CONTENTS
Monday, March 18, 1996
Consideration resumed of budget motion, amendmentand
amendment to the amendment 791
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 799
Consideration resumed of motion, the amendmentand amendment
to the amendment 804
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 809
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 812
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 814
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 817
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 821
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 822
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 822
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 822
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 822
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 823
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 823
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 823
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 823
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 824
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 824
Bill C-238. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 826
(Motion deemed to have been agreed to, bill read thesecond time and
referred to a committee.) 826
Bill C-239. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 827
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 827
Resuming consideration of the motion on the budget 828
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 828
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 831
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 836
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 29;
Nays, 167 853
Consideration resumed of the motion, the amendment,and the
amendment to the amendment 854
Amendment to amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 29; Nays,
166. 855
Amendment agreed to on division: Yeas, 130;Nays, 65 856
Motion, as amended, agreed to on division: Yeas, 158;Nays, 36. 857
Consideration resumed of motion 858
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 32; Nays, 161 858
Bill C-10. Motion for second reading 860
791
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 18, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The House resumed from March 7 consideration of the motion
that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government; the amendment and the amendment to the
amendment.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 1996
budget is about the future, the secure prosperous future all
Canadians desire. If any group represents Canada's future it is our
young people. That is why the Liberal government's commitment
to fair, sustainable and secure social programs would be incomplete
if we did not include action to assist children who are the most
vulnerable and in the greatest need. At long last this budget
introduces a new strategy to strengthen protection for children
buffeted by divorce and separation.
As the Minister of Finance told Parliament on March 26, and as
many Canadians have known for some time, the current child
support system has added to the uncertainty and anxiety many
Canadians feel. The minister clearly outlined that in our view
children should be the first in line. Child support is the first
obligation of parents; it is not discretionary.
The budget acted on that principle. It announced the child
support reforms which take wide ranging action to ensure the child
support system is based on what is best for children. To start with,
the government is changing the way child support payments are
taxed. Until now child support payments have been tax deductible
for the paying parent and taxable as income for the parent receiving
the payments.
The budget proposes that we move to a system known as no
deduction, no inclusion. What does that mean? Custodial parents
will no longer be required to include child support payments in
their taxable income and support paying parents would not deduct
these payments from their taxable income. These new tax rules will
apply to court orders or agreements made on or after May 1, 1997.
Child support paid under a court order made before May 1, 1997
would continue to be deductible by the parent and included as
taxable income by the recipient until the support payment is
changed by a court ruling or the parties add a clause to their
agreement providing that the new tax rules will apply, or the payer
and recipient file a joint election with Revenue Canada.
Coupled with this important tax change is a second major
component of the child support reform. The government is
introducing child support guidelines to make support awards fair
and more consistent and to reduce the degree of conflict between
separating parents.
(1105 )
These guidelines will be used across Canada by the courts,
lawyers and parents to establish appropriate support payments.
They include a payment schedule, a set of tables showing the basic
amount of support to be paid according to the number of children
and the income of the support paying payment.
The second part of that is that scheduled amounts can be adjusted
to recognize individual family circumstances. Special expenses for
child care, health care, education or extracurricular activities can
be added to the scheduled amount provided that these expenses are
reasonable and necessary in light of the needs of the children and
the means of the parents.
The guidelines allow a court to alter the award in exceptional
circumstances where it would cause undue hardship to either parent
or to the child.
The third component of the child support reform strategy will be
the enhancement of the federal-provincial enforcement measures.
Children benefit from fair support awards only if they are paid in
full and on time. The numbers are appalling. Far too many children
in Canada are left without adequate financial means because one of
their parents is willfully ignoring their responsibility to their
children. Some one in four children's parents are fully paid up in
their child support awards. This is an appalling situation.
As a federal government we must remember that child support is
mainly a provincial and territorial responsibility, and so the
792
measures we are proposing compliment the enforcement efforts
and strategies at that level.
It should be emphasized that we are targeting parents who are
persistent defaulters on their support payments. How are we to do
that? We will start a national public awareness campaign that will
aim at changing public attitudes about child support. It is not
discretionary; it is the first responsibility of parents.
We will provide provincial enforcement programs with a new
enforcement mechanism. Legislation will be enacted that will
authorize the suspension of federal licences, privileges and
certificates such as passports when someone has demonstrated
persistent wilful default.
The federal government will provide up to $13.7 million over
five years to help the provinces expand the use of more aggressive
enforcement measures and streamline the collection of out of
province orders.
Improvements to the federal tracing service will allow the
release of certain information from designated federal information
banks to help locate defaulting debtors. This will include Revenue
Canada to the list of departments whose data bases can be searched
at the request of provincial enforcement agencies.
We will also improve federal pension diversions to ensure this
measure can be applied to persistent defaulters. This can be done
even if the defaulter refuses to apply for pension benefits to ensure
the maximum amount of benefits goes to child support.
Improvements to computers systems will allow for on line
computer access between federal, provincial and territorial
enforcement services. This will enhance the efficiency of the
garnishment and tracing service and greatly facilitate the exchange
of information.
This is concrete and substantial action, but I am glad to say the
1996 budget plan does not limit new assistance to children whose
parents are separated or divorced. There is another very important
measure. The budget announces we will be doubling the working
income supplement under the child tax benefit in two steps.
This will ensure and encourage employment and self-reliance by
helping low income parents meet some of the expenses resulting
from membership in the paid workforce, expenses like child care
and transportation. It also helps make up for the benefits lost by
parents who leave social assistance to re-enter the workforce.
Beginning in July 1997 we will go from the current maximum of
$500 to $750, and in July 1998 it will be increased to a maximum
of $1,000. When fully phased in this will result in an additional
$250 million in support annually to approximately 700,000 low
income working families, one-third of which are single parent
households.
I am proud to be part of a government that puts children first,
that thinks about the cost of not taking care of our children and that
makes sure parents understand the responsibility to their children.
(1110 )
I am sharing my time with my colleague from Hillsborough who
will take the remaining time.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for a very
fine budget address.
I start my budget address, as I know all members do, by
congratulating the Minister of Finance for yet another successful
budget. Like the two previous budgets, the needs and wants of
Canadians have been addressed. It will result in the creation of jobs
and promote economic growth by further reducing the deficit. To
the minister I say a good job, well done.
The government is continuing the processes that began with the
1994-95 budget. The comprehensive strategy for federal finances
determined is measured and responsible. The government is
determined because we are not letting up our fight to reduce the
deficit. The books will be balanced. The debt to GDP ratio will be
on a constant downward track year after year.
It is measured because our fiscal action is not indiscriminate and
mindless but is structured to a pace conducive to efficient
adaptation. It is designed not as a quick fix but to achieve long
term, permanent progress.
There are those in the House who would want us to believe that a
quick trashing of the government books would be the cure all of the
national debt. The government knows that deficit reduction must
be measured in order for it to be sustainable.
Our approach is responsible because it is a strategy that involves
carefully weighing the needs of our economy and our society and
equally carefully designing the policy options to meet those needs.
Just as important, we are striking the balance necessary to keep
Canadians on side for our deficit reduction efforts.
Again, referring to the slash and burn tactics of some people in
the House, their approach would result in a revolt so massive it
would make the Ontario strike look like a walk in the park.
We all know the reasons behind reducing the deficit but I feel
they must be reiterated. The lethal combination of high interest
rates and deficit borrowing also means a growing share of
government resources must go to interest payments on a growing
debt.
That is why we have acted, not because tackling Canada's fiscal
problem is not a goal in and of itself but because it is a fundamental
component for our natural growth, new jobs and economic security.
We have maintained our focus on reducing program spending
because the debt is a problem created by government and the
793
solution should focus on cutting in our own back yard. Therefore
there are no tax increases in the 1996 budget; no personal taxes, no
corporate taxes, no excise taxes. This is good news to people in my
riding and to all Canadians.
The federal government has fought quite hard to reduce the
deficit since taking office. However, what is equally important is
that the provinces and territories are doing the same. The provincial
and territorial governments are well on their way to balancing their
budgets. The combined provincial-territorial deficit has been cut to
$12.6 billion in 1995-96 from its peak of $25 billion in 1992-93.
This is a drop of 3.6 per cent of GDP to 1.6 per cent.
I am pleased to say the P.E.I. provincial government had a
balanced budget in 1995 and it did so without major tax increases.
Even more impressive is the $3.4 million surplus for the 1996-97
fiscal year presented last week in the provincial legislature by the
provincial treasurer, the hon. Wayne Cheverie.
As a result, Canada's total government sector deficit is projected
to improve sharply relative to other G-7 countries. This is very
important for an open country like Canada.
(1115 )
Since over 30 per cent of our national income is generated by our
exports, it is important that we remain competitive. All levels of
government are helping to do that by getting their fiscal houses in
order. For its part, the federal government is reforming the way it
conducts its affairs. This and the past two budgets are reducing
waste and inefficiency and redefining the government's programs
and activities. These actions will ensure that program spending
continues to fall through 1998-99 delivering major fiscal savings
into the future.
The federal government will further clarify its core program
responsibilities in the economy. The government will make these
programs more efficient and effective in order to deliver better
quality services at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
The program review which was initiated in the 1994 budget is
continuing. We are still exploring new ways to improve the
delivery of service and reduce costs. The essence of these changes
is to give service delivery organizations greater autonomy to
provide their services in ways that are more responsive to the needs
of their clients and more cost effective.
This will reduce overlap and duplication. Through co-operation
and partnerships with the provinces and territories, these goals can
easily be achieved. We are working with the provinces on a
continuous basis to improve services to Canadians.
I have spoken long enough on our deficit reduction agenda. For
the benefit of hon. members on the other side of the House I would
now like to talk about some of the benefits of our efforts.
Last year the Minister of Finance and cabinet announced the
implementation of the Canada health and social transfer. As a result
of the efforts, this transfer will be stabilized and will even begin to
grow. That is right, it will grow. The CHST will be stabilized at
$25.1 billion from 1997-98 to the turn of the century. After that this
transfer will actually grow according to a formula tied to economic
growth.
To the residents of my province of Prince Edward Island this
means that the 1997-98 CHST will amount to $114 million and by
the year 2003 it will be up to $122 million. That is good news for
our provincial government and for Islanders as a whole.
Further good news is the guarantee of the cash portion of the
transfer. The cash floor within the transfer will be guaranteed by
legislation. This is quite different from the old direction of the
transfer that would see the cash portion totally disappear within a
decade. The stability of this transfer is very important to the
provinces. This will provide greater clarity for their own budget
forecasts.
The groundwork of our deficit reduction was laid out in the first
half of our mandate. The savings accrued from those hard decisions
now allow us to turn our attention to other items of concern to
Canadians. It is through our efforts that our social programs will be
saved.
I for one am glad that when I go back to my riding on the
weekends I can tell my constituents that the Prime Minister's
promise to seniors has been kept. The changes announced in this
year's budget do not affect today's seniors. The pension of every
Canadian who is 60 and over as of December 31, 1995, and their
spouses regardless of age, will be fully protected.
When the new seniors benefit is implemented in 2001 these
seniors may choose whichever system is more advantageous, either
moving to the new system or maintaining their OAS/GIS
payments. It should be emphasized that savings will come from
slowing the rate of growth in program costs, not at the expense of
those in need. While the savings at first will be small, they will
build year by year to about 11 per cent of program costs by the year
2030.
Legislation will be tabled later this year and we will be inviting
public submissions on the proposal to be followed by consultations
through parliamentary committee hearings. The response should be
positive because the seniors benefit meets these key public goals:
reducing the long term costs will make the public pension system
more sustainable; targeting help to those who need it most is the
fairest way to reduce costs; and with the new seniors benefit all
Canadians, particularly the young, can be assured the public
pension system will be there for them now and in the future.
Another item of concern to Canadians that has been addressed by
this budget is reform of child support as was mentioned by my
colleague a few moments ago. A more equitable treatment of
support payments will be implemented. As of May 1, 1997 the
794
system will move to a no deduction, no inclusion format. The
payers of the support payments will no longer deduct them from
their taxable income and the custodial parents will not include
them in their taxable income.
(1120)
There will also be guidelines for the payment of child support
and greater measures for the enforcement of those payments. The
approach will address the first priority: our children. These
children are our future. We must provide for them as much as we
can.
That brings me to our next point: investing in our future. The
government is taking durable, meaningful steps forward rather than
relying on short term direct spending programs which only result in
a step back when we look at the long term effect. It emphasizes
collaboration with partners and strategic investments to steer the
forces of the economic change toward greater employment,
employment that is sustainable.
But first things first. For the sustained economic growth needed
to deliver new jobs, we must start by securing Canada's economic
fundamentals which as I have said earlier means getting the deficit
down and keeping it down. High persisting deficits go hand in hand
with high interest rates. High interest rates as we all know
discourage investment, borrowing and consumer spending.
Ultimately they discriminate against jobs.
We have a plan. We will focus on getting our youth on the job.
The first job is very important. Giving our youth a better chance at
their first job will improve their confidence and ability to get the
equally important second job. Our youth programs will accomplish
this task. Coupled with our learning package these measures will
provide the means for young Canadians to get the education and
experience to obtain the challenging and rewarding career for
which they strive.
However, government cannot do it alone and more important, as
has been said, it is not supposed to. The role of government is to
create the economic environment which will allow the private
sector to create the jobs that are needed to get Canadians back to
work.
It is through partnerships with the private sector that our role can
be fulfilled. One way the government can do this is to target its
investment in the key areas of our economy.
The budget also increases investment in technology and
innovation through a number of actions over the next three years
funded by the reallocation of $270 million from budget savings.
For example, Technology Partnerships Canada will be established
to encourage risk sharing with the private sector and to leverage
investment in the development and commercialization of high
technology projects and processes. Funding will grow from about
$150 million in 1996-97 to about $250 million by the year 1998-99.
I believe this is important for all Canadians and I believe it is
important for my province of Prince Edward Island. We have the
capabilities to succeed in the high technology world. All we need is
help to tap into it. Islanders welcome the possibilities that come
with the focus on high growth sectors of the Canadian economy.
I urge Prince Edward Islanders to take full advantage of this
focus. We have little to lose and so much to gain. It is possible to
create year round employment on the island and it is up to the
private sector to create those jobs.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
comments of the hon. member for Hillsborough were along the
lines that the deficit has been reduced year after year by the Liberal
government. Certainly that is true, although we have seen the
federal debt rise to some $600 billion. It has increased over $100
billion in the time of its mandate.
Given that the debt is rising so dramatically, could the hon.
member for Hillsborough tell us what specific target date the
government has for reducing the deficit to zero, to have a balanced
budget, which will enable it to start paying down the debt? Can he
give us a date?
Mr. Proud: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we have worked
on deficit reduction. We will continue to do so until the books are
balanced. I will certainly not give him a date as to when that might
be, but I can tell him that we are much better prepared to do it now
than we were over the last number of years. It certainly will take
place in the distant future.
(1125 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very attentively to both the Liberal speakers.
The best security we can offer the children of Canada are parents
with a stable income. The greatest threat to the economic stability
of a family is the unrestricted power of government to tax away its
wealth.
There is an ever rising demand on the revenue dollar to pay the
interest on an ever rising debt. When the Tories replaced the
Liberals in 1984 they inherited a $200 billion debt from the
Liberals. In nine years they added another $300 billion to it. The
first budget presented by this government promised to add another
$100 billion to that.
When we talk about the security of families and children, that
debt is the greatest threat to their security. It is the greatest threat to
good long term, well paying jobs for the parents of those children.
I admonish the members who have spoken and also the
government. As the demand on the revenue dollar continues to
increase to
795
pay the ever rising interest on our ever increasing debt, the security
of the individual family is weakened. The greatest thing we can do
is to get spending under control and reduce the amount of money
we need to pay the interest on this huge debt.
The greatest transfer of wealth that is going to occur in 1997 is
not to the provinces or to individuals in Canada. It is going to be to
those we borrowed the money from, to the tune of approximately
$50 billion a year.
Would the hon. member care to address his views on the threat
that this picture poses to the economic security of families and
children in Canada?
Mr. Proud: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the best thing for
security is full time permanent jobs. The debt is astronomical and
we all realize that. The government has started to get the deficit
under control. It has offered some enhancement for the future. The
economy is going well and jobs will be created if the climate is
there. I believe the budget has done that. Reports from the media
state that this is what people in the business community think. It is
not perfect. I will be the first to admit that. It is probably not in total
what I would like to see, but it is a lot better than it was when we
came here. I can guarantee it will continue to get better.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
speaking today as part of the debate on the budget announced on
March 6 by the Minister of Finance.
Unlike the hon. member who spoke before me, I have no
congratulations whatsoever for either the Minister of Finance or
the government for a budget I find deplorable, inequitable,
regressive and inhumane in a number of ways. The main victims of
this third Liberal budget are the ordinary folk, the workers, the
unemployed, the welfare recipients, the elderly, the immigrants,
the low income families.
The other main victims are the provinces, all of the provinces,
Quebec in particular, which will see their transfer payments
reduced.
(1130)
The massive cuts in this Liberal government's three budgets, in
particular the last one, are doing great harm to the people of Canada
and the people of Quebec, and in particular to the ordinary folk in
my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North. My riding contains
many single parent families, many retired people, many
unemployed people and many, very many, immigrants. These cuts
do great harm to the 600 people who are on the Montreal North
waiting list for low rental housing.
As I have said, this is an inequitable and unjust budget. The
unemployment insurance reform and the reduction in transfer
payments to the provinces for social assistance, health and
post-secondary education have already sent shock waves through
the population, and continue to do so. It is my belief that these
brutal cuts may well trigger a major social crisis in this country.
There have been many demonstrations everywhere in Canada
against the cuts in social programs and against the cuts in
unemployment insurance, particularly in the Atlantic provinces.
Everywhere in Quebec, including Montreal, Shawinagan in the
Prime Minister's riding, Quebec City, the Gaspe, and in Ontario.
I believe that these brutal and inequitable cuts are coming close
to the limit Canadian and Quebec society will tolerate. As we can
see everywhere, the social situation is becoming increasingly
explosive, particularly because people can see that the budget is
unfair, that the major companies, like the banks, and the people in
the upper income brackets are either not affected at all or only
barely so.
Instead of the government talking with workers or organizations
representing them, the Minister of Human Resources Development
is directing insults and accusations at the union leaders,
particularly the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, the
union that represents most Canadian workers, with its 2.4 million
members.
On top of that, the Minister of Human Resources Development,
who should be advocating dialogue among all sectors of society, is
refusing to meet with the president of the CLC to discuss the cuts in
social programs and the cuts to unemployment insurance.
It is incredible that the government, which is no longer
contributing to the unemployment insurance fund, is making
improper use of the $5 billion surplus in the unemployment
insurance fund, and it is unacceptable. A number of members have
said here that Quebec receives more in unemployment insurance
than it contributes. I tell you that, in 1995, employers and workers
in Quebec paid $4.530 billion dollars into the fund. UI claimants in
Quebec received only $4.340; a difference of $195 million, which
was not returned to Quebec. This, despite the fact that, for
February, the rate of unemployment in Quebec was 11.3 per cent,
or 414,000 workers actively seeking employment. There is no
mention of those who are leaving unemployment insurance to go
on welfare.
(1135)
For Canada, the unemployment rate in February was 9.6 per
cent, or 1,539,000 unemployed workers. That is a lot. It is
scandalous. What is more, in 1995, the figure was only 1,514,000.
I was a UI referee for eight years in Montreal, and all those I
met-the recipients and the lawyers-used to tell me about the
need to improve-and not decimate-the UI program, which was
set up under pressure from the labour movement and the workers.
The Liberals are in the process of destroying this important social
benefit.
When the Conservative government was in office in 1990, 87 per
cent of unemployed workers were receiving benefits. In January
1996, under the Liberal government, 46 per cent of unemployed
workers were receiving benefits. Less than half. That is outra-
796
geous. That is why the Bloc Quebecois, like the labour movement
as a whole, demands that Bill C-12 be immediately withdrawn.
In this budget, we expected the government to submit a plan to
revive the economy and create jobs. Yet, there is nothing of the sort
in his budget, despite the Liberal Party's famous election promise
of ``jobs, jobs, jobs''.
I take this opportunity to salute those attending the summit on
the social and economic future opening tonight in Quebec City.
This is a Quebec government initiative involving the participation
of unions and employers, among others. I hope that the results of
this summit will benefit all the people of Quebec and that those
taking part will take adequate measures to revive the economy and
create jobs.
One of the things that I found most shocking in this budget is that
it reduces the tax benefits for labour sponsored venture capital
funds. There is nothing to create jobs in this budget, which cuts
moneys to the very organizations that seek organizations that seek
to create and maintain jobs. These labour sponsored venture capital
funds are effective tools to create jobs. Yet, the government is
cutting the federal tax credit rate for these funds from 20 to 15 per
cent and lowering maximum investment from $5,000 to $3,500.
(1140)
There are 19 workers' funds in operation in Canada. The funds'
assets amount to $2.5 billion or $3 billion. They have invested
more than $850 million in the Canadian economy since they were
established. In Quebec alone, the fund established by the FTQ, or
Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, has helped maintain or
create about 40,000 jobs. Forty thousands jobs in a single province,
that is very significant.
The government claims it wants to get Canadians back to work.
But why hit workers so hard, and their funds, which are used
mainly to invest in small and medium size businesses? What is
terribly unfair in all this is the fact that these cuts affect mostly
Quebec, where half the money in these investment funds comes
from.
In response to a question by the Bloc Quebecois a few days ago,
the Minister of Finance said that this kind of tax incentive would be
reduced, since these funds are now very well established. But it
certainly is not the case with the CSN's-the Confédération des
syndicats nationaux-action fund. This is a new fund, which is not
yet very well established and therefore requires government
support.
I worked on establishing the Fonds de solidarité de la FTQ when
I was a servicing representative, and this fund has helped thousands
of FTQ members, people who do not make a lot of money, in
allowing them to put money aside toward their retirement. It also
helped maintain or create 40,000 jobs, as I mentioned earlier. Why
attack this fund? The proposed cutbacks will slow down job
creation in Quebec, and particularly in regions where economic
growth is sluggish.
A study conducted by the Canadian Labour Market and
Productivity Centre shows that the government recoups the tax
costs relating to workers' funds within three years or less. This
study takes into account benefits such as the following: with these
funds, tax revenues increase as a result of investments being made;
also, reliance on the UI system is reduced because more people are
at work and fewer claim UI benefits.
But the government did not attack the registered retirement
savings plans, the RRSPs, in its budget. As we all know, such tax
deductions can help create employment, but 20 per cent of this job
creation could take place abroad. Twenty per cent of RRSP
contributions can be invested abroad.
Why cut in investment funds then? As I said earlier,
unemployment is at 11.3 per cent in Quebec, and more than
800,000 Quebecers are on social assistance.
(1145)
The FTQ had the extraordinary idea of setting up this Fonds de
solidarité a few months ago. I was there, to help complement this
initiative by establishing regional funds. Nine of these regional
funds, which will be set up everywhere in Quebec, have already
been created. I congratulate the FTQ and the officials of the fund
for their extraordinary contribution to promoting job creation. I
should point out that the Quebec government and the
administrative regions are partners in these regional funds.
What does this budget provide regarding old age pensions? The
government creates a new seniors benefit to replace old age
security, guaranteed income supplement, age credits, as well as
pension income credits. The most dangerous aspect of this budget
is that this new seniors benefit puts an end, once and for all, to the
universality of benefit programs for seniors. This is very serious
and simply unacceptable. The principle of universality applies to
all social security programs.
The minister tells us that most of these measures will not affect
current retirees, but future generations will be severely hit by these
changes. In my riding, in Montreal North, the Association
québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et
préretraitées opposes the federal government's decision. It is
firmly opposed to any reform that would undermine the benefits
program for the elderly.
As for corporate taxation, we, Bloc Quebecois members, and
myself in particular as the member for Bourassa, expected the
government to review the corporate tax system. There is currently a
shortfall of close to $10 billion. We must put an end to tax havens.
There is no reform in this budget, only promises and commissions.
797
There is nothing concrete. Meanwhile, the profits of major banks
exceeded $5 billion in 1995.
This explains the tax revolt. Everyone knows that banks do not
pay their fair share of taxes. The banks that registered these
sky-high profits are the same ones that made massive layoffs. We
demand a true corporate tax reform, as well as the establishment of
a minimum tax for corporations.
According to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's
estimates, expenditures for 1996-97 will reach $621.5 million. The
budget for ICSI will be $76.8 million. This is $8.1 million in
additional resources for that activity. I do not see the reason for
spending more to promote citizenship.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the time allotted to the
hon. member for Bourassa has expired.
(1150)
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great attention to the remarks of the
member for Bourassa, particularly the comments about the 19
labour investment funds that have total assets ranging from $2.5
billion to $3 billion. I know a little bit about them and I take
exception to his suggestion that these funds are unfairly attacked in
the budget. He seems to be implying that these funds are creating
jobs.
They are not creating very many jobs. They are great for
investors because of the tax credit but most of their assets are tied
up in blue chip stocks and money market vehicles.
Would the member for Bourassa support me in pressing the
government for an amendment that would require the labour
investment funds to invest at least half their assets in Canadian
small businesses so that at least $1.5 billion of it would be used to
create jobs?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec this is what is being done.
The FTQ's Fonds de solidarité is investing in small and medium
size businesses. This fund has already created 40,000 jobs. It is a
start. But I think that it must go further. I am in agreement with the
general idea of my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth, but
until now this initiative has been a complete success. After the
FTQ's Fonds de solidarité was created, 15 other such funds were
set up in Canada, including in British Columbia and Ontario.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to ask my colleague a few questions. I wonder if he would
give me his reaction to the comments in the media regarding the
government's budget.
Constituents in my riding, for example, are happy to hear that
there is no increase in taxes, that there will be additional cuts
within government, that funds have been earmarked for the purpose
of doubling the amounts spent on creating summer jobs, that there
will be this new initiative to create entry level jobs for young
people in order to give them experience. They have praised the
government because it continues to target the deficit and make
progress. Despite the cuts, it will be able to increase transfers to the
provinces for health, education, training and social assistance.
I therefore wonder if he has any comments to make. I find it
surprising that the comments he is reporting from his riding seem
to be very different from those I have been hearing in mine.
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, true, there are no new taxes. But
everybody knows Canadians have been taxed to the hilt, especially
under the Conservative government. We are told there are no
additional cuts in this budget, but it is not so. There are several
cuts, especially to transfer payments to the provinces. These cuts
are huge. Most cuts announced in the last budget are coming into
force this year.
He points to the job creation initiative for young people. I have
seen how it has been welcomed by young people. They are not very
pleased with this kind of job creation. This is not what they wanted.
This is not significant. The government should have tried a bit
harder in this area.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the
discussion of labour sponsored venture capital funds. The hon.
member is correct in pointing out that they have been very
successful, particularly in the province of Quebec. However, the
government must at all times look at the total picture and weigh the
effectiveness of incentives provided against other measures
presented in the budget.
As the budget papers point out, those venture capital funds have
approximately a two-year supply of capital based on the level and
the rate of investment that has been engaged in by those funds. It
seemed to be an appropriate and reasonable measure to scale back,
to temper the incentive a little bit.
(1155 )
I wonder if the hon. member thinks that government should
never re-examine and balance the incentives that it provides and
just keep on benefiting one sector on and on.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, such investment funds are
revolutionary. When they were first created, not too many people
believed they would work. Small investors, workers whose salary
might be
798
barely above the minimum wage, are encouraged to invest in these
funds, which will provide for their retirement.
The goal of these funds is not purely economic. They also have a
social goal. For instance, the businesses in which the FTQ fund has
been investing offer economic training to their workers; they learn
how to take part in managing the firm. The fund is doing a great
job.
Why not tackle some other problem areas? Why not go after tax
havens instead of workers' funds, and why not levy a minimum
corporate tax, as is done in the U.S.? There are many areas other
than workers' investment funds where the government could have
found more money.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I shall be sharing my time with the Secretary of State
for Multiculturalism and Status of Women.
I am most pleased today to be able to take the floor in this noble
institution to speak on the 1996 budget. This is the third one we are
presenting, aimed at guaranteeing Canadians budget stability and
an economy that is vigorous, dynamic and competitive, in today's
harsh economic context.
Along with the 1994 and 1995 budgets, this one maintains a
broad strategy that is deliberate, measured and responsible and is
aimed at putting federal public finances on a sounder footing. It is
deliberate, because our efforts are continuing unrelenting. As the
Minister of Finance has pointed out, in our implacable fight against
the deficit there is no going back. We are going to balance our
books. We shall also put the debt-GDP ratio onto a permanently
descending curve, dropping lower every year.
It is measured, because our action plan is not being applied in a
blind and reckless manner; it is well structured and proceeding at a
rate that will allow efficient adaptation. What we are aiming at is
not a quick fix but permanent progress over the long term.
It is responsible, because this is a strategy which requires us to
take the needs of the economy and of society into account, and to
use particular care in designing the strategic options which will
equip us to meet those needs.
What is more, we are seeking the necessary balance to allow
Canadians to join us in our efforts to reduce the deficit.
[English]
There remains no question about the need for dramatic and
disciplined action. High public sector deficits and debt have sapped
confidence, soaked up domestic savings and led to a sharp increase
in the country's net international indebtedness. Canadians were
paying a painful high price through the punishing pressure that
high deficits place on interest rates. This takes away consumer and
business investments and drives down job creation.
The lethal combination of high interest rates and deficit
borrowing also meant that a growing share of government
resources must go to interest payments on a growing debt. This
year those charges will cost the federal government $47 billion,
money that cannot go to lowering taxes, aiding those in need and
helping our economy create new jobs.
(1200)
[Translation]
These, Mr. Speaker, are our reasons for doing what we did. It is
not because solving Canada's budget problems constitutes an
objective in itself, but because it constitutes a fundamental
component of our national growth, of job creation, and of
economic security.
In the first two budgets, we began a process of improving our
public finances and of restoring the state's budgetary credibility,
after years of failing to control the deficit.
By setting credible rolling two-year targets, by basing budget
planning on cautious economic assumptions and by creating
substantial reserves for contingencies, we are making public
finances once again credible.
The first two budgets provided for unprecedented cuts to
program expenditures. These structural cuts focussed on the
medium term. Thanks to them, the 1995-96 and 1996-97 objectives
of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP will be met, despite
the fact that the growth of the GDP is slower than expected.
This progress is due in part to the fact that interest rates are also
much lower than expected, and this in turn offsets the negative
effect of the slower GDP growth.
The measures announced in the 1996 budget strengthen and
extend those of our initial budgets and provide an added push
toward the achievement of our economic and financial goals.
We set our sights on the reduction of program expenditures,
because the debt problem was the creation of the governments.
They must therefore resolve it by putting their own affairs in order.
Therefore, the 1996 budget provides for no increase in taxes.
There is no increase in income taxes for individuals or
corporations, and there is no increase in the excise tax.
[English]
Expenditure cuts in the 1996 budget will amount to $1.9 billion
in 1998-99 and will build on the reductions of the two previous
budgets to keep program spending on a downward track.
799
Here is a point that must be emphasized: a full 87 per cent of
the cumulative fiscal actions taken from 1994-95 to 1998-99 will
have been expenditure savings.
Together the three budgets will contribute $26.1 billion in
savings for 1997-98. This action, together with the reform of the
employment insurance program, will ensure that we hit the new
deficit target, to bring the deficit down to 2 per cent of GDP.
[Translation]
Thanks to the measures announced in the budget, we will
manage to save an additional $28.9 billion in 1998-99, which
means that the deficit will continue to shrink.
There is no doubt we have taken a historical step. The program
expenditures, that is, all expenditures less interest payments, could
shrink for six consecutive years, until 1998-99. These are actual
cuts in real dollars. Expenditures would shrink from $120 billion in
1993-94 to $105.5 billion in 1998-99, that is, a reduction of 12 per
cent in the amounts spent.
In real terms, the level of program expenditures, adjusted to
reflect inflation, will in fact be below that for 1984-85.
(1205)
Program spending, as compared to the size of the economy, will
be at its lowest level since 1949-50. The debt to GDP ratio, or what
we owe as compared to what we produce, will drop by 1.1 per cent
to reach 73.7 per cent in 1997-98. This will be the first significant
drop since 1974-75.
