CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 14, 1995
Consideration resumed of budget motionand amendment. 10431
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 10433
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 10443
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 10451
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10454
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10460
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 10463
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 10463
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 10464
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10467
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10467
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10467
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10468
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10468
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10468
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10468
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10468
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10469
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10469
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10469
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10469
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10471
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10471
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 10474
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 10474
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10475
Consideration resumed of budget motionand amendment 10475
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 10492
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 10496
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 10497
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 10500
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 10500
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 50; Nays, 182 10502
10429
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 14, 1995
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
24 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table the 13th report of the Finance Committee
dealing with the borrowing authority.
I wish to thank members from all parties for their
co-operation.
* * *
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present two petitions today. The first one calls
upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to
protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
The second petition asks for the opposite.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 asking
the Canadian government to conform to the decision of the
courts, which have ordered that the Canadian Human Rights Act
be interpreted as also prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation.
The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act in order to protect people against
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and I support
this petition.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to present a
petition containing 5,703 signatures from the lower mainland.
There has been great concern not only in my constituency and
my area but across Canada for dangerous offenders walking our
streets. These petitioners are asking Parliament to enact
legislation against serious personal injury crimes being
committed by high risk offenders by permitting the use of post
sentence detention orders and specifically by passing Bill
C-240.
It is my honour to present this on behalf of my petitioners.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first
petition comes from 1,520 petitioners of the riding of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
(1005)
They call on Parliament to reduce the federal deficit by
reducing government spending and refrain from any form of
increased taxation. The government has ignored that already.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with 1,032 petitioners
from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who call on
Parliament to oppose further legislation for firearms acquisition
and possession and to provide strict guidelines and mandatory
sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in the
commission of a violent crime.
This brings to date 2,958 petitioners from my riding. I support
both these petitions.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to present a petition with 38 signatures from citizens
of the town of Elkford calling upon Parliament not to enact any
10430
legislation that would allow doctor assisted suicide. I concur
with this petition.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today.
The first, certified pursuant to Standing Order 36, is signed by
residents of Ontario and Saskatchewan, some from the town of
Wilkie, Saskatchewan, North Battleford, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners note that Robert Latimer of Saskatchewan was
sentenced to life in prison for second degree murder with no
chance of parole for 10 years. The petitioners believe the law
should be flexible and based on the individual. They believe that
his sentence is unfair and out of proportion.
The petitioners request that Parliament grant Robert Latimer
a pardon, conditionally or unconditionally, for his conviction of
second degree murder in the death of his daughter.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by many Canadians
from all parts of the country.
The petition collected by members of the Council of
Canadians notes that the petitioners have a right to health care if
they are sick, to education if they need training, to a pension if
they are senior, to insurance against joblessness if they are a
worker, to assistance if they are poor or homeless, to day care
services if they are a parent working outside the home and to
access to cultural institutions.
The petitioners note that social programs form the very fabric
of Canada and that cuts to social programs are not necessary
since tax breaks and subsidies to wealthy individuals and
profitable corporations have caused close to half the debt while
social programs have caused less than 6 per cent.
The petitioners call on Parliament to maintain and enhance
social programs which are the right and heritage of all
Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today on behalf of the citizens of
Calgary North.
The first petition prays that Parliament will ensure that the
federal Human Rights Act will not be amended to include the
phrase sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of
discrimination.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition prays that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my duty to present a petition which calls on Parliament to
oppose amendments to the federal Criminal Code to include hate
crimes legislation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Question No. 92 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 92-Mr. Harper:
What will each department or agency spend on television, print or radio
advertising during the 1994-95 budget year?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister of Atlantic Canada
Opportunities): The following is the amount spent on or
committed to advertising for the period April 1, 1994 to
November 1, 1994 by departments and agencies through the
Advertising Management Group (AMG).
If a department or agency is not listed, it is because there was
no advertising activity undertaken for them by AMG in the
stated period. Previously, departments were required to submit
advertising plans to AMG annually. However, this was not the
case for fiscal year 1994/95.
On May 11, 1994, Public Works and Government Services
Canada (PWGSC) released new guidelines for advertising and
public opinion research contracting. AMG retains contracting
authority for these services, as well as responsibility for
providing advice and services to departments to ensure
consistency with overall government priorities. The new system
is being developed and will be implemented in fiscal year
1995/96.
![](/web/20061117183257im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1662401_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117183257im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1662401_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117183257im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1662401_r2.gif)
![](/web/20061117183257im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1662401_r3.gif)
![](/web/20061117183257im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1662401_r4.gif)
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10430
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 1 consideration of the motion
that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government; and the amendment.
(1010 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party will be splitting its time.
As this House debates the budget we are discussing the very
future of this country. We have already mortgaged our children's
future. They will not be paying for their own social programs.
They will be paying for ours.
How can government members sit here so smugly knowing
that during the course of this Parliament the amount of money
that we will have to make in interest payments will increase
from $38 billion to over $50 billion? This increase of over 30 per
cent is an additional burden that will continue to grow. Billions
fewer dollars will be available for social programs and
government operations.
The government says this is good. Liberal members say it is
all right that one-third of government spending is for
yesterday's programs. They claim they are at least slowing down
the rate of growth of interest payments. I do not see how it can be
considered much of a consolation knowing that the country is
going bankrupt at a slower rate.
All this budget does is delay the inevitable. The fact that this
budget was viewed as tough is not so much a compliment to this
budget, rather it is a scathing indictment of previous budgets. If
previous finance ministers had been sufficiently courageous to
make the necessary cuts in the past, by today's standards those
cuts would have been insignificant. Because they chose not to
make those required cuts, today we have to cut deeper.
The current Minister of Finance is now faced with tougher
choices. He could have and should have made the rights ones.
Short term pain for long term gain. Instead he took the more
masochistic route of a little pain this year and even more pain in
the following years.
The latest budget alludes to some of the changes that are
coming but it does not have the courage to address the problems
in detail, head on.
The city of White Rock in my constituency has one of the
largest concentrations of seniors in the country. Almost
one-third of the population is over 65 years of age. The budget
tells Canadians the government will be releasing a paper later
this year with changes required to the old age security and
guaranteed income supplement programs to ensure their
affordability. These changes are to take effect in 1997.
The budget documents make it clear that significant changes
are coming. While it promises undiminished protection for all
seniors who are less well off, it gives us no numbers. What does
this government consider to be well off? Is it $15,000, $20,000
or $25,000?
The Minister of Finance criticized the Reform Party for our
taxpayers' budget which stated we would reduce the money paid
to seniors by $3 billion. The minister stated this would affect all
seniors earning more than $11,000. When we include OAS, GIS
and the Canada pension plan and the fact the government pays
out $34 billion a year to seniors, $3 billion accounts for only 8.7
per cent of this total.
Is this Minister of Finance suggesting that 91 per cent of
Canadian seniors earn less than $11,000? Maybe the $11,000
10432
figure popped into the minister's head because that is the figure
he is contemplating in the Liberals' plan.
We also note the government's plan to reform the provision of
old age security benefits on the basis of family income. What a
great idea. If the government had been listening it would have
realized the Reform Party made that a part of its zero in three
package over two years ago. Reformers recognized the
unfairness of the existing system at that time. Unfortunately it
has taken the Liberals two years to recognize a good idea. Now it
will take them another two years to act on it.
At this rate by 1997 the Liberals will realize the value of our
1995 taxpayers' budget. However, we will not have to worry
about their waiting another two years to act on it because by then
Canadian voters will have unburdened them of the challenges of
providing the country with fiscal leadership.
In defending the budget the Minister of Finance frequently
commented on his belief of addressing matters with short term
goals. This philosophy of short term goals also appears to
include short sightedness.
There is no better example of this than the impending crisis
with the Canada pension plan. We have heard the plan will be
bankrupt within 20 years unless rates are doubled. The budget
states that in 35 years rates will almost have to triple.
(1015)
In order to deal with this impending crisis the budget says that
the government should-actually the budget does not say
anything. It appears this is too far in the future for the
government to be concerned. Besides, why should cabinet
members be concerned about the Canada pension plan when
they have protected themselves with their own gold plated
pension plan?
What does this impending crisis in the CPP mean to the
average Canadian? For salaried employees who make
approximately $35,000, this means their contributions will have
to jump from $850 a year to almost $2,500 a year. Every
employee will have $140 less each month to spend.
However, it is not just the employees who will suffer, but the
small business person as well. A small business that employs 10
employees who each make about $35,000 a year will have to
come up with an additional $16,000 a year in premiums. For a
lot of small businesses I would suggest this is a significant
portion of the profit margin.
The time to act on the problems with the Canada pension plan,
old age security and guaranteed income supplement is now.
Those people who are entering the job market today are the ones
who will have to deal with the pension crisis in the year 2030. It
is incumbent upon us to give them some idea of what they can
expect for a pension and give them the opportunity to plan their
lives accordingly.
We know the system has to change. We know there has to be
more individual responsibility for looking after one's
retirement. Let us be honest with Canadians today and develop
guidelines for them to plan for themselves in an appropriate
manner.
More important, let us show Canadians some leadership and
get rid of gold plated MPs pensions. If this government has
moved as far as it intends to move on MPs pensions, that is okay
too. My colleagues and I are not too concerned about fighting
the next election with the slogan: Liberals say the only way to
get rid of the obscene MP pension plan is to vote Reform.
I have a word of caution for those MPs who think they have it
made because after the next election they will be collecting their
pensions. A Reform government would make any changes in the
new MP pension plan retroactive.
As the baby boom generation approaches the pension years, it
is absolutely necessary for us to get Canada's pension plans in
order. Forget short term objectives. Think long range. As we
continue to debate this budget we cannot think of today. We have
to think of our children and their children who will be paying for
our largesse.
It is extremely unfair for our generation to ask future
generations to pay our bills. The bottom line is simple. If our
social programs are worth preserving, then they are worth
paying for. It is a disgrace that the largest expenditure in the
federal budget is interest payments.
While the self-deluded government congratulates itself for a
booming economy it is criminal that during a period of rapid
growth the percentage of the budget that is consumed by interest
payments will increase from 25 per cent to almost 33 per cent.
This is the same error made by the previous Tory regime. In the
boom years of the late 1980s it failed to bring the debt and
deficit under control. When the business cycle took a downturn
the deficit skyrocketed.
What is this government going to do when the economy hits
the down cycle? The Liberal strategy of maintaining the status
quo will lead to economic disaster. The government has taken a
small step in the right direction. Unfortunately what was needed
was an Olympic distance long jump.
I found it somewhat amusing when the Minister of Finance
announced during his budget speech that he was bringing in the
fourth largest deficit in Canadian history and his party gave him
a standing ovation. What would number one have brought him,
cartwheels in the aisles?
There is nothing to be proud of in this budget. Are the Liberals
really proud of the fact that we now spend more money in
10433
servicing the debt than we do in transfers to individuals for
social programs? Do they really think this is a good thing?
What about our borrowing habits? Are the Liberals really
happy that foreigners own over $300 billion of Canadian debt?
Think about it. With this latest budget Canadians will be paying
more money out of this country each and every year to our
foreign creditors to pay our interest charges than we will spend
on our old age security program. Is this something to be proud
of?
(1020 )
The solution is simple. If people do not want budgets that are
tailored for Bay Street or Wall Street, get rid of the deficit so we
do not have to keep going back to them for more and more.
Instead, this government is intent on going back and humbly
asking for a little less each year.
In summation the Liberals say the polls show that Canadians
are happy with the budget. However they should look closely at
the results of the Angus Reid poll where 39 per cent of
Canadians felt that the level of government spending cuts were
right; 43 per cent believed that the government cuts did not go
far enough; and 83 per cent of Canadians are expecting further
cuts.
It is time for the government to be up front with Canadians.
Make the cuts that have to be made, get our budget balanced and
start making inroads into our obscene debt. Our children can
expect nothing less.
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, before we have
questions or comments an error was made. In fact it was the
Liberals' turn to speak. With your permission we will finish the
questions and comments on the speech of the member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley and then we will go back
to the side that should have had the floor.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was
interesting yesterday in question period when I raised the
question with the Minister of Human Resources Development
whether he was actually floating a trial balloon with the idea of
increasing taxes.
One of the difficulties we and I think all Canadians have is
that we do not have any idea what the real intention of the
government is. It keeps on talking about perhaps we should be
taxed more or, as the Prime Minister says, perhaps the health act
has to be completely changed, perhaps it has to be downgraded.
The health minister says it will not happen and then the Prime
Minister turns around the next day and says it might. It seems to
be absolutely unclear as to what the intent of this government
may be with respect to the health program and tax increases.
I have felt the frustrations from people in my constituency. I
wonder if the hon. member has had the same feelings of
frustration from her constituents over the fact that the
government just does not seem to be coming clean with respect
to tax increases.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, we are being faced with our
constituents who are trying to find out what there is in the future
for them, what they can be planning for.
With the concern of health cuts and what not, the situation is
that the provincial governments are having to reduce services
because they are unable to go to the people with user fees and
whatever to provide the same level of services. The concern is
that the government promised that those services would be
maintained yet in this budget the government is reducing its
equalization or transfer payments to the provinces for those
issues.
Constituents hear the government telling them one thing and
see the government doing something completely different.
There is concern and very much uncertainty out there.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley made an
interesting comparison between the effect of the Reform
taxpayers budget and the Liberal budget.
The hon. member said that the Reform budget has the motto
short term pain for long term gain, whereas the Liberal budget
takes the masochistic approach of short term pain followed by
long term pain. It is a very interesting statement and I appreciate
it very much. I know the hon. member explained it in her speech
but perhaps she could explain it again so that perhaps the
Liberals will understand why that is and why that comparison
was made.
Ms. Meredith: I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to
remind the government when it talks about making smaller cuts
that what it is talking about is increasing the interest payments
in the year 1997 to $50 billion. When the government is
spending $50 billion on interest payments it means there will be
less money to spend on social programming.
The only alternative the government has is to take the long
term approach by taking short term pain by making the cuts now,
making sure that interest payments do not escalate to the level
they will be escalating.
(1025 )
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking for 10
minutes and will be sharing my time. Thank you very much for
recognizing my opportunity to speak.
10434
I believe that the Minister of Finance has done a masterful job
of calming and appeasing the the bond holders, the people who
move capital around the world, Wall Street, all the currency
speculators. He has done a masterful job because it was only-
Ms. Meredith: With sun glasses on.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): It was only about a
week and a half ago when I was actually inspired by the Reform
Party's budget.
I challenged the Reform members saying they did not put
enough focus and attention on the human deficit. All they want
to talk about in this Chamber is the federal deficit. They do not
seem to communicate their concern enough, in my judgment,
about the human deficit that is being inflicted not just upon our
communities and our country but all countries of the world
because of the monetary system that has evolved which many
sovereign countries right now do not seem to have a handle on.
We are one of them.
The day I spoke in the House on that issue I received a paper
from Professor Morris Miller. His paper is entitled: ``Where is
Global Interdependence Taking Us? Why We Need a New
Improved Bretton Woods''. I will read directly from the paper:
By early 1994 there was a perceptible rise in the level of concern with the
focus placed on the business of derivatives that are estimated to be outstanding
in the amount of about $16 trillion. The size and volatility has provoked a
congressional committee hearing and prompted The Economist to devote the
cover and lead editorial of the May 14-20, 1994 issue to the theme ``Your
financial future'' and to ask what the fuss is all about. The reason given is that
``the industry is new, global and already very big: the telephone number figures for
the supposed value of outstanding derivatives, $16 billion-plus, make the eyes
spin-.Lastly, there are fears that the derivatives fuel financial market uncertainty
by multiplying the leverage, debt based buying power, of hedge funds and other
speculators, an uncertainty that could, if things went wrong, threaten the whole of
the world financial system''.
I want to quote from an article which appeared in the Sunday,
March 5 Toronto
Star business classified. It is the cover story
``Billion-dollar boys'':
The Royal Bank is Canada's biggest player in international currency trading,
turning over $20 billion U.S. or more every working day. That translates into
$325 million a year in revenues and a healthy chunk of the $150 million in profit
the bank earns from its treasury operations.
It is a 24-hour a day, 365-day a year floating crap game where the players
never see each other, rarely talk to each other, yet can often tell by the buying
patterns on their monitors which bank in which city is offering them the
business.
I started off by saying that I believe the Minister of Finance
has done a masterful job in calming and appeasing the bond
holders. I say that because the reaction from all of these players
has been extremely positive.
However, I share the view of many in this House and even
members of the opposition who ask the question: What will we
do 30 months from now when the interest bill on our national
debt might be $50 billion to $60 billion? What will we do when
we have sold off federal assets coast to coast? What will we do
when we have privatized everything that is left to be privatized?
What will we do when transfers to universities and hospitals
have been cut back? How will we pay the bill?
(1030)
I suggest to the opposition that what we should do is not
unlike what world leaders did after the second world war when
they organized the United Nations conference on monetary and
trade reform called Bretton Woods. Professor Morris Miller
talks about that in his paper. That is the challenge for all of us in
this room.
The world monetary system is not working. It is broke. We are
in a canoe going down the river and all of a sudden we are in the
rapids. We all want to be responsible. We do not want to tip the
canoe. That is why I think the Minister of Finance has done a
masterful job in cooling out these croupiers, these international
casino operators that move capital and control our currency.
Exchange rates and interest rates are up and down with no public
accountability. They are not just doing it to us, they are doing it
to all sovereign states.
Who are the losers? A certain group in our community is
getting a whole lot richer and another group is getting a whole
lot poorer. We all know this. How are we going to challenge
these casino operators? How are we going to get at them?
Canada cannot do it alone. Canada must have the support, not
just of the G-7 countries but of all countries, even the new
countries since Bretton Woods, that got together and said: ``Hey,
we have a mess on our hands''.
I see lots of things in the budget that are very tough for people
who will lose their jobs. The Minister of Finance has stated that.
What could he do? This is the best he could do with the situation
that has evolved.
Mr. Abbott: Oh, really.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Absolutely. One thing
that the Minister of Finance stated in the budget that has not
received a lot of attention is the responsibility the financial
institutions in the country have toward small and medium sized
business. He challenged the financial institutions to become
more supportive, more compassionate and caring toward the
small business community. We all agree that in that community
rests the best hope for putting Canadians back to work.
In a couple of weeks we will begin meeting with the banks
again and challenging them. I for one will be asking them:
``How is it that you can operate private casinos, most of them in
10435
my city of Toronto, pushing unaccountable billions and billions
of dollars a day but we cannot seem to figure out a way to deal
with small business''. The Minister of Finance has issued that
challenge.
I realize my time is up but I would appeal to all members to let
us start directing our attention toward a new Bretton Woods.
(1035)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the comments made by the hon. member
for Broadview-Greenwood, and I realize that they are not
different from those made by other hon. members who debated
the budgets tabled in the last 30 years: reassure investors;
reassure the big banks; reassure everyone except the Canadian
voters, taxpayers and workers.
We remember their red book slogan. Strangely enough, they
do not quote the red book as they usually do. Every time we put a
question to the people opposite, they reply that it was in the red
book.
You will note that, since the budget was tabled, they tend to
ignore the red book more often than not. Their rallying cry in
1993 was ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. In Quebec and across Canada the
Prime Minister repeated one single slogan: ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. I
saw him do just that in answer to a few questions during the
leaders' debate. Whether the question had to do with turbot or
ski slopes, his answer was always the same: ``jobs, jobs, jobs''.
What does the famous budget that was tabled recently have to
say about ``jobs, jobs, jobs''? Nothing at all. They reassured
everyone. They reassured investors and foreign markets-that is
very important. However, the 29 million Canadians needing to
be reassured are never mentioned. Therefore, I wish to ask him
what he is doing to create jobs?
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I realize
that I cannot flash the red book around because some people
would consider it a display. I want to read from it. At page 109 it
states:
New multilateral regimes are needed to address many emerging global issues:
the management of global fish stocks, the protection of the world's atmosphere,
the maintenance of biodiversity, the control of population growth, the
resettlement of refugees, and the equitable sharing of global wealth and
resources. A Liberal government will foster the development of such
multilateral forums and agreements, including an improved Law of the Sea, a
new agreement on global warming, an improved international code of human
rights, and a new agenda for development that matches the Secretary General's
Agenda for Peace.
I would like to think that when the red book talks about an
equitable sharing of global wealth and resources, that deals
directly with my remarks today.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
rather surprised, if not disappointed, that the hon. member again
brought up the issue of the so-called human deficit, as though
human deficit means that if governments are not prepared to
make the cuts today they are somehow more compassionate than
if they make the necessary cuts to be able to protect the ability to
fund these programs.
I submit that the government with this budget has gone further
to lose the ability to control our currency and we are becoming
involved in the international currency casinos, as the hon.
member has stated.
Pragmatist that he is, I wonder if he is being realistic in
suggesting that Canada, as a bit player in the global world
economy, can actually bring about the kind of restructuring he is
talking about. Second, what is his position on the so-called
Tobin tax, that is, trying to recapture some taxes in the actual
exchange of currency around the world?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I want to deal with Canada's role on the world stage. I had
the privilege of working for a prime minister who, the history of
the world will show, was one of the great leaders on the world
stage and helped move Canada forward on that stage with the
respect of nearly everyone.
(1040 )
The popularity of, the current Prime Minister is even greater
than my former boss'. His relationship with President Clinton is
extraordinary. I am optimistic that if they get together with a few
other leaders-the problems are the same for all-we can get the
process started.
In response to the second point on the Tobin tax I say briefly
that part of a new Bretton Woods would have to look seriously at
the Tobin tax.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been two weeks now since the Minister of Finance
presented his budget. I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on it
and to share some of the views of my constituents after having
two weeks to consider its implications.
The people of London-Middlesex have been very
congratulatory toward the Minister of Finance. Despite the
remarks of some members in the opposition they are very
pleased the minister actually met the deficit targets he had set.
There may be debate about those targets but he announced the
targets and actually met them. He is the first minister to do so in
years. This was very positively received by my constituents.
10436
An hon. member: He has exceeded them.
Mr. O'Brien: He exceeded those targets. They see this not as
the ultimate end but as a major step in the right direction,
contrary to what we have witnessed over the past several years.
What the minister has done in the budget is put the Canadian
family on a diet. We have gained an unhealthy, crushing weight
which must be lost. We know that. It is the deficit and the debt.
This weight was not gained suddenly. It was not gained
overnight. No one party, no one group of our society is at fault
here, despite the views of some that look for simplistic answers
and are quick to point the finger. This crushing weight was
gained as a nation and that is how it must be lost. It must be lost
gradually. It will not be effectively lost in any sudden
downsizing or slash and burn approach to the problem.
Similarly it is a sensible way for an individual to lose weight.
Canadians are all too familiar with the problem, many of them
being overweight, as I confess to be. It is the sensible approach
to take in trying to deal with the serious economic problems we
face.
In October 1993 two visions were put before the people of
Canada about this serious problem. There was the gradual,
determined downsizing approach of our party and the more
dramatic, sudden effort to downsize put forward by the Reform
Party. In a democratic way the people of Canada spoke on
October 25, 1993. They made it very clear with the results by
passing judgment on the previous government's efforts in this
regard. They very clearly chose between the two options
presented by the Liberal Party and the Reform Party.
It is clear to me as it is to most Canadians that this nation
deliberately chose a sensible, gradual approach to downsizing
and to eliminating the deficit and debt. Given the reception of
the budget in the two weeks since it was presented, Canadians
have once again endorsed this approach.
Acceptance of this budget is very high. National and
international financial experts have lauded it as balanced, as
fair, as a common sense way to deal with our problems. I am not
necessarily enamoured of experts, frankly. The people I am most
interested in hearing from are the people of Canada. Roughly 70
per cent of them-this has varied by a point here or there from
day to day-have consistently said they are pleased with the
budget brought in by the Minister of Finance.
There are those critics that feel the budget was too easy, too
soft and not tough enough. It is interesting because in consulting
very widely with my constituents I have not heard that from the
poor in the country. I have not heard it from the unemployed. I
have not heard from the disadvantaged that the budget was too
easy or too soft. I would submit that it certainly was not too easy
or too soft.
(1045)
Then we have critics who suggest that the budget is much too
fair and is draconian in what it is attempting to do. I do not hear
that from people who are trying to find work and are looking to
us to help create jobs.
The unemployed with whom I have spoken know full well that
if the government is to help create the climate for jobs and help
them find meaningful employment, it will be done by putting
our financial house in order.
I was gratified to hear from some of the unemployed in my
riding that they understand the minister had to make the tough
choices he made and the road to their personal economic future
is that the nation's finances must be put back in order.
We hear seven or eight provinces claiming to be the hardest
hit. How seven or eight provinces are hardest hit by the budget is
beyond me, but that is exactly what we have been hearing.
When I hear a cry from one side that it is much too tough and
from the other side that it is not tough enough, I am inclined to
say that many of my constituents believe the budget is well
balanced. It is tough but fair and the minister got it about right.
They do not like all of the budget. I do not like each and every
single thing in the budget. Certainly Canadians do not like the
pain that is in the budget for them individually, be they farmers
in western Canada or some of my farm constituents, be they
business people-
Mr. Cannis: Nothing is perfect.
Mr. O'Brien: That is right. Nothing is perfect and no budget
is perfect. However Canadians generally accept that the budget
is tough and fair and that the cuts undertaken were necessary.
Let me come to my constructive criticism that I have had the
opportunity to make personally to the Prime Minister. In certain
cases we could be selectively tougher. That is the way I would
put it.
I hope future budgets will be a little tougher on wealthy
individuals and corporations. I applaud the move to be tougher
with the banks, but perhaps we will have to go further. Quite
frankly the signal I hear from the minister and from the
government. There is a message in the budget for the banks, for
wealthy individuals and for corporations that there are other
budgets to come and if they are not going to do more to help the
economy of the country get going tougher measures can be
brought in. This is something I will be watching closely as a
Canadian and as a member of Parliament on the government side
of the House.
The specifics of the budget are well known, but let me recall
for Canadians two or three of the most important points. The key
interim deficit target, as I said, was met and exceeded as my
colleagues have pointed out: 3 per cent GDP by 1996-97.
10437
The debt to GDP ratio, the size of the debt relative to the
economy, begins to decline in 1996-97. The cartoon many of us
saw was very appropriate. It was of Canada moving along the
road, suddenly hitting something called the Martin budget and
making a significant turn in the road. The budget represents a
significant turn in the road. We are now on the path to getting out
of the deficit and debt spiral we have put ourselves in for too
long as a country.
For every dollar in new tax revenues $7 in expenditure
reductions were made. That is the kind of downsizing Canadians
are looking for from government.
To those who say that the budget was too tough, I say reflect
on the debt load of the country. We do not want to see a collapse
of our social programs. The cuts that were undertaken are
necessary to ensure the social programs put in place by past
Liberal governments, with I acknowledge many ideas coming
from the NDP, will be preserved.
(1050 )
To those who say the budget was not tough enough, I say
consider the reduced spending, the downsizing of government
and the hitting of our targets. Indeed it was a job well done.
Seventy per cent of Canadians support the budget. That is the
reality.
I know it is not politically popular in certain parts of the
House to acknowledge that fact. I understand that, but the reality
is that it has been a widely accepted budget. It is one that
Canadians can look forward to seeing repeated in years to come
by the minister and the government.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the hon. member for
London-Middlesex talk about fairness in the country and in the
budget. I remind him that during the election the government
promised to keep article XI of the GATT negotiations. It had to
break that promise. Fairness is fairness; it could not do much
about it.
In the federal budget the government announced a three-year
withdrawal of funding for genetic evaluation and milk recording
programs because they were contrary to GATT. It seems to me
the same week the U.S. government announced an additional
$600 million of funding toward these programs. Is that fairness?
Is that the type of protection the government is to give its dairy
farmers?
I know we do not need subsidies, but surely to goodness there
should be some fairness. Or, are government members trying to
make sure they have a good supply of chocolate milk from the
president? We could be running short of fairness and I am
wondering how he would justify it.
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my
colleague.
On article XI, 20 per cent of my constituents are agricultural
people in rural settings. As the hon. member well knows, one of
the first issues the government dealt with was article XI. My
constituents and I submit that most Canadian farmers
understand, as the member said, we could not do much about it.
Canada stood alone and voted to maintain article XI. I do not
know what else the government could have done than to stand
alone, virtually totally alone in the world on something that
important.
For my colleague's information, my riding of
London-Middlesex in southwestern Ontario is one of the most
active dairy farming parts of Canada. Before the budget the
concern brought to me was that the government would somehow
give into pressure and suddenly totally end dairy subsidies.
Frankly as late as last week some leading dairy farmers in my
riding advised me that the 15 per cent cut followed by am
additional 15 per cent cut was the kind of gradual, common
sense reduction that would allow them to adjust. They were
relieved that the government had the common sense not to
suddenly end the subsidy because there were those calling for it.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member said that he was proud of the government's budget, that
he was proud it met the deficit target for the first year, and that
the budget must be balanced slowly.
If the budget must be balanced slowly, how will the
government explain to Canadians in two years when interest
payments will have increased from $39 billion a year to $51
billion?
The member for Broadview-Greenwood asked the question
a few minutes ago. What will we do when Canada faces federal
government interest payments of $50 billion to $60 billion a
year? His answer was that we would hold a world meeting like
the one held after the second world war to deal with the problem.
(1055 )
Does the hon. member think the problem should be dealt with
in a world meeting which may or may not happen? Or, should we
face the reality of government overspending and deal with the
problem in Canada by setting a definite target for deficit
elimination, complete elimination, and meeting it, not just
reducing the deficit?
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, the question is whether we should
concentrate on the problems here or have a world meeting, The
answer is pretty easy and obvious. Of course we should do both.
Canada does not stand alone in the world. No country, not even
the greatest economic giants, can isolate itself from the global
world situation.
10438
Obviously we have to do both and the Minister of Finance has
done just that. That is why the budget is being applauded both at
home and by international experts throughout the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I must
inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with my
colleague from Manicouagan.
On Monday, February 27, the Minister of Finance tabled his
1995 budget before this House. Make no mistake about where I
am coming from. I am, of course, in favour of streamlining
public expenditures. I am also for a fair and efficient method of
taxation by which the rich pay more and the less fortunate are
protected.
How can this government keep hitting on the same group of
people time after time, with each new budget measure,
penalizing middle income taxpayers and digging into their
pockets for millions and millions of dollars when it would be so
easy to deal with the real problem and collect substantial
amounts in a jiffy by making those who can afford it pay their
share?
With its new budget, this government will cut $560 million in
subsidies paid to railway companies with respect to grain
transportation. At the same time, milk producers are seeing their
subsidies cut without any compensation. It will be no news to
anyone if I tell you that half of milk produced in Canada comes
from Quebec. Yet, let it be known that our province is not as
fortunate as Western provinces. No one told us about the rise in
the price of milk, bread, butter and other dairy products that will
result from this budget.
Who will foot the bill, if not the little people? Stop cutting
essential public services and social assistance, which are so vital
in these times we are going through. Why wait until 1999 to
enforce the 21-year rule with respect to taxing capital gains on
investments in family trusts? Why not start right now? Can you
tell me why this four-year delay is necessary? Must I remind
you that the Liberal government is thereby forfeiting hundreds
of millions in revenue each year? Can we afford to do without
such revenue at this time? Not likely.
And what about tax havens? There is nothing whatsoever in
this budget concerning the 16 tax treaties Canada has signed
with countries considered as tax havens. What are we to make of
a $100 million temporary tax on the capital of banks, when the
Royal Bank's net profit for 1994 was $1,169,000,000? The same
year, it paid its president $2,740,000. I wonder at what rate that
salary was taxed.
(1100)
What is the result of that nice performance? The Royal Bank
laid off 3,500 employees.
Let us recover the unpaid taxes and GST payments. According
to the auditor general, thousands of companies owe several
billion dollars in unpaid taxes on their profits. This is
unacceptable.
Can the Minister of Finance put himself in the shoes of an
ordinary person, who does not share his philosophy and
certainly not his definition of philanthropy?
The speech made by the hon. member is laudable, honourable
and perhaps justified, but can the same be said of his motives, or
are those merely related to the referendum?
The money saved by making cuts to the UI program and
transfer payments to the provinces is now used to finance part of
the provinces' spending on welfare, post-secondary education
and health.
I do not understand why these cuts do not apply to 1995; they
are being postponed until 1996, 1997 and 1998.
Does the minister really think that no one will notice? I am
convinced that, faced with the same situation, the federal
government would have noticed.
On February 26, it was reported in the media that Quebec was
deprived of $650 million in the national defence sector. What
better way to correct that injustice than to eliminate 285 direct
jobs at the Bagotville military base? The same could be said
about the Saint-Hubert base. Yes, 285 jobs and, in the process,
an elementary school with 10 classrooms. The fact is that over
1,000 people will be affected by these cuts. Once again, a
decision was made without those affected being consulted.
Entire families will be uprooted from their community.
Following these cuts, how many small businesses from my
region will have to lay off people or even shut down? The local
population just does not accept that decision. It would be more
appropriate to refer to my region as the queen of unemployment
rather than the kingdom of Saguenay.
That decision will result in the loss of several million dollars
for the region. While the province of Quebec is starting to
recover from a hard recession, our region of
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean is sinking deeper and deeper into an
inescapable economic slump. Our young people are leaving in
droves.
Just take a look at the most recent data released by Statistics
Canada. Last month, our unemployment rate jumped by one per
cent, while it went down by one per cent just about everywhere
else in the country.
The ICI organization in my region summed it up well when it
stated that, and I quote: ``Our region is a group of distinct
communities which, as everyone knows, contribute a lot, in their
own way, to the social, cultural, economic and political
enrichment of Quebec and Canada''.
10439
What better way to thank that region and its residents for their
support than to cut over 285 jobs in the military sector?
In addition to holding many surprises for the years following
the referendum, the 1995 budget does not deal with the real
issue. It does not deal with unemployment.
The Liberal government refuses to use the surplus in the UI
fund to implement concrete job-creating initiatives. The
government wants to reduce the deficit, but it does not resort to
concrete measures and prefers to transfer the problem to the
provinces.
(1105)
I realize once again that, with its budget, the Liberal
government is showing all Quebecers that the federal system
does not work and that it would be much wiser on our part to get
rid of it.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
a very simple question for the hon. member for Chicoutimi. He
referred at length to the budget and to the connection he sees
with the forthcoming referendum in Quebec.
