CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 9, 1994
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2036
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 2038
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2040
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2040
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2040
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2040
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2041
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2041
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2041
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2042
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2042
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2043
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2043
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 2044
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2044
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2045
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2045
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2045
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2046
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2046
Motion for concurrence in eighth and ninth reports 2047
Consideration resumed of budget motion and amendment. 2048
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2051
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2055
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2059
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2060
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 2066
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2067
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 54; Nays, 206 2076
Bill C-3. Consideration of Motion at Report Stage 2076
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2076
Motion for third reading 2077
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2077
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2080
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 2082
2035
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 9, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to congratulate a great Canadian and a member
of my St. Catharines constituency, Mr. Walter Ostanek.
Walter Ostanek, better known as the polka king, received a
second Grammy Award in New York last week. Walter Ostanek
and his band won best polka album for Accordionally Yours.
As the member of Parliament for St. Catharines, I am pleased
and proud to congratulate Mr. Ostanek on his success at the
Grammys. Those of us from St. Catharines have known of Mr.
Ostanek's talent for many years. His dedication to the pursuit of
excellence is exemplified by this most recent achievement in the
international music industry.
Congratulations to Walter Ostanek and his band.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, a century of
teaching will be the theme of the centenary celebrated this year
by the Sisters of the Congregation of
Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil, the only religious community
founded in Chicoutimi. Theirs is a history of dedication which
deserves our attention.
The Congregation has helped educate residents of the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, since 1894, without
interruption. The sisters also extended their ministry to
Charlevoix and the North Shore. Finally, they have also worked
in various countries in Africa and in Chile.
I would therefore ask all members of this House to join the
people of Chicoutimi in wishing the Sisters of
Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil a happy and prosperous
centenary year.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues in their
efforts to maintain a true sense of decorum in this House.
I recently encountered many Canadians who were saddened
and angry over remarks attributed to certain members in the
House, one of whom alleged that some of us do not like Indians
and then apologized. Television cameras recorded yet another
member of the House calling other members racists.
My constituents have told me they are disappointed when
members of the House malign each other. They are distressed
that their House of Commons is in danger of being brought into
disrepute by any member hurling abusive language about so
freely.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, the budget is a key element in a much larger process,
one that began last fall when Canadians told us they wanted a
government that treated jobs as a priority.
We have listened. We have made sure that the changes are
sensitive to those with the greatest need. With the changes to the
unemployment insurance, for example, low income Canadians
with dependants will receive increased benefits to 60 per cent.
Also, small businesses have been telling us that if we reduce UI
premiums, if we just give them a chance, they will create work
for Canadians.
Now we have delivered. This must be seen in tandem with
other actions we have taken to create jobs such as the
infrastructure program, targeting of $800 million to innovative
federal-provincial employment projects, a youth core, a youth
internship project and our $1.9 billion support package for
Atlantic Canada.
It is clear that this government is keeping its promise to
Canadians.
2036
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a great
woman, Dr. Margaret Arkinstall.
I had the pleasure of meeting her just over a year go in my
town of East Gwillimbury.
(1405 )
Dr. Arkinstall obtained a degree in medicine from the
University of Toronto and set up practice with her husband, Dr.
Bill Arkinstall, in Hearst, Ontario in 1931. They travelled by
horse and cutter to look after people in lumber camps and remote
homesteads.
Dr. Arkinstall was not only a medical practitioner at a time
when it was rare to see women in medicine, she also wrote
books. In addition, Dr. Arkinstall volunteered her time to the
United Church Women's Missionary Society. Since 1948, Dr.
Arkinstall has lived in East Gwillimbury with her family and
practised medicine in Newmarket.
Dr. Arkinstall was awarded the first East Gwillimbury Citizen
of the Year Award for her extraordinary contribution to the
community.
I want to celebrate the contribution Dr. Margaret Arkinstall
has made to Canada, her community and the advancement of
women. Dr. Margaret is truly a great Canadian.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, this is International Women's Week. As the only farm
woman on the government side of the House, I would like to pay
tribute to all of the rural farm women of Canada.
All of those women have over the years made a tremendous
contribution to the social, cultural and economic life of rural
Canada.
I would like to particularly highlight the contributions of the
Women's Institute movement. The Women's Institute is an
educational organization for personal development and
community action. This is the mission statement of the
Women's Institute. It is for this reason that it exists today and
has existed for 96 years.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to pay tribute to one of my
constituents in the Eastern Townships, Mr. André Viger, who is
well known nationally and internationally and was recently
inducted into the Terry Fox Hall of Fame.
As a winner of many awards, including Olympic gold medals
in the wheelchair runners category, Mr. Viger is living proof that
one's determination, qualities and potential are in no way
diminished by physical disabilities.
With his positive attitude, André Viger is very involved in a
number of associations in Eastern Townships that help the
disabled maximize their potential.
I would invite all members of this House to join me in
extending our warmest congratulations to Mr. Viger. Speaking
on behalf of all Quebecers and all Canadians, we are very proud
of what he has achieved.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, unlike the talk from the government, some American
governors are promising jobs, jobs, but with a difference. The
results are in.
Business Week magazine says that states with low taxes
clearly perform better than states with high taxes. Since 1985
job growth in low tax states has been 65 per cent higher than in
high tax states.
There is a tradeoff however. Cutting taxes lowers the tax haul.
The resultant faster growth still does not quite compensate for
lost revenue and that is where the other necessary step comes in.
Politicians must also reinvent the delivery of services. That
means privatization and deregulation to reduce the cost of social
services. This is not ideology. It is the hard evidence of what
works.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
The Arctic Winter Games, a week long celebration of northern
peoples and cultures, were officially opened by the Governor
General last Sunday at Slave Lake.
Held every two years, the games are an international event
with teams participating from Greenland, Russia, Alaska,
Northwest Territories, Yukon and northern Alberta.
These games are unique for emphasizing culture along with
competition. The games logo of three interlocking rings
symbolizes equally athletic competition, cultural exhibition and
social interchange.
2037
In these games opposing teams help each other. Caring for
others and sharing experience and knowledge are values
strongly held by aboriginal peoples, northerners and all
Canadians.
I want to wish the participants well and thank them for
reminding us of the benefits of our rich cultural diversity and
our common values.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today on the occasion of International Women's Week to
remember a formidable woman and a great politician who
opened the doors for many Canadian women to enter politics.
(1410 )
I am referring of course to the hon. Judy LaMarsh who entered
this House of Commons as the member for Niagara Falls, the
riding I now have the honour of representing.
Judy LaMarsh was responsible for some of the Pearson
government's more innovative legislation. From 1963 to 1965,
under her aegis as Minister of National Health and Welfare, the
Canada pension plan was implemented and Canada's medicare
system was designed. She also established the Royal
Commission on the Status of Women in Canada.
When Judy LaMarsh entered politics, fewer than 10 women
were sitting in the House of Commons. Now, while I speak, I can
see around me many women colleagues. I know we owe a debt of
gratitude to pioneers like Judy LaMarsh.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in honour
of International Women's Week I would like to recognize two
extraordinary women in my riding, women who overcame great
odds to achieve success.
One is Barbara Binns, a black Jamaican born Canadian who
has devoted the last 20 years of her life to improving the lives of
women in developing countries and to combating racism in
Canada.
She has achieved this by working through CUSO, Canada
World Youth, CIDA and the United Nations. When in Vancouver
she teaches an anti-racism course at Langara College.
She was recently chosen by OXFAM to be an observer in the
upcoming elections in South Africa and was recognized last
month by CIDA with an award for her work.
The second woman, Faye, will graduate this year with a B.A.
in communications from Simon Fraser University. She is 53, a
mother of six children and suffered 17 years of violent,
emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her husband. She
left penniless and took charge of her children and her own life to
achieve this remarkable success.
I salute the courage of these women.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, last week I took part
in a truly exceptional event, namely the founding of a coalition
of the main political parties in the federal riding of Lévis and the
provincial ridings of Lévis and Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. The
coalition, which was established to promote a business plan for
MIL Davie shipyards, is composed, at the provincial level, of
representatives of the Parti québécois and of the Quebec Liberal
Party and, at the federal level, of representatives of the Bloc
Quebecois, of course, the Conservative Party, the New
Democratic Party and even the Liberal Party of Canada.
The members of this coalition are calling on the federal
government to move quickly in awarding the contract for the
building of a ferry to provide service between the Magdalen
Islands and the mainland to MIL Davie and to give priority
consideration to the development of a prototype vessel,
commonly referred to as a smart ship, so that this company can
weather the transition period until such time as commercial
shipbuilding picks up again.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
express my concern with the discriminatory nature of the
Income Tax Act, particularly the child care expense deduction.
Calgarians Jim and Laurie Boland were recently told in
Federal Court that a parent who chooses to be at home with their
child is not entitled to the same privileges as those who pay for
child care.
The Income Tax Act admittedly denies the Bolands equal
benefit under the law, but because stay at home parents are not a
``discrete and insular minority'' they are not protected by the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This legal discrimination must
stop.
Parents should be free to choose the form of child care which
best suits their situation as opposed to having government
reward one choice over another.
2038
In this, the International Year of the Family, it is my intention
to introduce a private member's bill on the topic of equal child
care assistance to all needy families, regardless of the type of
child care they choose.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Gagnon-Easter committee held two rounds of
consultations on the
Irving Whale, a barge which sank 24 years
ago between Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands.
These were the first public hearings into the wreck of the
Irving
Whale. I would like to sincerely congratulate the 24 witnesses
who appeared before the Gagnon-Easter committee, the
associations, scientists, municipalities and individuals whom
we heard from and who made their position known to us.
(1415)
I would also like to praise the professionalism and excellent
co-operation I received from my colleague, Mr. Wayne Easter,
the hon. member for Malpèque, Prince Edward Island. This
democratic exercise allowed us to travel to our respective
ridings and to listen to the public's concerns about this
ecological time bomb.
I might also say that we accomplished more than the Minister
of the Environment, now the Leader of the Opposition, ever did
more than three years ago.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker,
with the takeover of Maclean Hunter by Rogers a monopoly has
been created that will have a profound effect on Canada in the
years to come. Never before in the history of Canadian cultural
industries has a development of this magnitude occurred.
This one company will now not only control a string of
newspapers, magazines and radio stations but it will virtually
control cable. One individual through his company has become
the private owner of the information highway in Canada,
controlling who gets on and what we will see.
This is not a great day for the free flow of information and
ideas, for competition and for the Canadian entertainment
industry. This deal is a turning point in Canada's technological
and cultural future.
It is simply not good enough for the government to hide
behind the CRTC and the competition review panel. It must
develop its own position.
I urge the government to establish a parliamentary committee
so that there is an open process to determine what is in the
nation's interest when it comes to the ownership of our
information highway.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, I would
just like to say a few words about the recent victory of the
Quebec Liberal Party in the by-election in the riding of
Shefford. This victory was a major one because it was a victory
for the Liberal Party over the Parti Quebecois, which is in fact
the boss of the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition Party.
This by-election was important because it set the tone for the
coming provincial elections in Quebec.
We were able to gauge the mood of the Quebec electorate. It is
obvious that voters want to hear about the economy, but they
also sent us a clear message that the development of Quebec is
also tied to Quebec's membership in the Canadian Federation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, between 1958 and
1975 an estimated 40,000 Canadians joined the American armed
forces, many of whom served in southeast Asia and the war in
Vietnam.
In Washington, D.C. today the names of over 100 Canadians
who were killed or missing in action are listed on the Vietnam
war memorial. One of those listed is a close family member of
mine, Paul Stuart Laverock.
On July 9, 1994 a Canadian coalition will be unveiling the
Canadian Vietnam veterans national memorial dedicated to
those Canadians who gave their lives and to those who are still
missing in southeast Asia.
The plan is for this memorial to be located in Ottawa.
However, to date no crown land has been volunteered for this
small yet highly symbolic memorial.
On behalf of those Canadians killed and missing in Vietnam
and thousands of Canadians who lost loved ones to the war in
Vietnam, I call upon the government today to provide a suitable
plot of crown land for this memorial.
2039
2039
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The sale of Ginn Publishing to Paramount Communications of
New York is causing much concern in Canada's publishing
world and cultural industry. We are about to see yet another
instrument for the expression of cultural identity taken over by
foreign interests. In addition, the whole operation has a
clandestine air to it. It appears to have been conducted in secret
on the strength of a verbal agreement of unknown origin.
Will the minister reveal the identity of the person responsible
for this sell out of our interests to a foreign publisher?
[Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I think that those responsible are the officials who
closed the deal with my full support as well as the support of my
colleague, the Minister of Industry who is responsible for
Investment Canada.
(1420)
I explained the situation a couple of days ago. This sale
resulted from contractual commitments, which have been
confirmed by the highest legal authorities in Canada. We simply
fulfilled these commitments.
We have been able to negotiate with the American buyers a
series of commitments which will foster the publication and
distribution of books in Canada.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the highest legal authorities in Canada are the courts,
mainly the Supreme Court, yet this government did not dare
bring the case to court.
How can the minister attach so much importance to a promise
which was carefully excluded from the written agreements,
particularly in light of the fact that the government of the time
had publicly committed itself never to sell this company to
anything other than Canadian publishing interests?
[Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, to answer that question, I think I would have to go
check the history of this issue. It is almost ancient history by
now. Under the previous government, there was a policy that the
leader of the opposition must be familiar with, the Baie Comeau
policy, requesting from American concerns acquiring Canadian
book publishing companies that they make sure that these
remain under Canadian control.
At the time, it was understood-and deals were made under
this policy-that if a policy change occurred, then purchases
made by the Canadian government under this policy would be
cancelled, and the property sold back to the American owner.
That is the Baie Comeau policy.
Later on, the Conservative government decided to change its
policy and, therefore, fulfilled the commitments it had made.
That government has now moved to the other side of this House,
and we are delighted about that, but we have inherited
contractual obligations that we have to fulfil.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, let us be clear. What the minister is speaking about is a
legal obligation based on something that does not exist. There is
no possibility for any Canadian, for any court, to look at the
document or instrument from which arises this supposedly
existing obligation.
The truth is that instead of fulfilling his duties and role as
guardian of cultural heritage the minister has yielded to pressure
from an American lobbyist. It does not bode well for the future.
How can the minister justify his refusal to cancel this
agreement given the fact this government and this Prime
Minister have already cancelled a duly completed contract
concerning Pearson international airport? Why has his courage
failed him in this case?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, it is
important to add some clarification to this issue since the Leader
of the Opposition who we all know has great interest in
Canadian culture seems to be implying that Canadian interests
were somehow ignored in this.
I want to make it clear as the minister responsible for
Investment Canada there were a number of implications to this
complete transaction which should be well understood.
What was reviewed by Investment Canada was an indirect
acquisition of an already foreign owned company, Maxwell
Macmillan Canada, which was in receivership. Part of that
transaction when approved by Investment Canada obtained from
Prentice-Hall certain valuable undertakings with respect to the
Canadian publishing industry, which I think are a net gain for
Canada.
(1425)
In the context of those undertakings for example we have
commitments to ensure a strong development program for new
and upgraded Canadian material for educational programs. We
have ensured that primary distributors for imported consumer
book lines which were valued at approximately $4 million in
1993 will be Canadian controlled publishers and agents. We
2040
have ensured support to the Canadian publishing industry
infrastructure by maintaining an integrated warehousing
system. There are other undertakings that were obtained in the
context of this transaction.
Simultaneously, as the minister has said, CDIC did dispose of
its interest in Ginn as part of a verbal commitment made by the
previous government. That commitment was one which we
found in our review was not going to be met by any potential
Canadian purchaser.
In the context of obtaining very significant commitments as
part of the acquisition we feel it was a net benefit to Canada.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): My
question is addressed to the Minister of Industry.
On February 14 Viacom, an American corporation, took
control of the Paramount group in the United States. This
transaction will have a major impact on the ownership of the
Canadian cultural industry since Paramount is a major player in
that sector in Canada. It controls among others, Prentice-Hall,
Ginn Publishing, Maxwell Canada and has a major stake in the
Famous Players cinemas.
Since the Viacom-Paramount transaction represents a major
shift to foreign ownership of the Canadian cultural industry, will
the minister ask Investment Canada to review this transaction as
is his prerogative under the Investment Canada Act?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
again I am delighted the Bloc Quebecois is so interested in
protecting Canadian cultural sovereignty. That is good news for
Canada.
I might inform the member it is unnecessary for me to give the
direction she is asking because the transaction as an indirect
acquisition of these Canadian companies is reviewable by
Investment Canada as a matter of law.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): This
government forgets one of our promises. We said that as long as
we are within Canada we will take care of the interests of Canada
as well as the interests of Quebec.
Will the minister unlike his colleague the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, make a commitment to this Chamber to
protect Canadian heritage by restoring Canadian control over
Ginn Publishing when the Viacom-Paramount transaction is
reviewed by Investment Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): The commitment
we make is quite clear, Mr. Speaker. We are committed to
ensuring that any transaction reviewable by Investment Canada
is of net benefit to Canada.
(1430 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Dr. Donald Savoie, an economist who has studied the politics
of public spending in Canada over the past 20 years, has reached
this conclusion: that major efforts at government cost cutting
are almost never successful unless they are fully and vigorously
backed by the leader of that government.
In light of that conclusion, would the Prime Minister care to
retract or to modify his comments made in Alberta last week to
the effect that there will be no further spending cuts in the next
three years other than those announced in the 1994 budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said in Edmonton that we want to make some cuts. When
travelling in Canada today, we find that a lot of people think that
we have put forward some very deep cuts and we have to handle
that.
At the same time I said that we had a plan. The plan is clear,
that over the period of three years we want to reduce the deficit
to 3 per cent of GNP. I said that with the cuts that have been put
forward in the budget and having 3 per cent growth the first year
and 3.8 per cent the second year, we will achieve our goal. At the
same time I have asked the minister of federal-provincial
relations to look at all other aspects of government on top of that
to see if we can do better.
That is why, for example, yesterday we made an agreement
with the Auditor General to review the matter of government
planes in a reasonable way.
I want to find as many cuts as possible but at the same time be
responsible. If you go too deep with cuts, you create
unemployment and more misery in Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the fact remains that the deficit is in the vicinity of $40 billion to
$45 billion. The government is carrying half a trillion dollars
worth of debt. The weakness and the uncertainty in the Prime
Minister's answer does not inspire confidence, particularly
among investors and lenders.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his failure to speak
and act vigorously on the deficit and debt problem is now
contributing to the weakness of the dollar and to the rise in
interest rates?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
think that we have delivered exactly what we said we would. We
did what was promised in the red book. We are on track. If
anybody wants to look at that they will see that we are
determined to provide a good government. We will achieve our
goal.
2041
We know that at the same time there are a lot of people who
need help from the government. We will not do what has been
done in Alberta, put people on the unemployment list. It is very
nice for the premier to cut there, but when he puts someone on
the unemployment list, he transfers the problem from
Edmonton to Ottawa. It is just shifting the problem from one
jurisdiction to another.
We are doing what we can, but we cannot achieve our goals
overnight. If we have 3 per cent of the deficit in relation to the
GNP in three years, it will be what we said we want to do. It is
achievable and I am very confident that we will achieve it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the Prime Minister that the net difference between what
the federal government has taken from the province of Alberta
over the last 25 years and what it has spent is in the vicinity of
$100 billion, so his implications are a little bit off.
I have a further supplementary. The government's budget
projects spending cuts of almost $4 billion by 1996-97 through
the reform of social programs. Many Canadians do not believe
the government will follow through on these social spending
reductions during the same time period that it will be making a
special effort to sell the benefits of federalism in Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister unequivocally tell the House that the
federal government will follow through on these proposed
spending reductions no matter what?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is very easy for the hon. leader of the Reform Party to realize
what this government is up to. Look at what we have done so far.
Every cut that we put in writing in the red book has been
made. Everything is in this book. During the campaign I said to
look at page 111. By the end of the term it will have been
fulfilled. If you look at the budget presented by the Minister of
Finance, every one of these commitments have been met, not
over a period of four years but over a period of four months.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in a surprising declaration, the Minister of Human
Resources Development clearly stated for the first time his
desire for an in-depth reform of the old age security system. He
even had the nerve and arrogance to confront Canadians with an
odious choice: to either finance the pension system or provide
training programs for young people.
Could the minister, remembering what he and his colleagues
said when they were in opposition, stop stirring up people's
emotions by giving Canadians an indecent choice between old
age security and youth training programs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, we in the government are very
proud of the success achieved by seniors' programs initiated by
Liberal governments over the last 30 or 40 years but, at the same
time, we must face the new realities. Next year, the number of
people eligible for old age security programs will double. As a
result, we must review the system with Canadians to develop a
stable and strong program for seniors in the future.
As mentioned in the budget speech, a review will be
undertaken in consultation with all Canadians and with all
senior citizens to look at ideas, issues and concerns and to
develop a program for the future. My comments were meant to
underline the need for serious dialogue.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
I want to ask a supplementary question. By making alarming
statements on the old age security system, is the minister
preparing to hit seniors with a considerable cut in their old age
security pensions?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon.
member is saying, the reason we think it is time to have an open,
honest, full examination of these issues as announced in the
budget is to ensure that there will be a stable, effective, fair,
honest system for seniors in the future and to make sure that this
country can pay for it. That means that we must examine pension
plans, public service contributions, the entire range.