Another fiscal element is worthy of mention. Calculated the
same way a number of countries, including the United States and
the United Kingdom, measure their deficit, our financial needs
reached $30 billion in 1993-94. In 1997-98, they will have dropped
to only $6 billion. As compared to the size of the economy, this is
the lowest they have been in nearly 30 years. At this rate, we will
likely have the lowest shortfall of all G-7 central governments.
Two additional points are worthy of mention. First, the economic
assumptions included in the budget plan are once again more
conservative than the private sector's. For instance, our projections
for 1997 are based on interest rates nearly 1 per cent higher, or 80
base points, than the private sector's forecasts.
If economic forecasts reach or surpass the planned levels, the
deficit could be lower than our 2 per cent deficit target for 1997-98.
Any unused portion of the contingency reserves will be used
directly to reduce the deficit even further.
Second, the federal government's fiscal health is not the only
one to improve; that of the provinces and territories is also
improving markedly. The combined deficit of the provinces and
territories dropped from a record $25 billion in 1992-93 to $12.6
billion in 1995-96, from 3.6 per cent to 1.6 per cent of GDP.
Consequently, in Canada, the total government deficit should
improve significantly as compared to the other G-7 countries.
[English]
In 1992 the combined government deficits in Canada stood at 7.4
per cent of GDP. That was double the G-7 average of 3.7 per cent
and the second highest behind Italy. This year Canada's total
government deficit will have fallen below the G-7 average to rank
second lowest among the the G-7 countries, just behind the United
States. By 1997 our country's total government deficit should be
the lowest of the G-7 based on the each country's current plans.
[Translation]
Obviously, we are making sustained progress, as are all major
public administrations. The biggest winners will be Canadians. We
are taking the necessary steps to lower interest rates, increase
competitiveness, promote job creation, and improve economic
security. You can be sure we will stay the course.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to correct something that my distinguished colleague
from Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle said. Our distinguished
colleague who represents a part rural, part urban riding in this
House is sticking his chest out and boasting about what a
responsible budget this is, stating that it was not raising taxes for
individual taxpayers or the big companies, in a word, it is not
hitting anybody. There are a few points however in his speech that
sound dishonest to me in that not all the truth is being said in some
instances.
(1210)
It is true that it did not raise taxes on fuel, tobacco and alcohol,
but will he recognize however that, by going after milk subsidies in
its budget, the government will be contributing to making the price
of butter go up 28 cents a pound and the price of cheese 50 cents a
kilo?
In fact, by eliminating over a period of five years the $4.62 per
hectolitre milk subsidy, this government is directly attacking
industrial milk producers and indirectly attacking all Canadian
consumers, who will see their taxes go up not on alcohol, tobacco
and fuel, but on their food baskets, and on butter and cheese in
particular. Is that what he calls a responsible budget?
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend opposite for
his question. As you probably know, since our government came to
office in Ottawa, some 500,000 or 600,000 jobs have been created.
Obviously, in certain areas, it will be a little more difficult to create
jobs, but on the whole, the number of jobs created for the long term
will certainly outweigh the incidental aspects, so to speak, of the
finance minister's budget.
800
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the speech and was quite impressed at how
good things are in Canada.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment on some questions
Environics polled from December 12, 1995 to January 11, 1996.
The first question asked was: Generally speaking, do you approve
or disapprove of the way the government is handling the economy?
Approve, 26 per cent; disapprove, 68 per cent.
The second question asked was: Generally speaking, do you
approve or disapprove of the way the current federal government is
handling the deficit reduction? Approve, 24 per cent; disapprove,
67 per cent.
It gets even gloomier. What about taxes? Generally speaking, do
you approve or disapprove of the way the current government is
handling taxation? Approve, 19 per cent; disapprove, 77 per cent.
Where is the rosy picture we were just hearing about?
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, since taking office, the deficit
percentage has gone down from 5.9 per cent to 3 per cent. The
government is meeting its targets. Next year it will be hitting 2 per
cent.
I am surprised that the member from the third party likes polls so
much considering that his party is staying at 10 per cent and has not
moved for a long time.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of
the recent budget brought down by my colleague, the Minister of
Finance.
This is a good budget. It is a balanced budget and a Liberal
budget. It continues to support the government's commitment to
prudent fiscal planning and to a deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP
while creating opportunity highlighted in the red book for youth,
women, children and seniors. It continues to secure the future of
social programs for all Canadians regardless of region. In fact, it
sets firmly the infrastructure essential to the building of a nation as
it embarks on the new millennium, a strong, economic and social
union. It was a pleasant coincidence that the budget was tabled
during International Women's Week because the budget has many
initiatives that will advance the economic independence of women,
albeit in a time of economic restraint.
(1215)
There were creative new policies that showed how equality can
be served when there is a strong political will to do so. The budget
serves women in all stages of their lives; as students, as youth, as
mothers, as entrepreneurs, as seniors. It does so by using a variety
measures from enhancing access to education and training, to
investment of actual dollars toward low income families, many
being single mothers.
Let me point out some of the creative measures in the budget that
show how the government understands the reality of women's
lives. The initiative that received the most media attention has been
the child support package. The object of this reform is to place the
well-being of the child first. It is based on the clear principle that
support of one's child is not discretionary but is a duty.
It makes four specific changes. The first is a non-inclusion,
non-deduction tax policy that not only puts more money in the way
of the child but levels the playing field between divorced parents
and those families that stay together.
Second are specific guidelines that will set payment levels based
on the gross annual income of the non-custodial spouse with room
for relief if there is hardship to that parent.
Third are enforcement measures that would ensure the
compliance of a non-custodial parent who wilfully reneges on
payments by denying access to passports or other federal licences.
The data base of Revenue Canada will be utilized to track these
parents who try to evade provincial jurisdiction.
Fourth and most important, the moneys realized by Revenue
Canada from this change in tax policy will be used to double the
working income supplement to 700,000 low income parents,
one-third of whom are single parents.
The Prime Minister spoke in his reply to the throne speech of
creating security for older Canadians. The budget made good on
that promise. The new senior's benefit which will combine OAS,
GIS, the tax and pension benefits into a single tax free payment will
benefit nine of out ten single women. Almost 60 per cent of seniors
are women, many of whom live in low income situations. In fact,
80 per cent of seniors, single or couples have low incomes of under
$45,000 and they will get the same or more money under this new
plan. Also, this new seniors benefit is fully indexed.
This innovative move which targets low and modest income
seniors is the only way we can ensure the future sustainability of
the old age security which today represents one-fifth of federal
government spending. The government continues to show its
commitment to fairness. While securing the future of low and
income seniors we have also given assistance to those future
seniors who will depend mostly on private incomes by removing
the limits on RRSP carry forwards.
The child care expense deduction has been expanded so that it
applies more widely to parents pursuing full time studies while
raising their families. This will help women get an education or
training, to enter the workforce and secure their economic
independence.
Single parents will now be allowed the same deductions
available for couples pursuing full time studies, and the age limit
for day care has been increased from 14 to 16. These simple
initiatives
801
have recognized the reality of women's lives and that of their
children and has levelled the playing field so that women's access
to education and training can be expanded.
The budget is not only about women, it is about the
government's continued recognition of the importance of small and
medium size business and how they play a role in job creation.
Concerning the new world of technology the 21st century
Canadian must face and master about the globalization of putting in
place policy initiatives that would improve the access of small
business to global markets, policies that would increase access to
the Internet, that would enhance research into environmental and
biotechnologies, in every way the budget has moved Canada into
the competitive starting line for the new millennium. I am gratified
to see that my province of British Columbia, the leader in
environmental and biotechnology, will benefit from these policies.
Women, seniors and entrepreneurs represent today's world. How
do we build a tomorrow? How do we ensure our productivity
increases and that we can ensure our continued evolution as a world
competitor? The answer lies in our youth, and by making youth a
priority the budget has again shown itself to be forward looking and
progressive.
I can go on about partnerships with the private sector to give
youth their first jobs and to get them out of the catch-22 situation of
no job without experience, no experience without a job. I can talk
about the doubling of summer jobs, the increased Youth Service
Canada initiatives for community work or I can speak to the
increase in RESPs or the increase in the tax credits for education,
but there is not enough time.
(1220)
Liberal governments throughout Canada's history have put into
place the social infrastructure we have come to take for granted:
medicare, social security, post-secondary education subsidies,
student loan programs.
It is appropriate that a Liberal government spearhead the
evolution of these programs so that they are relevant to the needs of
the 21st century Canadian and to the new federal-provincial
partnership.
When the CHST was brought in as a positive alternative to the
established programs financing and CAP in the last budget, I saw it
as a positive step in a new decentralization of management.
Stabilizing the cash component in the budget at $11 billion and
setting in a five-year plan that would see an increase in the transfer
of payments in the last three years are other moves in securing a
future for Canadians which will ensure Canada continues to have a
strong social and economic union as we move into the next
millennium.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague from the government has just stated that this is an
excellent budget. I, on the other hand, could say that this budget is
hypocritical toward women and young people. Although it refers to
subsidies to provide our young people with summer jobs, we know
full well that the government had already cut $25 million in the
previous budget. So this is the lesser of two evils. The budget tries
to make some adjustments, but the last budget still contained cuts
to community group programs for women.
These groups have seen their funds reduced by 31 per cent over
six years. The last budget cut funding for women's organizations
by 6 per cent. I am not so complimentary or positive about this
budget. Look at what is happening today. People are still
demonstrating. I was watching the news earlier and everywhere in
Quebec and Ontario people are demonstrating. The federal
government has cut transfers to the provinces.
People are indicating that they are not happy with this budget.
Do they seem happy? Not at all. They are warning us that our social
programs are in danger because of the government's pervasive
cuts. There was an attempt to please young people and women, but
women also want jobs. I feel that neither this budget nor the last
one created jobs for women, or that real, concrete measures were
taken.
The federal government has not invested a red cent in the UI
fund, and yet it wants to centralize. The UI fund is even running a
surplus, which the government plans to use to reduce its deficit.
I, for one, do not think this is a good budget for women. It is not
what women are telling us. The last budget came under severe
criticism, and I do not think that this budget will improve women's
lot. Giving them the right to receive UI benefits and the income
supplement will not create jobs, but simply ease the economic
situation. However, for young women, for women returning to the
labour force, there are no job creation initiatives.
My colleague also talked about nation building. I would like to
ask her this: Is she aware that, within the nation they want to build,
there are founding peoples, including Quebec francophones and
natives?
I am very pessimistic about this budget. I would call it a
hypocritical budget. It does not show any desire on the
government's part to decentralize. There is some duplication. I
think that, with all the commissions-on revenue, on health-it
promises to set up, the federal government is once again trying to
create jobs for its own people at the expense of the provinces.
802
(1225 )
[English]
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to my hon.
colleague's questions. My colleague has forgotten some things and
probably has not read the full budget.
How can my colleague say that in the budget we have not put
into place anything for women? The obvious concern of everyone
is that putting money into programs is the only answer. We have
made some fairly creative and innovative changes in the budget.
We have changed tax structures. We have increased the ability for
many more women, especially single women, to have access to day
care, including single women who are parents attending high
school. This a very innovative budget.
I was at the United Nations last week. When we talked about
some of these tax initiatives, countries in which fiscal restraint is
the order of the day were extremely excited to see some of the ways
we were able to give women economic independence and ensure
their equality in times that are tight.
The hon. member maybe should stop looking at the old ways and
start looking at some creative, innovative ways to go about
changing things.
The hon. member speaks of summer jobs as if the program is
something which is not worthwhile. Imitation is the best form of
flattery. British Columbia has just embarked on a summer job
program that echoes ours exactly. Therefore it tells us we are on the
right track to helping youth.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Edmonton Southwest.
As I speak to the budget today, I cannot help but think it is
almost a waste of my time. Through a series of unforeseen
circumstances we are here on the second day of debate on the
budget, almost two weeks after it was introduced in the House.
Already the budget is of little if any concern to the Canadian
people. It was insignificant 12 days ago when the finance minister
gave the budget speech and it is of even less significance today.
The budget the government members are so proud of is a budget
that does nothing. Actually it seems to be the rallying cry of the
Liberal government, the party that does nothing and is proud of it.
I know I am being a little facetious here. After all, the
government has done something. After three years in power the
government will have added $100 billion to the national debt. For
some unknown reason members opposite seem to think this is a
great thing to have done. I would like to put their record into some
statistical perspective.
The Liberal government has been in power for less than 2.5 per
cent of the 129 years Canada has existed as a country. During this
short period it is responsible for 17 per cent of the entire debt.
There is a record these Liberals can be proud of. They have been
able to run up the debt at a faster rate than any other government in
the history of Canada.
I can see the Liberals in their caucus meeting chanting ``we are
number one, we are number one''. Unfortunately the members of
the government have actually bought the premise that having a
deficit of 3 per cent of GDP is some magic elixir. Three per cent of
GDP is irrelevant when the national debt is 75 per cent of GDP.
This massive debt load we carry is the biggest threat to our social
programs and the greatest hindrance to increased employment. The
government is following in the same footsteps as the Tories when
they came to power in the mid-1980s. It is not doing things
differently. It is not being creative.
The Tories also took modest steps to improve on the disasters the
previous Liberal government had created, and then congratulated
themselves for their meagre accomplishment. The Tories failed to
take advantage of a booming economy to get their finances in
order. When the recession hit, they were in dire straits.
(1230 )
Unfortunately the Liberals do not seem to have learned from the
mistakes of the Tories. Here we are with some of the lowest interest
rates in the last 30 years, a booming economy in the United States,
low inflation, yet our economy is stifled by sluggish growth and we
still have far too many people unemployed. What is the problem?
In case government members have not noticed, it is the debt.
The debt costs Canadians $50 billion a year in interest payments.
It astounds me when I hear members of the government and the
socialists complain about our banks earning billion dollar profits.
Do they not realize that much of the profit the banks earn is from
interest payments on money they lend to the federal government? It
is not just Canadian banks. Each year our government sends almost
$20 billion of taxpayers' money to foreign banks and financial
institutions.
Has the government not realized that with almost 33 cents on
every dollar the government spends going to service the debt that it
is extremely limited in what it can accomplish?
The Reform Party knows the problem is the debt. The IMF
knows the problem is the debt. Even the CIA knows the problem is
the debt. That is right, the CIA.
While surfing the net last week, my office came across the CIA's
home page. While it does not list all its secrets on the Internet, it
does list its analyses on all the countries around the world. It has a
very thorough eight page listing on Canada. Of particular interest
was its information on our economy. In summary, the CIA states:
803
``With its great natural resources, skilled labour force and modern
capital plant, Canada has excellent economic prospects, although
the country still faces high unemployment and a growing debt''.
If everyone else recognizes the problem, why has not the
government? Instead it brags about a deficit of around $30 billion
this year and $20 billion and some next year.
What is particularly troubling is how the government is reducing
the debt. Much of its cost cutting has involved a reduction in
transfers to the provinces. That means the federal government is
not seen cutting any of its programs; rather the provinces have to
cut theirs. It looks good for the feds, but the real losers are the
taxpayers.
The other major sleight of hand is how the government is now
using unemployment insurance premiums to subsidize other
government spending. It is true that two years ago the
unemployment insurance fund was in a deficit situation, but that
deficit has been eliminated. By the end of this year there will be a
$5 billion surplus. By next year there will be close to a $10 billion
surplus.
Is the money being saved in a special unemployment fund which
can be used the next time there are more expenditures than
revenue? Of course not. It is put right into the consolidated revenue
fund. Is there any chance that the government will reduce the
premiums so that employers and employees will have more money
in their pockets to stimulate the economy? Of course not. The
government is keeping the money in its pocket so it looks like it is
doing something about the deficit.
The government should be spending less time on optics and
more time on doing the right thing. What is the right thing? To
figure that out I think the best minds in the Liberal Party scour
through the Reform Party's policies to see what idea they can steal
next. If the government continues to steal the Reform Party's
policies and platforms, it will eventually get around to addressing
the debt. After all, it has already adopted our policies on seniors.
In my constituency there is a large senior population.
Amendments to the old age security program will be viewed with
particular interest. In the last election campaign the Reform Party
suggested two changes to OAS: calculating income on a family
basis and eliminating payments to high income earners. I recall the
Liberals condemning us for these suggestions. ``How unfair to use
family income to calculate benefits'', they said. ``It is heresy'',
they stated, ``for Reform to suggest that we eliminate payments to
high income earners, as that would mean the death of
universality''.
What do we see in this budget? The end of universality and the
family based income calculation. It is so typical of this government
to say one thing to get elected and then do the opposite when in
government.
(1235)
If this government had just adopted our position on the debt and
deficit, it could have saved Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars
in interest payments. It could have prevented billions of dollars
from being sent out of the country to foreign financial institutions.
Maybe it could have let Canadians enjoy some of that excellent
economic potential that we would have if it were not for our debt.
Hey, if you do not believe us, go ask the CIA.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the hon. member
complain about all the things the government is doing wrong, while
at the same time telling us that the UI deficit has gone, that it is
now in surplus. Today we have the lowest interest rates in 30 years
and a low inflation rate. I cannot figure out what the hon. member
has to complain about. She just told Canadians that this
government has done a very good job of attacking those things.
The hon. member mentioned at the beginning of her speech
something about how we are cutting the social programs. I am
wondering what she would do for single parents who are having a
hard time in their day to day living or for the aboriginal people who
are at the bottom end of the economic scale, and which we are
doing something about to address, such as the Nisga'a case. We are
trying to right the wrongs that have been done over the years. The
Reform Party does not support the negotiated agreements we have
made with the Nisga'a or any other land claims. Reformers think
we are giving away the land and the money to aboriginal people.
What does the hon. member think the government should be
doing to address the wrongs that have been done to the aboriginal
people over the issue of lands and other rights, as well as the
disabled and all the other social issues?
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that a member
from the Liberal government asks what we are going to do. I will
tell him what we would do.
We would not be taking the money from the workers in higher
unemployment insurance premiums so that the government can say
it is looking after the deficit. We would be reducing the premiums
so that the workers would have more money in their pockets and
the employers would have more money in their pockets so they
could create more jobs.
This is interesting coming from a member on the government
side which has taken $6.3 billion out of provincial transfers. The
Reform Party would support education, health and social services
for the single parents and for those who need help. The Liberal
government has taken $6.3 billion away from those transfer
payments. The Reform Party on the other hand, in our budget that
at least balanced the books instead of having 3 per cent of GDP,
only took away $3.3 billion. It is incredible that we have members
804
on the government side who are taking money away from the most
needy in this country far more than the Reform Party ever talked
about doing. I am offended.
What would I do with the aboriginal people? What is missing in
all of these treaty agreements is any talk about how the moneys will
be used to create employment, to create economic opportunities for
the Nisga'a people. It does not talk about how the Nisga'a people
are going to take on the responsibilities of self-government and
control the development of their communities.
(1240)
Those are the things that are missing from the agreement. The
only thing these agreements deal with is how the money will be
transferred from the federal government to the aboriginal people
without any notion of how they are going to use that money to
remove themselves from dependency on the government. Those are
the things that need to be talked about.
How are we going to give aboriginal people the ability to walk
away with their heads held high without having to continually go
back to government for more financial assistance? That is what the
native people are asking for. They want the ability to be the same as
every other Canadian and the government is not doing that for
them.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Don Valley North
on a question or comment. Please be very brief, about 30 or 40
seconds.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker I refer the hon. member to the Financial Post column
View from the West. The headline reads: ``Reform Party soon
won't have a platform to stand on''. The Reform Party soon will
not have a leg to stand on, or perhaps the Reform Party soon will
not have a chair to sit on. Michael Walker, the boss of the Fraser
Institute says-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry the time has expired. The hon.
member may reply very briefly as well.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, There is no way a member from the
province of Ontario can tell people from the west what we are
thinking. People in the west have made it very clear by electing
Reformers to represent them in the House of Commons that the
Liberal Party is not in a position to speak on behalf of western
Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, immediately after the completion
of the divisions scheduled for this day, the House shall take up proceedings
pursuant to Standing Order 38, but, at the conclusion of the said proceedings,
the House shall not adjourn, but shall continue to sit to consider the second
reading stage of Bill C-10, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal
year beginning on April 1, 1996;
That, during this portion of the sitting, the Chair shall not receive any dilatory
motions or quorum calls;
That, when no Member rises to speak, but, in any case, no later than 10 p.m.,
the debate shall be adjourned and the House shall be adjourned; and
That, no later than 15 minutes before the expiry of the time allotted for
consideration of Government Orders on March 21, 1996, any proceedings
before the House shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for the
disposal of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively
without further debate or amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House
approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; the
amendment; and the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I begin my comments on the budget debate I would
beg the indulgence of the House. I would like to put on record a
clarification and a correction to some comments I made in the
throne speech debate in which I referred to events or the notion of a
distinct society in Quebec as being inherently racist and tribalist in
nature.
On reflection and seeing those comments in print I was most
uncomfortable because I felt the linking of the term racist was
inappropriate; it was wrong. By any inference I would not want
Hansard, the official record, to show in any way that I would
suggest separatists are racists and that Quebec society is racist in
nature. In my experience it is not.
I reiterate Quebec society is very tribal. There is tribalism and a
sense of the necessity to circle around a group. I think tribalism is a
very accurate description of what is going on with the separatists in
Quebec. Again, I would beg the indulgence of the House to allow
me to correct the record.
(1245 )
The Deputy Speaker: I do not believe Hansard can be changed
two weeks after the fact. However, the member has clarified the
matter and what he said will appear in today's Hansard.
805
Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All I wanted was
to have it on the record.
It is really puzzling that the country can be in the state it is in
today and yet the people are not out in the streets rioting. They do
not seem to be particularly upset. One has to ask what it is about the
human nature and the body politic in Canada which does not hold
the Liberal government accountable for 30 or 40 years of
mismanagement of the economy. It got us into this mess in the first
place.
If you are looking for ground zero on what screwed up our
economy, we are looking across at it right now, the descendants of
this paternalistic liberalized state. Why are the people not enraged,
particularly the young people in our society who are in university
or high school and are looking at their futures? Why do they not
feel some sense of passion at the fact that their generation is going
to be paying the bills and will have a substantially diminished
lifestyle because my generation and the generation that preceded
me lived beyond its means?
What it is about human nature and about being Canadian that
allows us to accept this? I know we got into this mess gradually. We
all know the story about the incipient nature of gradualism and
why, we got up this morning and noticed that we had a debt and we
were paying almost 40 per cent of every dollar that goes into the
federal coffers to pay interest on money we have already spent.
Nobody would have envisioned that 30 years ago. Even the
Liberals would say it was irresponsible to do that. It was a gradual
thing. We gradually grew into it so that we did not have that shock
to our system.
Everyone sees what is going on now in the country and where it
is our responsibility to pay. As a society we have elevated certain
demands. As individuals citizens we expect certain things from
government that we used to expect from ourselves. Once we
expected to be personally responsible but over the last 30 years or
so we have come to count on the federal government to be
responsible for our welfare and how we get along in life.
I give this government and the present finance minister full
marks for taking the first tentative steps to do what has to be done.
Perhaps that is the difference between this government over others.
Could you envision the Liberal government opposite, even taking
the tentative steps it has in the right direction, if it was facing the
kind of opposition that the Conservative government in 1984 was
facing? The body politic in Canada has shifted so much that the
Liberal members are now looking across at us and we are telling
them what to do but to do it with more vigour and more fire in their
belly. We are saying that the sooner and faster we do it the better
our children and grandchildren will be.
The Liberal members look across to us and we are telling them to
get on with the job. However, the Conservative members in 1984
were looking across at a Liberal opposition that cried bloody
murder every time the Conservatives made a tentative step in the
right direction. That is why the Conservatives lost the will of the
people. They did not have the courage to stay the course. They were
elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility. They did not do it and
now the Conservative Party is dead across the country.
(1250 )
Today the Liberals are tentatively taking the first steps in the
right direction, urged on by the Reform Party. The Bloc really does
not have a philosophy. Every once in a while its members will say
``do not do this'' and ``do not do that'', but they really do not
understand or do not have a sense of passion other than getting
Quebec out of Canada.
The Reform Party is making it possible for the Liberals to do
what the Conservatives should have done. The Liberals know in
their hearts what must be done because they got us started on this
terrible path 30 years ago. That is the reality of the situation.
However we have to continue to ask, how did we find ourselves in
this situation? How did we allow this to happen?
The federal government right now is passing off to the provinces
responsibility for social programs, for the infrastructure of our way
of life that had previously been paid for by the federal government
but is now paid for by provincial governments. It is not sending
money along to pay the bills. Therefore it is the provincial
governments that have to pay the piper. The federal government is
calling the tune, the provincial governments are paying the piper.
We see even now the strangest of all things. Miracles can
happen. The ex-leader of the official opposition, Mr. Bouchard, is
now the premier of Quebec. All of a sudden there is a revelation.
He finds that there is another priority. If Quebec does not get its
financial house in order what difference does it make if you are
bankrupt and broke in French or English? Perhaps he is starting to
get his priorities together.
The problem with this budget is not its general direction. The
problem is that it is not honest. Over the years the federal
government has set up an expectation of delivery of services across
the country. It cannot afford to do it but it does not have the courage
to say: ``My friends, we have been living beyond our means. It is
time to tighten our belts. We must do it without sloughing off the
responsibility to other orders of government. We must take the heat
ourselves''.
That is the great tragedy of this budget and in my opinion the
great tragedy of the Liberal government as a whole. It has the
ability right now to do what it knows must be done and to do it with
vigour instead of backing into it and being embarrassed about it. It
has to be done with vigour and it has to be done with dispatch
because the longer it drifts, the more pussyfooting around that it
806
does, more of the problems of our grandparents are going to be put
into the hands of our grandchildren.
As parliamentarians our responsibility is not to our
grandparents. It is to our grandchildren. Everything that we do
should be done with an eye to the future.
I expect I will receive a few questions from those opposite. I see
some of the members are busy scribbling some information down
and I know that soon they will be rising from their chairs, hopefully
to take me to task and to ask me to defend my thesis that they
started it and that they do not have the courage to take it as fast and
as far as they should to solve the problem. I would use as a
foundation for that statement the fact that the Prime Minister in his
budget address passed off responsibility to the private sector for job
creation.
The Liberal government campaigned on a platform of jobs, jobs,
jobs, getting rid of the GST, saying and doing whatever it took to
get the maiden out. The Liberals were doing whatever it took to get
the votes in order to get here.
The Reform Party philosophically differs from the Liberal Party
in a number of areas. One major area is that we understand very
clearly it is the role and the correct area of our economy for the
private sector to create and deliver jobs. Job growth in the future
will come from investment in the private sector by the private
sector. It will not come from the public sector.
(1255)
The government challenges the private sector to help. There are
some good things about it, such as the challenge to hire students
during the summer. That is a good challenge. The private sector can
take it up and hire students. It can create work so that the flowers of
our future will have a sense of self-worth. We all must buy into
that.
I do not think it is necessarily bad to say: ``We have to come
together. We have to do it''. However, the responsibility of the
federal government is to create a climate which will allow the
private sector to do what the private sector must do: be efficient
and innovative. To do that a climate must be created which will
allow the private sector to retain earnings; to retain wealth. It is the
reinvestment of private wealth that creates jobs. If entrepreneurs
decide that they are going to risk everything in order to create a
business they must know that they will be able to retain some of the
fruits of their labour.
The job of the federal government is to create the lowest possible
tax environment, with a good infrastructure, that will allow the
private sector to compete in the global marketplace.
I would like to mention some of the budget considerations with
respect to divorce, child support and so on. I have a great deal of
experience in making maintenance payments. I believe that the
government is moving in the right direction. When people bring
children into the world, it is the responsibility of the parents,
whether or not they are divorced, to raise, nurture and care for their
children. The government is taking the first steps in the right
direction.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, now I can complete the question which I tried to ask
earlier when I was cut off because of time constraints.
On page 29 of today's Quorum there is an article entitled ``View
from the West'' which states that Michael Walker, boss of the
Fraser Institute and the chief guru of the Conservative movement
on economic matters says that he was frankly impressed and
reassured by the finance minister's budget. ``Far from being a
do-nothing budget, it is probably the most significant budget
produced by the federal government in the late 20th century''.
Among other things he said that it showed the government is on
track to reduce the deficit to zero by the end of the decade. It
showed that federal spending cuts were actually more severe than
those of the Klein government in Alberta. It showed that Canada
was borrowing less than any other G-7 country.
That third point is very important. I hope the hon. member will
compare his notes with this article and tell us where he stands on
the issue.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member opposite most graciously for giving me the opportunity to
rise once more to address that article.
Visitors to Washington know the famous Lincoln memorial
which is dedicated to Abraham Lincoln, who was considered to be
the number one reformer of the Americas. It was the Reform
Republican Party that Abraham Lincoln started. He, as everyone
here knows, is regarded as one of the most pre-eminent politicians
in modern history. He said: ``If you do not care who gets the credit,
there is no end to what may be accomplished''.
We have raised the issues of fiscal responsibility in the House of
Commons. We have made it politically correct to be fiscally
responsible. If not for the Reform Party day in and day out holding
the Liberal's feet to the fire, telling them to pay attention and
change what the Liberal Party has been doing for the last 30 years,
pay attention to fiscal concerns and make sure we do not leave our
grandchildren a legacy of debt, if not for Reform Party singularly
pushing this issue year after year, time after time, the Liberals
would not have had the courage or the fortitude to do what in their
hearts they knew they must.
807
(1300)
We can thank Abraham Lincoln and thank the Reform Party.
Remember these words: ``If you do not care who gets the credit,
there is no end to what may be accomplished''.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after hearing the speech by the member for
Edmonton Southwest I cannot help believe I have heard those
words before. It appears he simply paraphrased the budget speech
of the hon. Minister of Finance.
He also talked about creating at atmosphere for business. There
was a major announcement by the Minister of Industry last week
dealing with science and technology. He indicated there is a need to
create at atmosphere for private business. Friday's Calgary Herald
said: ``The Liberals have moved on settling the economic table for
private business''.
I ask the hon. member whether he approves of the budget, of the
atmosphere being created by the Minister of Finance. In effect is he
putting his stamp of approval on the budget speech?
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, anywhere strong hand and
courage are seen, they should be appreciated and respected. I can
imagine the Minister of Finance in his caucus has had some the
most egregiously difficult times in changing the direction of the
Liberal government of 30 years, making members look carefully in
a mirror and asking: ``Oh my God, what have we done to our
country, to the future of our country? What have we done to our
grandchildren?''
For the minister to have the strength to go into his caucus and
pull half the caucus along grudgingly, that must be respected.
While I do not agree the budget is fast enough or strong enough, the
last Liberal budget is a light year ahead of the last 30 years of
Liberal budgets.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest because probably unknowingly in his speech he gave
credit to 40 Liberal MPs who sat in the House between 1984 and
1988 for scaring the blazes out of 212 Tories in the House. Then he
gave credit to some 80 Liberal members who sat here between
1988 and 1993 for polishing them off and putting the government
in place to run the country.
No matter when budgets are delivered in a parliamentary session
and regardless of the fiscal issues surrounding a budget, each
budget in turn has its impact on various segments of society.
The last two budgets have been aimed at getting federal finances
in order. This budget is no exception to recent fiscal policies
because there are benefactors and then there are others who get hit
negatively.
The Minister of Finance does not have an easy role. Unlike his
predecessors in the Tory days, when he sets a target he has every
intention of meeting it. With all this scenario, it behoves us not to
lose sight of those things in our economic structure that have
served us well in the past and which will build a good future in the
days ahead.
Sometimes there is a very thin line between cost cutting to save
money and cost cutting which in the long run does not serve as well
as hoped.
These are the challenges that face the Minister of Finance and
the government today. There are a host of positive things in this
budget and there are other items that lay the groundwork for
difficulties to come.
(1305)
We are ensuring a secure, stable and growing system of federal
support for medicare, post-secondary education and social
assistance through the Canada health and social transfer to the
provinces. There will be no further cuts in the transfer to the
provinces. We have announced a firm funding commitment for a
five-year period beginning in 1998-99.
For the first two years the Canada health and social transfer will
remain constant at $25.1 billion and for the next three years it will
increase each year. For the first time the federal government has set
a cash floor for transfers. The cash component of the Canada health
and social transfer will never be lower than $11 billion a year
during this period.
We are acting to restore confidence in the old age security
system by creating a new seniors benefit to take effect in 2001
designed to help those who need help the most. That is the way it
was when I first came into the House.