Since he brought this up, I wonder whether the hon. member
for Chicoutimi is in favour, as his leader seems to be, of
changing the question for the referendum. The issue is relevant
to this debate on the Budget, since he mentioned it himself.
Furthermore, it creates a climate of uncertainty, as Premier
Parizeau clearly admitted in his various speeches and statements
on Parti Quebecois policy.
Considering the impact of this issue on the economy of the
country and on the budgetary process, I would like to know
whether the hon. member for Chicoutimi personally favours
changing the question, or whether he would agree that this is a
lot of window dressing, in other words, an attempt to manipulate
the electorate. The option has not changed. It is still the same.
The option is independence or federalism, and as far as I know
that has not changed; but as far as change in the referendum
question is concerned, we can expect, or at least we have the
impression that there is some trickery afoot. I would be
interested to hear the hon. member's position on this matter.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not so sure the
question as such has a direct connection with the budget.
However, I will respond to the issue raised by the hon. member
for Sherbrooke and tell him that, for the time being, everything
is on the table.
If the hon. member for Sherbrooke had any suggestions for
the Government of Quebec as to the form and substance of the
question to be asked in the referendum, he could have
participated in a democratic exercise in which the National
Assembly of Quebec gave all residents a chance to be heard. He
failed to participate in this exercise which would have given him
a chance to explain his position before the public.
I could also mention the outcome of the election in
Brome-Missisquoi. I think voters made it quite clear to the
hon. member for Sherbrooke that what he represented was not
what they wanted. His party came in fourth or fifth.
My position is that, with our natural resources, with our
culture and with everything we have developed in Quebec in
recent years, the people are ready for this question, and they are
ready to say yes.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder
how much longer we will have to endure this same tiresome line
from the Bloc, constantly referring everything that happens in
this House to the specifics of how it will affect Quebec. Never
mind the country, just Quebec. Frankly, it drives me nuts.
He mentioned the milk subsidies and the 30 per cent cut over
two years. He said the west received a much better deal because
it received restitution for the cut of the Crow benefit. I wonder if
he realizes or if he chooses to ignore that the cut to the Crow
benefit was 100 per cent and immediate. He is talking about a 30
per cent cut over two years.
He also states quite correctly that 50 per cent of fluid milk
production comes from Quebec. I wonder what he thinks will
happen to all that subsidized milk production if he gets his
dream of independence and the Canadian market is cut off, as it
naturally would be-
The Deputy Speaker: I think the question is clear.
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, first, I must say that Quebec has
been trying for over 100 years. Quebecers delegated members of
Parliament to this House to defend their ideas.
We realized, at the end of debates, that our very simple
questions were getting very little response. Whether it is
agriculture, rail transportation or natural resource development,
Quebec has always had to fight harder to achieve its goals.
Today, with what we are offering Quebecers-and rest assured
that we will be able to sell our dairy products, regardless,
because they are quality products-
The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Debate resumes with
the hon. member for Manicouagan.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we were promised a tough budget focused on renewal. Tough, it
was for sure. But it was tough for the disadvantaged, once again,
with social programs being blithely cut directly and indirectly.
As for the renewal part of it, it did not quite make it. There was
10440
no provision for job creation. Let us look at a few examples to
justify my remarks.
I represent the riding of Manicouagan. In this riding, social
programs take on considerable importance because the rate of
unemployment is higher than the national average and also
because the distances between villages is a serious impediment
to the region's economic development.
When I say the rate of unemployment is high, it is true. And
when the minister once again with a vengeance went after the
most disadvantaged, that is the unemployed, well, the people in
our area were affected on February 27 by the tabling of this
budget. Already, in a region like ours, where, east of
Natashquan, 85 per cent of the population depends on fishing,
the people had to work 12 weeks in 1994 instead of the previous
10, in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.
In my riding, and more particularly east of Natashquan,
managing to have six weeks' work was quite an achievement,
given that the department of fisheries, on the other hand, was
cutting quotas in order to preserve stocks. I do not question the
merits of this, but people were losing weeks of work on the sea
so stocks could be preserved. When you try to relate these two,
that is, preservation of stocks and therefore fewer weeks of
fishing, on the one hand, and the need for more weeks of work to
be eligible for unemployment insurance, on the other, things do
not add up once again.
In his February 27 budget, the Minister of Finance found
another way to go after the people of Manicouagan. Just like
that, he said that he was going to cut their unemployment
insurance cheques by 10 per cent. In a way, he makes no
distinction between people who live in Manicouagan,
Saint-Hubert, Laurier-Sainte-Marie or Charlevoix.
In addition, my region is affected by the $300 million cuts to
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The
unemployment rate is very high, as I said, and, consequently,
many people live in housing managed by the CMHC. For
unemployed people, and for those who have gone a step further
and receive social assistance, finding low-rental housing is of
capital importance. With one stroke of the pen, the minister
added another hardship to the lives of the needy who, like you
and me, will always be in need of lodging.
(1115)
There are vital needs that the government must not play with
if it wants to maintain the standard of living, such as food and
lodging. In one speech, the Minister of Finance went after both
simultaneously.
By skimming 10 per cent from unemployment insurance
cheques, he took away quality and a good part of the food. By
cutting the CMHC's funding by $300 million, he deprived many
households, many families, often single-parent families, might
I add, according to the statistics, of decent housing. Therefore,
how much respect can the government really have for the
population if it is not even committed to keeping just the basic
elements that make up society's standard of living? If that is not
taking it out on the needy, I do not know what is.
People in my riding will also be affected by changes to the
health care and education system, but naturally, in an indirect
way. Indirect because the minister calls these indirect cuts
``decentralization''. Allow me to explain. The minister
anticipates that transfer payments to the provinces will be cut by
$7 billion. Now, we all know that the provinces use that money
to provide health care and education to their population. Yes,
there is duplication, because the provinces are already
administering these programs. But it is not decentralization, it is
dumping the deficit in the provinces' backyards.
They are offloading the deficit because the provinces will get
$7 billion less but will still be expected to provide the same
services. However, the federal government is careful not to
withdraw completely from health care and education for the
simple reason that it wants to standardize these areas and raise
standards so that it will be a little more costly for the provinces
to operate in these fields.
They cut their financial support every year but still manage to
give just enough to impose standards that end up costing a lot of
money. They cut financial support without giving the provinces
any additional decision-making powers. The minister calls this
``decentralization'', but in truth it amounts to offloading their
deficit onto the provinces.
When people get sick in my riding on the North Shore, where
the roads are inadequate, they must be transported by plane. We
must give financial help to some doctors so that they can travel
to remote areas like the North Shore. One does not choose to get
sick in Kuujjuaq or Natashquan any more than in downtown
Toronto.
There is also the gasoline tax. Again, the Minister of Finance
did not discriminate, but that is not necessarily a good thing. Let
us not forget that unemployed people looking for jobs hope that
any dollar they put in their gas tanks will yield results. This
measure will affect them indirectly once again. The budget does
not say anything about job creation. The Liberal government got
elected on its red book promises by shouting from the rooftops
that they would create jobs.
In the first year of his mandate, the Minister of Finance and all
the other Liberal members proclaimed to all and sundry that
they would address the deficit by creating jobs. Yet, the
February 27 budget showed us the true face of the Liberal Party,
which does not do anything to create jobs. Instead, they went
after the most needy while protecting their friends and being
careful to keep up appearances and look good, which is
important to the Liberal Party, of course. When I say that they
are protecting their friends, I am referring among other things to
family trusts.
10441
However, I will not elaborate on this, because I do not have
enough time.
This budget is a skilful political juggling act but in fact, there
is nothing in it which really addresses the real social problems
by creating jobs.
(1120)
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member talked about the cuts in transfers to provinces under the
Liberal budget. He talked about them as being downloading,
which they are.
In the Reform taxpayers' budget, the alternative budget
Reform presented, we also had reductions in transfers to
provinces. We transferred the tax points along with the
reductions. We transferred the ability of the provinces to raise
the revenue to compensate for this reduction in transfers to
provinces.
Let us use the analogy of a chicken and an egg. The
government now transfers eggs to provinces so they can pay for
some of their programs, done through transfer payments.
Instead of transferring individual eggs to the provinces, the
Liberals transferred a carton of eggs except they removed two.
Therefore they transferred 10 eggs instead of the dozen. They
cut the transfers.
There are also strings attached because of the regulations
under the Canada Health Act. Instead of transferring the carton
with fewer eggs Reform transferred the whole chicken. That is
the program. We transferred the revenue producing ability to the
provinces. Instead of transferring individual eggs and keeping
the chicken as the Liberals have done in their program, Reform
transferred the whole chicken so that revenue is in the hands of
the provinces. They can fund these programs.
This would be popular in Quebec. Quebecers want more
control of their future. Quebec generally is in favour of
decentralization to the provinces.
I would like the hon. member to respond to what the Liberals
have done in cutting transfers and not cutting the revenue
producing ability as compared to what Reform proposed in the
taxpayers' budget of cutting transfers to provinces but giving
provinces the power to collect that revenue instead of the federal
government and therefore giving provinces much more control
over their own programs and their own resources.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent: You know, Mr. Speaker, each minute the
House sits is very important and certainly costs taxpayers a lot
of money. I have great respect for the Reform Party's
hypothetical budget, but if we start hypothesizing about
hypothetical budgets in the House of Commons, we better
change its name to House of Utopia.
I think our taxpayers deserve more respect than that. I have
respect for the Reform Party and its budget, but
unfortunately-or perhaps fortunately; Canada will decide after
the referendum-this party is not in power. Let us look at more
factual matters, matters before us today and that we have to deal
with. Much as I respect Reform Party members, the fact remains
that their Party's budget is nothing more than a piece of paper
for the time being.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of my most rewarding duties as a member of
Parliament is to visit schools in my riding and meet with
students.
Three weeks ago I participated in such a visit. As usual I
found the questions asked by the students quite interesting, the
Quebec referendum, unemployment insurance and the
environment.
I was struck by a very distressing thought. Each of these
students has a huge debt hanging over their head. Because of the
size of our national debt, those young students are starting out
life with a $19,000 mortgage. Unlike past generations that could
build their hopes and dreams on the solid granite of public
finances, these young people are building their dreams on
quicksand.
(1125 )
I cannot accept that. I entered politics to give a voice to young
Canadians too often forgotten by past governments. It is
fundamentally unfair to expect young Canadians to pay a debt
incurred by past generations. It is particularly irresponsible for
Canadians who have lived beyond their means for so many
years.
That is why I am so proud to be a member of this government.
This is a moment of great importance in our history. For the first
time in many years Canada has a government and a finance
minister ready to do what must be done in order to control the
deficit.
The minister's budget speech was nothing less than a call to
arms to all Canadians. We must band together to defeat the
deficit and the debt. Steadily, silently these two economic forces
are robbing our government of the strength and sapping it of the
vitality it needs to foster growth, care for the needy and invest in
the future.
For too long governments have postponed tough decisions.
For too long governments have been pretending everything was
fine while borrowing another $30 billion and $40 billion from
our children. Now we have finally turned the corner.
A nation that has been sleep walking toward the precipice of
bankruptcy has awakened with one foot on the edge of the cliff.
Our government has the will to do what is necessary. As
important, it has the support of the Canadian people.
10442
Canadians are willing to support this government because
they have seen the positive results of our financial stewardship.
In the first year of our mandate 433,000 new jobs were created,
all of them full time. Canada's economy grew at about 4.5 per
cent, the fastest of the G-7. Manufacturing output is up over 9
per cent and inflation is at its lowest rate in 30 years.
At the local level the results are as encouraging. In Toronto
unemployment dropped from 12 per cent to 9 per cent between
January 1994 and January 1995. In my area of York region
unemployment insurance claims have dropped from 70,491 to
13,773 in the same period.
When I speak to people in my riding I sense a renewed sense
of hope, a sense of confidence. Business people are investing
again, Canadians are working again.
Canadians know that our recovery will be threatened unless
we get our financial house in order. They realize everyone must
make sacrifices. Canadians must all share the burden of debt
reduction.
Our government will reduce spending but it will also
rationalize its operations, targeting spending to where it can do
the most good. For every $1 of new tax revenue there will be $7
worth of cuts in expenditure.
Above and beyond deficit targets, this budget is about
reinventing government. It clarifies the role of government
within a new socioeconomic order in which the old rules do not
apply.
To improve Canada's social safety net our government will
introduce a number of innovative measures. It will establish the
Canada social transfer. The CST will replaced established
programs financing and the Canada assistance plan. It will cut
unnecessary red tape, ensuring that the provinces will have
maximum flexibility to design the programs that meet their
needs.
(1130)
The budget also calls for the creation of a human resources
investment fund. The fund would involve a broad approach to
employability issues. The functioning of the Canadian labour
market would be in congruence with UI reform and the
consolidated transfer.
The human resources investment fund could encompass
support for a wide range of employment development services
including assessment, counselling, training, work experience,
self-employment and community development; the
development of occupational standards; national labour market
information; sectoral councils; child care for working parents; a
national workplace strategy; programs and services responsive
to the needs of aboriginal Canadians; assistance for persons with
disabilities; and assistance for students and adult learners.
The restructuring and redesigning of programs could be based
on principles established by the social security reform and
linked to increased flexibility in the use of the UI fund. These
principles include tailored programs to individual client needs,
delivery involving community partners and the private sector,
the use of modern technologies, national standards and
priorities.
The government intends to reform the UI system to bring it
into line with the new economic realities facing the nation. A
greater emphasis will be placed on helping Canadians acquire
skills and find work. We will move away from traditional UI and
focus on investing in people. We will replace despair,
dependency and defeatism with ambition, autonomy and
advancement.
The government has signalled its intention to protect senior
citizens. At present old age security and the guaranteed income
supplement cost Canadians over $20 billion a year. It is
estimated the cost will increase by 60 per cent over the next 15
years as the population ages. Clearly Canadians would want us
to do something about it.
The 1995 budget sets out the principles that will govern the
reform of OAS and GIS: undiminished protection for less well
off seniors, continuation of full indexation of benefits, OAS
benefits to be provided with reference to family income levels,
greater progressivity of benefits by income level and control of
program costs. This will be a very important step toward
achieving intergenerational equity.
These are all positive developments in the evolution of the
nation. The budget holds the promise of a better tomorrow. It
says to Canadians that the sacrifices we make today are for a
greater good. Sound public finances are the bedrock of a
prosperous future. Freedom from debt is the greatest legacy we
can leave our children.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, let me
first congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his last phrase.
He said that freedom from debt was the greatest legacy we could
leave our children, if I understood correctly. I only wish he had
said that in the years he was sitting on this side of the House.
However that is another story.
I want to put a question to the parliamentary secretary who I
know is very much in the loop in terms of what is happening
within government. I asked him a question about 10 days ago in
the House relative to pension reform that he talked about in his
speech. He evoked principles relative to pension reform. I am
very interested in the issue. It is one that needs to be tackled
head on. I agree this is something that requires the immediate
attention of the country if we are to resolve some of the difficult
issues.
(1135)
I am assuming the government is not improvising pension
reform, something so important that the parliamentary secretary
chose to speak to it. For example, he mentioned a 60 per cent
increase in expenditures over 15 years. That is not a number he
10443
invented or drew out of a hat. It must have come from
somewhere.
Given the importance of the issue to all Canadians and the
consequences evoked-and I believe there is a bit of a hidden
agenda in the budget-I have a very direct and simple question
for the parliamentary secretary. In fairness to Canadians is the
government willing to have all Canadians participate in the
debate so we will all know what the choices are?
I guess whether he answers will be an indication of whether
there is a hidden agenda. Will the government agree to table in
the House of Commons for all of us to see, read and reflect upon
the studies the government has undertaken with regard to
pension reform?
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member
that it is a very important issue. A lot is at stake in the issue of
social security reform.
Unlike past governments that ran away from the challenge of
discussing major issues such as training, unemployment
insurance, child care, and reforming and modernizing the
system, we decided to engage Canadians in the dialogue and to
consult with Canadians.
The hon. member can rest assured the government will
consult Canadians on any measure we take related to the issue of
pension reform. It will consult all members of the House in the
same manner and fashion as we engaged in prebudget
consultations, social security review and many other issues
ranging from defence to external affairs. The government has
created many opportunities for Canadians to participate in
dialogue with the Government of Canada.
With reference to the specific question on pension reform, the
hon. member has clearly read the budget documents. He has read
the five principles outlined. From the day the Minister of
Finance tabled the document until today nothing has changed on
the government's agenda.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed the parliamentary secretary's kind words, but
there is a saying on the farm that kind words and good intentions
do not feed too many animals.
I am just wondering how he can say that the government is
after financial stewardship. At the research station at Morden,
one of the most successful research stations in Canada, 40 per
cent of the jobs were cut. It took away the buckwheat program
and the potato program. It moved them up north where they
could all freeze. Is that good financial planning?
I see their pension funds have not been cut too drastically.
However, does he know of a program called the Canadian polar
commission? The polar commission takes $1,081,000 from the
government. It employs six people and half the money goes to
salaries. The commission spends on the dissemination of
information. The amount of transfers to people looking into this
matter is $20,000.
Is it financial responsibility to spend $20,000 out of
$1,081,000 on the actual work and the rest on salaries? I would
like to see some improvements there.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, at the expense of sounding
immodest, we have to look at the record. When we look at job
creation under the government we see 433,000 new jobs. We
also see a government that is looking at a number of issues
including program reviews. It is looking at the programs that are
working and the ones that are not. It is creating a climate for new
jobs.
(1140 )
If the hon. member had listened to the speech of the Minister
of Finance speech, he would have found that we are hitting all
the targets we have set. We are moving toward achieving the
results that Canadians wanted during the election campaign.
The red book is being honoured and Canadians seem to be
extremely happy with the performance of the present
government. Perhaps the hon. member should join in the
applause.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am anxious to participate in the debate on the 1995
budget because I believe it represents an historic occasion in our
country's evolution.
It is not the kind of budget I would normally want for Canada.
I would rather enhance programs than reduce them. I would
rather be involved in introducing new programs than analysing
the effectiveness of existing ones. As Liberals I am sure most of
us agree that the budget was born of necessity, not ideology.
Our social programs are threatened by our cumulative debt
and our annual deficit. I am not one of those obsessed by debt.
My banker can attest to that. However, I am very protective of
our sovereignty as a nation and our ability to design and
implement public policy and programs that reflect Canada's
values as a generous and civilized nation.
Because we borrowed to finance our programs we have
allowed foreign lenders to affect domestic policy in a manner
that simply is unacceptable. We must reclaim our ability to
pursue a style of governance that reflects Canadian values:
compassion, equity, tolerance and pluralism. These are
Canadian values. Many elements of the Canadian way of life
may be uniquely Canadian. Our responsibility is not only to
these ideals as they affect us as a nation. Our responsibility is to
these ideals as a world leader, as a country that others turn to.
Another threat our social programs face is much more
practical. In 1995-96 debt charges will consume $49.5 billion of
our annual spending. Over the last 15 years interest payments
have grown from $8.5 billion to $42 billion and have devoured
over $445 billion of taxpayers' money, dollars I would much
prefer to
10444
see placed in the hands of Canadians in need, dollars better spent
on social housing or literacy instruction, dollars we need to
eradicate child poverty, and dollars we need to meet our
international obligations as a nation of great wealth and
advantage. The thought of how much better we might use these
dollars causes me to accept the need to reduce the deficit.
The unproductive nature of interest expenditure is partially
responsible for the resistance of Canadians to broad tax
increases. Our citizens pay more but see less in return as we
finance past expenditure.
Even as I speak in favour of deficit reduction, I call on our
government to exercise compassion and creativity as it
implements the budget over the next 12 months. All Canadians
must share in the mission of reclaiming our fiscal and monetary
autonomy. In return, government has the responsibility to be
fair, creative, thoughtful and forthright.
The approach I endorse contrasts dramatically with that
outlined by the Reform Party in its recent attempt at a budget
proposal. While the Reform Party's position does not surprise
me, I do find shocking that my colleague from Saint John would
support it. Does the fact that she supports the view we have not
eliminated the deficit quickly and decisively enough also mean
that she supports the approach as outlined? The Reform agenda
would destroy the fragile but real recovery we are experiencing
in New Brunswick. It is sad its prescribed medicine would only
push us back into the sick bed of dependency it speaks of so
often.
The government is committed to a balanced but disciplined
approach to deficit reduction. Canadians have been asked to
help and I believe there exists an acceptance of the need to bring
revenue and expenditure closer together.
(1145 )
The Minister of Finance is committed to seeing social tax
expenditures scrutinized with the same vigour as has been
applied to other social spending. He has acknowledged the need
for more comprehensive tax reforms.
The government has spoken of Canada's commitment
internationally on the need to come to terms with currency
speculation and sharing more fairly the benefits of new
technologies.
Not only does the government need to balance spending
reduction with tax fairness, it is also necessary to be prepared to
do things differently, to be more creative, to consider solutions
quite outside conventional thinking in the application of the
budget.
Significant change does not come easily in large
bureaucracies. Through no one's fault inertia is a powerful force
and change, particularly dramatic change is seldom seen.
Canadians from all walks of life have been asked to change their
thinking, to expect less and contribute more.
I believe we will meet that challenge but in return,
government must be prepared to change its thinking, to listen
seriously and consider outside, sometimes unconventional,
solutions.
As a member of the parliamentary committee on human
resources development, I can attest to the fact that many
Canadians believe for example that the federal government
should show leadership in eliminating overtime and considering
a shorter work week. This would soften the effect of expenditure
reduction on our employees while setting an example for other
governments and the private sector with the view of sharing
better the jobs that currently exist in this country.
A second area where government must show leadership is in
our approach to economic development. We must carve out
clearly in a mixed economy the role of government and apply
available resources and regulatory power toward that end. We
must be prepared to use our legitimate power to make the market
work for as many Canadians as possible, whether it is increasing
the availability of capital to small and medium sized businesses,
direct financial support for community development, pushing
more forcefully the need for private sector retraining and
upgrading, or taking a more vocal stand internationally on
questions of employment standards or tax fairness.
If the government can no longer afford to offer as much
protection to those for whom the market does not work, it must
accept a larger role in ensuring that the market works for more
Canadians.
I said at the start that I was anxious to participate in this
debate because it marks the beginning of a new era for Canada.
Some Canadians have said we are getting meaner. Others,
unhappily, say we have not been mean enough. I am an optimist.
I believe we can find that place where we gradually disentangle
ourselves from the vulnerable relationship we have with the
money markets but where we also recognize the vulnerable
relationship many Canadians have with us.
Yes, we can find that balance but ultimately it is not in the
numbers. The balance we seek and must find lies in the hearts
and minds of Canadians, in our compassion, our creativity, our
generosity and ingenuity.
As a member of the committee that travelled Canada for the
social security review, I can assure the House that Canadians
have ideas, ideas born of a desire to eradicate poverty, to teach
people to read and offer shelter and jobs. They want us to listen,
10445
to work with them, to be more inclusive both in our policy
development process and in the results we hope to achieve.
Over the coming months the government will be engaged in
discussions with the provinces among others on the question of
the social transfers. Much of what Canada will look like in the
future will be affected by these discussions. They must be driven
by a vision for the kind of Canada we want and can afford for our
children.
To engage in the exercise without considering affordability
would be irresponsible and frankly silly. However, to engage in
the exercise without a national vision would be equally
irresponsible. What is more, it would be an abdication of our
responsibility to those whose vision and determination have
brought us to where we are: the country recognized objectively
as the best place in the world in which to live.
What is better than that? We have to stop beating ourselves
up. We have to stop beating each other up. All this talk of crisis
and catastrophe should not cause us to lose sight of the
comparative credibility and objectivity between the United
Nations and some analyst with the Wall Street Journal.
(1150 )
We have a debt and deficit problem. We will fix it. We are a
wealthy, safe, generous nation with a magnificent future. For
those who think otherwise I can only turn to the vocabulary of
my 10-year old son and say get with the program.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals constantly talk about the whole issue of cutting slowly.
I wonder if the member has had a mortgage on his home. I will
assume that he has, along with probably 90 per cent of
Canadians. Let us say it is a $50,000 mortgage and he is paying
$500 a month. He probably knows that when he first starts
paying on the mortgage very little goes toward the principal.
Most of his $500 payment is going toward the interest. I also
wonder whether the hon. member has had the opportunity
perhaps through an inheritance or hard work on his part to put
$10,000 toward the mortgage and seeing that instead of the
money going toward interest that suddenly he is paying more on
principal.
In other words, going slowly on deficit reduction simply does
not work. To get the deficit to a point where it is not continuing
to add to the burden of the debt there must be prompt, aggressive
action so that we will not be doing away with our ability to fund
the social programs, so that we will be able to reverse the
situation that is forecast and planned for by his government of
increasing interest payments from $38 billion to just under $51
billion. That $13 billion is eating up the ability to fund social
programs.
Surely there must be some Liberal in this House who has had
the experience of making an abrupt payment down on the
principal of a mortgage. Can the hon. member not see that that
principal might not apply to Canadian finances, therein being
able to correctly and properly protect social program funding.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Kootenay East for his question.
I am painfully familiar with mortgages. I was not kidding
when I said my banker knows I am not obsessed with debt.
Having said that, I do not think that in the interests of making a
payment on the principal of my mortgage that I would be
prepared to feed my family any less or take away from the
college trust fund or my life insurance.
The reality is we have to engage in this exercise in a very
practical, common sense way. Perhaps it is a regional problem, I
am not sure but over and over again we hear particularly from
our Reform Party colleagues that we are not moving quickly
enough. I can only say as an Atlantic Canadian that to move any
quicker would place us exactly in the position we are trying to
escape from in terms of generating economic activity in our
region. We benefit from social programs. We benefit from
transfers.
To respond to earlier analogies with regard to chickens, the
fundamental problem with the argument that if we give every
province the chickens is that not all chickens are the same size.
Consequently, part of what this nation is about is sharing the
coop so to speak.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has referred to this government taking control of
Canada's finances again and the importance of that happening. I
applaud him for recognizing that.
When we look at the Liberal budget and examine where the
biggest change in transfer payments has taken place, has there
been an increase in transfers to provinces? No. There has been a
reduction of at least $4.5 billion in transfers to provinces. Has
there been an increase in transfers to individuals? No. In fact the
biggest threat of this Liberal budget is in transfers to individuals
through social programs. These programs are not sustainable
because there has been no definite target for elimination of the
deficit.
(1155 )
The largest change in transfers of government money in this
budget is in fact in transfers of money to bankers. When this
member talks about Canada regaining control of finances, how
can that possibly be happening when this budget in fact involves
an increase in transfers of $12 billion to bankers, some of which
are foreign bankers. More and more are foreign bankers.
10446
I would like the hon. member, who happens to be on the social
programs committee, to explain to me how this budget fits in
with his stated goal of Canada taking control of its finances.
Being on the social programs committee, can this member
explain how social programs will be funded down the road when
$12 billion more will be spent on interest payments within two
years, and then ever increasingly more beyond the two years?
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr. Speaker, it
is merely a question of balance. It would be ridiculous to
annihilate social programs in the interests of saving them.
Consequently, we have to find the place in the system where we
strike the balance that allows the programs to be affordable.
I have great faith in the wisdom of Canadians. They were
presented with the option put forward in this budget of a target
of 3 per cent at the end of the third year and were also presented
with the option put forward by the Reform Party. They picked
our solution. I have some faith in the good judgment of not just
the Minister of Finance and my colleagues in the government,
but also the good judgment of Canadians who chose a balanced
approach.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I believe that every
member should be permitted to speak in this house, particularly
on issues like this debate.
However, I note that in the last House our party had one
independent member, the hon. member for Beaver River. When
she was in the House the Conservatives consistently dealt her
out of being able to enter into debates.
I wonder if the Chair might be able to explain to the House
under what rules the next member is permitted to speak,
considering that he, as a member of the previous government,
did everything he could to stop our member from being able to
speak.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kootenay East raises
an important point. There are about 300 members in the House.
On a mathematical basis, the unrecognized party members are
entitled to speak about one every 25th slot. We are at that point
now, approximately. I take the point of the hon. member for
Kootenay East because I sat in the corner back there, too. I know
exactly what the member is talking about.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
not pursue the point of order except to say that maybe the hon.
member for the Reform Party should let go at one point in time.
When does he think kicking someone around should stop, if that
is the case? Or does he feel that we have abused our privileges in
this place? Anyhow, we probably witnessed a new definition of
what meanness is in this place, but for many reasons, I am a lot
more interested today in addressing the issues relative to this
budget.
This budget has the advantage of putting things into focus and
perspective in regard to a few elements that are important to
Canadians. First is where the Liberals really stand on these
issues and what their real agenda is or is not. It puts into
perspective the previous accomplishments of other
governments and what their records mean and what do they not
mean. It also brings into perspective the real issues we have to
address.
I wish to begin by being as frank and straightforward as
possible. There are things in this budget we agree with. There
are things in this budget that we think are positive for the
country. We intend to support those proposals that are positive
and constructive.
I do not think it is very useful for us to enter into any phoney
indignation on budget night in terms of what the budget is all
about. It is not useful to stray around with inflated vocabulary
that only rings false in the ears of the Canadian public when they
try to look at this budget.
(1200 )
Frankly, in trying to assess how the government needs to deal
with this issue, anything I have heard is that Canadians want
government to succeed. Canadians want the government to do
well in dealing with the budgetary and fiscal problems facing
the country. They do not want to see the government face
another crisis. On the contrary, they hope that it will make the
right decisions. It is very much in that spirit that I would like to
offer my thoughts and comments today.
The most interesting part-I happen to be one of the few
members in this place who has a view on this because I happened
to be in the other Houses-is that this budget also brings into
perspective the policies and positions of the Liberal Party of
Canada. That has to be one of the first assessments that we need
to make about the budget.
To be brutally frank, it needs to be said that the budget is a
denial of the principles espoused by the Liberal Party during its
nine years in opposition, a repudiation of the policy it placed
before the Canadian electorate 16 months ago, an abandonment
of those people whose defenders the Liberal Party pretended to
be.
For nine years Liberals purported to defend old age
pensioners against any reductions in benefits, to fight for the
jobless against changes in unemployment insurance, to maintain
the annual increases in parliamentary grants to VIA Rail, to the
CBC and to all the cultural agencies. They called for the
expansion of day care.
The parliamentary secretary this morning even had the
temerity to raise day care when if one reads page 40 of the red
book as Canadians have, one will find there is a clear
commitment to increase day care spaces by 50,000 a year the
moment the economy goes beyond 3 per cent.
Is there anything about that in the budget now? That was the
Liberal position. They vowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with
single mothers, with poor families, with refugees and
immigrants, with the regionally disadvantaged, with the sick,
with
10447
needy children here at home or abroad, all of whom were to be
given more, not less, financial support by a Liberal government.
Maybe I am naive but I am still young enough to be
disheartened by the treachery and old enough to know that in
time the Liberal Party will pay for this. It is said often enough
but it bears repeating because it is true: Liberal policies in
opposition were unrealistic. Their promises were irresponsible,
their opposition to budgetary restraints of any kind in any
circumstance at any time over nine years were not principled,
but dishonest, totally political and wilfully ignorant of the
national interest.
Everywhere they sought to obstruct-I was in that House for
nine years-systematically and without question any cuts or
reductions in expenditures. In fact when the government was
elected in 1984, previous expenditures were growing at a rate of
about 13.4 per cent a year. Program expenditures under the
previous Liberal government were brought down to under 4 per
cent a year. Did Liberals support that? No, not once that I
remember.
What now? Do we congratulate them on having seen the light?
Is their policy any more principled than the old policy? Is it any
more credible? Is it any more reliable? That is the real question.
Liberals bitterly fought the Canada-U.S. free trade
agreement. I remember that well. Under the present Prime
Minister's leadership, they opposed NAFTA, the North
American free trade agreement, in Parliament and promised on
the hustings they would not ratify it unless specific amendments
were agreed to.
They opposed the previous government's energy policies.
They obstructed the changes in pharmaceutical patent
protection. We are still not sure where they stand on that today.
They fought the dismantling of the foreign investment review
agency. They denounced deregulation and privatization. They
also swore to abolish the GST, to scrap the GST. We even heard
in their first budget-
Mr. Nault: It is coming. Don't be disappointed.
Mr. Charest: The hon. minister responsible for financial
institutions says it is coming. Is that not what they said in their
first budget, that they were going to accelerate reform of the
GST? Is that not what the Liberal government said in its first
budget?
What has happened since? Nothing, except the vain hope that
the Deputy Prime Minister will resign if it is not done. That is
the glimmer of hope they have offered to Canadians with regard
to changes to the GST.
(1205)
The vindication of these Tory policies lies not in their dubious
embrace by today's government but rather in the results now
being achieved in the country's productivity, its increased
investment in exports and the new job creation.
Our economic growth today and in the foreseeable future is
based for the most part on these Conservative initiatives so
mindlessly and vigorously obstructed by the Liberals in
opposition. It is one thing for the opposition to say that
everything that is wrong with the country today was the previous
government's fault. If we were to follow that line of thought,
then they would have to admit that what is working would also
be the previous government's fault.
Things as trivial as an increase of 40 per cent in trade between
Canada and the United States, which is the number one reason
we have job creation in the country today, that they fought
against vigorously and at every turn. Things like changing the
GST because it actually changed the federal sales tax for
manufacturers in Canada. If we ask manufacturers today why
they are more competitive, it happens to be because of the GST.
There is more than one side to this story. Those are things that
are forgotten. For all of these policies they demonized Prime
Minister Mulroney. They and their acolytes would not even
concede the elementary assumption of civilized discourse in a
democratic society, that their opponents acted in good faith for
good motives but maybe with a mistaken policy. That usually
would be the presumption. No.
As far as the Liberals were concerned, Tories wanted to sell
out the country. We were bent on dismantling the federal
government. We were going to balkanize the country, killing the
Canadian dream. This was imposing the Thatcher-Reagan
neo-conservative corporate agenda on Canada. That is what
they were saying during the nine years in this place.
Now the President of the Privy Council is quoted in the
Toronto Star of March 4 acknowledging that he cannot recall the
Conservatives cutting anything like the $7 billion the Liberals
plan to take out of the provincial social programs between 1996
and 1998. The same minister in the same article is quoted
invoking the name of the Hon. Erik Nielsen, boasting that this
budget was a mega-Nielsen exercise.
These are the same people who for nine years behaved in a
way that is totally the contrary of what they are espousing today.