It is only the members opposite who want to hide their heads
in the sand and stick with the status quo. We want to make sure
there is a future that Canadians are prepared for.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance. The minister's budgetary forecasts
were based on two assumptions, that revenue would increase by
8 per cent and that interest rates would remain at their current
low levels for the next three years. Less than three weeks after
this budget was delivered we are already beginning to see signs
that these assumptions were overly optimistic.
What alternative provisions does the finance minister have to
meet his deficit reduction targets if interest rates continue to
climb?
2042
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the assumptions upon which the
member based his question are incorrect. We did not assume
an 8 per cent increase in revenues on a normal basis. As has
been described there were a number of one shot or unique items
which in fact depressed this year's revenues which will not be
present. Our revenues are projected to be approximately 17 per
cent of GDP which is of course the historical norm in this
country.
As well, the interest rate assumptions in our budget are
interest rates which at the present time are higher than those in
existence or those which are projected.
(1440 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I might have
to check some of those facts.
The minister has seen interest rates in the United States begin
to climb. In fact he recently mused that interest rates in Canada
could soon be lower than in the United States. If the minister
believes that Canadian interest rates can remain stable in the
face of increasing rates in the United States, would he be so kind
as to tell us when he thinks the American interest rates will
actually exceed those of Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, in terms of the first question, I can
understand the confusion over the numbers. The member
opposite is not the first person to have that difficulty. It is a
perfectly understandable problem.
In the second question the hon. member is asking me to muse
again on the issue of interest rates. The Prime Minister pointed
out to me that it was not really a very good idea for finance
ministers to muse on interest rates. The only thing I can say to
him is that I wish he had given me this advice before I did it last
time.
The Speaker: I know the Minister of Finance is speaking to
me but he is pointing the other way.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The government officially justifies closing the military
college in Saint-Jean by invoking the need to save money.
However, the total cost of teaching per student is much higher in
Kingston than in Saint-Jean: over $71,000 in Kingston
compared to $58,000 in Saint-Jean.
Since the minister is so sure that he made the right decision,
can he tell us precisely how much will be saved by closing the
military college in Saint-Jean, considering the costs of
relocation and the need for new facilities in Kingston?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I told
the member's colleague yesterday that there will be ample
opportunity to answer all of these questions next Tuesday when I
appear before the standing committee dealing with the
estimates. I will have all the information available at that time.
Therefore, we do not have to take the time of question period
to get into an argument with numbers. The member will have
everything. Our case will be substantiated. If members want the
report that was commissioned by the previous minister which
was the subject of discussions a few weeks ago, I will make that
available. They can read it over the weekend. I am sure on
Wednesday they will not be asking any more questions on
collège militaire Saint-Jean.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister at least be honest enough to admit that the decision,
made at the very last minute-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. No member may impute motives
to another member or a minister by using such expressions. The
hon. member could perhaps rephrase his question.
Mr. Bachand: Would the minister be so kind as to admit that
the decision, made at the last minute, to close the military
college in Saint-Jean is purely political, to help the closing of
bases elsewhere in Canada go down better?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this
was not a decision that was made at the last minute. It was a
decision that was part of the original proposal for the defence
cuts. It is one that I opposed, the Prime Minister opposed and
many people opposed. We would have liked to have done it
another way rather than close this college. However, from the
point of view of financial sense in meeting our red book
commitments, it seemed to us that the best business case was to
to concentrate the college in Kingston.
We tried to avoid this but in the final analysis we felt that it
was the only wise decision to make in saving the taxpayers
money, not just the taxpayers of other provinces but the
taxpayers of Quebec as well.
2043
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who likes to
compare members of Parliament with NHL hockey players.
Former players like Gordie Howe and Bernie ``Boom Boom''
Geoffrion, who are among the best players the league has ever
seen, receive pensions less than half that received by the worst
MPs, including many Tory and NDP members who were
removed from the last Parliament.
(1445)
When will the Prime Minister stop high-sticking Canadian
taxpayers and change the MP pension plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
think this member thinks that he is not worth the pay we are
giving to him.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot understand why the Prime Minister cannot
distinguish between pensions and salaries.
However I have a supplementary question. The worst NHL
players get fired, traded or sent to the minors. The worst MPs get
a gold-plated pension plan with no threat of being recalled.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure all hon. members would want to hear
the question the member is trying to put. He does have the floor.
The hon. member will put the question, please.
Mr. Hermanson: As I was saying, the worst NHL players get
fired, traded or even sent to the minors. The worst MPs get a
gold-plated pension plan with no threat of being recalled.
When will the government act to let Canadians demote
ineffective members of their national team through a recall
mechanism?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
hear what the hon. member is talking about. I would like him to
explain it to some of his caucus colleagues who are receiving
pensions from the Alberta government. One of them is sitting
just behind him, but he is not there at the moment. We would like
to have examples from themselves too.
We said we would look into the pension plan. There will be a
committee to review it. At the same time I say to everybody that
members of Parliament today earn $64,000. I can understand the
member knows that he will not be re-elected so he will never
have a pension. I understand that. However perhaps those who
have served in Parliament for a long time, with the type of salary
they have received and being 51 and going into the market,
should have a pension.
As for the double dipping, we are willing to look into that if
they get a job in government. If it is a question of having the
pension too early in life, as it was in the case of one of the
members of the Bloc Quebecois who quit last year, we will
review that.
At the same time I do not like the tone that leaves the
impression members of Parliament elected in every riding who
earn less than a school principal or manager of a hospital are
overpaid and are not rendering a service to the public of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, the minister seemed quite hesitant and
embarrassed when asked about the government's intentions
regarding the practice of excision in Canada, excision being the
sexual mutilation of girls. He deferred for one month his
decision as to whether the Criminal Code should be amended.
Will the minister pledge today to quickly table the appropriate
amendments to criminalize the practice of excision, instead of
postponing his decision?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I recall neither having been
embarrassed nor flustered at the question yesterday. I felt I
answered it in a direct and straightforward way.
What I emphasized in the response yesterday and what I wish
to make clear today is that it is the advice of my own department
and it is my own view that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code are quite sufficient to render criminal any assault which
involves the mutilation of female genitals.
I made it clear yesterday that there is no cultural pretence
which can excuse that misconduct in this country. I also made it
clear yesterday that we will not tolerate it and that we wish to
make clear to anyone who comes to this country that it will not
be tolerated.
(1450 )
In order to demonstrate my open mind on the question and in
deference to the questioner of yesterday, what I said was that I
am prepared to consider whether an additional and specific
provision should be added to the code by amendment to identify
this specific form of assault and to outlaw it.
2044
I gave the hon. member my assurance that I would spend a
month considering the question and would be happy to let her
know at the end of that period.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, knowing
that the Official Opposition is prepared to fully co-operate to
speed up the passing of an act to ban the practice of excision,
does the minister not agree that he could save time, energy and
money by avoiding the setting up of a totally useless committee?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, in the period during which I
will consider the question I want to examine first of all whether
there have been investigations and prosecutions under the
present section for the kind of misconduct referred to.
I want to consider whether it is worth the expense and time of
the House to pass yet another section of the code when we
already have sections in the code that prohibit the misconduct.
I want to consider whether we have laws on the books already
which, if properly enforced, will achieve the objective the hon.
member refers to without adding laws to the code that may not
be necessary.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Earlier this year six young children died in a house fire in
Lynn Lake, Manitoba. According to an annual report by the
Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons aboriginal
children in Manitoba are four times more likely to die than
non-aboriginal children, and aboriginal children are 11 times
more likely to die in house fires.
Could the minister tell the House what he is doing about the
horrendous social conditions endangering and killing aboriginal
children?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult question about
one of the most serious problems we have in Canada.
It is so sad in a nation as rich as ours that we see day in and day
out a loss of aboriginal children by fire. We see suicides. We saw
them recently right across the country.
I have seen the houses; they are firetraps. I have seen the lack
of economic opportunity. At the same time I have seen
successful businesses, aboriginal doctors, aboriginal lawyers,
aboriginal teachers and great aboriginal leaders. They are
saying one thing to us, that we should get rid of or dismantle the
Department of Indian Affairs.
As a consequence I have asked aboriginal leaders or chiefs in
Manitoba to do so in the province of Manitoba. It will be the lead
province to dismantle Indian Affairs. Hopefully it will be the
model for the rest of the country.
I know my hon. friend from Churchill will be in the lead
because it is time to bring, in the words of the Prime Minister,
dignity, honour, self-reliance, self-government to a people who
are held, not necessarily embodied, certainly as supplicants
under an archaic act. It is time to press on.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
An income security program's telecentre is to be established
in May of this year in Bathurst, New Brunswick. In making the
announcement the government was proud to jump on the high
tech telecommunications bandwagon. However it specified that
all 68 persons to be hired must be bilingual.
In the words of one federal employee in Bathurst, the
bilingual employees there now speak either broken French or
broken English.
[Translation]
Does the minister not agree that the centre would better serve
the public in both languages by hiring unilingual French and
English-speaking personnel and asking the public to press
either one or two on their telephone to get better service in the
language of their choice.
(1455 )
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should
know, the Auditor General made an assessment of the services
we provide under the Canada pension plan and other areas which
handle something like seven million to eight million calls a year.
The major concern members of Parliament in my caucus have
received is that people like to have direct contact with somebody
on the other end of the phone, especially those in rural areas who
do not have the privilege, as does the hon. member, of having
touchtone phones but still have dial phones. We are not all as
capable or as privileged as the hon. member in having these
modern techniques. Maybe it is one of the perks we should look
into with the hon. member: rather than a pension freeze he will
not get his touchtone phone.
2045
The fact of the matter is that-and this is important-we
believe in service to Canadians. The best way to provide that
service is to provide a major telephone bank that can take in
surplus calls from across the country, make sure that people can
be answered in either of Canada's official languages and get
direct human services, direct responses, which is the reason we
have established the phone bank.
Rather than relying upon the scurrilous opinions of some
anonymous person about someone's language capabilities, the
member should go to Bathurst himself to see how good they are.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
would the minister not consider, partly for saving bilingual
bonuses to the tune of $54,000 a year for that centre alone,
combining the propositions put forward on this side with the
answers provided on that side to give service to individuals in
the language of their choice and viva voce as well?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the only proposition I have heard
on this subject coming from that particular party is to eliminate
official bilingualism in Canada, and we will not do that.
We believe it is one of the reasons Canadians understand this
is a country where, whichever language one speaks, one has full
rights and full access to the services of the federal government.
That is one reason New Brunswick, being the only official
bilingual province in Canada at the present moment, is ideally
suited for providing those kinds of services across Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his budget
plan, the minister claims that his decision to roll back
unemployment insurance premiums to $3 in January 1995,
which is next year, will create 40,000 jobs over a period of two
years.
If the minister is right, why does he not create these jobs now
by reversing the increase in unemployment insurance premiums
introduced by the government in January?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we raised unemployment
insurance premiums in January with, as the minister himself
said, a great deal of reluctance. The government faced an
enormous deficit a month and a half or two months after it came
to power. We admitted it did not make sense, but we were stuck
with the deficit.
We still are. Until we introduce the structural reforms
mentioned by the minister, which will provide the funding we
need, we cannot reduce unemployment insurance premiums,
and unfortunately, that will not be until next January.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Does the minister not
realize it is crazy to attack jobs by raising unemployment
insurance premiums the way he did last December and taking
the money he needs from the unemployed?
(1500)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, with all due deference I find the
hon. member's question to be singularly confusing. One day
members of the Bloc Quebecois tell us to reduce the premiums
and complain about the measures we take to do it. Now they are
saying to take them back to the year before which means we have
to pay for the programs.
I want to say to the hon. member we had to introduce the
increase in order to account for the cost of the programs of the
previous government. We did not have time in the first six weeks
of office to make those arrangements. The Minister of Finance
has now done that in his budget.
This move has been broadly supported by all the small
business organizations across Canada. The Canadian Federation
of Independent Business has said that this measure will give
them the mandate to go out and create work.
However, we cannot have it retrograde because these
programs do not come into effect until July 1. Therefore we still
have to pay for the programs until July 1. At that time we will
bring in the new measures, acquire the surplus necessary, bring
down the premiums, create jobs and make the hon. member very
happy.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, a
constituent of mine who works at CFB Suffield has complained
that management at the base recently circulated a memo that
called for temporary help to be hired simply to use up the
remainder of the budget by the end of the fiscal year.
Will the Minister of National Defence investigate this very
serious allegation and will he tell us whether or not this problem
is occurring in other CFBs across the country?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad the member posed the question. It certainly is troublesome.
2046
I cannot believe it is true. I will investigate and get back to him
at a later date.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, the same
constituent complained that personnel at the base are retiring
with a pension only to be immediately hired back as consultants
or in civilian positions thereby enabling them to collect two
cheques from the federal government often for doing the same
job they just left.
Will the President of the Treasury Board investigate what is
widely known to be a problem in the public service and produce
for the House a rigid set of guidelines to minimize such blatant
abuses?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
have no knowledge of such practices. I am sure my colleague the
President of the Treasury Board does not have any knowledge of
those practices.
They are very serious allegations. The hon. member has not
given us any details. These are just wild assertions and hearsay
as one would say in court. If the hon. member has specifics,
perhaps he could make them available to us.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, first I was so
pleased to hear the Prime Minister's response to the question
from the opposition with regard to the pensions. Now I know my
private member's bill is going to go right through.
Last week when I was home in my riding I went to the
legislative assembly in Fredericton. At that time Premier Frank
McKenna, our Liberal premier, one whom we all respect, put a
motion on the floor with regard to the UI reforms. According to
Premier Frank McKenna these UI reforms will take $200
million away from the province of New Brunswick.
Has the premier contacted the Prime Minister? Has he
discussed this with him? If so what is he to do to make up for this
$200 million which will be taken from the province of New
Brunswick?
(1505 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): I talked with
Premier McKenna about this and other problems. He knows as
everyone else knows that we have to have some discipline in the
expenditures by this government.
We have discussed ways and means of ensuring our program
of job creation moves forward so that people will not have to
rely on unemployment insurance but will have the dignity of
having a job.
We are collaborating to develop new ways of making sure
people have jobs rather than having to rely on unemployment
insurance benefits.
The Speaker: As hon. colleagues can see we have gone a few
minutes over the time limit. I would ask all hon. colleagues in
question periods to follow if perhaps they could make the
introduction of a question a little shorter and with all respect if
they could perhaps see that the answers are a little more concise.
The reason I am mentioning this is to ensure that both sides
have a chance to put questions and to have answers to the
questions. It is a request I hope hon. members will consider and
keep in mind in future question periods.
* * *
The Speaker: May I also draw to the attention of hon.
members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Ross Bragg,
Minister of Economic Development and Tourism for the
Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister in answering a question made
mention of the fact that a member was not present in the House. I
wonder if he would retract and apologize for that statement.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
want to talk of the truth because there is some hypocrisy on the
other side about this. There are many people who are double
dipping and getting pensions from the military, or who have
received bilingual bonuses before, and so on. Now that they are
in retirement they try to attack other members of Parliament
who have no other income but from being members of
Parliament.
I am not in the mood to retract anything about the work of
members of Parliament.
The Speaker: The practice of this House, of course, is not to
bring attention to the absence of any member. If the hon.
member would let me review the statement then we could take
this up perhaps tomorrow when we return to the House. I thank
the hon. member for bringing it to my attention.
_____________________________________________
2046
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the
2047
Minister of Transport, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1992 annual
report of the Canarctic Shipping Company Ltd.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
(1510 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present to the House the eighth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
associate membership in committees.
I also have the honour to present the ninth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which
changes the name of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs
and Northern Development to the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
I propose if the House gives its consent to move concurrence
in these two reports on motions in a few moments. I would also
ask the unanimous consent of the House to dispense with
reading of the reports which is normal in these particular cases.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the eighth and ninth reports of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled in the House
today be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, petitions with regard to assuring access
rights for grandparents to their grandchildren in the case of
divorce or separation of the parents.
As the petition states, the relationship that exists between
grandparents and grandchildren is a natural and fundamental
one. The denial of access can constitute elder abuse and can have
a serious and detrimental emotional impact on both the
grandparents and the grandchildren.
Therefore the 3,120 people who have signed this petition
request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to allow the
courts to grant grandparents access to grandchildren in the case
of divorce, and further to amend the act to give a grandparent
who is granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and to
be given information as to the health, education and welfare of
that child.
I support this petition.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, it is
my duty to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of
petitions, from 151 concerned citizens of the constituency of
Fraser Valley East.
The petitioners ask Parliament to enact legislation providing
for a referendum to accept or reject two official languages.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present
another petition. This petition has been signed by constituents of
mine and of another member.
These petitioners are opposed to profiteering at the expense of
the victims of violent crime. I too stand on the side of the
victims.
These petitioners want tougher measures taken against those
who perpetrate violent crimes against women, children and the
disabled, in short, the weakest and most vulnerable in our
society.
As this is International Women's Week it is imperative we as
legislators stand in unison regardless of political affiliation
against those elements in our society which condone violent
crime by profiting from the sale of killer cards. Such
inducements to violence must be controlled and eliminated.
* * *
[
Translation]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
2048
(1515)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the notice of motion stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2048
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from March 8 consideration of the motion
that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government, and of the amendment.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to advise the Chair that members of the Bloc Quebecois who will
now speak in the debate on the budget will each take ten minutes
to express their views.
I think it is important to compare the government's intentions
as expressed in the speech from the throne with what the
government is actually doing in the budget. I would like to quote
a short passage from the speech from the throne: ``It will be the
policy of the government to seek to clarify the federal
government's responsibilities in relation to those of other orders
of government, to eliminate overlap and duplication, and to find
better ways to provide services so that they represent the best
value for taxpayers' dollars and respond to the real needs of the
people''.
Could anyone tell me where in the budget we can find the
government's response to these good intentions expressed in the
speech from the throne?
Again, the budget brought down by the Liberal government is
a centralist one, and the burden of reducing the deficit has been
laid squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayers and the
provinces.
That is not the kind of equity Canadians expected. This is one
more instance of the government's inertia. Once again, we have
ample proof that Quebec is stifled by federalism, which tends to
neutralize any constructive and innovative policy that would be
useful to Quebec society.
The Minister of Finance keeps repeating to anyone who is
willing to listen that his budget followed an unprecedented
series of consultations with Canadians, and a costly one at that.
Yes, he consulted, but he picked and chose his consultants. Did
he go to the middle class and the neediest in our society to hear
their views and concerns? Did he go to the Lac-Saint-Jean area,
to which the Prime Minister referred as a small community?
I represent the riding of Chicoutimi, where unemployment is
particularly high. The unemployment rate for the metropolitan
area of Chicoutimi-Jonquière, according to Statistics Canada,
was 15.7 per cent for January 1994, not seasonally adjusted.
The average annual unemployment rate for 1992 was 13.9 per
cent, while in 1993, the average rate was 16.1 per cent. These
figures are unacceptable. In January 1994, the
Chicoutimi-Jonquière metropolitan area had 9,000
unemployed workers out of a total labour force of 60,000. When
we speak of 9,000 unemployed persons, we are really talking
about thousands of other people who are affected, families,
children and households in dire straits. Furthermore, the rate of
15.7 per cent does not include those who are no longer looking
for work, those who have grown discouraged. This figure of 15.7
per cent does not include seasonal workers either. It is a
conservative figure which masks a reality that is far bleaker.
(1520)
Did the Minister of Finance consult with the people on the
streets? This budget contains all kinds of recipes to fight the
unemployed, instead of unemployment. The maximum period
during which a person can collect benefits will be reduced. The
number of weeks of work required to qualify for UI is being
increased from 10 to 12 weeks. The benefit rate has been
reduced to 55 per cent, a drop of 3.5 per cent. The overall feeling
of certain well-known economists is that more than 50 per cent
of the projected drop in the federal deficit will be borne by
unemployed Quebecers and Canadians. This is the government's
recipe for fighting unemployment.
People's privacy will not be spared. Various factors, such as
family status, common law relationships and economic
circumstances, will be checked. One inquiry after another will
be made before a person can qualify for the program. Moreover,
the government has also called for a review of the country's
social security programs, including unemployment insurance,
the Canada Assistance Plan, the child tax credit program,
employment and training programs, established programs
financing in the education field and social development. What is
the government planning for the future?
After raising some hope among the people by talking about
job creation, this budget disillusions workers; even worse, it
attacks the poorest in our society. The Liberals' pseudo-strategy
for employment is based mainly on consultations, studies and
committee work.
2049
There is less and less food in Canadians' refrigerators. Let
us not wait for the fridge to be empty; otherwise the people will
rise up and we will have to bear the blame. On October 25,
1993, Canadians forcefully said that they want change. The
government side seems to have already forgotten that because
it is now following in the previous government's footsteps, it
is repeating the same scenarios.
Furthermore, it is the first government since Confederation to
forecast such a large deficit, $39.7 billion, just under the
psychological level of $40 billion. No economist and no tax
expert would have dared to make such a forecast.
Surely an infrastructure program where the costs are shared
with the provinces and the municipalities will not solve all
problems by itself. Cities and towns will have to go into debt to
participate in the program.
To reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in 1996-97, it would
have to be brought down to about $25 billion. The government's
budgetary objectives are hit or miss. The proposed measures do
not announce what was promised, namely jobs. The budget
presented by the Minister of Finance is deficient and
misleading.
(1525)
In its speech from the throne, the government announced its
intentions. Today, with its budget, the government is showing its
colour, the same as the colour of its book. Canada is in the red
and nothing is being done to fight the underground economy,
black-market employment.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks which I
enjoyed very much.
I have travelled in the area of Chicoutimi and Jonquière and it
is a lovely part of the country.
I do have one question in the context of his remarks about
federalism. I want to ask him whether he feels the unemployed
people of Chicoutimi and Jonquière, of whom he spoke so
graphically, would be better off, whether they would have better
job prospects in the reduced economy of a separate Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question and I must answer in the affirmative, since a sovereign
Quebec will eliminate overlapping and duplication, and the
money saved will be used to create jobs and to invest in our
province, so that young people can get appropriate training
based on their needs.
Need-related training means training which will lead to
secure and well-paid jobs. The savings made by eliminating this
overlapping alone would be enough to revitalize the economy of
the region.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address a question to the hon. member, one which
has been perplexing me for some time.
In many parts of Canada it is perceived that Quebec has been a
net beneficiary in terms of transfer payments from the federal
treasury.
In the hon. member's opinion, if these transfers of moneys
were to be suspended in an independent Quebec would the offset
in duplication be more or less than the transfer payments being
sent to the province at this time?
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I will answer by saying that right
now Quebec does not receive the same percentage of taxes that it
pays to the federal government. Indeed, we account for 25 per
cent of the Canadian population, but barely 21 per cent of the
taxes we pay is returned to us. Right there you have an injustice
which would be eliminated with a sovereign Quebec.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, this
budget is the failure of a newly-elected government, a
government with a list of promises as long as your arm.
Sadly, we are faced with a double failure. First, this
government has failed to start off its mandate by taking the
drastic actions required to put our public finances in order.
Second, it also failed to find ways to promote economic
recovery. It has managed to take yet more from the have-nots of
our society, while sparing the wealthy. It has even managed to
cause controversy with unfortunate decisions like the closure of
the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.
However much the Minister of Finance tried to prove, with all
kinds of figures and calculations, that efforts had been made to
cut expenditures, few people believed him-not the media, and
certainly not ordinary people-because the figures are there,
implacable and merciless.
(1530)
Those figures tell us that the budget will again show a deficit
of disposable revenue over uncontrolled expenditures. This
government will keep feeding an accumulated deficit by nearly
$40 billion, an amount that the government is spending on top of
what the people are able to pay. So, it should not boast about cuts
and efforts to that effect. Its failure is visible, undeniable,
because total spending continues to increase.
The level of indebtedness of this country is getting ridiculous.
While this government will be adding some $40 billion to the
accumulated debt, it will spend about as much just to service the
debt. In other words, we are getting dangerously close to the
point where our annual deficit will be equal to the cost of
2050
servicing the public debt. Will we soon be forced to cut
government spending just to cover debt charges? The Minister
of Finance himself admitted that he will not be able to pay off
Canada's public debt. What about the annual deficit? Could he
pay it off? Not likely! If only the government could invest as
much in job creation as it is paying just for debt maintenance.
Furthermore, the government could not resist picking up the
bad habit of hitting on low-income people. We thought we had
seen everything with the actions the former minister responsible
for the Unemployment Insurance Program had recently
announced. He had even tried to fool people by renaming his
department, using the euphemism of Human Resources
Development. Can you imagine? But people were not fooled; we
know what they did with this kind of human resources
development. In the last election, the Canadian people as a
whole fired all those who did not understand the difference
between tackling unemployment and attacking the unemployed.
The new government, far from distinguishing itself from the
old Tory government, followed in their footsteps. Ordinary
people have trouble understanding how the proposed changes to
the unemployment insurance program are likely to improve the
employment picture. I, too, have trouble understanding the
increase in the number of weeks of work needed to qualify, when
jobs are increasingly precarious and job security seems to have
become an obsolete concept.
The cumulative deficit of some $6 billion in the
unemployment insurance account at the end of 1993 is not a
result of the system as such but of the failure of governments to
support employment and the economy. It is not the
unemployment insurance program that creates unemployment.
The Liberals are confusing the disease with the cure. This
remedy is not curative but palliative. The Liberals are on the
same wrong path as the Conservatives; they have the same
policies, the same lobbyists, the same kind of election fund, the
same friends, the same protectors.
Observers quickly noted how fast the government acted to
introduce in its current budget measures hitting the middle
class. Yet, despite all the proposed measures regarding capital
gains and tax loopholes, the Minister of Finance merely
announced public consultations and hearings. Not only is there
no equity in this budget but there is no appearance of equity.
While cutting transfer payments to the provinces by $2 billion
over two years, it does not have the courage to close the real tax
loopholes available to the rich. We in the Bloc Quebecois are
always identifying tax trusts or invoking the Auditor General's
recommendations, for example. If cuts to operating
expenditures for 1994-95 only amount to $413 million, it is
because the government did not take immediate action to
eliminate waste and duplication.
It refuses to cut in the right places but does it in the wrong
places. In his speech, the Minister of Finance called for renewal
and accountability in social programs. To move in that direction,
the government could have restored the non-profit housing
program, for instance. That program provided needy households
with housing of reasonable size and quality at affordable prices.
It helped eligible sponsoring organizations to build, acquire,
renovate and run subsidized rental housing projects. But the
government did not restore the program, and thus missed a good
opportunity to show its know-how.
(1535)
Short of a similar program, it seems that the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, which was responsible for such
applications under the National Housing Act, is now essentially
a mortgage insurer and has given up its role of partner in social
programs.
The office of the president and chief executive officer of the
Société d'habitation du Québec told us that, in 1993, 782 new
low-cost housing units had been built across the province,
thanks to the financial involvement of the federal government.
Thirty-five of these units are located at 41 Saint-Hubert Street,
in Châteauguay, thanks to the initiative and efforts of all those
involved within the community. Do you know how many new
units are expected to be added in 1994, after this budget? None,
Mr. Speaker. None at all! Maybe this is the government's
message! Maybe this is the solution found by the government to
free itself from its obligations towards the poor.
I say to the government that better management is not
synonymous with reneging on commitments. The necessary
streamlining of expenditures and operations did not take place.
It is more than urgent that the government use common sense.
The Liberals had their red book, but their budget does not show
that they have the know-how. This is why the Bloc Quebecois
has every reason to be here in this House. It must make
representations on behalf of all those who are forgotten and
neglected by the government, and it must inform this same
government of the opportunities which exist but that it refuses to
recognize.
As the Official Opposition critic for Veterans Affairs, I was
surprised to read that the secretary of state was satisfied because
no programs were affected by any cuts, and that he was
confident that no service would be adversely affected. These
comments were reported in the February 24, 1994, issue of the
Charlottetown Guardian. How can the minister make such
claims when cuts affecting the department are somewhere
around $3.2 million? How can these cuts, which will impact on
the 1994-95 department's operating expenditures, have no
effect whatsoever? Is the department so badly managed that cuts
of that magnitude will not be felt at all? I certainly intend to
ensure that the statement made by the secretary of state is not
merely exaggerated optimism.
2051
This budget clearly illustrates the failure of the Canadian
federal regime. The wheel of the regime is turning with such
inertia and is under the influence of such external force that
it does not seem controllable. The result is that the Liberals
have drafted a budget identical to the one which the
Conservatives might have tabled, had they been re-elected. It
is the exact same thing! If the elected government does not
seem able to control the federal regime, how can Canadians
have the impression that they can make a difference and change
things in that regime?
We believe that the real solution lies in a major redefinition of
the controls of public authority. Quebec's sovereignty is not an
end in itself. It does not automatically mean the end of Canada
or the will to come to that. Rather, Quebec's sovereignty
represents the beginning of a new relationship in which
solutions simply not possible in the present constitutional
structure could be used to resolve common problems. Canada's
structural crisis can only be solved if Quebec becomes a
sovereign nation. This is the option I favour for the benefit of
our future generations.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the hon. member for Châteauguay for his excellent speech and
for his great interest in Quebecers. When he speaks of Quebec
sovereignty, he speaks of the greater welfare of Quebec, and
indeed of the greater welfare of the rest of Canada.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance spoke of
one-stop shopping for government services. I assume he meant
federal government services. He forgets that for years now,
Quebec has been demanding to have similar service centres
which would also provide Quebec government services.
(1540)
I am interested in what the hon. member for Châteauguay has
to say about the fact that once again, the Minister of Finance has
forgotten that this kind of duplication is extremely costly.
According to the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, duplication
between Quebec and Ottawa costs between $2 and $3 billion per
year. If the Minister of Finance had seriously wanted to cut
spending, he should have realized that it is not a government
services centre that is required, but a kind of one-stop centre
that would also include services offered by the government of
Quebec. I would like to get the hon. member's comments on this
issue. I feel certain that he has some excellent suggestions to
make.
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from
Longueuil. As far as I am concerned, a country's revenues and
production capability are not merely a function of its size or the
extent of its borders, but rather a function of the way in which
that country is run.
I think that is the problem with Canada today. We have a
government machine that could in all likelihood adequately
serve 260 million people, the population of the United States,
whereas we have a population of barely 26 or 27 million. And
that is the crux of the problem. There is considerable duplication
at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. If we cannot
change or amend this system, then the only option for Quebec,
the only way for it to achieve a healthy system of government, is
to become sovereign.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I made a mistake. As a
rule, after a speech, the Chair must recognize a member from
another party first.
[English]
I should have recognized first the member for Edmonton
Southwest. Please be brief, the time is just about up.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a great respect for the hon. member for Chateauguay but I
wish to draw a contradiction that I see in his presentation to the
attention of the House and perhaps get his response.
His first words were that the closing of the military college at
Saint-Jean is a desperate problem for the province of Quebec.
Would the member not agree that if Quebec were to separate and
be an independent country, Canada would no longer have any
facilities in Quebec? Does not the closing of that one military
college, which he takes great umbrage at, foreshadow the
closing of many more federal installations in Quebec to the
tremendous detriment of Quebec and Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague
for his question. No, I do not believe that additional closures of
federal installations in Quebec would be detrimental to Quebec.
One has to understand that any federal investment in Quebec is
tied to taxation. Whether we take our tax dollars and send them
to Ottawa only to have them reinvested in the province, or
whether we spend them ourselves, it is really all one and the
same thing.
However, I would point out to him that there is quite a
difference between receiving one million for research and
development, and receiving one million for unemployment
insurance. If we were the masters of our own destiny, we could
take the one million and invest it in research and development,
rather than spend it on unemployment insurance. Then, we
would be able to put everyone to work.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is reminded that the time has
expired. Next time I will be sure to recognize someone from
another party.
2052
(1545 )
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place and participate in this
debate. May I at the earliest opportunity on my feet with you in
the chair express my congratulations to you on taking up these
most important responsibilities.
In beginning my remarks I cannot help but say to my
colleague opposite who in giving his remarks on this budget
debate said ``if we were masters of our own destinies'' that we
are as Canadians in a free and democratic society masters of our
own destiny. Quebecers are masters of their own destiny. Every
time Quebecers have been asked to chart a course, to fasten a sail
and to be captains of their own ship they have decided that their
fate and their course lies in parallel with Canada, not as a
separate entity and not as a separate ship.
I am confident that Quebecers, if they are again given the
opportunity to cast a judgment, will again choose to contribute
to this great experiment on the northern half of the North
American continent called Canada.
Canadians on October 25 gave a very clear mandate to a new
government to attempt to come to grips with age old problems. I
submit that never in modern times has a party laid so clearly
before the people of Canada, fully a month in advance of an
election, a detailed blueprint for the government's policy and
plan of action. I am referring now to the Liberal red book.
Each of the major initiatives outlined in the red book were
outlined weeks in advance of the election, something which
heretofore has been considered to be a politically silly thing to
do; to actually tell the people in detail, not days, not hours, not
weeks but a month before an election, to lay it out and say:
``Here is what we will do if charged with the responsibility to
govern''. That is something we did.
I am proud to say that I belong to a party that not only laid out
its program but has scrupulously, item by item by item, sought
to fulfil the contract, which is what it is, that we made with the
people of Canada when they signed on the bottom line, marked
their x and gave Liberal members of Parliament a majority and
the opportunity and responsibility to govern.
In Atlantic Canada Canadians by an overwhelming majority
expressed confidence in the platform of the Liberal Party.
Atlantic Canadians did not express that confidence because they
had some kind of simple belief that just by voting Liberal all of
the social challenges that confront us would suddenly disappear
or held some simple belief that just by voting for change that
unemployment would disappear. No.
The people of Atlantic Canada marked an x for a party and for
a program fully aware that the structural problems of Atlantic
Canada could not be dismissed with the introduction of one
budget, could not be eliminated just by an expression of good
will of a new government, but that our chronic levels of
unemployment and our structural problems required real
change, not slogans but substantive change.
One of the areas we committed ourselves to change and one of
the areas where Atlantic Canadians lock arms with us in
marching forward to accomplish that change is in the area of the
fishery.
We said that we would make two substantive changes in
fisheries policy, two sea changes in fisheries policy. On the one
hand we said we would not walk away and turn our backs on
those in crisis, those dislocated and those out of a job because of
the closure of fisheries and because of the moratorium on
Atlantic groundfish stocks. There are now a total of 14
moratoriums in place. There are 14 groundfish stocks in which
there is no fishery for the first time in 500 years.
(1550 )
We now have a situation for those people who live in rural
Newfoundland on the tip of the great northern peninsula in a
small rural isolated community where the average income is
among the lowest in the country and where the capacity to take
some wild game or jig a few cod is an important component of
the food basket where I, as Minister of Fisheries and as a native
Newfoundlander, have had to take away the right even to jig with
a hook and line, the most basic biblical kind of tool, to go out
and draw a few fish from the sea. I have had to take away that
right in the name of conservation.
Incredibly, for the first time in 500 years that right was
removed. There is not a protest. There is not a revolution. There
certainly is not a celebration. However, there is acceptance.
There is a bearing down, a gritting of teeth, a desire to pay the
price that is required to rebuild those cod stocks even if that
price is to take the fish and the protein out of the sea, right out of
the cupboards, the freezers and off the tables of the very people
who have relied on it for 500 years.
We said to the people of Atlantic Canada and to the people of
my province of Newfoundland and Labrador that we will take
the tough decisions. We have begun the process of taking them.
We put in place in the budget $1.9 billion to ensure that people
can retrain where appropriate, that people can be sustained in
the core fishery where appropriate as the rebuilding process
goes on.
We have publicly identified the need to reduce capacity on the
harvesting and processing side of the fishery by as much as 50
per cent. Imagine, standing up in a public place, in a land where
people for generations have eked out a living on the edge of the
north Atlantic, drawing the resource from the sea, and publicly
saying: ``Half of you cannot be sustained. Half of you cannot
2053
carry on. Half of you must move on to other industries and other
jobs''.
If a decade ago someone had even whispered that thought
there would have been riots. A decade ago if someone had stood
in a public place and suggested that people would be separated
from not just the means of making a living but the way of life
that generations of forefathers had carved out, he would have
been run out of town. However, today there is a steely
determination to bear whatever cost has to be borne, to bear
whatever pain has to be experienced, to rebuild these cod stocks.
I want to take this opportunity to say that all of those who sit
in steel and glass and ivory towers, in the editorial boards of the
nation from their vantage point 25 or 30 floors above the
concrete below, to those who say that Atlantic Canada is
finished, that the back of the economy has been broken, that the
spirit of the people has been crushed or broken, those who say
the solution is simple resettlement, should be moved to Toronto,
Montreal or Calgary or Vancouver or to somewhere else where
there is a job. I want to say to those who in their own mind when
faced with such a challenge as that being faced by the people of
Atlantic Canada who would fall down and give up that that is not
the mood, that is not the spirit, that is not the disposition and that
is not the character of Atlantic Canada.
The people of Atlantic Canada and of Newfoundland and
Labrador do not feel desperation or hopelessness but are
reaching down and uncovering a wellspring of courage and
conviction to carry on. We are going to rebuild the industry. We
are going to restore a new conservation ethic. We are going to
stand up and ensure that the last fish out there is maintained to
rebuild that important historical sector.
We will pay any price in the name of conservation. We will
impose 14 groundfish moratoriums. We will impose a
moratorium on the food fishery. We will take 35,000 people and
have them park their boats and close their plants.
(1555 )
We as a nation will pay the price to maintain, sustain and
retrain them. We will demand no less of foreign nations that fish
on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We will demand no less.
We say to France, Portugal, Spain, Japan and Russia, with our
palms outstretched in the realm of generosity, with our hands
stretched out seeking understanding, that we can do no more
than we have already done in the name of conservation and that
they can do no less than to join us in respecting these important
cod moratoriums.
We have said that we will not catch a pound of fish this year on
the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, the breeding grounds of
what once was the world's greatest protein resource. Not a
pound. At a time when we have an agreement in Brussels
through NAFO, when Canadians have agreed not to fish and
when our NAFO partners have agreed not to fish, we will not
allow pirate vessels flying flags of convenience to come in and
make a mockery out of the sacrifice that Canadians and indeed
others around the world are prepared to undertake this year to
rebuild those cod stocks.
Monday next I will be in New York. On behalf of Canada I will
speak to the UN conference on high seas fishing. I will make it
clear that we want to resolve this matter by agreement. I will
equally make it clear that we will resolve it by unilateral action
if necessary.
Two years ago when the government of the day came before
Parliament seeking authority for an assistance program for
Atlantic fishermen, the then minister stood in his place and
pointed out that a northern cod stock had collapsed.
The minister said against a backdrop of a $30 billion national
deficit that he needed assistance for 17,000 displaced people. He
said that assistance would be required for two years. I am back
two years later. The deficit is not $30 billion, it is $46 billion.
The number of people requiring assistance is not 17,000, it is
now 35,000. The timeframe is not two years, it is now five years.
The scope of the crisis has broadened dramatically.
As I said, we want to do all we can to rebuild the fishery by
restructuring at home, by enforcing reasonable conservation
measures inside and outside the 200-mile limit. We also know
that we must rebuild the economy. We have to diversity the
economy of Atlantic Canada.
Let me speak of my own province, Newfoundland and
Labrador. I know it is not enough to ask my fellow Canadians to
stand with us, to stay with us during this downturn in the fishery.
I know we have to demonstrate that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are prepared to go out and to compete, to develop
their skills and to win in a global economy.
That is also a direction we are moving in. I want to share with
some of my colleagues elsewhere in the country what is
happening in Newfoundland, where the new opportunities lie
and where the new leadership is coming from.
I submit to members that one of the areas in which we can be
competitive, where 90 miles of water is not a disadvantage, is in
the area of the new information and knowledge based industries,
in high tech, in research and development. That is where the
future lies and that is where the future is being carved out.
In the province today we are seeing the development of new
companies in the engineering services field. Last year, RDS
Engineering of Newfoundland won out over national and
international competition for a $6 million contract on Hibernia.
A new company, Instrumar, has developed a clean wind
detection system now being used all across the country,
technology to develop the presence and thickness of ice, snow
and other substances on aircraft wings. This company recently
formed a
2054
strategic alliance with Allied Aerospace Canada to
commercialize both nationally and internationally this new
system.
(1600 )
Ultima East Data Communications Ltd. has developed a range
of hardware and software products for communications
applications, including access to current satellite technology.
Together with a sister company, Sea Link Ltd., Ultima East has
been marketing automatic high frequency radio systems
world-wide. Eighty per cent of the product of this company is
being marketed not in Canada but internationally and the vast
majority of its export product is going into Asia. All of the
software development has occurred in Newfoundland and
Labrador. That is the kind of future we have to carve out for
ourselves.
Compusult Limited, a St. John's company, recently
completed a $1 million contract to develop a system for
Environment Canada to receive and to store ice data. It is now in
the process of commercializing that technology. EJE
Trans-Lite, a Newfoundland company, was established in 1988
to design and market specialized safety lighting products for the
marine and aviation industries. One of its products, a personal
rescue light, has sold already in a short period of time more than
200,000 units and over 80 per cent of that product is being
exported around the world.
Another company, Nautical Data International, recently
formed a joint venture between two high technology companies,
one based in Newfoundland and the other in Vancouver. Both
these companies have put their resources together and are
digitalizing the data from the department of hydrography in my
department. It is a unique development. We have privatized the
information available. We have digitalized that information and
both the Vancouver and Newfoundland based firms working in
tandem are marketing that product around the world and around
North America. It is another new high tech development.
I mention these companies because I am not naive. I have
been here 14 years. I understand that for many Canadians who
have not had the opportunity to visit Newfoundland and
Labrador and certain parts of Atlantic Canada, there is a
perception that the economy is built entirely on the fishery, as
some Canadians falsely perceive that the economy of Alberta is
entirely built on red beef. Of course nothing could be further
from the truth.
It is a modern, thriving economy showing great leadership in
the high tech field, the petrochemical field, the engineering
field, and so on. A new economy is evolving in Newfoundland.
Some of it is spinning out from around the offshore oil and gas
sector.