As promised, current seniors will continue to receive the benefits
they receive now. The changes will ensure the sustainability of the
system for years to come. Canada's future depends on our ability to
show innovative technology leadership, and the government's
commitment to jobs and growth was reinforced in both the speech
from the throne and the budget.
The budget outlined priorities for investing in our future in three
strategic areas: creating better ways to get young Canadians into
the job market, expanding our efforts to increase international
trade, and accelerating the development and use of technology.
Technology is a priority because it is fundamental to increased
economic growth in this country or any other modern day country.
In his budget speech the finance minister spoke about investing
in the future, about providing hope for jobs and for growth. He
808
said: ``If our future is to be brighter, we must invest in it''. Clearly
this is good business and it is also good government.
Although not specifically mentioned in the budget speech, one
outcome of the prebudget program review has been a 42 per cent
cut in the annual allocation to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. The
cut, to be administered over two years, was apparently the result of
a purely business assessment, by government and by a firm brought
in, of the short term needs of that crown corporation. It was based
on bottom line logic from a consulting firm, not the vision for the
future.
The government, through the Minister of Natural Resources, is
attempting to find a new home for this one-half century of proven
basic research that was started at Chalk River, Ontario about 50
years ago. What has only now become clear is that this 42 per cent
cut in the business support spread out over two years has been
transformed by AECL into the complete removal of all its basic
research activities, some immediately and the rest within a year. It
is cashing in on the very investment on which the future depends.
Basic or fundamental research is the search for scientific
knowledge without a specific application in mind. This generalized
search for knowledge is essential if real innovation is ever to occur
because tomorrow's application of today's research usually cannot
even be imagined today; we cannot command what we do not
know.
A good example is about 170 years ago an accomplished British
scientist was asked by the Royal Society to improve optical glass, a
task which he felt he could not refuse. After 10 years of fruitless
labour he wrote in 1831 to ask permission, ``to set aside the glass
work for a while that I may enjoy the pleasure of working out my
own thoughts on other subjects''. In other words, he wanted to do
some pure research.
(1310)
Within two months Michael Faraday had discovered
electromagnetic induction and built the first prototype dynamo in
world history. From those two months of basic research have come
today's mammoth electricity generators that supply our industry
and give us lights in the House.
There are two important questions that arise from this story.
First, would the world today have been a better place if the Royal
Society had insisted that Michael Faraday continue his efforts on
the more practical application of glass? Second, is it likely that any
government committee or task force in 1831 would have arrived at
electromagnetic induction as a strategic technology worthy of
public support?
The answer to both these questions is a resounding no. This
historical observation is not lost on the G-7 countries today. For
example, a document entitled ``Science in the National Interest'',
issued and signed by President Clinton in late 1994, states: ``We
understand that the fruit of fundamental research initiatives may
not ripen for some time. The time scale can be long and success
may hinge on facilities and interdisciplinary research teams that
take years to assemble. Even in the face of current budgetary
pressures, considerations about fundamental science must remain
integral to the agency planning activities. We cannot allow a short
term mission focus to compromise the development of the
intellectual capital vital to our nation's future''.
Even more emphatic is the example of Japan. Its response to the
recent downturn in its economy has been to double its spending on
basic research.
In light of these facts, it is astonishing that we are now
threatened in Canada with the dismantling of one of the best
examples we have of a marriage of basic research and
economically successful applications.
Basic research in nuclear science has been an essential part of
the country's nuclear program since the mid-1940s when it was
started under the National Research Council. It has supplied the
fundamental knowledge required by the industry, provided many of
its leaders and given lustre to the national effort by its international
reputation for excellence.
As a result AECL and its partners have produced the best
performing and most versatile reactor system in the world. They
have done so at a fraction of the research and development cost of
any of their competitors. The industry now employs 30,000
Canadians, contributes more than $3 billion per year to the gross
domestic product and generates over $500 million in federal tax
revenue.
In addition to its role in launching and sustaining this industry,
the basic research components of AECL are also serving as
national laboratories for university researchers and Canada around
the world. They foster research in nuclear science and other related
fields throughout the country. They offer facilities no one
university could operate and maintain on its own. They give many
university professors access to the frontiers of world science they
could not otherwise find without going abroad. They train students
who form the next generation of Canadian researchers.
These labs at Chalk River perfected the O ring for the U.S.
shuttle when the previous shuttle had blown up. They
manufactured and developed radio isotopes which are used in
hospitals around the world today. I emphasize that at Chalk River
our scientists and researchers handle radioactive wastes from
hospitals across the country.
These national laboratories for basic research at Chalk River
have been centres of excellence for decades. They have been
examples of a partnership among government, industry and the
universities. In short, they are exactly what the Canadian
government seeks to create as we prepare for the next century.
809
(1315 )
I am hoping, and so are many others, that the Minister of Natural
Resources will find a new home for such physics organizations as
TASCC and Neutron Scattering and that environmental research
will not be scaled back at Chalk River at this time.
These are the 260 letters that have been received from top
scientists from across Canada and from approximately 30 countries
around the world who respect the basic research that is going on in
Canada today. I lay this before the House today because it is an
important matter for the future of Canada.
The stress testing of aircraft parts of the aircraft we fly in has
been done in these labs. The aerospace industry has benefited
greatly. Bertram Brockhouse, our 1994 Nobel laureate, worked in
the physics labs at Chalk River. His award was granted because of
the work he did in the 1950s and 1960s.
My message today is: Let us find a new home for these facilities
so that they are not lost, so that Canada's science community does
not have a brain drain and that we continue to lay the excellent
groundwork for years to come for basic research and development
in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on the speech made by the most senior
member of this House. The hon. member sometimes referred to the
budget, sometimes to the speech from the throne, and sometimes to
more or less concise interpretations regarding the budget.
I want to remind our most senior member that everything that
goes up must come down. While it is true that the Liberal Party
ousted the Conservative Party from this House, it is also true that,
in 1984, the Liberal Party was severely decimated. What is there
about job creation in the recent budget tabled by the Minister of
Finance? Nothing, absolutely nothing, except that the government
will double the very minimal amount allocated for summer jobs for
students.
I am talking about job creation, because in 1993, in its red book,
the Liberal government boasted about creating jobs, jobs, jobs. The
fact is that when 20 jobs are created in one region of the country, 19
are lost in another region. So, when the government says that
560,000 jobs were created last year, let us not forget that there were
massive layoffs almost equivalent in size. Consequently, the
unemployment rate remains essentially the same, while at the
provincial level, the numbers on the welfare rolls have increased
drastically.
I wonder why the Minister of Finance, who is said to have
consulted the majority of his colleagues, did not focus on job
creation, instead of constantly talking about the deficit. After all,
jobs are what people want. This government is no better than its
predecessor; in fact, it is worse than the previous Conservative
government.
[English]
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I do not go along with the scenario
the hon. member just outlined. Everyone in this House who can
add, subtract and divide knows full well that if we allow things to
continue to escalate and get out of control, then interest rates will
rise and there will be greater unemployment. The Minister of
Finance is trying under very difficult circumstances to put a solid
base on the financial structure of the country so that we will not
have higher unemployment or high interest rates. Interest rates now
are the lowest they have been in three decades. This alone will help
businesses to grow. It is up to government to lay some firm
foundations on which private enterprise can grow, bloom and hire
people. Over the years governments have done this.
(1320)
In the early 1980s the Liberal government, and I sat here with it,
brought in deficit budgets. However I point out to the hon. member
that unemployment was extremely high. Canadians across the
country were having a very difficult time. World inflation was sky
high. People said that never again would we see one digit interest
rates in this country. That was in the early eighties and look where
we are now. Interest rates are the lowest they have been in three
decades. We have a solid financial plan.
The Minister of Finance is not delivering a powerful speech and
then running away to hide and then give in to everything like the
Tories did. As a result, the debt continued to grow under the Tories
because there was no will in the Prime Minister and other members
of the cabinet to back up their own finance minister. That is why
the Tories are not in the House today. Canadians know the
difference.
I remember when we sat across the way and criticized the Tory
government on its many weaknesses. God knows, we did not have
to look very far for those. I say to the hon. member that I too know
how easy it is to get up and deliver a speech from that side of the
House and try to attack the solid foundation which is being built for
the financial structure of the country on this side of the House.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise
in this place today in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport and participate in the response to the budget.
Before I begin, permit me to make a short message. I want to
recognize the excellent work done by the first round of
parliamentary secretaries, particularly my predecessor and friend,
the hon. member for London East. Along with my 24 recently
sworn in colleagues, I acknowledge the significant role played by
our
810
predecessors in bringing about the many accomplishments of the
government during the first half of its mandate. My fellow
parliamentary secretaries and I look forward to upholding that high
standard set by them.
I also extend my congratulations to the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria. Those of us who have had the pleasure of
working with her appreciate her sincerity and dedication to her
parliamentary duties. I am confident she will do a solid job in her
new role as Deputy Chair of the committee of the Whole.
With regard to the budget, I have listened intently to the
members opposite. We all realize it is easier to criticize good
government than it is to provide it. Although constructive criticism
is a valuable tool of democracy, the key difference between those
who provide good government and those who merely criticize is
courage. Good government is driven by courage and concern for
the well-being of one's nation. Unfortunately in most cases, the
destructive criticism offered by members opposite is driven by
political opportunism, posturing and underwhelming tactics.
I am proud to say that on this side of the House the principles and
practices of good government have been enhanced by the courage
and constructive criticism within our own caucus. In recent days
there has been a great deal of gloom and doom espoused
throughout the country by those who seem to have overlooked our
nation's great potential. The recent speech from the throne focused
on ensuring opportunity for Canadians by means of a strong
economy, providing security for all Canadians and bolstering a
modern and united country. The budget secures our financial
future. Our deficit reduction plan remains on track.
(1325)
It has been said that the primary role of a good government is to
make things better for the governed. This government is offering
hope and opportunity for all Canadians who are willing to show
courage, resolve and faith in our great nation.
We are providing hope and opportunity by challenging the
private sector to create jobs for young people in our country. We
will also double the number of federal student jobs available this
summer. This initiative will help to reduce the unemployment rate
among young people and provide them with valuable work
experience and decent wages.
Canada has a competitive advantage in the world with respect to
aerospace and environmental technology. In fact there is some
excellent science and technology research work being conducted at
McMaster University in my riding of Hamilton West. In order to
bolster our national and international strength in this area, the
government has committed itself to the development of a Canadian
technology network.
Since the Canadian economy is so heavily dependent on exports,
the government will make every attempt to continue tapping into
emerging markets abroad in order to further enhance our share of
the international demand for Canadian goods and services.
With regard to security, we have to ensure that all Canadians are
provided with an adequate social safety net. That means protecting
vital social programs like medicare and making sure that
Canadians in need of health care services have universal access to
them. We must provide pension security for our seniors, as well as
for future generations to come. A secure social safety net is too
important to ignore. In fact Canadian core values are reflected by
our social safety net and our willingness to preserve it.
With regard to employment, although Hamilton has one of the
lowest unemployment rates in the entire country, there are still
many people in my hometown and in other cities across Canada
who are looking for work. To address this, the government remains
committed to implementing a new employment insurance system
this summer in order to help Canadians find jobs and keep them.
Canada is blessed with a highly employable workforce. Our job
is to create a climate that is conducive to increased levels of
personnel recruitment in the private sector and stable employment.
With the help of the provinces and the private sector, we will
achieve our goal of generating jobs and stimulating economic
growth in Canada.
In the process of strengthening our nation and making things
better for the governed, the Government of Canada has made
significant progress in several areas.
In the transportation sector, with which I am most familiar, the
government has taken steps to ensure that Canada has a safe,
efficient, affordable, globally competitive and environmentally
sound national transportation system.
In aviation the government has reached an agreement in
principle with a not for profit corporation called Nav Canada to
commercialize Transport Canada's air navigation system. This
move will save taxpayers $1.5 billion and will eliminate a $200
million a year subsidy. A year after signing a historic open skies
agreement with the U.S., Canada is reaping the benefits of
increased air services to various Canadian and American
destinations.
Transport Canada is also proceeding with the transfer of select
Canadian airport facilities, such as Hamilton Airport, to municipal
and local area interests. The transfer of various Canadian airports
combined with the creation of a national airport system will
strengthen Canada's air transportation system and make it more
responsive to regional and community based needs and economic
objectives.
811
In the rail sector, the recent commercialization of CN
represented the largest and most successful initial public offering
of shares in Canadian history. The government remains committed
to implementing legislation which will make it easier for Canadian
companies to move people and goods safely, efficiently and
affordably across Canada by rail.
In the marine sector, under Canada's new marine policy, ports
will be commercialized. A national ports system will be created
consisting of those ports that are important to domestic and
international trade.
These are just a few examples of the progress that is being made
by this government in the transportation sector.
It is worth noting that over the past 28 months we have followed
through on almost 75 per cent of our red book commitments. At the
same time we have managed to reduce the federal budget deficit to
its lowest level in two decades.
(1330)
It is also worth noting that the budget contained no tax increases.
The budget provides Canada with a framework for growth and
security. Furthermore, deficit targets have been and will continue
to be met. This should be comforting for all Canadians.
The government is following through with a new tax free seniors
benefit which will be incorporated into the OAS/GIS pension
income credit and the age credit; tax relief for recipients of child
support payments; a $50 million allocation to the Business
Development Bank which will allow for the extension of up to
$350 million in loans to small and medium size businesses; over
the next three years $315 million for youth job opportunities which
includes doubling youth summer employment program funds from
$60 million to $120 million.
One hundred and sixty five-million dollars over three years will
be for education and skills development for young people; $270
million for technology and innovation initiatives; 25 per cent per
month increase in the education tax credit; $170 increase in the
tuition education credit; $500 increase in the registered education
savings plan; $10,500 increase in the lifetime education
contribution limit.
It was stated by the Canadian press news agency that the federal
budget represents: ``Deficit reduction without tears or taxes. The
Minister of Finance delivered a good news budget on March 6 that
adds muscle to his deficit fighting strategy with minimal sting for
ordinary Canadians''.
As we approach the second half of our mandate with the support
and constructive input of concerned citizens throughout Canada, as
stated earlier the government will continue to make decisions
designed to make life better for the governed.
I am proud of our accomplishments and I am optimistic about
the future of our great nation and the collective future of my fellow
citizens. I consider it a great honour and privilege to serve my
constituents and my country. I believe in good government. I
believe the people of Canada deserve nothing less.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I always like the positive rhetoric I hear from the other
side, especially when it comes from the member for Hamilton
West.
Looking at the Environics poll, if things are so positive how
come only 14 per cent of the people think the recession is over and
86 per cent believe we have a recession? Statistics Canada said that
in 1995 we had a record number of bankruptcies at 78,000.
That does not sound quite as positive to me and maybe I could be
filled in on some of those things which I have not taken in from the
hon. member's speech.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member
could tell me the date that poll was taken and the number of people
in the poll.
Mr. Hoeppner: January 11, 1996.
Mr. Keyes: The budget came out on March 6. The budget was so
popular among Canadians that I can almost bet the honourable
member opposite that when the next poll is taken, which I hope is
after Canadians have had time to absorb all the fantastic news
contained in the budget, the honourable member opposite will be
eating humble pie.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport
about that aspect of the budget which a number of his colleagues
have touched on, the rewriting of the Tax Act with respect to
custodial payments or payments for child support.
How does he rationalize the change in the Income Tax Act which
to me, if he will listen to his logic, appears to be a tax grab because
payment now for child support is no longer deductible?
It is acknowledged by the finance minister that there will be
extra revenues to the government. It makes it sound like it will
really do something with that money in the budget. It will increase
the child tax credit.
If in the current system before it made this change the agreement
between the couple was taxable, deductible, all that money was
within the family.
(1335 )
Now the government has taken this issue and said: ``Not all the
money that will be shared between the two of you will be within
your family. We will make it non-deductible, keep some of it
ourselves and help a whole bunch of other people''.
812
I have been trying to speak slowly to clarify my logic. Does
that not mean that some of the money that would have been
available for the children within that family will now be
redistributed to other families?
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his serious
question. I believe rationalization comes in the knowledge that
children will be better served. The spouse who looks after the
children in most cases is the woman. The estranged husband will
no longer be able to take advantage of the tax system; instead it will
be the woman looking after the children. It is the children we are
looking out for and the supporting parent will not have to declare
that as income.
I think that is a bold step forward by the government, a
progressive step forward by the government, one which will again
serve the children of this country.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how does
the member reconcile his statement that the budget has brought no
tax increase with the reality that as a direct result of the budget over
$700 million more in tax will be paid? It sounds like double talk.
How can the member reconcile his statement with the reality of the
budget?
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the member forgets the government is
on the positive side of the ledger, seeing the glass half full. As a
direct result of the budget brought forward by the Minister of
Finance the Canadian economy will take off, jobs will be created,
people will be buying products made in Canada by those who will
work in Canada in jobs to provide those products. That will provide
the government with the income the member is wondering about.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of my remarks today is to offer some few clarifications concerning
the 1996 federal budget tabled on March 6 by the Minister of
Finance.
We must admit that, overall, this year's budget was perceived in
a very positive light by the people of Quebec and of Canada. Their
general impression of it was there there will be no new direct tax
increases for individuals this year.
This is a budget that did not make any serious waves, and left
everyone feeling that they had been let off the hook, but
appearances are deceiving. The Minister of Finance pulled it off
very well, we must admit. He pulled off a really good one this time.
This year, the deficit will be a mere $32.7 billion, which shocked
few people. According to most of the experts, the Minister of
Finance has presented a good budget, because the taxpayers of
Quebec and of Canada were expecting the worst.
I would like to point out, too, that the Minister of Finance has
managed to have a lesser deficit than his predecessors, which
seems to be a great accomplishment. It was managed in two main
ways. First, by passing the buck. The buck was passed on to the
provinces by reducing transfer payments for education, health and
social programs by $7 billion over two years, which means $1.2
billion in additional cuts for Quebec alone, or possibly more.
Second, by dipping his hand into the surplus in the unemployment
insurance fund, to the tune of over $5 million.
In concrete terms, this means no tax reform, no public debate on
social programs, no intention to review the question of tax havens
for those who are not paying taxes.
(1340)
Furthermore, this budget provides absolutely no measures to
revive the labour market. Nothing new to create jobs. Already they
have run out of ideas; the Liberal government is already worn out.
The government continues to hold out for a long-overdue
economic recovery to carry it along. Why are the Liberals in
Ottawa not delivering the promised jobs? Page 89 of the Budget
Plan tabled in the House of Commons provides, and I quote:
``-the average level of output in 1996 is forecast to be 1.9 per cent
higher than in 1995-'' This means that the federal government
expects a moderate growth of 2.5 per cent for 1996. Reality,
however, is quite different from the budget plan the government
drew up for itself in order to create the jobs that never materialized
in 1995, but were the watchword of the red book of the 1993
election. Unfortunately, in 1995, growth was no more than 0.6 per
cent. However, in the 1995 budget, the government forecast a
significantly higher level of growth, a level of real growth of 3.75
per cent, which is six times less than forecast. What a minister.
The fact of the matter is that, since the Liberals came to power at
the end of 1993, the economy has not stopped collapsing, and the
deficit has not stopped growing exponentially, despite appearances
of sound management of public funds and reforms that have not
stopped expanding the gap between rich and poor. It is a very sad
state of affairs.
The cost of the public debt of the federal government is the
prime component of federal spending, representing 29 per cent of
all expenditures in 1995-96. In 1996-97, debt charges will
represent over 30 per cent of the federal budget. I should also point
out that 36 cents out of every dollar of tax revenue collected in
1995-96 currently goes to paying interest on the federal debt. It is
written in black and white on page 121 of the Budget Plan. At this
rate, less than two years from now, debt charges will be the federal
government's single largest item of expenditure.
In 1993-94, the first year the Liberals were in power in Ottawa,
the deficit was $42 billion. The second year, it was $37.5 billion.
And the third year, $32.7 billion. After three years of Liberal
813
government, we have accumulated $112.2 billion in debt. That is a
large sum of money. What the government is doing is playing the
financiers' game. Lenders are getting rich at our expense.
Just to service the debt in 1993-94, Canada has paid its creditors
$38 billion. In 1994-95, creditors were paid $42 billion and, in
1995-96, we paid $47 billion to service the debt. Since the last
election, in 1993, the government in Ottawa has added $112.2
billion to the deficit; as a result, the people of Quebec and Canada
have paid more than $127 billion to our happy creditors. And they
would have us believe that the deficit is being reduced. On the
contrary.
Debt charges will be increasing faster, even if the annual
government deficit is getting lower. Interests are making the deficit
increase at an alarming rate. The total federal debt for the past
fiscal year was $578.4 billion. This means that, next year, debt
charges should be about $47.8 billion, or an $800 million increase
over last year, in spite of cutbacks.
For 1997-98, according to government forecast, debt charges
should be $49 billion, or a $1.2 billion increase in just one year.
(1345)
At this rate, the federal government's debt will climb to $603
billion by this time next year. This is the unfortunate reality of
Canada's public finances. Where does all this money go? Who
benefits? Who pays the bill at the end of the day? It is taxpayers
like you and me, more specifically the middle class. These people
are getting sick and tired of being squeezed like lemons. Taxpayers
are fed up with random reforms that do nothing to address the
problem so that, at the end of the day, it is still the same people, and
especially the middle class, who get stuck with the bill.
This year, individual Canadians will pay a total of $60.5 billion
in income tax. Workers and employers will contribute $18.5 billion
to the UI fund. Taxpayers will shell out over $17.2 billion for the
GST. In 1995-96, taxpayers in Quebec and Canada will pay a total
in excess of $130.6 billion into the federal government's coffers.
Does the government realize what it is asking taxpayers, and
more specifically the poorest in our society?
Here are some realistic suggestions to help the government
reduce its deficit and thus restore confidence. First of all, this year,
the Governor General of Canada will cost taxpayers over $9.8
million and the Senate, $40.7 million. How much longer can we
afford such luxury?
Do we still need a budget of more than $10.5 billion for national
defence? There is still $6.4 billion in unpaid taxes this year. What
is the federal government doing to collect these unpaid taxes? How
long must we wait for the federal government to close the
numerous tax loopholes, including family trusts that shelter
billions of dollars.
In conclusion, why should the federal government not cut
Canadians' tax rate? Is this an unrealistic or silly idea? Not at all.
Reducing the tax rate would help stimulate the economy by
increasing consumption, thus creating jobs while raising
government revenue.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you will
understand that, having listened to such ridiculous remarks,
remarks that have nothing to do with the reality and are in fact an
insult to the intelligence of Canadians, I just had to respond.
The subject of transfer payments was raised earlier; I will just
touch on it because I know that we are short on time. In discussing
this issue of federal transfers to the provinces, the people opposite
fail to mention that the Quebec finance minister had made forecasts
regarding transfer payments and that those announced in the budget
speech are $600 million higher than anticipated by the Quebec
government.
They fail to mention that, for the very first time, a Canadian
government has had the courage to develop a five-year plan to
ensure stable, and not just stable, but progressively higher transfer
payments by establishing a cash transfer threshold.
They also fail to mention, which is unfortunate, that equalization
payments keep growing from year to year and that the province of
Quebec greatly benefits from these payments. The subject of
employment was also raised, to complain about the lack of
employment measures.
You will understand how staggering it is for me to hear such a
thing, given the fact that the federal government's role is to form
partnerships and create a climate conducive to good investment.
Deficit reduction fosters job creation. Technology Partnerships
Canada, the program announced by my colleague from Industry
Canada, is much appreciated by Canadian industry and small
business. And so is the program geared toward young people; $315
million are allocated to this program. There is also the export
financing program involving the Export Development Corporation.
These are measures which prove that the government is headed
in a direction leading to the development of a sustainable economic
safety net that will foster the creation of steady jobs.
(1350)
To conclude, regarding the employment insurance, the amounts
that will be set aside as a result of the proposed reform will be
invested in this employment insurance, to maintain stable
contributions and build a reserve to sustain this stability even
through an economic recession. It should also be pointed out also
that this
814
government is the first government to hit its 3 per cent of GDP
deficit reduction target. Those are the real figures.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state tried
to be insulting. He tried to promote his doctored budget. He did not
pay any attention to my comments.
Mr. Cauchon: Just read the budget.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): I did read the budget, as he suggests.
Some facts are undeniable. Regardless of what the secretary of
state may say, the debt has gone up $112 billion, and that must be
pointed out. That upward trend seems endless. The federal
government offloaded its deficit onto the provinces. It took $5
billion from the UI fund. Do you think this is how we will solve the
problem in a lasting way and create jobs in Canada? Absolutely
not.
Of course, the secretary of state will not agree with the
suggestion I made toward the end of my comments, because he is
satisfied with small traditional methods that do not work. However,
if we managed to lower the rate of taxation, more money would
circulate; people would spend and invest more. In the end, there
would be a lot more money for the government.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
1970, Canada showed discipline by setting up a supply
management system in the agricultural sector. Over the last 25
years, dairy, poultry and egg producers had to show self-discipline
and comply with strict rules under this supply management system.
These producers have quotas which they must reach but not
exceed. Everyone benefits: the producers, the processors and the
consumers. Producers are guaranteed a stable price for their
product, and processors benefit from a reliable, quality and stable
supply; As for consumers, they benefit from a very high quality
product at a fair and reasonable cost.
But then our good Minister of Finance decided to get involved.
In March 1995, one year ago, he announced that subsidies to
industrial milk producers would be reduced by 30 per cent over a
two-year period. Twelve months later, the same Minister of
Finance, a Liberal member representing the urban riding of
LaSalle-Émard, once again targets industrial milk producers, and
particularly Quebec's 12,000 industrial producers, who provide
close to 50 per cent of the country's industrial milk.
To make things worse and even more unfair, in his 1995 budget,
the minister not only reduced the subsidy by $560 million, thereby
committing an injustice, but he also allocated close to $3 billion to
western producers.
(1355)
And in order to save the full amount of the milk subsidy he is
abolishing, in order to save $160 million, he comes up with
nothing to compensate the milk producers. These folks should not
expect to be defended by Liberal members of this House.
I recall the Liberal candidate who won the election in
Brome-Missisquoi, who is sitting here. There he is, looking at me
obviously. He went around his riding saying: ``I am going to
Ottawa to defend you, to represent you'', and this was in a largely
rural riding. What does he have to say about these unfair cuts to
milk producers? He remains silent. He does not say a word. And
again on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, I visited five ridings to meet
with milk producers. They asked me: ``Where are our government
members in Ottawa?'' Let us face it, MPs from the western
provinces and the Maritimes will not be heard defending milk
producers here. They hardly have any in their provinces: 50 per
cent of milk producers are in Quebec and 30 per cent in Ontario.
But in Ontario, of 99 MPs, only one is a member of the Reform
Party. I ask the 98 Liberal MPs from Ontario, what have you said in
defence of your industrial milk producers? Nothing. We have not
heard a peep out of you.
Last year, you managed to find $3 billion in compensation for
western grain producers, but for milk producers in Quebec and
Ontario, you came up empty.
So, the only ones you will see speaking out in this House against
this unfair situation are the members of the Bloc Quebecois.
I remember very clearly at the time of the last referendum in
Quebec hearing the leader of the opposition, a Liberal, say in the
riding of Portneuf: ``You cannot vote no, you are getting a subsidy
from the government in Ottawa for your industrial milk''. As it
happens, I have been to see one of my friends, a producer, who told
me about the subsidy he received for the month of January.
Mr. Speaker, would you like me to continue after question
period?
The Speaker: Yes, my dear colleague. You may continue after
question period. You have approximately four or five minutes
remaining. I would remind you that we may not use props in the
House of Commons.
We will now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
814
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March is Learning Disabilities Month. This year the
Learning Disabilities Association of Canada is celebrating its silver
anniversary.
815
Across Canada learning disability associations and schools
perform vital work. The many hours offered by committed
volunteers and staff have made a tremendous difference in the
lives of those who live with learning disabilities. Their success
in generating greater public awareness as well as their preventive
efforts to diagnose and assist those with learning disabilities have
touched the lives of many people.
I am pleased today to rise and offer my congratulations to the
association for its 25 years of service to Canadians. In particular, I
would like to recognize the Learning Disability Association of
Nova Scotia.
I urge all members of Parliament to join me in pledging our
support to Canadians who live with learning disabilities and to all
those volunteering in the field.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for some
years now we have been celebrating the Semaine nationale de la
francophonie, in which some 150 million people from 47 countries
and five continents are proud to take part.
It is my hope that this week will make Canadians aware of the
indispensable role played by Quebec in the French-speaking world
and encourage the federal government to correct the problems
which are still a daily reality in this country.
(1400)
In that regard, I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage to read
again the report released in November by the Commissioner of
official languages who said that, while the Criminal Code
guarantees official language minorities the right to a trial in their
language, French remains underutilized in Canadian courts.
A lot of progress still needs to be made in Canada, and there is no
doubt that Quebec, not Canada, plays a role in the French-speaking
world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, between May 4, 1995 and October 3, 1995 the member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan and I highlighted in question period
allegations of sexual abuse and misappropriation of band funds of
the Lac Barriere band.
On January 23, 1996 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development recognized an interim band council as the legitimate
authority at Lac Barriere. Former Chief Matchewan and his band
council continue to subvert the minister's January 23 decree,
which has been upheld by the Federal Court.
The real victims are the children who no longer have a school to
attend. A group of sympathizers of the former chief and his
illegitimate band council have closed the school, wrecked the
premises, shut off the town generator and blocked access to the
reserve in open defiance of two court injunctions.
I ask the minister to take care and ensure the immediate best
interests of the children at Lac Barriere.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, March
21 commemorates the day when in 1960, 70 peaceful
demonstrators against apartheid were killed and over 180 wounded
in Sharpeville, South Africa.
Six years later, in 1966, the UN General Assembly proclaimed
March 21 International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination.
Today I stand to express my pride in Canada's response to the
UN proclamation. Canada was the first country in the world to
establish a national education campaign to raise awareness about
the destructiveness of racists and racial discrimination.
Because of this initiative and thousands of others undertaken by
different levels of government, schools, business and individual
Canadians, our country has earned a reputation as a world leader in
the fight against racism and racial discrimination. For this reason,
we should all be very proud.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the recent incident in the eastern Aegean Sea involving Turkey and
Greece reminds us that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lausanne of
1923, the further agreement of 1932 and the Paris Peace Treaty of
1947, Greece's sovereignty and territorial title over the Dodecanese
Islands, including Imia, are clear and unquestioned in international
law.
The European Parliament has now voted to endorse the Greek
position by an overwhelming majority. We commend both parties
to peaceful settlement of their dispute, and also welcome Greece's
acceptance of the jurisdiction of the World Court for this purpose.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure of rising in the House to congratulate the federal
816
government on its January 17 declaration of a unilateral
moratorium on the use and sale of anti-personnel land mines.
As an official observer of the 1994 national elections in
Cambodia, I had the opportunity to witness the danger and
devastation associated with the use of such weapons. Land mines
remain a threat to millions of people in nations around the globe.
Canada's recently declared moratorium on the production, export
and use of these tools of destruction puts us at the forefront of
global de-mining activities.
This action only emphasizes Canada's role as a committed,
peaceful nation among global powers. As we continue to
counteract the sale and use of such violent technology, we ensure
the safety of innocent victims in both the present and the future.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week people in my home town of Prince George, B.C.
were warned that convicted pedophile, Robert Oatway, had been
released on parole and was headed for our city.
He was given parole despite the fact that even corrections
officials knew he would reoffend. This is a situation which we see
all too often in Canada: dangerous offenders released into society
to commit more crimes.
(1405)
Fortunately, concerned citizens in Prince George, led by Miriam
Switzer, posted pictures of Mr. Oatway around the city that warned
of his arrival. Their courageous action prevented Mr. Oatway from
going to Prince George but unfortunately he has moved on to
another city.
The justice system is failing Canadians. It is left to the citizens
themselves to protect their communities. It is time to get tough
with sexual offenders, including stiffer sentences, no parole and
mandatory treatment while they are incarcerated.
Canadians are waiting for safe homes, safe communities and
safe playgrounds. What is the Liberal government waiting for?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for several months now I have been hearing almost
daily from my constituents about the reform of the legislation
governing financial institutions. The majority of my constituents
are categorically opposed to letting chartered banks into the
insurance, annuity and long term car rental markets.
