CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 23, 1994
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 1717
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 1720
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 1720
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1721
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1721
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1721
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1721
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1722
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1722
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1722
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1722
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1723
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1723
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 1723
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1723
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 1723
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1723
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1724
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1724
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 1724
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1724
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 1724
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1724
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1725
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1725
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1726
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1726
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1726
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1726
Consideration resumed of motion of Mr. Collenette 1728
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 202; Nays, 49 1729
Bill C-14. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 1729
Bill C-15. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 1729
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1729
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1730
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 1730
Consideration resumed of motion on the budget 1730
Amendment of Mr. Loubier 1739
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 1739
Amendment to the amendment 1742
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 1747
1717
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 23, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize February as Black History Month.
The celebration of Black History Month is a focal point of
pride for black Canadians whose presence in Canada can be
traced to at least 1605 when Mattieu Da Costa accompanied
Samuel de Champlain as an interpreter to Nova Scotia.
Since that time, politicians, writers, artists, educators,
historians and many others have added to the social, cultural and
economic fabric of Canadian life.
This is most definitely the case in Nova Scotia where there are
many prominent citizens of Afro-Canadian origin whose work
affects many Nova Scotians and Canadians. Wayne Adams,
Nova Scotia's first Afro-Canadian MLA and cabinet minister,
Maxine Tynes, prominent poet and writer, Joan Jones, a recent
recipient of the Pearson Award, Dr. Carey Best and Slyvia and
Marie Hamilton are just a few Nova Scotians of African origin
whose contributions have been recognized by their peers.
Black History Month pays homage to the essential
contribution of black people and their collective history to the
fabric of Canadian life. Let us pay tribute to this vital part of
Canadian heritage, not only during February but throughout the
year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, again
Quebecer Myriam Bédard gladdened our hearts today in
Lillehammer, when she won a second gold medal for the
biathlon, a first for an athlete from Quebec and Canada. The
Bloc Quebecois hopes that this second brilliant performance by
Ms. Bédard will convince everyone without exception of her
tremendous talent.
However, I am appalled by those who, to quote journalist J.V.
Dufresne ``ooze contempt and envy where Quebec is
concerned''. Ms. Bédard has already shown she was able to
overcome all the problems caused by Biathlon Canada. With her
courage and determination, this young woman has made her
dreams come true and has met the highest standards of her sport.
She is a shining example for all Quebecers.
Myriam, on behalf of the people of the riding of Charlesbourg
and all Quebecers, we offer you our admiration and
congratulations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, on the
heels of the winter Olympics there will be a world class sporting
event in the riding I represent, Yellowhead, in Alberta.
From March 10 to 13, the town of Hinton will be hosting the
world cup biathlon races at Athabasca Nordic Centre. The
biathlon, which is a sport combining cross country skiing and
rifle shooting, will bring an estimated $2 million in spending to
our country.
Twenty-one countries and 238 coaches and athletes, many of
whom are now competing in the winter Olympics, will be in
Hinton for the world cup. The proud people of Hinton will have
two local athletes to cheer on. Kevin Quintilio and Nicole
Bressard, who belong to the Hinton Nordic Skiers Club, are
world class biathletes who will make not only the people of
Hinton proud but the people of Canada proud as well.
I thank all the participating countries for flags received. May I
ask all members to join me in cheering on Canada's national
team.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I received Valentine's Day
messages. One particular message was of great interest because
it asked us all together to remove this pernicious bill that
1718
prevents students from enjoying a six-month grace free period
after graduation to find a job.
This particular bill removes $35 million from the pockets of
students.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I ask that together we try to improve access to
post-secondary education for all Canadians and improve the
Canada student loans program. Let us show how much education
means to us.
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr.
Speaker, though we live in difficult times, the Winter Olympics
remain a symbol of nations gathering under one flag, the flag of
universal brotherhood and peace.
[English]
I am very proud that a constituent from my riding of
Restigouche-Chaleur, Allain Roy, is representing not only
Canada but northern New Brunswick at the XVII Winter
Olympic Games.
Allain is competing in Lillehammer with Canada's national
hockey team.
[Translation]
I wish Alain and his teammates good luck. I know they will
represent Canada with honour and pride, not only on the ice but
also by making the spirit of these games a part of their lives.
[English]
On behalf of all citizens of Restigouche-Chaleur and all
members of the House, I would like to congratulate Allain and
all of our Canadian Olympic athletes.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker, I
rise at this moment to make an urgent appeal on behalf of the
metro Toronto Daily Bread Food Bank.
It has been brought to my attention that the food bank has been
enduring difficult times this winter. Currently there is only a
three week supply of food. It needs at least seven more weeks
worth of inventory in order to sustain itself until the Easter food
drive.
Food banks serve approximately 160,000 children and adults
per month. With public donations on the decline the food bank is
finding it increasingly difficult to meet such high demand.
Traditionally Canadians have understood the importance of
groups and organizations which provide assistance to those
individuals less fortunate.
In keeping with this tradition, I call on my colleagues from the
metro Toronto area to ensure their food bank is not forgotten and
to encourage all the residents of their respective ridings to
provide all possible donations for the continued survival of such
a worthy cause.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all Quebecers, we would like to extend our
heartfelt congratulations to the four female athletes from
Quebec who captured a silver medal yesterday in Lillehammer
in the women's speed skating relay event.
The relay team composed of Sylvie Daigle of Sherbrooke and
of Christine Boudrias, Isabelle Charest and Nathalie Lambert of
Montreal-Nathalie Lambert in fact hails from my
riding-enthralled us with their teamwork. These four athletes
displayed remarkable courage and perseverance.
The spotlight also shone on Quebec yesterday when another
of its native sons won a bronze medal in men's speed skating.
Marc Gagnon of Chicoutimi, the world champion over 1,000
metres, gave his all in this race. We are proud of him and indeed
of all the athletes from Quebec who took part in this event.
The Bloc Quebecois congratulates all of our athletes
competing in Lillehammer. They are a credit to us all.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
pay tribute to and congratulate Mr. Max McLean of Camrose,
Alberta. Mr. McLean was recently named ``Moose Citizen of the
Year'' by the local chamber of commerce.
This award is presented each year to a person who has made
outstanding contributions to the community. As a full time
volunteer, Max has devoted his energy and enthusiasm to
canvassing for the Canadian Cancer Society, selling journals for
the Canadian Diabetic Association and helping to raise money
for Ronald McDonald House.
Max's extensive involvement in the community spans almost
50 years of dedicated service to his community. May Max
McLean, who believes volunteers play an important role in
making Camrose a better place to live, be a model for all
Canadians.
1719
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, Nova Scotia cannot afford to lose any more of its
centres of excellence.
In my home town of Truro we run the risk of closure of the
Nova Scotia Teachers' College because we train more teachers
than we have jobs for.
(1410 )
Superintendents of schools across Canada have
acknowledged the high quality training these teachers receive.
CIDA and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges
purchase training space for Third World teachers.
We recognize that we cannot afford duplication in educational
facilities but I would like to recommend the expansion rather
than the closure. We could bring the best teaching professionals
to Truro and on a fee for service train teachers for the world
market.
At least once a year the United States comes to Nova Scotia to
recruit various trained professionals. I recommend that we
capitalize on our long tradition of educational expertise and
market this great resource.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour today of announcing the
restructuring of the Chamber of Maritime Commerce.
Established in 1959, this organization brings together all those
who depend upon a viable Canadian maritime transport
industry.
The recent reformation includes establishment of a board of
governors that will interact with governments at all levels. The
chamber's representation extends from western Canadian grain
producers, Ontario steel, coal, aggregate, salt and cement
interests, Quebec ore mines and Atlantic Canada shippers to the
ports which facilitate these trades.
It is apparent that with such a cross section of industries
crucial to Canada's economy, the chamber will provide a united,
proactive voice for the growth of industrial Canada.
I would like to take this opportunity in welcoming the
Chamber of Maritime Commerce in the pursuit of this common
goal.
* * *
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East): Mr. Speaker, as the chair of
the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association I was pleased to
hear my colleague from Kootenay East remark on the success of
the 21st annual Canada-Europe interparliamentary meeting
held in Vancouver.
While we discussed many issues of importance to the
relations between Canada and Europe, our greatest success was
showing the European delegates that Canada is at the forefront
of progressive forestry practices.
I want to thank all the delegates, Canadian and European, for
their frank and constructive input. At the end of our
deliberations I believe we found common ground and solved a
potentially disastrous problem.
News reports have confirmed the ultimate success of the
meetings. My hope for this association is to foster a greater
understanding among European parliamentarians of Canadian
policies and positions, even those of alternative points of view.
Reports in La Presse suggest the change in venue from
Quebec City to Vancouver reflected a reluctance on the
association's part to discuss the political issues of Quebec.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Both executives agreed
to the change in venue.
I need only remind the members of the serious economic
repercussions a ban on wood products exported to Europe would
have on communities across Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, it is a
well-known fact that Quebec has traditionally been
disadvantaged in the distribution of defence expenditures, of
which it receives only 15.8 per cent. With yesterday's budget,
the federal government seemed to indicate that such inequity
would continue and actually intensify.
The Collège militaire de Saint-Jean, a university-level
educational institution, a stronghold of recognized francophone
expertise in strategic studies, space science and computer
science, the only gateway to a career as a military officer for
francophones, the one and only French-speaking military
college in Canada, is about to disappear. Removed from this
environment, French-speaking military education will become
a mere shadow of its former self and be swallowed up by the
very unilingual Royal Military College in Kingston.
By axing the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, which is
really a French Canadian institution, the federal government is
giving a clear indication of how little regard it has for
francophones in Quebec and in Canada.
1720
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, my statement concerns questions raised in this House
yesterday.
I am the spokesperson for my party on aboriginal affairs and I
am deeply and personally offended by comments made inside
and outside the House about my colleagues in caucus by other
hon. members regarding our attitudes toward our native brothers
and sisters.
There are philosophical differences between members of
parties in this House. Let us not slur each other. Instead, let us
hope for light to shine in and assist members in arriving at a
reasonable and acceptable conclusion.
I will not rest nor will I be satisfied until one hon. member
opposite apologizes for remarks made about me and my
colleagues.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, the
people of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, like all
Canadians, applaud the budget tabled yesterday because it
closes tax legislation loopholes by, among other things,
reducing from 80 per cent to 50 per cent the deduction for meals
and entertainment.
I have good news for you. The government's budget does
away with certain deductions accorded corporations with capital
of over $15 million. It also eliminates the $100,000 capital gains
exemption only benefiting higher income Canadians, like those
in the opposition.
This government will prevent Canadian-based companies
from using foreign affiliates to avoid paying taxes. In addition,
the House of Commons finance committee, at the opposition's
request, will once again review the taxation of family trusts. It is
good to see that this government listens to the people and
honours its election promises of social justice and human
dignity in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the finance minister announced that the
budget would be responsive to the needs of Canada's small
business sector. Coming from a small business background
myself, I could not agree more.
Payroll taxes have long been a thorn in the side of small
businesses, in effect taxing job creation. The decision by the
Minister of Finance to roll back the 1995 UI premium will save
industry $300 million next year alone.
On behalf of the small businesses in Canada I would like to
congratulate the minister on this bold and responsive initiative
which we expect will significantly help job creation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
see that the RCMP has now started the fight against organized
crime on some native reserves.
It was said that until now, federal and provincial police forces
had been ordered not to take action so as to avoid igniting the
situation. There was total confusion as well as a lack of political
will. From now on, the law will be implemented everywhere in
the country.
As the member representing Beauce, I have been fighting for
a long time to put a stop to this tolerance, this hesitation on the
part of the police, and this political laxness. Those attitudes
created social chaos which allowed organized crime to get a
better foothold in our community and create networks of people
selling tobacco, arms, liquor and drugs. There is no longer any
no go zone. From now on, the police will have all the necessary
power to conduct surveillance activities and, if necessary, to
arrest people.
I do hope that the only elected independent member in Canada
is not dreaming.
_____________________________________________
1720
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The budget brought down yesterday by the government was
met with deep disappointment in all quarters. Many critics today
say how disappointed they are with this lax attitude. Moreover,
the government is launching an unprecedented attack against the
unemployed by taking over $5 billion from their benefits, while
the budget contains no specific new job creation measure.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why his government chose to
attack the unemployed rather than federal government spending
and administrative duplication and overlap?
1721
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I will simply quote the
record of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in the
Mulroney government.
The GST, a tax on the middle class, an end to universal
pensions for our seniors-that is the Leader of the Opposition's
doing and he dares tell us about unemployment insurance. The
last thing he did as minister was to take $3 billion from the
unemployment insurance fund. He is in no position to criticize
us as we are stuck with the problems he created.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, in other words, the government is telling us that they
are no worse than the Conservatives, a party which I left with
pleasure.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1420)
Mr. Bouchard: The question is, how dare this government
make the poor unemployed victims of the present neglect bear
the burden of the public spending fiasco, not only by cutting
unemployment insurance but also by not providing any concrete
new job creation measure, thus going back on its sacred election
promise to restore hope and dignity to the unemployed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition left the
Conservative Party, he left the Liberal Party and he left the
Union Nationale. When will he leave the Bloc Quebecois?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): So we have done nothing for
the unemployed? The infrastructure program, which should
create between 50,000 and 60,000 jobs in Canada; the
residential rehabilitation assistance program, which was
abolished by his former government; the home ownership
program, which was to end on March 1, has been extended
again; a youth service corps to help our young people; new
apprenticeship programs. And he still has the effrontery to tell
us that we are doing nothing. We are creating jobs, we are
getting the economy on track, and we will do it, Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, let me say how surprised I am at the vehemence with
which the minister attacks the Conservatives, since his budget is
identical to the one they presented. It is a budget which no
Conservative still in that party-and there are fewer and fewer
of them-would renounce today.
I must say that I find something profoundly indecent in this
budget, since the Minister of Finance is an accomplice of fiscal
unfairness. On the one hand, he takes more than $5 billion over
three years from the poorest people, and on the other, he lets the
wealthiest people in this country put billions into family trusts
and earn income from them without paying tax.
I ask the minister, who voted with us in the Bloc Quebecois
last year against the extension of this undue privilege, to tell us
how he can preach fiscal fairness today when he supports such a
double standard policy.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, at least we are entitled to some
consistency. His finance critic suggested referring the question
of family trusts to the Auditor General. Since we believe that
members of this House should assume their responsibilities, we
referred it to the finance committee for study. We will look into
it. We took his advice. So instead of asking me this question, he
sould ask his friend.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
in the budget which he brought down yesterday-if we can still
call what is left of it a budget-the Minister of Finance
projected a record deficit of nearly $40 billion. Considering how
accurate Finance Department forecasts are, it is possible that the
deficit could be much higher than $40 billion. In fact, in the
1992 budget, revenues were overestimated by $11 billion, and in
the 1993 budget, by $10 billion. A slight discrepancy, would you
not agree. In point of fact, for the past two years at least,
government revenues have been declining, while the
underground economy has been thriving. Consequently, tax
revenue forecasts have been completely thrown off.
How can we take the Minister of Finance seriously? How are
we supposed to take a stand-up comic seriously when he
announces an already record deficit of nearly $40 billion, given
that he arrived at this figure by overestimating revenues, like his
predecessors, when in fact he knows full well that for several
years now, tax revenues have not been growing at the same rate
as the economy.
The Speaker: I hope that the answers will be as brief as the
questions.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I know that the critic for the Bloc
Quebecois did not have a chance to read the document because
he was in too much of a hurry to ask his questions. However, if
he were to look on page 53, he would find a very clear
explanation of some of the special factors which combined to
dampen budgetary revenues this year. When we exclude these
factors from our calculation, it becomes very clear that we can
forecast a real increase of 3 per. cent or a nominal increase of 4
1722
per cent. This is in line with the forecasts of the vast majority of
the country's economists.
(1425)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister not agree that a record deficit of more than $40
billion would undermine the confidence of investors and
taxpayers and jeopardize a lasting recovery on the economic and
employment fronts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we are fully cognizant of the problems
associated with the deficits we inherited. That is why our targets
are very clear: $39.7 billion, $32.7 billion and $25 billion. And
we will reach these targets, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
The budget presented by the minister yesterday will add $100
billion to the federal debt over the next three years. Many
members on this side of the House are deeply concerned that the
budget simply does not address the deficit and debt problem.
If this House, through its committees or the consideration of
estimates, were to put forward further proposals for further
reducing the deficit in 1994-95, would the minister be open to
adopting such proposals?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, at a recent meeting of the finance
committee in response to an invitation from the member's
seatmate, I said very clearly that we would be delighted to sit
down with them and look at whatever constructive suggestions
members opposite have.
I also said they should be based on current financial numbers.
They should not be based on the financial numbers presently
used by members of the party opposite which through no fault of
their own are some six months out of date. They should also be
based on responsible economic forecasts, not inflated forecasts
such as was the case with the economic platform of the party
opposite in the election campaign.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for part of his answer. My supplementary
question is for the same minister.
The minister's budget bears some resemblance to the first
Clinton budget in the United States which also included a new
spending package combined with a cost-cutting package. When
the Clinton budget got to Congress it scrapped the new spending
proposals and applied the savings to the deficit to the benefit of
the American economy.
Would the minister be willing to scrap or at least defer for a
year or two his new spending proposals of $1.7 billion so as to
get greater cost and deficit reduction in 1994-95?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, first of all a substantial portion of that
spending is the infrastructure program which has been signed by
all of the provinces. That program has been tremendously
welcomed by all of the provinces and the municipalities. Along
with our other measures it is going to lead to a substantial
amount of job creation.