As far as I know there is only one Liberal member of Parliament
who has stood by his convictions. Only one Liberal member of
Parliament has said he is offended by this. That is the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who is quoted in the same
newspaper article as saying it is a repudiation of everything the
party stood for in opposition and promised in the 1993
campaign.
This is not the member for Sherbrooke. This is not a member
from the Reform Party. It is not my colleague from
Saskatchewan saying this. It is a Liberal member of Parliament
sitting on that side of the House who was there for the last nine
years, who
10448
was there before that also and still sits, for now, with the
government. We await his vote on the upcoming budget in
regard to these issues.
As for other Liberal MPs, their critical faculties and social
consciences seem to have been dulled or blunted along with
their political instincts, lulled by the most insidious narcotic
known in politics: the polls, the fast results and public opinion
polls.
The Minister of Finance now boasts that his budget policy is
such good politics that there will be more of the same, more
again and yet even more as we get closer to the election
campaign. Let me offer some advice to members in the House.
Save those quotes. Cut them out. Keep them close. As we
approach the days of the election campaign you will find them
very useful.
(1210 )
We will also find out in the next two or three years that the
government has an intended raid on the treasuries of other
governments. That is what the budget is really about. From 1995
to 1997 there is a series of delayed action bombs which it hopes
will explode in provincial jurisdictions and take out provincial
and not federal politicians.
Most of all, we should give credit to Canadians. If anyone
deserves any credit in this country in regard to some of the good
decisions that are being proposed it is the Canadian people who
have spoken in a loud voice and with consistency in regard to
these issues.
The bottom line in the budget is that the cost of servicing the
debt is going up as fast as program expenditures are coming
down. Fiscal improvement is the product of increased revenue
from economic growth. That is what we are seeing. So far as
balancing the budget is concerned it has to take place at some
unspecified time.
The government has made hay of the fact that it has a 3 per
cent commitment in terms of reducing the deficit to GDP. It even
has the temerity of adding that this is the standard of the
European Community. What it forgets to say is that in the
European Community this standard is applied to national
governments.
In Canada, in the federal system, the provincial governments
also incur debt. This year alone it is estimated that they will add
$16 billion to the annual debt of the whole country. This is a
false standard and the marketplace has recognized it. In fact, if
we were to speak objectively of the reaction to the budget, at
first what seemed encouraging has since then soured. The bank
rate since the budget has gone up. The prime rate has gone up
and the dollar has fallen. Those are objective facts.
I will recognize that there are other factors out there in the
international marketplace but if the government makes a
pretence of telling us to look at the numbers because it is on
course, it reveals to us that it is certainly not on course in terms
of the provisions it has made.
One group of people had it right. One rating agency grasped
the essence of the budget very quickly. It was the Dominion
Bond Rating Service. This service looked at what was proposed
in the budget and then went on to place Ontario's rating under
negative review because the provinces stand to lose billions of
dollars in federal transfers. It understood what had just taken
place. The problem had now been transferred to the provincial
governments. It then turned to Ontario and saw who was in
trouble now. It was Ontario that was going to be losing the
money. It understood the real impact of the budget.
Some apologists for the government and some wishful
thinkers explained the budget as a triumph of pragmatism.
[Translation]
Let us not kid ourselves. When the government says it is
taking a pragmatic approach, the fact of the matter, what we
have actually seen, is that it is all improvised, an off-the-cuff,
ad hoc, last minute approach, which is interestingly enough
reflected in the decisions that are made, particularly with
respect to provincial transfers for social programs. It will all
come out of the same big transfer pot, so to speak, with as little
connection as possible.
In its budget, the government even had the nerve to suggest
putting the Minister of Human Resources Development in
charge of negotiating new standards with the provinces. After
his first mission-which was a flop, a complete fiasco, ending in
humiliation, and ultimately disowned-he is asked to go and
consult again with the provinces, while cuts have already been
announced.
Mr. Speaker, let us not be naive. We were not born yesterday.
Just between you and me, what is going to happen when they get
together with the provinces? How do you think things will go?
The provinces are going to say: ``Look, you made the decision to
cut. There is nothing left to negotiate. Give us whatever money
is left and leave us alone.'' This certainly reflects a lack of
planning.
[English]
This brings me to what I see as the first major weakness of the
budget: there is no plan. It reflects nothing of what the Liberals
said, did or stood for in the last nine years in this place. The
budget reflects nothing of what is written in the red book. All
promises have been thrown out the window. The red book has
been scrapped and the government and the country are left with
no plans and no priorities. What kind of a situation does thatlead to?
10449
(1215)
This government is cutting R and D and the granting councils
14 per cent, the same way it is cutting small craft harbours
across the country at a time when R and D is important for the
country. This is a government of one of the only modern
countries in the world to have closed universities. That is what
happens when there are no priorities. That will be the first
weakness of this government.
I have already alluded the second, this false objective of 3 per
cent of GDP which frankly is not good enough and will not last.
The country needs a very firm commitment to balance the
budget with a timeframe.
The third weakness in the budget is in its approach. The
budget and its unilateral ways go against the very essence of
what federalism is about. Rather than setting national objectives
for deficit and debt reduction, rather than sitting down with the
provinces to avoid a situation, we are only off-loading debt into
their yards.
How do we know a provincial government will not choose to
increase taxes as a consequence of the budget? Where does that
leave the taxpayer, the men and women, individuals who pay
taxes today? There may be more than one level of government
but there is still only one taxpayer. The approach is wrong and
will not work.
The fourth area is the hidden agenda. Pension reform is the
most glaring one. Here is a government that says it wants to
undertake pension reform but will not share with the House of
Commons the studies it has done in this regard when we know
the impact and the consequences of what it is proposing are
tremendous.
Let me give another example of the hidden agenda of this
government with regard to the budget. The Prime Minister went
on a TV show with Mike Duffy, stating as a matter of policy the
government wants to reduce the cost of health care 1 per cent of
GDP.
Mr. Duffy had a guest on his show last week, Dr. Jane Fulton,
Ph.D., a professor of health policy and ethics at the University of
Ottawa. I do not remember anything being said in the budget
about cutting health care in Canada 1 per cent relative to GDP.
This is not an ordinary member of Parliament who said this. It
was the Prime Minister.
What does this mean? According to Dr. Jane Fulton: ``I think
if we have to talk between $7 billion and $10 billion, and every
time we cut $1 billion out of any kind of public funding we cut
about 10,000 jobs''. I am not quarrelling that there need to be
serious thinking and reduction of funding in health like in every
other area of government.
What I find objectionable is that the government in this case
has a hidden agenda. It is not coming clean with Canadians. Why
did the Prime Minister not say this? Why did the Minister of
Finance hide this from the House when he came forward with his
budget? I am assuming the Prime Minister did not think this up.
Did it just appear in his mind during an interview that this
would happen? If that is the case, we all need to be enlightened
with regard to this.
There is one advantage to the budget in terms of what it means
to all the issues we are confronted with. It certainly puts into
perspective the real accomplishments and the failures of
previous governments. If this government likes to blame the
previous government on anything that went wrong, it would also
want to acknowledge the strong growth we have in our economy
today was also because the previous government restructured
our economy, brought forward the FTA, the NAFTA, the GST,
privatized, deregulated.
These were the main features and the Liberals fought every
one of them for nine years. Those enabled Canadians today to
have economic prosperity and see some real job creation as we
now go on to deal with some of the really tough issues we are
confronted with.
This government has no compass, no plan. The last nine years
were a complete farce. Whatever it was saying or purporting to
present as positions were all thrown out the window. The red
book has been thrown out the window.
(1220)
I see my colleague here, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs. Foreign affairs took a deep hit in the
budget, contrary to anything the Liberals purported as being a
position for ODA in the years they were in opposition. It does
not resemble it at all.
Canadians will now watch very closely as this government
tries to get its act together and await whether there will be a
sense of priority and planning in terms of where this country is
going.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Sherbrooke on his fine speech. I
would say he is quite loquacious.
I note that he is attributing the current rise in the interest rate
to the budget tabled by the Liberals, whereas, about a month
ago, he attributed it to the political uncertainty in Quebec. I am
happy that the member for Sherbrooke is making amends and
recognizing the real source of our difficulties.
I find him wordy; I like him; I think he made a fine speech,
and I would like to ask him this. Why did he not give the same
speech during the electoral campaign in Brome-Missisquoi
just before February 13? He never opened his mouth there. He
said nothing of all that, and yet he knew it to be true. He did not
say a word. Are we to understand-and this is my question-that
there was an agreement with the Liberals not to hurt them during
the electoral campaign in Brome-Missisquoi?
10450
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I will first comment quickly on my
colleague's allusion to a comment I allegedly made about
interest rates. I made no such comment.
I will stop immediately here and ask him his source.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest and it sounded like a death bed repentance,
a true confession, a catharsis for the hon. member.
I want to share this time with other members. The member
talked very seriously about the implications of the reduction of
transfers to the provinces.
The member well knows the transfers are a combination of tax
points and cash and that under the existing EPF and CAP
provisions, in certain provinces the amount of cash would be
reduced to levels which would eliminate the leverage the federal
government would have with regard to maintaining national
standards with regard to education, health and so on.
I wonder if the member would admit or agree that the
consolidation of the programs under one transfer, where there is
a consolidation of tax points and cash, does assist the federal
government to ensure appropriate national standards?
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South
may be a little confused in what he is saying. If I understood him
correctly, he was saying the proposed reduction in cash and tax
point transfers would reduce the leverage to a minimum, the
leverage of being able to ask for standards. He said how we think
the government can impose some standards or allude to the fact
that we should continue to do so.
If the government is to act unilaterally in this way and
announce the cuts in advance I hope he is not naive enough to
think it will sit down with the provinces and negotiate some sort
of standard. There is nothing left to negotiate.
If the hon. member has ever been to a federal-provincial
meeting he would find it quite startling to sit down with
ministers of other provinces who will say to the Minister of
Human Resources Development: ``There is nothing left to
discuss. You have made the decision on the cuts. What do you
want from us?'' That will be the dynamic of the meeting.
This points to one of the major weaknesses in this approach.
During the election campaign our view was that if we were going
to deal effectively with deficit and debt reduction, given that it
is all the governments that enter into deficits and debts, it
required a joint effort by all governments.
(1225 )
There should have been a formal process, a federal-provincial
meeting, in which the government should have set joint
objectives in terms of deficit and debt reduction and as a
consequence of that, because it would imply reductions in
transfers to the provinces, examine line by line areas of joint
spending where the federal government uses its spending power
to determine where each level of government should be
intervening. That was the common sense approach we proposed.
His government chose instead to act unilaterally.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I found
the speech of the hon. member for Sherbrooke extremely
interesting, especially considering the member ran for the
leadership of a party which took the hole the prior Liberal
government dug $170 billion deep and proceeded to dig it even
deeper to the tune of $420 billion.
I find it interesting how he would, in his first opportunity,
attack a Liberal budget. In opposition people tend to attack
government budgets. We did the same thing. There are some
things about this budget that are worth while commenting on,
such as the $9 billion in cuts the government has proposed which
the opposition has been urging for over two years. It is soft, it is
too slow, but that is another story.
I have three specific questions for the hon. member for
Sherbrooke. When he was part of the Conservative government
why did it or could it not reduce the deficit? What does he think
currently is the biggest problem in this country, the debt, the
interest costs to service the debt or the deficit? Does he agree or
disagree with the Reform Party solution of a zero deficit in three
years, working toward a balanced budget and protecting the
taxpayers from increases by government with a taxpayers'
protection act?
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for Calgary Centre for the question and for the opportunity to set
the record straight, as the budget offers us an opportunity to put
things in perspective.
He asked me, with respect to the Conservative government,
what were the things it did or did not accomplish. Let me point
them out in real, objective terms.
When we became the Government of Canada in 1984 program
expenditure was rising at an annual rate of over 13 per cent. We
brought that down to below or around 4 per cent. When we took
over government in 1984 the annual deficit relative to GDP was
in excess of 8 per cent. We brought that down to somewhere in
the area of 5 per cent or 6 per cent.
I will go further because I know he will be interested in the
facts and less in the rhetoric. A document was put out by this
government, ``Agenda, Jobs and Growth: Creating a Healthy
Fiscal Climate''. I am sure people can write to the Department of
Finance to obtain a copy.
This Liberal document of October last has at page 8 a very
interesting graph on the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP.
If we watch the line very closely, as of 1984 when we became the
government the line started to go down dramatically. That
reflects the real efforts we brought forward as opposed to the
inflated demagogy we have heard from time to time. We
produced a surplus on the operating budget of the government
10451
of $13 billion over the nine years we were the Government of
Canada.
Does that mean everything we did was right or perfect?
Obviously the answer is no. Those are the facts as opposed to the
fiction proposed by others.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was quite happy to see the hon. member for
Sherbrooke here because I wanted to discern his party's position
relative to the budget. I was a little disappointed last week when
his colleague from Saint John supported the Reform motion
calling for the elimination of the deficit within the time of this
Parliament.
I did not discern in his speech where he was going in terms of
whether it was too tough or not tough enough. Before the last
election he proposed the position that the federal government
had to work with the provinces to come up with a joint strategy.
Do I assume that is no longer the position? Certainly that was
indicated last week.
(1230)
Does the member for Sherbrooke share his colleague's
position that the Government of Canada should eliminate the
deficit inside this Parliament?
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to answer the
question.
There are four things about the budget we think are wrong and
need to be addressed. There is no plan or priorities for the
country any more with regard to deficit and debt reduction. That
means we may run the risk not only of making tough decisions
but wrong decisions.
The objective of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP is
not good enough. There should be a clearly enunciated objective
of balancing the books within a precise timeframe. Three years
is a reasonable timeframe.
Third is its unilateral approach in terms of deficit and debt
reduction, which is a complete negation of what a federal
country is and how it operates. That puts us in the situation in
which we well run the risk of the government's shovelling its
deficit and debt problem into the yard of New Brunswick. If it
chooses to increase taxes, if it chooses to cut service, we are not
going anywhere unless there is a joint effort.
The fourth problem is the hidden agenda. Pension reforms,
reform for health care as announced by the Prime Minister are
not enunciated in these documents, not clearly laid on the table
in terms of the agenda of the government in its document.
The Deputy Speaker: My apologies to the member for
Strathcona. I am obliged to go back and forth across the House.
Therefore I have to go to the government speaker now. I know
the member for Strathcona has been waiting for a long time.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance has tabled the budget
Canadians asked for, a budget that is tough but fair, that will
allow us to gain control of our deficit, one that has been growing
out of control for decades.
We cannot afford to repeat these mistakes. Our government
has looked to the future. It could be one in which Canadians are
told which services they can and cannot afford by foreign
creditors or it can be a future in which Canadians decide their
priorities and watch them flourish. The government and the
majority of Canadians have chosen the latter.
Our government has taken the necessary measures to ensure
Canada's future will be bright and prosperous. Tough decisions
had to be made and they were. Our government has produced a
plan that is viable and attainable.
I would like to quote from the red book which is often used by
opposition parties. Where our policy on Canada's fiscal
situation was first outlined it says a Liberal government will
adopt a two track fiscal policy, matching a drive for jobs and
growth with a comprehensive approach to controlling debt and
deficits. That is on page 16.
This is exactly what has been done, from our government's
agenda of jobs and growth to the budget tabled by the Minister
of Finance.
In producing this budget the minister has taken the time to
solicit views of Canadians and all members of Parliament and
has reacted to their concerns in delivering a budget that
re-established its goal to meet the financial commitments and
obligations, the same commitments made during the election
campaign and reinforced during the 1994 budget.
The plan outlined by the hon. Minister of Finance will break
the back of the deficit and enable us to reach our goal of 3 per
cent of gross domestic product by 1997.
(1235 )
Projections indicate that our goal will be exceeded this
current fiscal year when the deficit is expected to fall as low as
$38 billion, $1.7 billion below our target of $39.7 billion for the
end of the fiscal year.
As I listened to the Minister of Finance deliver his budget I
realized that it reflected the message impressed upon me by
constituents in Carleton-Charlotte. It was the same message
impressed upon MPs across the country, including the Minister
of Finance.
10452
Canadians want to get their debt under control. They want to
achieve this through cuts in government spending. The
government has heard this message loud and clear. For that
reason we have committed to cutting $7 in expenditures for
every $1 in increased revenues.
To ensure fairness in the tax system, the government has
closed a number of loopholes that benefit large corporations and
banks and has avoided increasing the burden on individual and
middle class Canadians and their families by refusing to
increase personal income tax.
In 1994 a department by department review of all government
programs was initiated in which every expenditure in each
department was reviewed. As promised, the results of that
review were announced in this year's budget.
The government has redefined its own role to ensure that
departments focus on the priorities of Canadians. The new
government operations will be smaller but more effective and
more efficient.
This government has had the foresight to realise that small
and medium size businesses are the future of growth in Canada.
For this reason the $500,000 capital gains exemption has been
maintained for small business and for farmers. Similarly, only
minor changes were made to registered retirement savings plan
contributions which benefit many working in this sector.
Government spending has been cut dramatically but in a way
consistent with the values of Canadians, protecting the most
vulnerable in society and cutting government first.
As I mentioned earlier, the budget also promotes the
government's agenda for jobs and growth. In 1994 well over
400,000 new jobs were created, most of which were full time,
permanent jobs. The economy grew at 4.5 per cent, the largest
economic growth of all the G-7 countries. This type of growth
will continue to flourish in 1995 as a result of the measures
taken in the budget.
I quote from an article in the Ottawa Citizen on March 2:
The boom is back. And, at least temporarily, without inflation. The economy,
fuelled by exports and consumer and business spending, steamed ahead at a
robust 4.5 per cent pace last year, Statistics Canada said Wednesday.
And growth in the final quarter of 1994 was at a torrid annual rate of 5.9 per
cent, the agency said in its latest report card on the economy, which suggests
there is more growth to come, the analysts said.
The following quote was also published in the same issue:
The Wall Street Journal, one of the coolest critics of Canada's economic
policies, has been warmed a few degrees by the new budget. The influential
business newspaper said in an editorial Wednesday that the finance minister's
budget ought to be an inspiration to other countries struggling with
overextended governments.
(1240 )
The minister has obviously listened to Canadians from
Carleton-Charlotte and from across Canada and delivered a
budget they wanted; a budget that is tough but fair and will be
implemented equitably.
We can now look forward certainly to a better tomorrow for
all Canadians in the future as a result of the budget tabled by the
Minister of Finance in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member who has just
spoken, that everyone agrees, in fact, that there is a need to
control federal government spending, which has been out of
control for a number of years and which has brought us to
financial disaster.
In a world where markets are said to be increasingly dealing
with internationalization and globalization and where our
producers need help in research and development to enable them
to deal with worldwide competition, where, in his opinion, is the
logic in suddenly stopping all research and development in the
area of sheep production by deciding to close the one
experimental farm that worked in this area and that had a
national mandate across Canada? What message is being sent to
sheep producers in Canada when they are told they will have no
more support in research and development?
Why was the decision made to take everything away from this
sector? Is this not what might be called a poor cut, as compared
with others, which could be made where there would be no direct
impact on an important sector of agricultural production, such
as sheep production-a form of production making agricultural
diversification possible, particularly in Quebec and Alberta?
What, in his opinion, is the logic behind such a decision?
[English]
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, I should agree with the hon.
member across the way in his question. He is quite right.
Although we take pride in the fact that we must get our debt and
deficit under control, we are not the first government that has set
goals for bringing it under control. We certainly will be the first
government in this century that will meet those goals. The
Minister of Finance has made that commitment. The Prime
Minister has made that commitment and the House has made
that commitment.
Research and development is a priority of this government. It
has been stated time and again. The government also believes
private enterprise and commercialization can do, as proven in
the past, the best job out there in business. Whether in research
10453
and development or small business or industry, they can do it
much better than any government level can.
This government is supporting that. It is supporting a
partnership with private business and industry. We will continue
that support in the future.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed many
budgets tabled in the House. Usually the next day constituency
offices' telephones ring off the hook with complaints, support or
whatever.
This year I checked with my constituency office on how many
calls it received the day after the budget. My assistant in
Parkdale-High Park told me it received one call. That caller
said the minister did not go far enough in reducing the deficit.
(1245 )
Because the hon. member works very closely with and listens
to his constituents, what kind of reaction did he have from them
directly on the budget, positive or negative?
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the
question. To be honest, it was an excellent one. Like he I
expected my phone to be ringing on the budget. However I can
honestly say it did not happen.
Last week we had an opportunity to be back in our
constituencies. On Monday I had did an electronic town hall
meeting specifically on the budget. The headline in the
newspaper the next day was: ``First attempt on an electronic
town hall meeting'' because we had done all the others
personally ``went very smoothly''. There were many questions.
Every person in the television studio was very positive about
what the government had done in the budget and how it was done
fairly and equitably right across Canada for all Canadians.
It was quite different from a radio interview I did on Friday
morning. It was supposed to be on the budget. When I arrived at
the radio station it was on Bill C-68 or gun control and I was
facing a lawyer sitting there debating it from another
perspective.
It showed the amount of negative concern there was toward
the budget. I found out from my constituents exactly what the
hon. member mentioned he heard from his constituents. It was
accepted. It was supported. It was tough. It was fair but it was
equitable.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance, for
delivering a courageous and innovative budget, which, most
importantly, takes on the deficit yet respects the red book
commitments. This was no easy task and the minister did agreat job.
Having had the honour of sitting on the Standing Committee
on Finance, I am very happy to see that the minister incorporated
80 per cent of the committee's recommendations into his
budget. This means that the minister took into account the
suggestions and concerns that Canadians expressed during the
public hearings held nationwide.
This budget takes the steps needed to control the deficit.
These budgetary measures are the most rigorous undertaken by a
federal government in 50 years. They will permit us to bring the
deficit down to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product by
1996-97.
This budget also allows us to meet our goals without
increasing personal income taxes for the second consecutive
year. The government refuses to reduce the deficit by offloading
it onto Canadian taxpayers. Like Canadians as a whole, we
believe that we must strive to balance the budget. We will
achieve this in a responsible and realistic way without
jeopardizing the strides we have taken regarding the economy
and on the job front over the past 16 months and without
discarding the values and priorities of Canadians.
[English]
We use forecasts that are more prudent than the private sector
average. The budget anticipates the debt charges in 1995-96
alone will be $7.5 billion above last year's estimates.
This is why we must act now or risk missing our deficit target
altogether. The budget takes some tough actions to prevent the
probability of failure. To hit our targets we are implementing
cumulative savings of some $29 billion over the next three
years. This is the largest single set of actions in any budget since
World War II. These actions mean changing the size and the
shape of government. By 1996-97 program spending will fall
from $120 billion to just under $108 billion.
(1250 )
The structural changes we are making will assure that
significant deficit reduction continues in 1997-98 and, more
important, beyond. The bottom line benefit will be dramatic. By
1996-97 the deficit will be lower than that of any G-7 country.
[Translation]
We have taken measures that will have far-reaching effects
and are result oriented.
We have substantially cut spending while at the same time
preserving principles that Canadians hold dear, namely
economic recovery, protection of the disadvantaged and
government streamlining.
If we want our efforts to put our fiscal house in order to be
efficient and sustainable, it is imperative that we reconsider the
role and structure of government and focus government
activities on the priorities set by Canadians.
10454
In this budget, government is brought down to a size we can
afford. Cuts were not made blindly, contrary to what the
opposition says. The measures announced by the Minister of
Finance flow from the comprehensive review of departmental
programs and activities we had announced in the 1994 budget
and they will continue to pay dividends in the years to come.
Expenditures will be cut by half in some departments. After
these measures have been implemented, the public service,
including DND, will be reduced by 45,000 positions, or 14 per
cent.
[English]
The budget reduces the deficit in a way that is consistent with
the strong Liberal commitment to social programs. We remain
absolutely committed to a fair and sustainable system of
protection for seniors who have given so much to the country.
The budget states the basic principles of the so-called hidden
agenda the hon. member for Sherbrooke alluded to before. There
will be the following: undiminished protection for all seniors
who are less well off, including those receiving the guaranteed
income supplement; continuation of full indexation to protect
seniors from the effects of inflation; provision of old age
security benefits on the basis of family income, as is currently
the case with the guaranteed income supplement; greater
progressivity of the benefits by income level; and, more
important, control of program costs.
[Translation]
The role of the state is to do only what it does best. Therefore,
some activities should be transferred to other public
administrations or entrusted to the private sector. If the federal
government does not have to do something, it should not do it.
And in the future, this government will not do it.
True, this budget is tough, but it is fair. The Minister of
Finance strove to distribute budget cuts fairly among all
regions.
We will not reduce the deficit without also reducing
provincial transfers. Nonetheless, the cuts we are asking the
provinces to absorb are not as deep as the cuts we are facing
ourselves, that is, 3 cents for every dollar of provincial revenue.
This budget constitutes additional proof that federalism is
dynamic, flexible and not stuck in the status quo. The
federal-provincial transfer payments will be replaced with a
new consolidated subsidy called the Canada Social Transfer,
which will alleviate the constraints that the government may
impose in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
By giving the provinces two years' notice before introducing
the Canada Social Transfer, we honoured a red book
commitment to ``achieve the maximum degree of predictability
and stability for each level of government''. It is the Quebec
government that is deferring all important decisions because of
the referendum.
The Leader of the Opposition alleges that this budget is unfair
to Quebec. No region suffered more cuts than any other. Under
the Canada Social Transfer, transfers to Quebec in 1996-97 will
decline by only $350 million. That is a 3 per cent cut compared
with 1994-95.
(1255)
Over that same period, we will reduce federal spending by 7.3
per cent, which is almost double the cuts affecting transfer
payments to the provinces. It goes without saying that those who
support separation cannot react positively to a budget which
demonstrates that Canadian federalism works.
Bloc members oppose the reduction of the subsidy to
industrial milk producers. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition
himself said that, in an independent Quebec, he would willingly
abolish that subsidy. Financial markets did not endorse the
claims made by the Quebec Minister of Finance to the effect that
the federal budget generates uncertainty. Indeed, all are
unanimous in saying that the budget measures will help fiscal
consolidation.
Even the editorialists from Quebec recognize that this budget
paves the way to a federalism respectful of the provincial fields
of jurisdiction. The budget was designed with the best interests
of Canada and Canadians in mind, not those of Wall Street. Still,
we managed to reassure the financial markets. It is now up to the
Quebec government to put an end to the uncertainty by holding
its referendum as soon as possible.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think the hon. member for Vaudreuil is to be commended for the
stand he took in his speech on this budget. He is to be
commended, but I am somewhat critical of his choice of words. I
think he should check the definitions in the dictionary, and I am
referring to the fact that he called this a ``courageous budget''.
I would like to remind the hon. member for Vaudreuil that
during the last election campaign, the Deputy Prime Minister
made the following promise: ``Give me a year, and we will get
rid of the GST or at least make some changes to improve it. Give
me a year, and if we do not, I will resign''. Fifteen or sixteen
months later, nothing has changed. The only suggestion the
finance committee made was to hide it, to camouflage it and
make it a little less blatant.
The hon. member's leader, the Prime Minister, the leader of
his own party, the Liberal Party of Canada, said: ``Give me a
day, and I will make some thorough changes in the pension plan
for members of Parliament''. Fifteen or sixteen months later,
nothing has been done yet. And what is on the table is a mere
shadow of pension reform.
10455
The present Prime Minister said during the election
campaign: ``During our first term, I will not raise taxes or
personal income tax''. So what did he do in last year's budget?
They raised $500 million by de-indexing old age security
pensions. What did they do this year? The hon. member for
Vaudreuil must know that they raised, or will raise, $500 million
by taxing every litre of gas an extra 1.5 cents.
But this is the question I would like to put to the hon. member
for Vaudreuil, who has a number of dairy farms in his riding. He
must be aware of a consensus among dairy farmers in Canada on
one milk, one price. By removing 15 per cent of the subsidy on
industrial milk this year and another 15 per cent next year, the
government is widening the gap. How will he explain to the
dairy farmers in his riding that the gap is getting even wider?
(1300)
And how can he explain to the farmers in his constituency, and
I say this in concluding, why in the west, now that the Crow
subsidy worth $560 million has been abolished, farmers will
receive $1.6 billion in compensation tax free, when our dairy
producers will lose 30 per cent of their milk subsidy without
receiving any compensation whatsoever?
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon.
member, because he started by saying that he did not think this
was a courageous budget. He gave three examples which, I
suppose, are his three major concerns, namely the GST, the
pension plans and personal income tax. The last point raised by
the member was the impact of the cuts to agricultural subsidies.
I am convinced that in the riding of Vaudreuil, and elsewhere
in Quebec and in Canada, the three points raised by the hon.
member are not unanimously perceived as the three major
issues. The main concern is government spending and the lack
of flexibility resulting from a debt accumulated over many years
and which is very costly in terms of its financing.
As you can see in the budget, in spite of cuts of $29 billion
over a three-year period, the interest on the debt will increase by
roughly $7 billion. This is a courageous budget because, for the
first time, a Minister of Finance meets his own objectives in
terms of the debt reduction. This is a first in the history of our
country.
For the second year in a row, the government has not
increased personal income tax. The hon. member forgot to
mention that point. As for the pension plan, the member is well
aware that we introduced a bill which will be voted on in April.
When it comes to agricultural subsidies, the Bloc Quebecois
always tries to compare the East to the West for political
expediency. It must be mentioned that, in the West, the subsidy
was completely eliminated. The farmers were deprived, without
notice, of subsidies amounting to $560 million. This is why a
transition period and a compensation are provided. In Quebec
and in the East, we are only talking about an annual reduction of
15 per cent, over a two-year period. It is better to get 70 per cent
than nothing at all.
In reply to the hon. member's question, I think this is a
courageous budget because we tried to be fair. We did not ask
more from the provinces than we were prepared to give. We did
not ask the small and medium size businesses to do more. We
tried to be fair and this is why the budget was well received
across Canada, and even in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this year's
budget debate.
I feel fortunate to be able to have this opportunity to pass on
the views of my constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona. The
constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona voted for a Reform
member of Parliament based primarily on three principles:
justice reform, parliamentary reform and, most significantly,
fiscal reform.
It is because of the fiscal reform that I became involved in
politics. I wanted to ensure that the standard of living which I
have enjoyed will be maintained and passed on to my children
and to my children's children.
This budget presented by the Liberals does nothing to
seriously address the national debt and deficit problem. It has
been said that a new government receives only one chance to
make the necessary changes, one window of opportunity. This
government has had not one but two chances.
(1305)
The first was a year ago when the government was more
concerned about increasing the deficit through increased
spending and claiming that the deficit was not a problem. It then
spent the rest of the year producing discussion paper after
discussion paper while doing nothing.
The second and final narrow window of opportunity which the
government has had to balance the budget passed earlier this
month when it failed to implement the necessary restructuring in
its latest budget.
It is therefore amazing to me that this government can stand
before the citizens of Canada and present such a disheartening
and ineffective budget. It is another example of Liberal smoke
and mirrors. The Liberals state this budget is exactly what the
doctor ordered. If this is the prescribed medicine, it not only
smells bad and tastes bad but it is totally ineffective. Canadians
have been subjected to a clinical trial where they have received
nothing but a placebo.
10456
This budget has cut spending by $12 billion over three years
with a cut of only $4.1 billion in 1995-96. What the government
is not telling Canadians is that we are borrowing more money
this year than we did last year even after these poorly placed
budget cuts.
The reason for this is extremely painful. It is because the
interest payments on the debt are becoming astronomically high
because of previous Liberal and Conservative governments and
this Liberal government's continuation to run deficit after
deficit.
With this Liberal plan Canada will still be running deficits of
approximately $25 billion annually by 1997. This is a sad
commentary on the government's unwillingness to listen to
Canadians. At the end of the day, the national debt will still rise
by $100 billion and Canadians will have to cough up nearly $50
billion a year in interest payments. This is a $12 billion increase
since the Liberal fat pack came to power.
The Liberals have also managed to introduce a budget which
involves short term pain with even longer term pain. What
Canadians wanted was a budget which not only controlled
spending but a budget which made a concerted effort to begin
the process in which the deficit can be eliminated.
This is what we introduced in the taxpayers budget. It was a
budget that could have seen the elimination of our national
deficit within three years. The Reform Party had its fair share of
short term pain. However, it had a light at the end of the tunnel.
It was a budget that reflected hope and prosperity, unlike the
Liberal budget which reflects doom and despair.
The Liberals have merely postponed the tough decisions until
1997. If they are unwilling to do the right thing now, how can
they expect Canadians to believe they will be willing to make
the right decisions down the road when those same problems
still exist and the tough decisions have become tougher?
They should be honest with Canadians. I know we were with
respect to the Reform alternative budget. The Liberals should
come clean with Canadians and explain the consequences of
their fiscal indecision and ineptitude. It took the Liberals 12
years to add the first $100 billion to the national debt. By the end
of this mandate, the Liberals will have added a further $100
billion in only four years. This Liberal fat pack is extremely
efficient, efficient overspenders.
Middle class Canadians are asking the same questions the
Reformers are. For example, is heating your home a tax
loophole? Is having electricity in your home a tax loophole? Is
having water a tax loophole? Is having a car a tax loophole?
(1310 )
If the answer to these questions is no, then my constituents,
Albertans, and for that matter all Canadians would like answers
to the following: Despite this government's promise to limit tax
increases to the rich and corporations by closing the so-called
tax loopholes, why is it that the middle class has ended up with
the burden of paying the majority of this year's nearly $1 billion
tax increase in which a $.5 billion gas tax is included?
Why does the Liberal Party exploit Alberta to the extent that it
does? Liberal governments have been notorious for abusing
Albertans and this government continues the Liberal legacy.
First we had the national energy program. Now we have the
termination of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act
through which nearly $200 million annually will be taken out of
the pockets of Albertans.
While it is true this government did not raise personal income
taxes, this government continues to speak out of both sides of its
mouth. There is only one taxpayer and taxes did in fact rise by $1
billion this year and will rise by almost another $3 billion by
1997. Instead of tax increases, the government should have
looked at the elimination of funding for non-priority items such
as multiculturalism or regional development programs such as
ACOA, WED or FORD-Q.
The government has taken a step in the right direction in terms
of privatization. However, it did not go far enough. Every
ministry has one or more areas in which the government is
providing a service which is in competition with the private
sector or could be done more efficiently by the private sector.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is no different. Due to
time constraints I will focus my comments on the CBC. The
CBC's primary mandate should be the provision of distinctive,
culture specific information and drama programming. In an
increasingly multi-channeled environment the current mandate
to provide a wide range of programming that informs,
enlightens and entertains is too broad. It is also clear that the
mandate of the CBC is to provide Canadians with predominantly
Canadian programming. However, what Canadians are being
subjected to is extremely questionable in terms of meeting the
prescribed mandate.