Canadian chartered banks already enjoy unwarranted privileges
in the existing financial system. This is why the government had to
see to it that they were not allowed to extend their control. The
monopoly situation in which chartered banks operate would only
have harmed the Canadian consumer. Allowing chartered banks
into the insurance business would have thrown open the door to
unwarrranted sales pressure and increased the risk of abusive use of
personal information about bank clients. I would therefore like to
thank the Minister of Finance for having dealt with the issue with
respect at least to the insurance aspect.
* * *
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was
with joy and emotion that the inhabitants of Bellechasse, the
Côte-du-Sud and all of Quebec learned that the persistent efforts by
the local population to preserve and develop Grosse-Île have borne
fruit.
Grosse-Île was a quarantine station for tens of thousands of Irish
between 1832 and 1937. Next year, on the occasion of the 150th
anniversary of the cholera and typhus epidemic, which claimed
over 5,000 victims in 1847, the Irish cemetery on Grosse-Île will
be restored and a monument to the medical staff erected.
This is also an opportunity to recall the devotion and hospitality
shown by French Canadians towards the Irish, a number of whom
were adopted by French Canadian families. Having shared the
same land and history as our Irish neighbours for several
generations, we have all absorbed their values: courage, tenacity
and determination. Long live Grosse-Île and the Irish memorial.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians breathed a sigh of relief once again after the tabling of
our finance minister's budget. Our government's third budget does
not contain any individual or corporate tax increases. According to
the minister's forecast, the federal deficit will be $17 billion or 2
per cent of the GDP for the 1997-98 fiscal year.
The Minister of Finance has shown that it is possible to manage
public finances strictly without increasing the taxpayers' burden in
order to secure a better future for all Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the 1996 budget maintained our social programs and
tackled Canada's deficit.
817
On Friday the Reform finance critic tried to present a new and
softer image. He said that the Reform taxpayers' budget would
only cut $3 billion from transfers to provinces and $16 billion in
total over three years and still balance the budget. The hon.
member seems to have trouble with his addition and subtraction.
He should watch out or one of his colleagues will cane him.
I checked the three-year budget presented by Reform last year. It
clearly calls for cuts of $25 billion, $15 billion of which would
come from social programs. Other cuts to eliminate the deficit
were not revealed to the public.
Canadian voters are too smart to be fooled by the magic wands
offered by the Reform Party. Its performance shows, first, that it
cannot add numbers, let alone balance a budget; second, its
numbers change from year to year; and, third, votes count not
integrity.
(1410 )
No wonder the polls show that an overwhelming majority of
Canadians trust the Liberal government to tackle the deficit,
maintain social programs and build a strong, united country.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over this
past weekend Canadians were shocked and saddened at the tragic
death of Mark Fyke, an 18-year-old student from Belleville,
Ontario.
It now appears with the arrest of a suspect that both the victim
and his killer are the same age. This terrible shooting is a reminder
to all Canadians that violence among our young is not restricted to
Canada and it is our youth who are most often the victims of these
violent teenagers.
Mark, with a full and promising future ahead of him, has been
denied that future by the senseless actions of the accused. His
family have been denied the love and affection of a son in the prime
of his life. Mark's many school friends share the deep loss and hurt
that his family are experiencing.
I am sure I speak for all members of the House when I say to
Mark's mother and father as well as sister Jennifer and brother Paul
that our hearts and thoughts are with you as you come to terms with
this tragic loss of a loved one.
* * *
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I also rise today to extend my sincere condolences to the
family and friends of Mr. Mark Fyke, an 18-year-old constituent of
mine from the city of Belleville who was murdered while on
March break in Florida.
The loss of this energetic, bright and respected young man is a
brutal and senseless tragedy that has shaken our community and
indeed the nation.
I cannot express clearly enough our hope that the murder of this
young man will at the very least result in a greater awareness in the
state of Florida of the need to act to stem the tide of violent crime
that has swept over this tourist region and taken so many innocent
lives. This death need not have occurred and it is more than reason
enough to ensure that measures are taken to prevent other
meaningless murders in the future.
On behalf of the members of the House of Commons and all
Canadians I extend our sympathy to Mark's family. I know we all
share his family's shock and grief and we will remember them in
our prayers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Semaine nationale de la francophonie is an opportunity for
Canadians to celebrate the presence and development of
francophone communities in Canada. There is in my riding, more
precisely in and around Penetanguishene, a proud francophone
community that is not afraid to take charge of its own future.
I take this opportunity to inform the House that
Penetanguishene's francophone community has just signed an
agreement with the government, the Île Beausoleil agreement, for
the funding of community organizations.
This agreement, which respects the spirit of the Semaine de la
francophonie, shows how the francophone culture is thriving not
only in Quebec, birth place of Canada's francophonie, but
throughout the country.
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this week is the Semaine nationale de la francophonie and
I would like to point out the initiative undertaken by an
international development organization whose headquarters are
located in my riding.
For the last three years, the Institut de développement Nord-Sud
has supported a twinning between two French-speaking
intermunicipal entities. The Municipalité régionale de Kamouraska
is twinned with the Communauté urbaine de Meknès, in Morocco.
This initiative was the first one in Canada to twin two regions. It
encourages cultural exchanges, entails economic spin-offs and
818
stresses the will of Kamouraska, the birthplace of the French fact
in North America, to open itself to the world.
Beyond borders and oceans, French areas are getting together,
discussing and acting in French to ensure the mutual well-being of
their inhabitants, while respecting and developing their common
culture.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, March 16 thousands of Canadians watched the junior
women's world curling final in Red Deer, Alberta. In an exciting
extra end victory, Heather Godberson's rink from Grande Prairie,
Alberta became world champions.
The people of my riding of Peace River are proud that their
hometown team gave Canada its third junior women's gold medal
in a row.
I ask that all members of the House to join me in offering hearty
congratulations to Heather Godberson, Carmen Whyte, Kristie
Moore, Terelyn Bloor, Rona McGregor and their coach, Brian
Moore.
Well done, Canada!
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not a day
goes by without an expert, some analysts or even scientific reports
reminding us of the urgency to support our youth.
Our government is well aware that young Canadians, probably
more than any other segment of our society, are worried about their
future.
In response to the very deep concerns of our youth, our
government has announced that it would spend an additional $165
million over three years to help young Canadians and their families
to pay for their education.
Also, during the next three years, we will inject another $315
million to provide new job opportunities for our young people.
These few measures go to prove our commitment to support young
Canadians, who will some day take our place in society.
_____________________________________________
818
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development's unem-
ployment insurance reform continues to stir up anger among
workers nearly everywhere, particularly in regions where there is
the most seasonal work.
The Minister's reform, by cutting benefits back $2 billion dollars
more each year for the next three, will keep very many people
without jobs from collecting benefits under the plan.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm the
figures given in this morning's Globe and Mail, namely that last
January no more than 46 per cent of Canada's jobless were
collecting benefits, whereas the figure for 1990 was over 87 per
cent?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition's
question based on a newspaper article does not reflect in the least
what is going on at the present time.
We are still working with the employment insurance program in
place. Before making a detailed report of what will happen once the
amendments we are going to make to the act are implemented, I
believe we have to wait for the work of the parliamentary
committee to be over.
Already, certain fairly considerable changes are taking shape.
Within a few weeks, I hope the work of the committee will enable
us to provide exact figures on the impact of all of the changes to be
made to bill C-12.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the Minister agree with the figures advanced by the
Canadian Labour Congress, which claims that the government's
cuts to the unemployment insurance plan may mean only 35 per
cent of those without jobs will collect benefits when the new plan
comes into effect, if more than substantial changes are not made?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. Leader
of the Opposition, the need to assess the impact of all of the
changes to the employment insurance legislation is absolutely
essential. That is why we have undertaken to make sure, as the
parliamentary committee continues its work on this matter, that we
will be able to deal with an analysis that will demonstrate clearly
what the benefits are and where the savings will come from.
I want to assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that in all
cases, attempts will be made to ensure that the changes are
equitable and fair to everyone who has to have access to the
employment insurance system.
819
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the eyes of the Minister of Human Resources
Development, justice means making cuts that are equal for
everyone.
A Canadian Press report tells us that the government has
launched a $2 million publicity campaign aimed at counteracting
the protests against unemployment insurance reform, in the hope of
triggering a debate between western Canadians, many of whom
feel that the unemployment insurance scheme is too generous, and
eastern Canadians, for whom unemployment insurance is a
socio-economic necessity.
Are we to understand that the Minister's new strategy for
winning out over the unemployed is to divide and conquer or, in
other words, to provoke confrontations between west and east in
order to get his reform and his cuts across?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, it is my belief
that it is very important to ensure that the changes to be made to the
employment insurance system in this country avoid any possibility
of east-west conflict, or what is more important, conflict between
the have and the have nots in terms of employment.
I hope that the proposals made by the committee members of the
same political stripe as the leader of the opposition will include
some that will enable us to demonstrate clearly and precisely that
the proposed changes must be equitable and just for everyone in
every part of this country.
(1420)
This is no easy task, no doubt about it, but we hope that, with
everyone's co-operation, we will manage to find appropriate
solutions.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development said on Friday that
there was one thing he was absolutely committed to and that was
the fiscal parameters of the reform agreement. He had better not
count on us for help, because that makes no sense, the plan already
has a surplus. Worse yet, the deputy minister of human resources
development said, on January 25, that high income earners would
not have to further fund employment insurance because they were
not frequent users and it was the job of frequent users, that is the
low income earners, to do so.
Does the minister realize that, with his successive reforms, not
only are fewer people entitled to benefits, but it is the low and
middle income earners who feel the effects of them? Will he at
least dissociate himself from the remarks of the deputy minister?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reform as proposed,
without amendment, shows very clearly our intention to reduce
benefits available to the higher income earners. Obviously, we had
to re-align the entire system. This is how we managed to ensure
that low income workers have an opportunity to increase their
family income by $2,500.
We found ways to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people
could have access to the program for the first time, because we are
changing the system so it will be based on hours of work and not
weeks.
I think time will show, at the end of the exercise, that the
employment insurance program is much more accessible to people
who, in the past, had no access to it. Obviously, this will cost those
with higher incomes a little. This is why we see people in certain
parts of the country where, generally, people earn very little indeed,
people who work in seasonal industries, we see union leaders out
and about in these areas, because they know that the real reform is
being done absolutely fairly to ensure that those with lower
incomes are protected and those with higher incomes pay the price.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should read and understand his own legislation. By
reducing maximum insurable earnings from $42,400 to $39,000, he
deprived the fund of $900 million a year. And he went to get this
money from the low income workers.
Is the minister aware that he is proving the government's lack of
belief in the broad principles underlying the implementation of
social programs: redistribution of wealth, equity and social justice?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a strong
believer in the need to try to be fair. I really do not understand why
she is saying we are not meeting the need to redistribute our limited
resources.
My hon. colleague is wondering whether, by reducing the
amounts available from $42,000 to $39,000, we were not doing
something disastrous. However, she made no comment on the fact
that, in reaching this decision, we wanted at all cost to protect those
earning very little, either individually or for the family.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of National Defence said he
had investigated claims of high level agreements between Quebec
officers and the PQ government to establish a Quebec defence staff
headquarters after a yes vote. The minister added that both he and
the chief of defence staff were satisfied that the allegations were
unfounded. It will go down as one of the fastest investigations in
history.
820
Canadians want some assurance that his investigation into these
serious allegations was not just a few hours, as the minister said
in the House on Friday. How extensive was the minister's
investigation into the confessions of the Bloc member?
(1425 )
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said on Friday
that chief of defence staff General Boyle had consulted with his
predecessor about the allegations by the hon. member for
Charlesbourg to the establishment of a joint Quebec army or
alternatively two separate armies. There were no such studies
conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces or by the Department of
National Defence. The chief of defence staff also consulted with
other senior generals and is continuing those discussions with other
senior officers.
We are assured that all of the officers of Her Majesty's armed
forces are loyal Canadians and execute their duties faithfully.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's defence critic has confessed, and I quote:
``There were officers who were already prepared to create the
nucleus of a Quebec defence staff. There are people who have
confided this to me already. Absolutely, even officers''.
On Friday, the minister told the House he expects the Bloc
member to come forward and give us proof. Canadians were
surprised to learn that the minister expects the Bloc member to
voluntarily come forward with the names of these officers.
Canadians want to know why the Minister of National Defence
does not exercise the due process available to him and compel the
member to tell Canada what he knows and to name names.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would not
want to insult the House of Commons.
There is a motion now being debated which could send this
entire matter to a parliamentary committee. Certainly, the
allegations made by the hon. member on Thursday are linked with
the letter that he sent before the referendum.
I want to respect Parliament and let Parliament decide whether
or not the matter should go to committee. If the matter goes to
committee, the burden of proof is on the hon. member for
Charlesbourg to name names, give minutes and tell us the truth.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian public is demanding that the
government do its job and govern this country, which it is not
doing.
We know two things. One, the Bloc Quebecois member said that
officers were prepared to create a Quebec defence staff. Two, the
Bloc Quebecois member said these officers confided this to the
hon. member for Charlesbourg.
Canadians want to know why the Minister of National Defence
refuses to do anything about these admissions.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allegations have
been made by the hon. member for Charlesbourg and now he is not
so sure that what he alleged on Thursday is actually true.
Any member of the House can make any statement. That does
not mean to say the armed forces or any department has to launch
an investigation. In this case the hon. member can rest assured that
Parliament will deal with the matter through committee. All of the
questions he has asked today should rightly be asked at the
committee, not of the government but of the hon. member for
Charlesbourg.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
His planned unemployment insurance reform will bring the
maximum yearly pensionable earnings down from $42,389 to
$39,000 in five years.
Since employers will no longer contribute to unemployment
insurance once this new ceiling is reached, does the minister realize
that this measure will encourage businesses to ask their workers to
do more overtime?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is very difficult to
forecast how businesses will behave but we believe that generally
the changes to unemployment insurance will result in providing
coverage and access to the program right from the first hour
worked. This will be very beneficial for many workers across the
country.
As my hon. colleague knows, there is in the bill a system to
monitor the impact of all the changes. If results do not meet the
program objectives, we will have to take corrective action, of
course.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if I were an employer, I would be tempted to take
advantage of this opportunity, especially now when
competitiveness is so important; and I am afraid that money will
prevail over people.
821
(1430)
Every government tackling youth unemployment is
recommending banning overtime. Does the minister realize that his
so-called reform is contrary to any youth job creation policy and is
actually a counter-reform?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situation for years and years
has been, and everyone who is familiar with what is going on is
aware, that week in week out, month in month out, young people
and women in every part of Canada have had to go to work for 13
and 14 hours. Not only did they not qualify for unemployment
insurance but also they did not get access to any of the programs
that were designed to support people in the workplace.
What we have done is to respond to a request from people who
understand how the system was exploited. We have gone to an
hours based system. We believe that women and young people will
benefit from the system.
As I indicated to my learned friend, we have foreseen that there
will be changes and there will be impacts arising out of this new
legislation that may not be helpful. That is why we are going to
have a monitoring process in place, to ensure that the changes are
fair and equitable and that employers and employees both respect
the objectives of the new legislation which is to provide first hourly
coverage for young people and women, people who in the past
oddly enough were not working overtime, they could not get 15
hours a week.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the solicitor general.
Correctional Service of Canada has assisted Clifford Olson in
producing a series of videotapes about his sadistic crimes. Now we
are informed that Clifford Olson has received a copyright for these
tapes. Given the fact that five of these tapes are in the hands of
Robert Shantz, Olson's lawyer, there is the potential they may fall
into the hands of the media, or even worse, into the hands of the
commercial distributors.
Can the minister tell us why copies of the tapes were given to
Mr. Shantz and what the solicitor general will do to retrieve them?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the tapes in question were
in the hands of Mr. Olson's lawyer as a result of an agreement
entered into by the former warden of the penitentiary in
Saskatchewan in June 1993. The agreement allowed for the taping
to occur, as was done. Unfortunately this took place in 1993.
Both the solicitor general and the commissioner of corrections
deplore the situation. We are looking into the matter in great detail.
We will assure all Canadians that no criminal will be able to profit
from such a venue at all.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
families of those victims that were murdered want to know what is
going to be done about it, not a bunch of Liberal rhetoric.
Corrections officials said that some dangerous repeat offenders
like Olson receive either educational grants from Correctional
Service of Canada or student loan funding or both so that they may
take university education. Will the solicitor general deny that this
killer, Clifford Olson, is receiving a student loan to further his
university education?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that Mr.
Olson is receiving a loan. What we are aware of is that definitely
Mr. Olson never had access nor was he given permission to use
video cameras.
In the situation at hand, we are looking for a full inquiry and the
commissioner has asked for a full report. Once the report is
available, we will make it available to all members of the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. On page 94 of the red book,
we can read, and I quote: ``The integrity of government is put into
question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by
lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public view''.
(1435)
What are we to think about the credibility of the taxation
committee, six of whose eight members contributed more than
$80,000 to the Liberal Party in 1994?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know if they made contributions as individuals, in
partnership or if they are companies.
I am convinced that they likely made donations to other political
parties at the same time.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government gives contracts to defeated candidates and provides
government committee seats to those who contribute to the election
fund. The Liberals have come full circle.
To ensure the transparency of the decision making process, does
the minister commit to at least expand the committee to include
parliamentarians, so that the taxation review will be public and that
822
the recommendations and decisions will be made in the public
interest?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
any discussion concerning the taxation review will certainly be
public, because the objective of that committee is really to prepare
a background document that will be used for consultation,
undoubtedly by parliamentarians, including members of the
finance committee with his colleague.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, UI premiums are creating a $10 billion surplus. This
money belongs to the UI system and therefore to Canadian workers
and employers. When will the government reduce the regressive,
job killing UI premiums on Canadian workers and employers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the last revision, and of course a revision occurs every fall, the
Minister of Human Resources Development announced a reduction
in premiums. There was a savings passed on of $1.2 billion. The
answer to the hon. member's question is: We have already done it.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in spite of the announced reductions and the reductions
which will be coming in the next few months, the budget document
indicates that the surpluses for the next two years of $10 billion
have taken into account those reductions. However, the
government now plans a $2 million campaign to advertise changes
to the UI system.
Canadians need jobs, not UI advertisements. Will the minister
stop this costly advertising campaign and simply reduce premiums
to create jobs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon.
gentleman's concern about the UI surplus and I understand his
concern about jobs.
I wish it were as simple as cancelling a program to provide over
a million Canadians who receive UI benefits with the information
which they will require as a result of the changes we are bringing to
the act. If it were that simple, I want to assure the hon. gentleman
that we would be happy to cancel the campaign, if we knew it
would work as a result of creating all of those new jobs.
However, in the real world, all of these men and women across
the country have been confronted for the past three or four months
with an act that we know will be changed. A lot of amendments
will undoubtedly be brought to it in the next few weeks. Therefore
it is only fair to assume when we have in excess of a million people
who are involved in the employment insurance program that we
have to spend some money to ensure they understand what the new
rules will be.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to the government's own figures, the new
formula to determine the Canada social transfer is such that
between 1996 and 2003, the only provinces which will see an
increase in federal funding for their social programs are Ontario,
British Columbia and Alberta, that is the three richest provinces of
Canada.
How can the Minister of Finance explain that a transfer which is
meant to help the neediest in our society will increase only for the
richest regions of Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is precisely for the same reasons that the seven other provinces will
receive more in equalization payments than the three provinces
mentioned.
(1440)
In other words, you have to consider the transfers as a whole. If
you do that, you will see that Quebec will be doing very well.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, clearly we do not have the same figures, although I took
them out of the minister's own budget. The figures I have say that
the three richest provinces of Canada will, up to 2003, see their
share of the Canada social transfer increase while the poor
provinces will see theirs decrease.
Some hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Loubier: Look at the budget. This is serious. If the Minister
of Finance does not even know his own figures there is a problem
somewhere.
What kind of logic brings us to this result, which shows an
increase in federal contributions to the richest provinces while the
poorest regions of Canada will see a decrease in federal
contributions? Could he explain to me the logic of this system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, as to the formula, at the end of the fifth year, transfers to
the provinces will have increased from $25.1 billion to $27.4
billion-that is the total transfer to the provinces. Second, the
transfers under equalization will increase for the provinces.
I am sure that the hon. member is not interested only in the
Quebec situation, but Quebec will receive 31 per cent of transfers
for 25 per cent of the population.
823
[English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday, March 14, B'nai Brith released its annual audit of
anti-Semitic incidents. This report showed that anti-Semitic
harassment is at its highest level since the group began keeping
audits.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage please tell us what the government is doing to combat hate
and racism?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to know
how much I am concerned with that finding by B'nai Brith. I share
her concerns on this issue.
There are a number of things my department is doing with regard
to this issue. March 21 is the day United Nations has set for the
elimination of racism in the world. For weeks prior and for weeks
following there will be a series of events set up to bring to the
attention of Canadians, especially young people, the issue of
racism in this country.
We do not concentrate on racism only during that period. All
year round the department of multiculturalism looks carefully at
how we set up projects and programs in order to assist social
cohesion. We work with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of
Human Resources Development and with the solicitor general to
ensure Canadians are all treated alike.
This will continue to evolve and change so that we meet the
continuing needs of the country with regard to the very important
issue of racism.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister has once again picked Canadians' pockets with
another tax grab on RRSPs.
By eliminating the deductibility of the administration fee on
self-directed RRSPs and lowering the maximum age for
contribution by two years, the government engages in sneaky tax
grabs while preaching fiscal restraint.
How can the finance minister justify this delayed action tax grab
while preaching no new taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the reason for taking the decision on deductibility was that what we
were dealing with were charges that were utilized primarily, in fact
overwhelmingly, by higher income Canadians. Also, these were
fees were not available to lower income Canadians simply because
of a lack of disposable income.
If I understand what the hon. member is recommending, there
should be tax breaks available in practice for the well of that would
not be available to the less well off. That is the reason they exist
and that is the reason we will fight that kind of idea.
(1445 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
message to the government is that it has a spending problem, not a
revenue problem. That is the message we want to get through.
It is quite clear that this dismantling of the RRSP program is
under way by the Liberal government. First, it reduces the
maximum contribution limit. Second, it froze those limits. Third, it
eliminated the deductions. Fourth, it has attacked seniors who will
be living long enough to enjoy their hard earned savings.
Why is the finance minister so determined to dismantle the
RRSP program?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
me simply give one example of a change we brought to the RRSP
program. Prior to the last budget there was a restriction that people
could go back only seven years in order to make maximum use of
it.
We eliminated the seven years because we recognized that there
are a lot of young families which are not able to take advantage of it
because they were raising their children and which would be able to
use that space later on when their children had left the nest. What
we have done is open it up so that all Canadians can use the RRSP.
Once again the question is why does the Reform Party think the
only purpose of the country and government is for the rich? We
think it is for all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of Indian affairs.
Since the Oka incidents in 1990, the federal government has
bought a number of properties near the Mohawk community in
Kanesatake. Since May 1995, the federal government has not been
paying its power bills for some of these properties.
Can the minister explain why his department refuses to pay its
bills as the owner of these houses?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are 83 pieces of property
purchased by the department, most at the behest of the opposition
824
and people in the community. A package was put together. We
thought it was appropriate and so we went along with what the
opposition suggested.
The problem is now we have to develop a housing authority
within the community to make sure housing is properly allocated
and that there is proper policing. It is difficult, especially in Oka
now with two chiefs, but we are working toward that end. I met this
morning with the negotiator to see if we could have some positive
movement in there.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I say to
this minister, who has been touring Quebec for a while trying to stir
up trouble between the First Nations and Quebecers, that he will
not succeed. He should deal seriously with the issues that concern
him. He just seems unable to find a solution.
My question concerns his incapacity to solve the problem of
illegal occupation of houses, because that is the basic problem in
Kanesatake. It has a number of consequences, including a major
loss of revenue for Hydro-Quebec.
Will the minister finally deal with this problem seriously and
stop trying to spark fires between the aboriginal peoples in Quebec
and Quebecers?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not try to spark fires but I
do ask questions, which I think is my right in a democracy.
The response from Mr. Bouchard was that I was an idiot. The
response from Mr. Brassard is we deal with assassins and
murderers. The response here on Friday was atrocious. I missed the
hon. member on Friday. Usually our dialogue is at a higher level.
I will continue to ask questions, which is my job, on behalf of
native people I serve, as well as the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
Party promised to abolish the GST. It also promised to replace the
GST. This is the finance minister's third budget and he still has not
replaced the GST. Why?
(1450)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
answered this question in the House before but I am delighted to
respond to this member, whose views are obviously considerably
more enlightened than others of his party.
What we are doing is fulfilling the recommendations and the
advice given by the Reform Party in the finance committee of the
House when it dealt with the GST. It simply said we should replace
it with a harmonized tax. It went on to say that will obviously
require future negotiations with the provinces. The Reform Party
was right.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
confirms the finance minister is the master of myths.
Our report, if he read the first part, recommends tax reform and a
simplified system of taxation to replace the GST. It was in the final
form, out of context, that he was taking our recommendation, but
that is fine; he is the master of myths.
Will he confirm for the House that the real problem he is having
with the new Liberal supertax, which he is trying to get co-opted
with the provinces, is that the combined rate, for instance, in
Ontario of the 8 per cent and 7 per cent to 15 per cent would
actually represent a $2 billion to $3 billion increase to the
consumers of Ontario? That is why he is having trouble.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has ``mythd'' the point. There is no possibility of
a supertax. What we are seeking is a harmonized tax.
Obviously if there was a transfer from one segment of society to
another, any province would have the ability to right that and to
shift it back. There is all kinds of flexibility built in there.
I simply quote the Reform Party again from the finance
committee. This is in context: ``We commend the government on
its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces''.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the National
Energy Board is holding hearings in Calgary this April on stress
corrosion cracking, a potentially dangerous occurrence on
Canada's pipelines.
What can the Minister of Natural Resources do to ensure the
Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association can participate in these
hearings in the public interest?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue in
relation to how groups such as the Ontario Pipeline Landowners
Association can fully participate in hearings such as those before
the National Energy Board.
As the hon. member knows, I have communicated with the
National Energy Board, asking it under the existing regulatory
regime to see whether some form of intervener funding will be
possible. It is important to keep in mind that is not the only thing
we can do in the present circumstance.
825
Parties do not go unrepresented before boards such as the
National Energy Board presently. For example, OPLA is
presenting written questions to pipelines such as IPL in this
hearing. It will get written responses to those questions. It will
be able to file written arguments to the National Energy Board
at the end of the hearing.
The National Energy Board has gone out of its way in relation to
this hearing to ensure that OPLA and other interested public groups
have full access to information. For example, we are making
available all documents that have been filed, public minutes of the
fact finding process and a 1-800 number.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Agriculture. Contrary to what the Secretary of
State for Agriculture said, the dairy subsidy was not eliminated
with the industry's consent. The Fédération des producteurs de lait
du Québec condemned this measure, which will lead to losses of up
to $8,000 for the average farm.
How can the Minister of Agriculture-who, after the
referendum, made promises of fairness and equity-justify this
measure hurting dairy producers, nearly 50 per cent of whom live
in Quebec?
(1455 )
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time of the federal budget in
1995 we indicated certain staged reductions in the dairy subsidy
that would take place during the current fiscal year and the next
fiscal year.
We also indicated that we would consult with the dairy industry
across Canada, particularly in provinces like Quebec and Ontario
where the dairy industry is concentrated, to discuss the future of the
dairy subsidy beyond the initial two years that were dealt with in
the budget last year.
Those consultations took place very extensively. They involved
me, my parliamentary secretary, my departmental officials, the
Canadian Dairy Commission and a broad cross-section of
representatives in the Canadian dairy sector.
We raised very clearly the fiscal difficulty the government was
facing. We indicated the dairy subsidy would not be sustainable for
the long term. We sought their advice in terms of how best to
handle the dairy subsidy in those circumstances. A wide variety of
options was discussed in terms of how this situation could be
managed. The dairy industry very clearly indicated that while it
would prefer to retain its subsidy, faced with the fiscal reality of the
country to deal with this issue it would recommend the phase out
approach that we have implemented.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
minister aware that eliminating this subsidy without any kind of
compensation compounds the unfairness in federal spending in
Quebec, where his department will spend a mere 8 per cent of its
budget this year?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously one of the issues that
remains to be dealt with, an issue the dairy industry in terms of
producers and processors is very anxious to deal with, is the
question of future pricing.
Under the Canadian system of supply management producers
will have the opportunity to deal with the price setting regime in
the future in consultation with processors and the Canadian Dairy
Commission. It is obvious that as the producers no longer have
access to what they call the direct payment they will want to recoup
a good portion of that, as much as they possibly can, from the
pricing system.
Over the last 10 years or so the general inflation rate with respect
to food products in Canada has been in the order of 30 per cent. By
contrast, the inflation rate with respect to dairy products in Canada
has been only in the neighbourhood of 16 per cent, which indicates
there is some room for price adjustment.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. On Friday
the minister said with regard to the Deloitte & Touche report on the
Canadian Wheat Board that since the report has been completed the
board has acted on its recommendations.
Would the minister please inform the House how the wheat
board has addressed the report's criticism that accredited exporter
relationships with the board are neither sound nor positive, nor is
there any evidence of an ongoing corporate strategy plan.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know the
report to which he is referring is at least four years old. He will also
know that when it was originally produced it was about an inch
thick.
I have consulted with the board on this matter not only last week
but over this weekend. It has assured me the recommendations
brought forward by Deloitte & Touche four years ago have been
pursued and implemented. If the hon. gentleman would like to put a
question on the Order Paper about any specific recommendation I
would be happy to respond to it.
826
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would surely love to hear those answers on the Order
Paper and I will bring my questions to the minister.
First the RCMP lost my complaint on the wheat board, then the
information on an outrageous severance package disappeared, then
the wheat board held secret in camera meetings before the grain
marketing panel hearings. Will the minister finally make an effort
to provide accurate information on the problematic grain marketing
industry?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows the
major purpose of the western grain marketing panel, which has
been conducting its work over the last several months and which is
meeting in the city of Winnipeg as we speak. The major purpose of
the whole initiative is to provide complete, full, accurate
information about the Canadian grain marketing system. It is
significant that in all of this effort to the largest extent, members of
the Reform Party have not bothered to show up.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
In designing the forms for the 1995 income tax return, Revenue
Canada decided not to provide detailed income tax tables, but
rather opted to produce a single form to calculate the taxes owing.
Will the minister explain the reasons for this decision?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Revenue Canada has come to the realization that not every
single tax filer needs every piece of documentation and supporting
tax tables that can possibly be provided.
In fact, it was discovered that Canadians were using the simple
arithmetic formula to check the tax tables. The tax tables were
stripped from hundreds of thousands of packages sent out and in so
doing have saved the taxpayer countless thousands of dollars and
saved trees.
I point out that I did the tax calculation. If I can do it, pretty
much everybody can.
The Speaker: That brings question period to a close.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of members the presence in
the gallery of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association from
Malaysia, led by the Honourable Dato Wong See Wah.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Also I would like to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of Dr. Oscar Hector Camilion, the Minister
of Defence for Argentina and accompanying delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
826
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two petitions
presented during the first session.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have the honour to lay upon the
table my report of the 13th Conference of Commonwealth Speakers
and Presiding Officers which I attended in Nicosia, Cyprus, from
January 3-6, 1996.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-238, an act respecting the protection and
rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill means a step toward the overall
protection of Canada's natural biodiversity. It requires the Minister
of the Environment to identify, protect and rehabilitate flora and
fauna in Canada when it is threatened or endangered by human
activity.
(1505 )
The minister would also have power to develop and implement
programs to restore populations of threatened and endangered
species to self-sustaining numbers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In the opinion of the Chair,
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-275 of the first session of the
35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. Therefore, pursuant to
order made Monday, March 4, 1996, this bill is deemed to have
been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee
on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
827
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-239, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation
Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the
establishment of a system allowing persons who do not wish to
receive direct mail advertising or mailing of printed matter without
further address than householder, box holder, occupant or resident
to notify Canada Post Corporation accordingly, and that Canada
Post respect the wishes of the residents if they do not wish to
receive junk mail, and that Canada Post comply accordingly.
The bill would empower Canadians by having their wishes
respected by Canada Post. It would also be good for the
environment.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first
petition has to do with family taxation and comes from Vancouver,
British Columbia.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition which contains some 35 names, mostly from the Etobicoke
area.
The undersigned Canadians are opposed to the approval of the
synthetic bovine growth hormone, otherwise known as BST, the
drug injected into cows to increase milk production.