We understand on this side of the House that we have to create
the environment to allow that new technology, that new
leadership, that spirit of entrepreneurship to flourish. We have
to give people the circumstances and the conditions under which
they can, as a people and as a province dependent too long upon
a single resource, sprout their entrepreneurial wings and fly,
successfully compete in a global economy. That initiative is
under way today in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the meantime we must never forget, Atlantic Canada must
never forget, that Newfoundland and Labrador has a historical
attachment to the ocean, a historical attachment to the sea and to
the resources of the sea.
We must begin to understand that the desecration, the
destruction of cod resources, northern cod all throughout the
Atlantic, the destruction of offshore resources is the
environmental equivalent of the destruction of the rain forest.
When we take away that resource we take away not an
opportunity for an income or a livelihood from people in the
particular region but a resource that is part of the world's food
basket, a rich source of protein for the planet.
We have to begin to understand that the crisis on the east coast
is not a Newfoundland crisis. It is not an Atlantic crisis. It is not
a regional issue. It is a question of sovereignty for a nation.
If we as a country cannot commit ourselves to rebuilding the
great Atlantic resource, if we are not prepared to commit
ourselves to take action to rebuild that resource, to flex our will,
not only at home but beyond 200 miles, then we have to call into
question how mature this nation is and how willing and how
ready we are to stand up and call ourselves a mature and modern
nation in 1994.
(1605 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to thank the minister for his speech which was very emphatic
and informative.
I did notice a couple of things as you were progressing
through your list of accomplishments in the ongoing change in
Newfoundland. You specified how the economy is diversifying,
the number of jobs being created, and so on.
Almost conspicuous by absence is the fact that the
infrastructure programs that past governments have initiated, if
I can call them that, the Hibernia project, and so on, are not
playing a huge part in the rebuilding of Newfoundland.
It seems to me there is a lesson to be learned there, possibly
that the businesses mentioned are small and medium sized
businesses using the high tech future to grab hold of things and
sprout wings, as the hon. minister mentioned, to grab hold of the
new possibilities.
Hibernia is not really playing the big part that people hoped. I
wonder if the minister would comment on future job creation
projects. I realize the minister is supportive of his own
infrastructure programs but it seems that billions of dollars have
been
2055
wasted in large part on Hibernia. There is going to be another
billion dollars thrown at the P.E.I. bridge.
Would the minister comment on whether that is the best use of
taxpayers' money. Would it be better to lower taxes, thereby
helping these small and medium sized businesses?
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the minister, I
wonder if members could say ``the minister'' or the ``member''
rather than ``you''.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I did not talk about the Hibernia
project because I wanted to focus on what I think is an exciting
new dimension. There are a bunch of young men and women,
some in their twenties and thirties who are developing software,
not importing technology or software, adding some value and
sending it off. The resource is their own imagination.
Limitations are those they impose on themselves. They are
taking tools of modern technology and using those tools to
create new knowledge based industries and exporting them
around the world.
I find it fascinating this kind of activity happens on an island
province where traditionally we do not expect that kind of
development.
I want to acknowledge that today. This kind of development is
every bit as exciting when one young firm with a handful of
young engineers and a couple of people prepared to write and
develop new software develops a brand new industry based on
knowledge and the extent of its own imagination.
I find it every bit as awesome to contemplate as Hibernia,
which is in itself an incredible feat of engineering. It has
contributed significantly to the economy of the province of
Alberta.
I do not want to belittle Hibernia. It is an important project.
Another government in another day committed the funds to that
project. It can lead to a series of new offshore developments. Mr.
Speaker, knowing your former interest and expertise in matters
having to do with energy development in Canada, I do not want
to diminish from the project at all.
I simply want to take this opportunity to acknowledge what is
being done by young incubator companies. They are not waiting
for your permission or mine or even our acknowledgement.
They are out there competing and winning in the world market. I
think that is exciting and ought to be acknowledged and
encouraged.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I am always
impressed by the eloquence and verve of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and of people from Newfoundland
generally.
The minister referred to the Liberal Party's red book, and I
must say there have been an impressive number of references to
this document.
(1610)
I wish he would use the same eloquence and the same verve to
explain why, in the red book, he did not tell Canadians that
unemployment insurance premiums would be taxed by more
than $800 million. Why did he not say that companies would be
paying $1.7 billion in taxes over the next few years? Why did he
not say that individuals would be paying $1.8 billion in taxes
over the next three years? Why did the red book not say there
would be a deficit of $40 billion for the current year? And that in
1996, the cumulative debt would be nearly $600 billion? Why
did he not say this?
I wish the minister would use the same eloquence and the
same verve to explain that to Canadians. Why were Canadians
totally misled by what was said in the red book, if we look at
what the government is doing now?
[English]
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we have a saying in Newfoundland.
When someone is awfully bold we say they have more nerve
than a toothache and a vicious one at that.
Here is the member asking me why we did not tell Canadians
about the fiscal situation of Canada. The hon. member's leader
made a notable contribution to the leaders' debate during the
last election and the leader of the Reform Party will remember
this. He kept asking the then Prime Minister what the deficit was
and what the deficit would be. Up to that point we were all told
the deficit this year would be about $33 billion. It turned out
after we came to office that the deficit was $46 billion, $13
billion higher than the government had admitted.
Having the member ask me why we did not know this is
amusing, given that the member who just asked the question
spent his first four or five years in this place sitting on the
government benches, the Tory party benches.
Why the member would now ask me what he was doing
jumping up and down voting yes every time the government he
supported proposed a motion, I do not know. I do not know what
he was doing and I do not know what questions he asked in his
caucus.
What I do know is that he was a loyal follower, notable for his
capacity to get up and bow yes whenever Mr. Mulroney asked
his permission to spend more money. It takes a special kind of
nerve, like an open, raw wound, for this member to stand here
now and complain. This member ought to be put on the bow of a
boat out at 200 miles because he bellows so loud and makes so
little sense that he would scare away all foreign fishing vessels.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I have a similar
question. I have asked this question to two of the member's
colleagues in the past and did not get an answer. I have often
watched the hon. minister on television during the last four or
2056
five years and I am always impressed by his intelligence and his
wit. Therefore, I would like him to concentrate that wit on this
question and I hope to get an answer.
How will the addition of $100 billion to the federal debt over
the next three years affect the plan to rebuild the fishing industry
on the east coast as well as a new tech industry that he speaks
about emerging now in that area?
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the member wants an answer and I
am going to give him one.
What the member is suggesting, to reverse the situation, is
that rather than add $100 billion to the debt, he is now referring
to approximately $30 billion of deficit on average over the three
years, a little more for $100 billion after three years. The
member is really suggesting that we should cut out an additional
$100 billion of expenditure. Is that not true? I see everybody but
the leader of the Reform Party nodding yes. He is a bit more
cautious.
By cutting out $100 billion we would start, according to the
hon. member-
Mr. Ramsay: Answer the question.
Mr. Tobin: I am answering the question. The member does
not like the answer. We start by cutting the $2 billion for
fishermen and plant workers. That is what the member wants.
Then we would cut all unemployment insurance payments in
total so there would be no more unemployment insurance plan.
Then we would begin to cut medicare and do away with
medicare as a universally accessible plan and ensure that people
would pay their own way. The member is nodding his head yes.
When done with that we would then cut out all regional
development funding so that those who lived in areas of highest
unemployment would be left to their own resources. At the end
of the day we would simply take the keys to Parliament and the
notion of parliamentary responsible government and we would
turn them over to Walmart.
(1615)
The Parliament of Canada is not McDonald's. It is not
Walmart. It is up to government to use the tools and the
resources of the nation to give direction and shape to the
country. We do not give shape to the country by abandoning
public policy to public accountants. We will not do it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to address the budgetary policy of the government as
presented by the Minister of Finance on February 22. My
principal reason for rising is to register a profound sense of
disappointment and apprehension concerning the fiscal and the
human aspects of the 1994 budget.
The blunt truth concerning the fiscal aspect of the budget is
that it does not bring federal overspending, the federal deficit or
the federal debt under control. Nor does it lay the foundations
for doing so in the future. Projected spending for 1994-95 is
$164 billion or $3 billion more than was spent in 1993-94. The
federal deficit for 1994-95 is $40 billion or 5.4 per cent of GDP.
The government spending plans add another $100 billion to the
federal debt over the next three years, a debt which already
stands at $511 billion.
After all is said and done, the only improvements in the
government's financial position are mere projected
improvements for future years, projections which are no more
believable than those of the previous government.
It is the implications of the budget for Canadians in human
terms which turn my disappointment into apprehension and
even alarm. Because the budget fails to come to grips with
overspending it offers no hope whatsoever to millions of
hard-pressed taxpayers for tax relief. In fact it assures them of
nothing but future tax increases.
Because the budget adds another $100 billion to the federal
debt over three years it diverts another $3 billion to $6 billion of
revenue per year into interest payments on that debt. Federal
financial support for health care, education and pensions will
thus continue to deteriorate. This is bad news for the recipients
of those services.
Because the budget fails to come to grips with the deficit and
the excessive taxation of Canadians, it sends a strong negative
signal to private sector job creators. The net effect of the budget
is to discourage private sector job creation. This is bad news for
the 2.5 million unemployed and underemployed in the country.
In summary, the federal budget stripped of its rhetoric and
politically inspired optimism is a failure of the first order, a
failure whose heaviest impact will fall on taxpayers, recipients
of social services, the unemployed and the underemployed.
Based on this assessment it is appropriate for us as members
of Parliament to consider the following question. If the
Government of Canada were a great publicly held company with
27 million shareholders and we were its directors; if we had just
received a financial statement showing our 21st annual loss in a
row, this time for $40 billion; if our balance sheet showed we
were carrying half a trillion dollars worth of debt; and if this
Chamber were the great board room of that company and we met
here today, many of us as new directors, with a legal
responsibility to our shareholders to face up to fiscal realities, I
ask how would we likely respond.
We know that some members would choose simply to deny the
reality. They would say a $40 billion deficit is not that bad; we
2057
can always borrow more; the lenders will never cut us off; it
might happen to New Zealand but it will not happen to us. Others
might try to escape the fiscal reality by flights of fancy. They
would say: ``Let us focus on next year; next year things will be
better''. Still others would be looking for someone to blame and
be saying: ``It is not our fault; it was the previous director's
fault''. Yet again some of us might simply look for an exit
strategy: ``Let's make sure we don't get hurt. Let's make sure
our golden parachutes are in order. Let's take some subsidiary of
the mother corporation, separate it out and go off on our own''.
(1620 )
There is another response that is possible under these
circumstances. That response is to face up to the fiscal reality
that the budget downplays and to develop a contingency plan for
the day when its shortcomings become evident to all. Instead of
going into denial or flights of fancy or blaming someone for
trying to get out, we should say one to another: ``Let us develop
a contingency plan that really comes to grips with the
overspending, the deficit and the debt, a contingency plan that
protects the taxpayer, the workers, the unemployed and the users
of social services from the injuries the budget will ultimately
cause. Let me briefly outline the key elements of a contingency
plan for Canadians to cope with the failures of the 1994-1995
budget''.
First is a contingency plan for real deficit reduction. The
budget presented by the minister last month proposes spending
cuts for 1994-95 amounting to only $2.2 billion or about 1.3 per
cent of total spending, achieved mainly by cuts to defence
spending and unemployment insurance. Those of us who believe
federal spending must be reduced more quickly and in greater
amounts must complete a more detailed and extensive list of
spending cuts and keep it current as a contingency plan for real
deficit reduction.
The Reform Party has a list of about $20 billion in proposed
spending cuts which could be updated and made part of this
contingency plan. This list was tabled in the House during the
prebudget debate.
To his credit the Minister of Finance has said that he and his
officials would be willing to sit down with us to review the
feasibility of this expanded list of spending cuts. We look
forward to that opportunity.
Various provincial governments, in particular Alberta and
New Brunswick, are further along the road to controlling
overspending than the federal government. Their deficit
reducing activities should be scrutinized for elements which
could be incorporated into a federal contingency plan.
In any event a contingency plan for real deficit reduction must
be developed and kept current for the day the government and
the House realize the federal deficit is much more serious than
the 1994 budget acknowledges.
Second is a contingency plan for taxpayers. The budget
presented by the minister last month provided for the federal
government to extract $9 billion more out of the pockets of
taxpayers than in 1993-94 and $600 million of that from tax
adjustments contained in the budget itself.
The government was wise to heed the wishes of Canadians
and back off proposals for reducing RRSP contribution levels
and for instituting new taxes like a carbon tax. The fact remains
that too many Canadians are responding to excessive taxation by
going into the underground economy or taking their capital out
of the country. Those of us who recognize the seriousness of this
problem need to provide taxpayers with some other options. We
need a contingency plan for taxpayers and here are four
suggestions.
(1) We can make sure that every major taxpayer group in the
country becomes aware that further tax increase are inevitable
unless the government gets far more serious about cost cutting.
(2) We can invite taxpayers to communicate their concerns to
the government, perhaps by sending a tough letter of protest
with every tax return so that even the most obtuse member of the
government will realize that further tax increases are not a
politically viable option for solving the government's fiscal
problem.
(3) We can solicit from taxpayers their proposals for
government cost reduction and their ideas on what form tax
relief must take in order to stimulate private sector job creation.
(4) We can show taxpayers a tax relief light at the end of the
cost cutting tunnel. If Parliament would pledge itself to
reducing the deficit to zero by the end of its term then and only
then does genuine tax relief become a real possibility.
Third is a contingency plan for workers. In its election
campaign and in its red book the government said that job
creation was its highest priority. Yet the real job implications of
the budget are bleak indeed. The most real and immediate job
impact of the budget is the elimination of 16,000 jobs by the
defence department; a reduction, not an increase in
employment.
The finance minister predicts a reduction of only one-tenth of
one per cent in the unemployment rate in 1994 as a result of his
budgetary measures.
(1625)
The Minister of Industry and the Minister of Human
Resources Development however are more optimistic. The
Minister of Industry in his response to the budget spoke well and
extensively on the new information based, export oriented
economy emerging in the country. He assured us the government
2058
had the knowledge and the policies to enable workers and
businesses to find a place in that new economy. The Minister of
Human Resources Development in his response to the budget
said rightly that there was a job crisis in the country and that the
Chamber must seriously consider how jobs are created.
How is a self-sustaining job to be created in the 1990s? The
government seems to feel that government is the primary engine
of job creation, whereas Reformers believe that the best job
creation process is as follows.
First there has to be a customer or a consumer somewhere
with a demand for a good or a service and money to activate that
demand. Then there must be an entrepreneur or a business that
sees that demand and decides to fill it. The role of that business
is to assemble the resources, the capital and the labour required
to satisfy consumer demand. When that is successfully done
employment opportunities, jobs, are created for workers
qualified to fill them.
The essential role of the government in all this is not to
initiate job creation but to support it. The employment aspects
of a government's budget, therefore, should not be measured
primarily by how many jobs government spending and programs
create but by the signals that budget sends to private sector job
creators, by how many more dollars it leaves in the pockets of
consumers and investors, and by the support programs it
provides to workers.
Measured by those standards the budget presented in the
House is a failure. By not coming to grips with the deficit the
only signal it sends to business and investors is a negative one:
more tax increases ahead. This signal kills rather than stimulates
private sector job creation.
A contingency plan is required for the unemployed and the
underemployed whom this budget fails. A part of that plan will
be the real deficit reduction measures discussed earlier, but the
second part of that plan must include measures to assist workers
to find and fill jobs in the new economy referred to by the
Minister of Industry.
In this regard I suggest we submit the government's
employment enhancing measures to a simple test. The minister
of defence says that he is going to cut 16,000 jobs in the defence
department. The Minister of Industry says that he knows there
are new jobs waiting in the new economy, and the Minister of
Human Resources Development says that he has the programs to
equip people to find and fill those jobs.
Therefore let the minister of defence submit to the House the
names of the 16,000 people whom he is laying off. Six months
from now we will contact them to see how many are on UI, how
many are on welfare, how many are in dead end jobs in the old
economy and how many in fact are on their way to jobs in the
new economy. If even 75 per cent of those 16,000 are on their
way to jobs in the new economy, we will be the first to
congratulate the government and to encourage it to further
refine and develop its employment initiatives. If more than 25
per cent of those 16,000 are on UI or social assistance or stuck in
dead end jobs in the old economy, it will be clear to us and the
whole country that the government does not have an answer to
the job problem and never did.
In other words, if a government cannot guide 16,000 from the
defence department to jobs in the new economy, who would
believe that it has the policies and the programs to guide 1.6
million unemployed to that destination?
Finally the House must address the question of where the
guidance and leadership will come from to correct the failures of
the 1994 federal budget and to produce a contingency plan for
Canadians. I am genuinely sad to say it is apparent this guidance
and leadership will not be coming from our chief executive
officer, the Prime Minister of Canada. This is regrettable
because experience in this country and others has shown that
major efforts at government cost cutting are almost never
successful unless they are fully and vigorously backed by the
leader of that government.
Unfortunately the present Prime Minister made it clear on his
visit to Alberta last week that he could not be counted upon to
provide that kind of leadership. He is quoted as telling an
Edmonton radio audience there will not be a new round of tough
spending cuts. There may be some changes in reference to the
reform of social programs but there will be no spending cuts in
the next three years other than those announced in last week's
budget.
(1630)
Second, it is equally apparent that guidance and leadership in
correcting the failures of the 1994 federal budget will not be
coming from the Official Opposition. If you analyse the
speeches made by the Bloc members in response to the budget
you find they are totally negative with virtually no constructive
alternatives to offer.
It is not enough simply to point out the weaknesses and
deficiencies of the budget. Anyone can do that. What
desperately needs to be done is to provide constructive
alternatives, contingency plans to remedy those weaknesses and
deficiencies, something the Official Opposition has failed to
provide.
We also notice that underlying most of the budget speeches of
the opposition is the assumption that you could balance the
federal budget by simply cutting administrative fat. If Bloc
members would spend even five minutes studying table 17 on
page 56 of the budget plan, they would see that federal transfers
in support of social programs in 1994-95 will amount to $67
billion or 55 per cent of all program spending whereas the total
spending on government operations is $20 billion or 16 per cent
of government spending.
In other words you can cut the fat, the tissue, the muscle and
the bone out of government operations and you will still only
reduce the deficit by half or, put another way, there is absolutely
2059
no way the federal deficit and debt can be brought under control
without reforming social spending.
The responses of members of Parliament to the federal
budgetary problems are totally negative or utterly unrealistic
and cannot be counted on to develop viable contingency plans
for this or for any other ship of state.
If we cannot count on the Prime Minister or the Official
Opposition to remedy the failures of the 1994 budget or to
produce contingency plans for coping with its negative impacts,
whom can we count upon?
Reformers say that in this instance as in all others affecting
affairs of state we can count first and foremost on the people
themselves, the taxpayers, the workers, the unemployed, the
underemployed, the recipients of social services, the people
whose interests are most seriously injured by the failures of the
1994 budget and the absence of realistic contingency plans.
It is the intention of Reform members to register our
disappointment and apprehension concerning the 1994 budget in
debate and in committee, but it is our intention to do more. It is
our intention to call for the development of a contingency plan
for Canadians and we invite other MPs and concerned Canadians
to contribute.
We envision a contingency plan that really comes to grips
with the federal debt, deficit, and overspending by proposing the
needed additional spending reductions that are missing from the
budget. We envision a contingency plan that calls upon
taxpayers to register their opposition to overtaxation and their
desire to secure tax relief.
We envision a contingency plan that puts our social programs
on a more secure financial footing and that directs public social
spending to those that are most in need.
We envision a contingency plan that responds to the needs of
the unemployed and underemployed by the stimulation of
private sector job creation and by supporting workers in their
journey from the old economy to the new.
We envision using our positions, offices, and resources as
MPs to combine our ideas with those of the public into a
contingency plan for Canadians to control federal spending,
secure tax relief, stabilized social services and stimulate private
sector job creation.
This is the Reform response to the 1994 federal budget and
when the day comes six months, one year, or two years down the
road and Canadians realize how badly the 1994 budget missed
the mark there will be a constructive alternative to which they
can turn.
(1635 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, first of all I am delighted to welcome
the leader of the Reform Party to the debate. As the Prime
Minister, myself and other ministers went across the country we
missed his presence in the debate over the last couple of weeks
and we are delighted to see him back.
Let me simply make a couple of points because I know the
time is very short. The leader of the Reform Party talks about the
necessity for jobs and in the same breath he talks about the
requirements for tremendous cuts. I am sure he would recognize
that even the Alberta treasurer said that as a result of his cuts the
growth in Alberta was going to be cut by almost a full
percentage point. I am sure he would not recommend to us as a
country that wants to create jobs that we begin on the kinds of
cuts that are simply going to bring the economy to its knees
which is indeed the result of the kinds of recommendations that
he has made.
What we have done is follow what the OECD has done, which
is a far more balanced approach, one which will lead to deficit
reduction at the same time as job creation.
The member opposite talks about eliminating the deficit. He
talks about doing it by the end of this mandate, which is indeed
his party's program, but the fact is that the deficit is now $13
billion higher than when he originally prepared that program. I
would ask where would he make those cuts or what kind of
growth would he get.
In his own projections he talked about growth of $16.5 billion
in revenues over three years. That is based on assumptions
which are simply Alice in Wonderland. I look forward to sitting
down to understand how this country which was not able to grow
faster than 2.4 per cent last year is going to triple its growth over
the course of the years to come.