I am sure the member opposite understands the absolute
importance of job creation at this stage of the fragile nature of
our economy. That is what we are committed to do. That is what
our budget is going to deliver. That is why those spending
proposals, which are all a bit modest, are going to lead to
substantial job creation.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a further supplementary question for the Minister of
Finance.
The budget is completely silent on strengthening the ability of
Parliament to control government overspending. Can the
minister tell the House whether he favours strengthening
Parliament's ability to control overspending through the
passage of sunset clauses, spending limits, freer votes on
estimates and other measures of that kind?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, if the member looks at the deficit
projections we have made he will see they are substantially
below the limits that would have been established by the current
spending control limits. In fact we have gone far beyond them. It
really demonstrates a government that has political will and
conviction can do a great deal more than some kind of an
artificial standard which in fact the previous government sought
to get around.
(1430)
In terms of the role of Parliament the member had an
opportunity to read what I said yesterday in the budget speech.
We are opening up the process completely. The finance
committee of the House is to play a very important role.
We said that we were going to lay before the finance
committee our projections for the next budget, the proposals
that we would consider within the next budget, our spending
plans, and that they would be subject to more detailed
investigation by a committee of the House than has ever been
done in the history of the Parliament of Canada.
1723
We were prepared in the House to have a unique debate on the
budget before we brought it down and sought from the members
of the House their comments. In terms of estimates, the
controlling of spending and the examination of the budget, we
are not only prepared to co-operate with members of the House
but we are most desirous of doing so.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Instead of
dealing with the real problem, the high level of government
spending, and eliminating costly duplication, the government
says it intends to cut $7.5 million from social programs, mainly
by reducing unemployment insurance. Like its predecessor, this
government is trying to get the deficit down at the expense of the
unemployed and senior citizens.
Why is the minister putting the bite on the unemployed,
although he criticized the previous government every time it
reduced benefits under the unemployment insurance program?
What has become of those high-sounding principles, Mr.
Speaker?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, if we look at what we did about
unemployment insurance, first, we raised the level for the
neediest in our society from 57 per cent to 60 per cent, which
applies, for instance, to mothers who are heads of single parent
families and families who have their elderly parents living with
them. I think it is clear that this measure is targeted to those who
need it most. We are freeing up money for training because we
really want people to be able to work and not go on
unemployment insurance. Furthermore, because of these
measures, we were able to reduce unemployment insurance
premiums from $3.07 to $3.00, which will create a lot of
employment in this country.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary. Oddly enough, the minister is reversing
measures that they themselves introduced. Since the minister is
so proud of getting at the wealthy in his budget, would he say
that a senior citizen with an annual income of $26,000 is
wealthy, to justify a clawback of $200 million from 800,000
senior citizens?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, when we looked at the problem we had
with the deficit and we conducted much needed consultations
across this country, senior citizens we met told us that everyone
should share the burden. So if we look at what we did in this
case, seniors must have an income of $49,000 or $50,000 to lose
the age credit. This age measure affects a mere 5 per cent of
senior Canadians. It does not affect 75 per cent of them, and the
remaining 20 per cent are hardly affected at all. Only 5 per cent
will be affected.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Finance.
In the pre-budget discussions the minister promised the
House that he would provide complete and realistic financial
information in the budget papers.
The notable absence in the budget papers is full financial data
for the third fiscal year 1996-97 where he was to attain his 3 per
cent GDP target. We do not have economic projections from the
department. We do not have a summary statement of
transactions and many tables were incomplete. Will he provide
the information from the Department of Finance and table it in
the House immediately?
(1435)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we made it very clear that this was a
two-stage budget and that we were providing financial
projections for each of those two years.
On the other hand we did provide full financial information
for the third year, tracing the effect of the expenditure cuts that
were taken in this year. That tracing demonstrates that we will
arrive at the $25 billion figure or the 3 per cent of GDP.
All the information the member requires is in there. The only
thing that is not in there is the projection of economic growth.
The reason we did not do that is that we did not want to fall into
the same mistake the previous government did, that is projecting
so far out and making promises on the basis of illusory growth
that we are not able to keep.
The fact is that we provided full information in terms of
tracing the cuts we have made in this budget, cuts which are to
bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP in three years.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That is an interesting
answer. I agree there are tracings of the third year in the budget,
but there are no economic projections or detailed third year data
for any of the tables.
Will the minister admit-and I know he will want to consider
carefully this answer-that if he provides realistic economic
projections, combined with the data in the budget, it will show
that from this budget the deficit will in fact not go below $30
billion in the third year and will remain close to 4 per cent of
GDP?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite would take a
look at the document underneath the charts, he would see there
is a very clear statement after tracing the decisions taken in this
particular budget through to the third year that a level of growth
1724
in the third year similar to that which is occurring in the second
year will give us the 3 per cent of GDP.
The answer to his question is quite the opposite. Absolutely,
with that level of growth we will attain the 3 per cent of GDP.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Wealthy families can use family trusts to avoid paying tax on
billions of dollars. It was a Liberal government, in 1972, that
created this unacceptable system. Just last year, the Liberals
voted against the continuation of these trusts proposed by the
Conservative government. But, as we discovered yesterday, the
wealthy family lobby has won.
How can the minister justify digging even deeper into the
pockets of the unemployed and the poorest of the poor when he
will not even touch the privileges granted to the wealthiest? Will
the minister admit that he caved in to the pressures of wealthy
families and party friends?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Not at all, Mr. Speaker. All we did was do what his
party's finance critic had suggested when he said that, given the
complexity of the issue, it should be referred to the finance
committee. That is on the record, by the way, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, either the minister misheard our suggestion or he does
not want to admit to having heard it. His logic is somewhat
twisted. He tells us that, when it comes to taxing the rich, we
have to look into the matter for one year. On the other hand,
taxing the poor can be done immediately. That he can do.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that, in 1987,
when the economy was flourishing, over 90,000 Canadian
businesses which had made in excess of $27 billion in profits did
not pay a cent in taxes, and the Liberals denounced that fact.
Why does the minister refuse to accept the principle of
minimum corporate income tax that the Liberals talked about
when they were in opposition?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is already a minimum tax on the
income of major companies. We are levying it on banks,
insurance companies, all major companies. It already exists. I
wish I could say it did not exist, so that I could then levy the tax,
but what can I say, it already exists.
(1440)
Second, in our budget, we have changed the private
corporations taxation system for the exact reasons cited by the
hon. member. I am sorry, but perhaps we could pursue this
discussion tomorrow, after the hon. member has had the chance
to read through the budget.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
also for the Minister of Finance. On page 58 of the budget plan
the minister indicated that the Spending Control Act would not
exist after 1995-96.
Would the minister consider extending that act just on the
basis it could be a benchmark or a target for the government that
would recognize the goodwill of the government in keeping the
deficit or the expenditure pattern below the level expected here?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the Spending Control Act put in place
by the previous government is a reasonably ineffective piece of
legislation in that it permitted borrowing from one year to the
other year, going back and going forward. It allowed
governments to engage in a fair amount of accounting
tomfoolery.
When we take a look at the deficit projections we have made
and at the spending projections we have made which by the third
year, to respond to the member, will have us spending lower than
this year, from our point of view it is very clear our spending
targets are substantially lower than anything that would be
contained in the Spending Control Act. That is why we are not
going to extend it.
As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, why do we need a
benchmark; we are in the process of hitting home runs.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, would the
minister consider bringing in a tougher Spending Control Act?
Would the minister commit the government to rethink current
expenditure projections and introduce this fall a minibudget
outlining expenditure reduction targets for the next three fiscal
years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated we are quite
prepared-in fact we plan to meet with the finance committee
with a full set of projections in terms of next year and all our
proposals-to spend as much time and go into as much detail as
members opposite want on each and every spending item and on
each and every item contained within those sets of projections.
1725
In terms of the question as to whether we are going to bring in
a minibudget this fall, the answer is no because we are going to
hit the targets set in the budget laid before the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. I will start by quoting
him: ``The unemployment insurance changes being proposed in
this budget, estimated at $5.5 billion, must be seen as interim
measures until the full social security reform, estimated at
around $7.5 billion, is in place''.
He went on to say: ``That reform will lead to further
significant reductions in unemployment insurance
expenditures''.
How can the minister reconcile the beginning of consultations
on social program reform with the extensive-$7.5 billion-and
definite measures announced yesterday?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I just want to give my friend a
rest.
I would be very happy to answer the hon. member because I
think the logic is very clear. We have announced in the budget a
clear stimulant for job creation. By reducing the premiums on
the unemployment insurance rate we will be putting in place the
creation and maintenance of over 40,000 jobs in the country.
That is what we were elected to do. It is the beginning of a real
changeover as to how we can go from a system which would
rather have people on UI than have people in jobs.
(1445)
I ask the hon. member to now commit himself, the party and
all Canadians to help redesign the programs of unemployment
insurance, the Canada assistance plan, employment, training
and education so that the start we made yesterday can be
continued throughout the next year and we can have a brand new
system of employment and social security so that we can get
hundreds of thousands of Canadians back to work.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. How can this government, which
raised unemployment insurance premiums in January, be the
same one now telling us that it will create jobs by maintaining
them at that level and reducing them next year by the same
amount?
My question is this: Is it not indecent to make the unemployed
pay for the government's inability to manage its own affairs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member of
what she said on January 19 in the House of Commons when she
was very upset about the fact that unemployment insurance
premiums were too high. She said at that time: ``Don't raise
them''. We have gone one better, we have brought them down.
I would say to the hon. member that not only did we bring
them down for the next two years, but if we continue on this path
of reform we will bring them down even further and create even
more jobs for Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In our short period in office Canadians have been happy to see
that this government lives up to its promises and commitments.
During the election we as a party promised repeatedly to
reinstate the interest free portion of Canada's cash advance
programs under the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
Can the minister inform the House when the government is
going to eliminate the interest charges on the first $50,000 of
advance payments?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question.
I fully acknowledge the good policy ideas on agriculture
which were contained in our red book during last fall's election
and which enjoy a great amount of support among farmers and
farm organizations in this country, including the proposals
having to do with cash advances referred to in the hon.
member's question.
I am indeed anxious to proceed with improvements in our
agricultural cash advance system subject to only one thing, and
that is I want to solicit and receive the advice and
recommendations of major farm organizations in this country. I
would like them to confirm to me their concurrence that the $50
million to $75 million that we might spend on cash advances in
any particular fiscal year is in their judgment the highest and
best possible use for those funds, bearing in mind that the
overall pot of money for agricultural programs is limited and we
must set our priorities.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
For the last 25 years Parliament's annual review of the
estimates has led to a total reduction in government expendi-
1726
tures of one-millionth of one per cent. Clearly the system has
not been allowed to work. It has been 20 years since the
government last accepted a recommendation to reduce
expenditures.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Finance if he is prepared to
accept recommendations from committees to reduce the
estimates, thereby allowing Parliament to do its job.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no government that is more
desirous of having Parliament participate in the righting of the
financial problems of this country.
The answer to the member is an unequivocal yes. If
parliamentary committees come up with suggestions that enable
us to improve the financial conditions or the financial
administration of this country, you can rest assured that the
government will respond very favourably to any such
recommendations.
(1450 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, according to
the budget tabled yesterday, the government plans to spend $163
billion this coming year.
Is the Minister of Finance now telling us that because he is
committed to deficit reduction he is prepared to accept
reductions as recommended by the committees to the main
estimates as they will soon be tabled?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I think it is perhaps the same question
and therefore I would give exactly the same answer. The answer
is yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, in the budget
tabled yesterday, the Minister of Finance decided to freeze
transfers to the provinces to save $500 million in 1995 and $1.5
billion in 1996. A quick calculation shows that the Quebec
government would thus lose about $600 million over two years.
Are we to understand that the Minister of Finance has decided
to follow his predecessors' strategies and shift part of his deficit
directly onto the provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is absolutely
not. First of all, we should say that when we signed our
equalization project with the provinces a month and a half ago,
we were very generous with the provinces and certainly with
Quebec.
Second, what we did this time around is that, instead of
cutting, we decided to freeze for two years. We will declare a
moratorium, a period during which the Minister of Human
Resources can work with the provinces to really save money on
both sides. We hope that, with the social security reform led by
the minister, this will not cost the provinces or the provincial
governments anything. I had discussions with the provincial
finance ministers, including the Quebec finance minister, and
this approach was quite popular.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, by directly
raising the number of provincially-supported welfare recipients
through unemployment insurance cuts while reducing transfers
to the provinces, by saving $2 billion on the backs of the
provinces, does the Minister of Finance not agree that he is
crippling the provincial governments, which will soon be forced
to make further cuts at the expense of the poorest Canadians?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as part of our new literacy
program we are going to recommend that members opposite
start reading the budget more carefully because they clearly
have not read the full details.
In the budget is an $800 million special fund to work with the
provinces to develop a program to get the chronically
unemployed back to work, $800 million to help the people most
in need to get them back to work and back in the workforce.
It is about time that members of the opposition began to
recognize it is time for a real change so we can get Canadians
back to work.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development.
On Monday in the House the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development stated that the Sawridge band of
northern Alberta is probably one of the richest bands in the
country. Yet, and I quote, ``that band is saying to its people that
it will not share''.
For the minister's information I spent three years in the early
1980s as an official with the Alberta government helping to
prepare native and Métis communities in northern Alberta for
local self-government. I observed firsthand both the business
acumen and the generosity of the Sawridge band under its chief
Senator Walter Twinn.
I ask the minister what evidence he can provide to back up this
outrageous insult to the Sawridge band.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the question is what evidence. The
evidence is before the Federal Court.
1727
Right now the Sawridge band under Senator Twinn and his
family has a case before the court which in essence says that the
Bill C-31-women should not be able to come back and share.
(1455 )
As a government in the early 1980s we brought legislation
into the Constitution which would do away with that. In essence
it says that a woman should not be discriminated against solely
because she is a woman. That is the basis of it.
We supported the development of Bill C-31 which was
brought in by the Conservative government, but we fathered that
bill. Today we are back and we are saying the issue is this, do
you support-
An hon. member: Fathered?
Mr. Irwin: We personed that bill. Today we are back again
saying there is poverty, there is richness, there is discrimination
and non-discrimination, but we stand on the side of those who
are discriminated against and those who are poor. That is the
story of what is happening over here.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Yesterday the minister completely side-stepped a question
about his alleged remark to Alberta natives over the weekend
that the Reform Party hates Indians and wants to be the defender
of the white man.
I ask the minister, did he or did he not make those remarks
attributed to him by the media, yes or no?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, when I was much younger I was
very influenced by, as a matter of fact, a Tory. I hate to say this,
but it is true. Former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker came to
Sault Ste. Marie and said that he loved this House and because it
was partisan it did not mean that we could not walk away
friends. He loved the partisanship. That is the way I approach
this House of Commons. I could never love it as much as he did.
I could never be as good as he was.
What I am saying is that I do not believe I made such a
statement. I have gone further. I have checked with others who
attended the same meeting and they do not remember such a
statement being made. It is unfortunate that such an impression
is being created. It is unfortunate that the Reform Party is being
dragged into the wrong side of this issue.
The Reform Party does not want to be on the side of this issue
where they in fact look like or appear to be supporting the rich
against the poor, women who should be back in the band on the
side of Mr. and Mrs. Walter Twinn.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Will the minister tell the House how he intends to proceed in
ensuring that the Downsview base in Toronto is owned by the
public in perpetuity, enjoyed as an open space, an urban forest
with recreational and educational facilities? This would provide
enjoyment for Canadians interested in nature studies and urban
dwellers seeking relaxation in a green environment.
Will these lands be designated to become our first national
urban forest?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this
is a very detailed question. I will have to respond to the hon.
member in detail at a later date.
However, I think this is a unique initiative on the part of the
government. The Prime Minister should be thanked for giving in
perpetuity a large urban recreational green space for the benefit
of Torontonians for years to come.
I believe what the government is saying here is that there is an
alternative to paving over lands and buildings, especially in high
density areas. This is a plan to have the ownership of those lands
retained by the Department of National Defence and developed
for the benefit of all Torontonians recreationally in conjunction
with my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
responsible for Parks Canada and my colleague the President of
the Treasury Board, so that we truly create a unique area for the
benefit of all people in the future in Toronto.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, there
is only one French-language military college left in Canada,
that is, Saint-Jean. Unfortunately, we were told yesterday that
the federal government has decided to axe this true symbol for
francophones. My question is for the Minister of Finance or the
Minister of National Defence.
How can he reconcile this decision with the official languages
policy so highly spoken of by the Prime Minister? Will he have
us believe that the French heritage of the Collège militaire royal
de Saint-Jean will not be lost if its activities are transferred to
the Royal Military College in Kingston?
(1500)
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, what
we have here, I think, is an example of the Bloc Quebecois'
double
1728
standard policy. Indeed, last week, here, in this House, the hon.
member stated and I quote: ``In spite of it all, the defence
infrastructure remains far too big for the size of the forces''.
[English]
Today he is standing in the House criticizing one of the
actions taken by the government which unfortunately was to
close our military college in Saint-Jean. There is also Royal
Roads in Victoria. There are two and they conveniently forget
that.
If we are going to reduce the number of armed forces
personnel then obviously we need a reduction in training for our
officers. That is why it is being consolidated at one college. It
made financial sense to do it in Kingston.
