would also like to address this issue
and ask a question in this matter.
The infrastructure program set up by the government is not
harmful in itself. On the contrary, I think it could help us to
create jobs in the short run, help the economy to work better and
help the workers to become more productive.
What I have trouble with is that the federal government is
taking part in this infrastructure program. The federal
government is getting directly involved in an area over which
the municipalities have jurisdiction. This goes against the
Constitution, because the federal government has never been
willing, in the past, to directly impede on municipal
jurisdictions. But the Liberal government has achieved to do so,
without Canadians realizing what it was up to, because it says it
was just trying to help the people. Canadians were taken in by
the government, but they never realize that the money always
come from their own pockets.
This is why I say again that the federal government's
involvement at the municipal level is terrible, that it should not
be allowed and will only lead to inefficiency, since we have
three levels of government deciding which street to repair, what
type of bridge to build, what project to undertake. This is
terrible and should never have been accepted.
The federal government should have given the money directly
to the provinces who, along with the municipalities, would have
decided which project to support.
[English]
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, there is some strategy, some
rationale to my comments on the infrastructure program. We do
have a stand. Reform supports the development of human
infrastructure, supporting federal government activities that
work toward the development of job skills, especially skills that
are transferable to a variety of job positions.
Second, Reform supports the development of physical
capital, maintaining airports, maintaining our sea ports and
roads that enhance our economy for years to come and enhance
our economic competitiveness in the world today.
On the other hand, it seems that the Liberal stand does not
develop human capital. The skills developed are strictly for
construction, general labour skills. The vast majority of jobs are
short term basis. The minister cannot deny that. Skills
developed are not transferable to other areas, just other
construction projects.
It does not develop physical capital. For example, in the
Liberal policy on infrastructure in Ontario less than half, 41.3
per cent of the money, is going toward roads; 23.3 per cent for
sewers; 47 per cent going to non-residential projects like the
ones I outlined in my speech.
7207
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on some of the comments made by the
member across the way.
I find it quite clear that the Liberal platform that was
developed in the red book was put in print and is a program that
is not supposed to take all the action within a year. We said that
in three years we would accomplish this goal. That was to reduce
overspending to 3 per cent of the GDP. We are very much on line
with that development.
However, in doing that it is extremely important to consult the
public. The Reform Party often tries to put itself forward as one
that consults the public. It is now saying: ``We do not agree with
your timeline''.
(1720 )
The Canadian public agreed with our timeline. That is why it
overwhelmingly elected a Liberal government.
Our infrastructure program was very clearly laid out to the
Canadian public and it was asked to make decisions. One year
ago it made that decision. Quite frankly, the infrastructure
project has been a tremendous success in my riding from the
response that I get back. These are programs and things that had
to be done in every municipality across this country in order to
increase the wealth of life of everybody in Canada.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to address the hon. member's
motion today. This past week the Minister of Finance made it
abundantly clear this government is fully committed to reducing
the debt and controlling expenditures.
I can assure the hon. member that reducing spending is not the
only action this government is taking to strengthen our growing
economy. We are working in partnership with other levels of
government and the private sector to build strong, vibrant
economies that will keep our standard of living among the top 10
nations of the world.
I know hon. members will agree that our young people are the
future leaders and builders of this great nation. This government
is fully aware of the importance of ensuring that Canadian youth
are given every opportunity to excel. That is what the youth
employment and learning strategy is all about.
The hon. member asked about the government's vision. Let
me tell the hon. member for St. Albert that our vision for young
Canadians is to do everything possible to ensure they fulfil their
educational potential, get a rewarding job and contribute to the
social and economic health of Canada.
One way the government is doing that is through youth
service Canada. We already have more than 1,000 Canadian
young women and men participating in youth service projects.
In the coming months we will involve an additional 1,400
participants. That is not the only investment we are making in
the future of Canada. Through our youth internship program
young Canadians are being given the opportunity to experience
training in new and emerging sectors.
I assure the hon. member this is not a haphazard approach of
smoke and mirrors. Far from it. Youth internship projects will
train young people in skills that will lead to long term, highly
skilled jobs. For example, we recently announced a
demonstration project to help those interested to gain the skills
necessary to pursue careers in the electric and electronic
industries. Each project will involve 20 students in five
provinces, with the benefits going to students all across the
country.
I imagine my hon. colleagues will agree there is no better
teacher than experience and experience is what the participants
in the government's youth employment and learning strategy are
receiving. We have said before, and perhaps the hon. member
should hear it again, partnership is the key to making these
programs effective. With the demonstration projects under
youth service Canada and youth internship, the government is
working hand in hand with a variety of partners, including sector
councils, that are taking the lead in these endeavours.
One of the major aspects in economic renewal is that sectors
share responsibility in determining and addressing their human
resource needs. We are working closely with sector councils that
represent their respective industries. I will say a little more on
that in a minute.
Regarding vision, this government has enough vision to
realize that we have to make adjustments where needed. That is
what we are doing with the Atlantic groundfish strategy. The
main objective of TAGS is to reconstruct the fishery in Atlantic
Canada to make this traditional industry economically viable
and environmentally sustainable.
We are working closely with fishermen's associations and the
provinces to make necessary adjustments to the labour force,
realistic adjustments that must be made. Since TAGS was
announced in April, we are serving the needs of men and women
in the fishery through the difficult transitional time.
So far close to 41,000 fishermen and women and fish plant
workers are receiving support through TAGS. For the majority
that support will continue to 1995. Financial assistance is not
the only thing the government is doing for women and men
whose lives have been devastated by the reduction in the fishery.
We are also providing counselling to about 15,000 individuals
thus far, and about 3,000 of these men and women are
participat-
7208
ing in other aspects of the TAGS program on their way to
becoming self-reliant and able to once again contribute to the
Canadian economy.
(1725 )
When the hon. member for St. Albert talks about vision I am
wondering if he is aware of the resourceful measures this
government has taken through its strategic initiatives program.
We have set aside $800 million in the February budget to come
up with creative ways to address employment problems
associated with structural changes in the economy.
I am pleased to tell the House that the strategic initiatives
program has been a marked success. Let me cite a few examples.
In New Brunswick we are supporting NB jobs corps with a $40
million investment to help older employed workers. This project
is very successful. At this time most of the 1,000 participants are
working in nine provincial localities.
In Newfoundland a strategic initiatives project is investing
$10 million to help students and the unemployed continue their
education using tuition credits and wage subsidies.
In Prince Edward Island we are investing $1.4 million to tutor
unemployment insurance claimants and welfare recipients to
gain literacy and life skills.
In Nova Scotia the strategic initiatives program has invested
$7.5 million for training and employment opportunities for
adults at risk of going on welfare.
We also have strategic initiative projects in Ontario, the
Northwest Territories and Manitoba. I am pleased to tell the hon.
member that the provinces and the territories have shown
enthusiasm for strategic initiatives from the very beginning.
Women comprise about 40 per cent of our labour force but
they are still in many low paying occupations. The government
is helping women realize their potential through projects such as
the one the Minister of Human Resources Development recently
announced in Rimouski, Quebec. In this case women who have
no income are being trained to enable them to create their own
businesses. These entrepreneurial women have a business plan
but they need support to get it off the ground. This is another
project that is providing an excellent example of what we can
accomplish through co-operative partnerships.
I am delighted to report also the case for sectoral partnerships.
This too is part of our vision. Sector councils are comprised of
leaders in industry, labour, education and all levels of
government. They work together to build a common vision of
their human resource needs and to establish comprehensive and
practical training programs to meet those needs.
We currently have some 18 sector councils breaking new
ground in labour-management relations and we are working to
establish more sector councils. This partnership includes
education and training in the community so the school
curriculum will help students develop the up to date skills
necessary to work in today's economy.
Sectoral initiatives are involving the private sector in
decision making in a way that government has not done before.