I go on. He talks about cuts in OAS. He says he would do it at a
level of $54,000. An objective assessment of what the member
opposite has said would in fact talk about having made those
levels of cuts to people who are making lower than $20,000 to
$25,000. He would cut subsidies to business by $800 million.
That is $200 million more than in fact is given to business
through the regional agencies and basic subsidies. His
arithmetic is fundamentally wrong or his understanding of the
public accounts is wrong.
He called for a 25 per cent reduction is subsidies to crown
corporations. I simply ask him: What would he cut? VIA? Would
he cut the CBC, eliminate it? Tell us. Do not simply give us these
numbers in the air.
I go on. He says taxes. He says we should not have done on the
tax side what we did. Does that mean he would keep the
$100,000 capital gains tax exemption of which the previous
government, according to its own studies, said there was no
proper evaluation? It was not able to make one iota, one scintilla
of relationship between that capital gains tax exemption and job
2060
creation or benefit to the country. Would he keep that? We
eliminated it and we are very proud that we did.
He talks about a carbon tax. He was the first person to raise the
carbon tax. It is part of an ongoing study set up by the previous
government which we are continuing, but he is the person who
raised the carbon tax.
I must say to talk about a tax revolt in the House, a revolution
against the tax of his own imagination, is somewhat specious to
say the least.
Mr. Speaker, I know the time is precious, but let me simply
summarize it by this. The essence of the position of the Reform
Party is that what we should do at the present time is have a full
review of the defence policy before any cuts are made, but that
we should immediately embark upon a savage cut of all those
government support programs which go to single mothers,
single parents, senior citizens, widows, and children.
I simply do not understand. I do not understand a political
party which says that the cold war is not over and therefore we
should continue defence spending, going ahead as we have in the
past, but on the other hand that we have won the war on poverty.
That is simply unrealistic.
The Deputy Speaker: The leader of the Reform Party will
have as long as the Minister of Finance just took, which is about
four minutes.
Mr. Manning: We are going to exhaust the question period.
The words in the minister's remarks that I think are the ones I
can agree with are when he said: ``I do not understand''.
What we have had in this exchange is perhaps one of the
problems of debate in this Chamber. The minister made a
number of statements about the Reform Party's approach to
deficit reduction in which either he misunderstands our position
or we have not communicated it clearly.
Even our growth projection figures, which are based on about
3.5 per cent and which we now acknowledge are a little bit high,
are not that much higher than what the minister is using. We can
defend our spending reductions. We would be prepared to do
this. I think the more proper forum for this-and I think the
minister has invited us to do this-would be on one of these
nights, away from the media, away from where we are scoring
political points, for the minister to bring his officials who can
roll up their sleeves, we will bring ours, and we will hash over
these numbers.
(1640)
I have enough faith that I think the government is seriously
enough concerned about this that if we can score points in that
debate and say: ``Look, here is an area where something more
could be done'', it will listen. If we are wrong on some of these
projections, we will back off on those in our public presentation.
I think that is the place where we are going to make a
contribution or not.
There is a second point I would like to make. I think this is
where there is a philosophical difference between ourselves and
the government. It is a question of how jobs are created and what
is the role of the government in that versus the private sector.
I have looked at the minister's budget. I notice that when the
government talks about reducing unemployment insurance
premiums by $725 million to $2 billion over three years, it says
the effect of that will be to create about 40,000 jobs. In other
words, by leaving money in the hands of businesses and
taxpayers it is going to create about 20,000 jobs per billion
dollars. Then the government comes along and says: ``But we
are going to have an infrastructure program and we are going to
tax $6 billion between the three levels of government out of
those taxpayers, and we are going to reinvest that and we are
going to create 65,000 jobs, in other words about 10,000 jobs per
$1 billion spent''.
There is an inherent contradiction in those numbers. If you
can create 20,000 jobs by leaving a billion dollars in the hands of
taxpayers, why would you not leave the $6 billion in the hands of
those taxpayers and create that many more jobs? This is the
philosophical difference between our approaches. I look
forward to hashing it out.
What we are interested in, and I am sure other members are, is
getting answers. We are not interested in just scoring political
points on this. We want to get to what is the best way to create
self-sustaining employment. If our way is better we hope you
would acknowledge it; if your way is better we would be pleased
to acknowledge that.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, in 1984, when I
ran for the Conservatives, we talked about three things:
decentralization of government, spending cuts and national
reconciliation. I would like to say to the leader of the Reform
Party that, as of June 1990, none of that had happened.
National reconciliation had just fallen through. There were no
cuts; they were spending more. As for the decentralization of
power and of government management, they continued to
centralize more in Ottawa, as the Liberals had done. I think that
is the main reason for the deficit and the national debt and that is
why I resigned.
I would like to know the position of the leader of the Reform
Party on this. Does he think that a big decentralization, giving
much more power to the provinces, would lead to better
manage-
2061
ment and more efficiency, so that expenditures would be lower
and the economy would grow more?
[English]
Mr. Manning: I thank the member for his question.
I do not think there is a simple answer to the question of
whether centralization or decentralization is better. We have got
into a pattern where one generation of politicians seems to think
that the answer is to centralize all the power in Ottawa-I think
we had a lot of that under the Trudeau administration-and the
next generation says ``No, the answer is to flow all the power out
to the provinces''. I do not think the answer really is either of
those extremes.
It seems that what you have to do in a federation like ours is go
through the entire set of power. In some cases you want to
strengthen the federal power or the central power, in other cases
you want to decentralize.
Our program, for example, calls for strengthening the federal
commerce powers, the ability of the federal government to
strike down interprovincial barriers to trade. That is a
strengthening of the federal power.
On the other hand, we would like to leave the jurisdiction over
linguistic and cultural distinctiveness more in the hands of the
provinces and the non-governmental sectors. Therefore we
decentralize certain aspects of power and centralize others. I
think that is the balance we are seeking and not just a knee-jerk
reaction one way or the other.
(1645)
The Deputy Speaker: There are five other hon. members
standing who wish to make comments or ask questions. Since
the time has expired is there unanimous consent of the House to
proceed for another 10 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
am really delighted with this opportunity to actually put a
question to the leader of the Reform Party. During the campaign
I often spoke with candidates so this is a special pleasure.
During his speech he remarked that the government would be
better off cutting social programs which had a lot more money, a
lot more fat I think he said, than government operations.
Could he specify how he would cut these programs, by how
much and which ones? Perhaps he could give me four or five
specific examples.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should correct the
impression the member gave in his question. I appreciate the
member's question.
I was trying to make the point particularly for Bloc members
because I have studied their speeches, that there is no way any
government is going to get the deficit or debt under control
without doing something about social spending. This was
simply my point. The reason is that 55 per cent of program
spending is in this area.
The Bloc often talks as if the deficit could be brought under
control by cutting administrative fat from the government. My
point was that the entire government operations sections could
be cut from the budget and still we would be only halfway
toward controlling the deficit. I am trying to make the point that
it is of necessity and not particularly because we want it.
My second point is if social spending has to be reduced, the
way to do it is to target spending to those who are most in need.
In other words reduce the entitlements for people above a
certain income level. This is where we could have a great
dispute.
When we get together with Department of Finance officials,
there are conflicting figures on how much social assistance, how
much unemployment insurance, and how much OAS is going to
families above the national household average. Some
economists say it is up to $20 billion and some say it is far less.
We have to hash that out.
Our point is that spending should be targeted to those in the
lower income areas. We say that in virtually every social
spending envelope. Significant amounts of dollars can be saved
by doing it.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr.
Speaker, my roots are from the country where the word
democracy and its practice were born.
I listened to the debate of the hon. leader of the third party. I
also listened to him during the election debates and was very
impressed to hear that his party was going to come here as a
constructive group to present alternatives, different views and
so on.
When I heard the words ``let us get together with your
officials and our officials in private'' I was astonished. Is this
what the Canadian people elected us for, to get behind closed
curtains and discuss things? Is this what the Canadian people
want? I am sure that is not the vision of members of the Reform
Party. I am sure that is not the campaign style they had. When I
heard ``let us get together behind closed doors and have a private
session'' I was astonished.
Could the leader of the third party tell me why a debate
between the minister's officials and other officials has not been
in public? Is this not the forum where we must have these
debates? Is this not the forum where we must argue? Is this not
the forum in which the word democracy should originate? Is this
not where we should discuss things rather than in private?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. Again I think he is labouring under two
misapprehensions.
2062
(1650 )
First of all we were invited by the minister to have this
meeting to try to thrash out our views. We welcomed that but we
did not initiate it. This came from the hon. member's side not
our side. His speech is well directed but it ought to be directed to
his side of the House.
My second point is we have participated in public debate on
the deficit and debt reduction for 18 months now. Personally I
have given thousands of speeches on this subject, many of them
in public meetings with open question periods. We welcome that
and we welcome doing it in this House. I was making the point
that as many members know, when one debates these issues so
often the partisan aspects get into it and we get away from the
real issues.
We know in question period if we raise some hot topic about
the jets and the $140,000 expenditure on that we can get a great
hit on the evening news. We can get a great deal of attention by
doing that. However if we raise some structural problem with
the health care system which can probably save $1.5 billion to
$2 billion that is not even newsworthy because it is complicated
and it cannot be discussed in short exchanges.
I welcome all kinds of opportunities for public debate and
debate in this House. However I do think there would be some
merit in accepting the minister's invitation to sit down around a
table and get into the details of some of these issues. Then those
discussions could be carried into the House as well.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans)):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place today and speak
in support of the budget brought down on February 22 by my
hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of Finance.
We should congratulate the minister on his first budget since
this government assumed office. He has steered a wise and
careful course. He has set in motion a measure which will lead to
major changes in the years to come.
As members are aware the Minister of Finance consulted
widely with Canadians before he brought down his budget. It is
clear that he was listening. I can tell because I have been
listening to my constituents and to the people of Prince Edward
Island.
They told me they want action to build the economy and
create jobs. They want a social security system that is fair and
compassionate, but they also know that Canada needs social
security that is affordable. They told me that government has to
get its finances in order.
This budget responds to those concerns. It sets the foundation
for growth and jobs in the future. At the same time it balances
the need for social reform and deficit reduction.
I know many veterans were concerned about the impact this
budget might have on them. These men and women have served
our country well. They devoted the best years of their lives to
Canada and they have personal memories of the devotion of
comrades who made the final sacrifice for Canada and the values
we hold dear.
I can tell members there is no group of Canadians more
passionately concerned about Canada's future than our veterans.
There is no group more outspoken about our need to preserve our
quality of life. I know that veterans across Canada welcome the
measures to reduce government spending.
We are going to launch a review of the government's
operations so we can get things done more efficiently. We are
going to look at all our programs and find out where we can
reduce overlap and duplication.
In Veterans Affairs Canada we will be looking at our own
operations. That is how it should be. We are going to find ways
to trim administrative costs just like other departments in
government.
However, we are not going to touch veterans pensions or
allowances. We want to ensure that veterans who need and are
eligible for benefits receive them. Veterans deserve their
pensions and allowances and this is the time when many
veterans need them most. As they grow older many veterans rely
on us to maintain the quality of life they so richly earned.
(1655 )
All members in this House have veterans in their
constituencies. I am sure no matter what region of the country
they come from hon. members will recognize the fairness of the
government policy to provide for veterans. It has often been said
that Canada provides veterans with the finest package of
veterans benefits in the world. We are second to none.
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about my own
region, Atlantic Canada, and what this budget means to my
home province of Prince Edward Island.
I am very proud that this budget contains provisions to locate
a demonstration project in Prince Edward Island. This joint
undertaking by the Department of Human Resources
Development, the Government of Prince Edward Island and the
Canadian Association of Community Living will look at ways to
create opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
Canada cannot ignore the potential of its citizens who have
disabilities, not at a time when we need everyone to contribute
his or her skills to building Canada's future. The government
hopes that what is learned with this project in Prince Edward
Island can be applied in other areas for other persons with
disabilities.
Another budget measure many of my friends, neighbours and
constituents in Prince Edward Island have talked about with me
are the changes to the unemployment insurance system. As this
House knows these changes are the first step in a bigger strategy
2063
to reform social security in Canada so that it is both fair and
affordable.
Above all we have to rebuild the system so it does not make it
harder to create jobs. A good job is the best social assistance
available to any person in this nation. Therefore some of my
constituents welcome the steps we have taken in the budget to
reduce the cost of UI to employers.
Unemployment insurance is a payroll tax. If it is left too high
it kills jobs. Back in 1989 the unemployment insurance premium
was $1.95. This year it is $3.07. Maximum premiums have more
than doubled for employees. They have more than doubled for
employers as well.
These are taxes. Most important these are taxes on small
businesses. In my province of Prince Edward Island virtually all
businesses are small businesses. My constituents cannot afford
to see the UI premiums increased. The small businesses in P.E.I.
need some relief from taxes so that they can get on with the job
of creating jobs.
That is why so many of my constituents support the budget
measures to roll back UI premiums to $3 next year. That is a
substantial tax cut from the $3.30 that would be in place if this
government had not made that move.
At the same time many Prince Edward Islanders rely on
unemployment insurance payments to help them get by until
they find work again. These are tough measures for those who
are on unemployment insurance and I am not afraid to admit it.
My constituents agree they would certainly rather be working
than on unemployment insurance. We are going to do what we
can to use the social security system, including unemployment
insurance, to help Canadians get back to work.
In the meantime, we know some people rely on UI not only to
take care of themselves while they look for another job but they
also must look after dependants. That is why the budget
improves UI benefits for those who need them most, people who
have to take care of a child or a needs parent, or who support a
non-working spouse.
(1700 )
After the budget changes to unemployment insurance are in
place Atlantic Canada will still receive more unemployment
insurance per capita than anywhere else in Canada.
Unemployment insurance recipients in Atlantic Canada will
receive an average of $970 compared with $540 elsewhere.
It shows that the government recognizes the special needs of a
region where chronic unemployment presents special problems.
Nowhere are these more evident than in the fishing industry.
The previous government did nothing to provide funding
beyond May 15 to assist those individuals whose livelihood
comes from the Atlantic ground fishery. This budget provides
for an Atlantic ground fishery industry renewal and adjustment
strategy for help over the long term.
This government is working hard to find a method of
supporting some 35,000 Atlantic Canadians who will have no
income after the current program expires. The Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Human Resources
Development are working on measures that will treat these
people fairly and with dignity.
I have spoken about some of the measures in this budget that
affect the people in my home province of Prince Edward Island
and in the Atlantic region as a whole. I have talked about what
Canada's veterans can expect from this budget.
There is one message I hear loud and clear from my
constituents and from veterans. It is that Canadians know that
we need to change the way government operates and they want
to have a voice in the way these changes will be made.
The government is on the road to a new approach to job
creation and social programs and we are going to make sure that
Canadians have a voice in how those changes will be made.
The budget represents the first phase of major reform and the
government looks forward to our continuing discussions with
Canadians on how best to reshape our great country to meet the
challenges of the next century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding to
questions and comments I would just like to verify with the hon.
secretary of state if he is sharing his time with a colleague and
possibly the member for Burlington if I understand correctly.
If that is the case, if he would indicate to the Chair we will
proceed to five minutes of questions and comments.
Is the hon. secretary of state sharing his time?
Mr. MacAulay: Yes, we are sharing the time.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I heard most of
the comments of the hon. member and I appreciate them.
Certainly when he speaks about reform and that we must change
the way we do business in the country it is a welcomed statement
on this side of the House. We join him in that.
I have asked a question of his colleagues and it is a tough
question. I have not received an answer. The budget speaks of
the addition of $100 billion to the federal debt over the next
2064
three years. It does not say a word about the consequences to a
number of issues, the consequences to the job creation program,
the consequences to social programs, the consequences to the
one million children reported to be living in poverty in this
country.
I wonder if the minister has any ideas or thoughts that would
debilitate the government's ability to function adequately and at
the level the budget suggests in the light of $100 billion to the
debt over the next three years.
What is the danger, if any, of the debt?
Mr. MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
Crowfoot.
Our approach quite honestly would be a little different than
his approach. If we were to balance the books which are out of
line the way the hon. member has proposed we would not have
UI changes. We would have a collapse of our social system.
(1705 )
The area that I represent would be devastated. What we have
done as a government has changed the direction of government.
We will have a deficit of under $40 billion, which is not great but
we are on the road to recovery.
If we were to take the path of balancing the books, the people
that I represent would have nothing. This government is a
compassionate government which cares about people. We have
to get our books in order. We are on the path to putting our books
in order but we are not going to devastate the Canadians who
need our assistance on the way.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I am still not
clear about a few things regarding this budget. As we know, the
government is not always the most efficient provider when it
comes to delivering certain types of services. Take veterans'
homes for example. Could someone tell us how much it costs to
operate these homes as opposed to having comparable services
provided by hospitals in another sector? Could a comparison be
made? I think that the difference in costs would be in the tens of
thousands of dollars. I would welcome comments on that.
[English]
Hon. MacAulay: I would like to thank my hon. colleague for
his question. The Department of Veterans Affairs was heavily
involved in hospitals over the last number of years. We now
have two. One is Sainte-Anne's, as the member is well aware,
and one is in western Canada. I do not have the figures before me
as to the costs. The number one priority of the Department of
Veterans Affairs is to make sure that the veteran gets the proper
treatment.
We deal with provincial governments in order to move our
institutions from the Department of Veterans Affairs to
provincial jurisdiction. We have two hospitals left and we are in
discussions with these hospitals as well in order to bring them
from the Department of Veterans Affairs to provincial authority.
The Department of Veterans Affairs always makes sure that
the veteran gets the best treatment possible. In this country, as
my hon. friend is well aware, we take great pride in being able to
say that we are number one in providing for our veterans. I can
assure the member we are going to remain being number one as a
nation providing for our veterans.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
honour for me to be speaking during International Women's
Week as the member of Parliament for Burlington, Ontario. Not
only am I excited about representing my home town in the House
of Commons, but I feel a deep sense of loyalty and purpose
toward the job I have been elected to do.
The people of Burlington have given me the opportunity to
grow and learn alongside them, and I welcome the challenge and
the privilege. Already the rewards have been great and I look
forward to combining the unparalleled energy of the populace of
Burlington with my own enthusiasm.
It is very important to me that I thank not only my family and
friends, without whose help I would not be here, but also the
people of Burlington who have graciously given me their
support, ideas and ultimately their confidence. Many people
worked very hard to see me elected to this House. My parents
and my family have supported me wholeheartedly in what seems
in hindsight to have been a very fast campaign but what during
the summer seemed endless at times.
My parents and my sister came to Canada in 1957 from
Ireland and my parents inspired in each of their children
commitment in and loyalty to this country, their chosen nation.
They taught us the value of hard work and the importance of
volunteering and giving something back to our community. I
thank them for inspiring in me this deep sense of commitment I
feel and for giving me the genes and the energy to fulfil that
sense of duty.
[Translation]
Now, it is my duty to show the people of Burlington that I am
worthy of the trust they have put in me. We must create a
partnership with them to share our knowledge and our vision of
Canada. I plan to work hand in hand with the people of
Burlington to make Canada a better and better place to be.
(1710)
I cannot do this on my own, no more than I can work alone in
this House. We must all join hands and work together. In the
daily performance of my duties as member of Parliament, I have
noticed how different my riding was from my colleagues'
2065
ridings. There are amazing differences between the
communities we represent as well as within these communities.
I think that our society can only be enriched by such diversity.
We are not divided by our differences but by our silences.
[English]
It is fortunate that we have a forum such as this Chamber from
which our travels can begin, where we can discover our
similarities, share our differences, our ideas, our knowledge and
ourselves.
I envision a walk which encompasses the beauty of our
country. It will be a colourful walk. There will be mountains to
climb and prairies to cross, for our walk will be as long as our
country is vast, yet always there will be colour in the languages
we speak and in the land around us. We will walk through the
blooming of springs and the harshness of winters and we will
come through having understood that we can only succeed if we
walk together, if we leave no one behind.
Just as I will work to see Burlington grow and succeed, I will
work to ensure that Canada also flourishes. We must build a
healthy economy for our future generations and a society with
racial and gender equality. These goals are mutually inclusive,
for our economy can only be strong if everyone has equal
opportunity to participate.
If we do not have full equality our development as a nation
will suffer and when we have equal participation in Canada we
will be at our strongest internationally.
This government's first budget sets a stage from which to
strengthen our country. The reforms being sought by the
Minister of Human Resources Development will continue that
process.
I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes the
inequities in our present systems, a government that is
committed to making meaningful changes for all Canadians.
This is a historic budget, the first to note the different
economic impacts on women in Canada. Too many Canadian
children are living below the poverty line, especially in single
parent families headed by women. The budget commits the
government to examining the issue of child support payments to
ensure fairness in taxation as it is critical to the future of many
young Canadians. In my view child poverty in Canada is a threat
to our economic future and a complete waste of our resources.
The budget will have a positive effect on small businesses. I
am pleased to support Burlington's Business Women's Network,
a group fostering entrepreneurship and encouraging growth
among Canada's most successful business starters, women.
People like Roxeanne Moffat, owner of Hillcrest Florist, and
Nancy Brewer, who started her own accounting business, are
models of excellence and commitment to our fellow residents
and to young people.