The issue is no longer whether the CBC has adequate funding,
as that passed long ago, but rather the structure of the CBC. In
particular, the organization has not adjusted to the realities of
the marketplace. It is an outdated, highly concentrated and
expensive organization.
We must constantly remind ourselves that the Canadian
broadcasting environment has changed radically since the
conception of the CBC. New technologies, new services,
changing viewer tastes and fundamental changes in advertising
behaviour
10457
have transformed the broadcasting environment. We must not
forget that in a world where the CBC is no longer the only
national service, does it make sense to use scarce public funds to
subsidize the provision of commercial television programming?
In this new world of broadcasting consisting of many more
options to television viewers, public broadcasting cannot
effectively maintain its all things to all people objective. It is
therefore essential for survival in this multi-channel universe
that the public broadcaster be willing to reinvent itself. It is
quite evident that the corporation is unwilling to do just that.
When the president of the CBC states that revenues are not its
mission, we must therefore as parliamentarians address this area
for it. Since revenues are not the mission of the CBC, what is?
How can a private company such as CTV make revenues its
mission while still adhering to Canadian content legislation?
Last year, CTV spent $488 million on Canadian content. The
CBC spends $561 million on Canadian content programming.
This is not a huge difference considering we spent over $1
billion for the operation of CBC and nothing on CTV. CTV
spends close to the same amount as CBC on Canadian
production. The difference is, one is government owned and one
is privately owned. One is a drain on the public purse and one
adds to the public coffers through taxation and profit.
(1315)
Had the government privatized CBC television, it could have
saved the taxpayers approximately $800 million. This number
does not include the revenue which would have been generated
from the sale of approximately $1.5 billion in assets which the
CBC currently holds.
The government must balance its books, which means all
areas of public financing must be evaluated for efficiency and
cost effectiveness. It is for these reasons that the Reform Party
will not support the budget.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to correct the record. I am sure the hon. member did not
mean it when he said that it was the Reform Party's objective to
do away with the debt in three years. I am sure he meant deficit.
Before the hon. member becomes overly defensive about fuel
taxes and the impact on Alberta, he should also remember the
tax expenditures that go to the oil patch and have gone there over
many years. I do not have a figure for last year but I know thatin 1990 the tax expenditures to the oil patch totalled about$850 million. It is only fair to put some of these things intoperspective.
There has always been an element that would like to privatize
the CBC. Most people who think that way think of Canada as a
long narrow strip of land that ends at about 150-200 miles north
of the American border.
Historically the CBC has been one of the ties that have bound
Canada together. No private investor would put a repeater
station at Wawa, Ontario, for instance, or be broadcasting to the
most remote parts of the country. That is what the CBC does.
The people of Canada pay for that service through their taxes
so that every Canadian can feel included and a part of this
country. If we were to privatize the CBC, what would inevitably
happen would be those unprofitable areas of broadcasting would
of necessity have to disappear if station was to show black ink at
the end of the day.
I would suggest to the hon. member the CBC does perform a
very valuable function. The money can be spent more wisely.
Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pressed a
number of issues in my speech. With regard to the oil patch
expenditures, while I agree that these have been made, they are
nothing compared to the national energy program that took
billions and billions of dollars out of Alberta.
I would not suggest, however, that we continue funding
uneconomic programs, whether they be in oil or whatever
commodity we are dealing with. With regard to the taxes on
public as opposed to private, when the tax program was in place
it was refunded directly by the private companies back to the
consumer. In Alberta we have the majority of privately owned
gas and electricity organizations. We are giving a tax free
holiday to the publicly owned companies in Ontario and Quebec
at the expense of Alberta and I believe Nova Scotia. This is
grossly unfair to the consumer and to the average citizen in both
of those provinces.
(1320)
With regard to the comment on the CBC, let me deal with the
historical aspect. I agree the CBC has played a significant role in
the development of Canadian culture. We must remember that
was back in the days when we had perhaps two, at most three
television networks in the country.
The heritage committee right now is investigating the role of
the CBC in a 500 channel universe. If we have a CBC which is
costing $1.1 billion at a time when the government is rightly
trying to restrict its expenditures, can we afford, when we are
cutting back on health, when we are cutting back on education,
can we afford the luxury-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has
expired.
10458
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I sat in the House on
February 27 I felt I was in a time warp.
For 20 years we have been hearing the same biased platitudes
from Liberal and Conservative finance ministers. The Lib con
artists I call them, telling us that they have the deficit in hand,
responsibility reigns and everything is going to be all right if
people will just be patient and trust them.
When the current Prime Minister was finance minister he
announced with a lot of heavy breathing that significant
reductions in the deficit can be expected, and then proceeded to
set a new record for deficit spending.
In 1982 Allan MacEachen said the government cannot
responsibly add to the deficit, and then proceeded to set another
record.
In 1990 Michael Wilson stated: ``We will reduce the deficit to
$28.5 billion next year. We will cut it in half to $14 billion in
three more years and we will reduce it further to $10 billion in
the next year after that''. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose.
The government still lives in the same economic fantasy
world as its predecessors. It believes it can spend and borrow
itself into prosperity.
The Minister of Finance boldly stated in his budget speech
that it is time to put our fiscal house in order, a line borrowed
from a famous 1989 speech by the leader of the Reform Party.
The minister has finally learned to talk the talk, but he made
only a feeble attempt to walk the walk. He said that Canadians
want clear action and then he proceeded to deliver mush.
Previous finance ministers were able to play budgetary
games, sleights of hand for 20 years without making any real
spending cuts. I acknowledge that the incumbent did make some
real cuts. Thanks to the magic of compound interest he had no
luxury of choice. He had to make cuts just to avoid immediate
disaster. However he did not have the courage to cut as deeply as
necessary to begin to solve the deficit problem.
The proposed $12 billion in cuts are going to hurt but they are
going to be offset by additional interest payments which will
continue to rise until they reach more than $50 billion in 1997.
(1325 )
What is his program after that? Continued half-hearted cuts
until there is nothing left to reduce while annual interest
payments continue to rise to $60 billion or $70 billion?
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood mentioned the
same problem. He said: ``We will solve this. We will have a new
Bretton Woods agreement. We are going to have this great big
international conference so we do not have to clean up our act at
home. We will just bring in the IMF and it will solve all our
problems for us''.
Where does this insanity end? Does the government really
intend to continue treading water until it drowns in debt? We
cannot perpetually borrow money to give it away to people or
entities that do not need it.
Speaker after speaker has risen on the other side of the House
to tell us about their compassion. They ooze compassion. Please
tell me what is compassionate about destroying the economy of
the country?
Canada is like a patient with a gangrenous leg and a
tender-hearted but incompetent doctor. That leg should come
off but the doctor with misdirected kindness amputates only the
foot. When that does not solve the problem, he cuts off a few
more inches and then a few inches more, each time subjecting
the patient to additional trauma. In the end, the poor devil dies
anyway.
The finance minister is fortunate that unlike the incompetent
physician, he cannot be sued for malpractice. They are so proud
of their transfer programs over there but thanks to 20 years of
deficits the biggest single transfer program is now payments to
money lenders.
A lot of the transfer payments do not even stay in Canada but
are delivered into the hands of financial institutions in Tokyo,
New York and Zurich. The Liberals and Conservatives, with
their bread and circus approach to governance, have sold us into
economic slavery.
It is obscene that this most blessed of countries should be
headed for economic collapse and that foreign money lenders
are being allowed to continually suck our blood. This is the
legacy of Lib-Con economic policy.
The Minister of Finance has refused to face reality in the
name of compassion and caring. We are going to continue down
that same steep and narrow path to national bankruptcy. What
good will his reassuring words do when not too many years from
now half or more than half of the national revenue must go into
debt service?
What will be his after the fact excuse if the money lenders cut
us off and we are no longer able to provide even basic
government services, much less social programs? What will he
tell the people of Canada when we are unable to help even the
poorest of the poor, the old, the sick, the infirm, the weak? How
will he explain it when there is no money left, when there is no
medicare, when there is no welfare, when there are no old age
pensions, no UIC, when there is nothing. Because that is the
direction in which we are headed.
The government has again proven through its non-budget that
it cannot be trusted with a credit card. For the sake of our
children and our grandchildren, it is time to take that credit card
away.
10459
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
actually, I agree with what the hon. member was saying when he
described the following rather gloomy prospects for the
Canadian economy: ``We are headed for an economic collapse,
and we are going down the steep and narrow path to national
bankruptcy''.
(1330)
National bankruptcy is what we see looming as a result of the
budget that was brought down this year. This is one of the
reasons, just one but a major one, why Quebec would like to
separate from Canada. Canada's budgetary and financial affairs
are a mess and are leading straight down the road to disaster, to
bankruptcy. This is more or less what was said by financial
advisers on Wall Street.
Personally, I do not want to see the poor and the elderly in
Quebec in a position where they cannot count on the support of
social programs, as the hon. member pointed out. This Budget is
terribly unfair to people who depend on social programs.
This Budget will cut $100 million annually in funding for
social housing alone, a program that is targeted to the poorest
members of our society. Single parent families, women, the
elderly, people who live alone, welfare recipients: they all
belong to the poorest social group in our society. This group will
be affected by cuts of $100 million annually, while the banks get
off scot-free or almost, with very few cuts, in fact $100 million
over two years, the same Canadian banks that last year made a
net profit of $4.3 billion. These cuts represent not quite 2 per
cent of their net profits.
I may also add that family trusts will not pay a cent.
In concluding, I want to say that I fully sympathize with what
the hon. member said, and I would like to ask him the following:
If he were in Quebec, would he not agree that the best solution,
at least for Quebecers, is sovereignty?
[English]
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
very dramatic intervention. One thing puzzles me. I know the
hon. member is an economist, yet in his intervention I detected
hints of three economic theories all warring in the same breast. I
heard a bit of Adam Smith. I heard a bit of Engels perhaps and a
great deal of John Maynard Keynes.
As far as his immediate question regarding secession is
concerned, is the hon. member suggesting that if they bail out
and leave the sinking ship of state they will not be required to
man any of the lifeboats? They could get off scot free after
having benefited from the largess of deficit spending for lo these
20 years. Now they will leave us holding the bag and take
nothing. Is this what the hon. member is saying?
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, you will not have an
opportunity to respond as your time is up. Resuming debate.
[English]
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today in support of the budget tabled by the
Minister of Finance.
The fundamental objective of the 1995 budget is sustained
growth and job creation. The budget takes far reaching actions
to reduce spending and to reshape the role of the federal
government in building a stronger, more dynamic Canadian
economy.
The budget is aimed at restoring fiscal health and refocusing
government on key priorities and needs. It is about getting
government right so that Canadians can get the economy right.
It is the biggest Canadian budget since post-war
demobilization. It delivers on the commitment to meet our fiscal
targets using prudent economic assumptions. It cuts the deficit
largely through expenditure reductions. It restructures spending
to keep the deficit on a downward track. It puts the government's
own house in order to make it smaller, more frugal, better
managed and innovative.
It defines a new role for government in the economy. It
reforms federal transfers to provinces. It points the way to
reform of unemployment insurance and the public pension
system. It distributes the burden of restraint fairly among
Canadians and the regions of Canada.
(1335 )
The deficit and debt are national problems. The budget
distributes the burden of restraint fairly across all regions.
Canadians in every region have strongly urged us to bring
spending under control. Some individual measures obviously
affect certain regions more than others, but looked at as a whole
no region is being hit disproportionately.
The budget shows that federalism is flexible and dynamic.
Although we are cutting the level of transfer payments, we have
given the provinces ample notice as promised and the cuts are
less than those we are imposing upon ourselves. The
government remains committed to the equalization program, a
pillar of Canadian federalism.
The new Canada social transfer will give all provinces greater
flexibility in designing social programs while the principles of
the Canada Health Act are maintained. The introduction of the
Canada social transfer in 1996-97 will deliver funding to the
provinces, cash and tax points of $26.9 billion. That is a drop of
about $2.5 billion from what provinces could expect under the
current system.
10460
That is tough action but let us put it in context. It means that
the total of all major transfers, including equalization which is
not affected by the budget, will be 4.4 per cent lower than today.
By comparison, the cuts in federal spending everywhere else
will be 7.3 per cent, a much deeper reduction.
The Canada social transfer will represent a new approach to
federal-provincial fiscal relations marked by greater flexibility
and accountability for provincial governments and more
sustainable financial arrangements for the federal government.
By doing so it continues our national evolution toward more
mature fiscal relations.
The government is meeting its fiscal target. In the 1994
budget we pledged that the deficit would be reduced to 3 per cent
of GDP or $24.3 billion for 1996-97. In the budget we are taking
strong measures to ensure that those targets are met even with
higher than expected interest rates.
The budget also looks beyond the two-year target because our
fiscal reforms will continue to pay off in the years after
sustaining our progress toward the government's ultimate goal,
a balanced budget.
Our cautious fiscal and economic assumptions make clear the
need for tough measures. To hit our targets we are implementing
cumulative savings over the next three years of $29 billion.
These actions mean changing the size and shape of government.
By 1996-97 program spending will fall from $120 billion last
year to just under $108 billion. The structural changes we are
making will ensure that significant deficit reduction continues
in 1997-98 and beyond. The bottom line benefit will be
dramatic.
The budget concerns itself with increasing tax fairness. The
1995 budget takes far reaching action to restore the fiscal health
that supports a strong and growing economy. The plan also
reflects the government's determination to puts its own
financial house in order instead of placing the burden on
taxpayers.
Over the next three years spending reductions will total $25.3
billion against $3.7 billion in revenue action. That is almost $7
in spending cuts for each $1 in new tax revenue.
Most important, there is no increase in personal income tax
rates in the budget. Where tax action is taken it centres on
improving the fairness of the tax system. As the finance minister
said, the issue of taxes is more than a matter of rates; it is a
question of equity.
The budget reflects the results of the program review that was
launched a year ago. The budget agenda is not just a plan for
smaller government. It is a plan for smarter government and for
reforming the structure of the government and how it spends.
The size of government will be reduced substantially over the
next three years. Departmental spending will be cut by almost
19 per cent from 1994-95 levels. For some departments
spending will be halved and in total these actions will deliver a
three-year savings of almost $17 billion.
As a result of the sweeping reform of federal programs, the
public service will be reduced by 20,000 people this year and by
some 45,000 positions over the next three years. For the first
time departments will have to prepare three-year business plans
and submit the plans to the scrutiny of Parliament and the
public.
(1340)
The impact of the program review budgetary measures has
been fairly distributed across all provinces. Some programs
have been eliminated or significantly reduced. Other programs
have been redesigned or consolidated. There are some particular
measures that tend to be concentrated in specific regions.
Of concern to the Atlantic region, and more particular to my
riding of Central Nova, is the Atlantic freight subsidy that is
being eliminated. However to offset this a five-year, $326
million transition program is being provided. Dairy subsidies
will be reduced by 30 per cent over the next two years. Forest
resource development agreements with the province will be
discontinued. The public utilities income tax transfer payment
of $30.4 million to Nova Scotia will be terminated. Regional
agency funding will decline by $562 million over the next three
fiscal years. ACOA's share of the reduction is $173.5 million or
a 31 per cent reduction.
The government remains committed to supporting economic
incentives in Atlantic Canada. ACOA has proven to be the most
efficient and effective vehicle for delivering on the
commitment. In terms of the government's commitment to job
creation as promised in the red book, ACOA has shown itself to
be part of the solution, having helped to create some 42,000 jobs
in Atlantic Canada. ACOA will continue to fulfil a vital role as a
source of capital for the region for growing small and medium
size business and as a leader for economic development in the
region.
In conclusion, the budget marks the beginning of a new era. It
underlines the need for an evolving, dynamic, co-operative
federalism to meet the challenges facing Canada's economy and
its people in a tough, competitive world. It is a challenging
budget but also an equitable budget that deserves the support of
all members of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very attentively to the speech on the budget given by
our colleague for Central Nova. However, I must confess that I
detected bias in her comments. This hon. member must be on the
same team as the Minister of Finance.
10461
She said a few minutes ago that she saw the budget as a source
of jobs-there is nothing to be seen. There is absolutely nothing
there, less than nothing for job creation in this country, on the
contrary. The only good thing the Liberal government has done
to create jobs was the $2 billion, which became-because it was
a tripartite program-$6 billion.
That was the only good creative thing where jobs could be
created, and it should be said that the jobs were temporary.
There was $200 million left, and they were threatening to cut it.
And the hon. member for Central Nova is telling us that jobs will
be created out of this budget. On the contrary, there is nothing.
She spoke of the deficit and of the debt which had become
huge, a major problem for the country. This is true. I, however,
would remind her that, in 1970, when her team was running the
country, the deficit was almost nil-$1 billion and some. It was
``improved'' again and again. There were of course Mr. Clark's
nine months and the preceding government's nine years, but
today's $550 billion debt, on which we pay $50 billion in
interest a year, is the child of her own party, except for the nine
years the Conservatives were in government, before the Liberals
returned to power.
I conclude by asking my colleague how she is going to justify
to her constituents the fact that they have widened the gap to
obtain parity in industrial milk and unprocessed milk in Nova
Scotia?
[English]
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a number of
issues.
(1345 )
Let me set the record straight. I am not biased and I am
certainly not confused. I have read the budget, I have scrutinized
it and I am very proud to support the budget.
With respect to jobs and job creation we should not overlook
the numerous job creation strategy programs the Liberals have
implemented and are continuing with the budget. We have our
youth service corps initiative and all our human resources
development programs the people in my riding of Central Nova
rely on on a very regular basis. They are creating jobs. I am
proud to say we are now underway in implementing our youth
service initiative program.
With respect to ACOA and its new role in terms of economic
development in our area, we are very proud and pleased to have
ACOA involved in economic and regional development and we
are looking forward to working very closely with that agency.
We have our infrastructure program. Although there has been
some reduction in the funding my riding has benefited
significantly and created a number of jobs pursuant to this
program and we are looking forward to future initiatives.
We also rely on small business in our area, which creates up to
85 per cent of the jobs in the country. The Liberals are being very
active in terms of ensuring small businesses get the venture
capital they need, ACOA will be taking a roll there, and also the
measures they have taken in terms of ensuring banks recognize
small business initiatives.
With respect to dairy subsidies, which affect my riding, there
is only a 30 per cent reduction. There is equity in the budget.
Every sector, every individual, every business, everyone has
been affected by the budget. In terms of dairy subsidies for Nova
Scotia there is only a 30 per cent reduction. It is time it became
more competitive and cut its costs in terms of management and
organization. It is not necessary for the 30 per cent reduction to
be passed on to consumers. I trust it will not be in Central Nova.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in support of the budget handed down by the Minister of
Finance.
The main basis for my support is this was a unique process.
This was terrific way all Canadians could participate in the
budget. Volumes and volumes of material and input from
Canadians across the country were received and distributed
among parliamentarians and among the general public. The
information came in a variety of forms and forums. There were
letters, organized mailings, budget workshops, radio call-ins
and town hall meetings.
People put forward their ideas, their personal views, their
fears and their projections for the future. Canadians took part in
the prebudget consultation process and had their voices heard.
No rebellion was necessary. True democracy worked and the
budget is a result of that.
In Burlington we had a terrific prebudget consultation
meeting. It was a great example of public participation,
discussion and debate. We had incredible input and ideas from
people of all ages, backgrounds and various work experiences.
We provided information to them beforehand so they could
make an informed contribution. They could weigh the options.
They could think about the issues, unlike the Reform Party
which asked people to simply check off which percentage and
which columns they would like to have done.
Through discussion we reached consensus on many issues and
we had good debate and the debate continues on some others.
My constituents thought long and hard about the issues. They
offered their considered input.
They did not want to have tax increases without government
showing leadership and taking responsible action. They
indicated, and I certainly support them, constituents give us
their precious tax dollars and it is our job to make it work. We
must bring some accountability to the process.
10462
There was clear support among participants that spending
cuts were inevitable. They asked us to take a good look at our
existing programs and the funding mechanisms for them.
In other areas there was no consensus reached. These are
complex issues and Canadians are thinking hard about them.
The budget addressed my constituents' concerns.
There are some false perceptions out there and perhaps they
serve some people's purposes. There is a false perception
Canadians are excessively burdened by taxes compared with
citizens of other countries. This is wrong.
(1350 )
The hon. member for Beaver River is on record as saying we
are among the highest taxed people in the world. This is wrong.
Canadian taxes as a percentage of economic activity fall below
the average for the 24 industrialized nations of the OECD.
However, that kind of statement does not take into account the
services Canadians get in return for their hard earned tax
dollars.
We must deliver value for money. One great example is our
entire medicare program. Even so, Canadians and Burlington
residents agreed personal income tax rates should not be raised.
The government listened and there were no tax increases.
We are achieving our goals for deficit and debt reduction, but
not on the backs of individual Canadians. Our solutions are
focused. They are good, efficient government instead of
increased taxation.
Canadians recognized difficult decisions had to be made
while at the same time it was critical we make strategic
investments, that we be smart about where we are going to spend
money for the future and to balance our budget.
The Reform Party is quoted in the Calgary Herald, February
7: ``Reform for its part would rapidly slash government
spending as to create a fiscal balance while creating a huge
social deficit in the form of greater unemployment and social
polarization''. This is not the Canada we want.
Our approach is to cut in a fair manner, to lead by example by
looking at where to cut in government first. By reducing
government spending and undertaking a full program review we
have taken the responsible approach. The budget has a 7:1 ratio
of spending cuts to revenue increases. These steps will lead the
country into a brighter economic future. We are redefining the
role of government.
In the area of unemployment Burlington residents are
concerned about their neighbours, both in our community and in
the broader Canadian context. People must get back to work.
The budget continues with our Liberal four-point agenda for
jobs and growth. New programs are being developed to ensure
people acquire more skills, the youth internship program, the
youth service corps. We must address youth unemployment
particularly and the school to work transition. We must invest in
our future generations now.
Burlington residents suggested the best way to improve job
creation is to implement apprenticeship programs, keep pace
with innovation and with changes in technology, encourage
education and training, encourage free enterprise, eliminate
bureaucratic paper work, especially for small businesses. The
budget is connected to all our initiatives as a government and to
our policies like the social security review.
The area of technology is important. We must be innovative.
We must be ready for the future. We must spend wisely and work
within our fiscal means. R and D is encouraged through the
research and experimental tax incentive, one of the most
generous tax incentives in the world. However, it is important it
is not abused, and so we have moved to change that.
In the area of small business we must continue to invest in
people and in growth. The 1994 budget undertook a small
business policy review, realizing entrepreneurs are responsible
for creating the majority of new jobs in Canada and for moving
our economy forward. With consultation and the release of the
report ``Building a More Innovative Economy'' we have
received input from Canadians about how to proceed. The
challenge of access to capital remains.
The 1995 budget encourages banks to do a better job of
lending to small businesses by encouraging government to work
with the banks to develop appropriate benchmarks. These must
be achieved.
In my riding of Burlington our local economy is vital and
continues to grow. We have many diverse, successful small and
medium size businesses such as Colette's Café and Toshiba
Office Product Centre, employing a small number of people but
growing.
There are many more people, young and old, experienced and
inexperienced, who have excellent ideas, great initiative and
full support from their friends and families. All they need is
financial backing. These are the people who are creating jobs in
Canada. These are the people whose entrepreneurial spirit we
must foster. They are creating the environment and the jobs for
future generations. The government is committed to ensuring
they do that.
We are committed to ensuring Burlington and all Canadian
businesses are able to succeed, to grow and to add to their
employee base. We have fine examples like the companies that
started small, Zenon Environmental, Gennum,
Thompson-Gordon and Laidlaw. They are leaders in the world
in their own fields.
10463
(1355 )
The 1995 budget also put some things in context for
Canadians. Our inflation was the lowest of the G-7 nations and
our economy grew at a rate of 4.25 per cent, the fastest of the
G-7 nations.
Our export growth is strong; 433,000 full time jobs have been
created since January 1994. The unemployment rate has fallen
by 1.7 percentage points. Our cost competitiveness is the
highest in 40 years and yet we remain burdened by high national
debt and continue to pay off our interest.
There is optimism. Canadians know we have a rational plan
for deficit reduction. We are taking the right steps. We will
achieve our deficit targets. In the last year we not only achieved
them, we surpassed them by $4.2 billion. We aspired
confidence.
Now is the time for hard decisions. We must make forward
thinking investments for the future. Our aim is sustainable jobs
and growth, with sensitive cuts and responsible spending.
The budget shows our commitment to future generations. We
cannot stand idle by the impact of our decisions or past actions.
We must not squander limited resources, but use them in an
intelligent and effective manner.
Precious Canadian taxpayers' dollars must be put to work
effectively. This budget is a terrific step in that plan of action.
Canadians are the winners in this budget. They made their
voices heard and this budget is there because of them.
I thank the many residents of Burlington who participated in
this process. We are all winners. We will have a stronger nation.
We will all have better lives.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
was overwhelmed by the speech of my colleagues about these
mean Reformers here. There is a bit of paranoia among the
government members about the budget.
There are a couple of things in particular about her speech that
are really intriguing to me. The hon. member suggests the
government is going to meet its targets and Canada will be
forever thankful when the Liberals meet their targets, three per
cent of GDP, approximately $25 billion a year. We would really
like to thank this government at the end of its budget exercise for
overspending by $25 billion a year. Somehow I am not sure a lot
of folks out there think much of that.
What is the idea of overspending by $25 billion a year? Is that
is a good idea or a bad idea?
Would the hon. member justify how this Liberal government
can mess around with MPs' pensions and come up with $4
million on the old plan and $3.16 million in the new plan, like
the minister of immigration. How can they justify that and cut
all the other programs back? Maybe they could get rid of the
paranoia over there.
The Speaker: Like many members, I am interested in
paranoia. I am going to let the hon. member think about it for a
bit. She will have the floor when we come after question period.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
10463
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday, March 7, 1995 Ernst Zundel, a leading
Nazi propagandist, confirmed to the
Globe and Mail that he is
preparing a link to the global information network through a
computer to be based in the U.S. or Europe.
His plans for Internet include posting the transcripts of his
trials as well as material regarding the second world war, what
the Canadian Jewish Congress calls Holocaust denial material.
Mr. Zundel's plan shows why it is necessary to regulate
Internet. Other media outlets are accountable to someone.
Internet is not.
I urge the House to condemn Ernst Zundel and Zundels
afterward for racist and hate mongering activities. All members
of the House must stand together and send a loud and clear
message that promotion of hatred against any identifiable group
is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to our
dismay and indignation, we heard yesterday that Algerian
Islamic fundamentalists took another young girl as the innocent
victim of the intolerance that now rocks that country.
Since five leaders of the Islamic Front were sentenced to
death by a symbolic tribunal of women gathered in Algiers to
commemorate International Women's Day, other innocent
women have been slaughtered.
The list of Algerian girls and women assassinated, tortured
and raped by fundamentalists is getting longer as the months go
by. The official tally of women assassinated by armed
fundamentalists between the months of August 1993 and
December 1994 is 112, including 6 students.
10464
As parliamentarians, we insist on denouncing in the strongest
terms possible these gratuitous and premeditated murders which
violate the most basic rights of Algerians and which deprive
them of the hope of being free and safe in their own country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to give tribute to the Forum for Young
Canadians and its participants who, as hon. members will know,
are in Ottawa this week to learn more about the process of
government at the federal level.
I know all members will join me in praising the organizers,
the sponsors and the many volunteers who make this annual
event possible. Special tribute goes to each one of the
participants, our future leaders and in particular to my young
constituents, Tashia Davalovsky and Lisa De Hoog.
I am sure all members will join me in welcoming them and
wishing them the best in their visit to Ottawa.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
all believe that developing a strong economic base for this
country is the key to global competitiveness.
As a British Columbian, I urge the members of this House to
recognize the importance of the mining industry to all
Canadians. The government's 1995 budget made a first step
toward improving our mining industry's ability to maintain and
create jobs for Canadians.
Besides providing 400,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada,
mining sustains 150 Canadian communities and their one
million residents, thus having a great impact on their daily lives
in future.
Besides adding $10 billion to our annual trade balance,
mining contributes $20 billion a year to the Canadian economy
and accounts for 14.8 per cent of Canada's total exports. Mining
is therefore a key engine for the export driven economy, jobs and
growth benefiting all of Canada and not only those who live in
mining regions.
Canada is seen by the rest of the world to be a country blessed
with the wealth of natural resources. The interest and support of
this House in developing an environmentally sound and
sustainable mining industry-
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on March 8, Guelph-Wellington Liberals met to
elect a new president for the Guelph-Wellington Federal
Liberal Association. At this meeting we also paid tribute to
outgoing president, Patricia McCraw.
Patricia has been a longstanding member of the Liberal Party
at both the federal and provincial levels. She has worked hard
for her party and her country. Besides her work in politics, she
volunteers for many organizations, including Canadian Save the
Children.
Patricia's work and dedication has again proven that
liberalism is more than a political party. First and foremost it is
people, people who care deeply about Canada, people who are
never satisfied with the status quo and who work hard to make
their country the best in the world.
I join Pat's family and her many friends in thanking her for her
service to our association and her commitment to me as member
of Parliament. Well done, Pat.
* * *
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
recent history of Syrian Jewry has been one of terror and bitter
repression.
This grotesque chapter of modern history is now thankfully
closed, due to the efforts of one Canadian, Judy Feld Carr. Over
the past 23 years, she has worked unceasingly and
surreptitiously to build an underground railway. She has raised
funds to sustain these hostages, co-opt officials and to pay
ransom. Because of her, 2,500 Syrian Jews are now free.
Judy Feld Carr and all those who supported her deserve our
praise, our gratitude and our thanks. When this heroic story is
fully told, may it inspire others to realize that one person can
make a difference. Judy, you have made a difference, an
incredible difference. You have earned a place in our hearts and
in the history of humanity.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a number of Quebec artists spoke out in
support of Quebec's march to sovereignty.
These artists wanted to express publicly their determination
to see Quebec become a country. Singer Paul Piché delivered a
clear message to Quebecers: ``We know you. We imitate you.
10465
We heal your pain in love. We give words to your fears, your
desires and your hopes. We have faith in you. You can have faith
in us; you are entitled''.
The Bloc Quebecois is delighted by the artists' action,
inspired not by political affiliation, but by a desire to express
their profound convictions and to share, with their fellow
Quebecers, aspirations that go well beyond the political.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and local radio stations in
my riding to warn the Minister of Canadian Heritage that his
actions will kill jobs and small businesses.
The people I represent are suspicious that once again the
Liberal government is attempting to fool Canadians, this time
by introducing amendments to the Copyright Act. What the
Liberals are really trying to do with neighbouring rights is to
foist a killer tax on local radio stations.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is silently planning to kill
locally owned radio stations. They already pay royalties to
authors and composers of music aired on their stations.
Additional fees to performers and record companies is unjust.
Broadcasters maintain that free air play is what creates
Canadian stars and sells records, not a Liberal government tax
hidden in a bill of amendments. Canadians are confident that our
culture can develop and grow without the Liberal government
intervening with a radio station killer tax.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the afternoon of Thursday, March 16, 1995 the
Carleton Civic Centre will officially open its doors in
Woodstock, New Brunswick. It is a wonderful new facility that
will be enjoyed by the area's citizens for many years to come.
While this is wonderful news, the even more important
component has been the method in which the goal of completing
this facility has been realized. It is important to note that the
completion of this project was achieved through true
partnership. This partnership included groups, organizations,
businesses, individuals, surrounding communities, as well as all
three levels of government.
I congratulate the Carleton Civic Centre committee and all
those who contributed to the success of this most worthy project.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in recognition of two recent Canadian championship teams
from Manitoba.
This past weekend Mr. Kerry Burtnyk and his team members,
Keith Fenton, Rob Meakin who is a constituent of mine, and Jeff
Ryan captured the brier in Halifax. It was Burtnyk's second win.
He first won the brier 14 years ago. Mr. Burtnyk and his team
will go on to represent Canada at the world curling
championships in Brandon beginning on April 8. We wish him
and his teammates the very best of luck.
I also wish to give my wholehearted congratulations to the
University of Winnipeg Wesman women's basketball team.
They won their third consecutive university championship this
past weekend. The Wesman beat the University of Manitoba
Bison squad 72 to 61. A healthy rivalry exists between these two
teams. In fact it was earlier this year that the Bisons ended the
Wesman's world record setting 88 game winning streak.
These athletes deserve recognition for their skill.
[Translation]
These athletes are champions; these Canadians are a source of
inspiration to us all.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, come with me now to those wonderful days of
yesteryear, back to the days when the NDP thought themselves a
force to be reckoned with.
Where are the NDP members today? Well, I will tell you that
eight out of nine members of the NDP caucus are going to vote
against gun control.
I look to the left and see Buzz Hargrove and the CAW. They
support gun control. I look to the left and see Bob White and the
CLC. They support gun control. I look to the mainstream and 80
per cent of Canadians are what I see. They support gun control.
(1410)
Where are the NDP? Oh, there they are on the right.
The Speaker: I see the NDP.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, speaking from the left, Canada has maintained
unbroken diplomatic relations with Cuba for 50 years and has
established important trade and investment links with Cuba.
The U.S. government and Congress have imposed an illegal
and immoral blockade in Cuba. Now U.S. Senator Jesse Helms,
chair of the foreign relations committee, is trying to target
foreigners, including Canadians, who invest in Cuba, barring
entry to the U.S. and cutting off preferential trade rights.
I call upon the Government of Canada to strongly condemn
and lobby against this bill which would have a particularly grave
10466
impact on sugar product exports to the U.S. and investment
projects in Cuba.
The Helms bill has been referred to as the Canada bashing act
of 1995 by Cuban expert Jorge Dominguez of Harvard
University.
Finally, the leader of the Reform Party may wish to raise this
issue with his political soulmate Newt Gingrich during this
love-in in Washington today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
study by the highly reputable firm of Rogers and Wells of New
York, commissioned by the Government of Quebec, lawyers
David Bernstein and William Silverman concluded that
Canadian-American trade rules would not change with Quebec
sovereignty.
According to these experts, the United States would renew
Canadian-American treaties with Quebec, including the free
trade agreement, in order to protect their economic interests.