I take great umbrage at the suggestion that there cannot be a
bilingual college in Ontario. Hon. members in the Bloc
Quebecois should know the Official Languages Act was created
to make, and has succeeded, Canadians of the two languages
comfortable in all parts of Canada. Kingston will have a
bilingual military college.
The Speaker: The Chair fully realizes this being the first day
after the budget, and I might say my first budget in the Chair,
great latitude was given both in the formulation of the questions
and in the responses.
It being three o'clock I have a point of order which is being
raised by the hon. member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville):
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I inform you that I wish to
withdraw my request for the delay because I have been unable to
consult with counsel. It may take some time. I believe that
delaying the matter would not serve the purpose.
At a future date once I have consulted with counsel I will
request of you again for the point of privilege to be raised in this
House. For the time being I request that this matter be
withdrawn until further notice.
The Speaker: The House will be advised that I will not be
rendering my decision on the particular point of privilege raised
earlier by the member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
_____________________________________________
1728
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the
motion of Mr. Collenette.
The Speaker: It being three o'clock, pursuant to order made
Tuesday, February 22, 1994 the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion, No. 8 under
Government Business, that a Special Joint Committee be
appointed to consider Canada's defence policy.
Call in the members.
(Motion agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 6)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
1729
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wayne
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-202
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-49
PAIRED MEMBERS
nil/aucun
(1520)
[English]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
came in after the whip sat down and therefore I was not entitled
to vote, but I would like to give notice that I would have voted
with my party in any event.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Had the
bells not stopped prematurely I would have had the triple luxury
of voting for my government, voting with the Reform, and
having a free vote.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, for the same reason I would
have voted as well with the government.
Ms. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, had the bells not been cut short I too
would have voted with my party.
_____________________________________________
1729
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1525 )
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-14, an act to provide borrowing
authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1994.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, an
act to revise certain income tax law amendments in terms of the
revised Income Tax Act and Income Tax Application Rules.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to submit a petition signed by more than 4,000
residents of my riding of Québec-Est and several other areas of
the province of Quebec. Their names should be added to the
5,000 which are on petitions already submitted, and I will add
13,000 more tomorrow.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to urge the Minister of
Immigration to reconsider the decision of his department to
expel the Maraloï family from Vanier, and to allow this family to
stay in Canada where, after three years, it is very well
integrated. I wholeheartedly support this petition and I urge the
government to follow up on it.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of my constituents, I would like to submit a petition in accor-
1730
dance with Standing Order 36, urging the government to
reinstate in full the funding for social housing.
This petition bears more than 400 signatures and is submitted
to remind the government that its duty is to provide the neediest
with adequate housing, geared to their needs and their income.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to submit a petition from residents of the municipality
of Vianney.
The undersigned, residents of the municipality of Vianney, in
the county of Frontenac, wish to draw the attention of the House
of Commons on the following: We humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to urge the Canada Post Corporation to recognize the
municipality of Vianney, made up of the village of Vianney and
ranges 1 to 4, so that our addresses could be Vianney and not
Saint-Ferdinand or Bernierville, while keeping the same postal
code, G0N 1N0.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to
present a petition on behalf of over 1,000 constituents from the
Prince George-Peace River riding.
They call upon the House of Commons to repeal Bill C-17,
the most recent amendment to part III of the Criminal Code.
(1530)
These citizens believe that gun control legislation was
sufficient prior to the Bill C-17 amendments and that the bill has
placed undue restrictions on law abiding gun owners instead of
focusing on the punishment of those who criminally misuse
firearms. I am very pleased to support the petition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I would suggest that the sole notice of motion for the production
of papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall it stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1730
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from February 22 consideration of the
motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy
of the government.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Madam
Speaker, we seldom have an opportunity to do so but before
resuming our comments on the budget of the Minister of
Finance, I would like to start by congratulating the interpreters
who do an excellent job, both in French and in English. This is
not always easy, especially when members speak quickly and
use technical terms.
Yesterday's budget speech by the Minister of Finance is a
direct contradiction of any expectations we might have of a new
government in this House. This government promised us jobs
that would restore the dignity-as the present Prime Minister
said and kept repeating, especially during the election
campaign-of a million and a half unemployed Canadians and
nearly half a million unemployed workers in Quebec. That did
not happen in this budget.
This budget merely refers to the infrastructure program which
already been announced on many occasions and will create only
45,000 temporary jobs, or barely 3 per cent of the needs of the
unemployed. Three per cent, that is what the government and its
Minister of Finance are giving us after repeating for I do not
know how many months, while waving their little red book, that
what was needed was jobs, jobs, jobs. And all we get is 45,000
jobs, 3 per cent of what the Canadian labour market needs.
The government was also committed to putting its financial
house in order. However, the deficit for 1994-95 will remain
very high, at nearly $40 billion the highest deficit estimate ever
in federal history.
1731
And since yesterday, this government has felt very proud. The
minister says he is proud of this budget, and he brings us the
highest deficit in Canadian history. How can anyone be proud of
a budget as disastrous as this one?
The government failed to make much-needed cuts in
government spending. It failed miserably. It did not have the
guts to attack departmental operating expenditures and cut the
fat in the federal bureaucracy. The fat is still there. Every year
the Auditor General keeps repeating the fat should be trimmed
from program administration and public spending in general.
But where is the political will to do what the Auditor General
asked the government to do not so long ago? Nowhere.
(1535)
This government, and the Minister of Finance in particular,
does not have the courage either to end overlap and duplication
which at the very least cost Quebec alone between $2 and $3
billion. This is unacceptable for a first budget from a federal
government which promised to get its fiscal house in order. If
my memory serves me correctly, yesterday's budget reduces
federal government operating expenditures by only $400
million, out of a total operating budget of nearly $20 billion.
How can it be proud of this achievement?
Instead of cutting expenses, the Minister of Finance and his
government have foolishly chosen to increase the fiscal burden
of taxpayers, specifically the burden of the middle class, thereby
falling into the same ruts as the previous government.
Overall, the government will collect no less than $575 million
in 1994-1995 from a variety of new taxes, and more than $1.3
billion in 1995-1996. Not so long ago, every member of this
government, and in particular the current Prime Minister and the
Minister of Finance, was saying that when they came to power,
there would be no tax increases and no income tax increases.
They are doing exactly the opposite of what they have been
saying for months. They are also doing exactly the opposite,
Madam Speaker, of what they said they would do in their red
book, this rag that they have been waving in our faces every day.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: In so doing, Madam Speaker, they are also
directly contradicting themselves and their claims to want to
increase economic growth opportunities, because by increasing
the fiscal burden of taxpayers, the government is reducing their
purchasing power and jeopardizing the already anemic
economic recovery.
Finally, the Minister of Finance, the stand-up comic of
Canadian economic policy, is soaking middle-income earners
for more than half a billion in tax revenues over three years by
taxing-and this is just one example-life insurance premiums
paid by employers, by taxing middle-income earners.
Moreover, we now know the true meaning of the words
``modernization'' and ``rationalization'' when spoken by the
Liberal government and the apparatchik.
The Minister of Finance, the real boss when it comes to
running public affairs in Canada, is making, on the backs of the
very people who have to rely on assistance from the entire
community, a shameful $7.5 billion cut in social programs.
An hon. member: Unacceptable.
Mr. Loubier: And inadmissible. It is inadmissible that a
government which, not so long ago, was complaining to the
previous government that it was outrageous to attack the
universality of social programs and to start cutting back such
programs.
Members opposite have the gall to talk about-and I have
been hearing the same thing over and over for a very long
time-social justice and a fair contribution in looking for ways
to better control public finances. The government claims to be
concerned with poverty and unemployment and then turns
around and attacks the victims of these two social evils to solve
its own problems.
I cannot figure out what kind of social conscience these
people have, but as soon as they have the reins of government in
hand, they forget who they owe this to, and that is inadmissible.
These are not the only tax bites suffered by the taxpayers.
Reneging on its election promises, the government has cut
transfer payments to the provinces, payments which are used to
support education and social assistance programs. It is taking
away, stealing from the pockets of the provinces nearly $2
billion for fiscal years 1995-96 and 1996-97. That is what has
come to be known as shifting one's deficit onto the shoulders of
the provinces while sparing oneself the unpleasant task of
confronting the voters with additional tax increases.
Some hon. members: There. That is it.
An hon. member: The cat is out of the bag.
An hon. member: Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Mr. Loubier: Who is going to pay for all this? Who will pay?
Again, as always, the taxpayers. The same people pay for it all.
We do not have different groups of taxpayers for federal income
tax, provincial income tax or municipal property tax. The same
people pay at all three levels. Whether we increase taxes directly
at the federal level or pass the buck to the provinces, in the end,
the taxpayers are paying and the middle-income taxpayers in
particular have been overburdened with taxes since 1984. Yet,
they have just been struck another blow and are seeing their tax
burden become even heavier.
1732
(1540)
From this perspective, the Official Opposition can only
condemn the fiscal stance of the Minister of Finance, which
does not solve the huge problem of the federal deficit, quite the
contrary!
[English]
There is no action in the budget for job creation and no hope
for the 1.5 million unemployed in Canada. The infrastructure
program is supposed to create 45,000 jobs, only 3 per cent of the
needs of the Canadian labour market.
The finance minister expects the most spectacular deficit in
Canada's history, the highest ever calculated. We know by
tradition, especially the treaty of tradition, that the deficit will
go over $40 billion. It will probably go over the $45 billion mark
this year.
The Minister of Finance does not have to be proud of it.
There are no reductions in federal spending, but taxes will
increase for middle income earners. There is nothing in the
fiscal loopholes under family trusts but promises to study them
in the finance committee. There is nothing concerning the
recommendation of the Auditor General on the possibility of
saving more than $5 billion a year by removing inefficiencies in
public services. There is no provision for social housing in the
budget. Instead, the minister decided to cut social welfare by
$7.5 billion for the next three years including a cut of $2 billion
in provincial transfer payments.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, there is really no need to remind this House
that the inability of the government to control the deficit is
merely the continuation of the fiscal laxness of Liberal
governments in the seventies and the early eighties, and I did say
Liberal, not Conservative. As you know, the current Prime
Minister was even the Minister of Finance for a while during
those years. This laxness on the part of all those Liberal
governments is directly responsible for the huge increase in the
public debt, which is now over $507 billion.
From 1970 to 1985, during 15 years of almost uninterrupted
Liberal regime, the ratio between the budget and the GDP went
from a surplus of 0.3 per cent to a deficit of 8.5 per cent, a high
which remains unequalled. This disastrous state of our public
finances is the legacy of successive Liberal governments.
If the past is any indication of what the future holds, and I
believe it is, we are in for quite a ride with the budget tabled
yesterday by the Minister of Finance, especially because it
maintains social injustice, fiscal laxness and tax unfairness.
Rich people and major corporations will not pay any more taxes,
while the poor and the middle class will continue to pay for the
Liberal government's attitude. This is unacceptable!
The Minister of Finance has no reason to be proud to
announce a deficit of some $40 billion for the fiscal year
1994-95. Especially since he knowingly-and I do mean
knowingly-and wilfully increased the amount of the deficit for
the last fiscal year, so as to look more efficient with the cuts
announced in his budget of yesterday.
According to several economists, some of whom he consulted
during the pre-budget exercise which took place recently, the
actual national deficit for the current year is not $45 billion but
somewhere around $42 billion. In fact, the Conference Board,
which can certainly not be accused of promoting sovereignty,
wrote this in its note on the Canadian economy for the winter of
1994: A large part of the $3 billion cost overruns for 1993-94
results from changing the implementation date of certain
measures announced in policies and, as such, is due to one-time
discretionary accounting decisions. What that means is that,
based on the deficit forecasts from the Department of Finance
and on the budget tabled yesterday, the Minister of Finance
moved only $2 billion towards his expense-cutting objective.
The minister speaks of cutting the deficit by $7 or $8 billion, but
it is a fraud, a sham. I will not say that they are lying, because
that is unparliamentary, but I will say that they are not telling the
truth.
(1545)
Since the deficit for 1994-95 will be reduced by only $2
billion, where is the effort to restore fiscal sanity to
government? They must be joking, they are not credible! Do you
think, do we all think, that the Minister of Finance and this
government are waiting for a third warning from the
International Monetary Fund before doing something? Are they
also waiting for a further deterioration of Canada's fiscal
situation as a result of a lower credit rating from the major rating
agencies? Madam Speaker, this government and especially the
Minister of Finance are grossly irresponsible.
I believe that compared to other industrialized countries, the
economic situation in Canada called for aggressive budgetary
measures. If you allow me, Madam Speaker, I will give a few
examples of Canada's bad performance to show that we needed
more than budgetary cosmetics from the Minister of Finance.
The facts that I will now present are known, and I hope they
are known to the Minister of Finance. I hope he knows his
ABC's. First of all, the relative size of the Canadian deficit is
greater than in the other G-7 countries. In 1993, according to the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and
according to the definition given in the national accounts,
Canada's deficit-GDP ratio was 63 per cent higher than the G-7
average. It is spectacular in the bad sense of the word.
The second fact that the Minister of Finance should know, that
his government should know and that all ministers should know
but instead pretend not to know in order to hide the fact that our
present system is a national catastrophe, is that our debt is
growing much more rapidly than in that of the G-7 countries as
a whole. From 1985 to 1993, the debt-GDP ratio of OECD
countries grew by only 21 per cent, whereas Canada's debt-GDP
ratio grew by 82 per cent. That is 82 per cent versus 21 per cent.
1733
In less technical terms, this means that Canada's debt is growing
much more rapidly than the revenue that could be used to reduce
it some day. When a country gets to the point where it cannot
generate enough revenue to be able some day to pay the interest
and part of the principal on its debt, it means that things are bad,
really bad.
As if that was not enough, between 1983 and 1992, the
proportion of the federal debt held by non-residents more than
doubled. This is unacceptable. It makes us lose control over the
Canadian economy, so that future generations, our youth, are
crippled more than other taxpayers. They are the ones who will
have to pay off the debt, including our enormous foreign debt.
I can tell you that the present government, as did the previous
ones, is leaving quite a legacy to our youth, seing that the
unemployment rate is at 17.5 per cent in the under 25 age group.
Such are the figures for the last quarter of 1993. It is quite a
legacy, which does not allow them much hope.
Again, according to the OECD data, due to structural factors
the Canadian public sector's spending is increasing faster than
that of most countries of the OECD, and faster than in all G-7
countries. Simply put, it means the system is no longer working.
(1550)
This system is rotten to the core, as we say in Quebec. The
system does not work and things only get worse because of the
fact that tax revenues do not flow in the federal coffers as they
should, given the economic growth. Why? Because of
overtaxation, and to put it bluntly, because Quebecers and
Canadians are fed up. A new underground economy has emerged
and is becoming larger and larger.
I believe the Minister of Finance, with the budget he tabled
yesterday, is contributing to the growth of the underground
economy both in Quebec and in Canada. That is unforgivable.
He is contributing to the collapse of our country and of our
system which he pretends to be protecting.
According to the technical data from OECD, government
expenditures are now out of control and changes are needed, not
only some patching here and there, but major changes the
Minister of Finance does not have the guts to make. Tabling a
budget like the one the Minister of Finance put forward
yesterday is an act of cowardice.
Even if the members opposite laughed at us before their first
budget was tabled, we did not take any pleasure in constantly
urging the government to set up without any delay a special
parliamentary committee not only to consider, but to analyse
carefully and in detail all of the expenditure items of the
Canadian government, not only the budgetary expenditures but
also tax expenditures. We wanted to make major changes that
would help us to control somewhat the degradation of public
finances in Canada, since we cannot totally control the situation,
with the system on the brink of collapse.
Of course, we will not go over the history of the past three
months, but already, even without the committee, even without
the government's response to the establishment of a special
parliamentary committee, the Minister of Finance yesterday, if
he had the courage of his convictions which he showed when he
was in the Official Opposition, could have applied the Auditor
General's recommendations of the past three years and thus
taken a considerable amount, not just $40 million, from the
government's spending on operations. According to many tax
experts, he would get at least $5 billion a year in wasted public
spending and inefficiency and bureaucracy of all kinds, but the
Minister of Finance and his government did not have the
courage to take that medicine.
As for revenue, when we look at the forecasts-and these
forecasts are absolutely ridiculous; they have no credibility in
economic and financial circles-we must admit that the
Minister of Finance is making exactly the same mistakes as his
predecessor in this House. He still thinks he is in the period from
the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, when tax revenue rose in step
with economic growth, as measured by the gross domestic
product, that is growth in the nation's wealth.
The Minister of Finance wrongly predicts that any 1 per cent
increase in national wealth as measured by the gross domestic
product will result in an increase of over 1 per cent in tax
revenue. Since the mid-1980s, that is no longer the case, as a
Conference Board study done in January confirms. When the
nation's wealth as measured by the gross domestic product
grows 1 per cent, tax revenue grows by only 0.4 per cent. Why?
For a very simple reason, as I just said: the emergence and
growth of a large underground economy in Quebec and Canada,
because taxpayers are fed up with taxes and have had enough of
being overtaxed, while seeing that the present government, like
the previous one, does not have the courage to act to eliminate
waste and inefficiency.
(1555)
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that revenue forecasts
are unrealistic, even in comparison with the estimates done in
the last three years. For example, the February 1991 budget
overestimated revenues for the 1991-92 fiscal year by $6.5
billion. The following year, the budget again overestimated
revenues for the 1992-93 fiscal year not by $6.5 billion but by
$10.6 billion. Finally, according to the Department of Finance's
estimates, the April 1993 budget overestimated revenues by
nearly $10 billion. So how much credibility can one expect with
such revenue estimates in the finance minister's budget when,
on one hand, the assumptions underlying economic growth-re-
1734
lated tax revenues are false and, on the other hand, the team
responsible for the previous government's economic and
financial forecasts is still giving the finance minister the same
kind of estimates?