The axiom think globally, act locally is certainly relevant to
Canada and is important to remember as we set the course for
our new Canada. If we improve ourselves at a local level we can
have a positive effect on the international scene. In Burlington,
for example, we have various community activities and projects
which have enriched our region both economically and socially.
We have learned the hard way by allowing our once beautiful
Burlington Bay to be spoiled with the sludge of industry. Now
we are learning that there is a new sustainable way to develop
our economy and that Canadians have a commitment to clean up
our past mistakes and share our expertise internationally and
profitably.
I am pleased by the variety and breadth of local initiatives to
stimulate innovative entrepreneurship. Burlington's junior
achievement inspires and encourages young entrepreneurs to
run their own businesses. They are closely associated with and
influenced by local business persons who act as mentors and
peers. It is great to see both young and old working together in
partnership for a brighter future.
Certainly the older citizens of Burlington have incredible
knowledge and insight to share. Many of Burlington's seniors,
in age only and not in spirit, have enjoyed a second career by
being involved in CESO International Services, a not for profit
volunteer based organizations committed to human and global
development with a goal of self-sufficiency whether for the
First Nations of Canada or for other citizens abroad. On average
CESO's volunteers are 62 years old. They are people like Larry
and Patricia McMahon and Anthony Miele from Burlington who
offer their skills and knowledge to others.
I believe it is necessary for Canadians to share these resources
both within and outside our national boundaries. When we take
positive action at a local level we will improve the quality of
Canadians' lives. Inevitably this energy will spread beyond all
boundaries.
(1715)
In Burlington we have an organization that works locally and
nationally to eliminate violence against women. CAVEAT was
started by a local mother, Priscilla de Villiers, and is supported
and sponsored by many people in our community.
Internationally, the United Nations has followed Canada's
lead in working to eradicate violence against women. This is a
human rights issue as much as it is an equality issue. All of our
world's citizens will benefit when women need not fear for their
lives.
2066
I know that every step we take in the long walk ahead of us
has been made possible because of the work done by our
foremothers and forefathers. In my riding women make up 64
per cent of the population over 75. This is a thriving community
of women who are vital and spirited. Their contributions to
Burlington have been many and varied and they continue to act
as advisers, educators and role models.
I am honoured to be able to take footsteps beside those of such
unique people as Jean Galloway, Burlington's citizen of the year
for 1993. At 73 years of age, a mother, grandmother and
volunteer extraordinaire, Jean was the founder of the Society for
Animal Aid. She works for Meals-on-Wheels, the Red Cross
and is one of Burlington's foremost lobbyists for improvements
in our community.
In sharing their life experiences with their families and
friends, the older women of Burlington have given a voice to
something which has often been silenced; the value of women
and the work they have done both inside and outside of their
homes. Indeed, their lives are rich and multifaceted.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the older women
of Burlington and of Canada for their contributions to society
which oftentimes have been overlooked. We must learn from our
elders, both women and men, and rebuild our economy in an
economically viable manner.
Together with all Canadians the government will draw up the
blueprints for that rebuilding. This budget is the first edition.
I am pleased to be able to work with my constituents and with
this House to bring Canada into the 21st century, into an era of
equality for all citizens in Canada and in the world. I hope that
all members of this House will join with me in this walk into our
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member from
the Liberal Party. She praised the entrepreneurship of some of
her constituents, and I think that, indeed, we must all pay tribute
to the entrepreneurs in our respective ridings, right across the
country.
The hon. member also referred to the elderly. I have a great
concern about seniors, and this budget only makes it worse. I
want to tell the hon. member about it, so that she can give me her
own opinion.
Seniors receive a federal pension. However, those whose
income is higher than $29,000 will now have to pay back a
portion of that pension. As you know, quite often these people
bought a property many years ago. It was a small property at the
time, and it was affordable. Sometimes, the value of that
property increased rather considerably over the years, and so
much the better. However, property taxes represent an
additional fiscal burden for these elderly people, who are now
going to be deprived of part of their pension.
I think the government is looking in the wrong place to find
money which it could get elsewhere, including from those
businesses which benefit from a number of tax shelters,
particularly abroad, which I find totally unacceptable. I would
appreciate it if the hon. member could comment.
Ms. Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I think all levels of government
must work together for the benefit of all Canadians. It is
necessary to review taxes at the municipal level as well as
here-
[English]
-at the federal government and the provincial government
levels and to make sure that we are not having a double hit on all
our constituents. Sometimes it is a triple and a quadruple hit in
Ontario with regional government.
(1720)
I am pleased that the government was able to protect for 75
per cent of the senior citizens in this country the age tax credit. I
have heard from many seniors that they are concerned about
being knocked into the next level and losing that exemption.
However, many people have said to me that they too want to
share in rebuilding our economy and pay their fair share. Many
people recognize that this country needs a lot of work on our
deficit.
I think we have made some positive moves in terms of
protecting the age tax credit for 75 per cent of the seniors in this
country. We have a lot of work to do with the other levels of
government in making sure that we are not harming seniors and
others in our population. Together we can work on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to our nice colleague on the right,
and I would like to make a few comments to her.
I found her speech nice and well presented, except that I do
not find in the budget, which she calls the budget of the century,
the super budget, any funds that will help mothers with children,
especially those who are single parents, when it comes to child
care. When the government opposite was on this side of the
House and was the Official Opposition, the present Deputy
Prime Minister fought to have the government invest in day
care-I remember her words. There is nothing for it in this
budget. There is nothing for social housing either. We know the
huge needs for social housing and we find practically nothing
about it in this budget.
I feel that they have tried to solve the present economic
problem by attacking the unemployed instead of unemployment.
2067
I find that regrettable. I think that they should probably have
rather gone after family trusts, for example, of which we have
spoken a lot.
Since time is pressing, I will let the hon. member opposite
comment on what I said.
[English]
Ms. Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comments. It was very clear that the government campaigned on
the issue of child care. We committed ourselves to increasing
the number of child care spaces available in each year following
3 per cent growth.
I am pleased to be part of a government that recognizes that
child care is in fact very important to the equality of women.
We have also undertaken to look at the issue of taxation and
child tax credits for those who choose to stay in their own home
to take care of their children, whether that be men or women in
our communities. It is important that we make options available
to them. It is important that we care for their future.
I believe our children are our greatest resource and we have to
do something to make sure they are brought up in a healthy
environment and that they are cared for and fed. Child care and
the child care option for many parents is very important and we
do have to work for that.
I for one will be working very hard to make sure that we fulfil
those commitments in each of the years of our mandate.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to thank the hon.
member for Beauharnois-Salaberry for his co-operation, as
well as the hon. member for Burlington for her brief answer.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, first I would like
to refer to the finance minister's Budget in Brief, which outlines
three central goals: first, to help small businesses; second, to
ensure a responsible social security system that is fair; and third,
to restore fiscal responsibility to government.
I will express my opinion on the first goal: to help small and
medium-sized businesses. I refer to page 5, to the first goal: to
help small business. Last January, just before the budget, the
minister started by increasing unemployment insurance
premiums to generate about $800 million in revenue.
(1725)
About half that amount must be paid by businesses and, of
course, by workers. This means that the government will collect
$800 million, thus reducing even further people's purchasing
power. As a result, people will buy less and businesses will
produce less; this will hurt business. I do not think this is a
measure to help create jobs, as the minister stated on many
occasions. This measure is the first example he seem to give to
illustrate his efforts to help business.
He then says they will create a network of business services
centres that will be expanded to provide access for small
business in every province. He is talking about a single federal
government centre. He talks only of this single federal
government centre when, for several years now, the Quebec
government, members from Quebec, and members of the Bloc
Quebecois have been saying that, to substantially reduce
government management, we need instead one-stop centres
housing both the Quebec department of economic development
and its federal counterpart.
As we know very well and as I have said many times and am
repeating again today, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission
concluded that duplication between the provinces, especially
Quebec, and the federal government costs between $2 billion
and $3 billion a year.
It is a huge amount. Besides costing $2 to $3 billion a year, we
know that it is also very inefficient because companies,
especially small and medium-sized ones, have great difficulty
making their way through all that.
If the Minister of Finance were serious, he would not have
talked about a single centre; he should have talked about a single
window with Quebec or the provinces and the federal
government-one-stop shopping, if you will. You must really
be unimaginative and your ears must be completely blocked not
to hear Quebec's demands.
Another great advantage that he mentions for increasing
productivity and job creation in our small and medium-sized
businesses is that he will consult and study.
Mr. Speaker, this is my tenth year in the House of Commons
and for at least ten years we have been consulting and studying. I
thought that the Liberal Party had such a clear program, because
almost every day, if not several times a day, they tell us about
their marvellous red book which had all the answers. I realize
that the red book was not so complete since, when it comes to job
creation and aid for small business, the government consults and
studies and it will go on studying for a long time.
On page 5 of The Budget in Brief, it says: ``A special task
force will recommend, on a fast-track basis, a better regulatory
regime to help improve the competitiveness of business''.
But I thought that the red book was complete and that the
government was ready to act once it took power. Now they are in
power. Why study and consult? I am still quoting page 5: ``The
government will consult the business community on a wide
range of tariff cuts on imported manufacturing inputs [-]''
More studies, but studies already exist on the subject.
2068
(1730)
A little further, the red book says: ``The Minister of Transport
will launch an effort, in consultation with provincial
governments [-]'' Again, more studies and consultations. That
is how the Minister of Finance can say that he will revitalize the
economy and create jobs. I do not think that he is really prepared
to act, so he consults. There is also the House Standing
Committee on Finance reporting its recommendations on a tax
to replace the GST. Again, they are not ready to act to create jobs
and help small and medium-sized businesses create jobs.
What has the government done in concrete terms? It has
eliminated the $100,000 capital gains exemption. That is not a
bad idea, but I am convinced that abolishing the $100,000
capital gains exemption is not going to help the employment
situation or make small business prosper.
Also, income tax deductions for entertainment expenses have
been reduced. But many small businesses, self-employed
workers and salespersons need tax deductions for entertainment
expenses if they are to be able to do their jobs properly. We know
full well-and so does the Minister of Finance, I am sure-that
the day tax deductions for entertainments expenses were
reduced, several restaurants felt the pinch and complained about
the number of jobs lost, because restaurants and hotels are
losing more and more business. The Minister of Finance is
aware of the statistics. He claims to want to support job creation,
but he is actually hindering job creation by reducing tax credits
for entertainment expenses, an action affecting self-employed
workers and salesmen, those involved in product promotion and
the rest.
Does the Minister of Finance actually believe that by taxing
businesses more, he will be supporting job creation? The federal
government will raise an additional $1.7 billion in taxes from
small and medium-sized businesses over the next three years. It
will also raise an additional $1.8 billion from individual
taxpayers, which translates into $3.5 billion in new taxes for
businesses and individuals over the next three years. Does the
Minister of Finance believe that by reducing the spending power
of businesses and individuals, he is going to create more jobs?
Surely not.
I have here the findings of a survey and they are, in my view,
rather astounding. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce
surveyed 658 member businesses and asked them the following
question: Are you satisfied with the federal government's fiscal
policies? A full 22 per cent of the businesses surveyed
responded either that they would consider moving, were
prepared to move, or had already moved part or all of their
operations out of the country.
(1735)
The February 15, 1994, edition of La Presse states the point
clearly: Federal policies are driving businesses out of the
country. If the Minister of Finance believes that his policies will
create employment even while his recent budget has placed a
heavier administrative and tax burden on businesses, if he
believes this is the way to create jobs, then he should have read
the survey of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It is
unfortunate, sad and astounding to see that 22 per cent of these
businesses have decided to move either part or all of their
operations out of Canada.
Times are hard and the debt is very high. However, I think the
Minister of Finance does not have a clue as to what must be done
to create jobs in this country.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would just like to make a
suggestion to the House before I recognize the next hon.
member if in fact there should be agreement to the suggestion
that I make.
I have in my possession a list of speakers to follow. There
would be four: two opposition members and two from the
government side. If it were the view and the feeling of the House
to consider waiving the five-minute question and comment for
each of the four speakers that would take us to 6.15 p.m., at
which time I understand we must go on to another business of
the day.
I am not forcing it; I am just making a suggestion. I am in the
hands of the House. I see in the House the four persons who wish
to speak on the amendment today. I will wait to hear some
direction from the House.
Possibly the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs
might want to make that suggestion, or should I ask simply for
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, we were
told that the government's first budget would give new hope to
Canadians. This hope which the Liberals promised to restore
during the election campaign, was to be primarily generated by a
relentless fight against unemployment, a will to reduce the
deficit, the elimination of frivolous expenditures and waste, as
well as the near certainty that taxpayers would not be put to
contribution once again, since they simply could not give any
more.
Nice things were said indeed, but when the time came to
deliver, last February 22, Canadians were in for a rude
awakening. First, the message sent by taxpayers was not heard.
The government will take $500 million from seniors and $500
2069
million from workers by taxing life insurance premiums. As for
controlling the deficit, you can forget about that. For the first
time ever in a federal budget, a government announced that the
deficit would be close to a staggering $40 billion.
In that respect, the minister is confirming that he cannot do
any better than his predecessors, even though he himself
strongly criticized their inability in the past. Government
spending is reduced by a mere $400 million, while the Auditor
General is proposing useful solutions which would translate into
savings of $5 billion.
As for the evil of unemployment, the government is simply
using the wrong approach by targeting the unemployed, instead
of providing effective solutions to solve the problem. Is that the
kind of hope the government promised to restore? I do not think
so. I believe that this budget will go down in history as the
budget of the broken dreams.
The government also said that the National Forum on Health
would ensure an in-depth review of our health system. However,
this forum will have to allow for a real dialogue to identify the
obstacles facing the provinces, and to develop appropriate
solutions, given the need to adequately finance our health
system and take into account the prerogatives of the provinces.
More importantly, this national forum must not be used by the
government to justify any unilateral change in transfer
payments for established programs financing which would go
against the interests of the provinces.
(1740)
If we take a close look at the budget of the Minister of Finance
and forget all the rhetorical frills, we soon realize it is just
another version of the Tory budgets which the minister himself
strongly and openly criticized when he was in the opposition.
The present government was elected on a platform for change
and renewal. However, it seems to have a different concept of
change. In fact, the Minister of Finance is perpetuating the Tory
government's policy by freezing the federal per capita
contributions until 1994-95.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance said there would
be a National Forum on Health, specifying that ``no further
changes in respect to EPF health transfers are contained in this
budget, in order to set the stage for that discussion. Our
commitment to maintain the principles of the Canada Health Act
remains firm and unaltered''. And yet, reality is brutal for
Quebec and for the other provinces.
No further changes, indeed. The minister maintains the cuts
introduced by the Tories and says that for 1995-96, established
programs financing will be indexed to the GNP growth rate,
minus 3 per cent. The federal government has again acted
unilaterally by refusing to honour its commitments and
transferring its cash flow problems to the provinces. The
question arises whether the government will approach the
National Forum on Health with the same good intentions and the
same tendency to make unilateral decisions.
The Bloc Quebecois has stated repeatedly that the freeze on
transfer payments will have a major impact on the tax burden of
the provinces. By perpetuating this policy which was initiated
by the Tories, the Minister of Finance is putting the provinces in
the unenviable position of having to deal with the increasing
cost of health care on their own.
The Deputy Prime Minister was also critical of the freeze on
transfer payments when she was in the opposition. She said the
precarious state of federal funding was about to provoke a crisis
in the health care sector in this country. Why did the Minister of
Finance choose to ignore this very sensible comment? The
government keeps on unloading a portion of its deficit thinking
it will get away with it, instead of addressing the real sources of
the problem and being less stubborn in its desire to maintain
overlappings and duplications.
Two years ago today, on March 9, 1992, in an eloquent speech
during debate on Bill C-60, Mrs. Diane Marleau, now the
Minister of Health, denounced the adverse effects of reductions
and freezes perpetuated by the Conservative government in
provincial transfers regarding health programs. She noted at the
time, and I quote: ``Transfer reductions in that area did not
contribute to a better management of our health system''. Also,
the minister aptly noted the following: ``We literally shifted the
deficit burden to the provinces, telling them they had a choice
between raising taxes and reducing services. In many cases, they
did both''.
This speech, which made a good case, was not given 20 years
or 10 years ago, but on March 9, 1992, two years ago today.
What happened during those two years to cause these sound
perceptions to be so dramatically reversed? There was indeed an
election. And the people who were rightly denouncing the
always well hidden cuts in EPF transfers are now in office and
making the decisions.
Now I understand why the budget speech only included five
lines on the health issue. It is because the Liberals were
shamefully hiding the same restrictive policies as the
Conservatives, sweeping under the carpet our valuable
principles and thereby contradicting the very foundations of the
election discourse contained in the famous red book with which
this government got elected.
(1745)
Trickery has its price: the mistrust and loss of confidence of
our fellow citizens towards political institutions and those in
government. To illustrate this lack of trust, let me quote a last
time from the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Health on
March 9, 1992: ``Cutting back on the transfers in these areas has
not contributed to better management of our health care system.
They have only contributed to the cutbacks and to the fear that
2070
we feel now across the nation as the middle income group, which
is the largest group of Canadians, are frightened and afraid of
what is going to happen to them in the future. Will there be a
health care system for them? Will they be able to get the drugs
that they need at the prices they can afford to pay when they need
them, when they get to be a certain age. There is this feeling that
perhaps the federal government is letting go of its
responsibilities in this matter''. This quote is as revealing as it is
current.
So, the federal government's underfunding of transfer
payments to the provinces on health care has serious
consequences, in the end, for users, something that the author of
the budget tabled on February 22 simply forgot.
Let us take, for example, the case of Sainte-Croix Hospital in
my riding, whose budget shortfall is about $10 million a year.
Our community has seen the rise of a widespread support
movement to ensure the survival of this hospital serving a
population of 90,000. It is not in a developing country that we
are talking about saving a hospital, it is in Quebec, in the
Canadian health care system that we like to describe as one of
the best in the world. Yes, trickery has its price: the mistrust of
our fellow citizens when they can no longer receive the services
that were promised to them and that they are entitled to under the
law.
The budget announces the creation of a centre of excellence
for women's health. What about this centre and how much will
be allocated to it, when the Medical Research Council's budget
has been slashed by $10.8 million, cut from the networks of
centres of excellence program. As for the commitments
regarding a prenatal nutrition program, is it new money or will
the funds come from terminating secondary programs-$31.2
million-or exceptional assistance programs-$30.2 million?
The figures are misleading and suggest that programs were
eliminated to make room for those promised by the government
during the election campaign.
The drastic cuts in the Unemployment Insurance Program will
necessarily result in a certain deterioration of the
socio-economic living conditions of UI recipients and their
health will be affected.
The most unfortunate aspect of this policy and these cuts is
that they affect mainly the less fortunate segment of our society.
How can an individual with an annual income of $25,000 and
two dependent children support his or her family if the benefit
rate is reduced to only 55 per cent of insurable earnings? How
will the health of the less fortunate be affected by this measure?
Did the government assess the risks and costs of such measures
which will have an impact on provincial health budgets?
This reduction will make it difficult for the poor to afford
decent food, clothing and housing as well as heat. It will result in
poorer health and an increase in health care costs. If the
government hopes to reduce its expenditures by jeopardizing the
existence of the less fortunate, it is dead wrong.
[English]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I have the
distinct honour today not only to congratulate you on your
position but at the same time to congratulate the hon. Minister of
Finance on one of the most balanced and reasonable budgets
presented to the House in recent times.
This is my first opportunity to address the House as the newly
elected member for Ontario. It is a privilege to be able to stand
before the House in that capacity. Before me have gone some
great members who passed through the House. I am thinking of
the Hon. Norman Cafik, the Hon. Michael Starr and more
recently Rene Soetens, the member who served here from 1988
to 1992.
(1750)
I take the House very seriously. The constituents of the
Ontario riding have given me an opportunity for once to express
their interests on their behalf. It is a humbling task which I plan
to serve with diligence, integrity and honesty. I would like to say
a bit about my riding before I proceed into some of the
highlights of the budget as I saw it and some important aspects
of the budget that are worth while pursuing and supporting.
Ontario riding is one of the largest populace ridings in the
country. It stretches to include the ever growing towns of Ajax,
Pickering and Whitby. It also includes a vast urban-rural area
known by some who have been in the House before as the
Pickering airport lands or as the Seaton lands. It is growing
rapidly and it is in many respects a microcosm of the future of
Canada. It is one of the reasons it elected one of the youngest
candidates, one of the youngest members of Parliament on the
government benches. I am quite privileged to be able to perform
in that capacity, but in order to understand a bit about the budget
I had first to understand a bit about my riding.
The budget starts the process of getting Canada working again
to bring our economy from a position of stagnation to a position
of growth. In previous years we have seen a neo-Conservative
policy adopted by the government which preceded us. I believe
the policy did much to hamper our understanding and
appreciation that the economy around the world including
Canada has changed fundamentally.
The appreciation of that change has allowed us as a
government to signal and to design a new way, a new approach
and a new economy, an economy based on ideas, on innovation
and on the recognition the government plays a very strong role
in the maintaining, supporting and ensuring of an effective
direction for economic viability.