The petitioners call on the government to keep rbGH or BST out
of Canada through legislating a moratorium or stoppage on rbGH
use until the year 2000 and to examine the outstanding health and
economic questions through an independent and transparent
review.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition to present on the Young Offenders Act.
The 468 petitioners, who are saddened by the brutal murder of
Louie Ambas of Scarborough, request that Parliament pass
legislation to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, including
publishing the names of young offenders, lowering the age of
application and transferring the most serious offenders to adult
court.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour
to present two petitions signed by constituents of my riding.
The first petition urges the government to not consider any
increases in taxes at any time in the future.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is signed by 50 petitioners who express a real concern that
there will be an increase in gasoline prices.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and request that
Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes
and that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline
in any future budgets.
* * *
(1510 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
828
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House
approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the
amendment, and the sub-amendment.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to pick
up where I left off, I was in the midst of condemning the unfairness
of the finance minister's last budget. I was saying that nearly 50 per
cent of Canada's industrial milk comes from Quebec, and that the
farmers in my region produce 10 per cent of Quebec's industrial
milk.
I was also saying that the Minister of Finance will cut Quebec
dairy producers' income by five to seven per cent. I was
demonstrating how unfair it is by using the rule of three-and I
urge dairy producers to listen closely to my reasoning. Last year,
the Minister of Finance paid close to $3 billion to grain producers
in western Canada in compensation for eliminating grain transport
subsidies. The Liberal government gave $1.6 billion out of this $3
billion to individual grain producers, depending on the size of their
farms. Again, this $1.6 billion was not taxable and, by giving $1.6
billion to grain producers, the government will save $560 million
in the future. As a result of eliminating dairy subsidies, the
government will save $160 million in Quebec. If, in order to save
$560 million, the government spent $1.6 billion, how much should
it pay dairy producers in compensation for the $160 million in
cuts? Using the rule of three, I arrive at some $400 million.
The Liberal government is imposing a $400 million penalty on
dairy producers, if we want to be as fair to them as to grain
producers in the west.
The agriculture minister stated earlier that he had consulted with
dairy producers. With all due respect, what he said is wrong. Last
weekend, I toured five ridings and met with dozens of dairy
producers. I have here a statement showing that, for all of January,
the Canadian Dairy Commission paid a dairy producer in my riding
$506 in subsidies.
Would dairy producers accept losses of $7,000 or $8,000 a year?
No way. What the minister should tell us is that he indeed
consulted, but with milk processors, not dairy producers.
Dairy producers managed to adjust to competition by reducing
costs.
(1515)
Today, they are being rewarded with cuts of five to seven per
cent, which represent average losses of $8,000 per dairy farm in
Quebec. The government is being unfair.
This government told us that it had not raised taxes. That is true.
It will, however, raise the cost of the food basket, including dairy
products like butter and cheese. The cuts imposed by this
government will translate into a price increase of 28 cents a pound
for butter and 50 cents a kilo for cheddar cheese.
I therefore condemn the 1996 budget as unfair to dairy producers
across Canada.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I paid great attention to the remarks of the member for
Frontenac. I must say I am sometimes mystified by the position the
Bloc Quebecois takes from time to time.
In the course of his remarks the member was commenting on
how the Quebec milk producers produce 50 per cent of the
industrial milk for the rest of Canada. In the same breath he was
extolling the virtues of the milk marketing board which is a
Canadian institution. This is a contradiction in the position by the
Bloc Quebecois.
The milk marketing boards, the supply management system, are
very much a federal institution. If Quebec were to separate it would
spell the end of the supply management system. Would the hon.
member not admit that this would cause great hardship to the milk
producers and would lead to the loss of many hundreds of family
farms?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing
surprising about what my distinguished colleague told this House.
Just this weekend, milk producers were asking me: ``Why are Bloc
members the only MPs rising in the House of Commons to
represent our interests?'' I can understand their feelings.
I had our research staff dig out the following information. New
Brunswick-represented by only one opposition member, a
Conservative-accounts for 1.25 per cent of all industrial milk
production. There is not much point in making tremendous efforts.
Nova Scotia, 1.32 per cent, all Liberals. I have not seen one Liberal
member rise in this House to oppose the government. Prince
Edward Island, 1.91 per cent. All Liberals anyway. They are
playing dead. Saskatchewan, 2.49 per cent; Manitoba, 3.76 per
cent; British Columbia, 4.31 per cent; and Alberta, 6.52 per cent.
The members representing these provinces cannot be relied on,
especially Liberals. There is, of course, the leader of the Conserva-
829
tive Party who represents a riding in Quebec. I shall direct the
following question to him: ``Hon. member for Sherbrooke, why do
you not rise in this House to defend the interests of your
constituents?'' He remains as mute as a maggot.
As for the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who boasted
about coming to Ottawa to defend his farmers, these producers,
whom I met, asked me: ``What is our MP doing for us in Ottawa?''
My answer was: ``He remains as mute as a maggot. He does not say
a word in your defence''. That is true. Take a look in Hansard and
show me when he rose in this House to defend his farmers. Never.
Ontario produces 30 per cent of all industrial milk in the country,
while Quebec produces 47.57 per cent.
(1520)
I did not see a single Ontarian rise in this House, not one, but that
is understandable: 98 out of 99 are Liberals. They are buying their
finance minister's budget. They will applaud it even if it is no
good. That is why only Bloc members are rising in this House to
represent the interests of Quebec milk producers.
What our producers will be forced to do is to go before the
Canadian Dairy Commission to request a price increase. If they do
not, some of them are facing bankruptcy, while others will literally
be working for peanuts.
Did you know that each 10 per cent increase in the price of butter
entails a 7 per cent drop in sales? All this because a number of
consumers will no longer be able to afford to buy butter at the price
it will have to sell for.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my
colleague, the Minister of Finance, on his excellent budget. The
minister has once again reached his goal of reducing the deficit.
This is the second time he manages to do that, thus succeeding
where his predecessors of the last decade failed.
By targeting expenditures with determination, consistency and
intelligence, the minister largely contributed to establishing a
visible and sound financial environment. Indeed, a sound national
balance sheet is an essential prerequisite to grow, prosper and
improve our standard of living at the turn of the century. Such a
balance sheet is the only durable basis that will allow us to
maintain the best social security system in the world for future
generations. Our goal is to achieve nothing less than that.
[English]
The United Nations, the OECD, as well as men and women
around the world who seek to move to Canada all tell us that we
have the best country in the world but here at home, Canadians
need a reality check. We must challenge Canadians who do not
agree that we are the best to tell us where countries do it better,
more effectively and with better results, not where governments
spend more money, but where they get more for their money.
We need to determine what nation allows low and average
income seniors to retire with better security. What country has a
better and more accessible post-secondary education system? What
country has a better, more inclusive employment insurance system
that balances the need for reasonable income benefits with active
re-employment measures, including a basic income for low income
families?
We must challenge Canadians who no longer have faith in our
system to tell us in what country single mothers have better access
to re-employment programs or child care assistance. What country
has a more accessible and effective public health care system?
Where in the world can disadvantaged citizens be assured of a
stronger safety net to support their needs for food, shelter and basic
services?
Canadians are going to have to learn to benchmark what we have
achieved against the programs and practices of other G-7 and
OECD countries, not against some phantom abstract notion of what
we think we should have accomplished or deserve to have in the
future.
The message that is fundamental in this budget is that the Liberal
government is committed to modernizing and securing the
Canadian social safety net and we make real strides toward meeting
that goal. I do not hesitate to say that this is the first Liberal budget
we have seen in this country in 12 years. We have reason to be very
proud of it. The Minister of Finance had to struggle through his
first few years cleaning up the mess that was left behind. Our
objective is unmistakable: a Canadian social safety net that is
affordable, effective and contemporary.
[Translation]
This budget is a major step toward a sustainable and reliable
government pension plan for seniors in the next century. The new
seniors benefit, which will take effect in the year 2001, is a
practical and progressive solution to the costs related to our aging
Canadian society. These costs must be contained, while also
ensuring that most retired people will be as comfortable, if not
more, than is currently the case under the old age security and
guaranteed income supplement programs.
(1525)
Most retired people in the year 2001 will enjoy greater
protection. A full 75 per cent of seniors will be treated as well, if
not better, in the year 2001 than now. Given the demographic
projections for the next 25 years, this is quite an achievement.
The second component of the reform is to design the Canada
pension plan so as to make sure that all Canadians can rely on it
when they retire. Negotiations are currently under way between
830
the federal and provincial governments to find a sound long term
financial base for the CPP.
We must find the best and most sustainable balance between the
necessary increases to the contribution rates and the amendments
to the benefit structure, so as to ensure the plan's middle and long
term viability.
[English]
The budget demonstrates the priority we place on helping young
people find their place in an increasingly competitive and tough
global job market. We are investing in jobs for youth. The budget
provides $105 million extra per year for three years to assist our
efforts to help our young people get jobs. As part of this new
funding the Government of Canada will double to $120 million the
support for private, public and not for profit partners to create
summer jobs this year alone.
We are helping to make work pay by doubling the working
income supplement by 1998 to $1,000 a year per family. This
special supplement is targeted directly at our nation's low income
working families and will give our children a better future.
The right of children of divorced parents to adequate financial
support will be respected. Major tax changes linked to new
standardized guidelines nationwide for child support will be
brought into effect and will be backed by tougher enforcement.
At the same time, we are helping working parents, particularly
single parents, by broadening the child care expense deduction.
These are parents who cannot be at home and need child care
because they are on the job or taking courses to help them get a job.
Eligible parents with teenagers between the ages of 14 and 16 will
now be able to receive the deduction.
We are adding an extra $80 million a year to fund student tuition
fees and education tax credits. The limits have been raised on
registered education savings plans.
We are especially proud that this budget provides for a
permanent floor for cash contributions to the provinces for health,
post-secondary education and social services.
When the growing value of tax point transfers are included,
worth some $14 billion this year, it means that overall the size of
the CHST will stabilize next year and the two years following at
$25 billion. By the turn of the century, the full value of these
important transfers will begin to rise in a way that directly tracks
economic growth. By putting these important transfers on a solid
footing and establishing a growth path, we are demonstrating our
unshakeable commitment to the Canadian social union.
We are ready to fulfil our responsibilities as a strong partner with
the provinces which deliver the social programs and services to our
citizens. This is the unique genius of the Canadian federation; this
country was built by the national and provincial governments
working co-operatively, recognizing and respecting the strains and
tensions inherent to all federal systems. The implementation of the
CHST marks a new era in the fiscal arrangements that support the
Canadian social union.
The 13.5 tax points ceded to the provinces in 1977 to help pay
for health and post-secondary education are now worth some $14
billion. They are every bit as important as is the cash component
we hear so much about.
[Translation]
Indeed, in the speech from the throne as well as in last year's
budget, our government committed itself to co-operate with the
provinces to define by mutual consent the principles and rules of
the Canadian health and social transfer.
Now that the long term funding rules have been decided upon,
including the transfer distribution formula, we are going to have
discussions on the principles. We have retained the five principles
of the Canada Health Act with the proviso that provinces cannot
discriminate according to the place of residence in the delivery of
social services. Moreover, we are ready to discuss with our
partners.
We are all increasingly aware of the unacceptable human deficit
our society is confronted with.
(1530)
This deficit can have all sorts of fiscal and other consequences
for future generations of Canadians. But we do not have the means
required to assess this human deficit, and we must understand the
problem well in order to solve it.
We do not have a good system of social indicators similar to the
economic indicators we all know-inflation, unemployment,
growth, monetary aggregates, etc.-on which the government
bases many of its decisions. This is a need that all governments
should try and meet together. A lot of crucial work awaits us in this
sector.
The budget clearly revives our plan to put our social safety net
on a sound basis.
[English]
The employment insurance bill is before the House and it is
hoped it will be implemented on the target date of July 1, 1996.
This important pro-employment initiative is now being examined
in committee where members will have an opportunity to make
some adjustments that will improve the overall balance and
fairness of the package.
Without prejudging the specific amendments that will be
brought forward, I have already made it clear that we must have
changes that will do the following. Resolve the problem of gaps in
employment that unfairly affect benefits for workers in some
831
industries across the country where work patterns are irregular. The
system must be connected much more closely to changes in local
employment conditions. As jobs become available everyone should
be obliged to take whatever work is available and must be well
motivated to do so. The social safety net should be reinforced by
ensuring an appropriate income floor for low income workers,
particularly in our large cities where there are significant numbers
of working poor who must have access to employment insurance.
A fundamental feature of employment insurance is the
reinvestment in direct, results oriented re-employment measures
for unemployed Canadians. We understand the enormous and
turbulent impact of technological change on workplaces
everywhere. Our intention is not to interfere with the provinces but
to work in partnership with them.
As announced in the throne speech, the government is totally
committed to accelerating discussions with the provinces to get
agreement on how to best harmonize labour market activity.
Already the draft report of the provincial Ministerial Council on
Social Reform, the Quebec government statement of principles on
a possible labour market agreement and part II of the EI legislation
together provide for the orderly withdrawal of federal activity and
training, and to explore new approaches and the appropriate roles
and responsibilities of each level of government for strengthening
national and local labour markets.
We plan to work closely with the provinces in the coming
months to find a mutually acceptable way of strengthening access
to child care services, thereby helping to reduce for many low
income families and single mothers a serious barrier to jobs and
economic independence.
However, I want to emphasize that as the throne speech stated,
the Government of Canada will not use its spending power to create
new shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction without the consent of a majority of the provinces.
[Translation]
To conclude, I repeat that the Government of Canada is
determined to see to it that at the beginning of the next century this
country offers its people the best social programs and the best tax
and fiscal conditions in the world. The last budget tabled by my
colleague the Minister of Finance will be a great help to that end,
by giving us better control over our deficit while hastening the
reform and the strengthening of the Canadian safety net.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I take note of the many
members who wish to participate in the question or comment
period. I will endeavour to facilitate the participation of as many as
possible. I can only do that with the co-operation of both the
members asking questions and the minister responding. Perhaps
members could keep individually to two-minute interventions.
I will begin with the hon. member for Frontenac, then the hon.
member for Calgary Centre. We will see how things go from there.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
acted somewhat like King Solomon, which is very much
appreciated.
I listened with much interest to the Minister of Human
Resources Development, who, of course, was not about to criticize
the budget of his colleague, the Minister of Finance. It was to be
expected. However, I could criticize the member from Acadia, a
riding that is not, relatively speaking, the richest of the
country-no insult intended for its citizens-because his
government is reducing the deficit largely at the expense of the
little people.
(1535)
It is for a good reason then that, in his own riding, the
government's budget as well as its UI reform are being criticized.
Are there any measures on tax shelters in the budget? No. Does the
budget contain measures to tax big corporations, and I take the
liberty of quoting the president of Bombardier, who does not
remember the last year he paid one cent of tax to the federal
government? What is there in the budget on major
corporations-and the Minister of Finance himself is right in
there-who register their boats in the Bahamas? There is
absolutely nothing against that.
What is there in the budget for job creation, which was the Prime
Minister's slogan-``Jobs, jobs, jobs''. Nothing, except for the
meagre $60 million more or the $60 million already earmarked for
summer career jobs for students. There is nothing for job creation.
This budget does not get a passing grade.
I invite the minister to take a few minutes to try to explain to his
constituents, among others, how this budget is fair and equitable,
particularly for ordinary people.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I would like to say
that when describing the people from my riding I never make a
distinction between big or small, rich or poor. I have a great respect
for all of my constituents and I am perfectly aware that there are
serious concerns every time we have to discuss social programs.
What I regret is when those concerns are exploited and that is
something I have no intention of doing today.
My hon. colleague made a few comments on big companies,
including one I would have thought the hon. member would be
particularly proud of because of its international reputation in the
832
aerospace area. But I will leave that to others because I would like
to speak to a particular point.
The hon. member for Frontenac asked me what there was in the
budget on job creation. He forgot to mention the $800 million in
the reinvestment fund included in the employment insurance
program we are proposing, $800 million when fully implemented.
There is another $300 million transitory fund specifically aimed at
helping regions where the unemployment situation is the worst. Of
course, for my hon. colleague, that $1.1 billion was not important.
Apparently, he did not even notice it when reading the budget.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
seldom that I get a chance to make a comment and ask a question of
a cabinet minister during debate so I appreciate this. This is one of
my first opportunities and I have been here for over two years.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm
the current size of the UI fund? I know during the campaign there
was a deficiency of about $3 billion. I know there is a surplus and I
would like to see the amount confirmed. I anticipate it is going to
grow. At what point would he consider offering tax relief to this
sector by lowering premiums?
I come from the private sector and I know what employers and
employees think of payroll taxes. It is a subject of concern to many
Canadian taxpayers.
My final question for the minister is this. Has there been talk or
consideration given of reconciling the UI fund in the future? Has
consideration been given to making it into an insurance program
between employer and employee that stands alone, regulated and
monitored by the federal government to ensure that people get their
proper benefits as opposed to co-mingling the fund into the general
account and using it to apply on current revenues?
(1540 )
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, as usual the member for Calgary asks
excellent questions and I want to address each of them.
First, we have to be very careful with respect to the principle of
insurance as it applies to employment insurance. I have spoken to
people who are involved in the insurance business. For example, I
do not know of anyone who has bought death insurance. Agents
usually try to sell it as life insurance. They do not sell sickness
insurance. They sell it as health insurance. All of my adult life I
have had term insurance. I hope the hon. member for Calgary will
understand why I am glad no one has collected on it yet.
We have to be extremely careful because insurance can have
different functions. There has to be a sharing. People who have full
time jobs and long attachments to a job are probably extremely
pleased that they have never had to go to the employment insurance
system for support.
We have to be extremely cautious when we make the changes to
retain equity and fairness. People told me on the weekend that they
were prepared to change places with people who felt there was too
much unemployment insurance money going into certain parts of
the country. They would exchange the unemployment insurance
cheques for the full time jobs that existed in certain parts of the
country, for example, in the automobile industry in Ontario. I say
that knowing my friend is from the great province of Alberta. There
is always a need to try to keep some balance.
I agree we have to look at the surplus. The hon. member asked
what the amount is now. We have just come out of a deficit
position. We have been running a surplus on current account but
there was an existing deficit in the UI fund. In the last few months,
probably since December, we have moved into a surplus position.
The budget documents indicate that we may get to approximately
$9 billion to $10 billion in a couple of years.
I do not think there is any doubt that the Minister of Finance
would be prepared to tell my hon. friend that there is a level at
which the surplus has to be controlled. I will indicate my interest as
well. The member would know that the surplus is merely a myth in
the sense that it is a liability the government has when it uses it in
the CRF because it is a debt owed to the employment insurance
fund.
Although it is useful in managing the deficit to some extent, in
the final analysis it will have to be used to protect against a
downturn in the economy. We want to avoid the kind of scenario we
had a few years ago when the country was in a recession and
premiums were going up when companies and individuals were
least able to pay them. I take my hon. friend's comments seriously.
We have to look at where we are going to put a ceiling on the
surplus.
To answer another point he made, I do think the right way to go
about it will be to make some dramatic changes in the premium rate
because it is a payroll tax. It is a disincentive. We can address that
in the next 18 months if we continue on the present trend of an
increasing amount in the reserve. Jobs are also being created in the
private sector that will allow for premiums to be adjusted
downward.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened carefully to the minister's remarks. Naturally, when we
hear such remarks, we must focus primarily on the role this
minister plays within the Liberal caucus. Of course, the minister
sidestepped the main questions. He did not talk about the debt,
833
which continues to grow, or the deficit, which is slowly shrinking,
but only because of the surpluses in the unemployment insurance
fund.
He mentioned a few figures, paltry in the context of billion
dollar budgets, for job creation. In other words, there is almost
nothing. He spoke about students but it was only a diversion.
Coming back to the minister's primary role, he is insinuating in
this House that those who oppose the reform come mainly from
organized groups, people who earn their living at the expense of the
least fortunate making them aware of things.
(1545)
I would like to draw to his attention something that was sent to
me by teachers who do not work on a regular basis, who do not
have regular jobs-this is why teaching is called a precarious
profession. They sent me a little postcard, just to tell me that this
reform is inequitable, unfair and ineffective. Because they can be
classified as seasonal workers, they are asking for the pure and
simple withdrawal of Bill C-12.
I therefore have a question for the minister. Does he plan to
withdraw this bill? Do his plans include Quebec receiving the
transfer of powers and money due it so that it can look after its own
manpower and unemployment insurance?
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chicoutimi raised
several questions. As far as the debt and the deficit are concerned,
this is a mammoth, long term undertaking. We are familiar with the
problem that exists in Canada, one that Quebec will also recognize,
judging by what the Government of Quebec has had to say recently.
This is a problem all governments in the country have to deal with.
As for what I had to say about those who organize
demonstrations, I think accuracy is in order here. The French
language press reported what I said with extreme accuracy. What I
said is that I understand why people who are worried and nervous
participate in demonstrations. I understand why they express their
concerns and seek change. This is why we have said, ever since the
month of December, that we would be proposing changes to bill
C-12.
What bothers me somewhat is the presence of professional
agitators in communities where they would normally rarely, if ever,
be seen, people who do this for a living year round and earn very
high salaries. They travel around to exploit people who have
serious and legitimate grievances.
This is how I see it, and I have never been embarrassed to call a
spade a spade. I must say, in all frankness, that the professional
agitators who came into my riding did not spare me with their
comments either. They said exactly what they thought of me. We
will exchange views but, at the end of the day, I hope that we will
have managed to find solutions for those affected by the changes.
I find this still hard to understand, because when I spoke just
now about job creation I mentioned two funds totalling $1.1
billion. As for the summer jobs, which are described as window
dressing, the fund has gone up from last year's $60 million to $120
million yearly, only for the program to create jobs for
post-secondary students.
If, for Bloc members and for my hon. friend from Chicoutimi,
$120 million this summer is merely window dressing, there are
plenty of young people across this country who would like to have
their windows dressed in this way.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister in his speech gave an open challenge to members to point
out and compare the fiscal situation of Canada to other G-7
countries. I will do that.
Canada's debt to GDP ratio is the second worst of the G-7,
second only to Italy, yet this government is continuing to add to
that debt every year into the foreseeable future. There is no
deadline set by the government to stop adding to the debt. This ever
increasing debt is the biggest threat to health care and to other
important programs in Canada. In this government's first budget it
added over $10 billion in interest payments just to service the debt
yet the debt continues to go up. I do not understand how the
minister can sound so smug about the government's progress to
date.
When will the government stop adding to the debt and to the ever
increasing interest payments on the debt?
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, if I appeared to be smug about any of
our accomplishments I want to dissipate any notion of that kind
because I think it has been a mighty struggle. I make no bones
about it. I have said it in this place and in many other places that
had one of my friends, the predecessor to the present Minister of
Finance, been given the opportunity to do what he wanted to do in
1985 and 1986, I think Mr. Wilson would have been able to arrange
the affairs of this country in such a way fiscally at least that we
would be much better off today.
(1550 )
That is why I complimented my colleague, the Minister of
Finance, and the Prime Minister for backing him. We have begun
the process of going from a situation where the deficit to GDP ratio
was 7 per cent and we have got it down now to 3 per cent. The
minister has made an undertaking to go to 2 per cent. I know it is
not as fast as my hon. friend would like to see it move. At least
after many years with various stripes of government going in the
834
wrong direction, I hope that my hon. colleague would at least
respect the fact that over the last couple of years the current
Minister of Finance has been moving toward balancing the budget.
Besides that an interesting part of all of this is when we get to the
cashflow situation which allows us to eliminate borrowing. In other
words we will be able to operate on a current account with enough
cashflow to be able to pay for our day to day needs.
There are a number of indicators out there. I understand how
frustrating it must be for people who would like to have an instant
solution to a very longstanding problem. We will continue to do the
best we can to get a very difficult deficit situation under control. As
Canadians who understand this recognize, we cannot start to do
anything about the debt until we have cleaned up the deficit. We are
on the way to doing that. I do share the view of the hon. member
that we should get to balanced books and begin to pay down the
debt as soon as we possibly can.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to thank the hon.
Minister of Human Resources Development and the four members
from the opposition benches who participated in this exchange. I
thank you all for your co-operation.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.
I am pleased to be able to speak to the budget today. I was
pleased to be able to listen to the speech of the Minister of Human
Resources Development. He is a very practised speaker and is quite
impressive. Any Canadian listening to the minister would say: ``We
are in good shape. Look at how well off we are compared to other
countries''. The big problem is that the minister, as pointed out by
my colleague's question, did not mention the fact that all of this
goodness we are receiving is based in good part on the fact that we
are borrowing money to be able to produce all these services. That
is not the worst of it. We know that our debt is approaching a
tremendous figure of over $580 billion.
The minister correctly says that the government is trying to
tackle the deficit. The government is making some progress on it, I
will concede that. However the progress is insufficient when we
consider the size of the deficit and realize how much deeper in debt
the country is going and that all the services being provided are
based on the debt and deficit situation.
As a result of the prorogation of Parliament in February, I had
the opportunity to consult with my constituents for some time on
this topic. While in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan I received a
good number of letters and phone calls on the subject. I was also
able to conduct a public opinion survey on the budget.
Constituents and business persons alike took the time to share
their thoughts with me as to what the budget should offer
Canadians. There was pretty much a consensus of the message
people wanted conveyed to the Prime Minister and the finance
minister. That message was a very simple and sincere one: Get
government off their backs and out of their pockets.
Unfortunately the budget put forward by the finance minister is
in many opinions including mine, an abject failure. It is so much so
that if I had to assign it a letter grade, I would be unable to do so as
the alphabet just is not long enough.
I will criticize the latest Liberal budget from the perspective of
an ordinary taxpaying Canadian. I am not doing this because I
believe it will benefit the Liberal members across the way who I
think have lost touch with the voters. Instead I would like to convey
to the House at a personal level how the budget fails Canadians.
(1555 )
A responsible businessman in my riding did some work for me.
After he had finished he phoned me and a long conversation ensued
wherein he told me his problems. I am going to concentrate his
problems on the federal side, but they are shared equally by the
provincial government in British Columbia and by the municipal
government.
This businessman is an honest, sincere, practical fellow. He
obeys all the rules. He obtains all the permits. The people he
employs are properly qualified trades people. However, obeying
the rules is getting him into trouble. Several years ago he had 21
employees. He dropped to 11 employees. Right now he has five
employees. He told me he might have to sell off one-half of his
business and go into business by himself. Why is this? He fills in
all the returns. He obtains the permits. His employees are educated.
He pays his taxes, including the GST.
The problem is that other businessmen do not obey all of the
rules. All of the rules and all of the taxes are so high and so
complex that instead of open business being conducted, there is an
underground economy and fly by nights can take advantage of the
situation. They do the job for cash and therefore do not pay the
GST. They undercut the responsible businessman who is playing by
all the rules. It is unfortunate.
Of course, it shows the effect of the GST. It shows the effect of
all taxation. It shows the effect of the bureaucracy which is all over
the businessman. He does not have any choice but to shrink his
business and watch in vain as business goes to fly by night
operators. That is a shame.
A great deal has been made in media reports especially by the
CBC that the deficit has been tamed. Nothing could be further from
the truth. The callous way in which the media have chosen to
ignore the fact that the government will allow the debt to increase
to some $600 billion in a year or two is absolutely shameful.
835
If there was ever any question that the CBC had abandoned its
commitment to journalistic integrity, its coverage of the Liberal
budget ended whatever doubt may have existed in the minds of
many Canadians. No doubt owing to the gratitude the CBC must
feel for being spared new cuts in the budget, the Liberals have
effectively bought themselves a powerful lobbying machine and
cheerleader.
In relation to the budget, personal examples of how Canadians
will be affected by its contents best serve to illustrate the
government's fiscal shortcomings. I have in my hand a copy of the
T1 general tax form which every Canadian will be filling out in
coming months. The form at line 437 asks for the total of all taxes
deducted, or the amount of money the federal government really
takes out of our pockets.
Approximately 40 per cent of whatever amount a Canadian
places on that line will go toward interest payments on the total
federal debt. Roughly 40 per cent of what we pay in taxes is going
to service the debt. Think of all the things that could be bought with
that 40 per cent. Translated, if a person is making $30,000 a year,
the amount entered on line 437 would be around $5,000. Out of that
$5,000 approximately $2,000 goes toward interest payment on the
debt.
(1600)
That money is not going toward medicare obviously. It is not
money that is going to any other social spending, such as education
or what have you. It is not even money that the person filing the
return can use for his or her own personal enjoyment. This money
is spent on servicing the debt and represents the lost opportunities
of every Canadian who pays taxes in this country.
Mr. Benoit: That is shameful.
Mr. Ringma: It is shameful. The phrase economists use is
opportunity cost. Most Canadians reflecting on it would call it a
damnable shame.
The truly sad thing is that unless the budget is balanced, we
could eventually spend 50 cents or more of every tax dollar on debt
interest. Think of that one. We are still heading in that direction. As
the accumulated debt grows so does the amount of interest
Canadians must pay to service that debt.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote against the government's
budget for 1996. Beyond that, I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to all
Canadians: When filing your income tax return this year, and
people will be doing that in the next six weeks, do not forget to note
how much of your hard earned money the Liberal government is
going to spend on servicing the debt and the next time you are at
the polls, vote against the Liberal government's destructive fiscal
policy.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the hon. member say
that he could not give this budget a letter grade because it was so
bad.
Members opposite often cite the Fraser Institute, but on this
occasion, not a word. Michael Walker said: ``In regarding the
government's latest budget as boring, commentators have missed
some of the most aggressive fiscal action in the country's history.
Far from being a bore, this budget was a turning point in Canadian
fiscal history. We may well chart a dramatic turn in our fortunes to
March 1996''.
Would the hon. member like to comment? It is not that Mr.
Walker has had a conversion on the road to Damascus; he has read
the budget.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to defend what Michael
Walker of the Fraser Institute said. What I would like to do is read
through his entire statement and pull out the parts the member
opposite is not quoting.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the member's comments. I want to address
the issue about the national debt, some $550 billion. This is a very
large amount which scares many Canadians. It represents an
amount that has been accumulated over the last 25 years. Some
$350 billion has been accumulated in terms of accumulated deficit.
The balance is compounded interest.
One of the things members do not ever talk about is the rest of
the balance sheet of the Government of Canada. Since the previous
questioner was talking about the Fraser Institute, let me share with
members what the Fraser Institute had to say about the assets of
Canada. It said that the value of Canada, excluding the land value,
was some $3 trillion.
If all the assets, the purchases, the goods that Canada owns
excluding the land, were to be put on the balance sheet, those $3
trillion worth of assets would be there along with the debt. It is like
a mortgage. It is a mortgage that has to be paid down. It is a
mortgage that will be paid down, but it will not be paid down on the
backs of the poor, the disadvantaged and the seniors as the Reform
Party has been advocating all along.
(1605 )
I will put it simply for the member. If he is like other Canadians
he probably bought a house and has a mortgage. Does the member
think the mortgage interest he pays is just throwing money away or
is he investing in real assets which are to the benefit of him and his
family for the rest of their lives?
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I will not grace the debate by doing a
comparison such as is being offered here. I would like to do a
couple of things in addressing the words I have just heard.
836
First, I will correct the false statement that the Reform would
do debt correction on the backs of seniors and such. This is so
much hooey and we keep hearing it from the other benches. I quite
resent it.
The other statement made by the hon. member had to do with
Canada's worth. Implicit in this statement of so many trillion
dollars of worth is that we can afford to keep on adding to the debt.
When we consider the debt servicing charges alone account for $40
billion and they are is going to be increasing in time while the
Liberal government is in power to $50 billion a year, that is a
shocking figure. Think of all of the services we could buy for that
$40 billion or $50 billion.
We all believe in the worth of Canada. Yes we can prove it in our
infrastructure et cetera. However, to say that therefore we can
continue to go into debt, because we have not anywhere near
accomplished the possible debtload here, is a specious argument at
best.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to
have the opportunity to participate in the budget debate.
In my 10 minutes I will make three points. First, I will talk about
the impact Reform has had on the government's fiscal agenda.
Second, I will illustrate the impact by comparing the taxpayers
budget which is talked about in this House to the Liberal
government's actions and what has happened. Third, I will look at
what lies ahead.
The first thing to look at is the dramatic change in the direction
of the Liberal government since coming to power in 1993 and the
role of the Reform Party in influencing the direction of that
government. Let me explain.