According to the analysts I heard yesterday, the finance
minister's estimates are totally unrealistic and he will not meet
his target to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in the next
few years. It is technically impossible.
Not only does the finance minister lack finesse and credibility
in this respect but, like his predecessors, he also shows a lack of
vision because he goes even beyond using data that is not
credible. He said in his speech yesterday that government
revenues would not only follow economic trends but grow faster
that the economy. Imagine, he goes even further than the
previous government by using totally unrealistic assumptions.
He says that tax revenues will increase faster than the collective
wealth.
I do not know how this bill of goods was sold to the finance
minister. I do not know whether he believed in it from the start
but I can assure you that it is impossible. It is impossible and if it
ever happened, the government's friends or the Chamber of
Commerce representatives would be deeply concerned about
this kind of forecast.
I do not know if the finance minister remembers how
indignant he acted and how he condemned the Conservative
government's surrealistic forecasts when he was on this side of
the House. Like his predecessor, is he wearing rose-coloured
glasses which encourage finance ministers to overestimate
government revenues or is he trying to live up to its reputation as
a stand-up comic, as the prestigious Toronto daily The Globe
and Mail recently called him.
With regard to revenues, the government and the Minister of
Finance are broadening the tax base as they promised to do, but
they do it again on the back of the middle-class which is already
overtaxed.
Madam Speaker, let me give you a few examples to flesh out
my argumentation. In the next three years, the Minister of
Finance will unduly burden middle-income workers with taxes,
first by taxing the employer contribution to various group
insurance plans. In the next three years, the Minister of Finance
will hit middle-income workers for at least another $520
million, that is half a billion dollars.
Furthermore, last week, while looking at ways to eliminate
abuses and loopholes for the rich, maybe the Minister of Finance
had a stroke of genius, who knows. However, in seeking to end
abuses and close loopholes, he has thrown the baby out with the
bath water by reducing the tax credit for meal and entertainment
expenses. While it may be true that some of the people who
benefit from this deduction fall into the high-income category,
it is also true that nearly 80 per cent of those claiming these
kinds of deductions fall into the middle- or lower-income
categories. This provision will primarily affect self-employed
workers. They are not the ones with hefty incomes who shelter
their money safely away in family trusts. They are the people
who work tirelessly to create their own jobs because they must
contend with a government that is incapable of supporting their
job creation efforts.
(1600)
Obviously, the minister, even though he continues to wave his
red book and to chant ``jobs, jobs, jobs'', did not give a
moment's thought to the impact, largely negative, that this
measure would have. He did not give any thought either to the
effects of this measure on jobs in the restaurant industry. He did
not think about this. He did not think about how this provision
would discourage self-employed individuals who, day after day,
work doggedly and struggle against the tax burden and the
federal bureaucracy to earn a living.
My feeling-and we have an illustrious representative of the
former administration-is that the Liberal government, and its
Minister of Finance, is simply following without question the
advice of federal apparatchiks. We see before us a pale
reflection of these mandarins. To spend $170,000 to deliver a
speech in New-York City, great! He travelled in a Challenger at
public expense, at the expense of the very same people on whom
the Minister of Finance is now imposing a tax hike, an
irresponsible tax increase, as irresponsible as a $170,000
expenditure to travel in a Challenger to go and deliver a speech.
By eliminating the age credit for seniors, the Minister of
Finance is widening the tax base at the expense of 800,000 older
people. That is social justice! That is how we reward seniors
who worked hard all their lives to start a family and build this
country that this government claims to stand for.
They will actually be squeezing out of seniors another half
billion or so over the next three years. How can the minister
think seriously that a senior with an annual income of $25,000 is
affluent and use that as an excuse to cut the age credit for
seniors? How can he justify such an action when, at the same
time, very profitable large corporations are allowed to pay not a
cent in taxes? That is inadmissible.
I gather from this that, like his Conservative
predecessors-because this is basically a Conservative budget
tabled by Liberals-the Minister of Finance is relentlessly
targeting the middle-class. Must the minister and his
government be reminded that, from 1971 to 1991, the actual tax
rate for families with an average annual income of about
$46,000 increased by
1735
32.3 per cent on average, as compared to only 26.7 per cent for
families with an average annual income over $110,000?
This blatant injustice, when it was uncovered not too long
ago, prompted the editorial page editor of Le Devoir, Mr.
Jean-Robert Sansfaçon, to point out to his readers the unfair
situation the middle-class was being put in. This is what he said:
``Since 1980, middle-class Canadians have had to hand all their
additional income over to their governments''. They had to give
all their extra income since 1980, everything they have earned
since 1980, to the government. It goes on to say: ``The tax
burden climbed faster than the combined inflation and growth
rates. Last January, the Liberals, newly arrived in the federal
capital, raised unemployment insurance premiums by 7 per cent,
a direct tax on job creation''.
(1605)
The finance minister behaved in an odious fashion, worse in
some respects than the Conservatives, whom he criticized for
taxing middle-income Canadians. It is a rather silly situation
when part of the budget denounces the payroll tax to finance
unemployment insurance, which was increased from $3 to $3.07
in January, and accuses it of slowing down job creation. But it is
the Liberals who, last January, increased employers' and
employees' premiums, thus taking some $800 million from
workers' and entrepreneurs' pockets and compromising their
promise of creating long-term jobs in Quebec and Canada.
I do not understand, Madam Speaker. I get the impression that
the Liberals are laughing at Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, as
no other government has dared to do in the political history of
Canada.
They recognize that this increase has slowed down job
creation, but they still agree to keep it at $3.07 throughout 1994
and say they will create jobs this way. They agree it is an
obstacle but they still want to keep it. How ridiculous, Madam
Speaker! Jobs, jobs, jobs, cut, cut, cut. How utterly ridiculous!
Does the Minister of Finance know that taxpayers from all
income groups pay proportionally seven times more taxes than
businesses in Canada? This is another aspect of the budget
which I would like to discuss.
The federal tax base is split like this: roughly 73 per cent of
the money is paid by individual taxpayers, compared to 27 per
cent by Quebec and Canadian businesses. Maybe it is time to
create a better balance, because contributions made to the
federal tax base by businesses are getting smaller year after
year.
I would like to mention some figures, again from the OECD,
to those who, like the minister, his colleagues, and the friends of
and contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada-and I will get
back to this later, Madam Speaker-believe that businesses, and
particularly very big money-making corporations, are doing
their share.
The Canadian corporate tax burden represents approximately
6.6 per cent of our gross domestic production, whereas for all
the G-7 members, that is for the seven most industrialized
countries, this proportion is 9.9 per cent. I think there is still
some margin for manoeuvre without jeopardizing the
competitiveness of major money-making corporations, and I
think we could tax those big companies which have made $27
billion in profits in 1987-88 and still did not pay any taxes. It
seems to me that we should look at this possibility.
Some say ``it is not industrialized countries we have to look at
but our main trading partner''. Indeed, Madam Speaker, if you
look at the corporate tax burden in the United States, you will
see that it represents 7.2 per cent of their GDP, compared to 6.6
per cent here in Canada.
(1610)
So considering this difference between Canada and the United
States, there is room for an entirely legitimate tax grab from
large corporations that take advantage of tax loopholes.
I think this is clear proof that we need a minimum corporate
tax. There is no minimum tax for large companies that are very
successful and manage to transfer their profits elsewhere and
patriate losses from other countries to deduct them in this
country. This proves that a minimum tax would be most
welcome. I think it is high time to get rid of the inequities and
unfairness in our tax system.
In the same vein, we have repeatedly asked the federal
Minister of Finance to put a stop to the outrageous family trust
scheme which was actually introduced by a Liberal government.
Mr. Plamondon: Again.
An hon. member: Friends of the party.
Mr. Plamondon: Them again.
Mr. Loubier: Exactly! The system allows wealthy families to
defer indefinitely, in other words, until the death of the last
heir-this could go on forever!-all taxes, not only on the
capital deposited in these trusts, but also on the interest
generated by the trusts which themselves are not subject to tax.
A number of analysts estimate, unlike what the Minister of
Finance claimed this afternoon, that the government could
obtain at least $350 million annually in new federal revenue
from this source-
Mr. Milliken: Who said that?
Mr. Loubier: -and even as much as one billion dollars in
new revenue, according to the estimates.
I hear some comments from our friends opposite. They did not
have the guts, and if they think these trusts are so funny, why did
1736
they not get rid of them right away, to see how that would affect
the government's tax revenue?
Why did they not do away with the family trust system right
away, instead of raising direct and indirect taxes on middle
incomes? They had no hesitation in doing that. They did not ask
the Finance Committee for a study. They did not ask for an
impact assessment of these tax increases.
Mr. Plamondon: Hold a forum? Certainly not.
Mr. Loubier: They increased taxes, so why did they not do
anything about family trusts?
The minister was saying this morning that, since the Finance
critic of the Official Opposition had requested that family trusts
be reviewed, he had referred the problem to the Committee on
Finance. The minister knows full well that what I asked him to
do is to abolish those trusts. It is true that I asked him to instruct
the Auditor General, with the consent of the House, to review all
the tax loopholes used by rich individuals and large companies,
as this could be part of the attributions of the Auditor General,
but I specifically asked that family trusts be abolished
immediately.
The minister knows full well that the government, for
political and politicking reasons, has already given the
Committee mandate to find alternatives to the GST and that,
consequently, the review of family trusts could not possibly be
undertaken before next year.
If that is not helping the friends of the party, I wonder what it
is. If this is not not telling the whole truth, what is it?
An hon. member: Protecting your buddies.
Mr. Loubier: Instead of going after middle- and low-income
earners, why did the government not go after those tax shelters
of the wealthy? Why did it not tackle the real problems, the
problems that Quebecers and Canadians are faced with, which
are unemployment, the curse of our time, and
underemployment? The government is always talking about
jobs, jobs, jobs, but it did not even give an absolute priority on
this desirable objective. We would have supported them on that,
but there is nothing in this budget, but another repetition of the
creation of 45,000 temporary jobs as a result of the urban
infrastructures program.
(1615)
Regarding job creation, we can only condemn the absence of
genuine job creation strategies in the budget. Need we remind
the Minister of Finance that the anemic economic recovery has
had virtually no effect in terms of creating new jobs. For
example, Quebec has recovered only 25 per cent of the jobs it
lost during the recession, while the recovery rate in the rest of
Canada is slightly higher at 40 per cent. As I said, the recovery is
anemic everywhere. In Quebec and in Canada, unemployed
workers and families struggling to make ends meet will suffer
even more as a result of the Finance Minister's budget.
Moreover, I would add that the Minister of Finance was not
being completely truthful yesterday in so far as Canadian
economic policy is concerned when he stated with a straight face
and without encountering any opposition that his government,
the Canadian government, was very proud of the fact that since
October 26, it had followed through on its election platform as
set out in the red book. In referring to monetary policy, he said
that his government had set monetary policy right so that it
would never again jeopardize economic recovery. The minister
is making fun of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers. What a joke!
Last December, I attended a press conference at which the
Minister of Finance was accompanied by the new Governor of
the Bank of Canada, Mr. Thiessen, who was the principal adviser
to and right-hand man of the former governor, John Crow. Mr.
Thiessen took this opportunity to unveil his monetary policy.
And what was his monetary policy? They have exactly the same
monetary policy as the previous administration, with their
relentless and dogmatic fight against inflation without paying
any attention to this goal they claim to have, namely job
creation. Stop kidding the people and stop telling them that,
once recovery really gets under way-if and when that happens
and if this government does not jeopardize it-the Governor of
the Bank of Canada will take, as he did during the first quarter of
1990, drastic measures to bring inflationary pressures under
control.
I did not understand the point the minister was making
yesterday when he said that this policy was changed to reflect a
quantitative target to achieve balance between long-term price
stability and short-term job creation requirements.
An hon. member: The red book has turned blue.
Mr. Loubier: Exactly! I was also surprised to notice that
there was nothing in this budget to help the business community,
and the small and medium-sized businesses of Quebec and
Canada in particular, face the challenge of globalization. Again,
the red book is disregarded, because the red book said this was a
priority, that support would be provided to the small and
medium-sized businesses to help them recover from the
recession and face market globalization. What do we find in this
budget? As expected, the Minister of Finance was true to
himself and the budget is pure posturing. It reflects a taste for
consultation, consultation and more consultation, without ever
making decisions or taking positive steps.
The Minister of Finance is suffering from acute consultation
fever. When he said: ``Working in partnership with the private
sector and the financial community, the government will seek
the best possible way to provide long-term funding to
businesses''. The government is not making any decision, only a
commitment with regard to consultation. I am still new to some
things, but I get the distinct impression that I have been hearing
about nothing but consultation, whether in the form of constitu-
1737
tional talks or citizens' forums like the Spicer Commission on
the future of Canada, the future of something which is
technically flawed.
(1620)
That is something! I quote another passage from the budget
speech, where it says: ``The government will undertake a
thorough review of federal spending on science and technology,
in order to implement a more effective policy to assist research
and development''.
Once again, for about five years, Canada has had a chronic R
and D deficit; it is lagging in technological development, the
key to meeting the challenges of globalization, and we are told
that a thorough review will be done. What credibility can the
Minister of Finance and this government have in presenting
such things to us?
Still quoting the Minister of Finance: ``The Minister of
Industry, with funds available in 1994-95, will establish a
program of technological partnerships to strengthen
co-operation between public and private institutions, so that the
results of research lead to new products and employment''. For
ten years we have been discussing these things, for ten years we
have had no decision and the minister is continuing this
governmental inaction.
I think that the time has come to act, to stop discussing, to stop
sitting around a table and trying to develop new partnerships.
The partners are there. They are waiting for this government to
get out of its laissez-faire attitude, to make concrete decisions
and not to compromise the economic recovery by its actions, by
increasing taxes or in various ways. That is what people want.
Presenting things like that is not serious.
Another very important point in the budget, which I found
particularly disturbing, yesterday we discovered-I hear
laughter from the other side, that is not serious, but so is the
budget-who the real Minister of Human Resources
Development was and we saw that it was the Minister of
Finance, the member for LaSalle-Émard, who was dictating to
the Minister of Human Resources Development that he would
have to do without $7.5 billion for social programs over the next
three years.
I was shaken because there always is some trust between
individuals and I believed the members opposite were serious in
some regards. When the Liberals were the Official Opposition,
they said that social programs should not be tampered with and
they warned the Conservatives against meddling with the
Canada Assistance Plan and the federal contribution to
post-secondary education.
The current finance minister and the Prime Minister rent their
clothes every time the Conservatives talked about changing
social programs one iota. In this regard, yesterday the minister
made everyone proud and happy by presenting us with a $7.5
billion budget reduction plan over the next three years.
What kind of social conscience do these people have? Is this
how they intend to restore tax equity and fairness in Quebec and
in Canada? Is this what they had in mind? Is attacking the
underemployed and the poor what they were thinking of? It is
outrageous.
The Leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Leader of the Official
Opposition was right. When the members opposite talk about
reforming social programs or about reforming the health-care
system, like the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer did, they are
talking about cuts. They are not talking about improving the
systems but about cuts, pure and simple. We had undeniable
proof of that yesterday.
It is the same thing with social housing. As you know, Madam
Speaker, maybe better than I do, 1.2 million Canadians, mostly
women and young children, are waiting for social housing. Why
is that? It is because these people spend between 30 and 50 per
cent of their income on rent. This means that they have roughly
half of their income left for clothes, hydro, telephone,
medication and unforeseen expenses.
(1625)
Not that long ago, some poor people from Quebec and every
part of the country took part in a demonstration here in Ottawa.
This is actually a good opportunity to make a point. Five MPs
were there to meet these people, and all five were Bloc
Quebecois members. Neither the Liberal Party nor the NDP
were represented.
These people asked us to be their spokespersons and tell this
House as well as other Quebecers and Canadians about their
plight and their daily hardships. The hon. members for
Laurentides and Ahuntsic, a couple of others colleagues and
myself have had the opportunity to work with these people and
help them make a budget. Once they had paid for rent, food,
clothes-and I mean the bare essentials-and medication for
their children, some of these people, particularly single-parent
families, had a deficit in their monthly budget. In the case of one
person whom I had the privilege of helping with her budget, that
deficit was $27.
Again, the Liberals were in opposition last year and they were
outraged when the Conservatives announced a $600 million cut
in social housing programs. But what are they doing now with
this budget? That is the problem: they do nothing to give some
hope to the poorest families.
I remind the Minister of Finance and member for
LaSalle-Émard that the level of poverty in Montreal has
constantly been on the rise in the last ten years. In that city-and
the minister should know that since he is one of its prominent
representa-
1738
tives-close to 64,000 families, that is one family out of five,
spend more than half of their income on rent. This makes
Montreal the Canadian city with the largest number of renting
households spending more than 50 per cent of their income on
accommodation.
There is more, and I want the minister of Finance and member
for LaSalle-Émard to listen to this. He is not here? Surely he
must be listening to me. Excuse me, Madam Speaker, I
apologize. I made a blunder. I wish the Minister of Finance
would realize that in Montreal, as I said earlier, 64,000
families-one household out of three-pay more than 50 per
cent of their income on housing, and 20,000 people are
homeless. Are the Minister of Finance and his government
going to close their eyes much longer to this human suffering?