Therefore, the rest of Canada will have nothing to say about
trade between Quebec and the United States and even less effect
on preventing Quebec from enjoying the benefits of the free
trade agreement.
In other words, the day after sovereignty in Quebec, it will be
business as usual.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House today to
congratulate a fellow Manitoban on a great performance.
Manitoba's skip, Kerry Burtnyk, led his team to victory at the
Canadian men's curling championships in Halifax over the
weekend. The Manitoba team, which also includes Keith
Fenton, Rob Meakin and Jeff Ryan, persevered through some
tough competition to give Manitoba the Canadian men's curling
championship.
This victory also solidifies Manitoba's claim to curling
excellence. We now enjoy the men's and women's titles as well
as the junior women's and men's titles.
Best of luck to the Manitoba squad at the upcoming world
curling championships in Brandon starting April 8.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has sent its boss to Washington to
try and impress Republican leader Newt Gingrich with its brand
of politics. This gives a whole new meaning to the expression ``a
meeting of the minds''.
Let us read today's agenda for these public officials:
Republican whip meeting, closed to the public; meeting with the
undersecretary of state, no photo op; briefing with officials of
the secretary of defence, no photo op; Concord Coalition
briefing, closed; Progress and Freedom Foundation briefing, in
camera. Finally, the leader of the Reform Party is enjoying a
Heritage Foundation private luncheon and you guessed it, it is
private.
We cannot understand why the leader of the third party prefers
to have closed meetings. Yesterday, Washington reporters paid
him the ultimate compliment by saying he was a Liberal.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during a press conference held at the end of the
first day of the Parti Quebecois' caucus meeting, the Quebec
premier stated that what the Martin budget says is that we will be
pretty nice to you this year and that way we can be sure that you
will be gullible enough to vote no. This statement is totally
unacceptable.
By expressing himself in this way, Quebec's premier really
shows how much he respects those who do not share his opinion.
This deplorable comment is but one in a slew of pitiful and
bigoted things that many separatist spokespersons have been
saying recently.
(1415)
After spending millions of dollars to give Quebecers a say in
their future, with that statement alone, the premier totally
negated the process's basis.
We are therefore obliged to state that separatists in Quebec
only respect people who agree with them.
10467
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
asked and asked the Minister of Finance how long it will take to
eliminate the deficit. He has been completely unable to give us
an answer.
Now we discover that the President of the Treasury Board has
it all under control. The year 2000 will be the year that
Canadians will start to move out from under the deficit cloud,
that is, if the cloud has not descended upon us by then.
The minister and his colleagues said they will ``hum the same
balanced budget tune''. This is no time for a cowardly rendition
of the ``lower the deficit only if you can'' song. It is time for the
minister to produce the deficit requiem mass. By the way, would
he please be sure to send a copy to the Minister of Finance as he
seems to have been left out of the choir.
_____________________________________________
10467
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, despite the spending cuts announced in the Budget,
the government is faced with a substantial increase this year,
from $42 billion to $50 billion, in the cost of servicing the debt.
This increase is, of course, a direct consequence of our growing
cumulative debt. In other words, the debt problem has not been
addressed, despite the government's commitments.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will the
minister confirm that even with the spending cuts announced in
the Budget, the government's cumulative debt will total nearly
$800 billion five years from now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, I believe the
estimate given by the Leader of the Opposition is a little too
pessimistic. We certainly intend to continue our efforts to put
our fiscal house in order, but we did inherit a very substantial
debt. In fact, that is why we took some very specific and very
decisive steps in our latest Budget.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the figure I quoted is based on the data given in the
Budget, on the minister's own figures over three years,
projected according to the same parameters. He cannot deny
those figures.
More specifically, I want to ask him whether he would agree
that the debt problem will not be solved as long as nothing is
done about the political structures of an ossified federal system
that has turned Canada into a country that is overgoverned with,
for instance, 40 per cent of federal spending targeted to areas
that come under provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, projections like
those just made by the Leader of the Opposition are based on the
assumption that the government does not intend to intervene.
However, we have just made it quite clear that we intend to use
budget after budget to introduce decisive measures to deal with
the legacy we received from the previous government.
That being said, as far as government structures are
concerned, we have again made it very clear in the Budget that
we are capable of taking action in this respect. If anyone is in
favour of the status quo, it is, unfortunately, the Leader of the
Opposition and his party.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister was into his usual rhetoric, but I would
remind him that the figures I just mentioned were computed
directly on the basis of his own figures, assuming that he meets
the objectives he has set, however inadequate they may be.
I want to ask him how he can deny the federal government's
very obvious inflexibility, when we consider the $5 billion tax
on employment, and I am referring to the surplus created by
excessively high UI premiums, which the government will use
to fund new incursions into the area of manpower training,
instead of reducing UI premiums to stimulate job creation.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Human Resources Development and I have said repeatedly that
we plan to reduce unemployment insurance premiums. In fact,
one of the first announcements the minister made a year ago was
in that vein.
(1420)
Yes, we are creating a surplus, but I would have thought the
Leader of the Opposition would welcome that. We inherited an
incredible deficit, and we are turning it into a surplus. That is
quite a feat.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, once again, the Minister of Finance has delayed the
needed reform of the Canadian tax system instead of ensuring
that all taxpayers and corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
He chose once again to go after the middle class and the most
disadvantaged in trying to address his deficit problem.
10468
Given the extent of his budget problem, how can the minister
deliberately spare the banks, which made over $4 billion in
profits last year, by requiring from them a symbolic, temporary
effort of only $100 million?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the $100 million
tax is in addition to the large corporations tax, which we raised
in our last budget. There is also the corporate tax that the banks
are paying. I must point out to the hon. member that, if we look
at government revenues, the fastest growing source of revenue
is the taxes collected from large corporations.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister tells us that he has asked the banks to make
an effort, so I would remind him that the effort he requires from
the unemployed is 120 times bigger than for the banks.
An hon. member: Shame!
Mr. Loubier: One hundred and twenty times bigger! That is
his definition of fairness. So the question I am asking him is
this: How does the minister explain his refusal to honour his
election commitment, as reported in the Globe and Mail, to
establish a real minimum tax on corporate profits, when CP,
with profits of $422 million, did not pay a single cent in tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is
a minimum corporate tax, which, incidentally, we increased in
our last budget. I must, however, tell you that we did not raise
personal taxes in our last budget, and I would ask the hon.
member to tell the chief of the head office in Quebec City, Mr.
Parizeau, not to raise personal taxes, as he threatened to do a
couple of days ago.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour.
The current railway labour dispute is now a national lockout.
West coast ports are also shut down due to a longshoremen's
strike. Every few years we go through this fiasco where both
sides know back to work legislation is inevitable. Unfortunately
Canadian jobs and other industries are at stake.
Will the minister put an end to this charade and legislate
everyone back to work now?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we must look at each work situation from a different
perspective and not lump airports, harbours and railways all
together. They are different companies and labour relations vary
from one to the other.
We are keeping abreast of these situations. As you know, Mr.
Speaker, regarding railways, even CP was able to reach an
agreement in principle with some workers. The situation which
is of most concern to me now is that of the port of Vancouver,
which we are following on an hourly basis, and I hope that the
parties will go back to the negotiating table.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Labour may have time to wait to sort this out but
Canadian farmers do not.
Present shipments are in danger. They must plan for future
crops now and should not have to worry about whether the rail
system will be there when they need it.
I ask the minister again. When will the government introduce
back to work legislation? When?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Reform member to remain calm
and to refrain from spreading panic among the parties
concerned. As we speak, grain is moving in the west, in
Vancouver this very day.
(1425)
We should keep in contact with the parties and keep in mind
that it is always better to negotiate an agreement than to envision
legislating these people back to work.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
been calm far too long. When is the time to get nervous? It is
right now. To date there have been 13 work stoppages in 29
years. Our western grain growers cannot afford to bear the brunt
of another strike. Canada's transportation system must be
reliable or our customers will go elsewhere.
Once the back to work legislation is passed, will the
government take steps to ensure the threat of future rail strikes is
removed once and for all?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual, the hon. member is going a bit too fast. At this
stage, legislation is out of the question, so I will not answer
hypothetical questions.
* * *
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The stalemate
persists in the dispute over turbot fishing opposing Canada and
the European Union. Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
10469
listed a number of diplomatic avenues to reopen discussions
with EU officials.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs inform us of the outcome
of the diplomatic initiatives mentioned yesterday and whether
these initiatives will get things moving again, so that the dispute
can be settled?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we certainly intend to pursue as far as possible the
diplomatic initiatives under way. The Canadian government's
commitment to protect fishery resources threatened by
overfishing could not be clearer. I can assure the hon. member
that the Government of Canada will not go back on this
commitment.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
part of these diplomatic initiatives, is the Minister of Foreign
Affairs contemplating travelling himself to Brussels to defend
Canada's position and try to reopen discussions with EU
countries?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am flattered by the hon. member's suggestion.
Obviously, should my presence be required to achieve a
negotiated settlement in this dispute, I will gladly do so. But for
the time being, I think that the government officials responsible
for that sort of thing are doing a fine job and will succeed in
coming to an agreement with our European Union friends.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister. Recently some very serious allegations
concerning possible conflict of interest in the post office have
come to our attention. It seems that a Liberal senator and the
chairman and president of Canada Post are closely linked to the
Ottawa developer who built the new Canada Post building.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will instruct
the ethics counsellor to investigate this very serious issue.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question relates to something which occurred
before this government took office.
[English]
I would also like to say that the CBC, which made the
allegation, apologized to the person concerned.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very
serious allegation. It calls for immediate action. Within weeks
of winning this lucrative Canada Post contract, the developer,
Mr. José Perez, was billed $59,000 to finance the racing career
of the son of the Canada Post chairman. At the same time, the
Liberal senator was billing Mr. Perez $60,000 per year for
business advice.
I ask again. Will the Prime Minister undertake to ask the
ethics counsellor to investigate, give a full accounting to the
House and open up these allegations?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said that the problem was a problem of
management of the previous administration. It is not a problem
that occurred before we formed the government. At that time
there were no ethics counsellors. I do not know if it is my job to
get the ethics counsellor to look into the file.
If the member has accusations to make, he can make them
outside the House and face the consequences. The CBC
apologized because it had a reason to apologize. I do not think it
was a well founded accusation, but if the member wants to make
an accusation he can make an accusation and face the
responsibility of making such accusations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. Mr. Jacques Michaud, the acting spokesperson for the
Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du
Canada, asked Quebecers to vote ``no'' in the referendum,
arguing that they can thrive more fully by remaining within
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay: Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage
confirm that his government has just granted a special,
additional $500,000 subsidy to defend the federalist cause
during the referendum campaign in Quebec?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the hon. member accused
the heritage minister of not supporting the French-speaking and
Acadian communities adequately. But we are doing that. We are
doing it to preserve the French language, in compliance with the
Official Languages Act, and also the culture of these
communities, and we will continue to do so.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that I have taken the floor,
otherwise I wonder what the minister would tell me.
Will the heritage minister admit that the only purpose of this
specific $500,000 subsidy granted to the Fédération des
communautés francophones et acadienne is to convince certain
spokespersons of these communities to serve the federalist
cause, by using public funds?
10470
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would be well advised to
refrain from making accusations in this House. She is saying
that these communities are selling their support and she is
condemning them for doing so. This is shameful.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
During this time of government downsizing we have heard a
lot of talk about fairness and equity. However today we read in
the papers about an example that does not seem too fair at all. It
is a special retirement allowance for deputy ministers. On top of
the regular public service pension, deputy ministers get an extra
2 per cent per year without paying a cent of their own. That could
be an extra $30,000 a year for life.
Why do the government and the minister hand out golden
treasure to the top executives but give a lump of coal to the rest
of the public service?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is certainly no lump of coal to the rest of the
public service. We treat them fairly and equitably. We will
certainly be doing that in the downsizing exercise.
The program was brought in by the previous government in
1988 because at the time it wanted to attract more people from
the private sector to become deputy ministers. The private
sector said: ``You are not competitive in terms of your salaries''.
It said: ``We will take the additional pension allowance as being
part of a total compensation package and will help attract people
from the private sector into deputy minister positions''. That is
the reason the government brought in the program.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
does sound strangely like MP pension plans.
The government actually on that one refused to take its nose
out of the trough. Now on the deputy minister level we find that
there is also a two-tier system depending on which level of the
public service one belongs to.
For the sake of morale in the public service and for the sake of
the fairness and equity the government claims, it should cancel
the program that gives extra benefits to top executives and make
it the same for all public servants as it should be.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a number of representatives of the private sector
advised the government of the day on this matter. They said: ``If
you really want to attract top people to serve the public of
Canada you are going to have to be competitive, and your
salaries are not competitive''.
(1435)
We have to look at it from a total compensation package point
of view. On that basis that is why it has been offered to senior
deputy ministers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In its budget, the government announces a substantial cut in
international development assistance, in particular food aid to
the poorest countries on earth. In fact, it is reducing by 16 per
cent the multilateral and bilateral food aid budget, which will
fall from $300 million to $250 million this year.
How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs reconcile Canada's
substantial cuts to its international assistance budget with the
support it gave to increasing development aid to the poorest
countries at the Copenhagen summit on social development?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is about the same as
that asked by one of his colleagues yesterday. In response to that
question, I said that the Government of Canada had two ways of
providing food aid: through its multilateral programs and
through its bilateral programs.
The figures quoted by the hon. member refer to only one form
of food aid. He does not have the total picture on government
spending in this regard. If he combines expenditures in both
bilateral and multilateral programs, he will see that our
contribution remains the same.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the minister justify such a substantial reduction in its direct
assistance to the poorest countries even before completing the
reform of CIDA recommended by the Auditor General of
Canada?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to come and read
carefully two questions that were prepared by his research
office. He does not have to listen to my reply, but I must remind
him that he should read it; he would then have the answer to his
second question.
10471
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
After hearing the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, can the minister assure
this House today that refloating the Irving Whale, the barge that
sank off the coast of the Magdalen Islands in 1970, does not pose
an environmental threat to Magdalen Islands fishermen and
residents?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was expecting this
question from the official opposition, but since it was not
forthcoming-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms. Copps: I just wanted to remind hon. members that the
first report proposing salvage measures, proposed in 1989, was
rejected by the then Minister of the Environment.
I am very pleased to report that, since we came to power, 24
years after the incident occurred and six years after the first
report was presented to the former environment minister-the
hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean-action will finally be taken
this spring. We have opted for the alternative that was the least
expensive and the safest for the residents of the Magdalen
Islands and Prince Edward Island.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Liberals seem to have different rules for Canada's elite.
Last night it was reported that children of diplomats and senior
military officials were attending expensive private schools all
around the world and the taxpayers were footing the bill for this
extravagance.
Will the government commit to immediately bringing this
benefit in line with similar benefits in the private sector?
(1440 )
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that we do exactly that. It is quite
clear that the children of those serving abroad have to attend
schools that follow a curriculum which will allow them to
continue their classes when they come back to Canada.
Canadian diplomats are receiving nothing more than
diplomats of other countries. If the children of Canadian
business representatives abroad are going to school, they are
going to exactly the same schools as the children of our
diplomats.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. minister for his response. However the foreign
services directive indicates that there is a double standard.
Students are given three taxpayer funded flights a year. Students
are even going to school on the French Riviera. These perks are
more lucrative than in the private sector.
Not only is there a two-tier pension plan but we learn there is
now a two-tier education plan: one for ordinary Canadians and
one for the Canadian elite.
Does the minister not understand that Canadians will no
longer tolerate these Liberal double standards for the Canadian
elite?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the suggestion of the hon. member to
review the treatment offered to children of our people who are
abroad.
I challenge her to verify the allegations she is making here
which I think are totally unfounded. It is very nice to take her
lead from a very biased report that does not take reality into
account.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
We have learned that the number of francophones applying to
become Canadian Forces officers dropped drastically after the
closure of the military college in Saint-Jean was announced.
Applications are down to 102 this year from 243 last year, a drop
of more than 50 per cent.
Does the Minister of National Defence recognize that, as we
had predicted, closing the military college in Saint-Jean will
have the effect of discouraging francophones from becoming
Canadian Forces officers because they can no longer train in
their own environment and in French, as they could in
Saint-Jean?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to inform the House that recruitment for the armed forces is
down right across the country. One of the reasons is that the
economy is buoyant.
Historically when times are rough there is obviously less
competition for the various places. As a result of improvement
10472
in the economy we find that the normal group of people who
would be attracted to the armed forces has found other options.
With respect to Quebec, recruitment is down about 50 per cent
overall. It is down 40 per cent in Ontario. It is down about 20 per
cent in the west. It is about even in the Atlantic region.
I should say that part of the problem concerning recruitment
to the military college was due to the uncertainty as to what
would happen with young students coming out of high schools in
Quebec. That uncertainty was created because of the opposition
tactics by the official opposition and the government in Quebec
City that refused to accept the agreement originally signed by
the former Government of Quebec.
Now that we have the agreement in place and now that the
parents of francophone students in Quebec know what is going
to happen, we believe recruitment will pick up in the next few
weeks and we will meet our target very shortly.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
find the minister's answer extraordinary.
Does the Minister of National Defence recognize that the
sharp drop in francophone officer candidate enrolment will
inevitably aggravate the already serious problem of
francophone under-representation in the senior ranks of the
Canadian Armed Forces, thereby compounding the unfair
treatment of Quebec?
(1445 )
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it
extraordinary that the hon. member did not listen to my answer.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the disposition of the
site of the former College at St-Jean, the advertising for those
students specifically in Quebec was delayed a number of weeks.
Now that we have a deal that was signed a few weeks ago we
know what exactly is available. Those students coming out of
high schools in Quebec can take the prep year at the new civil
institution in St-Jean.
In the last few days we have been heartened by what we have
seen. Recruitment is picking up. It was merely delayed.
The hon. member talks about the decline in francophones
overall in the armed forces. That is not borne out by the facts.
About 27 per cent of members of the armed forces are
francophone and fully 24 per cent of all senior officers are
francophone, and that will continue.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
shocking document has been released to the Vancouver
Sun, the
concluding document of immigration consultations in B.C. in
which the minister's employees say the following: ``We go
about congratulating ourselves for our overexuberant
acceptance of bogus refugees while the rest of the world
snickers at us for the suckers we are. The lawyers are making a
circus out of refugee claims''.
The minister ignores Canadians, experts and the Reform
Party. Will he also ignore his own employees or will he make
change?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where this
member has been for the last little while, but this government
has made a number of reforms not only to the immigration
procedure but also to legislation like Bill C-44. Reforms to the
IRB were announced last week. He was upset that we announced
them during the budget process.
However, this government has moved on both IRB and
immigration procedures. We support immigration. Immigration
is positive for this country regardless of what this member and
his party stand for.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the minister needs more suggestions for change than those we
have offered already, here is what his own employees have to
say: ``End inland refugee claims. Limit family reunification.
End official multiculturalism and make personal suitability the
key criterion for immigration to Canada''.
Why did the minister hide this damning document? Will he
admit that last summer's consultations were as bogus as the
refugee system he so ardently defends?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot hide a document I
have never seen. My department and my government do not
stand for the comments he has made.
The answer to his request is no. This party is bogus to the
reality of Canada and does not know how this country has been
built. If it did it would not have the temerity to suggest what it
does day in and day out.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today in Washington the leader of the third
party denigrated the Canadian Wheat Board.
Many Canadian farmers know they produce high quality
products and that the wheat board has greatly assisted Canada's
10473
success in the grain trade. The farmers are deeply concerned
about these remarks made by the leader of the third party.
Do the views expressed by the leader of the third party reflect
in any way the views of the federal government?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party
is as much of a diplomatic disappointment in Washington as he
is a political disappointment in Canada.
I want to assure the hon. member that the leader of the Reform
Party in no way speaks for the Government of Canada. The
Canadian Wheat Board is and always has been a fair
international trading agency, as multiple studies by the United
States have demonstrated. Decisions about Canadian grain
marketing systems and policies will be made in Canada by
Canadians, not in any foreign capital.
* * *
(1450 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance was in Winnipeg recently speaking to
the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. I understand he was asked
a question about the status of CN pensions.
Would he say here in the House today what he is reported to
have said at that meeting, that under any circumstances of
privatization of CN that may happen in the future, pensions of
CN pensioners will be guaranteed by the Government of Canada
and CN pensioners have nothing to fear from privatization? Will
he put that on the record here today?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in dealing with the commercialisation of CN obviously
we are going to take into account everything important to
Canadians and the employees of CN. I want to reassure my hon.
friend that as the process unfolds the interests of everyone
involved will be protected to the extent that we can.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
why is the Minister of Finance not willing to state today on the
record what he is reported to have said at that meeting in
Winnipeg, that the pensions of CN pensioners would be
guaranteed by the Government of Canada?
Get up and say it so people do not have to worry about their
pensions. Say what you said in Winnipeg. Never mind him, I
asked-
The Speaker: All questions should be put through the Chair.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the hon. member's frustration because we
have all read of his experience at a meeting he attended to
discuss financial matters in the west not very long ago. He only
lasted, I am told, some five or ten minutes when they asked him
to leave. It is obvious why one would do that.
With respect to the commercialisation of Canadian National,
we understand the concerns of the pensioners of CN, the
concerns of the employees. We also understand how important it
is to taxpayers and to people across the country to have a viable
enterprise, operating a coast to coast railroad.
The difference between what the government will do and what
the hon. member and his party usually do is that they talk about
doing things, we get them done to protect those interests which
he considers important.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after months of procrastination, the Minister of
Transport announced on Friday that Air Canada would be
authorized to take advantage of the lucrative Hong Kong
market. However, the minister's decision comes quite late, since
there is less than a week left to negotiate arrangements for this
year with Hong Kong officials.
Will the minister agree that the delay in designating Air
Canada as the second carrier to Hong Kong is the only reason
which could keep that airline from exploiting this lucrative
market during the peak summer season?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it took years of negotiations to provide Air Canada
with an opportunity to fly to Asia. As you know, in January of
last year, Air Canada was granted access to Kansai airport, in
Japan.
This year, we managed to obtain landing rights in New York
and in Chicago. We also made the decision to give Air Canada
access to Hong Kong.
I realize that this is painful for opposition members, but I do
accept the praises of Hollis Harris, who says that this decision is
fair.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, regarding the same issue, I ask the Minister of Foreign
Affairs whether he can confirm that negotiating four weekly
flights for Air Canada is indeed a priority for the Canadian team
which is currently negotiating with Hong Kong officials?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the entire question of providing Canadian travellers,
business people and tourists with access to and from Hong Kong
is one which this government has worked on since the time it
came to office.
10474
(1455 )
It is extremely important that Canadian Airlines International
have access to Frankfurt, that we open the routes that have been
awarded to the Philippines, to Malaysia, to Vietnam. We have
signed a bilateral agreement with the United States.
It is a priority of this government to negotiate arrangements to
give access to Air Canada at Hong Kong.
If the member were the least bit fair about this he would look
over the last 14 months at what has occurred in the aviation
industry in Canada and he would probably recognize that more
progress has been made in 14 months than in the previous 15
years.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice will be at a meeting in Manitoba tonight at
the request of Dauphin-Swan River constituents concerned
about Bill C-68.
I have been advised that there are hundreds of people who will
be denied entrance to this meeting.
Why is the justice minister meeting behind closed doors with
only 50 or so people who are attending on an invitation only
basis when there are hundreds who want to attend this meeting?
Why is the justice minister refusing to meet with these people?
Why is he locking them out of this meeting?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every member of the House knows no minister has been
consulting with the Canadian people more than the Minister of
Justice.
He is doing it so well that there are plenty of demands for
meetings with him. Obviously he cannot meet with everybody. I
know the Minister of Justice has never refused good
consultations on problems presented to the House. He has put
forth more propositions for meaningful changes in his field in
the last 14 months than I have ever seen.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is not
the first time the justice minister has locked people out of his
meetings. In Calgary last January there were more people
standing outside the meeting in the cold than inside the building.
Will the Prime Minister instruct his justice minister to begin
to listen to the people and meet their concerns about his gun
control bill and stop locking them out of meetings?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely wrong.
As the Prime Minister has said, no minister in recent years has
met more regularly and more diligently than the Minister of
Justice, particularly on the gun control issue.
He used his whole summer to go from coast to coast to speak
with Canadians, to inform them of what he intended to do, to get
their feedback and to get information in order to prepare this
piece of legislation.
No one could ask for more.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Canadians and, more specifically, Quebecers, have been
telling us they want more effective programs and an end to
overlap and duplication with the provinces.
What steps has the minister taken through the Unemployment
Insurance Program to eliminate wasteful spending of public
funds?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard
on a number of projects with the provinces to reduce duplication
and overlap. For instance, we signed four agreements with the
provinces to protect UI information and achieve substantial
savings in spending on social services in each province.
In fact, I believe Mrs. Blackburn, the Quebec Minister of
Income Security, is prepared to review the UI system in order to
cut costs for her department. I hope this will be one example of
close co-operation between the federal government and the
provincial governments on reducing the cost of social services.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister responsible for ACOA.
(1500 )
Will the minister advise the House how he can justify cutting
a $30 million trust fund by $10 million? This trust fund was
specifically transferred from the Department of National
Defence and earmarked for the Atlantic communities affected
by the base closures announced in the 1994 budget. What steps
will the minister take to correct this situation?
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will take the question under advisement and relay it to
the minister. She will get an answer in writing.
10475
The Speaker: I have a point of order from the hon. member
for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 1 in the House I
mistakenly stated that the member for London-Middlesex had
made unacceptable comments about the children of the member
for Medicine Hat.
It was the member for Victoria-Haliburton who made these
remarks and not the member for London-Middlesex. I wish to
apologize to the member for London-Middlesex.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague
for his apology. I was surprised how I could have been in the
House at that time insulting anyone since it was my privilege to
be having lunch with some other colleagues-with the Prime
Minister-that day.
I appreciate his clarifying the record.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay
upon the Table a Notice of Ways and Means motion concerning
certain measures announced in the February 1995 budget. I ask
that you designate an Order of the Day for the consideration of
the said motion.
_____________________________________________
10475
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this
House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government and the amendment.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
certainly the impact of my words have lost some of their oomph,
as the hon. colleague says, given the delay.
I did want to say to the member opposite who is no longer in
the Chamber that paranoia will destroy you, and I am not
paranoid.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I
believe it is not proper procedure to note members that are not in
the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sure the hon.
member will apologize for having done that.
Ms. Torsney: Madam Speaker, I do apologize for that.
(1505 )
As I was saying earlier it is important that we set clear targets.
As anybody or any business that has been in a debt situation
knows you have to set clear targets and meet those targets. That
is certainly what the government is doing.
You do not cut off your nose to spite your face. We still have to
make investments in the future. We still have to get out from
underneath the debt and deficit situation. We will do so by
making strategic investments, by setting clear targets and by
continuing to meet those targets as we have in the last year and
actually exceeding them. That is the conclusion of my remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member's time
has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in this debate in order to point out a
number of contradictions in the budget, in the way cuts are
made, cuts I would describe as bad.
The first thing I would like to draw to the attention of this
House is the cuts in research and development, particularly in
the agricultural sector. In this period of worldwide change, this
time of market globalization, it is very surprising for a
government to be cutting out all research in such a draconian and
definitive fashion in the area of ovine production-production
for the development of sheep farming. This type of production is
both ecological and a source of diversification for a number of
regions in Canada.
The decision was made in the budget to close the experimental
farm at La Pocatière. This is a federal experimental farm, the
oldest one in Quebec, which, only two years ago, was given the
exclusive mandate for research in sheep farming for all of
eastern Canada and in fact for Canada as a whole. A few years
ago, a new sheep barn was built there at a cost of $10
million-money simply forgotten today. We are told that this
farm will be closed, despite the fact that the sheep industry
should get the most out of investment in research and
development.
This situation is in blatant contradiction with the Liberal
Party program and the guidelines of the present government on
support to the agriculture industry. It is a contradiction, and I
believe the government should reverse its decision and continue
to pay the cost of research and development in sheep production
10476
so that this industry can receive the support it needs to take its
rightful place in the Quebec and Canadian market.
Another example of bad cuts in the budget is the substantial
increase in port tariffs planned for the various harbours that
come under Ports Canada and which are along the St. Lawrence
River, among other places. They decided to raise port tariffs by
25 per cent and the ultimate result of this increase will be that a
certain number of boats which would otherwise have docked in
these ports will refuse to do so. For example, in Cacouna
harbour, in my riding, the increase in port tariffs will achieve the
opposite effect to that intended, which is to increase government
revenues.
The result of the increase in port tariffs will be that fewer
boats will dock there. This may cause an overall decrease. This
is the kind of misjudgment of the situation which will have a
negative impact on all ports, especially on the St. Lawrence,
where 13 ports can be considered profitable when it comes to
efficiency. This across-the-board increase in port tariffs will
make some hitherto profitable ports stop being profitable and
will make them a drain on the federal budget. I think that it is
important that the federal government reconsider its decision to
increase port tariffs by 25 per cent, because all users know that it
will have an impact.
(1510)
People who make calls for tenders, shipowners who entertain
the idea of docking ships in Cacouna harbour or another could
very well end up going to the east coast of the United States. We
are going to eventually end up with even more harbour facilities
which are not used as they should be and which will be
increasingly in the red.
I think that these are examples where the government sets out
in good faith to cut spending, but cuts in the wrong places and
implements cuts which have negative repercussions for the
economy of certain regions, like the one I represent, the riding
of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Another example is transportation subsidies. Everyone agrees
that these subsidies, which perhaps created an artificial market,
must be abolished. The Minister of Transport was favourably
disposed to recommendations that these subsidies be eliminated
gradually, so that the impact on the regional economy could be
evaluated. The Minister of Finance, however, has decided to cut
them drastically starting July 1, 1995.
It is not possible at this time to predict the effect this will have
on eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. It is not known if
it will be beneficial or disastrous, or if some businesses will not
be forced to close their doors during the summer of 1995
because of this decision.
Why did the government not follow the recommendations of
the industrial commissioners of eastern Quebec, of the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency, of all the stakeholders in this
sector ultimately, and reduce these subsidies gradually over four
or five years? That would have allowed the various industries,
whether in the forestry sector, dairy production, furniture
manufacturing, or processing, to adapt, to explore new markets
and to meet the new challenges of competition.
I think that a decision such as this one will lead on the short
term to an increase in unemployment. I need not tell you that our
economy does not adapt very quickly to change. Some people
will lose their jobs and will not find others right away because
the first step will be to rebuild the regional economy, to create an
industrial fabric corresponding to the new market conditions
resulting from the abolition of transportation subsidies.
This is another example of how, in the budget, the federal
government has ignored the complex nature of markets and is
making decisions that will have a major negative impact on the
short term. This impact could have been reduced by taking into
account the recommendations made by the various stakeholders
in the local economy.
I would like to give one last example, which I think is even
more meaningful, namely the Federal Office of Regional
Development's withdrawal from capital assistance programs for
small business. Under the pretext of saving, we will kill a very
lucrative small business start-up market.
For example, a small winery like the one in my riding
obtained a subsidy to build a warehouse, which allowed it to
expand its market and secure a significant market share. This
type of assistance will disappear. Consultants will help
businesses find their way around the bureaucratic maze, but this
type of assistance will not help launch small businesses. In this
regard, I think that the federal government made the wrong
decision.
I gave several examples of less than effective cuts which will
be counter-productive on the long term, so that we will end up
with an even larger deficit and regions will become even more
dependent on transfers. The results will be the opposite of what
the government is trying to achieve.
Of course, the government argues that it has to do this in order
to cut spending. But we have not looked at the other side of the
coin. For example, why did they decide to give family trusts
until 1999 before eliminating the tax deferral and preferred
beneficiary provisions?
10477
(1515)
It is a little like coming home one night to find a burglar and
telling him: ``It is now 11 at night; I will come back tomorrow
morning around five o'clock, but in the meantime, keep quiet
and do not steal anything''.
We are telling Canada's wealthy families that have taken
advantage of family trusts that they have five years to empty
these trusts. At the end of the day, they will still be able to make
the most of this unacceptable tax dodge.
Another way we could have saved money is by eliminating
duplication in the area of manpower where, in Quebec alone,
$250 million is wasted every year. I wanted to give these two
examples to show that, if the government had taken action in the
right places, it would not have been obliged to resort to such
senseless measures as cutting Canada's only experimental sheep
production research farm, which is located in La Pocatière.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to take part in this debate on the 1995-96 budget.
First of all, I must say that this budget is very disappointing. It
is hard on the workers, the disadvantaged and Quebec. It does
not contain any job creation measures. There is nothing in this
budget for the 800,000 Quebecers on UI and welfare who want to
work. In this budget like in his last budget, the Minister of
Finance is announcing further cuts in unemployment insurance.
Quebec however will get back less than it will contribute in
1995. It is clear that federalism does not profit Quebec.
This year, Quebec workers and employers will contribute $4.8
billion to the UI fund, but Quebec claimants will receive about
$4.7 billion in benefits and various employment-related
services. This will means a shortfall of approximately $118
million for Quebec. Just to restore the pre-recession level of
employment, more than 800,000 jobs would have to be created
in Canada.
In that sense, the budget offers no hope to the 1,200,000
jobless Canadians, based on Statistics Canada's figures.
Instead, the government sets itself a target of 45,000 job cuts
in the federal public service, the most extensive one-time
workforce reduction ever made in the public sector. Ottawa,
Hull, Montreal, Toronto and many smaller cities and local
economies will be hard hit by such a massive layoff of civil
servants. I want to show solidarity with the Public Service
Alliance of Canada and all government employees who will be
laid off.
In addition, seniors' income is threatened by the
government's announcement of an impending review of old age
pensions scheduled for 1997 and designed to reduce program
benefits.
In these times of drastic cuts in social programs, the
government can almost certainly be expected to try and raise
premiums, reduce benefits and tie pension income to family
income. Thousands of seniors, UI and welfare recipients are
very unhappy with this budget, particularly in my riding of
Bourassa, where they are in great numbers.
The federal contribution to social programs, i.e. welfare,
health and education, will be reduced from $17.3 billion in
1994-95 to $10.3 billion in 1997-98. This 40 per cent cut over
three years will force the provinces to make further cuts with
nothing offsetting these cuts.
On the other hand, costly duplication will be allowed to
continue at the expense of the taxpayers, and so will
squandering.