In the 1993 campaign the Reform Party warned that job creation
would be weak until the deficit was eliminated and taxes were
lowered. We argued that the country's poor economic performance
was directly related to its poor economic fundamentals. Our
prescription was very straightforward and quite logical: eliminate
the deficit, pay down the debt and lower the taxes. On the other
hand, the Liberals told Canadians that the deficit and interest rates
were high because the economy was so weak. The economy was
weak because the government was not creating enough jobs.
What does that translate into? The deficit was not the problem.
The economic fundamentals were not the problem. Government
cutbacks were the problem. All that was needed was for some good
old-fashioned Liberal government to come along and prime the
fiscal pump. The jobs would start flowing, the economy would start
growing and the deficit would go away.
The Liberals followed through with that pump priming when
they came to power. What did we have in February 1994? They
spent $2 billion of borrowed money, asked the municipalities and
asked the provinces to borrow another $4 billion, to build things
like boccie courts in Toronto and canoe museums in Shawinigan.
They raised a few taxes, trimmed a little spending and waited for
the jobs to roll in. But the jobs did not roll in. In fact they slowed to
a trickle. Interest rates did not come down, they went up. Bluntly
the Liberals' plan did not work.
Being the pragmatists that they are, the Liberals looked around
to see what other solutions were before them. The option there was
the message being preached and talked about by the Reform Party
in 1993, a message of spending reduction, deficit reduction and
fiscal restraint. The about face which followed is unprecedented in
the history of Canadian politics.
(1610)
Starting with last year's budget the Liberals have transformed
themselves from traditional Keynesian pump primers to orthodox
fiscal conservatives which is quite a transition in Canada. In the
wake of this conversion the new Liberal gospel which we heard
from the lips of our Minister of Finance not too long ago reads as
follows: First, governments no longer create jobs, the private sector
does. What a realization. Second, spending no longer stimulates the
economy, lower interest rates do. Third, deficits no longer keep the
economy afloat, they sink it. Most important, it was said by the
finance minister that job creation is dependent on low taxes, low
deficits and low interest rates rather than the other way around.
What a conversion.
If asked to comment on this transformation I would make two
observations. First, it is good. The change is good. Second, the
Reform Party of Canada impacted and got through to the
government to change the circumstances, which is a bonus in itself.
Actions speak louder than words so let us look at the Liberals'
budget to see how far they have come.
Last year my party estimated that to balance the budget by 1998
without increasing taxes, spending would have to be reduced by
some $25 billion. How have the Liberals done? To date they have
proposed spending reductions of $15 billion. In other words, they
are 60 per cent of the way there. They have also raised taxes which
has narrowed the gap somewhat. They have promised to continue
their work which means we are conceivably on the track to a
balanced budget sometime around the year 2001 which is also
good.
To break it down further, the taxpayers budget recommended
reducing departmental spending by $10 billion. The Liberals have
now done that. They reduced it by $10 billion and are counting and
it seems to increase.
The taxpayers budget recommended reducing transfers to
provinces by 24 per cent. Despite increasing equalization payments
spending under the Liberals has been reduced by more than 21 per
cent. Health, education and welfare have been cut far deeper.
837
The taxpayers budget recommended downsizing the UI program
by some $3.4 billion. With the latest UI proposals, the government
will surpass that goal.
As we can see, progress has been made and for that I applaud the
government. I also applaud my own colleagues, for these numbers
make it clear that Reformers have had a significant impact on the
direction of the Liberal government. However, much more can be
done.
For example, Quebec is the fourth richest province in Canada yet
it is the largest beneficiary of equalization dollars. By putting a
priority on the poorest provinces we can save another $3 billion
annually. Eliminating all subsidies to businesses would save at
least another $2 billion a year. I could go on. The federal
government today is closer to fiscal stability than at any other point
in 15 years. I certainly applaud the government for that direction.
The major criticism I and my colleagues have is that in dealing
with the deficit the Liberals have not moved quickly enough. This
is not being picky. The Liberals' inaction carries a cost which
comes in the form of interest payments on the debt. To illustrate, by
1997-98 with the latest Liberal budget we will be $42 billion
further in debt than we would have been if the Liberals had
followed the taxpayers budget. By my calculation the interest cost
price tag associated with this additional debt is an accumulated
$5.3 billion over the first three years alone.
Sadly, this has forced the Liberals to do the one thing they sought
most to avoid: to make deeper cuts to the programs Canadians
value most. Let us look at that. My hon. colleague commented on it
a few moments ago.
(1615 )
The taxpayers budget called for health care reductions of just
$800 million. The Liberal cuts so far are $3.4 billion and counting.
Compare that. The taxpayers budget asked to reduce funding for
education by only $200 million. The Liberals have now cut seven
times that amount.
Third, going even further back to the 1993 election, we proposed
to limit old age security payments to those earning less than
$54,000. The Liberals now plan to place the threshold at $45,000.
Who is slash and burn and who is really cutting? I think that has to
be laid on the table so that people know about it.
These are the costs associated with what the finance minister
likes to call a moderate deficit reduction pace, even faster than the
Reform Party in some of the social areas.
However, as I stated earlier, the end is now within sight. While
we may differ on the pace of our efforts, members of all parties
realize the importance of building on what progress has been made.
What is the end result? What are the fruits of our efforts? They
are many. Once our fiscal problems are behind us we can focus on
new, more pleasant decisions. Instead of finding new areas to cut,
we can debate the matter of lower taxes. We can decide how to pay
down our debt. We can opt to bolster health care and pensions if
that is what Canadians want to do. Balancing the budget will also
result in more permanent lower interest rates. As the finance
minister points out, rates have come down already but we expect
that to continue.
This brings us the real rewards. Tax breaks mean Canadians will
have more in their pockets at the end of the day. Lower interest
rates mean more Canadians can afford a car. A healthy economy
means more Canadians will have the confidence and ability to buy
a home. In short, we will all see a real and perceptible rise in our
standard of living. This will bring about the very thing the Liberals
promised three years ago but could not deliver: a healthy economy,
a positive growth climate and jobs, jobs, jobs.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think I have ever heard such a strange argument. As I understand it,
the argument is that the Liberal Party has done so well, and we are
accepting that the Liberal Party has done so well over the last three
years in its governance, that we are somehow responsible.
All I have heard over the last three years from the party opposite
is what a disaster the government has undertaken against the people
of Canada. Therefore it is very interesting that today the Reform
Party seems to be turning the course in recognizing that the Liberal
Party has done the things it said it would do.
In the red book we stated we would bring the deficit down to 3
per cent of GDP. That was months before we even heard about the
Reform Party in the House. The reality is the government is on
track with that.
It may be that all of the things the member is applauding would
have happened even if those seats over there were not occupied.
The reality is we are on our agenda. Six hundred thousand new jobs
have been created in this period of time. The debt to GDP ratio,
which everybody seems to be ignoring, for the 1996-97 period will
be 75 per cent. It is nothing to be proud of but in the 1997-98 fiscal
period it will be 94 per cent. That is the turning of the course of this
deficit which the government has basically brought all by itself, not
by the urging of Reform members.
I see that Mr. Forbes in the United States has fallen out of favour
on his flat tax but it seems to me Reformers are continuing on in
this vein. One of the speakers mentioned his concern for small
business. Would the member acknowledge that a flat tax would do
away with the current low rate of tax for small and medium size
business?
838
Would it not also tax interest of the banks, the very interest
transfer payments he talked about being the money the poor
taxpayer was paying for interest on the national debt where the
recipient of that would not pay tax on it under the Reform Party's
flat tax agenda?
(1620)
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, as a member of the
Reform Party, as a party we want to be fair. When a government
makes progress in a certain direction we should applaud it.
The government member wants to deny the idea came from the
Reform Party. I think he would have to admit that the Reform Party
is the group that put pressure on the Minister of Finance in terms of
balancing the budget.
During our first term here our leader asked time after time in
question period when the government would balance the budget. I
asked it as the finance critic. Across Canada the public and the
business community asked the question of the finance minister.
The financial houses which look at Canada's credit rating asked it
of the finance minister. There was tremendous pressure from a lot
of sources to be fiscally conservative and deal with the deficit.
In the last fiscal budget the finance minister responded and went
much further. He said his Liberal caucus members took some two
or three months to move over and finally thought they would take
the risk on more deficit and expenditure reduction. What was the
big result? The Minister of Finance set up a bank of telephones
expecting Canadians to jump all over them and tromp them with
their boots because they had reduced expenditures and tried to deal
with the deficit. The telephones were dead. Nobody phoned
because it was the right policy. It was what the Reform Party had
been saying for months, even two or three years before we came
here; cut expenditures, reduce the deficit and there will be all the
results I mentioned in my speech.
Now with regard to the question of flat tax, the Reform Party
wants a tax that is fair for all Canadians. I think we all want that.
There are three or four models of flat tax. One model is the pure flat
tax, the one model the hon. member was referencing, which deals
with interest, charitable donations in a variety of ways. The Reform
Party is taking those models to Canadians and asking: ``Which
option would work for you as a Canadian? Which one would help
small and large businesses and the individual taxpayer in the best
way?'' That is how we are handling it, by taking it to the people of
Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: I say respectfully to all members I am flat
out of time.
[Translation]
Mr. John Godfrey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I
want to talk about the future for Canada made possible by this
budget. My comments are based on two statements.
The first one comes at the end of the finance minister's budget
speech, and I quote:
We must set great national challenges, not small ones because it is only by
reaching as high as we are able that we will discover how far we can go.
Why can we not decide together that ten years hence, Canada will be regarded
as the world leader in the new industries of the new economy, in bio-technology,
in environmental technology, in the cultural industries of the multi-channel
universe? Why not decide together that ten years hence increasing child poverty
rates will be a thing of the past, that illiteracy will be erased from our
communities and that when it comes to international tests, our students will not
simply do fine, but in fact be the very finest?
In that statement, the minister talks about national challenges,
about challenges facing all of Canada. The second statement comes
from the Prime Minister's presentation on the throne speech, and I
quote:
Canadians were used to seeing governments compete, first ministers bicker,
but with Team Canada they saw us working together. They liked what they saw
and they want to see more it.
We can and must prove to Canadians that we, federal and provincial
governments and the private sector, do not need to leave Canada in order to
work together. Team Canada worked well in Beijing, Bombay and Buenos Aires
but it can work as well in Burnaby, Brampton or Bromont. We should put the
same Team Canada spirit to work here at home creating jobs in a true national
partnership.
(1625)
Here is one approach, one way of meeting the national
challenges the Minister of Finance was talking about. Today, I am
proposing a blend of these two great ideas, combining national
challenges with a Team Canada approach. I am putting forward an
action plan to make ten blueprints for Canadian society a reality
within ten years. Ten days ago, on March 2, we held in my riding a
symposium on the theme of blueprints for Canadian society in a
renewed Canada. What it was not is a constituent assembly. There
was no talk of centralization, decentralization, new distribution of
powers within the country, Brussels or subsidiarity.
The partitioning of Quebec was not discussed either. There was
no plan A, B, C, D or X. All we talked about was the raison d'être
of a country. There were discussions about friendly association
across the country and about a real country called Canada.
What is a blueprint for Canadian society? First of all, it requires
a partnership involving the federal government, the provincial
governments, the municipal governments, the private sector, the
volunteer sector, the academic sector, the labour movement, and so
on.
839
Canadian history is filled with examples of such plans. The
economic situation during the second world war is but one such
example. The construction of our railroads, of the Trans-Canada
highway and pipelines, and of the St. Lawrence seaway are more
examples. We could even add the development of our national
health care system.
What should our new blueprints for Canadian society be? The
Minister of Finance mentioned a few; here are a few more. The
participants in the March 2 seminar looked at three examples: one
in the environmental industry, based on the technology developed
by Ballard Power Systems, in Vancouver; one dealing with how to
better protect and educate our children; and one concerning the
information highway.
The methodology used was similar in each case. First, what is
the goal, the vision, the mandate? Second, what is the theory
supporting this vision and why choose this project as opposed to
another one? Third, what resources are available at every
level-federal, provincial, private sector, etc.-to fulfil the
mandate? Fourth, how could we join our individual efforts to
achieve our common goal?
How can we create that famous Team Canada at home? Let me
give you an example. Everyone, and politicians in particular, talks
about the need to protect our children. However, this is often mere
rhetoric. Yet, we all know that positive support to young children
until they reach the age of four or five is absolutely essential for
their emotional, social and intellectual development. Headstart
programs are well worth the initial investment.
(1630)
We have all the necessary resources to provide our children with
the support they need to achieve their full potential. The Canadian
Institute for Advanced Research on Human Development gathers
researchers from across Canada, including a very important player
in Montreal, the team of Richard Tremblay and Marc Renaud.
There are also federal and provincial programs. As well, there
are community based projects everywhere in Canada. Yet, as a
country, we have not succeeded in consolidating all these
initiatives in a Canadian blueprint for society.
A country exists to face common challenges. This is why, in the
coming decade, we need to have at least ten Canadian blueprints
for society, if we are to build a new Canada. People do not belong
to a country only for reasons of fear or money. They do so because
they are willing to work together to create a better country.
The Order of Canada motto, now the country's motto, reads:
Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam. They want a better homeland, like
all of us.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague has given a wonderful speech, but in practical terms I do
not see what these national challenges can do for us. It is all very
lovely, but, practically speaking, this is not the answer.
Furthermore, since coming to power, this government has
focussed almost exclusively on budget expenditures in its fight
against the deficit. This leaves the less fortunate, seniors and
students footing the bill.
I would ask my hon. colleague two questions. National
challenges cost money and in order to have money we must create
jobs. Regarding the $5 billion surplus in the unemployment
insurance fund, does he think we should use this money purely for
the creation of jobs and not to reduce the deficit? That is my first
question.
This is the second. Since, at some point, we also have to take
another look at the tax system, would it not be wise to ask a
parliamentary committee to examine this whole issue? I think that
that is where we must begin, by creating jobs first and then looking
at the tax system.
Mr. Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, I would rather address my hon.
colleague's opening remarks, in which he congratulates me on my
speech, but he is very suspicious, very sceptical, very cynical even.
I would simply like to talk about a fine example of a national
blueprint for society in which Quebec has a very keen interest.
When I was chairman of the Standing Committee on Industry, I
was asked to create a sub-committee to look at the defence
industries and their conversion in Quebec. This is an example of an
industry based in Quebec that depends enormously on the Canadian
infrastructure.
At the meeting I mentioned a moment ago, I made a proposition
concerning this technology, which I referred to in my speech, to
create an urban bus system using a type of electrochemical cell,
namely the Ballard system. This is a company that is creating a
technology but has no partner in Quebec. And then there is
Bombardier, a Quebec company specializing in aerospace and mass
transit. Why not form an alliance between this company in British
Columbia and the company in Quebec? That would be a form of
partnership. That would be a national project in everyone's interest,
because it would also entail the conversion of a defence industry. It
would mean taking an existing asset, Bombardier, and converting it
to environmental technology. That is why we must get involved in
this sort of national project.
(1635)
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on
the 1996 budget.
A few weeks ago the government presented its blueprint for the
future. The throne speech outlined the many areas the government
said it would address in this session of Parliament.
I was proud of the contents of the throne speech. It was forward
looking while addressing the immediate needs of our great country.
I am equally pleased with the budget. It provides that the throne
speech was not simply a feel good document as some members
840
opposite had labelled it. The contents of the 1996 budget proved
conclusively that the throne speech is what it intended to be, a true
working document.
The budget provides concrete actions for many ideals set out in
the throne speech, especially on the jobs and growth front. It is that
area on which I should like to concentrate today.
Since being elected in 1993 job creation and economic growth
have always been top priorities. While the government has the
ability to create direct jobs for Canadians as it did in the successful
$6 billion infrastructure program, the true role of government is to
provide the private sector with a framework for growth.
A healthy economic climate is the key to the creation of quality,
long term employment. In our three years in office we have met
with a large measure of success in this area. Interest rates have
declined by 3 percentage points in the past year. Inflation is at its
lowest in 30 years. Canada's economy is more competitive than
ever. More than half a million private sector jobs have been created
since we took office. Since November alone 123,000 such jobs
were created.
Due to successive budgets that attack spending we have once
again been able to hold the line on taxes. There have been no
personal tax increases in the past three years.
Combined, these facts paint a future that is bright for all
Canadians who must not be content to sit back and admire the
progress that has been achieved. More work remains to be done on
the job front.
In a world where fiscal resources are increasingly scarce, our
governments must now make strategic choices about where they
want to spend their money. That is why the government has chosen
to focus on three areas which are keys to our future prosperity: jobs
for youth, technology investment and encouragement, and trade.
I could go on at some length about the important role young
Canadians will play in our nation's future but that is a speech in
itself. It is one that contains fundamental truths that all Canadians
share. We must provide our younger generation with the
opportunities necessary to succeed.
Times have changed for young Canadians. The rapid changes
brought about by the new realities in the global marketplace have
affected youth. When I was a young man, a high school education
was all that one needed to have success in the job market. Today
post-secondary education is only the first step in the lifelong
exercise of learning.
The message to stay in school has never been more important.
That is why our youth need assistance more than ever before. The
federal budget provides that help. The budget provides an
additional $165 million over three years to help students with the
increased cost of education. Education tax credits will be increased
and the limits on the transfer of tuition and education credits raised.
The budget will also increase the limits and contributions to
registered education savings plans. Broadening the eligibility for
child care expense allowance will help more parents undertake
education or retraining.
An additional $315 million will be provided over three years to
create new youth employment opportunities.
(1640)
Funding will be doubled for summer student jobs. The
government will also work toward a Team Canada style partnership
between business and governments to create entry level jobs for
youth. These investments in our youth will pay large dividends in
the future.
Let me turn to technology, the second area of the jobs and growth
agenda. The budget concentrates on technology as our way in the
future. Canada has been a world leader in the growth area of
technology. The jobs of tomorrow are in the high tech field and
Canada's future depends on our ability to provide continued
leadership in these areas. The budget outlined technology
partnerships to encourage the development of the environmental
technologies, advanced manufacturing and materials, as well as
biotechnology. It will also help maintain jobs in the aerospace
sector which is subject to heavily subsidized foreign competition.
Additional funding will be provided to the Business
Development Bank to provide loans to knowledge based exporting
and growth businesses. We will accelerate our efforts to bring the
benefits of information technology, especially the much talked
about information highway, to the entire country. In particular, we
want to connect rural areas-and there are many in my riding of
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo-to a program in which 2,000
computer students will connect 50,000 small businesses to the
Internet. That is also part of the government's plan. Combined,
these efforts will allow Canada to maintain its role as a world
leader in the burgeoning field of technology.
The third job and growth field that the budget addresses is trade.
The idea is not how to avoid competition but how to get into the
game. In this area I am happy to say that we have been very
successful. Month after month Statistics Canada is reporting
substantial increases in our exports. In the first nine months of
1995 Canada's merchandise exports grew by over 20 per cent and
its trade surplus by a dramatic 63 per cent over 1994.
Adding to the good news is the fact that this rapid growth is
diversified. The good news does not stop there. This phenomenon
is taking place in all the world's major markets. To ensure that this
success story continues, the Export Development Corporation will
receive $50 million in new equity capital for further innovation
types of export funding. Other areas of export finance will be
841
increased and a review of business taxes will be undertaken with
the goal of promoting jobs and growth.
We have lived up to the promises outlined in our jobs and growth
agenda. I have only provided a brief overview of some of the
changes put forth in the 1996 budget. I could go into some detail
about other commitments that have been kept. For instance, we will
easily hit the 3 per cent of GDP deficit target this year and have
outlined an even more ambitious 2 per cent for next year.
The budget is also full of other good news stories such as
reassurances of stability in our social programs and enhanced
RRSP regulations. What is most important to me is our efforts on
the prosperity front, our investments in youth, technology and trade
to ensure that the Canadian economy has the ability to adapt and
grow in the face of future changes.
We were elected on a jobs and growth commitment and we again
spell that agenda out in the throne speech. The budget is just
another example of our government living up to its promises.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Québec. I rise to take part in
the debate and in the analysis of the budget brought down by the
government on March 6. My comments will point to the positive
aspects of it, but will also cover its negative side.
We all know that the role of the opposition is not always easy,
but it is very effective, because all too often, the government
mentions a few positive points, but innocently forgets to mention
the negative ones.
(1645)
I will also speak to the amendment proposed by my colleague,
the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, which summarizes what
I have to say very well. It reads as follows:
``the budget statement by the Minister of Finance be rejected by this House
because:
it proposes no real job creation initiatives and does not reduce government
spending, most notably the approximately $50 million appropriated annually
to the Senate;
it uses the Unemployment Insurance Fund surplus to reduce the budget deficit
and reduces social transfers to the provinces;
it undermines labour sponsored venture capital funds, such as the FTQ and CSN
funds;
it does not propose a transparent process for achieving genuine reform of
corporate taxation, or an unequivocal determination to undertake such reform;
it undermines the provinces' fiscal autonomy;
it eliminates subsidies to dairy producers without offering them adequate
financial compensation;
it jeopardizes women's financial independence by adopting household income
as the basis for determining seniors' benefits''.
Whether it is a government, corporate or family budget, a budget
acts as a mirror. It helps us evaluate revenues and expenses,
identify management strengths and weaknesses and plan for the
future. In the present budget, I see no plan for the future. It is the
status quo in terms of management and excess in terms of
expenditures.
I divide the budget into two parts: short and long term actions. In
the short term, there is mention of deficit reduction and the absence
of taxes-I consider these positive. The negative aspect is the
dumping of federal expenditures onto the provinces through the
reduction in transfers to the provinces. It involves the taking over
of the unemployment insurance fund. When we need so much
money for job creation, when employers and employees alone are
paying into the fund, the government simply seizes the fund to pay
down its deficit.
Revenues are naturally on the rise because of a certain economic
upturn and cuts in the public service.
As far as taxes are concerned, we have been told there will be no
increase. Here again, we tend to see this as really positive.
However, the down side is that no one is mentioning the cuts in
goods and services, which amount to several millions of dollars in
revenues. Take, for example, support payments in single parent
families, which will bring in between $300 and $400 million.
There is also the reduction from 20 per cent to 15 per cent in the
exemption in risk capital investment funds. There are the RRSPs,
the seniors' pensions, and we could go on at length naming
revenue-providing goods and services that have been cut.
Earlier, the minister spoke of the $60 million allocated to
students, but failed to mention the cuts of some $400 million in
post-secondary transfers. We can see that it is simply a matter of
shifting funds about.
(1650)
We are told that there are no tax increases. However, a cut here
or a reallocation of funds there is often equivalent to much more
than a tax increase. Long term measures announced in the budget
include the creation of a securities commission, a revenue
commission, a health research commission and a SchoolNet
program.
All these measures seem very positive at first glance, but they
forgot to mention that these are primarily provincial
responsibilities and, above all, that they will lead to overlap, waste
and absolute spending powers without provincial authorization.
What is even more serious is that in 1997-98, the debt will reach
$600 billion, $50 billion of which is interest, and the debt is due to
this
842
overlap, this waste and this absolute spending power of the federal
government.
Earlier, the member opposite told us that there was no problem,
that it is a capital asset, that it is comparable to someone buying a
house. I do not see much of a long term capital asset in this overlap
and waste.
Imagine, $50 billion. If one could, tomorrow morning, have $50
billion to invest in jobs creation, there would probably be a
shortage of workers in Canada. A mere $6 billion was made
available for the infrastructure program and several thousand jobs
were created. These $6 billion will have to be repaid. The interest
on this amount is paid out of revenues, in hard cash. So if every
year we had $50 billion to invest in job creation, there would not be
enough workers left in Canada.
Unfortunately I believe that the message sent by Quebec the day
of the referendum, on October 30, has not been understood by
Canada and instead of withdrawing from provincial jurisdictions,
instead of decentralizing and stopping wasting money, the
government is going in for even more duplication, in particular
with such things as the securities commission, the revenue
commission, the health research commission and the Internet for
every school.
Regarding Internet, the matter was raised in California during
the last weekend. Internet will be installed in every school but it
will be done by way of general mutual co-operation. Now, I am
convinced that here the installation of Internet, which the
government wants to have in every school in Canada, will require a
huge organization. People will travel from coast to coast to make
sure standards are enforced and that the program functions well.
We will need more than the $800 million usually spent each year on
government travel.
In a nutshell, I see nothing there for employment, debt reduction,
taxation or Montreal. Yet, economic raiding has done much harm to
Montreal. I could give as examples the construction of the seaway
versus the port of Montreal, the Borden commission on the
petrochemical industry in eastern Canada, the construction of
Mirabel versus the shift in air transportation towards Toronto, and
many other examples. In other words, I will conclude by saying
that the raison d'être of the Bloc Quebecois, which is the
sovereignty of Quebec, makes more and more sense.
(1655)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming with
questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden-Corporate downsizing.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member raised the issue of the government's using the UI fund
to move toward a balanced budget or reduce the deficit. Had the
member been in the House earlier this day he would have heard the
Minister of Human Resources Development explain that it was just
this past December that the UI fund actually moved into a surplus
position. That is because of the significant deficit that was
accumulated during the last recession. The member might want to
check those facts again.
He also talked about the infrastructure program and indicated
that $6 billion was simply spent. He elaborated that this is really
not a very good use of the government's money. However, the
member did not comment on the savings Canadian taxpayers have
achieved by not having to pay UI out to those people who are
working on infrastructure projects.
He did not comment on the fact these people are paying income
tax and contributing to the payroll taxes which ensure we have a
secure system. There is also a ripple effect of those programs
throughout the economy. Clearly the infrastructure program had a
tremendous impact on jobs, which is really the issue I wanted to
raise with the member.
He will know that on March 8 Statistics Canada reported that
44,000 new jobs were created in February following the creation of
44,000 jobs in January and 49,000 jobs in December of 1995. That
is a total of 137,000 new jobs created in the last three months alone,
some 82,000 being full time. Even better, that means more than
600,000 new jobs have been created by the government since it
took office in November 1993.
Does the member not really believe that even Quebec has
benefited from the responsible fiscal management of the
government?
[Translation]
Mr. Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for his question. Perhaps I was not here earlier today, but
I think that the member did not follow or understand properly what
I said concerning the infrastructure program. I did not say that the
infrastructure program was not a good thing, I did not say it did not
create job, what I said is that if that program created only 44,000
jobs, according to the member, with a $6 billion investment, I
believe the $50 billion now spent on the interest on the debt would
create a lot more of them. The difference is that these $50 billion
that could now be invested in job creation would not have to be
reimbursed. The $6 billion spent on the infrastructure program
must be reimbursed. Some municipalities got in debt to do this
work and will have to pay back what they borrowed.
That is what I was thinking when I said that, had we not
accumulated such a debt through so much waste and duplication,
had we simply respected the principle agreed upon in 1867 by the
Fathers of Confederation, that is one level of government in charge
of national and international activities leaving management of
provincial activities to the provinces, we would not be in such a
843
predicament now. At present, we are in gridlock. We spent $10
billion on national symbols that are now resold for next to nothing.
That is the simple explanation, in my estimation. The $50 billion
would have enabled us to create so many jobs, but now that amount
is a burden instead, generating the unemployment we now
experience.
(1700)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
take part in this debate on the last budget to show its impact on the
lives of my fellow citizens, especially those in my riding.
Because it seemed like a very nice budget that did not impose
any new taxes or because tobacco, gas and alcohol prices did not go
up, some people might feel that it evens out the score, that it is not
worth arguing about.
That is why I decided to shed light on this budget's hidden
impact on family life. To that end, I will use the example of a
fictitious family of five people, which could be called the
Lemay-Dumas or the Jobin-Duguay family. It includes the mother,
the father, their two children and a grandmother.
The mother, Mrs. Lemay, is currently unemployed after losing
her part time job as a nurse's aide in a home for seniors. The father,
Mr. Dumas, works for a community organization and earns
$32,000 a year. The older daughter, Martine, is in her last year of
college and hopes to be accepted in the maths program at Laval
University next year. She works part-time as a waitress in a
restaurant. As for the son, Maxime, he is in his last year of high
school and has not yet started to earn money. The grandmother is
retired and has been a widow for three years. She lives on the
second floor of the house belonging to her son and daughter-in-law.
After the birth of her first child, the grandmother never went back
to the labour force.
I would like to explain how the federal government's budget cuts
will affect these five people, how they will threaten and, as a result,
lower their quality of life.
To that end, I will go quickly over the cuts to the Canada social
transfer, which were widely condemned by the Bloc Quebecois
because these cuts and the resulting shortfall in social programs
financing will threaten and automatically alter the lives of the
people in this family.
It is quite simple. The Quebec government will receive less
money from the federal government. There is talk of $1.2 billion
for the year 1996-97, which means $4 billion over four years. The
people in Quebec will receive less but continue to pay the same
amount in taxes. This will not change the tax rate. So, Mr. Dumas
will pay his share to Ottawa, but his provincial government will not
get back from Ottawa as much as it used to in terms of transfers.
The Government of Quebec will have no choice. Since it will be
receiving a smaller percentage of the taxes paid to Ottawa by its
taxpayers, it will have to cut its expenditures. That is plain and
simple.
In what areas will the Quebec government spend most of its
revenue? It will be up to the Quebec government to decide. Will it
be health, education, social assistance? The responsibility will have
shifted from one level of government onto the other-in fact,
several government members plan to take advantage of this
situation to score political points, praising the benefits of the
federal system and contending that only the federal government
can provide an efficient social safety net.
The government has come up with a novel idea: the social union;
at the same time, and the President of the Treasury Board himself
boasted about it in this House: ``We are going to wait for the
Quebec government to make cuts, and then we will brag about how
the federal government, which is committed to providing all
Canadians, including Quebecers, with a social safety net, will go
about it.''
Chances are that the family in question will be directly affected.
Martine, the young student, will have to pay higher tuition fees at
the university because of the social transfer transferring less to
Quebec. With these higher fees, her income as a waitress will no
longer be enough, and she will have to forget about pursuing her
education or work longer before being able to register.
Chances are also that Mrs. Dumas will have to pay out of her
pension benefits a portion of the cost of her medication, because
that too is what the Canada social transfer is about.
(1705)
Should she need to be hospitalized, or to have a nurse come from
the local community service centre, at this point, it is hard to know
the impact, since the Quebec government has not yet announced
where it will make cuts, but some cuts will definitely be made. The
government is no different than a family. If its revenues go down,
so must its spending. This is why the Bloc Quebecois so strongly
condemned federal cuts in transfers to the provinces.
What would the grandmother, Mrs. Dumas, Martine, Mrs.
Lemay or Mr. Dumas do if they were asked to choose between
these new constraints imposed on them and a increased tax on
profits made by banks? Considering that, for the first quarter alone
of the current fiscal year, the five major Canadian banks made
profits of $1.47 billion, and considering that if the trend persists,
these banks will exceed their record profits of $4.9 billion in 1995,
844
do these people wonder, like us, whether the banks could
contribute a little more to the effort to put our fiscal house in order?
Do the members of that family approve of the federal
government tolerating such huge profits, while forcing the
provinces to cut programs such as education, health and social
assistance? No, they do not approve. I am convinced that they do
not approve, and neither does the Bloc Quebecois.
Let us now talk about old age pensions. Mrs. Dumas does not
have to worry about her pension, since she is already receiving it.
She does, however, and deservedly so, worry about her son and her
daughter-in-law's future. She realizes that the federal government
is doing a great injustice, particularly to her daughter-in-law.
Indeed, Mrs. Lemay, who contributed to the plan for years when
she was working, and who will continue to do so as soon as she
finds another job, could see her pension affected, since it will be
based on her income combined with that of her spouse.
Years of efforts to ensure that women would gain financial
autonomy have been annihilated by this new measure. There is a
strong possibility that Mrs. Lemay will get less than she would
have under the old system.
Moreover, Mrs. Dumas realizes that her son's family is far from
being rich and that its members had to give up small luxuries. She
also finds it unfair that they are forced to contribute to a pension
fund, which reduces their disposable income, without knowing
whether they will be able to benefit from it later on.
Now let us take a brief look at student employment programs.
Our student Martine is worried. She has heard about an increase in
federal budgets for student jobs. However, one of her friends has
explained to her that the money would go directly to employers
hiring students.
Martine is well aware that her employer has no trouble finding
employees and that he does not need any more bureaucratic red
tape. She tells herself that it must be the same in most places and
that she therefore stands very little chance of finding another, better
paying job to cover the probable increase in tuition fees.