It is time to stop the pretty speeches and take action. The
government should stop saying it will do anything at all to help
people, when it agrees to maintain a decision to cut $600 million
from the budget for social housing.
I have a few comments on national defence, since the Minister
of Finance and the Minister of National Defence referred to the
Bloc's position on the subject this afternoon. The measures in
this budget are not what the Bloc Quebecois asked for. I will
explain, perhaps for the last time in this House, what the Bloc's
position was on the budget for National Defence. The Bloc
Quebecois was in favour of a 25 per cent cut in the defence
budget. It favoured using part of the resulting savings on
reconversion of defence industries to civilian use, something
which is entirely absent from the budget plan of the government
and its Minister of Finance. It is not the same perspective. They
can use as much political rhetoric as they like, as the Minister of
National Defence did this afternoon, but they cannot deny that
this was requested by the Bloc Quebecois.
(1630)
Second, we asked, and we defended the principle during the
election campaign, that a fair share of Canada's national defence
budget be spent in Quebec. We asked that fairness be restored to
the system before proceeding with drastic cuts just about
anywhere.
Today, and the Official Opposition defence critic will correct
me if I am wrong, about 19 per cent of Canada's national defence
budget, let us say between 17 and 19 per cent, is attributed to
Quebec, although Quebec represents 25 per cent of the
population, and now they say: of course you will agree with the
closing of the only francophone military college in North
America. I think that is outrageous. We will never agree with
that decision, and I can assure you that in the case of the Collège
militaire royal in Saint-Jean, the Bloc Quebecois and its
supporters, and I think we have quite a few in Quebec today, will
stand and fight, and I mean this quite seriously, against the
closing of the only francophone military college in North
America.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: Time is flying, but I was told I had unlimited
time. I find that fantastic, although I would not want to
exaggerate.
I would like to say a few words on international assistance.
We did not talk much about that, and I think we should start. The
budget contains a 2 per cent cut in international assistance. That
is a $400 million reduction in the budget over the next three
years.
The Bloc Quebecois, short of increasing the budget for this
item, would have asked the government to keep the level of
Canadian development assistance, because we are still quite far
from the objective of 0.7 per cent of our GNP for international
aid programs. As I could see during my years of employment
with a farmers union, poverty in Latin America as well as Africa
is not only still there, but it is increasing. The government could
have corrected some of the administrative problems in
international development that the Auditor General pointed out
in his last report. We should, at least, have had the decency of
maintaining the level of our international assistance, our
commitment to helping the neediest on this planet. It seems to
me that it is not much to ask of a country like Canada.
We should not forget that every time we teach people in the
developing world to do something, they become wealthier and
therefore, they acquire goods and services in Canada. Such a cut
is therefore postponing possible growth in the demand for
Canadian goods and services. From an economic point of view,
the only one that the government ever takes into consideration,
this fact should have been remembered. We deplore the $400
million reduction in international development assistance over
the next three years, while children in Africa and Latin America
continue to die every day.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that this budget is
devoid of the measures that the government should have taken.
Moreover, its spending reduction targets are ridiculous because
as I said at the outset, in nominal terms, expenses will not be
reduced over the next three years. In fact, spending levels will
remain relatively stable.
This budget does not contain any serious measures which
would allow the government to get its finances in order. As
many observers have pointed out since yesterday, it is not a
visionary budget. It does not contain any job creation incentives
to give some hope back to the 1.5 million Canadians and
460,000 Quebecers who are unemployed. The middle class is
being taxed to death, while the poor and the disadvantaged will
feel the effects of cuts to social programs.
1739
(1635)
If I may digress for a moment, last week I was rereading René
Lévesque's memoirs and a thought came to mind. As you know,
in Quebec, Mr. Lévesque left us with a legacy whereby political
parties can only accept contributions from individuals. I notice
that the federal Liberal Party and the Reform Party have no such
system in place. This seems to be the case just about everywhere
in Canada. I wonder if the fact that the Liberals do not have such
a system explains in part why they did not move in this budget to
close the various tax loopholes which benefit large corporations
or to do away with family trusts which benefit the wealthiest
members of society.
I went and got a copy of the report the Federal Liberal Agency
of Canada submitted last year to the Chief Electoral Officer of
Canada, only to discover that among the contributors whose
names I will not mention -the report is public domain, anybody
can refer to it- there are Canadian manufacturing industries
which have contributed up to $68,000 to the election fund of the
Liberal Party of Canada. Probably the same ones dodging tax in
tax havens like Barbados and the likes. I also noticed that the
Liberal Party of Canada received from banks and trusts
companies amounts ranging from $12,000 and $45,000. They
are the ones responsible for administering family trusts.
I wondered if that did not explain in part why the government
across the way, the Liberals, did not eliminate this kind of
preferential tax treatment for contributing friend of the Liberal
Party of Canada. When you accept contributions like that, you
have to expect to have your hands tied once you are in office.
You must also expect that you will not really be free to make the
right, timeliest and fairest decision. I wondered if that was not
the reason. If indeed it is, I am outraged. If not, prove it to me.
Let our friends opposite put in place a system based on René
Lévesque's great legacy, a system similar to the one we, the Bloc
Quebecois, have adopted.
Our hands are not tied. We can speak on behalf of
middle-income taxpayers and those suffering the most hardship
in our society, without the diktat of large corporations and the
wealthiest families of Quebec and Canada being imposed upon
us.
To conclude, I would ask the Minister of Finance to take off
the work boots the Prime Minister has offered him, because I
believe he is not worthy of wearing them.
I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substanding the following:
``this House denounce the reversal of the Government's position on the
budget which:
(a) tackles the problem of the deficit on the back of a middle class already bled white
by the tax increases of recent years:
(b) gives up trying to control spiralling deficit-related expenditures by basing
its fiscal analysis on unrealistic revenue projections;
(c) refuses to eliminate tax loopholes for the wealthy and for big business;
(d) abandons the poor to their fate by its readiness to slash funding for social
programs; and
(e) continues the destructive policies of preceding governments by
demonstrating a flagrant lack of long-term vision and by giving no hope to the
jobless.''
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1640)
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, thank you
very much for the opportunity of addressing this assembly. I
would first of all congratulate the minister for presenting us
with his first budget. I encourage him today to do better. That
will be my objective.
In summary, what I would like to say to the assembly are
basically three things: First, look at some of the positive aspects
of this budget; second, examine taxation, the deficit budget
proposal; and, third, make some proposals on behalf of the
Reform Party to this assembly and as well to the Liberal
government in terms of the priorities and some of the things it
can do to bring the spending of this country in line and deal in a
more responsible way with our fiscal budget.
As well at this moment I would like to offer my appreciation
to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. The hon.
member has been very eloquent today and has laid out a number
of proposals. I do not agree with a number of the specifics that
were presented to us here today, but I hope when I am able to
speak en français that I am as fluent and as facile as the hon.
member was here this afternoon.
This budget gives us as Canadians, and certainly members of
this House, the first opportunity to judge the government on its
promises. Canadians over the last few years have faced a
number of difficult things: inflation, large tax increases, GST,
and certainly recession.
Canadians are now asking the government a most important
question. Will this new budget offer them hope, tax relief, and
an end to the chronic deficits that this country has had in the last
10 years, deficits that have smothered us and created difficulties
for employment opportunity, business growth and economic
growth? They are asking that question and this government must
answer it.
To be fair, and this is the Reform way, I want to talk about
some of the positive aspects of this budget. First, I want to
acknowledge what the government has done in terms of social
programs, that it has started to target them toward those most in
need. In these sad economic times we as Reformers believe that
is a basic principle to be adhered to. In light of that principle, we
1740
recognize the changes to the UIC and the elimination of the age
credit as well for wealthy seniors.
Second, I recognize that this budget does bring about
restraint, not excessive restraint or the type of restraint we
would like to see, but modest restraint. If that is a slight flavour
of what we are going to see in the future, then it is a good
beginning. If it is not, then it is a very unacceptable start.
(1645)
What we do not see along with that restraint is a real spending
plan and that concerns us. We see this restraint in the military
reductions. I know the hon. minister will address this today and
will go into detail on some of those reductions which we hope
will have fairness across Canada.
Our first review and examination of the reductions taking
place regionally seem to be fair and spread across Canada as
such. We appreciate the way that was handled. We were
concerned prior to the budget that the cuts might be all in one
province or in one region which certainly would have been very
unfair.
The other area of modest restraint we see is in terms of
decreases to business and regional subsidies. The red book had
indicated $225 million to $250 million. They are around $150
million less but there is restraint.
The third item is the modest reduction in some of the
government operations. We certainly salute that and encourage
the government to pursue that direction.
When I examined the budget, and listened in the lock-up and
listened to the speech by the hon. Minister of Finance, my
attention was drawn to some of the comments on pages 1, 3 and
15 of the budget speech. I would like to read those comments
into the record to set the tone for what I have to say later.
This is what the Minister of Finance said they want as a
government:
A Canada where our public finances are in order, not ruin.
The days of government simply nibbling at the edges are over.
We need a new architecture, for government and for the economy.
On page 3 we can read this quote:
The era of tax and spend government is gone.
People told us we should freeze spending. We agree.
On page 15 is the support for what I have already quoted:
``One of the reasons for the growth of the underground economy
is that Canadians believe that taxes are too high. We agree''. He
said that; I say that. He went on to say:
We want Canadians to rejoin the legitimate economy, not leave it. Our
objective is to get growth up and get the deficit down so that in the years ahead,
taxes can be reduced. Ultimately, the pay-off for getting the deficit down will be
lower taxes.
Those are excellent statements. When I heard them I felt as if I
were flying like an eagle over the prairies of Alberta. I felt
dominion over all. But all of a sudden, as I read other parts of the
budget I felt as if I had crashed like a duck on the ice of Lost
Lake in southern Alberta. What a change and what a let down.
When we examined the budget speech we came to the
conclusion that the government was not coming to grips with
some of the problems. We have renamed it the child of the red
book and the budget speech is the red ink book. I am going to
talk about that for a few moments today.
First, let us look at why the red ink. Canadians told all
members of this House of Commons that they were overtaxed.
However, if we look at the red ink book-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. Perhaps the
hon. member is not aware that it is not permitted to raise the red
ink book in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, certainly I will
try to-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. I requested
that the hon. member not raise the red book from his place in the
House of Commons.
(1650 )
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker. I will adhere to that directive from the Chair.
The red ink budget presented to us told Canadians that there
was going to be an increase in taxation levels and that the
government would be relying on increased revenues for a large
portion of its deficit reduction program. That was unacceptable.
Canadians have said in the last few months that we must stop
overspending and get rid of the deficit now. What did that red
ink book say to Canadians? What did the government say
yesterday and today?
The budget will contain a $40 billion deficit and there will be
minor expenditure reductions to reduce the deficit, a little today
but mostly later. Mostly later, not today. If we examine the
budget further we find that most of those reductions were taken
by other expenditures, new expenditures of government, so we
did not get ahead. We are $40 billion in debt.
Canadians wanted a long term plan, a plan for at least the 35th
Parliament. Did we get it out of the red book? We got a two phase
plan but it did not meet the request of Canadians. It is totally
silent on a formal plan to deal with Canada's economy.
Another thing Canadians wanted was jobs, jobs and jobs and
this was on the marquee of the Liberal Party during the election.
When we read through all of these documents presented to us,
the budget speech, the budget plan, the supporting documents,
and the hearings we attended, there was no mention of numbers
in the goals for jobs, either through job creation or job
opportunities created by small and medium sized businesses
across
1741
Canada. The numbers there are minor to the real need of
Canadians. There is nothing comprehensive in a plan that speaks
to Canadians as to what this government intends to accomplish.
To sum up why I call it the red ink book plan it is because this
government has not heard what Canadians have said on taxes, on
the deficit, on the plan. Most important the government has not
dealt with the question of jobs.
The minister claims he is going to do that. He presented the
budget in a pair of what I call farm work boots. I want to say this
very clearly. If someone came to my farm one morning, I hope
ready to work, and at noon those boots were still clean and
nothing really had been done, I would not keep that person
around very long.
It is time for the Minister of Finance to get to work and get
those boots dirty. It is time that the minister, the Prime Minister
and other ministers of this government take on the tough job
they face in terms of the economy. They have to show the will to
deal with the difficult circumstances, the overexpenditure, the
high taxation which is suppressing businesses across Canada,
the high taxation which is creating doubt and a lack of
confidence for investment that would create job opportunities
for all Canadians.
I want to make some remarks about taxes and the attitude of
the Liberal government on taxes which is highlighted in the
budget. The minister was so proud when he presented it. He said:
``For every $5 of cuts we only are raising taxes $1 over the next
three years on a three year average''.
Looking at some of the projections on the cuts, they are
questionable in terms of whether the government will achieve
them with the present policies which are in place. That is
number one. However the other indicator that may be more
realistic is the 1994-95 budget. The cuts for 1994 according to
the budget speech are going to be $2.1 billion. The new program
funding that will be introduced will be $1.7 billion. The net cuts
that are realistic are $.6 billion.
(1655)
Looking at that picture in terms of taxes versus cuts, for every
$1.25 of tax increase there is $1 in cuts. This is the opposite of
what the government is claiming in terms of a $5 cut for $1
increase in taxes.
The second thing that concerns me with regard to taxes is that
this budget depends on revenue growth; that is, more tax
revenue to deal with its responsibility. The expenditure levels
are somewhat consistent at $122 billion. However to deal with
the deficit and bring it down the government is placing all of its
hope on revenue growth. That is all right on one hand but on the
other we have to look at the expenditure side.
Looking back in history to the 10 years of government under
the Tories and what they did in their plan, they never came to
grips with expenditures. They never dealt with priorities and
kept on spending. One of the major criticisms that can be made
of the present budget is it seems that the tax and spend days of
the Tories are not too far away from us. That is unfortunate
because we expected this government to do better.
Why should we have some concerns about high taxes and
increased taxes? First of all, as was said by the finance critic of
the Bloc Quebecois, internationally Canada has the highest tax
burden of the G-7 nations, except Germany. When we look at
that we wonder about our underground economy. We need to
lower the taxes.
The second thing I would like to bring to the attention of
government is the provinces. They are concerned about this
continuous increase in taxes.
Not too long ago Quebec Premier Johnson said in an article
that we have to do everything possible to avoid higher taxes. In
that same article his finance minister made some similar
comments that we have to work on the expenditure side, cut on
the expenditure side, not increase tax revenues. They called on
Ottawa to keep the tax levels down.
In Alberta a very comprehensive program of deficit reduction
is going on. The premier intends to balance the budget within at
least three or four years and get rid of the deficit. That is a very
noble plan.
However if Ottawa continues to increase taxes and impose
costs on the provinces it makes their job very difficult. We have
to deal responsibly with this budget at the federal level.
Another item which concerns me is noted in a document dated
February 1994 from the Dominion Bond Rating Service. It
comments on the weaknesses of the Canadian government
sector. In trying to rate the credit for the federal government,
two things are said: ``Revenue, the new problem: (a) The
economy has a lower tax generation capacity than in the past; (b)
Tax rates are high relative to the U.S. in almost every category''.
I do not think that speaks well for the Canadian scene. We should
recognize that and deal with the problem before us.
I would like to comment on the deficit reduction plan of the
government. As I said earlier the proposed cuts are offset by
spending in 18 new program areas. In this budget there are 15
program reviews. My experience has been that every time a
committee or group is put together to conduct a review most of
the recommendations are expensive and call for increased
expenditures. I certainly hope that does not happen here.
However, that is usually the pattern.
1742
(1700)
The third point I would like to make is that total budgetary
spending is to increase over the next two years. It is not going to
decrease. There is a slight increase built into it. Under the
current conditions that is a rather scandalous circumstance.
One item I raised in the House today was with regard to the
Spending Control Act. I feel that is an act that had at least the
possibility to set some benchmarks so that when people wanted
to examine whether the government is in a positive trend or in a
progressive way dealing with the deficit, reducing expenditures,
through that act, there would be a benchmark. The government
has felt that it can do it on its own. It takes the ceiling off and is
going to be responsible. It has not proved that yet and the
question is still out. Why not leave it there? Is the government
afraid of targets?
Another point I would like to make is that this two-stage
budget is not meeting the needs. Stage one is doing almost
nothing. Stage two is measures after lengthy and costly studies.
That is not good enough. Where and when can we meet these
lofty goals?
The 3 per cent plan of the government to deal with the deficit
and to reach $25 billion in the year 1995-96 is not good enough
either. Canadians need something more concrete. There are a
number of reasons why that 3 per cent target is not adequate. The
Maastricht treaty that was set up required that as an entrance
requirement. Any country that was involved in that economic
union was asked to deal with its deficit and balance its budget.
That was part of it.
The priorities of the Reform Party are to reduce and eliminate
debt. During the period we are here we want to be the conscience
of this Parliament and call for very responsible spending.
I would like to move an amendment very quickly:
That the amendment be amended by removing all the words after
``government'' and by adding thereafter the following words:
and regret that the necessary measures were not taken to balance the budget by the
end of the 35th Parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The Chair will examine
the proposed subamendment and will advise the member
shortly.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam Speaker, I
ask the indulgence of the House.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Lethbridge a question.
I can appreciate some of his comments. He has been pretty fair
in his analysis. However, in the context of the subamendment
that he has just laid down, the Reform Party obviously wants
drastic cuts to our budget.