Business and industry are investing dollars, time and expertise.
In closing, I suggest that the hon. member not be so
pessimistic in his outlook. Just last week the International
Monetary Fund reported that Canada's industrial production has
surpassed the pre-recession peak of 1989-90. Of course there is
still much to be done, but through programs such as the one I
have outlined, investment in people, and through a revitalized
social security system we will help Canadians to improve their
standard of living and ensure a strong economy for decades to
come.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal Party to which the hon. member belongs is planning on
reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP within two years. Of
course, the last time we had an annual deficit equal to 3 per cent
of the GDP was 20 years ago, in 1974. I would like to remind the
members that we started to have deficits around 1970, when our
country was run by a Liberal government under the leadership of
Mr. Trudeau. You certainly remember that, Mr. Speaker.
(1730)
Year after year, the deficits started to grow and the Liberal
government began to play Santa Claus. It made promises. The
deficits continued to grow to a point where the current deficit
exceeds 6 per cent of the GDP. Our country is on the brink of
bankruptcy, and if we do not want to mortgage the future of
many generations to come, we will have to change our
mentality.
I ask the government member who just spoke if it is a change
in mentality when the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
the member for Hull-Aylmer who is sitting on the other side,
takes a government plane, a Challenger, to go and give two small
lectures in the United States at a cost of $170,000 to Canadian
taxpayers. Is it a change in mentality when we send a delegation
of F-18s and F-16s to Florida to play war games? The William
Tell competition cost no $2 million.
Is it a change in mentality when the Prime Minister tells us
that the CSE does not spy on Canadians even though there is a
building here in Ottawa housing over 1,008 employees whose
job is to do just that at a cost of between $250 and $270 million a
year? Is it a change in mentality to have all these duplications of
services for the same people? We had a good example of that just
recently. Last year, Ontario created the position of
Commissioner of the Environment. Last week, in a statement,
the Minister of the Environment announced the appointment of
another Commissioner of the Environment here, in Ottawa.
7209
As for manpower training, we lose $250 million a year just
with Quebec. Both governments want to train the same worker.
That costs $250 million a year. It is Mr. Bourbeau, the former
Quebec minister, a Liberal minister, who said that, not me.
Will there be a change of mentality on the Liberal side? Will
we still let the very rich take advantage of tax shelters and pay
very little, if any, income tax, thanks to the family trusts where
we could find a couple of billion dollars. Will there be a change
of mentality on the Liberal side? When they attack the needy and
those who lost their jobs, when they cut off those on welfare,
when they bleed the poor and let the rich get richer, will that be a
change of mentality?
In closing, I ask whether the Liberal Party will again play
Santa Claus, make nice promises and mortgage our future? It is
all very well to want to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent, but it will
require more than mere wishes. Il will require courage, yes,
courage, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it. The Liberal
Party will have to be very courageous, but I question their
courage, because their past actions do not bode well for the
future.
I would like to hear my hon. colleague opposite defend her
party.
[English]
Ms. Bethel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question. I bring to his attention, however, that we are talking
about vision and vision relates to the future. While we can learn
from the past it is important to look to the future with hope; with
great political will on both sides of the House, as he has
suggested; with a tremendous amount of courage; and with a lot
of sticking with it. I truly believe the Liberal government
understands and will deliver.
The member talked about new approaches. That is what this is
all about. As we go into our budget deliberations we certainly
know that we need to do things in new and different ways.
We talked about leadership a little earlier. There was one
suggestion that the Liberal government decides what it wants to
do and does it. That is the old approach. The new approach is to
talk to the stakeholders and talk to the people who pay the bills.
That is where we get the wisdom. That is where we learn to
understand the priorities of the people.
(1735)
It is my view that what is in the red book is truly the priorities
of Canadians. That is why the government was elected.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the dissertation
of my colleague from Edmonton East. It was interesting in so far
as it gave us a somewhat biased appraisal of the
accomplishments of the Liberal Party, probably since the
beginning of time, but we will suggest it was perhaps from the
beginning of this Parliament. However it had absolutely
nothing to do with the premise being debated today.
What is the government doing? When is it going to balance
the budget? That is the essence of the question. When will the
Liberal government get at it? The Liberal government was in
opposition for nine years. It has been in government now for one
year. Certainly it is important to get at solving the real problems.
The time to do it is at hand.
I have a question for the member. One suggestion that has
been brought forward in the House on numerous occasions to
make our tax system fairer, more equitable and far more
responsive to the needs of Canadian business and individuals is
the notion of a flat tax.
Would the member opposite give the House the benefit of her
impression of the values or the negative aspects of a flat tax and
what it would do to help move the government along to where it
should be going?
Ms. Bethel: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the
hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.
It is my understanding that we are discussing a vision of the
government's role in the economy. It was for that reason I spent
most of my time talking about how we would invest in people so
that they would be productive and contribute to our economy
and the fabric of life in our country.
The member spoke rather negatively about the success of
these programs but let me remind my hon. colleague that the
whole idea of the $800 million for this strategic initiative was to
try to experiment and be creative in new and innovative ways to
train our people for their future roles in the work of the country.
That is the essence of my comments.
I might mention another thing that is extremely important.
Every program I talked about today will undergo the same
program review in the future that all our existing programs
today are undergoing. That is what makes us sure we will be able
to measure success in terms of whether or not it delivers what we
expected it to deliver.
I look forward to working with my hon. colleague on those
exact kinds of reviews.
The Speaker: I should inform colleagues that the last speaker
for Edmonton East took 10 minutes and I allowed 10 minutes for
questioning because she had 20 minutes to speak.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the motion,
specifically the part of the motion that refers to the role of the
government in the economy.
7210
Since 1986 Reformers have been talking about the financial
crisis in the country. We sent warnings to the Tories when they
were in power and they did not listen to us. We in the Reform
Party have been warning the government for months and months
of the impending financial crisis in the country arising out of the
mountain of debts and deficits.
We warned that investors feared the economic uncertainty in
our country. We warned that spiralling debtloads would hamper
the country's ability to create jobs. We warned that consumer
confidence would not return unless the government got its
financial house in order. These warnings have simply been cast
aside by the Liberals in the last several months and they have
branded Reformers as fearmongers.
(1740)
They would say there was no crisis, the debt was under control
or cuts simply would do more harm to the economy than good.
Now the Minister of Finance says that debt stands in the way of
the growth we seek and limits our ability to create jobs. He says
that his ultimate goal is a balanced budget.
This new Liberal stand leaves Canadians sort of confused
since only eight months ago the Minister of Finance tabled a
budget rife with new expenditures and new taxes, a nefarious
combination that encouraged an ever expanding underground
economy, a nefarious combination that leaves investors
nervously standing pat and consumers keeping their wallets in
their pockets.
Now the government tells Canadians to forget that budget,
forget the $34 billion it would add to the debt, forget the $100
billion it proposed to add to the debt in the next four years but
trust it today, for in the last 32 weeks it has been mystically
reborn and sees the evils of it spendthrift ways.
It is this confusion, this flip-flopping or lack of focus that
leads Reformers to call for the government's clear vision of the
role it will play in the economy. To date the vision of the
government and its role in the economy have been shortsighted
at best. It continues to intervene in the marketplace creating
disincentive for investments, disincentives for Canadians to
work and disincentives for Canadians to spend.
One way in which the government stunts the wealth creating
potential of the economy is through its measures of taxation, and
the Liberals know all about taxation. The capital gains tax
exemption was removed in February's budget and this will
discourage people's will to invest. We pay tax on interest in
savings accounts and now there is talk about taxing RRSPs.
An hon. member: Never.
Mr. Harris: The government should never say never to taxes.