(1520)
Also, the government does not go after the thousands of
businesses which do not pay taxes, nor does it do anything about
the tax havens accessible by virtue of tax treaties signed with
other countries. This budget looks like it was drafted by Wall
Street financiers. Tax on bank capital is increased, but only for a
certain period. Consequently, banks will temporarily contribute
about $100 million, while the Royal Bank alone made profits in
excess of $1.2 billion in 1994.
As for family trusts, which Bloc Quebecois members
denounced on many occasions, the minister maintains existing
privileges for another five years. Over the next three years, the
minister will cut $307 million from CMHC's budget, which is
responsible for social housing, a very important issue in my
riding of Bourassa, in Montréal-Nord. This unfair budget also
reduces by $32 million the amount of subsidies to Quebec dairy
producers.
The government also intends to reduce by $1.3 billion, over a
three-year period, the budget for international assistance. That
decision is in full contradiction with the white paper on
Canada's foreign policy, which was tabled in February. I come
from a developing country and I care a lot about this issue. It is a
shame for our country, which will only allocate 0.29 per cent of
its GNP to international co-operation, while the objective set by
the UN is 0.7 per cent. This is the lowest level since the sixties.
Meanwhile, at the recent world summit on social development,
in Copenhagen, industrial nations, including Canada, just
pledged to increase official development assistance. How
hypocritical!
I also want to discuss the cuts affecting the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration. Because of drastic increases in
immigration fees, family reunification will become
increasingly difficult. The most blatant example is the tax on
immigration. From now on, all adults who want to immigrate to
Canada will have to pay $975, in addition to a $500 processing
fee, which
10478
means they will have to pay $1,475 just for the right to settle in
Canada.
In many countries, this amount is the equivalent of a year's
wages or even more. A family of four will have to pay about
$4,000. Many people whose refugee status has been recognized
cannot afford to pay $500 to obtain permanent residence. Some
people arrive here without any money at all. How can they deal
with this increase? It is unacceptable that future immigrants
who never lived in Canada or visited this country will have to
pay for the Canadian government's deficit.
The government overlooks the fact that the country of origin
has already invested a lot of money in educating these
immigrants who are a formidable asset to Canadian and Quebec
society. Furthermore, people will have to pay $200 instead of
$80 to obtain citizenship certificates. This is unacceptable. The
government expects to collect more than $100 million per year
as a result. This discriminates against workers and poor people
from developing countries, like the head tax on Chinese
immigrants in the 19th century, which was intended to
discourage the Chinese from coming to Canada.
The government has shown no compassion at all for people
who seek the protection of Canada under the Geneva
Convention. The budget cuts will have a severe impact on the
IRB. The number of commissioners who deal with refugees will
drop from 175 to 112. The board's budget will be reduced from
$82 million to $77 million. On the whole, the budget of the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration is shrinking,
despite the fact that fees for services rendered have gone up,
sometimes by 200 or 300 per cent.
Because of office closures, staff cuts, the creation of two huge
processing centres in Vegreville and Mississauga and other
operating problems, the department is no longer capable of
carrying out its mandate.
(1525)
On top of that, we had the appointment a few days ago of
Jean-Guy Fleury as executive director of IRB. Mr. Fleury
formerly held a position with the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service, a fact that was omitted from his biographical notes.
Why does the Liberal government want to establish this kind
of association between immigration and intelligence and
national security matters?
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is
by way of a comment because I really cannot let some of hon.
member's comments go unanswered.
With the greatest of respect to the hon. member and his
background in immigration, his lack of comprehension of the
policies of the finance minister and the minister of immigration
and our policy initiatives which have taken place during the last
several weeks is tragic.
The idea that the department of immigration would not reduce
its moneys is simply ludicrous. Of course it will. We all have to.
Every single person in this country has to make a sacrifice to
ensure that the country will continue and that the institutions of
this country will continue to serve all Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I wonder if we could call a
meteorologist. There appears to be some heavy weather on the
other side.
At any rate, over the sounds of the empty barrels, for the
edification of the hon. member for Bourassa, for the 3,000th
time since the announcement was made I want to explain the
situation with regard to the fee. Very briefly, the $975 will be
charged to adults on landing. No one will be turned away.
Government loans will be available. Immigrants and refugees
have paid back their loans from this country at the rate of 95 per
cent. To say anything less is insulting to immigrants and
refugees.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, I notice a great difference in the
position taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration when she was in opposition, on
this side of the room, and her speech today, now that her side is
in power. Why is she not giving the same pro-immigration and
pro- refugee speech she gave before? Why has she changed so
much? Today she is defending policies criticized by all of the
organizations that assist refugees and immigrants. Everybody is
against this immigration tax. Everyone opposes the $975 fee.
She tells us that no one will be denied entry over this fee, but
she does not tell us that, to qualify for a loan, an individual must
show that he or she meets the loan repayment conditions. In poor
countries, few people earn $975 a month; sometimes they do not
even earn that in a year.
[English]
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
wanted to respond to a couple of points the hon. member from
the Bloc raised.
With respect to the reductions of the dairy subsidies in the
budget, I believe the member may have erroneously left the
House with the impression that Quebecers and Quebec dairy
farmers were the only ones who received these kinds of cuts.
That is not true at all. In fact, I have just received information in
my office of a Canadian analysis. Each one of the dairy farmers
across Canada contributed equally to the reductions, in terms of
those subsidies, to the tune of about $1,000 per farm unit. I can
10479
report to the hon. member that the reductions in Quebec are the
same type that were received in my constituency of Provencher.
With respect to unemployment rates, at the outset of his
speech the member raised concerns about the inequities in terms
of contributions in Quebec to the unemployment insurance fund
and those collecting unemployment insurance.
(1530 )
Perhaps the reason there are not as many people collecting
unemployment in Quebec as there were last year is the federal
government's small business initiatives and the federal
infrastructure program.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out, for the
benefit of the hon. member for Halifax, that several members of
her own party do not agree with the immigration fees.
Ms. Clancy: That is not true.
Mr. Nunez: Yes it is.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Are you going to reply
to the hon. member for Provencher?
Mr. Nunez: I would like to give the hon. member an answer.
Once again, Quebec is hit harder than the rest of the provinces.
In the dairy sector alone, cuts of $32 million, and dairy
producers are concentrated in Quebec. For the first time ever,
this year Quebecers will contribute more to the unemployment
insurance system than they will receive in benefits. The
shortfall in unemployment insurance is $118 million. And there
is nothing in the budget to help job creation. What about the
promises? What about the Liberals' promise to create jobs?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to participate in the budget
debate. During all my years in opposition, I heard many finance
ministers deliver their budget speeches. From one year to the
next, the same scenario repeated itself. The minister would
make great forecasts and great promises only to tell us later that
he had been completely mistaken.
[English]
Now the approach is different. This is a new era. For the first
time Canadians can trust their government's economic
assumptions.
The Minister of Finance has restored the confidence of the
financial markets. He has also done something else of equal
importance. He is restoring the confidence of Canadians and for
that I salute him.
Today I want to talk about the implications of the budget for
Canadian women. However let us be very clear. I am not only
speaking to women; I am also speaking to men. Women's issues
are everyone's issues. They are societal issues. They touch
every citizen in the country.
Women are our mothers, our spouses and care givers. They are
also taxpayers, consumers, workers and entrepreneurs. They
balance the family budget. They manage businesses. They take
jobs and they create jobs. They educate the next generation.
Women are very realistic. They know that as a nation we
cannot spend more money than we make for a very long time.
The time to pay back quickly catches up. Women understand
that our country cannot continue to accumulate huge deficits
year after year after year.
Now the time has come to face reality. The 1995 budget is the
first step and only the first step. Our goal is to create good jobs
and maintain our social safety net. We refuse to have decisions
of prime importance for the nation taken by the bond sellers in
New York, Tokyo or for that matter on Bay Street.
What lies ahead of us is a long journey, too long delayed. At
the end of the journey we will emerge triumphant with our
finances in order, a stronger economy, an ensured social safety
net, and with renewed confidence in our abilities.
Before we reach that goal many sacrifices will have to be
made by all Canadians. We will all have to tighten our belts.
Everyone shall be called on to do his or her fair share to help
eliminate the deficit.
Women really understand the need for fiscal restraint. They
are ready to do their fair share but only their fair share, for fiscal
restraint must never be used as an excuse to roll back the
advances women have made in the past 20 years. Nor can it be
given as a reason for delaying or postponing the further progress
of women's equality.
(1535)
[Translation]
The first piece of good news for women in this budget is that
there is no tax increase.
We sincerely believe that the tax issue is not only a matter of
tax rates; it is also a matter of fairness. By eliminating tax
loopholes, the budget makes our tax system more equitable.
Second, the Canadian government wants to give the provinces
more flexibility in managing programs like health care,
post-secondary education and social insurance. We will achieve
this goal through the Canada Social Transfer.
[English]
The minister stated that flexibility does not mean a
free-for-all. There are national goals that still must be applied.
We will combine flexibility with continued fidelity to our
principles.
10480
The government is absolutely committed to providing a fair
and sustainable system of protection for Canadian seniors. This
is also very important for women as they live longer and are
often among the poorest in society. In order to ensure the
sustainability of our pension programs, we will consult with
seniors and Canadians in general on the nature of the needed
changes later this year. That is part of open government.
Women's groups have a great interest in these consultations
and I encourage them to make their views known. I have asked
my department to specifically focus on this issue in the coming
year because we all have to contribute to the fullest degree
possible to the design of the program.
Women have a major stake in the budget measures, seeking to
replace dependence with independence. An important element
of that effort is the new human resource investment fund. We
have to ensure that women's particular employment situations,
their training and employment patterns, their incomes, family
responsibility and life experiences are fully taken into account,
both in the design of the new fund and the planned changes to
unemployment insurance.
[Translation]
I am also delighted that the Minister of Finance has
announced several measures to encourage small business.
Close to 40 per cent of small businesses in Canada are headed
by women and their success rate after five years of operation is
double that for men. That is the truth.
We can be proud of this success, which, however, did not
come easily and without pitfalls. Businesswomen have to face
what we call financial sexism. This does not come from me but
from a new study released a few days ago by the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business.
This study shows that women applying for business loans at
financial institutions are turned down 20 per cent more often
than men. It is a disgrace. And if they are approved, 95 per cent
of the time, they have to pay higher interest rates on their loans.
Do you find that fair? We certainly do not. All this, I remind you,
in spite of the fact that women are very responsible and
successful in business.
No wonder that, according to Pierre Cléroux, Vice-President
of CFIB, these figures prove beyond any doubt that financial
institutions are discriminating against women entrepreneurs.
Hats off to the Minister of Finance for stating in his budget
speech, and I quote: ``This government is determined that small
businesses will have access to the financing they need to
continue being our number one creator of jobs''.
On behalf of all women entrepreneurs, I might say the sooner
the better.
[English]
Let me turn to the principle of good government. There is no
doubt in my mind that we have to redesign the role of
government in the economy to fit the size of our pocketbook and
the priorities of our people.
(1540)
[Translation]
Last year, soon after being elected, our government undertook
an extensive review of all programs and agencies it is
responsible for. As part of this program review, the role of three
organizations dedicated to women's equality, namely Status of
Women Canada, HRD's Women's Program and the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
[English]
The review process found that all three promote women's
equality and in various degrees they all conduct research,
consultation and undertake communications. All three also
work closely with women's organizations.
The government concluded that the best way to increase both
effectiveness and efficiency would be to consolidate its actions
for women's equality at Status of Women Canada. In this regard
effective April 1, 1995 the women's program of human resource
development will be transferred to Status of Women Canada.
The presence and the role of their local, regional and national
staff, those offices and their services, will be maintained.
As well, effective April 1, 1995 the mandate of the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women will end. This will
result in a streamlining of resources and costs, removing
duplication and eliminating all order in council appointments.
The CACSW's research, consultation and public information
functions will be consolidated within the overall operations of
Status of Women Canada.
The CACSW will be given the time and support it needs to
wind up its operations. Once we move the functions to Status of
Women Canada we hope we will be able to absorb some of the
advisory council's staff to fulfil these functions.
[Translation]
The Canadian government is firmly committed to women's
equality. As a matter of fact, this commitment has motivated all
our decisions. This consolidation will enable this government to
further the cause of women's equality in partnership with
women's groups, the provinces and territories, the private sector
and volunteer organizations.
[English]
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women
played a major role in the formative years of Canada's modern
women's movement. At its inception in 1973 following the Bird
report, the report of the royal commission, it filled an important
10481
void. The modern Canadian women's movement was in its
infancy. Women lacked a strong voice in the public arena. They
also lacked vehicles through which they could advance equality.
Since then Canadian women have made progress in
government, in education, in business and in the academic
world. More important, women have formed hundreds of small,
medium and large organizations throughout the country to
ensure that their needs and concerns are heard and met.
These local, regional and national organizations work in
many fields like violence against women, child care, the
treatment of women in the health, justice and immigration
systems, and the needs of women entrepreneurs among others.
As our society evolved the need for some of the functions of
the council changed. Over the years its role as an interpreter of
the voices of women has been overtaken by many strong,
established national, regional and local women's organization.
We owe a great deal to the pioneers who worked within the
advisory council. I salute the years of hard work and dedication
of the committed women and men who have served the
advancement of women through the advisory council.
I wish good luck to its outgoing president. She has been very
helpful in my thinking the whole approach through and looking
at new avenues for creativity and new dimensions of the work
we are about to undertake.
(1545 )
The vitality and the strength of today's women's
organizations and the dedication of their members will ensure
that the important work done by the advisory council will
continue. Its independent research capacity and its ability to
consult and communicate information to women and the general
public and its documentation centre as well are important
supports to public policy making.
Therefore, these functions and the associated financial
resources will be maintained. Its initiatives will enhance our
ability to understand and respond to women's equality issues
that take shape at the grassroots level and create a new synergy
between research, policy development and the government's
programs.
The consolidation of these three organizations will, I outline
and summarize, create a single window operation; eliminate
confusion and improve access to government; provide the
government with a critical mass of expertise on women's issues;
improve research, communications and public information
services; strengthen links with local, regional and national
organizations, NGOs and universities; ensure that funding for
research that is independent of government continues to be
available; and allow the government to focus its efforts toward
promoting equality for Canadian women.
Since the day the Prime Minister appointed me as Secretary of
State for the Status of Women, I have been meeting with
women's organizations across this land. I have been having
round table discussions with them and with many of the groups
here in Ottawa. I have listened to their concerns with a great deal
of interest.
In the new structure we will work to reinforce our
collaborative partnerships and our abilities to network on a
broad spectrum of issues by ensuring the involvement of these
many women's organizations with their differing perspectives
and the voluntary sectors and the universities works well.
I also want to explore how we can use the new
communications technology in this new era of information. I
would like to see us build an ongoing dialogue with our
constituency using Internet and E-mail or both, or library net.
These are all fabulous ways to keep in touch and keep informed
and we want to do just exactly that.
[Translation]
We want to make sure that women become full-fledged
partners in our society. As the Prime Minister rightly said
recently: ``In Canada, women continue to further the cause of
economic equality. Relying on their own means and abilities,
women help shape the future of this country. As for the Canadian
government, it is meeting the challenge. Women's equality is
not a matter of special interests or rights, but rather a matter of
social and economic justice, a matter of good government''.
[English]
We will work together and work toward equality in
partnership with women, men, and the public and private sectors
to overcome the obstacles that are still blocking our way. It is by
involving the talents and dedication of every Canadian, all of us,
that we continue to enhance our prosperity and make this
country still a better place in which to live. When we involve all
of its people we are in the best position possible to make things
work.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for her
convincing speech on the continuous struggle of women towards
equality. I have two daughters and I do hope that they will live in
a society where equality will be even more of a reality.
My question concerns some measures which seem in
contradiction with the objectives and arguments stated by the
hon. member.
First, one of the recommendations made by the Liberal
majority on the human resources development committee
provides that future UI beneficiaries, that is those who never
received UI benefits before-this means a majority of young
people and women-will have to work a greater number of
weeks than other beneficiaries to be eligible for UI benefits and
these benefits will be less than those that will be paid to people
who have already been in the system for years. This seems to be
10482
in contradiction with the principle governing the UI system and
with your concept of equality.
(1550)
Second, the same committee recommended that, in the future,
students will have to run up higher debts, something which will
affect women even more than men since, in the course of their
careers, there are times when they are not gainfully employed,
for example when they decide to stay at home to raise their
children. Consequently, these women will be burdened with
larger debts and for a longer period of time. That also seems to
be a contradictory measure.
Finally, there is the plight of women who do not receive any
welfare or UI cheques and who are not eligible for programs
such as the assistance program for independent workers, which
helps people start businesses.
Does the hon. member not agree that the government could
have made an extra effort regarding these three areas, or should
at least, through the social program reform, ensure that women
in Canada and Quebec are not adversely affected by
recommendations which are neither appropriate nor adequate in
terms of helping them get where they should get in the future?
Mrs. Finestone: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his questions. As a father of two daughters, his interest is clear
to me. We are certainly on the same wave length in that both our
sons and daughters should enjoy equal opportunities and wage
parity. I certainly agree, and I commend him on his position.
I want to say to the hon. member that he should not be too
worried about unemployment insurance. So far, no decision has
been made. It is still hypothetical. The report drafted by the
people who worked so hard to listen to what the public had to say
has been tabled, and the final decisions will be made at the
appropriate time.
As for female students, if I am not mistaken, in the last two
budgets the situation improved, and it is easier for women to get
bursaries when they want to do a doctorate. There are certain
situations, and I do not remember the exact circumstances, but I
will certainly make enquiries and send you the rest of the
details, but I know that women have been privileged in this
respect, and if we want equality, I hope that the time will come
when we no longer have to take this kind of action to ensure that
women have the opportunities to which they are entitled.
On the subject of small business, I dare say that for the first
time we have, if not threatened, or at least strongly suggested or
advised, the banks that if they did not give small businesses the
kind of protection they need and did not give them loans on
request, we would apply sanctions that would be a little more
severe than was previously the case. And when we see that 40
per cent of all businesses started by women have a better success
rate than those started by men, I think it is because women tend
to take a more thorough approach. They do not take as many
risks, that is true, but in the end they have a better success rate.
A study has found that 50.1 per cent of businesses that have
been in existence for 25 years are run by women, and these are
incredibly successful businesses with sales that are absolutely
amazing. I hope that this more or less answers your questions,
but I can assure you that we have not yet won on all fronts. We
must take action through partnerships with people like the hon.
member, and I am counting on the co-operation of everyone,
especially here in this House.
(1555 )
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. minister's presentation. I
appreciate a lot of things she had to say, particularly in the
opening part of her statement where she said that women have a
very good understanding of fiscal restraint and what it takes to
run a business or a household.
My wife is a person who does understand. It is a shame my
wife is not here to hear the comments of the hon. member for
Halifax. I am sure she would take issue with that. Perhaps she is
watching this on television. My wife does understand as the
minister rightly said the need for fiscal restraint. My wife also is
100 per cent supportive of my opting out of the gold plated MPs
pension plan. Why? Because like millions of other Canadian
women who understand the need for belt tightening in these
times of financial crisis in order to get our country's finances on
the road she believes that leadership should start right at the top,
here in the House of Commons.
If the women Liberal government members do support
leadership by example, then why do they still cling so fervently
to this still gilded MPs pension plan?
Mrs. Finestone: Madam Speaker. Women know how to
handle money. They know how to turn a nickel into a dollar.
They have been very cautious and careful. They have had to be,
because men have not always been very sharing or very open
with their wives or their children.
10483
With respect to the pension, my husband thinks the pension is
just right, just fair and he has no objection. Quite frankly we all
work very hard. I am sorry if the hon. member thinks it is not
worth being paid or recognized for working many hours a day.
We do not agree with him. I think our pension system with the
changes we have brought in is more than fair, more than
equitable. My husband is not upset and neither am I.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister about her
commitment to child care. The budget eliminated a subsidy that
allowed for a great deal of transportation funds to be available to
farmers in western Canada. In the past, rural women have found
themselves having to find child care when child care was not
available. With the elimination of the Crow benefit the pressures
on the financial aspects of farming will be increased. Rural
women who have in the past called for child care I am sure will
be asking the minister for her support in the future to see a
federal commitment to child care in rural areas.
Can the minister tell us if she continues to be committed to
child care, especially in rural Canada?
Mrs. Finestone: Madam Speaker, I want to assure my hon.
colleague that I have not changed my mind or my view of
society. I have met with the Rural Women's Childcare Coalition.
I have met with the farm women of Canada. I am very much in
support of measures that will give them the kind of child care
they want. A universal system is not always what they want.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has been
working with the provinces. There are propositions out there. I
can assure the hon. member that our commitment to the increase
in child support and child care is a well founded commitment. It
will be met within the term of our red book time. I can also
assure him we will not change our minds on gun control either.
(1600)
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate in the House,
although today's topic does leave a lot to be desired.
Canadians have a debt of over $550 billion. We have
continuously overspent our budget, creating annual deficits
which we add to our debt. In turn, this increases the amount of
interest we must pay, already over $40 billion.
On February 27 the finance minister told us that he, his
department and the government had balancing the budget in
mind. He said it was a priority of this administration, but the
finance minister does not tell us when it will achieve the actual
balancing of the budget. Instead, each year we have been told of
one more step in the budget balancing stroll that he and this
government are leading us on, and that strolling in this manner
for three years will achieve 3 per cent of GDP, assuming present
conditions affecting this forecast remain constant and that those
conditions or situations anticipated actually come to pass.
A plan that takes three years to reduce an annual deficit of
more than $35 billion by $10 billion does seem like a stroll down
some indeterminate path. It is not suggestive of a plan that
would be considered a high priority by the people who
implement it when there is no end in sight.
The longer we maintain the need to borrow large sums of
money from foreign lenders the longer we will continue to add
to our debt, increasing the amount of interest we will pay. The
interest money we pay to foreign lenders could be utilized very
effectively for services or benefits for Canadians at home.
It reminds me of the situation with credit cards. When a
person uses a lot of credit cards to buy certain things and then sit
them all in front of them and add up the amount of interest they
are paying, it is taking a huge chunk of their salary. The person
wonders why they thought buying on credit was a good idea.
By the time the government reaches its target of 3 per cent of
GDP in 1996-97 it is estimated the interest payments on our
debt will have reached $50 billion. To say it is rather easy for us
these days, but it is really hard to identify with the reality of a
billion dollars.
I have heard some examples, such as circling the globe at the
equator with $2 bills, but it is hard to visualize how big the
equator is as well. One example very easy for me to identify with
is that if a person made a dollar every second they would be a
millionaire in 11 days. To get a billion dollars it would take them
33 years. That puts it into reality for me.
Canadians have expressed concerns about most of the
services provided under the social program umbrella, for
example, health care, pensions, unemployment insurance, et
cetera. We know these programs will be cut in the near future.
However, we will not know until the autumn or maybe even later
how these cuts will affect our lifestyles.
We also know that federal funding for health, post-secondary
education and welfare will be lumped together and cut by $2.5
billion in 1996-97, and a further $4.5 billion in 1997-98. These
cuts will have an effect on us, but it will depend on how the
provinces allocate the moneys they receive to implement and
maintain the services. Again, we do not know at this time the
effect the budget will have on our lifestyles.
10484
Even though it is a step toward decentralizing or transferring
the management of these programs to the provinces and
territories, it is unfavourably implemented when the cash
cutbacks are not coupled with compensation in the tax credit
area by increasing it.
(1605 )
With this budget plan, it is inevitable that health services will
be cut, if not directly this year certainly next or the year
following that.
This year health services will probably feel some effect from
the cuts as applied to the medical research council, a 10 per cent
cut, and the patent medicine prices review board, 15 per cent cut
and another 15 per cent cut to the hazardous material
information review commission.
Some aspects of the mandates of these departments or
services certainly contribute toward the quality of our overall
health program. Reduction in the services from some of these
sources is bound to influence health care services.
I have identified some areas where cuts are to be
implemented. These plus other cuts in the budget are apparently
insufficient to prevent the need to continue borrowing possibly
large sums of money in order to operate within the budget.
A possible contributing factor is that this government's
budget does not apply cuts equitably and fairly across the board,
but singles out some services to cut while allowing others to
actually increase. Even though the growth rate is restricted there
is still an increase taking place. An example of this is the Indian
health care service program in which the growth rate will be
restricted to 6 per cent for 1995-96 and 3 per cent for 1996-97
and again 3 per cent in 1997-98.
We need to balance our budget as soon as possible. We need to
relearn how to live within our means and not continuously
borrow horrendous amounts of dollars. Once we have achieved a
balanced budget we can implement a plan systematically and
consistently to apply funds to our debt and reduce it.
The Canadian people are aware that we have a deficit problem
as well as a debt problem. They are aware we must resolve our
deficit problem before we can adequately address our debt
problem.
Canadians are looking for leadership, for a plan that will not
only provide guidance and direction necessary for all Canadians
to participate in resolving our deficit problem as soon as
possible, but would also identify what it would mean to our
lifestyle during the whole process of achieving this.
Two plans have been presented. The government's budget
plan reduces our deficit problem by less than half over a three
year period, of which one year has already passed, and involves
cuts in services to some Canadians and not others.
The Reform Party taxpayer's budget calls upon all Canadians
to accept a decrease in services across the board and to
participate in a nationwide plan to eliminate the deficit in a three
year period.
The Reform Party's taxpayer budget not only achieves the
position of living within our means in three years, it also
achieves implementing the decentralizing of some services such
as health care to their rightful administrative positions, the
provinces. It also removes the cash payment whip, increasing
the tax credits in such a manner to allow the provinces to acquire
the income necessary to meet the standards of the Canadian
health care program as dictated by the Canada Health Act.
There is no need to stroll through the years toward the
balanced budget target-we do not know when that is-and
borrow horrendous sums of money along the way, as we are
being directed by the Liberal government. We do have an
alternative plan, an action plan complete in three years, not
some indeterminate time period.
We have this in the form of the Reform Party's taxpayer
budget. We have Reform members in Parliament who, given the
opportunity, are willing and committed to provide the
leadership necessary to lead the people of Canada to a balanced
budget in three years and to eliminate the need to borrow
horrendous amounts of money from foreigners in order to live
the lifestyles we wish to enjoy.
(1610 )
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, with the taxpayer budget, as the Reform Party
presented it, how would the member provide assistance to those
old age people who are receiving OAS at the present time with
the tremendous cuts they were prescribing for their budget?
Ms. Bridgman: Madam Speaker, to precede addressing
specific issues, the Reform's taxpayer budget illustrates all the
cuts that would occur over three years. We also look at pensions.
The government has not actually identified and will not until
autumn what exactly is going to happen there.
We are not suggesting that service will not be there. We are
looking at a 15 per cent cut in OAS as an across the board of cut.
The other thing we are looking at is the RPSP concept. We
have to look into this and work it out in the business community
and see how this is going to work. However, that concept is quite
reasonable and feasible to maybe replace our existing system
and come up with something that is better in the long run, has a
little more control from the individual's point of view as to how
they wish to live their lives and also provide them with a sense of
responsibility and a sense of security.
10485
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I paid
careful attention to the speech by the hon. member. I have one
small question. I heard her say she wanted to make the cuts in the
federal budget over three years. I would like her to tell me how
they see unemployment insurance in three years' time, what will
become of unemployment insurance?
[English]
Ms. Bridgman: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his questions.
When the idea for unemployment insurance was originally
conceived it was seen as an insurance program for people
temporarily out of work. That concept was very valid at the
time. However, over the years there seems to have been a turn
around in attitudes.
Let us get back to the original concept and make it the
insurance program it was originally intended to be, directed at
the people who need it.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I compliment my colleague on her
presentation. The Liberal member opposite asked about the
Reform Party's cutting OAS payments to seniors.
The Liberal members have not read the taxpayers' budget. If
they had listened to the responses to the question they have
asked over and over again in this House about how we are going
to treat OAS, they would have heard us clearly say time and time
again that seniors who have household incomes over $50,000 a
year would be the only ones affected by the Reform Party
budget. It would not be the seniors on lower income, as this
Liberal member well knows.
Ms. Bridgman: Madam Speaker, I may have been a little
weak in my comment to the hon. member. I thank my colleague
for clarifying that.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak
today on this budget. I certainly spoke on it a number of times in
my riding. The many hundreds of constituents who turned out to
the town hall meetings concerning this budget certainly support
the Reform position that this budget is as weak kneed as a
Liberal Party can possibly get.
(1615)
The budget will ensure that before the next election the
Liberal government will add another $100 billion to our national
debt. The budget by the Liberal government will ensure our
interest payments on the national debt will rise to $50
billion-plus. All of this will occur before the next election. The
Liberal budget attempts to put a happy face on a deficit target of
$25 billion in 1997.
In examining all of these factors it is difficult to see how any
fiscally conscious Canadian could consider this a tough budget
as the Liberal Party purports it be or a budget that will, as the
Minister of Finance has said, break the back of the deficit. We
have heard this break the back of the deficit statement from
finance ministers for over two decades. Yet somehow the
government remains committed to a position of spending more
money than it takes in in a year.
Finance ministers have consistently projected deficits which
in reality turned out to be far higher than their forecasts. I would
never go so far as to accuse the government and the finance
minister of creative bookkeeping or even fudging the numbers.
My confidence in the veracity of the numbers in this 1995
budget is about the same as my confidence in the Liberals
reforming social programs before there is a referendum in
Quebec.
Speaking of numbers, this necessarily brings me to this notion
of targets that the finance minister has been so free with. We
have listened day in and day out to the Minister of Finance
emphatically declare: ``We have hit our targets and we will
continue to hit our targets in the future''.
I guess when your target is the ocean and you are standing on
the end of a pier and jump in, it is easy to say that you hit your
target. What is meant by that is the target is so broad and so easy
to hit. You cannot miss when you put your target so low.
Simply put, the target is low. This 3 per cent deficit to GDP
the Liberal government has been so proud of is insufficient. It
was labelled so by the IMF, the OECD and the entire Canadian
business community. The Liberals know this. The Canadian
Chamber of Commerce was arguing for a zero deficit budget by
1997-98 but the Liberals did not have the political guts to
commit to a target like that.
Therefore it was up to Reformers to address the real concerns
of the Canadian people. That is exactly what we did in our
taxpayers budget. That budget was conceived out of input from
the Canadian people that was listened to. It was a budget
committed to eliminating the deficit in three years and thereby a
budget committed to protecting the viability and the core of our
social programs.
The Minister of Finance, despite stating before the finance
committee that a balanced budget is the ultimate goal, has
refused to lay out any plan that details when Canadians can
expect a balanced budget. There are no plans and yet he said it.
Could it be that like his predecessors, the minister is really not
sure of what the actual deficits will be in the future?
(1620 )
We have heard of targets before and we have continually seen
them missed before. So let us hear no more pontification from
10486
the government benches about hitting targets. A deficit target of
$25 billion and a debt target of $650 billion are certainly
nothing to be proud of.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of prebudget consultations
held by the Liberal Party, we saw witness after witness in
committee. Individuals, associations, business groups and the
like appeared before the committee and testified repeatedly day
after day, hour after hour against any further tax increases by
this government.
After all this consultation process, which the Minister of
Finance still is very proud of, which the Liberals also find time
to pontificate about, what do we discover in this budget? New
taxation measures.
Despite the absence of pro-taxation testimony in the
hearings, the Liberal majority on the committee concocted a
dozen more possible tax options. They were obviously very
good at reading between the lines and listening to what these
anti-tax people really meant. They said: ``We do not want any
new taxes,'' but what they really meant was: ``Yes, please hit us
with another tax''. So much for consultation. So much for
listening to the views of Canadians.
It is shameful that the Minister of Finance, knowing full well
that much more substantive cuts must come in the future,
allowed this key budget-and it was a key budget. There was a
window of opportunity to really break the back of the deficit, but
the Liberal government and the finance minister missed that
window of opportunity by a mile. They allowed this key budget
to be watered down by the soft pedalling socialists in the Liberal
Party.
In all, this budget will snatch $3.7 billion out of the economy
through taxation in the next three years despite the fact that an
OECD job study, a C.D. Howe report and a survey by the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce demonstrated clearly that high
taxes destroy job creation. The Liberals raised taxes despite the
fact that the Prime Minister in June 1991 when in opposition
stated, and this is interesting, that taxes on individuals were
higher in Canada than in any G-7 country. Although he said that
in 1991, the Liberal government raised taxes.
The Deputy Prime Minister when in opposition in 1991
demonstrated a rare concern for the Canadian taxpayer and
revealed a suspect sensitive side when it came to their plight.
She stated that Canadians are paying too much tax. Despite that,
the Liberal government raised taxes in this budget.
That $3.7 billion should have been left alone to create growth
in the economy, to create jobs, not rip it out of the economy in
taxation. Now the government will say that these new taxes were
fair taxation measures. What is fair about a 1.5 cent per litre tax
increase on gasoline? This is simply a $500 million tax grab to
offset the revenue the government lost when it lowered the
cigarette taxes. If the government had the guts to enforce the law
when all that cigarette smuggling was going on, it would not
have to rip another $500 million out of the economy in a
gasoline tax.
I want to wind up by quoting a Liberal. This is really
something and members will recognize this: ``Once a nation
parts with the control over its currency and credit, it matters not
who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control will wreck
any nation. Until the control over currency and credit is restored
to Parliament and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred
responsibility, all talk of democracy or freedom is idle and
futile''.
The Liberal government has ensured the control over our
currency and credit is in the hands of our lenders, not in the
hands of Parliament and the government where it should be.
(1625)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. member, which
contained figures, figures and more figures.
A year ago, when the members of the Reform Party arrived in
the House of Commons, I remember their comments in an initial
newspaper article in which they talked about a club sandwich
costing less in the parliamentary cafeteria. We in the Bloc
Quebecois were talking about tax reform. They then went on to
talk about the shoeshine people; we were talking about tax
shelters. We were therefore not quite on the same wavelength for
savings to really be made.
The government talks about reducing the deficit to 3 per cent
of the GDP. Could the hon. member tell us what percentage of
the GDP he would like the deficit to be at, himself, so the debt
could be paid back as quickly as possible, but without ever
losing sight of the most disadvantaged, the unemployed and
seniors?
I am not prepared, politically, to say that we are going to go
after the most vulnerable in our society, who are unable to
defend themselves, and that we will leave the rich alone. As I
have said in the past and will continue to say, the good Lord and
good common sense must go hand in hand. Therefore there has
to be a balance between the rich and the poor classes. I do not
want the poor to get poorer. I want a balance to exist.