I would like to ask him how those cuts, if implemented, would
play out in the defence budget. Is he advocating in the House
today the closure of further defence facilities, more than were
done yesterday, such as CFB Winnipeg, CFB Moose Jaw, CFB
Edmonton, CFB Calgary, the training facilities at Wainwright
and Suffield, CFB Cold Lake? Could the member answer that
question?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
question from the minister of defence. The Reform Party did call
for reductions in the area of defence spending based on budget
figures of some eight to twelve months ago. Things have
changed somewhat in the interim. However, our figure at that
time was in the area I believe of 25 per cent, around $2 billion
dollars.
In terms of where we are at the present time, we support the
reductions that have been made. We are concerned, however,
that we sort of put the cart before the horse.
(1705)
Like other members, and I am sure the minister would like to
have done this, we would like to have been able to examine
Canada's defence position in total. Then, once we have agreed as
to what our objectives are, we could work back and have the
budget facility there to support those objectives.
I am sure the minister would like to have done that and we
would as well. Under the circumstances, we cannot always have
the conditions that are most favourable.
Concerning the reductions that have been made, we support
those. I think now we should get on quickly and do the review so
that we can then look at whether further reductions can be made.
In terms of specifics, as a caucus or a group we have not done
an analysis of each one of the bases. I cannot answer the hon.
minister's question regarding that. If I had the information, I
would lay it on the table. Our caucus has not taken a
step-by-step procedure through which we have made a
judgment on each one of those bases.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Madam
Speaker, I have a short question for the hon. member. I listened
carefully to his comments and I find them rather philosophical,
dealing in generalities. However, now that we know exactly
what is in the budget, we know that the government is attacking
two things, to name only these: unemployment insurance and
seniors. We know that the tax credit for people 65 or older will
decrease progressively for net incomes over $25,921 and will
disappear for incomes over $49,100. We also know that the
government will cut transfers for unemployment insurance,
education and welfare by some $466 million and by $1.5 billion
1996. I would like the hon. member to tell the House whether the
Reform Party agrees with this kind of measure. Can seniors and
people receiving UI benefits count on the Reform Party, which is
1743
an opposition party, to raise its voice loud and clear against this
injustice? Can these people count on the Reform Party for
support?
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, in terms of
unemployment insurance, the Reform Party believes that we
should build that program into an insurance program so that it
pays its way. Those who pay in get the benefits thereof. That is
number one.
Second, in terms of some of the changes that have been made
to deal with the $6.6 billion deficit that is currently in the
unemployment insurance program, those changes would be
supported. We think those who are most in need will still be able
to receive benefits.
With regard to transfers to provinces in the area of education
and health care, that was one of the areas I was to cover in my
remarks here today, but I was not able to set out that list of
priorities.
The Reform Party has said very clearly that the transfers
given to the provinces for health care and education in the
budget of 1992-93 would be maintained and that we would not
reduce the transfers any lower than that fiscal year. If the current
proposal of the government indicates that the transfer payments
would be reduced below that, we would have cause for concern.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The Chair has looked at
the subamendment. We have examined it and we find it to be
receivable. I will read the English translation. It is moved by Mr.
Speaker:
That the amendment be amended by removing all the words after ``budget''
and by adding thereafter the following words:
and regret that the necessary measures were not taken to balance the budget by the
end of the 35th Parliament.
(1710 )
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to have an opportunity to address the House in
this first day of the debate on the impact of budget 1994,
especially as it concerns the Department of National Defence.
In the past few weeks it seems that every time we turn around
there are defence issues facing us. We have had a debate on our
peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia. We have had a
debate on the cruise missile test. We had a debate last week on
the establishment of the special joint committee on defence
review and there have been many questions in the House relating
to some of those issues.
It is quite obvious that there is a great interest in defence
policy in the country.
[Translation]
Why such great interest? Because the government intends to
keep its election promises to Canadians, particularly the
promise to review defence policy and to substantially reduce the
national defence budget.
The time has come to fulfil our promises and that is what we
are doing. That is why we have taken important steps to
implement the economic program outlined in the red book. If I
may, I would like to start with our economic program.
The government's number-one priority is to put the Canadian
economy back on track. The government has expressed its
intention to tackle the enormous federal deficit. At the same
time, we must stimulate employment and economic growth. Our
policy, based on these two requirements, translates into a
program in two parts: one, job creation and economic recovery
and two, decisive action to bring the debt and deficit under
control.
[English]
In fiscal policy, our goals are quite ambitious but realistic.
This distinguishes ourselves from the members of the Reform
Party. As we have just heard from the member for Lethbridge,
his party would like to put in place a deficit reduction regime
that in our view would bring on an absolute economic
depression in the country if the measures were put in place to
reduce the deficit during the life of this Parliament as he and his
colleagues are advocating.
Instead, our government intends to get the federal deficit
down to something more realistic, 3 per cent of GDP during our
first mandate. This will require very strict discipline in
government spending in all departments. To stimulate growth in
employment, which is the other side of this debate, and it seems
the Reform Party forgets, we will be moving on several fronts.
For example, together with the provinces we have launched
the public works program to renew elements of our national
infrastructure. In the last election campaign the Liberal Party
promised to cut defence spending by $1.6 billion over four years
beginning April 1 of this year. Much of the money that we cut
yesterday in the budget will have gone to the national
infrastructure program.
While on the one hand we have been taking it from the defence
end of expenditures, we have been recycling it and reinvesting
it, if you will, in the public works infrastructure program which
is now taking effect and which will have an impact on all parts of
the country.
The hon. member for Lethbridge raises a very interesting
point. I dealt with it last week, but I want to reiterate it. Why did
we make the cuts that we made yesterday in the budget without
first waiting for the results of the defence review? It is a genuine
question and I will repeat the answer I gave last week.
1744
In a perfect world we analyse our priorities, our policies and
then we look at the money we have to implement those policies
and put them into effect. We do not live in a perfect world. The
fact is, and the hon. member for Lethbridge will agree, the debt
situation is becoming quite alarming. The deficit has gone up
astronomically. It is much larger than we believed when we first
entered office. The Minister of Finance has made that point. As a
result we had to act very quickly.
We acknowledged this before the last election campaign. I
will not raise the red book. I do not have to raise it. It has become
a benchmark for political discourse in the country and will go
down as one of the great political documents of all time.
(1715)
In the red book we outlined a regime to reduce defence
spending, as I mentioned, $1.6 billion beginning April 1. We
could not wait for a defence review. The mere setting up of the
committee has taken time. Parliament only returned in January.
We had to debate the motion. We were surprised that there was a
recorded division forced by members of the Official Opposition
on the motion. We voted on it this afternoon. They objected to
the participation of the Senate although, to give them their due,
they are willing to participate after they express their views
against the Senate.
We are just getting the committee under way. The Minister of
Finance had to act. He had to demonstrate to Canadians and to
the financial markets that we knew where we were going in
terms of the financial regime of the country. As a result these
cuts had to go into effect now.
To preserve the integrity of the process upon which we voted
this afternoon, I say to the hon. member for Lethbridge, we have
cut the defence budget in such a way as not to impair what is
known as the sharp end of defence. In other words we have taken
the tough decisions. Members will see in the days ahead when
the full impact of the budget becomes known that we have taken
tough decisions in base closures and other installations. There
are 21 closures and reductions altogether that other
governments had failed to make.
For 10 years the Conservatives sat here in the biggest
post-war economic boom and did not deal with the tough
questions of surplus military infrastructures. They just sat on
them and saddled Parliament with the consequences of their
action, which is a deficit last year of $45 billion. They should be
ashamed of themselves.
They paid the price in the last election. That is why there are
only two of them sitting in the House. I am not so sure about the
member for Saint John. She voted with us more than with the
Conservative Party. Maybe she knows something the rest of the
Canadian public figured out in the last election. The
Conservative Party has been penalized, perhaps irrevocably, for
what it has done to the country. The Conservatives should have
taken these tough decisions and not left them to us.
It has been heart-wrenching and gut-wrenching for us on this
side because most of the closures are in ridings represented by
Liberal members of Parliament. It is pretty tough for them to go
back home to Cornwallis, to Shelburne, to Gander or to
Chatham. Even the Minister of Industry in Ottawa and those of
us from Toronto find it tough. I see some colleagues here from
Don Valley North, High Park and Rosedale; they are all here. We
have to go back and say why 1,000 jobs are being left in Toronto.
We are not dumping this on the opposition. We are taking the
responsibilities the Tories should have taken in the last 10 years.
If we had not done that we would have had to have taken it out
of the sharp end. We would have had planes that would not fly.
We would have had lovely new frigates admired by many
nations in the world, certainly by our American friends, that
would not sail. They would not get off the Grand Banks because
we would not be able to afford to operate them. We would have
peacekeeping troops in Bosnia; luckily they do not have to shoot
much, but we might very well have had to send them over there
without bullets. I am being somewhat facetious, but we could
not have continued our international commitments if we had
taken out of the sharp end of the military budget at this time. We
dealt with the tough questions.
When the review is complete we will have a military of which
we can be proud. Even with these reductions the number of
combat personnel in the army is going to go up about 2,500. We
are reducing the number of uniformed personnel from the
current 76,000 to 66,700 people. Yet we are adding, because of
the economies we are making, 2,500 combat troops for future
engagement. That is good management and I think Canadians
will appreciate it.
Some people could ask: ``Why are you cutting bases and
throwing people out of work? Why don't you just cut capital
expenditures?'' I hate to say it but the former government of
which I was a part in the early 1970s took that approach. We kept
the capital expenditures low and the results were not very well
appreciated by our NATO allies or certainly by our military. It is
like anything else. If we let our cars run down and do not get
them fixed, if we do not have our houses painted, at some point
our past catches up and we have to repaint, buy new cars or
spend a lot of money as I did this week on my car to get it
running after this tough winter.
(1720)
We did not cut the capital projects. Would hon. members want
us to cut the armed personnel carriers now being constructed in
London, Ontario, by General Motors? Our order has given the
critical mass to produce and sell 800 armoured personnel cars to
the U.S. marines and bring needed foreign exchange and jobs
not only to southwestern Ontario but to other parts of the
1745
country that contribute components. Do they want us to cancel
that? I think not.
I said to some colleagues on the east coast: ``Did you want us
to cancel the coastal patrol vessel with nearly a billion dollar
contract that will keep the Halifax shipyards working for the
next few years?'' This is work that can be built upon by other
contractors and value added for the future. No.
[Translation]
I ask members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Official
Opposition: Do they want that contract for the construction of a
new supply depot in Montreal to be carried out?
[English]
We are going to build a state of the art supply centre in
Montreal, in consitutencies represented by the Bloc Quebecois.
We are not playing politics. We are thinking about the best
interest of people in Quebec in this case.
Are they saying they want the 25 per cent reductions they
bandied about to be taken out in this way, by cancelling a $270
million computer contract, much of which will be spent in the
province of Quebec? Did they not want us to consolidate the
supply mechanism in Edmonton and in Montreal? I would like
answers to those questions.
While I am on the subject of the Official Opposition, I read a
quote from question period that I liked so much I will read it
again. Before doing so I will read a quote from yesterday's
debate.
[Translation]
I quote the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who
just ended his speech and who said this in his reply to the budget
speech yesterday in the House: ``I have the feeling that this
government is living on another planet, that it is not aware of
Canada's excessive debt, which puts it in first place about
everywhere in terms of poor performance''.
[English]
They say we are living on another planet and ask whether we
know about the debt. Then they sit here this afternoon and
criticize us for the cuts that were made to the province of
Quebec.
My friend over there, the critic, is a nice guy but this is what
he said in the House of Commons on February 17.
[Translation]
I quote the hon. member for Charlesbourg: ``In spite of it all,
the defence infrastructure remains far too big for the size of the
forces. With a strength of merely 78,000 members, the Canadian
Armed Forces are maintaining from coast to coast facilities that
could accommodate 140,000. Obviously, more cuts are needed,
especially since several of our bases''-several of our bases,
Madam Speaker-``are obsolete and increasingly expensive to
maintain''.
But not in Quebec. Oh no! Not in Quebec! Make cuts, but not
in Quebec! That is what the Bloc Quebecois member is saying.
I continue to quote, Madam Speaker: ``Also, their strategic
value is not the same as it was at the time they were built. So, for
all these reasons, the government will have to make a choice and
impose a new round of closures''. I just quoted the Official
Opposition critic for National Defence and Foreign Affairs.
I will now quote the hon. member for Verchères, who said this
during the same debate, on February 17: ``During the last
election, and many times since October 25, the Bloc Quebecois
has reaffirmed its support for cuts in the budget of the
Department of National Defence. Despite the international
context I have just described, we believe that we could cut that
budget by some 25 per cent without dramatically impairing the
operations of that important department''. That is what he said
in the House, Madam Speaker.
(1725)
If we cut the defence budget, as we did yesterday, there will be
a decrease in the number of soldiers and officers in the army and
other Canadian forces. That is why we do not need three military
colleges. I want the hon. members over there to be honest and to
acknowledge that we are not closing only the Collège militaire
de Saint-Jean, in Quebec, but also the Royal Roads, in British
Columbia. We are trying to be fair to the people in Quebec and to
all Canadians.
An hon. member: How sad!
Mr. Collenette: We made cuts, yes, and it is sad. Ten years
ago, when I was a member of this House, I went to the Collège
militaire de Saint-Jean to study French, and I am sad at the idea
of closing this college. As I said during Question Period, there
will be a military college in Kingston, a national military
college for all Canadians, where everything will be done in both
official languages. I see the hon. member does not believe me.
[English]
These people over there say one thing every night on the news
in Quebec; I watch the news from Quebec. They say one thing
there and another thing here. They do not believe in the same
concept of Canada we believe in.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg stood in the House and
said, as have some of his colleagues, that there cannot be a
bilingual college because it is not in Quebec. What about the
million francophones who live outside Quebec? What about
them? I do not get upset very often, but I get upset when I hear
that kind of rhetoric. That kind of rhetoric tries to tear the
country apart and we are not going to have any part of it.
1746
Before I lose my composure let me say I am really concerned
about some of the two-faced comments I have heard on the
closing of the military college in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, on a question of privilege.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup on a question of privilege.
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence
is putting words in our mouths that we never said. He is
misinterpreting our statements. I am not talking about speeches
which were read, but about speeches where he accuses us of
being windbags. We are in a situation-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but this is not
a question of privilege. The hon. minister.
[English]
Mr. Collenette: Madam Speaker, there are worse things in
life than being accused of speaking in rhetorical tones.
I want to be serious for a moment. What we did yesterday is,
as I have said, gut-wrenching. There will be 16,500 people in
the armed forces phased out over the next four years. It is going
to be tragic for many lives. In a sense we have walked through
the lives of many Canadians. We have to show our
understanding as members of the sacrifice these people will be
making.
We are putting in place a very generous regime to deal with
both our uniform personnel and our civilians. In terms of
uniformed personnel there are measures such as pensions,
annuities and training. For the civilians there will be in a sense a
buyout package, training moneys over and above what would
normally be coming to them through the workforce adjustment
act. We have been discussing these matters with our unions and
we hope to have their co-operation. I know it is a bitter pill to
swallow.
When hon. members examine the true picture of how we are
trying to deal with the people who are losing their jobs, they will
see we have been as fair as possible, given the financial situation
of the government.
With respect to the communities affected we have a real
problem in some areas. I mentioned some of my colleagues from
South West Nova, Miramichi, South Shore and Gander. These
are poor areas. There is very little industry there. Afacilities
were surplus. They were facilities that we could not justify
keeping open. We will work with those members. We will work
with the provincial premiers, especially the three Atlantic
premiers concerned, Premier Wells, Premier Savage and
Premier McKenna, to try to find uses for those facilities.
(1730)
As I said last week, there is no magic solution. We just do not
have a pot of money to throw at the situation as the previous
government did with Summerside. We are going to have a very
lean, effective military when this is all done. It will be one of
which all Canadians will be proud. In the meantime we have to
try to soften the blow as a result of some of these base closures.
I think when all is said and done, after the next few months
when the defence review works itself out, Canadians will
appreciate the role of defence spending. They will appreciate
what good measure for money we get with those taxpayers'
dollars, both in our international presence and domestic
presence. I hope there will be a well thought out, well crafted
policy, one that we can afford.
Again, by doing what we have done in the last few days we
have preserved the ability of the sharp end, the ability of the
forces to have a very professional, lean, efficient presence, well
equipped to be able to go overseas and march with the best
because we will have a proud group of people worthy of our
Canadian military tradition.
In closing, I would only repeat the words of the Chief of
Defence Staff yesterday who appreciated very much the efforts
that have been made, especially by those who will be losing their
jobs, and the understanding of the forces across the country.
[Translation]
The forces use both official languages.
[English]
Those forces, which are part of the fabric of Canada and help to
unify Canada, will get through this difficult time and move on to
better things in the future.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Madam
Speaker, I would like to say first of all that before I am a member
of the Reform Party, I am a Canadian and a very proud Canadian.
I hope that the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance
works. This is our country and we need to work together. All of
us here are Canadians and all want to be Canadians at the end of
the day.
In this budget debate the Minister of National Defence has
been explaining the difficult time he has had with the cuts that he
has had to be responsible for. I think on balance they have been
very fair. The minister is absolutely correct that these are
decisions that should have been made 10 years ago. Had they
been made 10 years ago, it would not have been nearly as rough
today. I personally commend the minister for the good job that I
think he has done in that regard.
I do have a question and it has to do with the budget forecast.
The budget is relying almost exclusively on an increase in
revenues. It is relying on an increase in revenues of about 15 per
1747
cent over two years after coming from a year, last year, with a
decrease of 5.6 per cent.