We have income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes,
visible and invisible taxes, all under the assumption that
government is better than the private sector at redistributing
wealth to create economic growth and jobs in the country. I
would argue that this is fundamentally wrong thinking. The
surest way to create growth in the economy is to leave more
money in the pockets of the investors and the consumers. Let
them decide where their money will be spent, invested or even
donated.
People speak of an impending tax revolt. I would suggest the
tax revolt is well under way, considering the record of the
Liberal government and the management of its financial house.
An underground economy is flourishing. It is estimated at over
$100 billion a year.
The government and its predecessors believe in the fallacy
that increased taxes bring in a proportional share of increased
revenues. That is absolutely ludicrous thinking. Taxes upon
taxes upon taxes create disincentives to employment and
investment. Will these shortsighted Liberals ever see that
simple truth? I think not. As Michael Walker stated, such
disincentives are creating a generation of workers who see no
point in tiring themselves for paycheques that increasingly go to
the government.
Apparently the government has been through some sort of
magical awakening in the last few weeks. It is the recent
contention of the Minister of Finance that ``whatever fiscal
action is taken, the bulk should come from cuts in program
spending''. Reformers rejoiced when they heard that; if only we
could believe it.
(1745 )
In February the minister boosted the budget of his own
department by $1.4 billion for 1994-95. He raised DIAND's
budget $400 million and nudged citizenship and immigration up
$80 million. In that same budget the Minister of Finance
launched 18 new programs and 15 new studies.
February's budget also introduced a $6 billion credit card
infrastructure program. As we heard earlier, among other things
the program involved the covering of boccie courts, building
stands and hockey arenas in my colleague's home town, and
building the canoe hall of fame in the Prime Minister's own
riding, a $6 billion borrowed money program that is still to this
day staunchly defended by the Minister of Finance as necessary
to stimulate the economy.
Now a few months later the Minister of Finance is looking for
$9 billion in cuts. Has he suddenly become a believer in
balanced budgets, a firm believer in the problems debt and
deficit cause in economic growth?
Considering the flip-flop, how can Canadians be anything
else but confused? How can they have confidence in a
government whose initial vision was to spend, spend, spend to
create wealth and growth in the economy and then a few months
later its vision is that it cannot spend, spend, spend to create
growth. This has to be confusing to a lot of Canadian taxpayers.
Canadians want to know what the vision of this government is.
All we have had so far is talk. They want to see a clear vision, not
confusion, not flip-flopping.
7211
This government is content to stumble around in the dark
attempting to determine if it is time to spend or cut. It is certain
of one thing and it is something Canadians are becoming
increasingly tired of. When in doubt, if you lack the political
guts to make necessary cuts you raise taxes.
If the government is looking for cuts it need look no further
than its own crown corporations. VIA Rail, the CBC, the St.
Lawrence Seaway, CMHC, and Ports Canada consume $3.6
billion of taxpayers' money. I would suggest if these are not
viable corporations, if the government cannot operate them
without incurring deficits then why does the government so
steadfastly cling to them? Literally, we simply cannot afford
arguments over sentimentality in order to justify the
government taking financial shortfalls in these companies.
If the government cannot at least break even in these
operations then maybe it is time to cut them loose, turn them
over to the private sector. It is unfair and indeed ludicrous to
return to the Canadian taxpayer year after year requesting more
money to prop up a multitude of failing government business
enterprises. The government should get out of the business if it
cannot run it at least at a break even point.
If we take the $3.6 billion spent on these crown corporations
and add it to the $6 billion wasted on the credit card
infrastructure program, we arrive at the $9.6 billion in cuts, or
approximately what the finance minister is now seeking.
I want to talk about public input. This government continues
to speak of consultations with the public, not just any
consultations but consultations which are successively
unprecedented. The Minister of Finance once again has
promised unprecedented consultations on the run up to his new
budget. This was promised before the February budget.
How many Canadians favoured the removal of the capital
gains exemption? How many Canadians favoured adding some
$34 billion to the national debt? I would be interested in seeing
those numbers but I do not think this government has them. I do
not think they exist.
This government's definition of run up consultations is a
sham. Extensive unprecedented consultations are a fabrication
of this government. The Minister of Finance admitted as much
before the Standing Committee on Finance when he stated:
``Government by necessity has the final word''. Remember this
when the government says: ``We know you do not want RRSP
contributions taxed but by necessity we have to levy a tax on
them''. Or the minister might say: ``We know you do not want to
pay higher income taxes but by necessity we have to raise
them''.
(1750)
This government should put questions concerning cuts or
taxes to the people, really to the people, through a referendum or
through their respective MPs in this House. Do not patronize
them by considering the issues to be too complicated for them to
understand and do not patronize them with arguments of
necessity.
If this government were truly looking at a new vision for its
role in the economy it would be looking to the people for
direction through referendum or through the people's MPs to
determine where to spend, where to save and where to cut.
Instead unfortunately, the taxpayer is handed lines about
necessity as the government makes unilateral decisions.
In conclusion, the government should be looking at lowering
taxes and cutting spending in order to eliminate the deficit and
eventually the debt. It should be looking at unloading a number
of unprofitable crown corporations. It should be looking at
removing itself as the blockade to Canadian ingenuity and
entrepreneurship.
Instead, from this government we see a spendthrift budget
followed much later by calls for thriftiness. We see a
government hiding behind claims of necessity instead of
actively consulting with taxpayers on how their money is spent.
We see no vision, but we see more finger pointing at who got us
into this mess. We hear of more consultations and we hear of
more taxes.
With such a strategy for our country's economy, investor and
consumer confidence will continue to deteriorate. Our
impending financial crisis will continue to loom. All I can say to
the Canadian taxpayer is: Hold on to your pocketbook as long as
the Liberals hold on to power.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon
member's speech, it is obvious he does not understand the role
crown corporations play in this country. The member said that
we should put the existence of some of these crown corporations
to a public vote. That is a pretty good idea because I believe the
reason we have crown corporations is that they fill a role that a
lot of private corporations would not take on. I am talking about
services to remote regions and disadvantaged regions.
I think of Pacific Western Airlines, for example. It needed the
Federal Business Development Bank for its initial loan in order
to get off the ground. It was a government instrument that
assisted that company in getting started. We can go from
airports, trains and post offices to the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. The CBC is an instrument which pulls this country
together. In some parts of Canada the CBC is the only
communication Canadians get. These Reformers just want to
cut, cut,
7212
cut to a point where there will not be anything left to hold this
country together.
We on this side of the House realize that we have to run a lean
government. However, we are not going to buy their notion of
turning it into a mean government.
I wish the Reform Party would also spend some time talking
about some strategies for growth. Put some ideas forward that
will help small business. The hon. member is sitting next to his
colleague who worked very hard for seven months to put some
specific ideas forward to help small business get access to
capital.
The Reform Party should spend a little less time on the deficit
and a little bit more time on how we create jobs.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, asking me how to create jobs is the
easiest question in the world to answer, and I will answer it for
this hon. member.
The biggest impediment to economic growth in this country is
the cost of doing business. Our taxation levels are among the
highest in the world. We have taxed ourselves out of the
competitive market in our manufacturing, our service, our
production. The answer to getting business and industry off the
ground is to give them some tax relief.
(1755)
If the government had turned the $6 billion it spent on the
infrastructure program into a $6 billion tax break for private
business, it would not have just created the 7,000 or 8,000 jobs
that it did, it probably would have created about 40,000 jobs. As
a matter of fact, I could be corrected but I believe the Minister of
Finance some time back said that it would create 40,000 jobs but
that just did not come about. If the government would get off the
backs of private businesses and give them some tax breaks,
some tax incentives to expand and develop and to grow and hire
more people that would create economic growth.
I want to talk about the crown corporations. I realize that
some crown corporations play a vital role. However that is no
excuse for the government's inability to run those crown
corporations at least at a break even point. We are not asking the
crown corporations to make any money, just break even at least.