2071
What Canada is about to undertake could otherwise be known
as planning its own future. It could be known by some as being
able to prepare ourselves as to where we want to go. A famous
quoter from years ago made the following comment: ``If you
do not know where you are going, chances are you are going
to wind up somewhere else''. I would submit to the House that
is precisely where Canada was until 1993 and until the budget
more recently.
In this economy we have seen the view that deficits are not as
important as growth or jobs. I take a different view. In the
country over the past few months we have seen the faces of many
people who have lost their employment, businesses that have
gone underground and companies that have simply shut down.
That is no longer acceptable in this great land. We have designed
a policy which we believe will help Canada not only renew itself
but the people within it.
People do not want to live on UI or welfare. Canadians want to
work, to earn a living and to obtain the respect that having a job
brings. They want to talk about the personal experiences they
have in business, how to run one and how to maintain it in
periods of difficulty.
This is an area which the budget has addressed. It has
recognized the importance of small business. My riding,
perhaps unlike other ridings, has a higher number of people
working in the private sector with small businesses, companies
of 10, 15 or less. It is important for the government to appreciate
the role it has in terms of access to capital. It is one of the
reasons I commend the hon. Minister of Finance for his tenacity
in ensuring that a code of conduct was instilled in the budget.
(1755)
If we did not have such a code of conduct banks would be
basically able to make suggestions as to where they were going
to priorize their lending priorities and small businesses which
are creating wealth in this economy would simply pack up and
leave or go underground.
In order to address the subject of the underground the budget
focused on the GST. The finance committee has been charged
with the task of amending or changing what is perceived as the
most hated tax in modern times in Canadian history. We believe
the GST if changed could help make a new economy. It could
help make business work once again.
Parliament has an obligation to the people of Canada to put
forward some sound fiscal policies and to restore faith in our
political institutions. We have a duty to reform Parliament and
do away with the perks and privileges to which ordinary
Canadians do not have access. We must be an example for
Canadians. Parliament is in no position to ask Canadians to
make sacrifices if it fails to practise what it preaches.
That is one of the reasons as a younger member of Parliament
I would certainly support an initiative at some point that would
redress the great and grotesque imbalance Canadians rightly
perceive between what is taking place in the real world and what
is taking place in the House of Commons.
Ontario riding has a population of some 200,000. Its size is
one of the most daunting tasks confronting me as a member of
Parliament. It is not one I am prepared to take lightly. Daily we
receive letters from all sorts of constituents addressing any
number of issues at a given time. I do my best to respond to
them.
In the period leading up to the budget I noted two or three
issues that the constituents of my riding asked me to ensure were
taken into account by the Minister of Finance. The first was that
there be no charge for the benefits of dental and health care. That
is something the government delivered on. It listened, it acted, it
delivered.
Another area was to try to stimulate the housing industry
through the use of RRSPs. I note that policy initiated by the last
government on a temporary basis was actually a ripoff of the
Liberal Party policy in 1988-89. It was a good policy then. I am
pleased the government decided to adopt it on a temporary basis,
but I am even more proud of the Liberal Party for deciding to
make that permanent. It recognizes that the construction
industry is not a simple cog in a wheel as far as this economic
situation is concerned. It realizes it is one of the fundamental
keys in our economic picture.
The budget process is an ongoing additional budgetary
measure that we should believe will be examined in the course
of time. It should be brought forward in a few months to allow
Canadians, certainly people in my riding, an opportunity to
discuss its many important attributes.
I am looking right now at an opportunity for my constituents
with whom I have had an opportunity to discuss the budget last
week to become more meaningfully involved in the overall
decisionmaking not only of a member of Parliament but of the
actual budgetary process. It is a great tribute to the government
that it has taken upon itself the opportunity of ensuring there is
before Parliament a chance for public input.
Canada is benefiting as is my riding from the infrastructure
program. Some $47 million has been allocated to my riding that
will result in over 1,000 people being employed who might
otherwise not have had an opportunity to work. I could put that
into another perspective: a 1,000-job investment in
infrastructure, sewer and water upgrades, will help the
economy.
I am pleased to support the budget. I thank the residents of
Ontario for their support.
(1800 )
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this occasion to speak on the budget debate and the concerns of
Miramichi riding in New Brunswick. Speaking in this Chamber
on behalf of all my constituents is an honour, a privilege and a
2072
tremendous responsibility toward those people who elected me
last October.
For 15 years Maurice Dionne represented the Miramichi. I
continue to rely on him for advice. The people of the Miramichi
are indebted to Maurice for his tremendous efforts on their
behalf. Last weekend I participated with the Rotary Clubs of
Newcastle and Chatham in presenting Maurice with the Paul
Harris award, the highest award in the world of Rotary.
The Miramichi is a geographic expression, an identity and a
free spirit that actually exists across this entire continent. It is a
rural area that depends on its natural resources.
From its early years people had to leave the area in order to
seek employment. For generations the young people of the
Miramichi migrated both westward and southward. Yes, during
past generations the spirit of the Miramichi can be found in most
Canadian provinces and many American states.
Basically the Miramichi is a river that begins in the central
highlands of New Brunswick and flows eastward into Miramichi
Bay facing the province of Prince Edward Island. Its people for
the most part live along the river valleys with the main river or
one of its tributaries within sight of their homes. We speak of the
Tabusintac, the Bartibog, the Black, the Napan, the North West,
the Little South West, the Barnaby, the Renous, the Cains and
other rivers.
Newcastle and Chatham are two small towns. They are the
business centres of our community. We also have seven
incorporated villages. We are proud to have three native
communities at Burnt Church, Eel Ground and Red Bank.
Forestry, fishing, mining and agriculture are the main sectors
of employment. Until last week CFB Chatham was one of our
major employers.
The Miramichi has traditionally been a Liberal riding. With
one exception since World War II the riding has returned a
Liberal member to this House. Within the region there is a
strong tradition of faith in the principles of liberalism and a
belief that the good times of the people in our area are best
guided by those who support Liberal policies.
A government represents the people. A budget is a plan by
government for accumulating revenues and regulating
expenditures. It is a plan that should bring the most good and the
least pain to the many groups and individuals that make up the
nation. It is a plan for sharing and a plan that must be fair. It is a
plan that must balance the available resources with the needs of
our people. Above all it must be a plan that maintains confidence
in our economic system by both our own financial institutions
and the international monetary community. It is my belief that
the finance minister has walked the tightrope that balances these
forces. This budget is a good beginning for our new government.
I want to point out that we must not lose sight of the most
important element required to turn our economy around: the
need for our people to have the necessary confidence so that they
will spend their money, they will invest in our nation and they
will look in a positive manner at the economic future.
There must be a demand in order for business to sell its
products. This demand can only be created by the consumer
wanting the goods and services of business and having the
necessary moneys for their purchase.
Our government must create an atmosphere where
despondency does not exist, where gloom and doom are no
longer the bywords of our people. It must be one where
Canadians believe they are led by a government that has a vision
and above all a determination to spend its resources prudently
and in the best interests of all citizens.
This budget calls on all Canadians to make sacrifices for the
good of the nation. Atlantic Canada has been called upon to
make sacrifices greater than any other area in Canada.
The amendments to the UIC program will cause the people in
our area to lose millions of dollars in payments. Those involved
in fishing, forestry and the tourist sector will have difficulty
obtaining the necessary work weeks in order to qualify for UIC.
Those who do will be able to draw for a shorter period of time.
The result is that many individuals who relied on this form of
income support will be short in the moneys needed to provide
for their families. The New Brunswick economy will lose an
estimated $200 million in cash flow which affects every
business in Atlantic Canada.
(1805)
It is important therefore that the review of all social programs
within the human resources development department must
address this concern. It should define the status of work as we
approach the 21st century.
More than 150 years ago Great Britain had harsh labour laws,
conditions that demanded tremendous sacrifice from men,
women and children. Today we have reduced the weekly hours
of work to 40, yet most households in the country require two
wage earners to support their needs. In many cases teenagers
have little time to enjoy the years of youth because they work
part time while trying to complete their education.
Will history see our present generation as an age where so
much effort and so much time is required to support the needs of
one's family? Or can we afford for our people on an equitable
basis to reduce their work time and offer them more time for
leisure, relaxation and recreation?
2073
The Miramichi has made another great sacrifice in this
budget: the loss of Canadian Forces Base Chatham. The closure
of this air base, which has been a part of our community for
over 50 years, means the loss of 240 civilian jobs, nearly 700
military ones and more than $50 million to our local economy.
We all recognize that the Department of National Defence is
being reduced and must be made more efficient. Unfortunately
for the Miramichi this cutback is at a time when our pulp and
paper industry is in recession and our mines at Heath Steele are
closed due to low base metal prices.
Therefore 1994 is a turning point in the future of our region.
Our people are ready to meet the challenge of developing a new
economy. However we will need full co-operation and
assistance from both the federal and provincial governments.
The Premier of New Brunswick, the Hon. Frank McKenna, is
working hard to rebuild the Miramichi. As a member of the
government I too will devote my energies in this direction so as
to create a new future for our people.
Canada must be represented throughout our nation. I strongly
believe our government must be decentralized with the
government departments and agencies spread across this
country. If Canada is to survive all Canadians must be part of
this great enterprise.
Canada and the federal government must not be portrayed as a
great bureaucracy located in Ottawa and several major cities. It
must reach out to our nation and to all Canadians in every region
of the country. They all must enjoy the fruits of their
participation.
Chatham, New Brunswick with its community college has
assumed leadership in the electronic highway with distance
education and multimedia learning. In this age of electronic
communication any government department, provincial or
federal, could easily be located in our constituency.
In recent years the underground economy has been a major
loss of revenue for both the federal and provincial governments.
It is my belief that many Canadians have joined this economy
because they believe our governments have been guilty of two
serious offences: overtaxation and unwise and imprudent
spending of their hard-earned dollars.
As members of the 35th Parliament we together have an
opportunity to correct the situation. It is important that each of
us work with our constituents and with the civil servants of this
country to see that moneys are not wasted and the people of
Canada receive good value for their expenditures.
Waste must be eliminated. Efficiency must be improved.
Above all fairness and equity must be the order of the day.
Everyone must realize that avoidance of taxes and misuse of
funds is literally robbing one's neighbour. It places a heavier
burden upon those honest people who support the government.
Civil service budgets must not be seen as an amount that must
be spent but rather as a guideline that should not be exceeded
and hopefully a measure that can offer savings. Those with
philosophies that budgetary amounts must be exhausted by
March 31 each year cannot be left in positions of responsibility.
In October the people of Canada told us they wanted a new
system, that they were tired, angry and frustrated by the
methods, attitudes and behaviour of the former government.
(1810 )
This budget begins a new agenda. Members on all sides of the
House have an opportunity to create a new type of government, a
new atmosphere. Let us hope we can work together to improve
our nation and everyone's tomorrow. We must not lose sight of
our goals or we become waylaid by the bureaucracy that
surrounds us.
The challenge is great, but we can work together to achieve
our goals.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): I am very
pleased to stand with my Reform colleagues and take part in this
debate and speak on behalf of the riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
The Cariboo-Chilcotin constituency rises from the south of
British Columbia to the high plateau of the central interior. Its
approximately 103,000 square kilometres lie between the crest
of the coast range mountains and Wells Gray Park.
Cariboo-Chilcotin has long had the reputation of being one
of the last frontiers. What newcomers today call highway 97 is
still remembered as the old Cariboo wagon road. This was the
route that was first designed in the last century by the Royal
Engineers to carry the wagons of the miners to the gold fields
and the ranchers and their families who opened up the country
for the people living there today.
Cariboo-Chilcotin is also home to the Chilcotin, Carrier and
Shuswap aboriginal people. They are an integral part of the
diverse cultural plurality found in this constituency today.
Every year communities throughout Cariboo-Chilcotin
celebrate their heritage. The city of Quesnel has its Billy Barker
days. Williams Lake holds the Williams Lake stampede.
Lillooet has ``Only in Lillooet'' days. The town of Barkerville
has been restored to how it used to be in the old gold rush days. I
could go on but suffice it to say the entire riding remembers our
pioneers and celebrates the way of life these pioneers left for us
to continue.
Today the lumber industry has taken the economic lead.
However the independent attitude, self-reliance and earthy
2074
frankness which characterize relations among
Cariboo-Chilcotin people still continue and may it always be
so.
It gives me much satisfaction to reflect upon these people.
Many people came to Cariboo-Chilcotin with nothing but the
determination to get a job and get ahead. They are people who
have prospered by their ingenuity, determination, shrewdness
and hard work. Their independence and pride would not allow
them to ask for special favours or special consideration.
What these pioneers really wanted was the opportunity to
prove their ability to make a life for themselves and their
families. Many people came with nothing and discovered the
life they sought.
This is the Cariboo, this is the Chilcotin, this is my home.
However high taxes and intrusions of big government are not
making it easy for people looking for lifestyles based on
independence and self-reliance. Mind you high taxes are giving
a new meaning to these words. People blessed with ingenuity
find ways around the obstacles that politicians and bureaucrats
devise. If this is so in the sultry cities, consider how ingenuity
thrives in the fresh air of the Cariboo.
For example, a couple of weeks ago I was talking to a man
who invests other people's money for them. From one small
community in the constituency, population 10,000, he received
in the month of January alone over $1 million of new money to
convert to other currencies and invest in foreign countries. He
went on to tell me that the rate of these receipts increased during
the month of February. That is one investor in one small
community.
People have some ingenuity. If the government is determined
to wreck the economy of our country, people who understand
what is happening will use their ingenuity to do what is
necessary to protect themselves.
In 1993 Canadians bought a record $12.8 billion worth of
foreign stocks and bonds. A growing number of Canadians are
moving their assets out of Canada. Last year Canadians bought
more foreign stock mutual funds than Canadian equity funds.
This export of money from Canada is a major problem. It is a
problem caused by fear, fear that our economy will go the same
way the economy of New Zealand went. We are seeing the early
signs in Canada, signs that were present 10 years ago in New
Zealand. We can soon suffer the same consequences. Ten years
ago New Zealand's foreign debt was the equivalent of 44 per
cent of the GDP and its annual deficit was the equivalent of 9 per
cent of the GDP. Suddenly, very suddenly, the foreign markets
refused to buy New Zealand bonds.
This shortage of revenue forced the devaluation of its
currency by as much as 20 per cent as well as deep cuts in
pensions, welfare and medicare. Accounts of wages being cut in
half and a person's net worth being reduced by 80 per cent were
commonplace.
People taking their money out of Canada are afraid that soon
the same thing could happen here. Government mismanagement
of our debt is the leading cause of the present high conversion of
our currency. Canadians fear equivalent losses as experienced in
Sweden and New Zealand when deficits hit crisis levels.
Outflow of Canadian money is preventing the economic
expansion we require for our nation to prosper.
We must take real steps to control the deficit, to assure the
business community that Canada is a sound place to invest
money.
People from Cariboo-Chilcotin, like Canadians from every
part of the country, are using great ingenuity and creativity in
the development of the underground economy. The sad part of
this growing phenomenon is that so many people feel that
nothing immoral is being done even though it is illegal. Some
even consider this means of tax avoidance a positive political
statement as well as a means of economic survival. The impact
of the underground economy renders any economic growth
meaningless to federal revenues.
During the 1980s a 1 per cent growth in GDP would result in a
1.2 per cent increase in tax revenues. Now that same increase
yields only .4 per cent growth. This budget is another example of
a government depending on optimism to solve its economic
woes.
We have seen in the past the folly of a government depending
on economic growth to increase revenues. This budget
demonstrates that the government has not learned from past
mistakes. With a half a trillion dollars debt Canada can no longer
rely on optimism.
The underground economy is now estimated by Ernst &
Young to be 15 per cent of the GDP or $100 billion annually. If
this revenue could be taxed it would yield $40 billion in tax
revenue, roughly the amount needed to eliminate our deficit.
Michael Manford, chief economist of Scotia McLeod Inc.,
estimates these numbers are even higher with an annual
underground economy growth rate of 10 per cent to 12 per cent.
Canadians have expressed disappointment in the limited cuts
made in this budget. The red book was part of a campaign based
on a much lower deficit of only $35 billion. Canadians are
demanding a balanced budget and the only means left to do this
is by cutting government spending, not by increasing spending
or by introducing new programs. The Government of Canada
must show better judgment in the way tax dollars are spent.
Cariboo-Chilcotin is populated mainly by people who left or
whose ancestors left other places to seek opportunities, be
independent and prosper. Like those immigrating to Canada
today many of us have ancestors who came seeking relief from
2075
domineering and intrusive governments, governments which
supplanted an agenda of serving the people with being served
itself.
I speak with great pride of Cariboo-Chilcotin but these
people are simply a microcosm of our great country. Since
coming to Ottawa I hear people in the stores and on the streets
saying the same thing as I hear them saying at home. Wherever I
go I hear a common message given: ``Get our taxes down. The
taxes are killing us economically''.
I do want to take this opportunity to applaud the Minister of
Finance for some of the steps taken in the budget. For example,
in the provisions made for small business he certainly has
listened to some of their concerns. Indeed the fastest way to
generate real economic activity is to lower taxes and give
Canadians a reason to work. This is what was promised with the
rollback in unemployment insurance premiums. We still need to
target more areas of small business overtaxation and deal with
those areas.
I also commend the government for its common sense in
making the home buyers' program a permanent feature. Since
being elected I have received more mail from my constituents
regarding this issue than any other subject. Home ownership is
at the top of most people's priority list and this government
initiative will certainly help.
To get back to the issue of taxes, the most effective way to
control the underground economy would be to offer a real
decrease in taxes to all Canadians with the legislative promise of
further decreases if participation in the underground economy
drops and revenue goes up. As long as the underground economy
continues to grow so will our deficit.
We do need some services. Canadians acknowledge this and
want them. No one will deny this fact. We want all Canadians to
have health care, housing, food and all that is necessary for all of
us to live well. Canadians should have every opportunity to
supply these needs for themselves. Assistance must be available
to those who cannot provide these necessities for themselves.
However, these essentials should be provided on a short term
basis only to those temporarily facing misfortune and on a long
term basis only to those who are permanently disabled.
To most Canadians it is not acceptable for the government to
foster a way of life that stifles independence and self-reliance.
Canadians must once again feel that their input into government
decisions really counts. Often Canadians vote for the lesser of
evils when they go to the polls. Hon. members opposite mistake
this for an overwhelming mandate.
When people's concerns are ignored by the government they
stop participating in society. Some have given up on the political
process and stopped voting. Even worse are those who have
given up on the economic process and send their money abroad
or participate in the underground economy.
Canadians on the whole are not cheats and frauds, but right
now they feel they are being forced to a survival mode under
threat of losing their jobs, their homes and their way of life.
They are tired of governments that ignore their concerns. When
will the government realize that the people of Canada want less
government interference and most of all want hard earned tax
dollars spent wisely and frugally?
Although the budget has some commendable features, the
current government must realize that further action has to be
taken to bring Canada's financial affairs under control.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): 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 to ways and means motion No. 6. 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 (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 11)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
2076
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-54
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York--Sudbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood-206
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Chan
Daviault
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Loubier
(1855 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
[Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, an act
to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and
Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions
Act, as reported (without amendment) by the committee.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
2077
[English]
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By
leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) moved that the bill be read
the third time and passed.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on
third reading of Bill C-3. Bill C-3 amends the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal
Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
Essentially, Bill C-3 is about one thing, the renewal of the
equalization program.
As members of the House well know, equalization is of such
over arching importance that the principle has been enshrined in
the Constitution. The unique sense of Canadian sharing goes
back to Confederation and shows that the Canadian federation
works.
In considering the renewal of equalization we on the
government side have had to balance the need to provide
provinces receiving equalization with the appropriate financial
resources on the one hand and the need to be fiscally responsible
on the other.
I have no doubt that this bill does both. Equalization is
projected to rise from $8 billion this year to $10.4 billion in
1998-99. All seven provinces that receive equalization are
expected to gain from these increases. Provinces currently
eligible for equalization are Newfoundland, Prince Edward
Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan.
Equalization is the most important federal transfer program
for reducing disparities in provincial governments. Before
equalization payments the revenue raising capacity of the seven
recipient provinces is 85 per cent of the national level. After
equalization it is roughly 93 per cent of the national average.
(1900 )
Let me now go through some of the details of Bill C-3.
First, it is proposed that equalization be renewed for five
years. Accompanying a five year renewal is a commitment by
the government not to change the structure of the formula. This
means that there will be greater certainty in budgetary planning
for the provinces. This does not mean that all work on the
equalization program will cease, rather ongoing work on
measuring the revenue raising or fiscal capacity of the provinces
will continue, as will research on the general structure of the
program with a view to the needs of the next equalization
renewal.
Second, the equalization standard will be unchanged. The
so-called five province standard measures the fiscal capacity of
Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British
Columbia.
Third, as already mentioned, a ceiling will be retained.
Fourth, the program floors will remain unchanged. The floor
provides protection to the provinces against large year to year
declines in equalization. The floor depends on provinces'
revenue raising abilities, with the less well off equalization
receiving provinces receiving the greatest protection.
Fifth, a number of tax base changes to update the
measurement of provinces' fiscal capacity will be introduced.