In my experience every time I have had trouble in my
business, and most bankers would say most businesses have a
problem, it is with forecasting revenues too high and
expenditures too low. The expenditures are forecasted to rise
just .3 per cent over this same period.
My question for the minister is this. In a period of deflation,
which we are in right now-at least in my opinion we are in a
time of deflation-do we have any backups to prevent a further
erosion of our fiscal position if the revenues that are projected
and we hope arrive do not arrive?
(1735 )
Mr. Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I am qualified
to answer this question. I have been somewhat preoccupied with
a department that is looking at a dearth of revenues. The
Minister of Finance should really deal with it.
He is pretty confident that the projections he has given will be
realistic and will be met and that the doomsday scenario that is
implied in the question of my hon. friend will not materialize.
I would also like to say that his comments were most
appreciated and in the best tradition of parliamentary debate in
understanding the difficulties that we have had with the defence
cuts.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the minister's comments, and it seems
to me there are some figures or details he either failed to
mention or mentioned so quickly that I did not hear what he said.
Before putting my question, I just wish he would agree that as
far as bases, colleges and infrastructures are concerned, Quebec
has always been short-changed. There is no comparison
between what happens in Quebec and what happens in the rest of
Canada.
For many years, the policy at National Defence was to
compensate for this imbalance with substantial military
contracts that made up for the lack of military infrastructure in
Quebec.
The international situation has changed, however. So much so
that the Bloc Quebecois does not protest when a contract is
cancelled, as in the case of the helicopters, because although this
contract would have gone mostly to Montreal, we preferred to
see the money invested elsewhere. We never objected to the
cancellation as such.
There is also the new procedure for distributing these
contracts across Canada. In any case, will the minister confirm
today that Quebec has only 13.8 per cent of all the
infrastructures? That Quebec has only 15.8 per cent of defence
spending in Canada although it has 25 per cent of the
population?
I did not hear him mention those figures. But when he closes
bases or colleges in Quebec or cuts as little as 5 cents or a dollar,
he adds to the imbalance in this respect.
The figures I mentioned, 13.8 per cent of military
infrastructures and 15.8 per cent of defence spending, while we
have 25 per cent of the population, if the minister can confirm
those figures, would he agree that he is adding to the imbalance
by making budget cuts that affect Quebec?
Mr. Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether I have
enough time to give the hon. member a detailed reply, but he is
right that the percentage of the defence budget spent in the
province of Quebec is lower, simply because there was a lot of
construction in the maritime provinces during World War II.
I must point out, however, that as a result of major cuts in the
rest of the country, after this budget the percentage of military
spending in Quebec will have increased. It was 19 per cent
yesterday, and today it is 22 per cent, even after closing the
Collège militaire royal and part of the base in Saint-Jean.
I appreciate his reasoning that Quebec is not getting its fair
share, but that is a result of its geographic location in this
country. If we had cut 25 per cent we would have had close the
Valcartier base in Quebec City or perhaps Bagotville. If we had
followed the recommendations of the Bloc Quebecois with
budget cuts of 25 per cent, there would have been more drastic
cuts.
(1740)
This is not a good time for Quebec, but it is not a good time
either for other provinces, especially in the Atlantic region. I
think Quebecers will appreciate they have done their share to
fight the deficit by taking these cuts in the defence budget.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Madam
Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. I enjoyed
listening to his statement.
I noticed he used terms like maintaining the sharp end of
defence and that our military in the future would be a lean,
effective military. I notice when I review the red ink book that
there seems to be no mention, although they took the hard
decision following the election to eliminate the contract for the
EH-101 helicopters, of the cancellation costs for those
contracts. There seems to be no mention in the red ink book
about replacement costs. It is obvious if we are going to have a
lean but effective military that those helicopters will have to be
replaced. Yet there seems to be no costs for those things built
into this budget statement.
1748
I would ask the hon. minister where those cost estimates are
and why they are not part of the projected costs for the
government.
Mr. Collenette: Madam Speaker, the cancellation costs for
the EH-101 will be borne in the overall budget rather than in the
general budget revenues, thankfully not out of the defence
revenues. The President of the Treasury Board perhaps could
address that when he tables the estimates and it will be very
clear.
The other question was what would we do to replace the
EH-101s. If the defence review believes that we should have
this capability, and I assume it will because we need a search and
rescue craft, the old Sea Kings will be okay until the end of the
century, but they will have to be replaced.
Obviously their replacement will have to come out of this
drastically reduced budget. Not only did we cut $7 billion
yesterday, added to the $14 billion the Conservatives had cut,
but out of that we have to fund ongoing operations and also new
equipment purchases such as a potential replacement, probably
off the shelf, for the Sea King helicopters some years in the
future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Madam Speaker, in the
House of Commons of Canada, February 22, 1994 will remain
the day of broken promises and betrayed hopes. A number of
Quebecers and many Canadians believed the leader of the
Liberal Party when he promised jobs, jobs, jobs. Unfortunately
for them, it was only a flashing slogan, but nevertheless an
election campaign slogan.
Broken promises, betrayed hopes by a party that promised to
break with the Conservative policies and management, but
whose budget is blatantly in line with and even reinforces the
financial, fiscal, economic and social policies of the previous
government.
The budget speech shows clearly that this government does
not have the slightest political will to address unemployment. It
does not have any employment policy except a few devices such
as the infrastructure program, which will only mean about
15,000 non permanent jobs for all of Quebec for two years. Even
worse, instead of addressing unemployment, this government is
attacking the unemployed and the most vulnerable people in our
society. Indeed, the Minister of Finance immediately
announced, without any embarrassment, that he intends to cut
social programs in order to collect more than $ 7.5 billion by
1996-97.
Let us look at these points one by one. On employment, not
only does the government not have an employment policy, but it
has seriously harmed employment.
(1745)
It must be pointed out that this government, as early as
January, increased unemployment insurance premium rates,
thus adding a further $800 million to the tax burden of
businesses and workers. The finance minister went so far as to
recognize, as the Bloc Quebecois had maintained on several
occasions, that this kind of payroll tax harms employment and
businesses which are more labour-intensive than
technology-driven.
Make no mistake about it, even though the minister
recognized that such a tax was bad for employment and
businesses, he has not reduced it yet. He has maintained it for
the remainder of 1994. It is only next year, when it will have
taken $800 million from workers and businesses, that he will
bring it back to its 1993 level. He will do so, not only when it
will have produced $800 million, but also after benefits owed to
workers will have been reduced.
Therefore, such a measure compounds non-productive
decisions which, far from helping the employment situation,
make it worse. It is no wonder that the finance minister is
forecasting in his budget that unemployment rates will only
drop from 11.2 per cent in 1993, to 10.8 per cent in 1995. We
know that Ms. Campbell paid dearly for similar comments she
made early in her campaign. They are taboo during an election
campaign.
Let us talk about unemployment insurance. According to the
minister's projections, it is more than $5 billion he will save in
that area. Let us see what he is planning and who will suffer. By
increasing the minimum number of weeks a person must work to
qualify for UI, especially the first time around, one will have to
work 40 weeks to be entitled to 20 weeks of UI; by reducing the
duration of benefits, the finance minister is pushing many
people, especially in areas already economically depressed and
those who are already experiencing major difficulties, on
welfare. In so doing, the minister is passing the buck to the
provinces, since there will be no jobs. He is making the poor
poorer.
This flies in the face of the official discourse to the effect that
we must bridge the ever widening gap between social classes
and their income discrepancies. On the other hand, the finance
minister proudly announces special measures in favour of the
least fortunate members of our society. He is proud to say for
instance that individuals with a weekly income of $390 who
support dependants would receive 60 per cent of the average
business income. But these individuals are already in a position
such that they will not be receiving more than $234 a week in
benefits. He stated that the benefit rate would increase to 60 per
cent, but see under what conditions. This is important. It has not
been emphasized yet.
Let us not forget that, in Quebec and probably other provinces
as well, social assistance services have reported cases of single
mothers who have suffered humiliation as their private lives
were brought under scrutiny because they did not qualify for
1749
this or that benefit because they had dependant children. So,
when the minister introduces this notion of dependant children
to justify bringing the UI benefit rate down from 57 to 55 per
cent for all recipients, a rate which is getting close to the US rate
by the way, when the minister uses that excuse to say: ``How
generous. We do have the well-being of the less fortunate at
heart'', he is actually taking us back to the dark old days when
women had to prove they were worthy in their private lives of
being recognized as independent, single mothers who needed
adequate support.
(1750)
That is why I want to denounce as a fraud a budget speech
which is supposed to be liberal and progressive, but is in fact
bringing us back to the days before the 1970s reform. This
measure will open the door to all sorts of inquiries, nit-picking,
whistle-blowing and create a system within a system, again, to
save about $10 a week.
Chances are that this measure will not cost much, considering
how long it takes for a decision to be made and for the first UI
cheque to be issued. It is not true that we are creating this
wonderful world. On the other hand, we are setting ourselves a
dangerous course with this widespread consultation on social
programs. The government is leaning toward the concept of
family income, a concept which, in so far as social assistance is
concerned, plunged us into a kind of inquisition situation which
I denounced earlier.
The axe will also fall on seasonal workers, on those who have
trouble finding steady work either because they are young, lack
basic experience or work in areas where despite their
qualifications, they cannot find work. These are the people who
benefit from the 10/42 or 10/39 system.
Instead of attacking the regions' structural problems, the
government is shifting the burden of responsibility onto
individuals and restricting their access to unemployment
insurance and to the benefits to which they are entitled. What is
the Minister of Finance doing to resolve the problems of those
who are in need? Nothing. He has failed to propose any
solutions. Worse still, he has scrapped several tax incentives and
regional subsidies, leaving people in the regions without any
hope at all.
The extent of the cuts to unemployment insurance and the
introduction of the concept of family income prove to anyone
who may have doubted it that with its attempt at the so-called
modernization and restructuring of social security programs, the
government is merely turning the clock back to the 1970s. At the
same time, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human
Resources Development are resurrecting the old ghosts of the
1970s. They are proposing to take a trip down memory lane and
to reinstate the outdated, archaic concept of basing benefit
levels on family status.
The government is announcing a reduction of more than $5.5
billion in the unemployment insurance budget over the next two
years. And that is not all. That is only one aspect of the
upcoming social program reform.
We cannot help but be concerned about another aspect,
namely social assistance reform, and the more than likely
decision on the part of the government not to renew the Canada
Assistance Plan. It is indeed cause for concern because it is
specific. As for total savings, the Minister of Finance says that
the reform will have to result in savings of more than $7.5
billion by the end of 1996-1997. That is his objective and the
consultation currently being planned may in fact never take
place.
Three clear, inescapable conclusions can be drawn from the
budget figures. First, the only major cuts announced in this
budget-and I am not saying that the cuts to the military are not
major, but when compared to cuts to social spending, they are
minor-for the next two years affect social programs, more
specifically, the unemployed and those who are often the most
vulnerable.
Second, the Minister of Human Resources Development
cannot continue making fun of Quebecers and Canadians any
longer by pretending to consult them about their priorities and
concerns, since his own priorities and concerns, namely moving
ahead with cuts, are reflected in the budget.
(1755)
I urge him, Madam Speaker, to immediately table his reform
project and to get rid of these experts at $500 a day plus
expenses.
Third, if the finance minister is able to assess so accurately
the effects of reform, it must be because his government's
project has been ready for a long time since it is that of the
Conservatives.
We can understand by looking around us and guessing the rest
why, early in the election campaign, Ms. Campbell shied away
from the possible consequences of reform. She was not as
cynical as this government, elected to create jobs, which is
sticking to its predecessor's policy of cutbacks.
It must be said that, in their time, the Conservatives followed
the Liberals' policy. They implemented all major
recommendations of the Macdonald Commission created by
former Prime Minister Trudeau, except for one, income security
reform. That is where we are now. We are looking at the
Macdonald Commission's plan, with variations we may admire,
of course, but most of that plan is there, with details we can
guess at.
Declarations by the minister followed on the heels of
declarations by the deputy ministers. We must not forget that the
deputy ministers who briefed the minister are the same ones who
1750
briefed the former government, who briefed Mr. Benoît
Bouchard before the OECD conference held on the 8th and 9th
of December in Paris, where Mr. Bouchard gave a speech that
the Minister of Human Resources Development could not
disown, that could even be his.
Does this mean that there is no other way to play politics than
the way of Liberals and Conservatives? For the Liberals, the
answer is no. Until Canadian federal parties escape from the
clutches of the big corporations that finance them and whose
interests prevail government after government, Canadians will
have a choice between six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Why did the finance minister refuse to go after the real
sources of revenue and to ensure that large corporations pay
taxes by blocking the royal road to tax shelters. Fortunately, and
I was happy to see that our finance critic came to the same
conclusion, Quebecers exercised that prerogative thanks to the
late René Lévesque. No one is saying that governments are not
in a difficult situation, but nothing less than equity between
individual and corporate citizens is acceptable.
Without this fairness, citizens are tricked, manoeuvred and
manipulated by a clique who are not affected by the many and
growing insecurities of ordinary people. They do not even have
an idea of what it is like to be afraid of losing a meagre
unemployment insurance or welfare cheque. They do not know
the humiliation and anguish caused by the raised eyebrows of all
the welfare and unemployment insurance officials in the land.
They could not live for a single day on what a woman has to raise
two children on for a whole month. And now this woman will
have to prove that she really is the head of the family and that her
personal income is such that she is entitled for a few weeks to 60
per cent of not much, scarcely more than the minimum wage.
The minister tells us about the responsible management of
social programs.
It is both scandalous and revealing that the Minister of
Finance forgot to attack costly duplication, a big source of
potential savings, in his speech. It shows that this government
lacks the will to deal with this important issue, especially with
the Government of Quebec. It also shows this government's
desire to centralize and its eagerness to meddle in fields of
provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something, and I thought about it
twice. I had heard that the Minister of Human Resources
Development was a progressive man whom I could help, in the
strange way that the Official Opposition usually does. Now I
know that is not at all the case; despite his generous words, he
agreed to make the only significant cuts which the Liberal
government is making at the expense of the most vulnerable
people and their children. The Minister of Finance told us today,
``We are advancing social security reform by taking specific
measures affecting unemployment insurance and federal
transfers to the provinces for social security''.
We say to the Minister of Finance that he has not advanced
social security reform. He has shamefully attacked the most
disadvantaged. He has refused to attack the main cause of all
these problems, employment. He has also refused to attack
seriously the most important sources of potential savings:
family trusts, defence and duplication. Because we in the Bloc
reject this vision, which is the same as the one previous
governments had, we want the people of Quebec to have a real
plan for the future, which can only come about if Quebec goes it
alone as a sovereign state, even though that will not be easy.
(1800)
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
was paying attention to the hon. member's speech and I was
quite puzzled by some of the statements she made, particularly
in relation to unemployment insurance premiums.
I recall a few weeks back when the hon. member was
complaining that perhaps the premiums were too high at $3.07.
Now we have reduced them so that we can give the type of relief
to small business to go ahead and create over 40,000 jobs.
I will tell the hon. member that one thing she will learn very
quickly in this House is that inconsistencies are quite dangerous,
when we promote certain ideas in the House of Commons,
particularly as a member of the opposition.
I am also quite puzzled by the fact that the hon. member would
say that this government is not addressing the concerns of young
people. Perhaps the hon. member should be reminded of the
establishment of the Canadian youth corps and the national
apprenticeship training program that this government
introduced. It was part of our red book initiatives.
It is fundamental for the hon. member to understand that the
issues we have raised in the budget are quite consistent with the
commitments made in the red book. I will tell the hon. member
why that is important. In case she has forgotten, that red book
was what gave us one of the strongest-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are three people who wish
to make a comment or ask questions. I do not think the purpose
of this is to have a speech from the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Would he make a brief comment or ask a question so that other
members may participate in this part of the debate.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, you may have been aware that
there were three people who wanted to participate. I thought I
was the only one who had the floor at this time and that is why I
raised those issues.
1751
There is some inconsistency. We have to really give a fair
assessment of what this budget does. The budget does address
the commitments made in the red book. I do not think it is fair
for the hon. member for Mercier to somehow tell the Canadian
people that it does not.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the inconsistencies are not on my
side. When the government was elected it had the choice as to
whether or not to raise UI premiums. The finance minister
yesterday said that the raising of UI premiums is bad for small
enterprises and for jobs. However, the government raised them
from $3 in December to $3.07 in January 1994 for small
businesses.
If the hon. member does not know it, he should look at the
facts. The inconsistency is to say that it is bad for enterprise,
taking $800 million from the economy and then a year after
going back to $3.
The government was inconsistent by saying it was not good
and then doing it. I am glad that it has done it. For me it was a
pleasure to read that it is not good because it has done it.
(1805 )
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the remarks of the member.
What came to my mind is a quotation from Jesse Jackson, the
American political activist, who stated that it was not the poor
that attended the banquet of the 1970s and 1980s when we saw
deficit financing by the Liberal and Conservative governments
that created the inflation and tremendous increase in wealth and
real estate, stocks and bonds, the over-indulgence to leverage
buyouts, the huge waste of public money and private corporate
money. It was not the poor that attended the banquet, but it is the
poor that gets stuck with the bill.
Does the hon. member agree with Jesse Jackson's analysis and
also agree that what this government is doing is presenting the
poor with the bill even though the poor were not responsible for
creating the deficit and the financial mess we are in.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comment. I think he could draw his own conclusions from that
document.