The hon. members on the other side always make Reformers
out to be the slash and burners, the hackers and cutters. All we
want is a government that can operate something at least at a
break even point.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for one year now that party has been the party of
gloom and doom, the end of the world is coming. It has been the
cut, cut, cut party. In fact if those members are looking for an
alternative name they might call themselves the gloom and
doom party or the cut, cut, cut party. I rather prefer the second
because it has more rhythm.
Looking at the opinion polls, why is it that Canadians have
favoured the Liberal Party, the party that is in government today,
with its gradual approach to the creation of jobs and the
reduction of the deficit and the debt? Why is it that their party's
support, whatever little support it had, is evaporating quickly?
Surely the majority of Canadians have a good sense of
judgment. Surely the majority of Canadians know what is
happening.
Those hon. members talk about the infrastructure program as
being inappropriate. First of all, they know as well as I do that it
was not new money, it was reallocated money. I wanted to
correct that.
Is the hon. member supportive of his other colleague's
remarks that the infrastructure program is not good for Canada,
that the infrastructure program jobs are not appropriate jobs? I
want him to confirm or deny that. Because the infrastructure
program has created a better, superior infrastructure, does that
not make it easier and better for us to be competitive, thereby
creating long term jobs?
Will the cut, cut, cut party, the gloom and doom party respond
to that please?
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to refer to our party as the
party of reasoned logic. There were a number of questions. I
would like to answer them one at a time, if I may.
The hon. member referred to Canadians as being supportive of
the Liberal government and what it is doing. We know how polls
work. If we make 1,000 phone calls, 500 of them are made in the
province of Ontario. Of those 500, 400 are probably made in
metro Toronto. The same ratio applies to the province of
Quebec. Those provinces are in pretty tough shape because of
mismanagement by not only the federal government but also the
provincial governments. In British Columbia and Alberta where
the economy is better because we did a better job of it out there,
it is not exactly the same as what the polls indicate. Let us be fair
about the polls.
The hon. member talks about this $6 billion as being
reallocated money. He is talking about taking the $6 billion
savings, the savings in Liberal terms, from the helicopter deal
and reallocating it to the infrastructure program. That money
was not spent yet on the helicopter program. It was cancelled.
Just because you do not spend the money that is not savings.
This government chose to spend it. It chose to borrow $6 billion
and go in the hole $6 billion more.
There is a simple truth and it is worth repeating. If the
government formula of funding to create jobs, the billions and
hundreds of billions of dollars that the Tories spent and the
Liberals spent before them and now the Liberals are spending
again worked, everyone in this country would have about six
jobs for goodness sakes.
7213
The Speaker: My colleagues, we have about one minute to
6.02 p.m. I think I will call it 6.02 p.m. and then we can get on
with the rest of it.
As it is 6.02 p.m. sort of, it is my duty to inform the House that
pursuant to Standing Order 81(19), proceedings on the motion
have expired.
The House will now proceed to Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7213
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from June 9, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-237, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of
claims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for this
opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill presented by
the hon. member for Portneuf that would give employees and
travelling salesmen higher priority than other creditors in the
proceeds realized from the property of a bankrupt party.
The bill before us provides for payment up to a limit of $9,000
per person as the first priority in bankruptcy proceedings. The
existing legislation does, in fact, cover workers. In it, workers
benefit from a preferred claim to cover wages they earned
during the six months immediately preceding the bankruptcy,
for up to $2,000. The current legislation is not a perfect solution
to the wage earner protection issue, but it is an immense
improvement from the situation that existed before the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was amended in 1992 as a result
of Bill C-22.
Hon. members may recall that before then, workers had a
preferred claim for only up to $500 in unpaid wages and
commissions. That level was established in 1949, when $500
represented three months' wages. Since 1949, numerous
attempts have been made to improve wage earner protection. In
1970, the report of the study committee on bankruptcy and
insolvency legislation recommended doubling the preferred
amount, from $500 to $1,000.
Bill C-60, tabled in 1975, contained a provision for the full
super-priority of wage claims up to $2,000.
(1805)
In 1980, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade
and Commerce assessed three possible solutions. The first was
to establish a super-priority for wage claims, ranking them
before all secured creditors' claims. This is the solution
proposed to us today by the hon. member for Portneuf.
The second proposal was to establish a modified priority for
wage earners, ranking their claims before claims of creditors
with security on current assets, such as cash, inventory or
receivables.
The third possibility was the creation of a wage earner
protection fund.
The committee maintained that administering super-priority
and modified priority would be very difficult, the biggest
problem being how to share the burden among the secured
creditors, given the large number of possible guarantees.
Super-priority was very likely to limit access to credit for
labour-intensive industries. Payment would certainly not be
guaranteed, much less the speed of payment.
The Senate committee recommended establishing a wage
earner protection fund that would be financed by all employers,
based on the number of their employees, and by employees
themselves, who would contribute a modest amount.
So it went, that between the Senate committee report of 1980
and the new Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of 1992, several
more reports were to address the same perplexing issue of
protecting the interests of wage earners.
In total, there have been seven bills and seven reports all
trying to address this recurring issue. Super-priority has been
proposed before. It has been examined and rejected, as has the
proposal of a fund from government revenues or a tax.
In the coming months, the Minister of Industry will receive
the recommendations of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Advisory Committee that has been struck to look into reform of
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. In the meantime, Industry
Canada has been collecting data to help us make more informed
decisions. When we examine these issues, we need to know the
full extent of the problem, and how much it would take to
resolve it.
We must be able to answer a number of key questions before
we can make intelligent choices on the options available to us.
In how many bankruptcies do employees lose their wages?
How much have they lost so far? Do the trustees refund part of
the wages owed to them? How soon are these refunds made? To
date, how much money has been available from the bankrup
parties' property to pay creditors?
I am sure that my colleagues on both sides of the House will
want to reflect on these questions before they set about to reform
the bankruptcy laws to provide some kind of wage earner
protection. We do not have the answers now. We cannot assess
the impact that Bill C-237 might have. I would suggest that this
House let the government proceed with its fact-finding. I would
also suggest that it give the government time to receive the
recommendations of the advisory committee. On that basis, I
7214
will vote against the legislation before us, and I recommend that
my hon. colleagues do the same.
(1810)
[English]
In total there have been seven bills and seven reports all trying
to address this recurring issue. Super priority has been proposed
before. It has been examined at some length and rejected as has
the proposal of a fund from government revenues or a tax.
In the coming months the Minister of Industry will receive the
recommendations of the bankruptcy and insolvency advisory
committee that has been struck to look into reform of the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
I believe we need to know and have this report before we can
proceed in the best possible way.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
bill is one that I really want to speak in favour of. As a business
person prior to coming into this Chamber, I am very much aware
of the fact that the success of any enterprise can only broaden on
the basis of the input of the people who are working for that
enterprise.
Very frequently in small enterprises we have the entrepreneur
who goes to the wall in terms of his own personal finances, the
entrepreneur who puts absolutely everything on the line and
probably pours an inordinate number of hours into the work.
Then the entrepreneur, his wife, his immediate family or
relatives might get one or two more people working. At some
point we have employees coming into this growing business.
I will make up a word picture to have a look at what is
happening. The entrepreneur has $50,000, for the sake of
discussion, that he can bring to the table. Perhaps he collapses
some RRSPs or whatever the case may be. He decides he is
going to go into the pizza business. He suddenly uncovers the
fact that he is going to require at least $150,000 worth of
equipment in order to just be in the basic pizza business. If he is
going to actually get into a restaurant, the number is going to go
way up from that point.
Where is he going to go and where is he going to get the
money? Let us step aside for a second and talk about the large
enterprise, not perhaps as large as General Motors, but a larger
enterprise that might have 100 or 200 people working for it that
is in business at the moment. It is not infrequent that at this
particular point in time that entrepreneur who perhaps has been
in business longer, where there are now millions of dollars
actually invested in the firm, will still have his house tied down
with the bank as security.