Mrs. Lemay is also worried about unemployment insurance
reform. She has heard talk about demonstrations to protest the
reform and has gone to her union for information. They have told
her that she would indeed be penalized.
Mrs. Lemay and her husband had agreed that she would look
after the children full time until both were in high school. This has
meant that Mrs. Lemay has fallen considerably behind in her field
and been unable to find a full time job. She wonders why the
federal government is not proposing any measures that would
create jobs. All she wants is a job, and she will take care of the rest.
Jobs are not a dime a dozen and I do not think that there are any job
creation measures in the budget.
There are 21,500 families like this one in my riding. There are
16,000 senior citizens. There are also 6,000 people currently
unemployed. When you explain to these families and these
individuals why the Martin budget is not as nice as it seems, they
are of the opinion that the government has definitely not done its
homework. They think that we should call this government to order
and propose alternative measures. People will see through this
budget. They know that it does not create jobs and that it is not fair
to Canadians and Quebecers.
(1710)
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
intently to the hon. member's speech.
I hear a lot of members talk about deficits and debts in this
venue. The reality is deficits represent unpaid taxes. It is not a
simple matter of saying we will reduce spending today or that we
will increase taxes. The bottom line is we have not paid all of our
taxes from prior years.
In reality a lot of that spending occurred within the province of
Quebec. It is no different than other parts of the country. There are
bills which we have not paid. That is what deficits are all about.
It is not a simple matter of comparing the reduction in spending
on certain programs today; we have to look at the reality of the
past.
I was interested in the hon. member's discussion of the Dumas
family. She did not mention a number of issues which would have
had an impact on that family: possibly child tax credits, which have
been increased, and that we have increased the cash flow to that
family. That we are fighting the deficit as judiciously as we are has
reduced interest rates significantly.
The Dumas family, I suspect, also has a mortgage on its house.
The next time it remortgages its house it will find out its monthly
payments have been reduced and its cash flow has been improved.
The summer youth employment program is not only private
sector employers, it is governments as well. It is the municipalities
and the not for profit sectors which exist within the province. That
adds a benefit to the community by employing youth and also adds
a benefit to the communities in which they serve.
These are other areas in which the federal government has
created a linkage with youth in giving them experience which they
can put on their resume when seeking future employment.
The facts are clear that in the last two and a half years the
economy has created over 600,000 new jobs, many of which are in
the province of Quebec.
845
I wonder if the hon. member would like to address some of the
real impacts the budget has had which will make the Dumas
family a lot better off than it was a year ago.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, now I have heard everything in this
House. When it is said that the deficit is due to unpaid taxes, this is
not showing responsibility. It is irresponsible. Come on, now. Does
that mean that the taxpayers have not paid enough taxes? What
does that mean? What lies behind those words? I think that the
government was unable to raise taxes this year because it knows
very well that taxpayers have been taxed as much as they can bear.
There have been no additional taxes, so I think the hon. member's
remarks are not very realistic.
When a member speaks of giving funding to enable students to
find jobs, the funding goes to businesses and the latter are the ones
who are going to profit. There is one thing that I would like to say:
behind all this, the budget is two faced. Let me tell you what cuts
students have had to face. There was a $26 million cut in summer
employment programs two years ago. Funding was reduced to $60
million and now that is being doubled to $120 million, but still $26
million were cut. There are cuts to the provinces for health,
education, social assistance, to the tune of $4 billion. So who are
the fall guys? The students, because the provinces will be obliged
to make cuts in educational programs. They are making the worst
cuts ever in 1996-97, $150 million at the post-secondary level.
With such cuts, I do not think the results will be all that fabulous. It
is kind of cynical, to help students so that they may shoulder a
greater burden.
To my mind, these are inefficient and ineffective measures.
Students, moreover, do not seem to be all that grateful for the
pittance contributed to allow them to find summer jobs. And not all
students will be the chosen ones who will find jobs. We know very
well that it is a very competitive atmosphere and that businesses
will take the cream of the crop. Students are not all that thrilled
with this pittance. Because funding to education is being cut, their
tuition fees will end up being raised.
(1715)
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the opportunity to enter the budget debate and I congratulate the
minister for the progress he has made in getting the deficit under
control.
I support the approach of the minister in setting short term
targets and meeting them with a gradual, well executed plan. It is
clear that the approach has increased confidence in the economy.
In Atlantic Canada, the unemployment rate decreased from
December 1994 to December 1995 from 14.1 per cent to 12.3 per
cent. Domestic exports from January to October 1995 over the
same period in 1994 have increased by 18.8 per cent.
Manufacturing shipments have increased by 11.6 per cent.
In P.E.I., tourist data show that total visitor spending increased
from $121.5 million in 1993 to $177.9 million in 1995. That is a
clear indication of a healthier economy because most of the visitor
spending statistics show the spending came from Canadian visitors
in the main.
No doubt that is due to the better economy brought on by the
successive budgets of the Minister of Finance. People want to come
to see the beauty and the wonderful hospitality of Prince Edward
Island. I encourage members in the House to come and see for
themselves. Because of the improving economy and because we
have a provincial Liberal government in Prince Edward Island, that
province last week announced its second surplus budget. Certainly
the Minister of Finance in Prince Edward Island should be
congratulated for his performance.
Quite a number of my colleagues have talked about major
advancements in the budget to address the needs of people.
Measures are targeted at youth employment. We certainly welcome
that endeavour. The increase in the working income supplement is
a major move forward which I support, as I do securing seniors'
pensions into the future.
In all our budget measures, finding the balance is always
difficult. Since I came to this place, I have tended to lay out the
facts, the good and the difficult. I intend to do so again today.
We must recognize the impact the federal budget will have on
rural Canada and the economic activity on which rural
communities are based, especially when the budget is combined
with previous budgets.
We have to be cautious when looking at investing in the new
technologies. It is the natural resource industries: agriculture,
fishing, mining and forestry that have been the mainstay of the
country over the years and will continue to be the mainstay into the
future. In our quest to expand into the new service and technology
areas, we should not draw too far from those basic natural resource
areas that have built this country to what it is today.
This is my key point today. The government must recognize the
necessity to continue to pursue its initiatives of deficit and debt
reduction but with a key proviso that if the initiatives currently
under way begin to have a negative impact specifically on the
economic well-being of rural Canada, the federal government will
be prepared to respond quickly, adjusting those policies should
they have a negative impact.
I ask specifically that the government monitor the impact on
rural Canada and be prepared to address negative impacts should
they occur. Rural Canada has done more than its fair share in
meeting our deficit needs. These have included transport policy
changes, cost recovery and marine policy, cost recovery in
Agriculture Canada, reduction of subsidy programs in the farm
community. In the main and from what I hear from rural
Canadians, they are
846
willing to accept the new responsibilities and shoulder on. But
should the burden become excessive, I expect the government to be
there to back them up.
(1720)
I view the throne speech in part as being that kind of
commitment. The throne speech said in part:
The Government is committed to the economic renewal of rural Canada. The
Government will address the problems facing rural Canadians in a way that is
tailored to their needs. Rural Canada is rich in natural and human resources and
faces different challenges than urban areas. The Government will move forward
in the coming session to make sure that all Canadians benefit from economic
prosperity.
Let me take a moment to outline one of the areas that is the
foundation of wealth in the country, the agriculture sector.
Agriculture accounts for 8 per cent of Canada's gross domestic
product. It accounts for 15 per cent of Canada's total employment,
1.8 million jobs. In 1995 agriculture products accounted for $17.3
billion of exports, a 30 per cent increase over two years.
As I have already mentioned, we have to be careful not to
undermine the goose that laid the golden egg, the agriculture
sector. Over the past couple of years it has absorbed some hits and
has lost programs.
I do not mind admitting that I am a little worried about the new
and increasing use of user fees throughout the agriculture and
supporting sectors that add to costs. In fact, in agriculture and
agri-food alone we could face, I believe, 42 such user fees. One in
and of itself is not a problem but the domino or multiplier effect
could be serious and we need to monitor it to ensure that does not
happen.
Another point I would like to make about user fees is that not
only does the government have to monitor and control its deficit, it
also has to keep in mind that other trading countries, our
competitors, do the same thing and cut back on their subsidy
programs and increase the costs to their agriculture sector. We do
not want to find ourselves in a position of undermining the
competitiveness of our producing sector in our gusto for deficit
reduction.
There are all kinds of examples where the government, differing
from previous governments, has responded to unexpected and
serious happenings. For example, the recommendations with
respect to the feed freight assistance has enabled the federal
government to change the timeframe within which compensation is
to be provided from the initial 10 to 3 years. That was a change
recognizing the concerns of farmers.
The effort to sell the government owned hopper cars to the
railways at a discount of 75 per cent of market value with farmers
picking up the remaining 25 per cent through increased freight
charges has been delayed, allowing a producer based coalition to
come forward with an alternative financing arrangement in which
maybe producers could take control of those cars. Those are good,
positive moves.
In conclusion, the Atlantic region in particular has long faced
unique challenges in its economic development. One key role the
federal government has performed is to assist those provinces and
the region through the sharing of national resources and wealth.
This has been the hallmark of the Canadian federation.
It will be important that where financial transfers are being
reduced over the next number of years that the federal government
ensure that essential services are maintained. Should there be
problems those changes should be monitored and the government
be prepared to meet the challenges to assist the producers and the
communities should they find themselves in unexpected need.
(1725)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again
they are skirting the real problems and avoiding the main issues,
such as the ever growing debt and the deficit, which is being
reduced on the backs of the disadvantaged and the unemployed,
with the surplus in the unemployment fund going to reduce the
deficit.
They also forget to tell us that the budget contains no provision
for trimming government machinery. They neglect to tell us that
there is nothing to eliminate overlap or to show us how the
government intends to really decentralize. There is no mention
either of this government taking steps to recover the $6 billion in
taxes owed by various companies and individuals.
They also do not say that what is currently being put into the pot
allegedly for job creation is simply money from elsewhere. There
is nothing in the budget for research and development or for job
creation in this area. Our universities and our researchers are
reduced to zero at this point.
Therefore, in actual fact, the problem itself, the real problem, is
that this budget contains no provision for job creation.
[English]
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the remarks by the
hon. member. It makes one wonder if he has even read the budget.
The facts are that we have been moving forward in step while
reducing the deficit. We have not been reducing the deficit on the
backs of people.
847
It is very important that there is a surplus in the UI fund. The
last thing we want is what previous governments have done and
not build up a surplus in the EI fund. When you are in a recession
you have to increase premiums in order to cover the
unemployment insurance benefit payments and as a result you
start to kill the economy. It is very important to build up a surplus
in the EI fund.
The hon. member says the government is not creating jobs. The
most tremendous potential of the country is its youth. The budget
has set aside funding for increased summer employment of youth.
It looks at measures for training. It looks at new technologies. It
sets up a new agency to try to increase spending in those areas
where youth will be gaining jobs in the future. It is trying to build
on that potential so that Canada has a sound economy in the future.
I would suggest that the member re-read the budget.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the hon. member for Malpeque
stand up for farmers. Is he one of those taxpayers that has not paid
his share of taxes in the past so that we have this huge debt and
deficit.
The hon. member is fighting for the livestock producers getting
better feed freight assistance programs. Does he feel it is fair that
livestock producers in western Canada get absolutely nothing out
of the WGTA payout because they are suffering just as his livestock
producers are?
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, that was quite a long winded question.
We are trying to find a better balance in the budget by having a
fairer taxation policy and that shows throughout the budget papers.
I always enjoy the member's questions concerning the
agricultural area. As I mentioned, because of concerns the member
and some of his constituents raised, we have moved to address the
concerns of the Crow benefit payout. We moved up the time frame
it would be paid out so that producers would have the capital up
front to do what they have always wanted to do in western Canada:
get into a more diversified economy.
(1730)
The bill also increases the ability of the livestock sector and
makes it more competitive because there is cheaper grain as a
result of the transportation changes.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have an opportunity to speak
to the government's most recent budget which has established the
right combination of measures to help move the country forward.
The budget deals with the Canadian deficit, as it needs to do. It
deals with the issue of jobs, which is also a priority today. It also
deals with the least advantaged in Canadian society and the
obligation and need of government to help those people.
It does it in a way that understands government has two
responsibilities. The first one is a fiscal responsibility. As a
government we have a need to ensure that the expenditures we
undertake are prudent, that we get value for every dollar we spend,
and that we make sure Canadian taxpayers are getting full value for
the money they are paying into the federal government.
Our responsibility as a government goes far beyond fiscal
responsibility. It is more than just a matter of maintaining the
books. It is more than just a matter of a balance sheet or an income
statement. As a government we also have a social responsibility.
We have a responsibility as a government to individual Canadians.
For the last 50 years we have historically agreed that we will not
allow Canadians to fall below a certain level. As Canadians we
collectively agree that when an individual goes to a hospital the
first question asked should be what is wrong and not how much
money does he have. We also agree to ensure that people have
shelter and will not starve. We must have a social safety net, and
government has that responsibility.
When we look at the budget it is important to recognize that we
have achieved our mandate or our objective of fulfilling both those
responsibilities.
I will talk a bit about fiscal responsibility. The government has
done a good job in the three budgets it has brought forward in
dealing with the Canadian deficit. During the campaign we
promised to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP and we will be
achieving that. Beyond that we have set a new objective of 2 per
cent of GDP.
It is difficult to get one's mind around percentages. It is even
better to look at some numbers. When the two-year planning phase
announced by the minister in his recent budget is completed, the
deficit in Canada will have been reduced by $25 billion. No
government in the country has done a better job in reducing
expenditures or in deficit reduction than we have done as a federal
government.
Even more important in terms of fiscal responsibility, our
borrowing as a nation and as a federal government in the upcoming
year will be reduced to $13 billion and in the year following to only
$6 billion. That is the best record in the country in 30 years and the
best among the G-7 as a percentage of GDP. We are doing a good
job in ensuring the borrowings of the federal government are being
reduced dramatically.
We have gone from program spending being about 16 per cent of
our gross domestic product to where it will be reduced by about 12
per cent when this budgetary cycle is completed. That also
represents significant progress. It is the best we have done in the
nation since the second world war.
848
(1735)
There are things far beyond deficit control that governments
need to deal with. One important objective is the need to create
jobs. As a government we are doing a good job in that regard. We
are ensuring that an environment exists within the country which
allows jobs to be created. We are doing it in part because we are
getting the economic fundamentals right.
Inflation in the country is at the lowest sustained level it has been
in 30 years. That is a strong economic fundamental. Interest rates
in the country have dropped by three points in the last year, another
strong fundamental.
As I mentioned a moment ago, government's borrowings are
being substantially reduced. This means the private sector is not
being crowded out of the capital market and is being allowed
investment opportunities to create jobs. We are getting the
fundamentals rights. We are allowing for an environment to be
created in the country in which job creation can occur.
As many of my colleagues have pointed out today during the
debate, job creation has been occurring in the country. In the last
three months Statistics Canada has reported almost 125,000 to
130,000 new jobs or in excess of 600,000 new jobs since the
government came to office.
Despite getting the fundamentals right, which is important and
represents real progress, our government also understands the
necessity for government to target specific areas in which to do
specific work. That is why we see new initiatives announced in the
budget which deal with youth unemployment. Our government
realizes this is a particular area of concern and we are acting in that
respect.
The government also understands that there are areas where we
can have the most impact on job creation. We have seen some
initiatives undertaken by the government which will help see that
happen. The establishment by Industry Canada of a technology
fund that will start off at $150 million and grow to $250 million is
important. It is a growth area of the economy where jobs can occur
and we need to support it.
We are a country of exporters. We need to have more small
businesses involved in it. Much of our exporting is done by the
largest corporations. We need to move that down the scale so that
our small businesses are taking part in export development. I was
pleased to see our investment of another $50 million in the Export
Development Corporation.
On the high tech side $50 million has been invested in the
Business Development Bank of Canada so that it will be able to
provide the necessary capital to firms dealing in the high tech
sector. This is an example of the government understanding that in
addition to the fundamentals we have done a good job in getting
right there is a need for us to operate in specific sectors to help
stimulate job creation.
The third area I mentioned when I started my speech was the
need to help the least advantaged in society. There is a need.
Whether it is helping the least advantaged areas in society
geographically-and we do that through our transfer program, our
equalization payments-or whether it is that we have increased the
child tax benefits for 700,000 low income families, we understand
the need to help the least advantaged in society.
In summary, the government understands that the way to deal
with the Canadian economy, the way to create a budget and present
a budget, is to have an approach that takes in several components
and not to fixate on one simple part of it. That is why we have dealt
with the deficit. That is why we have dealt with jobs. That is why
we have dealt with helping the least advantaged in society.
I close by reiterating that the government understands it has a
dual responsibility in governing the nation. It understands fiscal
responsibility but it also understands it has a social responsibility
to individual Canadians.
(1740 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first I will
make a comment and then I will ask a question. The hon. member
who just made his speech took an awful lot of credit for the recent
statistics he quoted on how much the interest rates have gone down,
on how employment is higher and on recent changes as if the
government caused all of them and should take credit for them.
I am glad he is taking the credit. When the economic
fundamentals change, when interest rates go up as they will and as
they are already starting to do, when unemployment does not get
solved by cash injections from governments, and when the Liberals
get tired of trying to blame the private sector for the jobs they
promised to create but cannot create, I wonder whom he will
blame.
The member said that the government has the fundamentals
right. A few members over there have accounting and tax
backgrounds. I wish they had a little more influence over the
finance minister. They stand to tell Canadians that the back of the
deficit has been broken and that the balance sheet of the nation is in
order. They are distorting some facts to a degree that the elastic
band will almost snap.
Does he understand the difference between a government
coming in with a huge debt and adding $112 billion to the debt
when exiting? Is that getting it right? Does he understand leaving a
$17 billion deficit and committing the country to spending more
than what it brings in as it did when it first started? Does he
understand
849
when a government has a balanced budget over its mandate? Does
he understand the difference between what this party represents in
terms of a balanced budget and what the government side
represents in its continued support of deficit spending?
The difference is the size of the debt and how much the
government adds to the debt. According to the finance minister's
own numbers, the government will have added close to $113 billion
to the debt when it leaves. With our numbers it would have been
half of that; it would have been $60 billion. The difference is $61
billion. The interest cost to service that additional debt is what it is
all about. Those are the fundamentals. Does the member
understand that difference in the fundamentals?
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer both the
observation of the member and his question.
As to his observation, I have no doubt that if the fundamentals
were not right he would be very critical of the government. When
the fundamentals are right because of positive government action I
will say so. Our government has done a good job. It has made good
progress in making the fundamentals right.
As to adding to the debt, I am glad the member admitted in his
presentation that his party would have added $61 billion to the
debt.
I will go back to my career in the financial services industry
before I took this job to give an analogy of what we are talking
about. Most of us have found ourselves in a position where we may
have overspent. We may have bought a house that was a little too
big or had a mortgage that was a little higher than it should be.
Perhaps we bought a vehicle on the spur of the moment because of
its accessories, making the debt for our car a little higher. Perhaps
we ran the plastic up on the last trip or whatever and we find
ourselves owing more than we should.
As somebody who dealt with consumer loans I often had
individuals come to me who had found themselves in that situation.
Our country is essentially in the situation today where we find that
we have overspent and we have a large debt. If we took the
philosophy of the third party in our dealings with such individuals,
we could simply say that is too bad, that they have to pay back all
the debt in one year and the fact they will not have enough money
to feed their families or clothe their children is irrelevant.
Or, we could do what is generally done in the industry. We could
arrange a debt consolidation loan where the need to eliminate that
debt is recognized and the fact that while it is being eliminated food
for the family and clothes for the children have to be provided.
Therefore we would arrange for the payments to be over a
reasonable period of time.
(1745 )
In my speech I pointed out that we take a balanced approach as a
government. However, here we have a party fixated on one aspect
of our responsibility. It does not recognize the social responsibility
which the government has to Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the finance
minister's budget seeks essentially to reduce the deficit and
succeeds in doing so through a series of measures with which I
disagree. I will express this disagreement to my colleague, who
may respond.
First of all, operating expenditures are being cut. But, for every
$1 reduction in operating expenditures, one dollar will be cut from
transfer payments to the provinces and another one taken from the
UI fund. This is a strange combination. This combination requires
employers and employees to pay a special tax amounting to almost
30 per cent of their UI contributions to help reduce the deficit.
By cutting transfers to the provinces the federal government has
decided that it is in a better position to spend this money than the
provinces themselves. Finally, when it cuts its operating
expenditures by only one dollar, that is to say, by another third, it is
not listening to the auditor general, who said among other things
last year that the defence budget could be cut by as much as $1
billion without any noticeable effects because it was sheer waste.
Well, only $600 million was cut, which leaves $400 million.
Meanwhile, students are being penalized as transfer payments for
post-secondary education have been cut by $150 million. And, to
top it all, because the government has set aside $600 million to
create summer jobs, it is expecting students to be grateful. These
are the facts. This is what it says in the budget. I totally disagree
and await the explanations of my colleague across the way.
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in the budget we will ensure that all
parts of society according to their needs will contribute to reducing
the deficit and no one part of the country or no one part of society
will be totally spared.
I disagree with his figures. Our expenditure cuts will amount to
19 per cent of government programming. It is less than half of that
amount in terms of transfers to the provinces.
In terms of building up a surplus in the UI fund, the hon. member
opposite would be the first person to criticize the government
during a recession if it were required to increase UI rates. Members
opposite would be yelling at us that we were increasing UI rates
during a recession at a time when we should not be taking money
out of the hands of workers and the businesses which create jobs.
850
Having a UI surplus during periods of economic growth makes
eminent good sense so that we do not have to take money out of the
economy during a recessionary period. It makes good economic
sense. It should have been done by previous governments. This
government is doing it.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate this, the third attempt by the
federal Minister of Finance and his lackluster government to get it
right.
It is my duty to report, and I regret to inform the government,
that it still did not get it right. For the 27th year in a row federal
revenues and expenditures are not balanced.
The weariness of the debt and the hopeless treadmill of lack of
resolve by the government continue. It is a sad commentary that
debt continues to grow and accumulate, which over the
government's term will add more than $112 billion to the debt load.
It is a sad commentary. This government generated debt will
place the average Canadian in a position of financial hopelessness,
unable to get ahead and forced to survive with a current personal
debt load equivalent to 95 per cent of their annual personal
disposable income. In 1982 that number was 62 per cent.
(1750)
With no tax relief in the foreseeable future, the Minister of
Finance counters by saying there are no tax increases. How does he
explain why gasoline taxes jumped half a cent per litre in Ottawa
less than a week after his budget theatrics on Wednesday? What
does he have to say to shell shocked taxpayers who last week faced
one-half to three-quarter per cent increased rates for mortgages?
The minister knows full well that for every 1 per cent increase in
these rates, 100,000 perspective first home buyers are removed
from the list of potential purchasers. So much for the new tax. The
cost of living takes care of all of that.
Two of the constraints in life are death and taxes. They are
inevitable and therefore we suffer in quiet desperation and
resignation. One of the elements of this cliche that makes life on
this treadmill bearable is the mistaken belief that all Canadians will
share equally in this tax burden; the element of fairness. More and
more Canadians are catching on to the cruel myth, and it would be
remiss of me not to further dispel the hoax of equity.
Allow me to focus my comments for a moment on departmental
spending, specifically the department of Indian affairs, otherwise
known as the money vacuum. Let us start at the beginning.
In 1976-76 total departmental spending for the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development was $587 million. Today
that number is $4.2 billion for about 573,000 status Indians, those
registered under the Indian Act, about 2 per cent of Canada's
population.
The sadness in this profligate sinkhole of spending is the
continued misery and sense of hopelessness wherein so many of
our native people continue to live. Despite the spending restraint
placed on all other government departments, the department of
Indian affairs spending to 1998-99 will grow a cumulative 12.7 per
cent compared with a decline of 24.4 per cent in other departments.
This will be the only federal department in which spending in
1998-99 will be higher than in 1994-95. It is a history of misguided
priorities where the current minister feels that maintaining this
native dependency on the federal treasury will deliver these people
to self-sufficiency, dignity and a stable future. It is a denial and a
cruel manipulation of these people that is demeaning and
paternalistic; keeping his charge in poverty paralysis, fed and warm
but never to let them break the surly bonds of welfare and
dependency unless they are the elites at the minister's trough.
Furthermore, it is a cruel, unfair hoax on the Canadian taxpayer
because despite all the federal largesse and misguided paternalism,
those status Indians who live on reserves do not pay income,
property or sales taxes on purchases delivered to the reserves.
Section 87 is surely an outdated, out of step section of the Indian
Act which protects and maintains this counterproductive
exemption. Total government spending for Indians for all
departments runs $7 billion, excluding the taxation exemption or
foregone revenue.
If this is working, why are 43 per cent of on reserve natives on
welfare? There are certainly some people getting bloated on the
morass of spending. One place is the Hull bunker of DIAND which
houses 3,400 of these bureaucrats.
Accompanying these public servants are consultants,
negotiators, lawyers and advisors, all taking a piece of the $7
billion in action and keeping the myth and their club memberships
alive. It is an Indian industry that has made some cling-ons very
rich.
I have in my possession billings to an Indian band by one Ottawa
lawyer of $300,000 per year for the client, a band of 250 adults, the
majority of whom live in poverty, fear, violence and abuse. This is
the $7 billion legacy. It is a system rife with avarice where a federal
royal commission on aboriginal people, instituted in 1991 and
originally budgeted for $20 million, is now highjacked by the
politically predictable Indian industry. The commission is well
overdue and running a tab currently of $60 million, the most
expensive royal commission ever done. It has employed seven
commissioners, 150 staffers and more than 500 consultants.
851
(1755)
One of the commission's interim reports dealt with
extinguishment. The minister was not content with the results of
this $60 million enterprise and so he commissioned another
independent fact finder to hold 65 sessions across the country at a
cost of $500,000. Money for these kinds of exercises is no object
for this minister. This keeps the $7 billion budget intact and makes
some lawyers and some consultants very wealthy.
When you raise the issue of native taxation, as I did on March 11
in the House, you do so at your peril from an overly sensitive
minister who resorts to bluster rather than explanation. When you
have misled Canadians on the issue of taxation surrounding the
Nisga'a settlement I guess bluster is the only way out of this
misrepresentation of facts.
Anyone reading the Nisga'a agreement can come to only one
inescapable conclusion: the Nisga'a will have constitutionally
entrenched tax exemption.
I have painted a bleak picture. There are some ways out of this
mess. A good place to start can be found in the Reform Party
aboriginal policy document. Look for the word accountability. Our
policy report calls for the auditor general to have full authority to
review Indian management of federal funds. Legal proceedings can
be recommended at the auditor general's discretion when he or she
feels there is a problem.
We also call for the chief electoral officer of Elections Canada to
have full authority to examine Indian election procedures. For too
long many band councils have maintained a top down repressive
regime. The band council system makes the chief and council more
responsible to the minister and the department than it does to their
very own membership. On every occasion I have been involved
where an individual has appealed to the department, the department
has supported the chief and council rather than the individual.
On this issue how can we ever expect any kind of accountability
when spending on aboriginal affairs is diffused among 11 federal
departments? It is an accountability nightmare surely meant to
obfuscate and confuse-
The Speaker: The time has expired. Comments or questions.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to add some comments and observations for Canadians
following this debate on the latest federal budget.
I think the question Canadians are asking and to which they are
getting a variety of answers is whether this a good budget for
Canada. Some people say yes, some people say no.
I would like to address that question and give some observations
I hope will be of some assistance as we evaluate, as Canadians,
whether this is the way we want our finances managed. The budget
was summed up in a newspaper headline that I read the day after its
presentation. It read: ``Canadians left sitting on a ticking time
bomb''. The time bomb is the debt. Canadians owe a mortgage on
the country of over $600 billion.
(1800)
Most of us do not compute in terms of billions of dollars. It
would be helpful if we talked a bit about how much $1 billion is.
Canadians might want to be aware that $1 billion is so big that if
one spent $1,000 every day since the birth of Christ one would not
yet have spent $1 billion.
If you made $1 per second, Mr. Speaker-and I know some
people think you do but I know it is not so-you would be a
millionaire in just 11 days and it would take 33 years to become a
billionaire.
A billion dollars is a great deal of money. Yet the government
has borrowed or put us in the hole for another hundred billion
dollars in the very short time it has been in charge of our fiscal
affairs, a hundred billion dollars that we have to pay interest on
every year, a hundred billion dollars that we will have to pay back
some day, a hundred billion dollars added to the mortgage on the
future of our children and our grandchildren. In my mind it is a
very big burden for Canadians to be saddled with.
The government likes to talk about having cut the amount of
money it has been borrowing. Yet it is interesting to note that its
total spending has been cut a minuscule 1.8 per cent over the time
of its stewardship.
The interest we have to pay on our debt has risen considerably
from $38 billion when the government took office to a forecasted
$48 billion next year. That is another $10 billion that we have to
pay to our lenders. It is $10 billion that we cannot put into an ailing
health care system. It is $10 billion that we cannot use to educate
our young people so that we can be internationally competitive. It
is $10 billion that we have to take away from job creators. It is $10
billion more that we have to pay, pull out of our jeans, than we did
before to service the country's staggering debt. We have one of the
highest debt to production ratios in the industrialized world.
What does that mean? The simple reality is that we will need not
less but more money for services in coming years. In 20 years time
people like me, baby boomers of whom there are a great number,
will be retiring. They will be demanding the pensions they have
been promised and have been paying into. They will be demanding
and needing extra health care and other senior services. The
demand for these things will increase dramatically within the next
20 years.
852
The only way to prepare for it is to run surpluses now and
reduce the debt as quickly as possible so that the government has
the flexibility to meet the needs of the future crowd of seniors
who will soon be retiring. This is not happening. In fact our debt
load is increasing by $24 billion of the billions of dollars I was
talking about earlier. It is a lot of money to borrow, to go in the
hole in one short year.
The younger generations will be saddled with an unprecedented
burden. Not only will they have to pay for health care programs,
putting something away for retirement, educating their children,
helping those who are disadvantaged and needy and supporting the
activities of government. They will also have to pay a staggering
amount of money every year on the billions of dollars the
government has so cavalierly borrowed and spent, the $24 billion
this year. The finance minister is borrowing and spending about
what we take in and the younger generations will be saddled with
that.
(1805)
A paper released earlier this month by the Institute for Research
on Public Policy in Montreal showed that under the fiscal policy of
the finance minister a baby born today will pay $131,000 more in
taxes than he receives in benefits from the government over his
lifetime.
For the first time the government made no prediction in the
budget about the unemployment rate. One is led to conclude the
government must feel pretty negative about the job situation to
have had to take job projection numbers out of its budget.
Much has been made of the fact there are no tax rate increases in
the budget although the government will take in more tax money
this year than it did last year. One citizen observed: ``I cannot pay
the taxes I have already paid so no new taxes does not mean much
to me. I need a job''.
High taxes and payments to lenders as a result of the wild
borrowing that has taken place over the last 30 years are doing two
things to the economy. First it is destroying job opportunities.
When job creators have to pay a large amount of their incomes to
government they are unable to use the money to create jobs, to
expand their businesses and to take advantage of export
opportunities. High taxes and payments to lenders are also eroding
our social services. We see evidence of that every day. We also see
evidence of the concerns of citizens in that regard.
In the last two and a half years the Liberal government has
increased the tax take from Canadians by $8.8 billion.
Notwithstanding this enormous tax increase a balanced budget is
still nowhere in sight.
On one hand the finance minister expects Canadians to take
more personal action to plan and save for their retirement. On the
other hand he makes taking such action more and more costly for
Canadians. They can now only hold RRSP moneys until age 69 and
RRSP management fees can no longer be deducted.
The finance minister has continued to freeze the contribution
limit on RRSPs to $13,500 a year even though it was promised to
be raised in 1995 to a level that would allow a reasonable rate of
retirement income. Worst of all, there is no target or plan to get to a
surplus position which would allow tax reductions, a systematic
debt pay down and flexibility in our important social programs.
We have some real concerns about the budget. I would answer
the question on whether the budget is good for Canadians with a
resounding no. I urge the government to set realistic targets as
quickly as possible to eliminate the deficit, to quit borrowing
money, to quit spending more than we take in, to get to a surplus
position, and to protect the social programs that we need and the
economic future of the country.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I found
the member's comments very interesting and noted them. I have
been talking with people in my riding of Halifax East since the
budget was presented and the comments I have been hearing about
it have been very positive.