The fact is that there are people right now who do not have
access to secure jobs. I mentioned in particular young people,
women, many who live in remote regions, and others as well. In
Quebec, more than 4,000 bright young engineers are
unemployed. These people can only rely on the social safety net
which the government wants to make even smaller, on top of
making them pay for the inconsistencies of successive
governments.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Mercier for her speech.
She made reference in the last sentence to Quebec
sovereignty. Earlier this afternoon the first speaker for the Bloc
spoke of Canadians and Quebecers. In referring to Canadians
and Quebecers and to Quebec sovereignty, are the members of
the Bloc Quebecois Party referring to Quebec separation from
Canada?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that Bloc
Quebecois members were elected on a platform that promotes
Quebec's sovereignty. However, they are not in Ottawa to
achieve that but, rather, to protect Quebec's interests. Quebecers
respect and appreciate Canada, but during all these years of
attempting to make reforms which would have given
appropriate status to our province, the notion that enough is
enough gradually grew stronger.
Instead of wasting time and let intolerance grow, for the very
reason that there is so much poverty and unemployment, let us
put all our energy into finding a solution to those problems. To
that end, Quebec must assume all powers and develop the best
possible relations with Canada. This is what I was referring to.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I will be
brief. The point about sovereignty has been raised.
On a financial issue in that regard, the member concluded that
as a result of the inconsistencies therefore the answer must be
that a sovereign Quebec will be the solution.
I wonder if the member would care to advise the House how
much of the $500 billion national debt Quebec is prepared to
assume and how it intends to finance that and survive as a
separate country.
The Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. member for Mercier
responds, with the Speaker having just left, I must remind
members to please put their comments to the Chair. He gets
quite upset if you do not do that.
(1810)
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, you will understand, and so will
the hon. member, that the Bloc does not have a mandate to
negotiate what will be a normal settlement under the
circumstances. Assets, liabilities and the repayment of the debt
will have to be examined. Some people in Quebec have already
looked at this and I imagine that others are doing the same in
Canada.
1752
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member and her compassionate approach. She
brought back memories of the short lived Prime Minister and
what price she had to pay in the most recent process.
Never before have inclusion and consultation taken place with
respect to putting the budget together. There is no question the
minister has gone from coast to coast to coast. He opened up the
process. He listened to the people. Based on what they told us he
delivered with respect to the RRSPs and capital gains.
The member spoke about manipulation and humiliation. I do
not see any manipulation in going out to the people and asking
them what we can give them and for their input so that we can
put a package together that will be good for all in Canada.
There were no tax increases. Does the hon. member not think
that putting $300 million back into small businesses as a result
of the reduction in the UIC will enhance their opportunities to
hire people?
Mrs. Lalonde: I will say again that the raising of the UI
premium has deprived small enterprises of opportunities to have
more employees. I will not go back on that.
[Translation]
As for consulting, nobody is saying that the Minister of
Finance did not consult people. In fact, as a member of a
committee, I can say that I would appreciate being able to hold
such consultations across the country, although I am aware of
the cost of such an exercise. However, it may be that the minister
did not consult enough young unemployed people, unemployed
single mothers and others who will be adversely affected by the
new system. In fact, the only ones who will really be penalized
are precisely those who were not consulted.
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with my colleague from York-Simcoe.
As I was writing this, my maiden speech, I realized it was
fitting to talk about my riding since I believe the success of the
federal riding of Waterloo embodies the spirit of the
government's budget plan.
My riding encompasses the city of Waterloo, part of the city
of Kitchener, and Woolwich township in the heart of
southwestern Ontario. I am proud to say the Canadian Chamber
of Commerce recently selected this area as one of five model
Canadian communities from which to seek advice in order to
help other communities in their aim for success.
In addition, provincial government projections show that
Waterloo region will be the fastest growing region in Ontario
over the next two decades. My riding has been successful
because there has been a partnership of business, academic and
local government communities supported by the broader
constituency. This has made Waterloo riding work.
As the government stated in the red book upon which the
budget is based, we must do more with what we have by
stressing the notion of partnership with all sectors of society and
by taking advantage of economic and social opportunities that
can only be realized when all of us are working together.
As an example we in the Waterloo region have what is called
spinoff companies. These companies have used technology and
human resources transferred from the university community as a
prime ingredient in their business. These companies have
already created over 2,000 jobs in Canada. The concept of
universities and businesses working together is outlined in the
budget.
Waterloo riding, apart from having many companies in the
new information based economy, also has many traditional
companies doing well. That is not to say we have not had our
share of companies and people deeply affected by the recession:
names such as Seagram's, Uniroyal, Goodrich, Labatt's and
others. That is why the budget is important, as it creates the
environment wherein businesses can grow and flourish to create
the jobs which will put these constituents and others like them
across Canada back to work.
(1815)
To the victims of the recession and the evolution of the
economy we need to show compassion. The status quo will not
do for the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians and the millions
who rely on assistance. I applaud the government for
undertaking a major effort to build a responsible social security
system that is fair, compassionate and affordable.
Canadians deserve a hand up, not a handout. The ultimate
social program we can design should provide an economic
climate so that every Canadian who is willing and able to work
can find meaningful work. When Canadians work Canada
works.
In particular the budget supports the small and medium sized
business sector which will continue to be the number one creator
of jobs in Canada. This holds true in my riding as well. Our
strong economy is helped greatly by their entrepreneurial drive.
The global economy is not just a catch phrase of local
businesses; it is an integral part of their market.
The concept of networks of organizations outlined in the
agenda of the budget has been practised in my riding for some
time now. Local businesses, civic leaders and academics have
formed networks for exporting, environmental companies,
computer technology firms and total quality management. Total
quality management practised for years by local governments in
my riding has become a plan that will be pursued by the
government with its commitment to streamlining government
1753
operations and reducing spending to make them more efficient
and effective.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are to be
applauded for recognizing the concerns of my Liberal
colleagues and myself that middle class Canadians would not
tolerate an increased tax burden. I am pleased to note the
Minister of National Defence has taken courageous steps in the
budget to rationalize the excessive national defence
infrastructure on the basis of need and function. He is further
committed to examining my concern about government waste,
including government moves, a commitment to cost savings and
efficient operations in government. That has always been part of
my public life and continues to be so in the House.
In keeping with this idea we should debate expanding the
number of seats in the House. It is my strong wish that any
reallocation of boundaries be reconsidered in keeping with the
central premise that the number of MPs be restricted to the
present number of 295. Canadians do not want more politicians;
they want us to do more with what we have.
People in the community have also been working on creating a
community venture capital fund by which the community could
support its own entrepreneurs through capital investments. It is
ideas like this one which embody the spirit of programs such as
our Canada investment fund.
Environmental issues are not simply a current trend in my
riding. The University of Waterloo has been a leader in
environmental studies education for years. The Waterloo public
interest research group was created by students from the
University of Waterloo 20 years ago. Through voluntary
contributions of time and money it has spent over $1 million on
consumer and environmental concerns. Environmental related
companies are a growing segment of our business community.
For this reason I join with Friends of the Earth to applaud the
finance minister who is the first ever to speak about sustainable
development in a budget speech and the government's
commitment to this end.
To achieve this objective the budget outlines the
establishment of a task force involving government, industry
and environmental NGOs to identify barriers and disincentives
to sound environmental practices and to find effective ways in
which to use economic instruments to protect the environment.
The expertise of the riding's workers, managers and
entrepreneurs is enhanced by the presence of the post-secondary
institutions mentioned previously, namely Conestoga College,
the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University.
These world class institutions participate in explicit transfers of
expertise through their excellence in co-operative education
and apprenticeship programs.
The riding can enjoy a recruitment advantage in this well
trained pool of potential employees. As a result the
post-secondary institutions of the Waterloo region offer their
expertise to the community well before their students graduate.
(1820 )
Until now there has been an alarming trend for our best
resources, these students, to look for a future in other countries.
It was a sad commentary that these students were looking to
companies such as Microsoft in the United States for jobs. In
effect we had our own brain drain.
I am happy our government has addressed this problem by
active promotion of programs such as the Canadian technology
network and engineers and scientists program to keep our most
precious resource, our youth, in Canada.
Our commitment to established programs financing
expenditures to universities will be maintained. This
government is concerned with education and literacy as
demonstrated by fully restored funding to the national literacy
program. This is important to my riding as well.
The public and Catholic school board systems offer high
quality education to our region's students. Both offer
progressive innovative opportunities for individuals in the
region. The public school board offers the opportunity for the
region's workers to complete their high school diploma through
on site classrooms in the workplace. As well, the separate school
board is world renowned for placing a priority on full and
successful integration of challenged students into the
mainstream classroom.
As the finance minister said yesterday, the budget reduces the
deficit by $6 billion next year and by $7 billion the year after.
This is an important accomplishment in light of the fact that the
previous government underestimated the deficit we inherited by
$13 billion. Over the next three years for every dollar of deficit
reduction on the revenue side there are $5 of spending cuts by
this government.
What was demanded by Canadians in pre-budget
consultations was a fair and equitable budget. This has been
presented by our government. It is our commitment to make this
government transparent. We will work together, as I know
personally from my riding that Canadians can, to build a
partnership that will create opportunity for this country. This
budget is the foundation that will make that happen.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the
hon. member for Waterloo on his excellent speech.
1754
I remind him that the neighbouring riding of Kitchener is also
encompassed within the model community cited by the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
The hon. member is well known in the area for his interest in
and knowledge of environmental matters. I was wondering how
the budget would affect the Waterloo riding and community. He
referred to the Friends of the Earth comment about the finance
minister and this particular budget. Waterloo is an area where
environmental related businesses are most prominent. Is it
likely that those businesses will be assisted by this budget?
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and
neighbour from my sister riding.
There is no question that the Waterloo federal riding and my
community has a great history of involvement in environmental
matters.
I refer to a situation which probably started in terms of
heightening environmental awareness in Canada. In the Love
Canal in the United States toxic substances were impairing the
lives of people. The company working on that was
Conestoga-Rovers which is located in Waterloo. It is one of
many companies that has started up in our region.
I can say to the member for Kitchener that yes, this budget
will very much enhance those operations. We hope to be one of
the centres of excellence. I believe we already are and we can
build on that to make sure in the new economy Canada gets its
fair share of international business for cleaning up the
environment.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his speech. I would like to ask him a question about
the budget.
Does the hon. member have an opinion as to the consequences
this nation will face if we add another $100 billion to the federal
debt in the next three years? There is no indication within the
budget speech or the budget itself of any such consequences.
Would the hon. member care to comment on it?
(1825 )
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago that I and
many of my colleagues were debating these very questions at
all-candidates meetings. I have always been amazed at the
extent to which it was hard to get the point across, particularly to
members of the Reform Party.
Our position has been very consistent. It is in our red book.
We went to Canadians. We told them about it. We put the plan
forward and it is the foundation for everything we do. I believe
this is where we differ from their approach. Fundamentally, we
as Liberals believe in making this economy grow. We have
outlined in our expenditure program that is exactly what we are
going to do.
The Reform position was that it would eliminate the deficit
within three years. Our position was that we would cut back the
deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP in three years. The leader of the
Reform Party has stood up on different occasions and
challenged the government to attain that 3 per cent of the GDP.
From looking at this budget and from studying the figures my
answer is that we can.
I have to say to my friend from the Reform Party I hope he will
stand in this House and applaud when we do accomplish that. We
believe we have to make this economy grow. We cannot shrink
it. If the economy shrinks we will go back into a recession. We
have to believe in ourselves and we have to believe in the
Canadian people.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, as a
new member of Parliament I am pleased to deliver my maiden
speech.
I am humbled by the history of this place and yet comforted to
be part of the long tradition of Canadian democracy. This is not
to say that tradition is static, unchanging. In fact, this is far from
the case. Tradition, particularly the Canadian parliamentary
tradition has adapted and evolved throughout the history of this
institution.
There are many pressures on Parliament, on government and
on parliamentarians to transform the way government operates.
Economic, social, environmental, technological, political and
global forces all act in different ways to challenge, to push and
pull, to mould a new kind of relationship people have with their
institutions. The Minister of Finance and the government
recognized and welcomed this.
As a result the Minister of Finance has set upon an
unprecedented budgetary process, a process that does not end
with this one finite document. It is a process that if allowed to
develop fully will lead to a new kind of partnership, a real and
meaningful partnership among the people of Canada, their
government, and their social and economic institutions.
It is only when we are able to understand the full extent and
nature of our problems and when we undertake exploration of
the widest possible range of solutions that we will ever begin to
address the tough economic problems that affect our nation.
Canada has a rightful place as a leader among the nations of
the world in the 21st century. Through the kind of consultation
process the Minister of Finance has just begun we will not only
solve our own problems successfully but we will also provide a
model for other countries to emulate. The Minister of Finance
has given all of us a great opportunity to work together and let
our voices be heard, let our ideas be tested, let our vision of
Canada meld with the rest to form the Canada we all want.
1755
We have a difficult and challenging task before us: to restore
integrity to government and erase public cynicism. As one
parliamentarian I stand here today and say to the constituents in
York-Simcoe, to Canadians from across this land, and to my
colleagues on the other side of this House: We have the political
will to open dialogue. We have the political will to renew the
social, economic and political institutions of the country.
(1830)
This is the reason I decided to run for office. I believed it is
important, now more than ever, to rebuild the trust that has been
broken between the people of Canada and their elected officials.
I am sure that many of my hon. colleagues in this House have
similar goals.
As Canadians, the most important thing we can remember is
that we are in this together.
When I was elected a member of Parliament I did not stop
being a citizen of Canada. I also have a stake in this. I have a
family that I love dearly, a community that I am committed to
and I have a country that I honour.
Like other Canadians across the nation, like my hon.
colleagues on both sides of the House, I want this country to
succeed. I want this Parliament to succeed.
My colleagues and I need all Canadians to have patience
because as the hon. Minister of Finance said yesterday in his
speech, the challenge today is not to rush. The challenge is to get
things right.
We are not asking Canadians to have patience while the
government sits back and does nothing. We have acted on our
commitments and will continue to do so. We have fulfilled our
promises to reinstate the court challenges program and to
implement the national infrastructure program, the youth
services program, the aboriginal head start program, the
women's centres of excellence, the Canadian technology
network, as well as many others.
The red book lives in this budget.
We need to have an opportunity for ideas to be generated and
tested without being torn down. Creative juices are quick to
freeze in a climate of frosty, unconstructive criticism. Now
more than ever, it is necessary to develop alternative
understandings and approaches to problem solving.
To paraphrase Albert Einstein, everything has changed but for
our way of thinking.
If we are to approach government differently, we must all
understand that not only government must change but we must
change as well.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am very sorry to
interrupt the member during her maiden speech but is there
unanimous consent to let her finish, another four or five
minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I thank my hon. colleagues in the House
for the patience they have shown me.
Government has a responsibility for taking leadership to
create the framework and environment necessary for open,
inclusive dialogue. The issue now is for government to continue
to build on the consultation process that has lead up to this
budget.
As members of Parliament we can support this process in our
own ridings.
Fairness and equity are important principles upon which this
budget is based. These principles must continue to be the
cornerstones upon which the consultation process rests.
Equity is served when consultation is inclusive, when all
perspectives that represent the differing aspects of Canadian
diversity are respected and validated.
Our diversity arises from geography, race, religion, ethnicity,
age, gender, sexual orientation, physical and intellectual
capabilities, class, education and physical appearance, among
many others. Equity is served when our intergenerational
responsibilities are acknowledged, when our global roles and
relationships are honoured.
Equity is also served when the natural environment is
respected.
All costs, be they social, health or ecological, are economic in
the long run. It is very important that the government, through
these consultations, finds a way to include a new accounting, a
new way to value the ecological and health benefits and costs
that government programs, subsidies and taxes provide.
This new, ongoing budgetary consultation process, coupled
with the review and renewal of major government departments
and policies, particularly human resources, health, defence, and
industry, means that this government is serious about taking
action to meet the central challenges facing this nation.
This results in the kind of responsible government Canadians
demand and deserve.
It was in my riding of York-Simcoe where the seeds of
responsible government were first sown in Upper Canada. It was
here that the rebel, William Lyon Mackenzie, joined forces with
the farmers and small business owners to challenge the Tory
family compact.
Although it has been over 150 years since responsible
government has been instituted, the descendants of these rebels
have carried on the tradition of farming and operating small
businesses in York-Simcoe, a riding which I am proud to
represent.
Today their farms grace the landscape of New Tecumseh,
King, east and west Gwillimbury. The world famous Holland
Marsh is located near Bradford. Small businesses were and are
still the heart of the economic engine in communities like
Newmarket and Bradford. Their trades have always been carried
1756
out along the main streets of the villages of Sutton, Keswick,
Mount Albert, Beeton, Tottenham, Pefferlaw and Schomberg.
My riding of York-Simcoe is also graced with the beautiful
beaches of Georgina along Lake Simcoe. A tourist trade booms
here all year long with boating in the summer and ice fishing in
winter.
We are also fortunate to have a First Nations band, the
Chippewas of Georgina Island. This band is determined to
achieve its inherent right of self-government.
I am privileged to stand here today as a representative of a
riding that reflects the diversity of this great nation. The 35th
Parliament is a milestone in the Canadian parliamentary history
as it, far more than any other, is representative of the rich
tapestry of Canadian diversity.
Sitting in this Chamber I look around at my colleagues on
both sides of the House and I know that we are merely passing
through. This institution will exist long after the pages of
Hansard fade and crumble.
As parliamentarians we will be measured by the respect that
we show all Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.35 p.m., this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)