I would like the hon. member to give me an idea of the rate he
would bring his percentage to without affecting the most
disadvantaged.
[English]
Mr. Harris: Madam Speaker, for the umpteenth hundredth
time in the House, it is amazing that so many members have not
been listening to what we are saying. We have said over and over
it is not fiscally conscious members of Parliament who are the
big threat to our social problems in this country. It is not fiscally
responsible MPs who are the threat to the unemployed, the
seniors and the needy, as the hon. member said. The biggest
10487
threat is our $500 billion debt and our some $50 billion interest
payment on that debt.
Imagine if we did not have this huge half a billion dollar debt
created by the Liberals and the Tories before them. Imagine if
we did not have this $45 billion or $47 billion interest payment
what that interest payment could represent in the way of
providing services and programs for people and Canadians who
are in need.
That is the threat to the social programs in this country, not
fiscally conscious MPs like the Reform Party. That has to be
understood.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have also listened to the Canadian people
throughout much of my term as a member of Parliament. The
last six years have been very tumultuous times, coming through
the Mulroney era of putting a lot of pain on the backs of
Canadians, and now sitting through this Parliament and the
development of this budget, with taxpayers from coast to coast
saying they have been taxed enough.
The finance minister claims this budget did not raise income
tax for ordinary Canadians. That is not quite correct. A large
number of Canadians were receiving and will receive to the end
of this year the northern tax allowance. This tax allowance
provides those who live further away from government services
a benefit which other taxpayers do not enjoy.
The hon. member shares a part of the country with me, that is,
people who currently receive northern tax allowances. Does he
not believe it is unfair for those taxpayers in the phase out of the
program this year to have to pay additional taxes?
(1630 )
Mr. Harris: Madam Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend
from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, this is a time when the
country is in a financial crisis. It is a time that can be compared
to a financial crisis in the family home. The time comes when
the family does not have enough money to live the lifestyle
which it had grown to like. It is the time to separate the wants
from the needs.
There are so many different areas in which we spend money
which clearly could be described as needs. There is also a
tremendous amount of ways in which we spend money that
clearly could be described as wants. If we are ever going to get
our financial house in order we have to make a clear distinction
between our needs and our wants.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-Human rights; the hon.
member for St. Albert-The Treasury Board; the hon. member
for Wetaskiwin-Labour.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak
in the budget debate, but it is with no joy I say what I feel I have
to say. I doubt, with the short time available to me, that I will be
able to properly develop the case I would like to make. I doubt
whether I will have the time to put on the record the many points
which I think are essential.
There are some positive measures in the budget which I fully
support. I have in mind the measures for tax fairness, those
measures which deal with tax deferrals, with family trusts and
with RRSPs. I also fully support the measures to put additional
tax on large corporations and the new special tax for banks and
bank-like institutions.
I regret that with respect to the balance of the budget I feel
there is much that is wrong. Specifically I am opposed to those
measures which attack our social programs. In the budget it is
proposed that we cut transfers to the provinces for
post-secondary education, health care and the Canada
assistance plan by $7 billion over the next two years. It is also
proposed that we cut from unemployment insurance a minimum
of 10 per cent, a program which has already been cut by the last
budget and cut savagely many times under the previous
Conservative government.
For those Canadians who are not aware of what is covered by
the Canada assistance plan let me refer to a few items. By
agreement with the provinces it covers payments for food,
shelter, clothing, fuel and utilities for disabled people and
people who are not able to work. It covers rehabilitation for
needy persons. It covers day care centres. It covers hostels for
battered women. It covers nursing homes for old people. It
covers the cost of children in foster homes. It covers
homemaking and home support services. It covers adoption
services. That is only a partial list.
These cuts are not only wrong in principle, they are contrary
to the campaign promises which we Liberals made in the red
book and throughout the last election campaign. They are, first
of all, wrong in principle because social programs are not the
cause of the deficit. In answer to a question in the House only a
few weeks ago the Minister of Finance admitted that the cost of
social programs as a percentage of gross domestic product was
exactly the same today as it was 20 years ago in the
mid-seventies. He admitted that they were not the cause of the
deficit. If they are not the cause of the deficit why attack them
and why propose such extreme cuts to them in the budget?
10488
(1635)
These cuts are wrong in principle because they will cause
considerable harm and pain to a segment of the population that
has already been hit very hard before. I have in mind the
unemployed, single mothers, older workers, the disabled, the
mentally ill and others. These provisions will widen the gap
between the rich and poor, will cause further social unrest and
will hurt the economy by causing unemployment and reducing
purchasing power.
The cuts are not only wrong in principle but contrary to what
we said in the red book, contrary to what we said during nine
years in opposition and contrary to what we did during twenty
years in government under Mike Pearson and Pierre Elliot
Trudeau.
I have the red book here. I do not have much time so I will just
read one or two quotes. I could read many. I refer to page 74 of
the red book. It reads:
Since 1984, the Tories have systematically weakened the social support
network that took generations to build. Not only have they taken billions of
dollars from health care and from programs that support children, seniors, and
people who have lost their jobs, but they have set us on the path to becoming a
polarized society, divided into rich and poor, educated and uneducated, with a
shrinking middle class. This is not the kind of country most Canadians want to
live in. In a polarized society, crime, violence, intolerance and group hatred
flourish.
That is just one quote from the red book but there are many
others that are similar.
I also have here the complete list of the opposition motions
that we tabled during the nine years we were in opposition.
Motion after motion proposes solutions which are contrary to
what is being put forward in the budget.
Again, I do not have time to read them all but I refer to one put
forward by the member for Hamilton East on an opposition day:
That this House regrets that almost one million Canadian children are living
in poverty, that 1.4 million Canadians each year must rely on food banks and
that the current recession the proposed goods and services tax will make this
situation worse; and that the House, desiring the elimination of poverty in
Canada by the year 2000, demands immediate programs to ameliorate the plight
of the working poor, including a review of the minimum wage, discriminatory
employment practices, current available children's benefits and other income
support programs.
I also have the amendments that we tabled to the Tory budgets
during the nine years in opposition and they state similar sorts of
things.
Some people say that times were better then and we could do
things when we were in government that we cannot do today.
That is not completely true. The government was in better
economic shape then but the country, as the Minister of Finance
said the other day, is better off today. The gross national product
is higher today than it was 30 years ago. Canada is producing
more goods and services. Unfortunately they are not being
distributed as fairly as they should.
Some members have said, in trying to justify the budget, that
being a Liberal means being flexible. One should be flexible but
one should be flexible within a framework of principles. To be
flexible does not mean that one completely junks all the
principles that one has stood for and it certainly does not mean
that one throws out the promises that one made in an election
only a year and a half ago.
Yes, the red book and the election were only one and a half
years ago. As far as I know there has been no significant change
in Canada or in the world since that time. If the red book policy
had to be changed due to changed circumstances then the case
has not been made by the Minister of Finance.
(1640 )
Those are my specific concerns about the budget but I am also
troubled by the longer term implications of the budget. There
are several measures that continue to strip away in my view the
federal government, to strip away the federal authority, to strip
away the federal presence in this land, the presence and
visibility of Canada as a nation.
I have in mind cuts to transportation, to communications, to
the CBC and to social programs. These have always been the
national glue, the national infrastructure which has bound this
country together for many years. My concern is that the federal
authority will be left as a hollow shell once these cuts are made.
I support the deficit reduction goal of 3 per cent of gross
domestic product that we put forward in the red book. I support
deficit reduction but I support it in the way that we proposed to
do so in the red book: by cutting waste, by cutting unproductive
expenditure, by encouraging and promoting economic growth,
more jobs, more profits for business to bring about more
revenue for the government and by filling in and closing down
the unfair tax provisions in the Income Tax Act, not by cutting
social programs. I support the goal of deficit reduction but not in
the way in which we are doing it in the budget.
Yes, the fiscal deficit is important and I agree that it must be
addressed. But it must not be addressed at the expense of a social
deficit where we have more crime, more social unrest, more
family violence, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse.
I saw a very good button the other day on a person. The button
said: ``If you think education is expensive, try ignorance''.
10489
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to thank the hon. member
for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for his speech, but at the same time
remind him that we have one thing in common: we both
represent ridings in the Montreal region. And someone who
represents a Montreal riding is automatically sensitive, like the
hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, to the issue of poverty
and to the hardship that the past two recessions, the last one
being the 1982 recession, imposed on a good many of our
constituents.
I find the hon. member very courageous, because he belongs
to the government majority and it is to his honour that he is able
to rise above the prevailing opinion. However, I told myself that
he is asking us to remain keepers of the social conscience. He is
asking us to make sure that we have an interventionist
government and that we maintain one of the government's
reasons for being, namely redistribution.
However, we have diverging views on the causes of the
deficit. What I found surprising and very pleasing about the hon.
member's speech, and I say this without any ulterior motive,
was that he states that his government has no other choice but to
cut transfer payments. By doing this, his government could
destabilize provincial governments and force them to cut
services which are basic necessities and financed through the
Canada assistance plan.
I would like to hear the hon. member's opinion on the causes
of the deficit. As far as we on this side of the House are
concerned, the deficit is caused by the fact that it is impossible
to maintain a continental country like Canada: Canada is the
first and last example of a federation with a narrow ecumene
stretched out between two oceans. We say that one of the causes
of the deficit-when we analyze how we got into debt-is that
we have had a strong central government which meddled in
jurisdictions in which it had no right to. The hon. member will
recall that he was a member of Parliament when Ottawa created,
for example, a department for urban affairs and for recreation,
which, under the constitution, were in no way related to the
powers granted to the central government.
I would like to know if the hon. member will agree with me
that it would be much simpler for Canada and for its financial
situation to reorganize the country to give Quebec more power
and for Quebec to create its own national government and for us
to begin dialogue on the basis of our status as associated states.
(1645 )
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Madam Speaker, The principal causes of the
deficit are speculation in currencies which cause changes in the
interest rates and globalization of economies which allows large
multinational corporations to manipulate and speculate on
products, derivatives and currencies. For example, I was told
yesterday by a prominent member of government that each time
interest rates go up by 1 per cent it costs us $1.7 billion per year
in additional payments on our debt. If it goes up by two points it
is twice that amount. Those are the types of things that cause the
deficit.
In addition, many people are getting away without paying the
taxes they should be paying. The tax system is not fair. There
was some movement in the budget to correct it. I applaud that
and I support that but it did not go far enough.
With respect to the other question the member asked
regarding a new way of arranging Canada, I supported in the
House and voted for both the Meech Lake accord and the
Charlottetown accord. Both were eventually defeated. Those
accords would have rearranged the structures in Canada.
I believe in maintaining and even increasing the payments to
the provinces for social programs, but I also believe that
national standards should be set by the federal government. The
federal government can equalize opportunity and care
throughout the country. That is the humane thing to do.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is pleasure to rise in the House to take the
opportunity to address the second budget of the government as
presented by the Minister of Finance on February 27.
I expect in the final analysis the budget of February 1995 will
go down in history. It will be the budget that made a significant
difference in Canada at a time when Canada was at a crossroads.
The budget will be viewed by future historians as a watershed
budget, a turning point in which the government of the day had
the courage to make the tough decisions and to make the
necessary cuts in spending in accordance with responsible
financial management.
While the budget makes drastic and unheard of changes to the
face of government through spending cuts, it does so with
fairness and compassion. Programs that are efficient and
effective in serving Canadians will remain, but programs that
are obsolete, redundant and dysfunctional will be eliminated.
The budget prepares us for the inevitable trend of the 21st
century, which is less involvement by government in the lives of
people.
10490
To do this we have implemented a transition process that
encourages the individual to more self-reliant, more
entrepreneurial, stronger as a community and less dependent on
government programs and subsidies.
When the constituents of Cumberland-Colchester elected
me to represent them I knew I would be coming to Ottawa at a
very crucial time in our history, that I would be part of a
government with a fiscal policy that would either make or break
Canada, and that the Liberal Party would be the one to
ultimately bear the responsibility of piloting the country out of
deficit financing.
Canadians from coast to coast told the House that reducing the
deficit and debt must be the number one priority of the
government. They know how the deficit is like an albatross
around the neck of each and every one of us and of future
generations to come.
The government accepted the challenge, not only with the
budget but with several budgets to come in the future, to work
toward a balanced budget. It is not politically expedient but it is
the right thing to do.
The measures taken in the budget will ensure that Canadians
can face the economic challenge of international competition
and that we will be able to do so with growth and confidence.
The budget is about restoring confidence in government and
confidence in the Canadian economy.
Measures that were taken last year in the first budget of the
government showed positive results in our economy. Economic
growth is at 4.5 per cent, the strongest of the G-7 nations. The
most impressive year ever in Canadian exports was 1994. We
showed a massive trade surplus with the United States. Inflation
was at its lowest in three decades. There were more improved
business profits than ever. Some 433,000 full time jobs were
created last year.
(1650)
The same implementation that saw the economy grow
resulted in the annual deficit being reduced by $4.4 billion,
lower than was budgeted for the fiscal year ending in a couple of
weeks. That is the reality. That is progress in deficit reduction.
If we are to compare ourselves with the G-7 countries on how
well our economy is doing, it seems only reasonable to compare
ourselves and our debt situation to those of the G-7 countries.
It is sad to say that our net government debt as a nation is over
84 per cent of GDP second only to Italy of the G-7 counties. In
comparison the United States has a net public debt of 32 per cent
of GDP, while Japan's is around 10 per cent. It was therefore
mandatory that the finance minister demonstrate in the budget
not only to the nations of the world but to the financial lenders
that Canada was serious about reducing its deficit and the high
per cent ratio of debt to GDP.
Investors have been satisfied with the budget as have
Canadians, but I must remind the House that it is only the
beginning of a series of tough budgets until we have won the war
on debt.
Cuts in government spending mean pain. The budget is about
pain. However the pain was spread fairly to all regions. In the
west grain transportation subsidies were eliminated while in the
east the Atlantic region freight assistance program was
abolished. However both the west and the east including Quebec
will receive transitional funding, helping alleviate shipper
hardship and upgrade transportation infrastructure.
Last week when I was in my riding I met with public servants
whose jobs are being cut because they are classified as surplus
or because long established forestry agreements were not
renewed. These people are feeling the pain of the budget.
However, after looking at options in the transition, one forester
said to me: ``Even though we are losing our jobs this had to be
done and I would still vote for your government''.
The people of Nova Scotia did not want me to come here to
whine about the cuts. They wanted me to congratulate the
finance minister for having the courage to do what he did. The
people of Nova Scotia have a tradition of self-reliance and a
grassroots fighting spirit. They have an entrepreneurial spirit
that goes back to shipbuilding and merchant fleets of the 19th
century.
The people of Nova Scotia know that the backbone of the
economy is small business and that jobs will come not from
government but from the private sector. The economy of
Atlantic Canada is the fastest growing in the country. Atlantic
Canada ended 1994 with the highest rate of growth per capita. It
was 2.7 per cent, the highest of all the regions, followed by the
prairie region with a rate of growth per capita of 2.5 per cent.
Dairy farmers in my riding are like dairy farmers across the
country. They will see their subsidies cut by 30 per cent over two
years. Public utilities will see the energy subsidy eliminated
through the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. Alberta
and Nova Scotia are affected by the change. The Nova Scotia
Power Corporation has already indicated that higher rates are to
be expected, which in turn hinders small business development.
There is pain with the budget, but as the old saying goes no pain,
no gain. The people of Canada have accepted the pain knowing
there will be real gain in the months ahead.
The women of Canada have a greater appreciation for the
budget than anyone. Many women have spent their lives living
within the household budget and living within their means. I
would bet there is not a woman in the country who has not at one
time or another in her life watered down the stew and thrown in
another handful of barley simply to stretch the pot of stew for
another meal. The money she would save would go to buy a
dress or a pair of shoes for a child who has a very special
10491
concert. I have done it many times. Thousands of women across
the country managing Canadian households are the financial
experts, and they too have done so.
(1655 )
Under the previous government the 1980s were a time of
greed, surplus and waste. The 1990s under the present
government are a time of basic need, not greed, a time of high
efficiency and productivity, and a time of sustainability, not
waste. It is a time to sustain our finances as well as our
environment, our resources and our fish stocks.
We made a commitment to the women and the men of Canada
to reduce the deficit while restructuring social policy. We take
that commitment very seriously. The budget of February 1995 is
more than a bunch of numbers. It is one part of a very large
social plan, an economic plan as well as a financial plan that
maps a prudent, courageous and credible path not only for our
generation but, more important, for the next generation of young
Canadians.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully and was quite taken with
the enthusiasm the member opposite showed for the budget. She
talked about the budget being fair and talked in terms of
understanding and knowing how the fairness is applied across
the country. She talked about the policies of the government that
were obsolete, dysfunctional or redundant being eliminated.
Those two matters have to be applied to the communities that
I represent in Saskatchewan with the loss of the Western Grain
Transportation Act subsidy, the Crow benefit, which the
member mentioned in her remarks. The Crow benefit currently
represents $560 million. Two years ago it was worth $720
million, $400 million of which applied to Saskatchewan.
How is it that the member can indicate that the Western Grain
Transportation Act is obsolete, dysfunctional and redundant
when it is anything but?
The loss of the Crow benefit to our communities at the
delivery points in my riding represents approximately $1
million to each delivery point. The community of Glaslyn just
north of where I live has two elevators and is quite similar to
most communities in my constituency. We calculate that in the
crop year beginning August 1, 1986 farmers at that delivery
point will pay $1 million more for grain transportation in the
coming year than they did in this year.
In terms of fairness, what other community in the country has
been asked to give up $1 million in revenue? Absolutely none.
Communities that service the world with grain from
Saskatchewan have to pay extra. I ask the member for the
evidence she has that these programs are obsolete, dysfunctional
and redundant and that the budget is fair.
Mrs. Brushett: Madam Speaker, to the hon. member on his
question as to what community has suffered pain, most of the
communities across the country are suffering pain because we
had to take the prudent steps in frugal fiscal management that we
took. Canadians asked for it. The communities of Nova Scotia,
the communities of Quebec and rural communities all have the
same needs. The diversification and the competitiveness by
which our farmers must meet the 21st century are parts of the
budget.
Farmers in my riding, whether they are dairy farmers, feed
producers or cattle producers, have told us to get rid of the
subsidies. They said they could compete and would compete.
Furthermore the government has allowed funding for
transitional development through this period.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief in my comments. We
have just heard our hon. colleague tell us that she feels this
budget is very tough on ordinary people but that it is a necessary
evil. She used the phrase ``no pain, no gain''. That is what
Canadians expect, according to her.
(1700)
Yet, if we look at all the other members of her own
government, we see that the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, for one, feels that social programs are
not really the main cause of the debt. Not too long ago, the hon.
member for York South-Weston said that what the Liberals
were about to do was what they had denounced when the Tories
were in office. Our hon. colleague has just read some documents
reminding us of the comments made by the hon. member for
Hamilton West, who said the exact same thing.
I will close with this: Given that the cuts they are about to
inflict on ordinary people are due to Canada's debt and that,
despite these cuts, the debt will continue to grow, does my hon.
colleague not feel that, in the current situation, there will be
much pain and no gain at all?
[English]
Mrs. Brushett: Madam Speaker, no pain no gain is the
watchword of today. Not only this government, but businesses
have had to cut back. They have had to make the transition to be
competitive and now the onus is on government. We have
accepted the challenge. This is a watershed in budget. This is a
turning point in financing for the government. That is because
the people of Canada have asked us to deal with this. It is
mandatory.
10492
We are moving into the 21st century. We know we will create
the jobs not through government, not through subsidization, but
through the private sector. Small business is the backbone.
Nova Scotia is not unlike Quebec. We have so much
similarity. Historically, we can go back to a time when Quebec
was known as Nouvelle-Écosse. This is so important to us
because it is the very backbone. In Nova Scotia with a
population of 900,000 we have some 90,000 small businesses.
That is one in ten. That is growing in Atlantic Canada, the
highest in the country. That is because we are taking the prudent
steps to deal with the deficit. We will go through the pain but
there will be gain in the end.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lévis. The
show put on these past few weeks reflects how completely
outdated our parliamentary institutions are when it comes to
public financial management and economic policy.
After the session reopened, when questioned by the official
opposition, the Minister of Finance systematically refused to
answer any question dealing with public finance, arguing that
we would have to wait for the budget to be tabled, a budget
prepared in the strictest secrecy as budgets are. Yet, once tabled,
the budget speech has nothing short of force of law, since the
government majority is forced to support it without debating it
in detail.
In our system, the vote on the budget amounts to a confidence
vote, as a negative vote would immediately result in the
government stepping down and general elections being called. It
follows that any member of the government majority who dares
to vote against this budget would face immediate expulsion
from the caucus and would have to sit as an independent member
thereafter.
That is why every Liberal minister and member will stand by
each and every page, line and word of this budget, although
many of them would call for major changes were they given the
choice. The budget preparation and adoption process is getting
us nowhere fast. It has to change. We will come back to this in
the coming weeks. That being said, because I have very little
time, I will get right down to the subject of today's debate.
We have talked at great length, these past few days, about the
impact the budget will have on the various population segments
that will bear the brunt of the proposed cuts and tax hikes. We
too, in the official opposition, have seen through the media
campaign designed to make this budget out to be the beginning
of a new federalism, when in fact the federal government is
passing the buck to the provinces, while maintaining
decision-making power in its own hands.
(1705)
After spending shamelessly in fields of provincial
jurisdiction, the federal government still displays the same
arrogance by announcing that it will keep on levying taxes, that
it will no longer pay the bills, and that it will force the provinces
to make the necessary cuts to put the fiscal house in order.
Although it may look innovative, this budget uses old recipes
which are typical of the federal government's approach.
The financial markets were quick to figure out the
government's ploy. After an initial positive reaction which
lasted about 22 minutes, the value of the dollar started going
down again, while interest rates resumed their upward trend.
The financial markets realized that the federal government's
consolidation was minimal and that true leadership will have to
come from the provinces.
The fact that Ontario's credit rating was put under review the
day after the tabling of the federal budget is a direct
consequence of that budget. Its impact on Quebec's public
finances will also be considerable. However, since this is the
referendum year, the real consequences will only be felt next
year.
The government's ploy was not any more successful from a
political point of view. That the Leader of the Quebec Liberal
Party, who was desperately counting on this budget to prove
federalism's flexibility, prefers not to comment at all at this
point is quite revealing. Maybe he realized that although the
federal government has pulled out financially, the same
duplication persists, generating the same problems and the same
inefficiencies.
This budget has yet to be fleshed out by a thorough
restructuring of the federal government. As a society, we have
not improved our ability to respond to people's needs and to
meet the challenges of economic growth and job creation.
During the last election campaign, the Minister of Finance
was an ardent supporter of reducing the deficit through
economic growth and job creation. In a matter of months, he has
become, at best, a poor accountant. What happened? The present
Minister of Finance is largely responsible for the mess we are in
today. After an election campaign full of promises that were
close to being misleading, he was incapable of doing anything at
all, starting with his first budget.
Remember that during the election campaign, the Leader of
the Bloc Quebecois proposed a credible plan for reducing
federal spending by $10 billion, while the Liberals promised to
deal with the deficit through economic growth.
Remember that after the election, the Leader of the
Opposition urged the government to act quickly by setting up a
special committee of the House of Commons that would
determine what
10493
cuts were necessary and make them part of the government's
first budget. The government refused.
I may recall that after this government's first budget was
brought down, the Prime Minister was telling people
everywhere in Canada that no new cuts would be necessary to
meet his objectives for reducing the deficit. And now that we
know what is in the second budget, we cannot really say that the
Prime Minister was lying but there is no doubt that he misled
Canadians about the real challenges they could expect.
Today we are paying a very high price for this government's
refusal to act decisively in its first year. The loss of credibility
on financial markets is reflected today in the astronomical level
of real interest rates we have to pay. According to the Minister of
Finance, in 1995 we can expect interest rates to be 4 per cent
higher for the short term and 3.6 per cent higher for the long
term than was forecast in the 1994 budget.
If we only consider the cost of servicing the federal debt,
higher interest rates will an additional $7.5 billion, although the
deficit is not as high as forecasted in 1994. Unfortunately, there
are other consequences as well. The level of real interest rates
forecast in this budget cannot be sustained when we consider
that the Canadian economy is functioning well below its
capacity.
(1710)
Allow me to quote a short sentence from page 21 of the
government's budget plan, but which the Minister of Finance
took great care not to quote in his budget speech:
The good economic performance in 1994 and 1995 will substantially reduce,
but not eliminate, the amount of spare capacity in the economy. Spare capacity
will persist through 1996 as real growth slows-
This is what the Minister of Finance hides in his fine
speeches. He who promised to resolve the deficit problem
through economic growth and job creation, today predicts that
Canada will still experience an amount of spare capacity in the
economy in two years' time. This is the real drama of the
Canadian economy.
By refusing to act in the first year of its mandate, the
government has clearly complicated the essential job of
ensuring sustained economic growth. If we want to get out of the
rut in which we find ourselves, the provinces must not be
content with shouldering the cuts imposed on them by the
federal government, they must insist on a complete
reorganization of the way the Canadian economy is managed.
Keeping policies on economic innovation and adjustment
centralized flies in the face of the very different needs of
Canada's regional economies. What is the federal government
doing in manpower training, in the area of fishing, for example?
The complete fiasco in this regard should prompt the federal
government to hand over responsibility to the coastal provinces
as quickly as possible.
Clearly the systematic review of the roles of the federal
government must no longer be conducted only in secret by
federal mandarins. In the case of Quebec, I know we will soon
have a favourable referendum. I hope the other provinces in
Canada will take the opportunity to develop a framework that
suits their needs and those of their people.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of the hon. member who
just spoke.
I recall back in the early 1980s when the debate around the
Crow rate, at that time the western grain transportation subsidy,
was conducted in the House. The farm organizations and the
people of Quebec were very supportive of the western farmers
and the desire to maintain a strong transportation link for the
export of prairie grown grain. That support carried over and a
good number of changes were prevented from being made
because of the alliance between western farmers and farmers in
Quebec.
I wonder if the hon. member has given any thought to the
current debate brought on by the budget over the Western Grain
Transportation Act. Can western farmers count on the Bloc
Quebecois and the farmers of Quebec for support in maintaining
this transportation subsidy?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, the issue is Quebec's
support for western grain transportation subsidies. We must
realize that agricultural organizations in Quebec never opposed
the measure, as you said, and, on the contrary, supported it for
years.
It is far from certain that the federal government has the
means to continue subsidizing this area to the same extent. To
me, one thing is clear: when the federal government
implemented measures concerning energy, western Canada
reacted very strongly and demanded changes which eventually
were made. In my opinion, it is very clear that Canadian regions,
with each totally different economies, now must work things out
among themselves and stop waiting for the federal government
to do it.
(1715)
The longer we waited for the federal government, the more
and more centralized the decisions became, even though the
economies of each of the regions have grown increasingly
differentiated. The economic space in which we sell our
products is becoming more and more differentiated. Therefore,
each region needs its own strategy, and that is what the rest of
Canada urgently needs to understand. Do not expect the federal
government to do it.
10494
The mandarins in Ottawa, who like to delude themselves that
they know the truth, will continue to set the game plan and will
continue to think that they know what is best for Canada. It is
time for the regions to wake up: they need to create their own
transportation policies. They should no longer wait for the
federal Minister of Transportation to do it. In any case, this is
Quebec's firm belief, and I think that, after analyzing the
situation, each region will also see the urgent need to take their
affairs in hand.
I think that the vote planned on the sovereignty of Quebec this
year, which I predict will be for sovereignty, presents a golden
opportunity to reorganize economic relations. For example, a
few years ago, Canada's economy exported 20 per cent of its
output to the United States. Now, we have far surpassed 30 per
cent and are even nearing 40 per cent. Therefore, a
reorganization is urgently needed, but the federal government
will not initiate it. Regions will have to take their affairs into
their own hands.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is as the
official opposition critic on training and youth that I rise today
to speak about the impact of the last federal budget on young
people.
Like most of my official opposition colleagues, my initial
reaction to this budget is that the federal government wants to
transfer the blame for its cuts to the provinces.
On February 27, the Minister of Finance announced that,
starting in 1996-97, he would reduce by $2.5 billion transfer
payments to the provinces for health care, social assistance and
post-secondary education.
By combining these three payments into a single consolidated
block transfer called the Canada Social Transfer starting in
1996-97, the minister claims that ``provinces will now be able
to design more innovative social programs-programs that
respond to the needs of people today rather than to inflexible
rules. However, flexibility does not mean a free-for-all. There
are national goals and principles we-meaning the Minister of
Finance, of course-believe must still apply, and which the vast
majority of Canadians support''.
Such is the finance minister's flexibility. It involves national
standards that Quebec does not want and never wanted in the
first place. In this context, I think it would be a good idea to
remind you of Bill C-28 respecting financial assistance to
students, which was passed on June 23. This bill provides among
other things that, from now on, the Canadian Minister of Human
Resources Development, instead of the provincial governments
as was the case before, will designate the appropriate authority
in each province responsible for choosing educational
institutions eligible for federal financial assistance.
Second, the provincial education ministers wanting the right
to opt out with full financial compensation must convince the
Minister of Human Resources Development that their provincial
programs produce the same results as the federal programs in
each of the areas targeted by the federal legislation.
Great freedom, is it not? You can develop programs, as long as
they are absolutely identical to those decided on by the Minister
of Human Resources Development, in an area of jurisdiction
assigned to the provinces in the Constitution Act, 1867, an area
of exclusive jurisdiction, not shared jurisdiction. Over the
years, the federal government has encroached upon this
exclusive provincial jurisdiction, pleading the right to spend the
money of Canadians and of Quebecers.
(1720)
Coming back to the cuts in transfer payments, it should be
noted that the $2.5 billion figure quoted for all three categories
combined in the Canadian social transfer is within $100 million
of the cuts announced in the green paper with respect to
post-secondary education. This leads to the conclusion that,
give or take $100 million, the primary target of government cuts
is post-secondary education.
By giving the provinces the choice while maintaining national
standards, as it claims to do, the federal government will prompt
the target groups benefiting from the three elements of the
Canadian social transfer to turn against their provincial
governments or fight among themselves to avoid cuts.
The federal government will create a situation where students
will be competing with UI and welfare recipients. Our young
people are the ones mainly concerned by these three programs.
In January 1995, there were 363,000 unemployed youth
between the ages of 15 and 24 in Canada, over 100,000 of whom
are in Quebec. If you add to that youth on relief-over 74,000
young people are on welfare in Quebec alone, but I do not have
the total number for Canada-it makes for a terrible situation. It
goes to show how little compassion this government has had for
young people.
In light of a $2.5 billion cut in transfer payments to the
provinces, combined with an additional 10 per cent cut in the UI
program, the Minister of Finances was able to save enough last
year to meet his targets. To meet his deficit reduction target for
this year, the minister had to use the unemployment insurance
fund, which now shows a surplus.
So to compensate for his improvidence, the Minister of
Finance made cuts in unemployment insurance. The neediest in
our society have to compensate for the incompetence of the
Minister of Finance. This is appalling.
10495
So what does the minister do to make his budget look good?
He announces a temporary tax, for two years, that will raise
$100 million from large deposit-taking institutions. But
meanwhile, the government also makes cuts totalling $2.5
billion at the expense of the unemployed.
I see members of the Human Resources Development
Committee who toured Canada with me. Like me, they were met
by demonstrations in all major cities. Like me, they listened to
the complaints of young people and the unemployed, especially
in the Maritimes, about the cuts that will affect them. We will
not be able to last until spring, was what we heard from the
victims of seasonal unemployment. We heard them all,
especially young people.
Today, as a result of a reduction in benefit periods, many are
starting to feel the impact of cuts that were introduced last year.
However, the $2.5 billion saved were, I repeat, used by the
Minister of Finance to meet his budget target.
This is shocking, especially when we realize that last year, the
banks made a record profit of $4.1 billion, and some banks
managed to avoid paying any taxes at all. I am about to finish,
Madam Speaker.
(1725)
There are also the tax shelters. What did the minister do? Yes,
indeed, the response to the official opposition's call for this for
the past year and a half, was the announcement that
implementation would take effect in 1999. That is impressive.
They make the announcement four years ahead of time to the
people who enjoy the benefit of family trusts, so that they can
consult experts and find other ways to avoid paying tax. Four
years ahead of time.
When could a Minister of Finance provide a better example,
when does he tell interested parties four years ahead of time? We
are not talking about the disadvantaged here. He did not warn the
disadvantaged last year. He cut $2.5 billion dollars and, again
this year, he is waiting for his budget speech to take effect and
another 10 per cent cut is announced. We are supposed to find
this funny? I do not find this funny at all, because I come from a
riding where MIL Davie shipyards, among others, is located and
where 2,000 jobs were lost. These people, who lost their jobs,
are affected by the cuts to unemployment insurance and are now
on social assistance. They are not finding this funny.
In the proposed reform, 90 per cent of associations, in
addition to demonstrations, said no to Axworthy's reform and
said no to the so-called improvements to the system. We know
that increasing educational costs increases the debt load of
students, at a time when there have already been 1,000 student
bankruptcies in Quebec. Over 10 per cent of personal
bankruptcies in Canada involve students or young people.
We ask them to give thought to the future. A fine message. A
fine message, indeed. As the hon. member for Rosemont said,
more and more Quebecers are realizing that, with no measures to
enable people who want to return to the labour market, no active
measures, a choice will soon have to be made. More and more
Quebecers are realizing that the choice they have to make in the
Quebec referendum in order to get out of this system that offers
them little for the future is to vote ``yes'' in the referendum on
sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated the words of the hon.
member whose concern for youth I also share.
I was quite taken by the debate which began with the paper on
social policy and particularly the section that applied to young
people and tuition fees. The proposal would see additional
money made available to young people, but the result would be a
massive increase in tuition fees across the country.
Coming from a rural riding I am concerned for a number of
reasons. The ability of farm families to meet some of the costs
for post-secondary education are becoming more and more
difficult with each passing year. I was quite taken with the words
of the hon. member, especially when he quoted some of the
figures from the corporations that do not pay any income tax.
I will be very brief. At a time when rural Canadian people,
particularly those on the prairies, are being asked by the
government to pay, because of the elimination of the Crow
benefit, perhaps an additional $14,000 to $15,000 a year to ship
their product to market, how can the government allow
companies like Canadian Pacific to earn more than $422 million
in pre-tax profits without paying a single cent in income tax?