I say I want to speak in favour of this because I am
sympathetic toward the motivation. After all is said and done,
employees are simply an extension of the business owner, of the
entrepreneur, of the corporate culture. When a business is
reaching a point of downsizing and things are closing in, those
employees can make the difference of whether that enterprise
will work or not.
With this kind of protection they might be more
inclined-after all we do have to look after ourselves in the
business world-to give of themselves and be more sympathetic
and actually make this enterprise continue to work. If they do
not have any protection it is conceivable that either the larger or
the smaller business could miss a pay day or two. We are looking
at the pension side of things. It is entirely possible that by
continuing to work the employee is actually working to his or
her own personal detriment.
(1815)
If we want to have them completely on side and in the back of
their minds they are working to their own detriment, is it not
better to have this legislation in place?
I repeat, I want to speak in favour of this bill, but I cannot. The
reason why I will not speak in favour of this bill is because the
biggest single problem, particularly for small business in
Canada today, is working capital or equity or just the
wherewithal to get the job done.
At the moment it is not infrequent that businesses are faced
with a situation of triple or quadruple security. The first thing
the bank is going to say is: ``We want your inventory''. If that
happens to be men's socks or widgets, flanges, gaskets or car
parts, it does not make any difference. The bank says: ``We want
security over your inventory''. It will not apply any value. It will
not actually give any value. It just wants it.
Second it says: ``We want your accounts receivable''. That
makes sense because in business terms we have converted an
asset to a negotiable security, as it were. This is an account
payable. If it is 60 days or under it is a current asset. This is
something that the bank by assignment can actually make use of.
However it is not at all infrequent for the bank to say: ``We are
only going to give 75, 65, 50 per cent of the value of your 60
day's accounts receivable''. This is the reality small business is
faced with.
We come back to our little pizza shop owner. The bank will
also say; ``By the way, we also want to have some way of
attaching a mortgage to your equipment''. Everything is
absolutely tied down.
I suggest to the hon. member who proposed this bill, and there
is no question in my mind that it was proposed in good faith, that
if he actually speaks to the small business people in his
constituency he will find that everything is completely tied
down. Can he imagine that the bank or the lending institution of
the business person's choice is now going to be told: ``Oh, for
every employee that I get, I will be guaranteeing up to $9,000 for
that employee that you will not be able to touch''.
7215
That will be first charge. You will not be able to get to your
pizza oven. You will not be able to get to your metal press. You
will not be able to get to anything until that $9,000 per employee
is satisfied. I suggest to the member that we would be shutting
down the ability of small and medium sized businesses to get the
cash they require to do business on an ongoing basis.
I want to vote in favour of this. I understand the motivation of
the member in proposing it. I want to support the employees
because they deserve support. I want to support them because
they are the lifeblood, the reason why a business is going to
succeed. I want to vote in favour of it but I will not because
without the ability to have access to adequate funding, in putting
employees first the business will not exist and the employees
will not even have a job to go to.
It is with regret that I must say I will be voting against the
member's bill.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an
opportunity to speak on Bill C-237, which provides a super
priority for wage earners and travelling salesmen who can claim
up to $9,000 owed to them in the event of bankruptcy.
(1820 )
I would like to begin by picking up the point of the Reform
Party member about how difficult it is for small and medium
sized businessmen and women to get access to capital today.
Because small business has a difficult time in getting access to
capital, quite often the supporting suppliers to a small business
will put their product or material into the business knowing that
they have put themselves in a secure position. In fact when small
businesses cannot get capital it is their suppliers that keep them
going and help make them viable.
This bill is not only going to affect the way the banks look at
financing small businesses but it will also create a situation with
the suppliers where they will be hesitant in putting their product
into a small business environment at a very generous credit
condition.
We realize first of all that bankruptcy and insolvency are very
complex issues. In the event of a business failing and going
bankrupt there is only one pie to divide. If suddenly the priority
is put on the wage earners and the travelling salesmen at a
$9,000 level, not much room is left in many instances for the
other components in the business equation.
I would like to repeat that the intention of the member is right.
It is a complex issue. We amended the Bankruptcy Act just two
years ago. Currently the Minister of Industry has the department
developing a database on all the activity around bankruptcy
cases. These studies are ongoing.
I really believe it is inappropriate to support this bill at this
time. We should wait until we have the results of all that data
which is being collected.
The member for Kootenay East has said something about the
importance of the employee to the viability of the business. I
share his view and I obviously believe that would be the view of
the member for Portneuf as well.
In a case where we are putting all of the employees in a
business in a super priority position at $9,000 per person, this
would really affect the ability of a small businessman or woman
to obtain the support that is usually required from banks. As we
all know, even in the current condition banks are making it very
difficult for small businessmen and women to obtain the
necessary capital to meet their business plans and their
objectives. Until we have the banks acting more progressively
and until their attitudes change toward small business, this bill
should be defeated.
The other thing I mentioned has to do with suppliers. I believe
that if we sent a signal in a business that if the employees want to
show confidence in what they are doing they should not be doing
it by putting themselves in the priority position to the tune of
$9,000 a head. That in turn might have an adverse reaction on
the suppliers to the business. Quite often in small business
situations these suppliers can make the difference in viability, as
I mentioned earlier.
(1825)
Mr. McClelland: Are you talking about somebody working
on a loading dock?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): We are talking
about wage earners and travelling salesmen. The bottom line is
as the member for Kootenay East said, if you have a small
business it might only employ 10 to 20 people. You are talking
about a priority call of $180,000 just on 20 people. A first charge
of $180,000 on a business is a heck of a lot of money.
Everyone knows I am a believer in equity participation. I used
to work at Magna International. I believe one of the reasons that
company has grown from seven employees to 20,000 is because
every employee has shares in the company. They have a piece of
the equity. That is the reason they make better products at more
competitive prices. But that of course is not what we are
debating here today.
I would ask all members that we defeat this bill and that we
wait until the final results of the study come from Industry
Canada on all the current activity in the bankruptcy area as a
result of the last bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even if
there are limits to what one can say in this House, I am outraged
and shocked at what I just heard. On the one hand, very generous
speeches on workers and employees, all those people who make
it possible for the big shots to get richer. On the other hand, a
7216
compassionate one on those poor small and medium-sized
businesses having serious difficulties, and I agree businesses do
experience difficult situations. But who do we want to protect
here? The banks? In that case-
An hon. member: The suppliers.
Mrs. Lalonde: They can go back at any time and get all of
their supplies back from the businesses.
This is a ludicrous situation that has been going on for years. I
worked in labour organizations at one time, a while ago, but in
those days, I must tell you I fought hard for the value of
employment to be recognized. I will come back to that aspect
some other time. For years now, workers have been in a situation
where they are thrown out on the streets without notice and with
no means of getting paid for salaries owed to them, no pension
fund and no vacation pay, compensations they earned by
working hard and that are owed to them. They are totally
helpless and deprived of everything. Now we say it is because of
the banks.
This all powerful House of Commons could certainly give
some thought to this issue. I think members here must vote
according to their own consciences because we all know this is a
matter of principle. It suggests that the government deal with
this issue as a priority.
I understood very well the speech made by my friend-I am
sorry, I meant my colleague-here besides me and I cannot say I
am insensitive to what he said, but I will reply the same way. We
cannot let others tell us what to do regarding workers who have
earned salaries, small salaries, when we see banks threaten not
to finance them.
(1830)
I am proud of my colleague who is here in the House. Let me
explain that the maximum of $9,000 he mentioned when he
introduced this bill, would, of course, be an exceptional
situation because in most cases, employers pay salaries on a
weekly or bi-monthly basis. It is an exceptional situation, but
there have been cases where some very substantial amounts
have accumulated.