This is critical in order to maintain the fairness of the program in
measuring provinces' revenue raising abilities. For example,
the recent decline in farmland values has particularly
disadvantaged Saskatchewan, a technical update to the program
calculations adjusts for this.
Finally, the legislation contains a means to alleviate excessive
reductions in equalization for provinces with specific and
exceptionally large proportions of the tax base for certain
natural resources. This will remove a long standing irritant to
the provinces on this so-called tax back issue. This will enable
provinces to retain 30 per cent of the revenues from the relevant
natural resources rather than losing equalization on a dollar for
dollar basis. This measure has been welcomed by the affected
provinces.
This is very fiscally responsible and I recommend its passage
to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this stage of consideration of
Bill C-3, which was tabled by the government to renew the
equalization payments program. This bill is yet another proof of
the inefficiency and inequity of the federal system for the
provinces, and particularly for Quebec.
In principle, this program is basically designed to reduce
financial disparities between the provinces. It is more than time
to see if this objective has been reached. In the case of Quebec,
our province is still penalized, in the long term, by such a
redistribution of revenue. Of course, some will say that Quebec
receives more than its share of federal transfers, but let us not
forget the historical causes which put our province in this
uncomfortable situation.
Indeed, is it not strange that, since the implementation of
equalization programs, the money given to Ontario was
intended to cover structural expenditures such as investments in
research and development, or infrastructure expenditures which
have promoted a stable economic development for that
province?
All these measures have weakened Quebec's position and, to
this day, even if our province's contribution still accounts for
more than 23 per cent of Canadian wealth, it never gets its fair
share when the federal government decides to distribute monies
2078
for structural investments. The statistics are quite eloquent in
that regard, and I want to mention a few.
Between 1979 and 1989, Quebec's share of research and
development was 18.5 per cent, while Ontario's was 50.1 per
cent. Again, let us not forget that Quebec's contribution
accounted for 23 per cent of Canada's wealth.
(1905)
As far as federal investment is concerned, in recent years
Quebec's share has been 15.4 per cent, with the remainder
allocated outside Quebec. When we consider the value of
infrastructures in the defence sector, the figures become even
more revealing and damning, with Quebec receiving only 13 per
cent of investments in this sector, compared with 25.8 per cent
in Ontario, 34 per cent in the West and 27 per cent in the
Maritimes.
While we are on the subject of infrastructure, there is also the
St. Lawrence Seaway which goes back at least 30 years, in which
although it did provide opportunities for ports in Quebec to
expand, also stimulated development of ports in Ontario and
especially the development of the automobile industry in
Southern Ontario.
Meanwhile, Quebec was allocated funds for unemployment
insurance and welfare benefits, symbols of a negative outlook
for Quebec's economic development. As we have seen, the
difference in fiscal capacity between Ontario and Quebec
continues to exist, despite supposedly generous equalization
payments to Quebec.
As a result, Quebec has become increasingly dependant on
federal transfer payments, because its unemployment situation
has always been worse than Ontario's. For decades,
unemployment in Quebec has always been from 3 per cent to 5
per cent higher than in Ontario. It was a situation bound to
please those who favoured authoritarian federalism.
Bill C-3 provides that the ceiling on equalization payments
will not be abolished but extended for a period of five years.
However, this measure negates the very principle of
equalization by failing to provide for equitable redistribution of
Canada's wealth. In a particularly underhanded way, it will
actually reduce transfers to the provinces, and Quebec will again
be stuck with paying most of the bill.
If the rate of growth of the GNP reaches 5 or 6 per cent a year,
as predicted by our very optimistic Minister of Finance, that is
under the best possible assumption, Quebec will suffer a loss of
$900 million, or 60 per cent of the planned $1.5 billion reduction
in transfer payments, solely as a result of freezing the ceiling for
the next five years. That is the perverse effect of this bill.
Once more, the federal government is passing the buck in
terms of the deficit to the provinces by giving Quebec and other
provinces less money while their citizens require the same level
of services. It means that they will have to raise taxes.
I can already imagine what the members opposite are going to
say. They are going to say loudly that the critics from the
Official Opposition are exclusively motivated by crass
sovereigntist-if not separatist-intentions, since it seems that
last week the Prime Minister learned that the Official
Opposition intended to pull Quebec out of the Canadian
federation.
(1910)
Let us come back to Bill C-3. The Quebec minister of finance
and Premier Johnson form the most federalist pair imaginable;
yet even that minister of finance could not help but make some
negative comments on the bill dealing with equalization
payments. Naturally, as a good champion of Canadian unity,
Minister Bourbeau said that he was generally satisfied with the
results of the Federal-Provincial Conference of Finance
Ministers held in Montreal last January. However, Minister
Bourbeau made some negative comments on this bill. His
criticisms take on a very special significance since Mr.
Bourbeau is member of a Quebec Liberal Cabinet which was
ready, as we saw with the Charlottetown Accord, to accept any
shady deal to save a semblance of Canadian unity.
So, that was what the Quebec minister of finance told us in a
press release dated January 21. We can consider that that
declaration is still in order today. The minister said, and I quote:
``However, I have a hard time accepting that the federal
government decided to maintain the ceiling on equalization
payments''. If the Quebec minister of finance, who is definitely
a federalist, declares that that decision is hard to swallow, that
means it is simply ridiculous and unacceptable to the population
of Quebec.
With this ceiling, we are moving away from the aim inscribed
in the Constitution, which is to give provinces enough revenues
to be able to provide quality public services based on more or
less comparable taxation systems from one province to another.
It is always surprising to hear a Quebec minister, and a keen
partisan of federalist orthodoxy, declaring himself satisfied
with a provision that moves away from one of the major aims of
the Canadian Constitution. But the contradiction did not end
there, and the Quebec finance minister, as we saw recently, will
not let a contradiction stop him.
Indeed, the minister went on to say in the same release:
``Property taxes are the second largest source of revenue used to
calculate equalization payments, and Quebec's fiscal capacity
in that area is clearly overestimated, which results in a serious
shortfall in that regard. For the Quebec government, the fact that
2079
we have to wait for five years before this standard of fiscal
capacity is significantly improved is hard to swallow''.
How can anybody claim to be pleased with a measure that is so
detrimental to him? The answer is quite simple and is matter of
common sense. Everybody knows the perfectly legitimate
position of the Quebec finance minister and his government on
the preservation of federal ties. Everybody knows as well that a
general election is looming in Quebec and the provincial
government has nothing to gain from a confrontation with a
newly elected federal government, and a Liberal one at that.
Not too many people are pleased with Bill C-3. One positive
proof that sovereignists are not the only ones to condemn the
ceiling on equalization payments is the declaration of the
Manitoba deputy minister of finance, Mr. Newman, who
recently said to the Standing Committee on Finance, right here
in Ottawa:
(1915)
[English]
``The proposed ceiling on equalization payments violates the
spirit and intent of the Constitution. Continued application of
the ceiling is unwarranted and detrimental to Canadians living
in the less affluent provinces''.
[Translation]
If you combine the principle of transfer payments to
provinces with the various discretionary powers of the federal
government, as is the case presently, you get a result which is
particularly bad for Quebec.
Let us see what happens: first, in order to finance programs
which, in many instances, are of provincial jurisdiction, the
federal government levies taxes on Canadian and Quebec
taxpayers. Then that same federal government creates
supposedly national standards which everyone from coast to
coast must observe. This is pure and simple interference in
provincial affairs, and such interference is especially
unacceptable, even indecent, when the federal government
reduces its own contribution to programs while maintaining
national standards that provinces must keep on respecting.
In other words, the federal government is asking the
provinces to maintain the same level of services while giving
them less money to do so. That is exactly what happened in
Quebec in the health and post-secondary education sectors,
which are still exclusively provincial jurisdictions, according to
the Constitution of Canada. Between 1977 and 1993, the federal
government's share for the provision of these two programs was
cut from 47 to 34 per cent of total costs.
Then this same federal government told Quebec that it was
going to keep on taxing the province more and more, as shown in
the finance minister's recent budget speech, to fund both these
programs. But it was going to give Quebec less money to
provide services to its people. If you call such transfer payments
fair, I do not know what fairness is!
In the health care area, while the federal government was
continuously decreasing its share of contributions, it compelled
the provinces to abide by health standards it had set. Quebec is
not getting greater control over its health care system, it is
getting the power to cut without being able to decide where to
cut. Another one of the great inequities of the present system of
transfer payments to the provinces can be found in established
programs financing, under which the federal government comes
and takes money from Quebecers to implement national
programs according to Canadian standards, even though they do
not always fit the Quebec reality.
The distinct society is much more than a hollow formula
which emerged one day out of a lake that was the scene of a
so-called constitutional agreement-the distinct society is, for
believers, and we are among those, much more than that; it
means also that Quebecers are a nation and that their specificity
is rooted in a very real social and political situation.
(1920)
A nation draws its sense of identity from the values shared by
its people. Its programs and infrastructures should be based on
these values, which should also be reflected in government
programs which will determine people's standard of living.
Quebecers have come to identify less and less with the standards
imposed on them by the federal government. For its part, the
government still refuses to recognize Quebecers'
distinctiveness.
Let me give one example which the Minister of Health herself
used in this House a while ago. I am talking about the network of
local community service centres, or CLSCs, which Quebec
established without the help or advice of the federal
government. This network was set up in the early 1970s and the
minister cited it as a model for service delivery. This mechanism
which allows Quebecers to benefit from health care and social
services right in their own community was fully developed and
funded by Quebecers.
The Bloc Quebecois advocates radical changes to improve
federal transfer programs to the provinces. By carrying out
small sectoral program reforms, the federal government is
manipulating the figures and pushing through changes which are
not in the best interest of the provinces. As we have seen with the
recent budget, the budget which is now before us, on the one
hand, the government is slashing $2 billion from established
programs financing in the area of post-secondary education and
the Canada Assistance Plan, while on the other hand, it is
maintaining the ceiling on equalization payments, despite the
resulting inequity that I described earlier. All this just to confuse
people and to make believe that the federal transfer payments
system has been upgraded, when it is not so.
2080
The Bloc Quebecois is strongly opposed to Bill C-3, which
renews-
Mr. Milliken: It is unbelievable!
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Yes, and I
repeat it, it is opposed to Bill C-3 which renews the ceiling on
equalization payments, a measure which, I want to remind you,
means a loss of 900 million dollars for Quebec and perpetuates
the federal government's tradition of unloading its problems on
the provinces.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, before I
discuss Bill C-3, the bill to renew the equalization provisions of
fiscal transfers for the next five years, I would like to thank the
government for allowing us to have this debate tonight.
Originally the government had wanted to discuss this bill on
Friday when I and the critic for the Bloc would be unable to
attend. We were able to reach an agreement to debate this bill
this evening. I say that in all sincerity in spite of the fact that I
will oppose the bill. I will also express some concerns about the
process not so much on this bill but the general process followed
in reviewing such pieces of legislation.
As I have indicated my party opposes the bill. I want to take
the time tonight to reiterate the nature of that opposition and
also to review concerns about the process of discussion and
debate used here in deciding some of these matters.
Our party does support some elements of this bill and it is
important to indicate that. We support for example the concept a
ceiling. It is important for anybody who is serious about fiscal
responsibility and the nature of the problems we find ourselves
in to not have a situation where the federal government finds
itself liable for open-ended transfer payments. That certainly
could be the case without some kind of a ceiling.
(1925)
We also support the concept in this bill of some kind of
compensation for excessive tax back of unique resource sources
in the equalization formula.
[Translation]
While making these remarks, I would also like to say that the
position of my party is not that of the Bloc Quebecois or that of
the member from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. Despite his
well-thought out remarks, our views are totally different.
[English]
I would like to take a few minutes to mention those
differences in perspectives. As a party we support the concept of
equalization. I would point out to all here that the concept of
equalization is embedded as a principle in the Constitution Act,
1982, which our party recognizes and which we believe all
provinces of Canada are part of. I understand that is a very
different position from that of the Bloc Quebecois.
I also want to point out that in spite of whatever shortcomings
this bill or other federal programs may have, this particular
program is very generous to the province of Quebec. This has
come up before. This year roughly $3.8 billion of the $8.4
billion spent under this program will be directed to the
Government of Quebec, none to the Government of Alberta and
none to the Government of British Columbia. While there may
be shortcomings in the bill it is important to acknowledge that.
All Canadians should acknowledge the importance of these
transfers not only symbolically but in dollar terms.
I also point out, although we will get into this debate at a later
date, that the Bloc Quebecois at some point is going to have to
address more seriously than it has its support for independence
and opposition to the Constitution Act on the one hand and its
apparent love for some of these social programs and some of this
spending on the other. In spite of the considered words of my
friend there is a contradiction in not liking Canada and having
such great love of the Canadian dollar. However we will discuss
that at a later date.
The nature of our opposition is primarily the expenditure size
involved and the fact we are making enormous commitments
without proposals for comprehensive reform in this area. Our
zero in three plan had called for reductions in the area of
equalization as part of some fairly small reductions over all to
the level of transfers to the provinces.
I note with this program even with the ceiling that the
projected growth rates for equalization are about 5 per cent per
year. That is very high in comparison with the expected rate of
growth for spending on federal programs generally. It is
certainly higher than most programs which involve federal
transfer payments to the provinces. The cost of the equalization
program will grow from $8.4 billion to about $10.4 billion over
the five year period, fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
On top of that we are making these kinds of commitments in
the absence of a comprehensive reform proposal. This bill was
tabled and second reading debate occurred before the tabling of
the budget, before the infamous red ink book.
We know the federal government in making this
announcement reiterated its commitment to federal transfer
programs. It implied as it had during the election that it would
never consider cuts to social programs or to federal transfers.
However the budget revealed that despite the renewal of this
particular program, the renewal of the current dollar levels,
there were going to be planned cuts in transfer payments in other
areas, some of which we do not particularly support.
2081
(1930)
I note, for example, the budget talks about additional caps to
the Canada assistance plan that would kick in the 1995-96 fiscal
year. We would begin to limit spending in absolute dollar terms
to the level of 1994-95 combined with established programs
financing for post-secondary education. In 1996-97 the
combined total of CAP and EPF post-secondary will not be
allowed under the budget to exceed spending for those two
programs combined in 1993-94.
This raises the spectre of something I think has been missed in
much analysis of the budget, that is planned expenditure
reduction by the government in the area of post-secondary
education which is not a target that we deficit cutters have
specified. We certainly have not found support in the country for
making that a priority for reduction.
It is very funny that while we advocate some cuts in our plan
the government is saying it is renewing this program. It is
planning cuts to transfer payments to the provinces but there is
no particular plan for any kind of comprehensive reform or
rationale.
This is interesting considering that debate on the bill both at
second reading and in committee has raised the fact that there
needs to be such an examination in the case of equalization as
well as in the case of other transfer programs. Generally
speaking there is a lack of clarity on the objectives and the
operations of the equalization program.
The hon. member for Lethbridge pointed out during second
reading and in committee that if the formula created equity in
federal programs, if we had equalization for that purpose, why
would we then support in a number of ways special funding over
and above this that recognized have not provinces in particular
programs in other areas? I think, for example, of the
infrastructure program, RRAP or the cap on CAP in the case of
the have provinces. There is definitely a duplication of efforts
and clear objectives.
As well there are problems that go back to the very beginning
of equalization. Professor Tremblay of the University of
Montreal pointed out to the finance committee in his
presentation the original economic justifications for programs
like equalization based on economic deficits and surpluses
created by the system of tariff payments in the country. Those
things are now obsolete, particularly with the implementation of
free trade. That is not to say the program is unnecessary but the
original economic justification of the program has been
eclipsed.
Important questions were raised not only by Professor
Tremblay but by other people in committee and at second
reading: the impacts of equalization on regional dependency and
on structural unemployment and whether it prevents natural
adjustment to market forces and outward migration of
population from areas with low income potential.
These are all very important questions. We are undergoing an
examination in certain federal programs-unemployment
insurance and welfare-of the effects of these programs on
individuals and the restructuring of incentives. It certainly
would be appropriate to undertake a similar study here on the
effects of these programs on large governments both provincial
as well as municipal.
The government in its defence of the bill has said that it now
requires certainty in the area of federal transfer payments to the
provinces, in particular certainty on the equalization formula.
This is one reason it is anxious to support it and one reason
government members gave for supporting it.
I would point out to the Chair that in the course of our
committee hearing one government representative we did hear
from, Mr. Neumann of the Intergovernmental Affairs Office of
Manitoba, indicated considerable doubt about that as the
previous speaker from the Bloc indicated. There is not
unanimous provincial agreement with this particular approach.
Governments are expressing some doubt about the issue of
certainty. Mr. Neumann had indicated over and above his
concerns about the ceiling, which I do not share, that some
particulars in the calculations lend themselves to uncertainty
about future receipts and that we should be examining those
sorts of things. Of course we did not.
(1935)
There are other specifics that are difficult with this. This bill
leaves on an indefinite basis choices between two different
kinds of equalization options for certain Atlantic provinces. We
continue to have inequities in the equalization formula. They are
well documented.
The treatment of natural resource revenues can be very
different depending whether they are owned by crown
corporations or private enterprise. The formula is extremely
complex, difficult to understand and administer. On top of that,
the formula does not use any kind of standard measures of fiscal
capacity. It is a very unique formula developed only for this type
of transfer and once again, there is no particularly clear
rationale, at least to myself and to others I have talked to,
between the particulars of the program and the objectives of the
equalization program.
I have tried to lay out not only our general objection to the
cost but also the fair range of issues that this bill really provoked
both at second reading and in committee. I point this out because
this is my first time as a new parliamentarian being a critic for a
particular piece of legislation and being part of the system and
seeing how it works.
We had the debate here. We went to committee with these
bills. Points were made in the committee by members of the
2082
opposition in both parties in opposition to the bill. Points were
made, concerns were raised about the bill and about the
philosophy of the bill by witnesses who appeared before the
committee.
What was quite interesting to me was that the government
members, generally speaking, who engaged in debate here and
who talked in committee generally made no effort or only the
most minimal effort to refute or to comment on any of the points
raised.
I am not trying to be critical of any individual but the general
defence of the bill offered by government members was
certainty. The other was that equalization is about sharing and
sharing is good, therefore let us pass the bill.
With that kind of orientation, we proceeded to pass the bill.
We had two committee hearings and then proceeded to move to
clause by clause, somewhere between 30 seconds and a minute,
sums of money totalling $45 billion to $50 billion over the next
few years.
I suppose an option available to myself or to members of the
Bloc Quebec or other members of the Reform Party or perhaps
any member would be to endlessly filibuster the bill, to bring
speakers forward, to continue to raise these points in committee
and in the House.
I follow our leader's example on this. There is no point saying
that one is going to practise economy in government if one
cannot practise economy in words. I am not interested in
endlessly filibustering this bill but surely the point of the
process is that we do an examination and even if we do not reach
agreement that we at least sharpen our arguments so that we can
better rationalize this bill.
Of course this does not happen because in our system with the
pattern we have fallen into of government confidence on every
motion and lack of free votes, the issue becomes not the
substance of legislation but simply what party one belongs to.
Unlike in other legislatures, for example in the Congress of
the United States, the one closest to us, it is unnecessary for us
as individual members to defend or explain our position on
pieces of legislation, even pieces of legislation that we are
personally responsible for. All we have to know is that the
government voted for it. If one is a government member, they
had to support it.
That disappoints me. I am not suggesting that there are not
members of the government who do not understand the
equalization bill or who could not give good defences of this
piece of legislation but this certainly did not transpire in the
debates that I was involved in.
Why are we rushing this? This has all occurred very quickly.
The bill was tabled before the budget. The government
originally wanted it through committee around budget time. It
certainly wants the bill through this House and has our limited
co-operation to do so because as I say we are not interested in
endless filibustering. It wants the bill through the House by
March 31. Why? Because the program is slated to kick in on
April 1 and is to go for so many years. In spite of the fact that we
do not really have full provincial agreement this decision has
been taken.
The bill had only been debated or on the order paper for a
couple of weeks when I was contacted by Professor Boothe of
the University of Alberta who has written extensively on federal
transfer programs to the provinces. He would have liked to have
said something on this but the committee hearings were done
before he was aware we had a bill.
Why does this occur? This kind of rush occurs not because
there is any real necessity or that there will be any collapse of
the federal-provincial system if we do not pass this bill by
March 31. It is because there is an attitude of the government, an
attitude passed over from Parliaments in the past, that this
process is a formality. This is a rubber stamp. It does not matter
the sums of money that are involved, the objective is to pass it.
In fact the decisions have been rendered in the executive. They
were rendered in some other forum and there is no particular
need to become knowledgeable only to get it through and maybe
we will defend it at the next election.
These kinds of things concern me. I do not make these
criticisms of the bill or of the process here as attacks on any
particular government member or even on this government. This
is the pattern of legislative process that we have fallen into in
this country. It does not work. It is how we got ourselves into the
kind of financial mess we have in this country.
I remind members once again that in many, many areas of
public policy we spend more money than just about every
country in the world, whether it is on education or health or
unemployment insurance, transfer payments to lesser levels of
government or whatever. We are spending as much or more than
our competitors. The results are simply not comparable to what
is required to compete in the international marketplace.
I think I have said my piece on that, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we
anticipate the bill will pass. We oppose it on principle and will
oppose it on division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 7.40 p.m. this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.40 p.m.)