I ask that question of the government. However, in doing so I
ask the member who just spoke if he would agree with me that it
is certainly not fair for corporations to be allowed off the hook
when ordinary, individual, rural families are being asked to pay
so much more, thereby compromising the education of their
children.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, my reply will be extremely
simple. Why are they not changing the system? Because, for the
most part, and here I must admit that the Reform Party may be an
exception, Canadian political parties have traditionally been
financed by big business.
(1730)
Six of the 10 largest corporations which financed parties in
power-the Liberal Party now and the Conservative Party in the
past-were banks. And we should be surprised that banks have a
10496
lot of influence on governments, interest rates, etc.? This
obviously affects people earning low wages and farmers who
need to borrow large amounts and it will affect students more
and more because in the future they will have to borrow at least
twice the amount that they currently need to pursue graduate
studies.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the
speech made by the hon. member for Lévis. First of all, I found it
most interesting that he was defending the status quo, and
Canadian federalism, when he indicated that he hoped that there
would be no social program reforms, that he was a member of
the parliamentary team which toured Canada, and that he had
heard various comments regarding the reforms proposed by the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
The member defended ardently and with great enthusiasm
Canadian federalism and the status quo while the Liberal
government has realized that, at the international level, things
are evolving, and quite naturally so. As Liberals, we want to
make sure that the future of Canadians, including Quebecers,
will be much more promising than now.
I would also like to mention that Quebecers understand
perfectly that the changes brought upon by this government are
necessary to the future well-being of their children. I refer our
colleague, the member for Lévis to a documentary, a survey
conducted in Quebec, on the quality of instruction in the
CEGEPs, which, after all, are the responsibility of the Quebec
government. The results are not too encouraging for young
people. I believe, therefore, that we should start putting our own
house in order.
Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for Madawaska-Victoria, especially for her easy victory over
the former minister of unemployment insurance cuts. We will
not mention his name, but I want to congratulate her for that.
However, she does not get so much praise for her inconsistency
last year, when the first budget of her government was handed
down and she supported cuts similar to those proposed by the
member she helped to defeat.
However, as far as the status quo goes, we do not want any part
of it. She misunderstood what I said at the end of my speech. We
said that the federal government should mind its own business in
the area of post-secondary education, respect areas of
jurisdiction and transfer tax points because it is making
expenditures in other sectors of education in Quebec. It should
do what all the members of the National Assembly of Quebec are
asking, even the Liberals.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join in the
budget debate. The budget was the defining moment in Canada
to develop a new direction in its financial dealings and also a
new direction in the way the government does business with its
people.
The budget was coherent. It had integrity and a sense of
purpose. Every feature presented to us met all three of those
features, coherence, integrity and purpose.
The overriding goal of this government since the day it took
power has been jobs and growth. We believe good economics
and good social policy are one and the same thing. In the most
fundamental way good social policy begins with a good job.
(1735)
We believe a country that continues to care for its citizens
must be a country that can pay its bills. We must respond to the
challenges of our time. We must adapt to the new economy, the
new infrastructure based on ideas and innovation. The very
nature of government must change. We must develop a new
notion of responsibility. The time has long passed when
governments can or should do everything.
Several major things have happened. The world economy has
become truly integrated. We must think globally. Trade barriers
have been brought down. Communications are instant and
transportation is swift. Markets never sleep. There are no longer
any islands. Like it or not, there is no place to hide.
Since 1984 our debts have risen by three times. Compound
interest is gobbling us up a second at a time. The government has
a two track approach, sustained and sustainable economic
growth. Growing economies produce jobs. Economies that are
not growing produce no jobs. The key to growth is productivity.
Productivity is about how well ideas, workers, resources and
investment are brought together in a country's economy.
Productivity is about ingenuity, better management and paying
attention to the common sense of our workers.
High productivity growth increases income. How do we do it?
We must improve our skills. We must have better innovation.
We must provide a welcoming climate for investment. We must
remove disincentives that we have created for people and for
businesses. We must get our fiscal house in order.
This budget's plan for action introduces far reaching action to
restore the fiscal health essential for a strong, growing economy.
The budget will fundamentally reform what government does
and how. It will bring permanent change in the way government
does business. The objective is to get government right so it can
fill its social and economic mandates and be more effective and
sustainable will include deep cuts in the level of federal program
spending, not simply lower spending growth, but substantial
reduction in actual dollars.
One of the things that gives this government integrity is that
its plans have been prudent and it has met its targets. The budget
actions have delivered on this government's commitment to
10497
meet its interim deficit targets and the ultimate goal is a
balanced budget.
The interim deficit target is 3 per cent of the gross domestic
product for 1996-97. We will be achieving the usual prudent
economic exceptions, incorporating credible fiscal action. The
deficit could be well below that if economic performance is in
line with the average private sector estimates. Significant
reforms will ensure that spending will be restrained beyond
1996-97 and the deficit will continue to fall.
What are the major elements of expenditure reform? This
budget is the second in a two stage process that began with the
February 1994 budget. It takes fundamental action certain areas.
It implements results of the long overdue program review and a
comprehensive examination of federal department spending. As
a result the government will focus on what is essential and we
will do it better.
It acts on a new vision of the federal government's role in the
economy. It includes substantial reductions in business
subsidies.
(1740 )
It introduces major changes in transfers to the provinces that
will renew and modernize the federal-provincial fiscal regime,
making it more effective, flexible and affordable.
The major fiscal actions in the budget total $29 billion over
the next three years, by far the biggest actions of any Canadian
budget since the second world war and demobilization. There
will be about $7 in expenditure reductions for every $1 in new
tax revenues. This is the most significant event since that era.
Three years from now federal spending in programs will be
$10.4 billion lower than it is today, approximately 8.8 per cent.
The cumulative expenditure savings in that period will exceed
$25 billion.
A fairer tax system and sharing the burden of debt and deficit
reduction is the goal of this government. The budget reflects the
government's awareness and the heavy tax burden borne by
Canadians and the cost this imposes on the economy. There are
no increases in personal income taxes in the budget. Tax
measures are largely directed at removing preferences and
increasing fairness. To help meet deficit targets the budget
announces increases in taxes on business and an excise tax on
gasoline.
Significant features in the budget are jobs and growth.
Economic growth is strong. The Canadian economy is stronger
than it has been for many years. Real output was about 4.25 per
cent in 1994, the fastest of the G-7 countries. There have been
433,000 new jobs created, all of them full time. The
unemployment rate has fallen 1.7 per cent to 9.7 per cent this
year. Manufacturing output is up a full 9 per cent. At 1.5 per
cent, excluding the effects of the tobacco tax, it is the lowest rate
in three decades.
Labour costs have fallen by 1.3 per cent since mid-1993. We
have a trade surplus. We have a dramatic improvement in the
current account and the highest business confidence since 1979.
We have been picked by the OECD to be the fastest growing
economy in 1995.
The budget will meet the targets set out in it and will meet the
red book projection for jobs and growth for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, after
listening to the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo
talk about this excellent budget in terms of job creation by the
business sector, I think that he is probably mistaken. We will
continue to have an enormous debt and enormous interest
payments on this debt and we will have to keep borrowing from
the countries to which we already owe this debt.
Some say that the deficit has been reduced, but it has merely
been passed on to the provinces. For example, in the years to
come, Quebec will receive $1.5 billion to $2 billion less each
year. The federal government says that it may return $1.5 billion
less to the province of Quebec. We all agree with that and we
would even have preferred that it not return anything to Quebec
but that it not tax Quebecers any more.
Finally, what the federal government is doing is not only to
continue taxing Quebecers as much as before, but to tax them
even more. Moreover, the federal government is increasing the
debt of Quebecers by $7 to $8 billion for next year alone. This
means that Quebecers will again become poorer and poorer.
When the government says that it wants to transfer to the
provinces the responsibilities that belong to them, it must also
reduce their tax burden.
(1745)
But all the government is doing is transferring to the
provinces, and especially to Quebec, the burden of the debt and
the deficit as well as the horrible task to manage the deficit, a
bigger chunk of which Quebecers will be asked to take upon
themselves, since the federal government continues to increase
taxes while reducing transfers to Quebec. This is unfair and
seems to me like a very clever trick designed by the government.
I hope Quebecers will see through all this and will understand
what the federal government is doing to Quebec by reducing
transfers and increasing taxes for Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Richardson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Longueuil points out the tragic part of our fiscal problem. It will
be difficult to get our fiscal house in order because of the nature
of compound interest and the running up of deficits. The plan is
10498
a simple one and is the total purpose of this deficit oriented
budget.
I mentioned it was two track. We will grow with it and out of
the growth will come jobs and taxes paid back into the treasury.
At the same time we will continue to reduce government
operations by cuts and by making it more efficient. It will not be
easy.
We have heard debate in the House over the past four or five
days saying that we have done too much cutting. Others have
said that we have not done enough. There is a fine balance and I
think we have found that fine balance in this budget.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member in his presentation said that he was quite proud that
the government has met the deficit reduction target of 3 per cent
of GDP in three years. The member stated that beyond 1996-97
the deficit will continue to fall under a Liberal government.
If this is the case why does the Liberal government not set a
definite date for arriving at a balanced budget? Why does it not
set a definite target? The positive results of setting a definite
target will be that businesses will expand and new businesses
will start up. That is what creates jobs. A positive effect would
be lower interest rates and security for social programs which
cannot be provided under this continual overspending.
Why will the government not commit to a definite date for
eliminating the deficit?
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the government has gained
integrity. It has set targets. It is hitting the targets. The more we
bring down the deficit the more the membership in the Reform
Party goes down. I hope in the four years we keep bringing it
down. When we get to zero I hope the membership in the Reform
Party is zero.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, first let me congratulate my friend and colleague from
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.
I want to say a few words on the motion of the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. It goes without saying that I do not
agree with the sentiments in his amendment. If we read what he
is saying about offloading on the provinces and doing nothing
for the unemployed and so on, I do not believe even he believes
that really. It is a nice motion, nicely worded and grammatically
correct, but factually incorrect, very incorrect, almost to the
point of being irresponsible.
Sure the budget is tough. Is it tough enough? It depends on
whether we listen to the Bloc or the Reform. The Bloc says it is
much too tough and the Reform says it is not tough enough. I
guess that means, as I say to my friend from Lotbinière, that we
are probably doing something right over here.
It is a tough budget but it is not tough for the sake of being
tough. There are people in this world who get their jollies out of
doing tough, rough and crude things. This is not a tough budget
for the sake of being tough. This is tough of necessity. This is the
way we had to go.
(1750)
Mr. Benoit: Oh, oh.
Mr. Simmons: That is one of the not tough enough people
who just spoke. It is a good opportunity for the gentleman from
Vegreville. Does he disown or want to be part of the so-called
Reform budget? Is he part of that budget? If so, let his
constituents know that he would slash old age pensions to start
with. It is not that kind of tough.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Clancy: You tell him Roger. Who are these people?
Mr. Simmons: I say to my friend from Halifax that it is all
right. We have just demonstrated that sometimes these people
sing in tune. From time to time they sing in tune.
Madam Speaker, despite the heckling and despite the
shouting, the government and the Minister of Finance are on the
right track. Is it a perfect budget? No. We are working at getting
it right. There are some things in the budget that I do not like.
There are some things that other people do not like. On balance,
is it the right approach? Yes.
One of my constituents told me-
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): That's because you are listening
to us.
Mr. Simmons: The gentleman from Lethbridge has had 30
years to get it right. I bow to his wisdom on many points.
One of my constituents phoned me-
Mr. Thompson: Why aren't you out there looking for ships?
Mr. Simmons: Is the gentleman from Wild Rose not
interested in what one of my constituents said? Would he deny
that constituent the right to be heard here through me?
One of my constituents called and said, ``Simmons, did you
really clap for that budget? Did you applaud that budget?'' I
proceeded to tell him why, indeed, I did clap for the budget. I
started by saying: ``Is it the best thing in the world? Is it what we
would really have liked to have done if circumstances were
absolutely right? No''. Then I put it to him in terms of his family
budget. I said: ``What a great morning it would be if you could
get up and say to your wife, `This month I have a plan. We are
going to buy that Cadillac we have always wanted, the yacht and
the extra skidoo'''. She would say: ``How are you going to do
that?'' ``We are just going to borrow more. Whatever we need
we will borrow.''
10499
Contrary to Reform doctrine there is nothing particularly
sinful about borrowing. If so, many millions of Canadians sin
every day on that score. Borrowing is not to sin. Being unable to
pay back the loan is a sin.
The credo that says that somehow it is a great crime to borrow
is not the issue and that is not what I was saying to my
constituent. I was saying that it is a sin if we borrow beyond our
capacity to pay back. As I took him through the example I said:
``Suppose you say to your wife that you are going to buy the
Cadillac, the skidoo, et cetera, and she asks how you are going to
get the money and you say, `We will borrow more. If that is not
enough we will borrow more after that'''.
Eventually, of course, he put the question to me: ``Do you
have to pay it back?'' I said: ``Forget paying it back, just pay the
interest on it''. Then he said: ``Does that not get to the point
where you are using all of your income to pay interest?'' I said:
``Buddy, you have it. You have exactly the problem that the
Minister of Finance had''.
I told my constituent there was another approach. He could
say to his wife in the morning: ``Let us pay off all our bills right
now. Do not buy any groceries. Tell the youngsters they will not
eat for six months because we are paying off the debt''. He said:
``Come on, Simmons, what are you giving me?'' I said:
``Basically the Reform budget''. ``Do not eat now youngsters,
just hold your breath. Do not get too thirsty or hungry for six
months because we will be back when all the bills are paid.''
We cannot do that. What the Minister of Finance had to do,
and what I support him in doing, was to present this necessarily
tough budget that goes down the middle. It tries its best to
reduce the debt and at the same time tries its best to maintain
essential programs.
(1755 )
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Simmons: Madam Speaker, I understand that some of my
friends in Reform do not agree with that. It pains me to stand
here and say something they do not agree with. Sometimes we
do not agree on every point. One of the things we do not agree on
is that we need a slash and burn budget, that we have to have a
budget that destroys essential programs. There is another way.
They shake their heads at me. I am just a bumpkin from
Newfoundland. Let me read for them what some other people are
saying. I will let them decide whether they are bumpkins and
where they are from.
This is what somebody said: ``Martin's '95 budget chewed
heavily into spending reductions while taking a relatively light
tax bite. The result is a budget the Canadian economy should be
able to digest without an extreme amount of heartburn or acid
indigestion''. That person was not from Newfoundland.
Another person said this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Simmons: Have respect. These are legitimate Canadian
citizens who have a right to speak. A second one said this:
``Ottawa treats deficit and debt as a serious problem to be dealt
with prudently. There is no crisis mentality here. Indeed, there is
ample time to plan orderly change rather than risk the chaos that
swift and deep cuts can bring''. That was another Canadian.
This is one other: ``It's the budget-''
Mr. Morrison: What institution is he in?
Mr. Simmons: I am glad the member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia asked that question
because he is going to get the answer in a moment.
A third Canadian said the following: ``It's the budget that
grassroots Canadians said long and loud they wanted from this
Liberal government. It meets the crucial criteria of leaving
money in the pockets of those ordinary Canadians. It heeds the
message that there is simply not time to lose in getting this
country's deficit and debt under real control in very short
order''.
Three great Canadians. One edits the Calgary Herald.
Some hon. members: No, no.
Mr. Simmons: One is a Toronto paper and they have written
off that part of the country. Their views do not count. There goes
Newfoundland. There goes Toronto. We are up to four million
people that do not count so far. Let us keep going.
Let us let them show their cards on this one. The second
person who said there is no crisis mentality here and it is a
matter of orderly change is the editor of the Edmonton Journal
Mr. Morrison: Another colonial paper.
Mr. Simmons: The Southam. Now we write off the Southams
and we write off the colonials. The third great Canadian edits the
Calgary Sun.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Cohen: You are quiet now. No response.
Mr. Simmons: I see my time is up unfortunately. We are
saying that there are viewpoints in western Canada other than
those brought here by the Reform Party.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Being a rookie in the House, I am not too
sure if I am doing the right thing. You can help me if I am not.
I seek unanimous consent for a motion that I would like to
move at this time. Under Standing Order 52 I move:
That this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing the rail strike.
10500
The strike now includes the longshoremen. In turn it is having
a devastating effect on exporters and farmers throughout the
nation. People are being laid off by the hundreds at this very
moment. This is an emergency and I ask for unanimous consent
to debate it at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
motion. Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Unfortunately the
member does not have unanimous consent.
Mr. Thompson: Now we know how they feel about the
country.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I would like
to say that it disturbs me-
(1800)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I believe this motion is out of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind
the hon. member that the motion has not received the unanimous
consent necessary in order to be debated.
[English]
The hon. member for Vegreville has the floor on questions or
comments.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. He talked
about how the Liberal budget will do a wonderful job and how it
will solve the problem in terms of the present fiscal situation.
How will the hon. member explain to his constituents the loss
of jobs, increased and continued high interest rates and
eventually the lost social programs that will result from the
inactivity of the government?
Let me refer to the interest costs on the debt that have
increased from $39 billion from the time the government took
office. They will be $51 billion, just the interest payments on the
federal debt, by the end of the three-year budget period.
How will the hon. member explain this to the people in his
riding who are looking for jobs, looking for relief from high
interest rates on their mortgages, and looking for security in
social programs?
Mr. Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from
Vegreville. On the matter of jobs he will know that independent
statistics show that 433,000 new additional jobs have been
created in the last year and a half.
On the matter of interest rates I would say to him kindly that
he is less than honest if he gives the impression that a
government of any stripe controls interest rates. As a
government we can help create the climate but many elements
outside the country determine interest rates.
Yes, the rates are high through no fault of the government.
They came down a bit today because of forces outside of our
control and his control. He mixes a number of items that are
completely unrelated in my view.
If the members wants a yardstick he can look at the Statistics
Canada figures which show that Canada's unemployment rate is
the lowest in eight years. We must be doing something right.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments on the
budget made by my colleague from Burin-St. George's. Of
course, the hon. member found a very simple way of explaining
the deficit Canada is now facing by using the vivid image of the
discussions he had with his wife. I could tell him that I too had
similar discussions at home, but I also went to my constituents
to sound them out while Parliament was in recess.
My constituents often tell me that what they want to see most
is the federal government setting an example of good
management. I have a few examples, such as MPs' pensions. It
is surprising that our old hand from Newfoundland made no
mention of members' pensions and that his leader said ``give me
one day and I will solve the problem of MPs' pensions''.
Unfortunately, I would like to tell you about the case of the
windows in the building on the other side of the river. Madam
Speaker, you are interrupting me. Unfortunately, good
management is what this government is lacking. There is no
vision of the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am not interrupting
you, but unfortunately your time is up.
(1805)
[English]
Mr. Simmons: Madam Speaker, my friend from Frontenac
demonstrates that I have difficulty communicating from time to
time. He misheard me or I misstated it. It was not my wife; it was
another man's wife.
On the matter of pensions there is a basic difference between
him and me. He does not plan to be in the country long enough to
draw a pension. I do.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to set the record straight
on the budget.
Members across the way have spoken about hitting targets.
All they are going to hit with the budget is a debt wall. They are
10501
talking about hitting the right track. All the track is going to
lead to is a catastrophic economic crisis in Canada.
I will illustrate where we are, where we were and where we are
going. We had a $550 billion debt and a $220 billion debt
provincially which is increasing all the time and has been
increasing for the last 20 years. We take in about $120 billion
every year and spend about $160 billion.
Last year the government had to borrow $40 billion to meet its
obligations. In three years time another $100 billion will be
added to the debt, which will increase the amount of money we
have to borrow and the interest payment to $50 billion.
Furthermore it will decrease the amount of money we have to
spend on government programs from $120 billion to $102
billion. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that we
have a significant shortfall in the amount of available moneys to
carry out government programs, in particular social programs
that underprivileged individuals rely on for their well-being.
With the shortfall two things will happen. We will either have
to make it up in an economic growth and/or increase taxes.
There is no way the economy can possibly make up $18 billion
in economic growth. The government will be forced to increase
taxes. Furthermore it will crush the life out of the economy and
compromise our social programs by having more people
obligated to use them. That is the reality.
I will look at a few specific problems in the country. The
government disguised its cuts irresponsibly in many ways. First
and foremost it said it made cuts. It has actually removed money
from the provinces, over $8.5 billion worth. Where does this
fall? It will be on the shoulders of the taxpayer, the end point at
every level. It is completely unfair and unconscionable.
We in the Reform Party gave the government a budget in two
phases. One was in November last year and the other one was
before its budget came down. We worked through the process
and indicated the solutions to get our country back on track. The
government ignored them.
We proposed cuts to the provinces but we proposed to give the
provinces tax points to enable them to raise money to fund the
programs they want. In effect it is a division of labour and a
reduction in duplication. We also proposed a reduction in
duplication at the federal level to effect a net savings to the
taxpayer.
Let me speak about two specific areas that are close to my
heart and close to the hearts of all Canadians. One is health care
and the second is post-secondary education. Currently health
care costs are rising dramatically, far greater than our gross
domestic product, due to expensive technology and an aging
population. The situation is not going to get better but is going to
get worse.
Funding on the other hand has been stagnant. The government
has taken $8.5 billion from the envelope of funding to health
care costs, further exacerbating a staggering problem. It has in
effect penalized the provinces to get its own so-called funding
under control. In the same vein it has said to the provinces that
they cannot raise any funds because they will be shackled to the
Canada Health Act.
(1810)
The government has said that it does not want cash register
medicine. It does not want to compromise health care. Neither
do we in the Reform Party. We are obligated to ensuring that
everybody receives essential health care services in a timely
fashion, which is not happening right now.
We have proposed that the Canada Health Act be amended to
ensure that the provinces have the power to raise the funding and
that the government takes it upon itself to ask Canadians to
define essential health care services. Once we define the
services we will ensure that everyone in the country regardless
of income will have the services covered, which is not
happening currently.
I will give a couple of examples. A lady in my riding has
vertigo, a spinning sensation. She sees things. She probably has
a brain tumour in the base of her skull. In Victoria she will have
to wait two months just to get her CT scan and her MRI scan is
booked on the 12th of never. I ask members to put themselves in
her shoes and think about how they would feel. The reason this is
the case is that there is not the money for her to have this
essential health care service. I could go on and on about many
other cases but there is not the time.
The government has also said that our proposal provides for a
two-tier health care system. Yes, it does, but we have
maintained that it is better to have a two-tier health care system
that provides better services for all people than the same
two-tier system we have now that is providing progressively
poorer health care for all people.
The other aspects about health care are in the realm of the
provinces. I do not have the time to discuss them here, but they
have responsibility for managing them.
The most important factor in determining employability in
the future is post-secondary education. The government has
pillaged the amount of moneys available to post-secondary
education, further compromising the ability of students to have
the skills necessary to compete in the coming economies of the
future. That is something we will collectively pay for and pay
for in a large way.
We in this party have proposed the income contingent loan
replacement scheme, ensuring that funding goes to the
provinces. We would make a small cut but also give them the tax
points to raise the funds necessary to provide for
post-secondary education.
10502
I went to Francis Kelsey Secondary School in my riding last
week that looked into an interesting initiative. It looked into the
future to determine the economic needs of the country. It is
telling its students where the jobs of the future will be. The
government should take it upon itself to direct and advise
provinces of the economic needs of the country in the future so
that they will be able to direct their education programs in that
direction.
I would like to make a few points. The budget has added $100
billion to the debt and has severely compromised our social
programs much more so than anything that has been done in the
past five years. Rather than have a slash and burn policy
economically, which is what the government has proposed, we
have put forth the only effective solution to save health care,
social programs and the other essential programs and to help
those most in need. We are trying to preserve the framework of
the social net of which we are so proud.
We would take the moneys from the upper third of the income
brackets. We feel the moneys we are borrowing now to pay for
the debt are in effect being borrowed from future generations.
In conclusion I would say that we in this party are more than
happy to help the government out to have a balanced budget but
we need to do it within the next three years. Otherwise those who
will suffer most are those who can least take care of themselves.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.15 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 84(5), it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the amendment now before the House. The question
is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 166)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-50
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
10503
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Young
Zed-182
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Comuzzi
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Guimond
Hubbard
Keyes
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacDonald
MacLaren
Mercier
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Robichaud
Terrana
Wayne
Wood
(1840 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the
amendment lost.
10503
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP):
Madam Speaker, on March 4, 1986 then Minister of Justice,
John Crosbie, stood in the House and promised to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
Today, almost 10 years later, we are still waiting for that
promise to be kept. The Prime Minister in 1993 made a firm
commitment on the eve of a federal election. He stated the
Liberal Party of Canada is firmly committed to banning
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The Prime Minister went on to say in July 1993: ``I will not
lie. I will not be a Mulroney who made promises and never kept
them. I am not that type of politician''.
We are still waiting, not for any kind of special rights or
privileges but for basic equality. I have here a letter written in
November 1993 by the Minister of Justice: ``The government
remains committed to amending the Canadian Human Rights
Act to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
discrimination. I will introduce this legislation before the House
rises in December''.
This is yet another in a long and sorry string of broken
promises. What does the Prime Minister have to say now? He
said in January that they have four more years in their mandate,
and that it is important these amendments receive the full
benefit of debate and consultation.
[Translation]
What I find incredible is that this amendment to the Canadian
Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation has already
been debated for over ten years.
In Quebec, it has been in place since 1977. Quebec was the
first province to eliminate and to prohibit discrimination based
on sexual orientation. Now, ten years later, there will be a
referendum and, frankly, I think that Quebecers must be
wondering when the government is going to keep its promises.
Gay and lesbian Quebecers in particular must be wondering
when the government will follow the example of leadership set
by Quebec on this fundamental issue.
10504
(1850 )
[English]
It is essential this amendment be brought into force partly
because there is still widespread discrimination at the
workplace, discrimination in extending benefits, the benefits in
recognition of gay and lesbian relationships, and discrimination
in recognizing families of gay and lesbian people.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
will take this opportunity not to tell us, as the Minister of Justice
does, that we remain committed to the principle of this
commitment, but that at last this government will move forward
on the question of basic justice and equal rights.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway
asked a question of the Minister of Justice about the
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act in the House on
December 9, 1994.
In reply, the Minister of Justice reiterated the commitment of
the government to amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to
prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. He
also said the main point is this principle is undiminished and the
issue of timing should not be the central concern.
On August 6, 1992 in a case brought under the equality
guarantees of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
Haig and Birch v. Canada, the Court of Appeal for Ontario
ordered that the Canadian Human Rights Act must be read to
include that ground as of that date and be administered
accordingly. The Attorney General did not appeal the order to
the Supreme Court of Canada.
The government views this as the current and correct state of
the law. Thus, gay and lesbian Canadians can already file
complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission
should they find themselves refused a job or a service because of
their sexual orientation. Complaints can be filed and the act's
protection sought on this ground.
What is left is the very important symbolic act of making the
Canadian Human Rights Act reflect the current state of the law.
The amendment to which the government is committed would
give Parliament the opportunity of bringing the act up to date. It
will also bring the federal government into the ranks of the eight
provinces and territories, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia and
Saskatchewan, which have already amended their human rights
legislation to add the grounds of sexual orientation.
This government wants to add the federal laws against
discrimination to the list of governments that have joined in this
fight against discrimination and thereby assure Canadians of the
same high standard of protection at the federal level.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, a
week or so ago I asked the President of the Treasury Board to
explain the increase in the estimates where the budget for the
Treasury Board was being increased to accommodate 10
additional executives at a cost of $3.5 million.
The reply we received from the President of the Treasury
Board, from Hansard of March 2, 1995, page 10272, was totally
inadequate:
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that overall the executive ranks in the public
service have been reduced over the last four years by some 26 per cent.
When I asked a supplementary question because it seemed to
me he did not have the grasp of the question, he responded:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the hon. member gets those figures.
There is no increase in the staff at Treasury Board.
I beg to differ. The estimates, part III, page 2-43 under
activity resource summary quotes management for the Treasury
Board, 1994-95 forecast, at 75 full time equivalents at a cost of
$6,294,000. The estimates for 1995-96 are for 85 full time
equivalents, an increase of 10, at $9,811,000, an increase of
$3,517,000.
(1855 )
These quotations are from the estimates prepared by the
President of the Treasury Board and tabled in this House by the
President of the Treasury Board. Yet, when we ask him a
question about his own department, he unfortunately does not
know the answer.
The President of the Treasury Board is going to be laying off
45,000 civil servants. These are real people who have families
and careers. Their futures are being dashed. At the same time,
while these people who perhaps are at the lower end of the civil
service scale are being turfed out on the streets, albeit with
pension plans and severance packages, we now find out that the
Treasury Board is hiring 10 more people at an average cost of
$350,000 each.
I do not know what the President of the Treasury Board has in
mind with 10 executives at that price. However, if he has
anything else in mind other than hiring executives, then there is
a total distortion of the facts in the way they are presented here.
If he intends to hire 10 more executives, surely he owes this
House some justification as to why he intends to pay each of
them $350,000.
It is disgraceful that these figures are being presented to us at
the same time as the government is downsizing the civil service.
We as Reformers have said that you start at the top. You cut at
the top. You have no moral authority to cut at the bottom until
such time as you have cut at the top.
Therefore, I think the President of the Treasury Board should
cut that out of the estimates now so that there is no increase in
the executive ranks of the Treasury Board.
10505
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
frankly I am very disappointed to hear such an irresponsible
analysis. The President of the Treasury Board indicated clearly
to the member for St. Albert that there had been no increase.
The president undertook, on March 2, to look into the
specifics of the matter and to provide him with additional
information. And that is what I am doing this evening. I would
like to provide a more detailed answer.
[English]
I hope there is no attempt on the part of Reform Party
members to suggest their analysis is accurate. The problem may
be confusion with the terms executive and management. In the
context of part III of the estimates the term executive is a
classification term referring to a specific occupational group.
The term management is used to refer to an activity, a function
or planning element which is used for the purposes of resource
planning.
More specifically, reference was made to figure 6 on page
2-43 of the part III for Treasury Board where there is mention of
85 FTEs, full-time equivalents. These FTEs are made up of 19
for the president's office, 16 for the secretary's office, 5 for the
office of the chief informatics officer, 22 for the planning and
communications directorate, 10 for legal services support and
13 for a special reserve. This total only includes four positions
that are executive or the equivalent. Therefore, it was erroneous
on the part of the hon. member to draw the conclusion that the
secretariat was increasing its executives.
[Translation]
There was no increase.
[English]
I want to finish off very quickly by saying there has been a
decrease over four years of about 30 per cent. We expect this
decrease will continue.
Surely the hon. member knows that nobody gets paid $350,000 a
year.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on
March 3 I asked a question of the Minister of Labour concerning
what was then an impending strike at CP Rail. I asked what
action the minister planned to take to ensure a continuation of
negotiations, thereby avoiding a potentially bitter, long
labour-management dispute.
In his response, the parliamentary secretary to the minister
stated that his government would simply leave matters to the
collective bargaining process. However, in the time that has
passed since I first raised my question, strikes and lockouts have
occurred throughout Canada escalating to the point yesterday of
a complete withdrawal of services by the 3,200 member
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
(1900 )
So far the work disruptions involve only the members of that
union. However, the other key player, the 4,000 member
Canadian Auto Workers union, is prepared to take strike action
anytime after March 15, which of course is tomorrow.
The potential consequences of the ongoing labour dispute
between the railways and the unions are enormous. To
complicate the situation, 405 members of the International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union in the British
Columbia ports have walked off the job, paralysing the
movement of goods in western Canada.
It is imperative the government take quick and decisive action
to halt the further disruption of our transportation routes. The
fragile Canadian economy simply cannot withstand a blow like
this. The uninterrupted operation of our transportation system is
an essential element of our economic recovery. No one can
dispute that.
More important, when examining the economic implications
of a strike, we have to consider the bottom line. Here nobody
wins. Too many people are harmed by needless strikes and
lockouts. It is simply reprehensible to expose Canadians to more
of this kind of nonsense.
Negotiations between CP Rail and the two unions in question
have been ongoing for some 15 months. It would appear that
neither side is truly serious about arriving at a new contract. If
the resolve were there, surely the differences would have been
settled peacefully and promptly by now.
Simply suggesting that the two sides continue the collective
bargaining process is unsatisfactory. In the meantime, while
they continue talks for who knows how long, countless numbers
of people will be hurt by a dispute for which they are not
responsible.
For this reason, the federal government must now step into
this dispute with back to work legislation. This legislation
should include a 30-day cooling off period during which
meaningful negotiations could take place.
As the work disruption drags on it appears obvious that the
government is stalling for time while it drafts anti-scab
legislation. A cop-out like that is unacceptable.
Canada's railways account for close to 40 per cent of all
freight tonnage moved in the country. Whether they be shippers
of newsprint, coal or potash, the auto industry or western grain
farmers, importers, exporters and manufacturers they must be
assured that they have a reliable method of getting their
products to market. Otherwise those markets will dry up.
10506
Foreign buyers need suppliers they can count on. If they cannot
rely on the Canadian market they will simply go elsewhere.
Aside from the direct impact of rail stoppages there is
immeasurable harm resulting from what is known as the domino
effect. Industries which cannot obtain parts or ship their goods
will have to shut down production and lay off employees. The
longer the government allows this situation to go on, the more
far reaching the impact will be on Canadians from coast to coast.
This means less revenue for the cash starved federal treasury.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. Your time
has expired.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising a very
important issue.
As the Minister of Labour reported to this House yesterday,
CP Rail and three of its unions representing 2,900 workers
reached a tentative settlement on March 12, 1995 withthe assistance of the Federal Mediation and ConciliationService. The agreements provide for wage increases, modified
employment security and a variety of benefit improvements.
The settlements are subject to ratification by the unionmemberships.
I understand that CP Rail is meeting with the BMWE today
and I would encourage them to make every effort to settle their
collective bargaining differences.
I am advised that the impact of the work stoppage at CP Rail
has been limited and that the railway is continuing to operate its
core lines.
Collective bargaining is continuing in a number of railway
negotiations. The parties must be given every opportunity to
settle their disputes in collective bargaining as provided for
under the terms of the Canada Labour Code. However, the
parties must accept their responsibility to resume bargaining
and conclude an agreement not only in the interests of their
members and shareholders but also for the Canadian public.
The railways and the unions have the necessary insight and
experience to resolve the complex issues in dispute.
Any discussion of legislative intervention at this time would
be premature. The federal mediation and conciliation service
remains in contact with the parties, available to assist them in
their negotiations.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)