The hon. member also pointed out that if they are protected,
employees will be more inclined to take a chance to help a small
business through a rough patch, if they have the assurance-as
my colleague argued-that they will recover their stakes. This
aspect can be extremely important for a small business because,
as far as I know, the banks often do not treat them very well and
give no warning before they pull the plug, as they say.
Consequently, it is important for small businesses to know
that employees will have certain guarantees and will be able to
stick with their company, even when times are hard. Today,
however, employees bear the brunt of these hard times, while
when business is good, they do not get any of the profits.
To me, it is a case of elementary social justice. I think we
should look at what we can do to make the banks take this into
consideration. In fact, the government has promised it will
prepare a plan for small business financing and for dealing with
their specific problems. But it should not let the success of small
businesses depend on their ability to avoid paying the wages,
annual leave and pension benefits to employees who earned
them.
I expect the House to vote in favour of this bill. It is a vote that
reflects a principle and a commitment and tells the government:
Do what governments have been promising all along and what
workers now consider to be a running gag. If that is what the
unions think, you can imagine what non-union workers are
saying.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and discuss Bill C-237.
This bill proposes to change the priority of payment of claims
provided for in the Bankruptcy Act so that employees be the first
to be paid in case of their employer's bankruptcy.
The hon. member for Portneuf is proposing to pay these
claims, up to a limit of $9,000, to each employee of the bankrupt
business. I congratulate him for this very commendable
initiative.
At first glance, and before thoroughly examining the
consequences of this bill, I would have been tempted to support
it. However, after some deep thinking and research on the issue,
I came to another conclusion, at least for the time being.
I would like to remind the hon. member that the contents of
Bill C-237 have been proposed many times in the past. And each
time, that proposal or another one such as this has been
thoroughly examined. I am alluding here to seven pieces of
legislation that have been moved since 1970 on the issue of
employee protection, as well as seven other reports that were
tabled on that issue since that time.
Finally, these failures led the previous government to forgo
the provisions relating to the wage claim payment program in
order to have other provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act adopted. There should be a clear message here.
There is still room for improvements, but the present situation
is better than the one which prevailed in 1992, when the act was
reviewed.
(1835 )
At that time, employees could expect only $500 if they lost
their jobs when their employer went bankrupt. Now, workers
have a privileged claim up to $2,000 for the six months
preceding the bankruptcy. The new provisions of the legislation
provide that no tribunal can approve a proposal unless it
includes payment of wages owed to the workers up to $2,000 per
worker.
7217
Bankruptcy and insolvency are complex issues, but the
general picture is easy to grasp. There is a single cake of finite
size. If you cut a bigger slice for one group, let us say the
employees, clearly the remaining slices will be smaller. If a
super-priority is given to one of the parties, it will be more
difficult to pay the others, including secured creditors.
We have no other choice but to look at the whole picture,
which requires time, expertise and concerted efforts. We must,
at least, have a good idea of the impact one priority will have on
all the others. Even if all parties co-operate and work
harmoniously, a certain balance will have to be struck when
dividing the cake.
Who should carry the burden of paying the employees up to
$9,000 in the present difficult situation? What would the
consequences of such a measure be on credit institutions, when
fledgling or shaky companies come knocking on their doors
with a potential debt of $9,000 per employee? What will they
say to these companies who might employ more people than
they should? Can we accept that they be penalized because they
created jobs in an economy where jobs are difficult to come by?
Moreover, should employees show solidarity and assume,
with those who really benefit, part of the financing necessary to
protect a large work force? Briefly, let us say that we do not
know precisely what measure would protect the workers more
effectively, but Industry Canada continues to collect data, while
the debate goes on. At the very least, establishing a
super-priority, whether for employees, creditors or consumers,
would have serious implications for everybody concerned.
The whole economy will feel the consequences. Until the
government has answers to these questions and many other
crucial and closely related questions which directly affect the
superpriority issue, it is useless to try to deal with the
complexities of specific priority claims. The claims of
employees are part and parcel of the larger issue of bankruptcy
reform, that we will be debating in upcoming months.
I would be hard-pressed to choose between the priority rights
of the employees, or those of the suppliers, who have the right to
take back their merchandise, or those of the buyers who made
their purchases in good faith, not knowing that those goods were
about to be repossessed. Again, if we put companies in such a
position that they have to close down or if we create a situation
where their available capital will disappear, their employees
will have to look for jobs somewhere else.
We are still at an early stage, maybe not so early if one
considers the history of Canadian workers, who had been
expecting for a long time what they finally obtained in 1992, but
nevertheless it is early in the context of the new legislation and
of the related review process which should be completed by
1995.
(1840)
It was a fierce battle from the beginning, and it took 40 years
before we could get a revision of the Bankruptcy Act in 1992.
There was widespread consultation of the people concerned
because lots of diverging interests were at stake.
Perhaps those questions should not even be discussed in the
context of general legislation on insolvency. The government
must consider a debtor company's capacity to negotiate its
successful restructuring.
Again, this is a web of very complex problems. In order to
devise legal options that really work, the people concerned and
the government must co-operate. We must all work to maintain
the process by means of a review after three years and people
must inform the government of any aspect which is of
importance to them.
Another way to protect the reform, in political terms, is to try
to guarantee government the largest possible consensus among
stakeholders on any future reform. That is what we are trying to
do with our consultation and partnership approach.
I am convinced that the member for Portneuf has no desire to
introduce a bill that would imperil the jobs of those very workers
that he is trying to protect. I am equally convinced that he would
not want to help a small number of workers at the expense of the
majority. In no way am I questioning the good intentions of this
bill's promoter. I am not necessarily taking sides in this matter. I
am merely trying to obtain more information in order to
understand the real effect of this superpriority.
In my opinion, the House should consider employee
protection in the larger context of bankruptcy, and to do so, it
should wait for the results of studies already under way. I also
feel that it is too early to evaluate the repercussions of the
priorities which, as I said, are mentioned in the new Bankruptcy
and Insolvency Act. We must tackle the various aspects of
bankruptcy, ranging from the international to the individual
level.
The House should go ahead with its review and allow the
government enough time to receive its advisory committee's
recommendations on the matter. Consequently, the House
should reject Bill C-237, at least for the time being.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise today speak to Bill C-237, an act to amend the
Bankruptcy Act.
When I review the intent of the bill a couple of things strike
me. First, the intention behind it is certainly good. It says
something about the person who has moved the bill, that they
want to protect the employees of a business that has gone
bankrupt. Certainly all Canadians sympathize with people who
would be denied their wages because a business has gone
7218
bankrupt and they are not at the top of the list of the secured
creditors but are well down the list.
Having said that, I am also struck by another concept that I
read about some time ago and recently reread. It just really
impressed upon my mind how often we get away from this whole
idea in government when we are making important decisions
that can affect individuals and businesses across the country.
I remember reading in a book by an economist by the name of
Henry Hazlitt about how often one of the greatest failures of
economists and people who are making decisions that affect
economies is to not foresee the secondary and unseen effects of
the measures they are proposing. With respect to my hon. friend
in the Bloc I think that is what we have done in Bill C-237, an act
to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
(1845 )
One of the unseen effects of the legislation-and other
members have referred to it-is the kind of incentive there
would be for banks and providers of capital to continue to
provide that capital to businesses.
Banks are already very reluctant to provide capital to
businesses for a number of reasons. My hon. friend from
Kootenay West went through a litany of the things that banks
require before they will lend a business money. Now the
amendment to Bill C-237 is proposing to put one more
impediment in place that would cause banks to think twice about
funding a business.
That is a great concern to me. It is a great concern to the
government across the way and I believe to the Bloc. As has
been referred to many times in the House, the great engine of the
economy in Canada is small business. Small business creates 85
per cent of all jobs in the country.
On one hand the bill appears to be protecting employees. On
the other hand we do not see all the jobs it would prevent from
being created because banks and other providers of capital
would be reluctant to lend the money knowing their loan is not
secured under the proposal.
That is something we have to be conscious of, particularly in
the competitive environment we have today not only within
Canada but within North America and certainly around the
world. There are all kinds of different advantages that other
countries have and will try to use against us to get their share of
the market.
We are a relatively wealthy country. We can attribute that to
the small and medium sized business to a great degree. We have
to be conscious of the types of burdens we impose upon them
when we propose to do what seems on the surface to be a very
good thing. Canadian businesses, small business in particular,
are the creators of jobs and all that wealth out there.
I am not certain the hon. member has really taken that into
consideration. Banks and anybody else who provides capital
have many options when they think about where they want to
invest their money. Capital is very fluid. It flows to where it gets
the highest return and where the risk is the least. One thing that
may happen if the bill were passed would be that banks would
start saying that they do not want to fund small businesses
because they are not going to be a secured creditor. Another
thing that could happen is that they would fund them but raise
interest rates. They would put on a risk premium because they
are concerned about losing their money.
We already have a problem in the country where we have
some of the highest real interest rates in the world, which again
hurts our competitive position. We have to think long and hard
about the repercussions. If we are in that position where
businesses are forced to pay higher interest rates then we will
have a situation where there will be less jobs created.
Those are the things we never see and are never reported in the
newspapers: the jobs that are not created and the businesses that
are not started because of legislation. It is very easy to point to a
plant closing somewhere and say: ``Is it not a shame those
people did not get their two weeks' pay?''
Is it not also a shame when people do not go into business
because they know the bank is going to turn them down? The
bank is not confident it will get its money back because it is not
at the highest level on the list of claims; it is not a secured claim.
We can take a look at what the government is proposing in
many areas. Infrastructure would be a good example. Any time
the government prepares to intervene in the economy we have to
think about the secondary and unseen effects.
(1850 )
There is another aspect that I would ask hon members in the
House to consider. What if a supplier to a business is barely
hanging on and has a lot of employees who are trying to keep
their jobs? They do not want to end up on the unemployment or
welfare rolls, yet all of a sudden the position of the struggling
business is not secure any more. The government has extended
the misery a little further down the line. The next guy down the
line is in a position where he may be forced into bankruptcy and
people may be out of a job because of the situation the
government has imposed by approving Bill C-237.
There are effects that go beyond the banks and interest rates.
There are also the effects on suppliers. Suppliers may be very
reluctant to extend supplies or inventory to anybody but the
most secure businesses.
7219
In this environment in this day and age we know that no such
businesses can be completely guaranteed against failure. Over
the last recession we saw businesses fail that were in operation
for not only tens of years but in some cases over a hundred years.
That speaks volumes about the competitiveness of the
environment and perhaps a bit about the instability of the
business environment. Even in the best of times businesses
cannot be counted upon to survive because they always have
more and more competition.
I know members of the Bloc are supporters of free trade. We
now have trade deals with the United States and Mexico. I am
not aware of any such legislation in either the United States or
Mexico that would parallel this legislation. In other words, we
would be putting a burden on Canadian businesses, Canadian
suppliers and Canadian providers of capital that does not exist in
some other countries around the world, in this case particularly
the United States and Mexico.
A couple of things could happen. First, businesses in the other
countries will have a competitive advantage over Canadian
businesses. Entrepreneurs from this country and Quebec can go
south of the border. Perhaps they can go to Mexico if they have
any type of business idea that will prosper no matter where it
starts up. They can go there to escape the type of legislation we
are talking about here.
Another thing that can happen is that capital can flow out of
this country to more friendly environments where capital is
treated with a little more respect. Maybe another way to put it is
that the business environment is a lot more friendly. As I pointed
out a minute ago, capital always flows to where it can get the
best return and where there is the least risk.
In this day and age in this environment in Canada we have a
$535 billion debt and we are going into debt at a rate of $40
billion a year or perhaps even more than that. We have some of
the highest interest rates in the world. We have some of the
highest taxes in the world. We have all kinds of competitive
disadvantages. We have hot competition because of free trade
with the United States and Mexico. Through GATT we have
more trade pressures from around the world. Given all these
factors I think it would be foolhardy to support the legislation.
Therefore I will be voting against it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise in this House today, October 25,
1994, a year after the election. I would like to thank the people
of Trois-Rivières for having placed their confidence in me and I
hope that I have been worthy of it. I can assure my constituents
that I will do everything in my power to keep their trust.
(1855)
I would also like to briefly thank my organizers at the time,
800 party workers who, on October 25, 1993, worked for my
election under the capable leadership, I would like to point out,
of Diane Talbot to whom I paid tribute this morning.
I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-237, An Act
to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of claims). The bill's
explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to change the priority of payment of claims in case of
the bankruptcy of an employer, in order that the wages, salaries and pension plan
contributions of an employee, up to a limit of nine thousand dollars, be paid in
priority to any other class of claims.
At this stage, I wish to commend my colleague, the member
for Portneuf, for his determination, insight and courage in
presenting this very socially-oriented bill, it must be said. Some
societal choices are implicit in such a bill, in such a way of
looking at things.
This issue was discussed in Parliament for the first time in
1919. However, even though most of the discussion on this idea
of priority or super priority of wage claims has occurred over the
last 20 years, the bank lobby always seems to win out, at the last
minute. That is obvious in all the documents one can read on the
issue.
When a bankruptcy occurs, there are secured creditors,
preferred creditors, and then common creditors. Workers rank
fourth among the preferred creditors.
We have to realize that a bankruptcy means something painful
and sad which someone has to pay for. Since we can identify at
first glance four types of major players that are always there: the
government, the suppliers, the lenders and the workers-there
are always four types of players-we must ask ourselves who is
in the best position to assume the loss. Who is the most
vulnerable? We could quickly analyse this.
Is it the government that has the most to lose? If it assumes
some losses, despite the disastrous budgetary situation that it is
in right now, this will always represent, in terms of revenue, of
shortfall, a drop in the ocean. If ever the situation that is
advocated became as dramatic as that in terms of lost revenue,
the government could always change the act, since it has this
legislative authority as well as being a player in the debate.
There are the suppliers who can pay, and they are increasingly
better protected by the new Bankruptcy Act that was changed
last year. If they sustain losses, they can file them as bad claims
which will reduce their income tax accordingly.
There are lending institutions, particularly banks, for which
these are bad claims, first on the accounting level. They could
see here a means of improving their social responsibility, of
improving their follow-up advice on the case, and perhaps a
means of better disciplining themselves, knowing that they will
now have something to lose if they pull the plug, as was
mentioned earlier.
7220
Finally, there are the employees, who have no leeway
whatsoever to make up for the loss that they fall prey to in the
case of a bankruptcy when we decide, under the present act, that
they will have to pay. They have no way out.
I will put forward a principle that has not been proposed yet,
the principle of the most vulnerable. Who is the most
vulnerable? A quick analysis shows that in a case of bankruptcy,
it is obviously the workers, who foot the bill, and not only
directly, since they will not receive any salary and wages and
they will have incurred expenses during that period. I am talking
about expenses in terms of transportation, meals, clothing and
even housing in some cases. And then they find out one, two,
three or four weeks later that they will not get any wages, they
will not be able to provide a decent living for their family for
that period. Moreover, they will have spent money to go to work
for an employer who is not able to pay them, which is contrary to
the intent of our legislation where a service is provided for a
salary.
(1900)
They say that from now on, banks would be very reluctant to
loan money. I take this opportunity to invite people to read the
report the industry committee has just tabled. It mentions that
the Small Businesses Loans Act will be broadened to include
exporting businesses. The Bloc Quebecois made a special
recommendation to the effect that the Small Businesses Loans
Act should apply to all businesses with respect to loans and
working capital. If our recommendation were to be accepted, it
would make banks feel more secure when things go sour, since
the loans would be guaranteed by the government, which would
lessen their losses.
I take this opportunity to say that this is an excellent piece of
legislation and that, contrary to those who would like to narrow
its scope, I, for one, claim that if we were to review this act
which guarantees bank loans, we should make a cost-benefit
analysis, taking into account the jobs it creates, the taxes it
generates, and the savings in unemployment insurance and
welfare it represents.
Once again, I congratulate my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I am
quite sure that you would like to know that the sovereign Quebec
of tomorrow will be a little bit like this. It will respect
individuals who are the driving force of any activity, be it
economic or otherwise.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
7220
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 3 I asked the Minister of the Environment a question
about the toxic substances policy she announced on September
27. I asked her when the measures on pesticides would be
implemented and what the timeframe for the policy was.
The minister replied that she had the intention of introducing
implementing legislation in the early spring. Some suggestions
might therefore be in place here tonight.
The goals of this toxic policy are as follows. First, to virtually
eliminate from the environment substances that are the result of
human activity, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. Second,
to ensure that all other substances of concern are adequately
managed throughout their use so that there is minimum impact
on the environment and human health.
Those substances which are persistent, bioaccumulative and
toxic are to be virtually eliminated from the environment
through a management program that ensures ``no measurable
release'' of each substance. However, when it comes to
substances which cannot be controlled, measures will be taken
to prevent their generation and use. The onus will be on industry
to demonstrate that the proposed management program will
ensure that there is no measurable release of the substances into
the environment.
The first point that I need to make here tonight is that if we are
to have a sound toxic policy in Canada we must ensure that it is
based on sound concepts. Clearly pollution prevention is at the
crux of this policy. Is it adequate to say that pollution prevention
is the control of the release of toxic substances rather than the
reduction in their generation and use? Will control of release be
adequate to protect human health and the environment?
Second, the term reverse onus is used throughout the
discussion paper. Reverse onus is actually intended to mean that
no production or use of substances is allowed until it is proven
that these substances are not toxic. This burden is intended to
fall upon industry and not on the government. Therefore I would
suggest the proposed reverse onus should be expended so as to
apply to proving the safety of the substances first and then to the
management plans.
7221
(1905)
Third, the definition of toxicity. It is based on the
Environment Protection Act definition which states that the
substance is toxic if it is present in the environment and in a
quantity or concentration that may have a harmful effect on the
environment or may cause an endangerment to human health.
Why not then adopt a definition of toxicity that does not have
thresholds so high that the scope and effectiveness of the policy
is thwarted? For example the policy proposed by the
government is intended to apply to all substances used and
released into the environment. Is this definition broad enough?
Should it not include threats posed to human health on sites
where these substances are used prior to the release of the
substance into the environment?
Fourth, the concern that for a substance to be considered toxic
it must meet certain threshold levels in three different criteria;
persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity. For some reason the
proposed policy contains threshold levels that are often higher,
less stringent than those proposed by the Ontario government,
the priority substance list of the Environment Protection Act.
Should we not ensure that we have stringent threshold levels to
ensure the safety of human health and the environment?
To conclude, the success or failure of the proposed toxics
policy rests on definitions and criteria. If they are too weak then
the rest of the policy will be ineffective.
My question to the minister is will the proposed definitions
and levels be re-examined and brought up to levels required to
protect all life in the long term?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Davenport I would
mention that a toxic substances management policy was
released on September 27 and given a period of 60 days for
consultation and comments from the public and other interested
bodies.
This period is going to end on November 30, 1994. Obviously
among the comments I expect to be received include the key
questions raised by the hon. member such as what really
constitutes pollution prevention. Today the minister alluded to
pollution prevention in a statement in the House as part of the
very basis of our objective in trying to pursue environmental and
sustainable development goals.
The question of pollution prevention, the definition of
toxicity, the whole concept of reverse onus, the whole question
of levels raised by the hon. member are obviously going to come
up. These concepts or ideas require co-ordination with existing
instruments, as rightly underlined by the member, with CEPA
and with the other policies and programs of government.
What I strongly suggest to the hon. member is given the high
regard in which he is held by all his colleagues in regard to
environmental questions, including by the minister herself, is
that he provide his input into the consultation process on these
very issues that are so crucial to a reliable toxic substances
policy.
I would suggest to the hon. member that between now and
November 30 he let the minister have his thoughts and I can
assure him they will be taken with very serious and constructive
consideration.
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on October 19 I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Foreign
Affairs what leadership role Canada would undertake to restore
the Ukrainian economy after decades of economic and
environmental mismanagement under the former Soviet regime.
I was very pleased to hear the minister indicate to this House
that last July in Naples the G-7 countries endorsed the proposal
of the Prime Minister to host a conference on economic reform
in Ukraine.
As a Manitoban and a Canadian of Ukrainian descent I am
very proud that the economic conference will take place in
Winnipeg on October 27. The meeting will be attended by
officials from the G-7 countries.
I understand that a proposal at this meeting is to discuss
Ukraine's plan for economic reform and international support
for Ukraine's economic transformation. I know that it is
important that Canada and the G-7 countries encourage Ukraine
to implement an economic reform program in co-operation with
international financial institutions.
I was very pleased to hear that Canada is totally committed to
Ukraine and has committed over $41 million to over 70 projects.
It has been brought to my attention that Canada will further
pledge up to $20 million in aid to help Ukraine transfer its
economy to a western style market system.
I strongly believe that these projects are an investment in the
future of Ukraine and an investment for Canada. These projects
will be beneficial for all parties involved. This will open up a
whole new market for Canadian businesses. Presently Canada
and the United States are the only countries which have pledged
their assistance.
During the Winnipeg meeting officials are expected to
encourage the G-7 countries to pledge aid. I would very much
like to get clarification on exactly how Canada is investing in
the future and fostering better ties with Ukraine.
I am also very concerned about the environmental
mismanagement that occurred under the former Soviet regime.
Therefore I would like to know exactly what is going to be done
concerning the environmental cleanup and the prevention of
further pollutants being released into our environment.
7222
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Selkirk-Red River for raising this issue and a number of
issues especially when the President of Ukraine is visiting here
in Canada.
Canada's special relationship with Ukraine is based on the
close ties established with the 1 million strong Ukrainian
Canadian community. The Prime Minister has worked to put the
G-7 focus on Ukraine.
Canada is hosting, as the hon. member has already said, a
conference on partnership for economic transformation in
Ukraine in Winnipeg on October 27 which will include
representatives not only from the G-7 countries but the
European Union, IMF, World Bank, European Bank, Russia and
Turkmenistan.
Canada has encouraged the Ukrainian government to adopt
genuine economic reform that would be supported by IMF and
World Bank lending. We welcome President Kuchma's new
reform program which represents a bold step forward.
Canada will continue to play a leading role in supporting
reform in Ukraine. Canada and the United States were the only
two countries to make pledges during a recent IMF meeting
which considered Ukrainian financial needs for the fourth
quarter of this year.
During the visit of President Kuchma to Canada this week
several new initiatives have been announced. This package
includes $23.8 million in technical assistance initiatives which
target policy advice on reform, private sector development and
nuclear safety issues; $13.5 million in balance of payments
support and a new $20 million EDC line of credit.
Protection of the environment is of critical importance to
Ukraine, and Canada is demonstrating its leadership in this area
through a number of technical assistance initiatives targeting
water resource management and nuclear waste management.
Canada was the first donor country to implement a major
environmental project in Ukraine.
We are currently supporting a $5 million, three-year project
to assist with the rehabilitation of the Dnipro River, the source
of drinking water for 70 per cent of Ukraine's population and
one of the country's most pressing environmental problems.
The Speaker: I thank hon. members for their interventions.
Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.14 p.m.)