People seem to be very pleased about many aspects of the budget
including the measures which deal with child poverty, in particular
the working income supplements increase over the next three years
from $500 to $1,000 a year. It will help low income working
families take care of their children. It is a very important measure.
(1810)
I found it interesting that members suggest we need to run a
surplus. I understand the idea; it would be nice if we could run
surpluses overnight and cut the deficit to zero and beyond right
away. However that does not take into account the economic reality
of our country or the impact that would have on individual people
across the country.
To say we will do that without, as the Reform Party promised,
bringing forth its own version of what it will do and how it will
achieve those goals seems irresponsible.
Why is it that the Reform Party did not, as promised, bring
forward its own proposed budget this year before the budget was
brought down to say what it would do? What would that party cut?
It is saying that it would cut far more than the government has cut
so far, that far more would be required to be cut from the federal
budget to reach a surplus.
What fees would the Reform party increase? What programs
would it cut far more than has been cut already? Would it cut health
care? Would it increase the cuts in transfers to the provinces? What
853
other areas would it cut? It is not telling us about those things
which are so important to know and I look forward to hearing.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the hon.
member is begging for a budget from the Reform Party since he
obviously has not read the first one.
The taxpayers' budget we placed before the Liberals for their
consideration would have cut health, post-secondary education and
welfare by $3.5 billion and in three years that would have put us in
a surplus position.
What have the Liberals done? Have they cut $3.5 billion from
health, post-secondary education and welfare? Yes, they have cut
$3.5 billion from those areas. In fact they have cut $6.3 billion
from those areas and we are still not in a surplus position.
I urge the hon. member to look at the budget we put forward.
With far less draconian measures we would at least get some
results, which is more than we can say for the government.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very
simply the issue of RRSPs is a very good example of the difference
between the thinking of the Reform Party and the thinking of the
Liberal Party.
The hon. member talked about increases in taxes as a result of
changes such as reducing the age at which one can make a
contribution from 71 to 69. At that point we are not talking about
providing retirement income; we are talking about sheltering
wealth for those who have the means to shelter wealth.
She was concerned about massive management fees no longer
being deductible for tax purposes. However she did not mention
that they would be payable out of the RRSP itself and would not
impact the taxpayer.
She lamented that we did not increase the $13,500 limit. Those
people who can afford to put away $13,500 would have to make
$75,000 a year.
The hon. member has been critical of changes which affect the
most wealthy Canadians, but she failed to recognize that one of the
important changes included in the budget was the elimination of
the seven-year limitation on the carry forward of unused balances
of RRSPs. This means ordinary young Canadians who are
struggling from paycheque to paycheque will have an opportunity
in the future to make up those years in which they could not make a
contribution.
The difference between the Reform Party and the Liberal Party is
that the Reform Party is advocating on behalf of the most wealthy
Canadians and the Liberal Party is advocating on behalf of ordinary
Canadians who are living from paycheque to paycheque.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I know Liberals opposite would
like to characterize their budget as being tough on the wealthy.
However I point out a couple of matters the hon. member might
want to keep in mind.
The 40 per cent of people who invest in RRSPs make less than
$30,000 a year. People are very worried about their retirement
future. They are starting to put away money in RRSPs in order to
protect themselves. Yet this government is making it more difficult
for them to do that.
The level at which a person has to save in order to have a
reasonable retirement income has been pegged at $15,500 but the
government will only allow people to save $13,500. Even if the
wealthy need a reasonable amount to live on when retired. This
government is telling seniors on one hand that if they are wealthy,
they should not expect anything from the government but on the
other hand they will not be allowed to save a reasonable amount in
order to compensate for that. Wealthy people have to live too.
People have to have enough for a reasonable retirement income,
particularly with services being eroded by the debt the government
is running up. We cannot have it both ways. There will not be the
wealthy at all. Wealthy will just be a memory of Liberal rhetoric.
There will only be very poor, very needy and very unhappy retired
Canadians.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the subamendment now before the House.
The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the subamendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the subamendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment which
was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 11)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Jennings
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
854
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Williams -29
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-167
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bonin
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Gerrard
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Lastewka
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
MacAulay
Manley
Marchand
Ménard
Parrish
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robillard
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
(1840 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
defeated.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from March 14 consideration of the motion,
the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the subamendment of the hon.
member for Kootenay East in relation to the privilege motion. Shall
I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Mr. Hart, seconded by Mr. Frazer, moves:
Whereas the Member for Charlesbourg, acting as the defence critic for the
Bloc quebecois and supported by the then Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition, released a communiqué on the letterhead of the Office of the Leader
of the Official Opposition on October 26, 1995, before the referendum in
Quebec, inviting all francophone members of the Canadian Armed Forces to
join the Quebec military in the event of a ``yes'' vote supporting separation
from Canada;
That in the opinion of this House, this action by the Honourable Member for
Charlesbourg, and the then Leader of the Official Opposition should be viewed
as seditious and offensive to this House and constitutes a contempt of
Parliament; and consequently, the House refer the matter to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination;
855
Mr. Zed, seconded by Mr. Boudria, moved:
That, the motion be amended by deleting everything before the word ``That''
and be deleting all the words after the word ``That'' and by substituting for
those words the following:
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker:
``the matter of the communiqué of the Member for Charlesbourg released on
October 26, 1995 with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces be
referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.''
Mr. Abbott, seconded by Mr. Epp, moved:
That the amendment be amended by adding after the words ``the matter of
the'' the following:
``seditious nature of the''.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment which
was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 12)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Jennings
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Williams -29
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-166
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bonin
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Gerrard
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Lastewka
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
MacAulay
Manley
Marchand
Ménard
Parrish
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robillard
856
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
(1850 )
The Speaker: I declare the subamendment defeated. The next
question is on the amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent
that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion presently before the House, with
Liberal MPs voting yea on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
will vote against this amendment.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: The Reform members will vote no to this
amendment.
Mr. Solomon: The New Democrats present in the House tonight
will vote yes on this matter.
(The House divided on the amendment which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 13)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-130
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Brien
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Williams -65
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bonin
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Gerrard
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Lastewka
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
MacAulay
Manley
Marchand
Ménard
Parrish
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robillard
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
857
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion as amended. Shall I
dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Mr. Hart, seconded by Mr. Frazer, moved:
That the matter of the communiqué of the Member for Charlesbourg released
on October 26, 1995 with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces
be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I hesitate to correct
the Speaker but he said ``will all those in favour say yea'' and then
he said ``will all those in favour say nay''. I think maybe it should
be done again.
The Speaker: Your Speaker stands corrected. Do you want me
to do it again?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amended motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed to the amended motion will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was
agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 14)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Bélanger
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Robichaud
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Williams
Young
Zed -158
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
858
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-36
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bonin
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Gerrard
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Lastewka
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
MacAulay
Manley
Marchand
Ménard
Parrish
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robillard
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
(1905)
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
_____________________________________________
858
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 15 consideration of motion.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Strahl relating to
the business of supply.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 15)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Jennings
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Williams-32
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-161
859
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bonin
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Gerrard
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guay
Harper (Churchill)
Lastewka
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
MacAulay
Manley
Marchand
Ménard
Parrish
Peters
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robillard
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
(1910 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
_____________________________________________
859
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
a speech on February 28 in the House of Commons the Prime
Minister said that corporations in Canada ``have a responsibility to
eliminate the human deficit of unemployment. No true balance
sheet can ignore the heavy and growing cost of chronic
unemployment. It is wrong. It is wrong on a human level. It is
wrong on an economic level. It is wrong on a commercial level. It
is wrong on a moral level''.
The question to the Minister of Finance on March 5 was to
suggest that Hollinger Incorporated ignored the Prime Minister's
challenge in the private sector to help create jobs. It was a slap in
the face because two days after Hollinger Incorporated took
ownership of the Regina Leader-Post, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix
and the Yorkton Enterprise, 182 employees were terminated.
Twenty-five per cent of the staff is gone because, in the words of a
Hollinger representative, these newspapers made profits but not
enough profits.
The owner of Hollinger Incorporated, Mr. Conrad Black, has
shown a clear lack of corporate citizenship. He is flagrantly
ignoring the challenge of the Prime Minister because he does not
care if he creates a human deficit, in the Prime Minister's words.
He is only interested in the bottom line. However, by ignoring the
human factor in his profit chasing, Mr. Black is not fooling the
people of Saskatchewan or his employees; he is only fooling
himself.
Putting more people out of work hurts the whole economy. It
means fewer consumers with purchasing power to buy goods and
services. No company lives in a glass bubble. Businesses are
interdependent and when we put people out of work the whole
business community feels the repercussions and in some cases the
whole country suffers.
The Liberals were elected on a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs but
delivered nothing but talk, talk, talk and fewer jobs. It is not only
Hollinger Incorporation but many other profitable corporations that
made substantial profits yet terminated jobs. They terminated
employees as a reward for their efforts in making these profits.
Bell Canada made a profit of $502 million yet had 3,100 fewer
jobs as a result of that. General Motors had $1.39 billion in profits
yet laid off 2,500 employees. Imperial Oil had a record profit of
$514 million and 452 fewer jobs. The Bank of Montreal made $986
million with 1,428 fewer employees.
What these statistics show is a lack of corporate responsibility in
a country which provides them with these profits as well as various
tax support from our treasury.
(1915)
Should Canada continue to provide these profitable corporations
that downsize tax breaks when they lack a sense of corporate
responsibility to create jobs? More and more Canadians think not.
More and more Canadians think corporate tax breaks should only
be provided to those companies that treat their community and
their employees with dignity. Canadians want tax breaks only for
the corporate responsible corporations and tax breaks should only
be provided to those who would support a Canadian code of
corporate citizenship.
What did the Liberals do in response to these large, profitable
corporations? The Liberals responded with a very small youth
employment program to hire the kids of the parents who lost their
jobs at minimum wage. Fire the parents and hire the kids at reduced
wages. That is the Liberal approach to employment. Under the
Liberals, economic development has become an oxymoron.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the
Minister of Finance to respond to the question of the member for
Regina-Lumsden.
The government's number one priority has always been, is and
will remain job creation. A key part of this commitment is ensuring
that the corporate tax system contributes to job creation. Many
steps have been taken.
The government has eliminated a whole range of what the
member opposite would call tax breaks. They are too numerous to
mention. Last year, as the member knows, it took significant steps
to reduce business subsidies which were continued in this budget as
well.
A number of incentives have been kept in place. They have been
studied extensively and have been judged useful for job creation,
for instance, the small business tax rate. I do not think the member
opposite would argue that it was not useful in encouraging job
creation in the small business sector. There are also vital measures
to encourage research and development. I do not think any member
860
of the House would argue with the importance of research and
development to the creation of long term and important jobs.
To ensure that corporations contribute to deficit reduction and do
their fair share, steps have been taken with regard to the large
corporation tax rate. Furthermore, the temporary surtax on banks
which was instituted in last year's budget is continued further in
this year's budget.
Finally, in this year's budget a technical committee was created
to look at other ways in which the tax system can contribute to job
creation. Their report will be made public after consultations some
months hence. We all look forward to seeing the committee's
recommendations.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, pursuant to the order
made earlier today, the motion to adjourn the House is deemed to
have been withdrawn.
_____________________________________________
860
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-10, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal
year beginning on April 1, 1996, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent for me to split my 40-minute
speaking time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member to split his time with the hon. member for Mississauga
South?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it has happened on numerous
occasions and if it is not acceptable to members opposite that is
fine. I will just speak very slowly for 40 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: I am reminded, as always, by the helpful
gentlemen and ladies of the table that you do not need unanimous
consent to split your time. Under our standing orders one can do
that.
Therefore, I take it the member wishes to indicate that he will be
splitting his time.
Mr. Campbell: I am sure members opposite are very pleased
that they will not have to endure me for 40 minutes. I will be
splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.
(1920 )
I welcome this opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill
C-10, the borrowing authority bill. As in previous years, the
amount of borrowing authority requested in the bill is directly
connected to the financial requirements set out in the federal
budget. The information required to deal with the financial aspects
of the bill is also contained in the budget plan.
I urge the House to approve this legislation as soon as possible.
Our goal is to have new borrowing authority in place on April 1, the
beginning of the government's new fiscal year. This will ensure
continued regular financing operations for the government.
All borrowing authority granted by last year's Borrowing
Authority Act, including the $3 billion non-lapsing amount, will be
depleted by the middle of April. If this legislation is not in effect on
time, it means that the government's funding requirements would
have to be met by using section 47 of the Financial Administration
Act.
Section 47 restricts the borrowing to short term funds. Having to
resort to these could be costly to the government and Canadian
taxpayers and would expose the government to the additional
interest rate risk implied by increased short term funding. That is
why it is critical that borrowing authority be secured.
I intend to highlight the specifics of the legislation before us.
First, since this is legislation authorizing the government to borrow
money, it is clearly appropriate to review our fiscal philosophy,
what we do with the funds the taxpayers provide and borrowers
lend to us.
The message has been driven home again and again in the
finance minister's budget speech and in the debate that followed.
These messages are worth repeating because no one should doubt
our commitment.
The 1996 budget plan consolidates and extends the actions set
out in the 1994 and 1995 budgets. Together, they implement a
comprehensive strategy that is determined, measured and
responsible.
It is determined because we are not letting up. As the Minister of
Finance emphasized: ``The attack on the deficit is irrevocable and
irreversible. We will balance the books. Furthermore, we will put
the debt to GDP ratio on a constant downward track year after year
after year''.
It is measured because our fiscal action plan is designed not as a
quick fix, but structured to achieve long term, permanent progress.
861
It is responsible because it is a strategy that involves carefully
weighing the needs of our economy and society and equally
carefully designing the policy options to meet those needs.
The majority of Canadians do not want the slash and burn
approach that ignores economic consequences and abandons the
vulnerable. They do not want Gingrich style grandstanding. They
want an approach that is fair and balanced. Just as important, it is
the balanced approach that is the best way to keep Canadians
onside for deficit reduction efforts.
[Translation]
I need not elaborate on the basis for our decision to take strong
and disciplined action for Canada. High deficits and a high public
debt have raised interest rates, undermined confidence, swallowed
up domestic savings and made Canada's international debt soar.
With our first two budgets, we have put in place a rock-solid
fiscal base. These two budgets instituted the most drastic spending
cuts since the war, structural cuts spread over the entire medium
term planning period. But this base entails much more yet. It means
setting deficit reduction targets over two years, using conservative
economic assumptions and building large contingency reserves
against unforeseen economic fluctuations.
These measures ensure that our deficit reduction targets for
1995-96 and 1996-97, to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the
GDP, will be met in spite of the fact that the GDP did not grow as
much as originally forecast. One of the factors that made this
possible is the sharper than anticipated drop in interests rates,
which counteracted the effects of slower growth on the deficit.
[English]
The measures in the 1996 budget consolidate and extend those in
the first two budgets and further contribute to our economic and
financial objectives. We have maintained our focus on reducing
program spending because the deficit is a problem created by
government. The solution, therefore, should focus on cutting in our
own backyard. In the 1994 and 1995 budgets there were no
increases in personal income tax rates. In the 1996 budget there
were no tax rate increases at all.
(1925)
There is another way to underscore this point. Of the cumulative
fiscal actions taken from 1994-95 to 1998-99, a full 87 per cent
have been expenditure savings. Expenditure cuts in the 1996
budget amounted to $1.9 billion in 1998-99 and build on the
reductions of the two previous budgets to keep program spending
on a downward track.
Together, the three budgets and the employment insurance
reform will contribute $26.1 billion in savings for 1997-98. This
will ensure we hit our new deficit target to keep the federal
shortfall to just 2 per cent of GDP in 1997-98. Our combined
budget plans will deliver a further $28.9 billion in savings in
1998-99. This means the deficit will continue to drop and our debt
to GDP ratio will fall.
There should be no doubt about the dramatic dimensions of this
action. Program spending, that is everything but interest payments,
was $120 billion in 1993-94. By 1998-99 we will have cut it to
$105.5 billion. That is a decline of 14 per cent which means that
program spending will have declined for six straight years.
These are real cuts in actual dollars, not reduction against some
previously established plan. Relative to the size of the economy,
program spending will fall to its lowest level since 1949-50. This
drop in actual program spending is unprecedented in Canadian
post-war history and virtually unprecedented internationally. Most
other countries are merely trying to slow the growth of their
spending.
There is another milestone I want to mention. Through such
deficit action the federal debt to GDP ratio will fall 1.1 percentage
points in 1997-98. That will be the first significant decline since
1974-75. It means the national income will finally be growing
faster than financial obligations, putting us in a better position to
manage.
There is one final fiscal measure I want to discuss which is
financial requirements. In other words, how much new borrowing
the government will be doing on financial markets. This is the basis
by which most other countries, including the United States, the
U.K., Germany, France and Italy, measure deficits.
In 1993-94 federal financial requirements stood at $30 billion or
4.2 per cent of GDP. By 1997-98 they will have dropped to $6
billion, just 0.7 per cent of the GDP. Relative to the size of the
economy, that is the lowest level in almost 30 years. On that basis,
we will likely have the lowest fiscal shortfall of any G-7 central
government.
There is one thing we must all understand. Budget forecasts are
just that, forecasts, estimates. That is because these things deal
with the future and factors that can only be assumed such as
economic growth and interest rates. That is why one of the budget
plan foundations is to apply economic assumptions that are more
cautious than those of the private sector. For example, projections
for 1997 are based on interest rates 80 bases points higher than the
average of private sector forecasts.
This is not a gimmick to deliver easy to reach targets. It is a
discipline embraced because Canadians are tired of governments
that emphasize wishful forecasts and then miss those targets again
and again. We have been setting rolling targets that we have been
achieving again and again, and will continue to meet.
862
Of course there were always excuses for the missed targets in
the past, but governments are judged on their performance not
their promises. That is why we built in a prudence factor to buffer
us against the sort of events on which excuses are too often based.
Let me emphasize a corollary point. If economic developments
are either as assumed or more favourable than assumed, the deficit
will be even lower than our 2 per cent of GDP target in 1997-98.
Any portion of the contingency reserve that is not needed will be
applied directly to deficit reduction.
I want to turn to the legislation before us, but before I do let me
just put Canada's fiscal progress again in an international context,
specifically comparing it to the United States, our largest trading
partner and the most meaningful comparison. The Canadian fiscal
situation can be compared by contrasting our financial
requirements with the U.S. deficit on a unified budget basis.
(1930)
Canadian federal deficits relative to GDP have been larger than
U.S. government deficits in recent years. However, with the fiscal
measures in 1994 and 1995 in those budgets combined with our
latest plans this performance will be reversed.
For 1996-97 the comparable Canadian deficit is projected to fall
to 1.7 per cent of GDP while the U.S. deficit will remain stable at
2.1 per cent. The difference between the two ratios should widen in
1997-98, exceeding a full percentage point in Canada's favour.
The main factor behind this shift is program spending. Between
1994-95 and 1997-98 Canada's federal program spending is set to
decline by 3.2 percentage points of GDP compared with only 0.8
percentage points in the U.S.
Federal program spending in 1997-98 should represent just 12.6
per cent of GDP compared with to 16.8 per cent in the United
States. That is an incredible change. As I mentioned earlier, this
spending will fall even further in 1998-99 to 12 per cent of the
Canadian economy.
Let me now turn to Bill C-10. Like the borrowing authority bill
for last year, this bill contains three basic elements: authority to
cover financial requirements for 1996-97, exchange fund account
revenues, and a non-lapsing amount. In total the government is
requesting authority to borrow $18.7 billion for the 1996-97 fiscal
year.
Let me touch briefly on the main provisions of the bill. First,
there is the provision for $13.7 billion of authority to cover our
anticipated borrowing to meet the net financial requirements set
out in the new budget.
Second, there is the provision to cover $1 billion of exchange
fund account earnings which give rise to additional Canadian dollar
borrowing requirements. This is because these earnings, although
reported as budgetary revenues, are retained in the exchange fund
account. They are not available to finance ongoing operations of
the government.
Third, there is a $4 billion non-lapsing amount. This is
something I want to emphasize because it represents a change from
previous years. The non-lapsing amount has been $3 billion since
1986. Our $1 billion increase is a prudent measure which will
provide the government with the ability to manage foreign
exchange requirements more effectively in light of increased
exchange market flows and volatility in recent years.
The non-lapsing amount can either be used during the course of
the year to manage contingencies or be carried forward temporarily
into the next fiscal year until new borrowing authority is granted.
In either event it underscores the sort of fiscal and economic
prudence we believe must be the hallmark of good government in a
world of accelerating change.
There are some minor technical provisions in the bill that more
clearly link fiscal year borrowing authority with fiscal year
borrowing requirements.
One provision provides that 1996-97 borrowing authority may
be used only after the 1996-97 fiscal year begins. Another
provision stipulates that for the purposes of calculating borrowing
authority usage, the effective date is April 1.
If the borrowing authority bill is not passed before the start of the
new fiscal year the government may continue to use in 1996-97 the
$3 billion non-lapsing amount provided for in the Borrowing
Authority Act, 1995-96. However, any use of the non-lapsing
amount in 1996-97 will be deducted from the basic amount of new
borrowing authority when the legislation before us is passed. This
prevents the non-lapsing amount in any year from effectively
adding to the borrowing authority in the following year.
We want the borrowing authority bill passed before the start of
the new fiscal year to avoid using the non-lapsing amount, which in
any event would last but a few short weeks. I appreciate the efforts
of members opposite in expediting the passage of this borrowing
authority.
This bill will cancel all borrowing authority remaining from
fiscal 1995-96 once it is passed.
As further background information, I would like to review the
government's debt operations in the current fiscal year up to
mid-February.
I hope members are writing this down. I know they have been
taking careful notes. So far in the fiscal 1995-96 domestic debt
program the government has issued about $25.3 billion in
marketable bonds, $1 billion in real return bonds and $224 million
in
863
CSBs. There were also net redemptions of $5.8 billion in treasury
bills. This provides a total of $26.5 billion in net new market debt.
(1935)
I report to the House on last fall's CSB campaign. This year the
government took a first step into the highly competitive RRSP
market. Last fall for the first time, Canada savings bonds could be
registered directly in the name of an RRSP. In January the new
RRSP option was extended to all outstanding series of compound
interest bonds.
The 1995 CSB campaign produced sales of $4.6 billion. After
counting for redemptions during the year, the net increase in CSBs
outstanding was $224 million, as I indicated earlier.
Regarding foreign currency debt outstanding, Canada bills
decreased by U.S. $2.8 billion to U.S. $3.7 billion at the end of
February. These are short term U.S. dollar denominated bills issued
from time to time in the U.S. market to fund Canada's foreign
exchange reserves.
The government launched two very successful global bond
issues last year, a U.S. $1.5 billion five-year issue in May and a
U.S. $1.5 billion 10-year issue in July. The five-year issue gained
recognition from international financing review as the sovereign
deal of the year. The proceeds of both issues were added to
Canada's official exchange reserves.
In summary, this bill is straightforward and contains no unusual
provisions. I urge the House to approve this legislation as quickly
as possible so that new borrowing authority will be in place at the
beginning of the new fiscal year and the government's regular
borrowing program can proceed as the fiscal year begins.
As the debate continues we will learn a great deal more about
this bill. Members will be fully informed about it. May I get a little
guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, at this point?
The Deputy Speaker: I am very happy that my colleague asked
that question. It is the first time we have ever made an error.
Standing Order 74 says members can divide their time when they
are the second speaker and not when they are the lead off speaker
on a bill.
Accordingly, the hon. parliamentary secretary cannot divide his
time. He is entitled to speak for 40 minutes but he does not seem to
have a 40-minute speech ready in which case the next speaker will
be the critic for the official opposition.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, thank you for providing that
guidance. We regret the confusion at the front end of this. I happily
yield the floor to the member opposite. We can continue the debate
afterward if he needs to speak now rather than later this evening.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Loubier: I see that Reform members are getting all worked
up. This is to be expected. For about two weeks now, they have had
a tendency to get more excited than necessary. Consequently, I am
not surprised at their behaviour this evening. Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, could you please ask the Reform
member who sounds like he is braying to stop making that noise?
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The evening has only begun.
[Translation]
The evening is just beginning. I hope hon. members will show
respect for their colleagues, and I expect all of them to do so.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10,
which authorizes the Minister of Finance, as of April 1, 1996, to
raise such amount or amounts, up to $18.7 billion, by way of a loan
or by the issue and sale of securities of Canada, as may be required
for public works and general purposes. This more or less defines
Bill C-10.
Given the way this Liberal government has managed public
finances over the last two and a half years, and given the recent
budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, it is difficult for
the official opposition to support with enthusiasm a bill that, in our
opinion, confirms that the Minister of Finance and the Liberal
government did a bad job of managing public finances. Yet, on
behalf of Quebecers and Canadians, the government asks that we
support this bill.
(1940)
Let us take a look only at the last budget, which contained sad
news for us regarding the debt and the deficit. Indeed, the Minister
of Finance has already decided that this year, next year and the year
after, he will not fight to eliminate waste, inefficiencies,
duplication or, in other words, budgetary expenditures.
One need only look at page 14 of the budget where we find the
direct budget savings for 1996-97 to see that, for the fiscal year
1996-97, this year's budget provides for savings of 0.0 per cent.
864
Another look and we see that for 1997-98, this budget forecasts
cuts in government spending of only $200 million. And in two
years, they are talking about $1.7 billion in savings based on the
budget brought down by the Minister of Finance just a few weeks
ago.
Taken over three years, we must conclude that the Minister of
Finance is looking for savings of $1.9 billion. Imagine, $1.9
billion. That represents seven-tenths of one per cent in cuts per
year. Seven-tenths of one per cent. Not one per cent, not even one
per cent, but seven-tenths of one per cent, because we must not
forget that federal spending is in the neighbourhood of $160 billion
annually. So, for annual expenditures of $160 billion over the next
three years, cuts of $1.9 billion mean seven-tenths of one per cent
of the Minister of Finance's forecast.
How, therefore, can we give the okay to a Minister of Finance
who shows no interest in limiting his spending? He is not interested
in creating acceptable annual savings. How can we give him the
okay to borrow, on behalf of Quebecers and Canadians, over $18
billion on the market?
Would that normally be done? Would someone who showed
himself unable to generate savings, who showed himself unable to
manage the public purse wisely, be given carte blanche to borrow,
in our name, $18 billion? No.
Would the Minister of Finance be given authority to borrow $18
billion on the market, when during two and a half years of Liberal
management he added over $110 billion to the federal debt, which
will climb to over $603 billion this year?
Would you give the okay to a manager who has squandered
public funds, who has, deliberately for political ends, not assumed
his responsibilities with respect to reducing the size of
government? Would you give him carte blanche to go and borrow,
in your name, $18 billion on the market? The answer is no.
Mr. Speaker, would you give him carte blanche? Now I see that
you are listening very carefully to what I have to say because it
concerns your pocket book directly, and nobody would borrow, in
your name, with this kind of track record in managing the public
purse.
Would you give a finance minister carte blanche to borrow $18
billion, when all he had managed to do in two and a half years of
managing your finances was to coast along with the growth in the
economy, eat into the unemployment insurance fund, take
advantage of the surplus generated by this fund to which the federal
government has not contributed for several years now? It means
dumping the deficit on the provinces, as he is doing.
Would you give carte blanche to this minister, who has made use
of everybody except himself, who has put public funding on a
healthier footing using everything except his own means, his own
solutions?
(1945)
I would not, and I do not believe Canadians would either. What
consummate showmen the Liberals have turned out to be in the
past two and half years. Each time, they have presented a budget
which disguised the reality. The last budget is a most impressive
theatrical production using smoke and mirrors.
They tell us: ``We will reduce the deficit by several billion per
year, not only attaining our objectives for the percentage of the
deficit compared to the GDP, but surpassing it''. But let us look
more closely at how they are managing to disguise the truth.
If it were not for the cuts I have just referred to, if it were not for
the cuts, if it were not for the systematic dumping of the deficit
onto the backs of the provinces, if it were not for the Minister of
Finance's dipping into the UI fund, if it were not for the economic
situation of these past two years, which has brought in three to four
billion in revenues this year, the Minister of Finance would not
have a $24.5 billion deficit for 1996-97, but a $31 billion dollar
one.
If it were not for the UI cuts, if it were not for the surplus the
Minister of Finance has helped himself to out of the UI fund, if it
were not for the systematic dumping of the burden onto the
provinces, and if it were not for the economic situation, the
Minister of Finance's deficit for next year would be, not $17
billion, as he claims, but over $27 billion.
In the end, when we look at the real deficit for this year,
generated through the incompetence of the Minister of Finance, we
see that little has changed since he became head of the department.
In fact, if we look at the product of the new revenues arising from
the state of the economy, from economic growth, if we look at the
unemployment insurance fund, the minister's favourite fund, were
it not as well for the shift of his responsibilities onto the provinces,
the actual deficit, because we have to include the product of the
economic situation, the actual deficit for 1996-97 would be $35
billion.
It seems to me that is comparable to the deficit at the time the
Minister of Finance took over the department-it was about $37
billion or $38 billion. There has been hardly any reduction.
Apart from the economic situation and the Minister of Finance's
tricks, the promised good management of public funds would never
have materialized. It is all smoke. It is all hokum on the part of the
Minister of Finance.
He could have cut duplication and overlap. They have long
harped on that one. We have long harped at the Liberal Party, the
party in power. We have long raised it with the Reformers as well;
they prefer to close their minds to anything reasonable.
Instead of setting up a committee to study duplication, overlap
and the doubling of positions in federal and provincial
governments, the Liberal government, and it added more in the
speech from the throne, and in the budget speech, wants to
interfere
865
everywhere. Not only is it going to stay in areas it has invaded,
exclusive provincial jurisdictions, but it is adding more.
In the throne speech, it said clearly, and it repeated it in the
budget for certain aspects there, that it will, with the support of a
majority of the provinces, continue to invade areas of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction, that it will, for example, set up a Canadian
securities commission. As if we needed the bureaucracy, the
inefficiencies and the duplication of the federal government, when
it has a hard time, with what it has, putting public finances in order
and making the machinery efficient, so that this huge machine is
not constantly seized up. It is adding more: a Canadian securities
commission, when all the provinces operate efficiently in their area
of jurisdiction.
All the provinces have harmonized their actions for years.
Together the provinces have set up a system called SEDAR, which
will be operational in a few months and which will eliminate the
need for ten different issues, or a total of securities issues; a single
one will suffice. This will be done with efficiency and expertise
since it has been an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction for
several years. This is not the case of the government and the
finance minister, who are making it more cumbersome.
(1950)
Not only will they not eliminate duplication and overlapping, but
they will create more of it. They think Quebecers and Canadians
love to spend money. Obviously they do not visit their ridings very
often.
They mentioned a national revenue agency, as if we needed to
add a new administrative structure to the already huge government
apparatus, which is gobbling up close to $160 billion a year. The
finance minister's managerial attitude is questionable. We should
not give a blank cheque such as this to a minister. We should not
give a blank cheque to a government which is planning to cover the
country with flags-one million, we are told-but which does
nothing to put its fiscal house in order.
Where is the finance minister dealing with inefficiencies and
waste? Has anyone ever heard him say, for instance, that there is a
lot of fat to be cut in the defence department? Has anyone ever
heard the finance minister or Liberal members condemn the
squandering of two billion dollars on tanks? Has anyone ever heard
the finance minister or his fellow citizens, his colleagues in the
Liberal Party, in stringent budgetary times, and in peace time to
boot, condemn the purchase of antitank missiles at $15,000 a
piece? No one, never.
When did we ever hear of such shameful expenditures as those
planned to modernize submarines and buy highly sophisticated
helicopters in peace time, when our accumulated debt has reached
$603 billion and the Minister of Finance is unable to keep this debt
from growing? Never. When did we ever hear this government talk
about what is happening in the other House or about the money
spent on the governor general? Never. It amounts to $50 million a
year but it never talks about it. It prefers to continue dealing with
symbols, while the other House remains a haven of patronage, a
reward for good Liberals-or, in the past, good Tories-who often
doze off in front of TV cameras.
Did we ever witness a commitment to sound management of
public finances, when the Minister of Finance or the minister of
revenue was asked to go after the more than $6 billion in unpaid
taxes owed the federal government? I am not talking about
controversial matters but about things that are pending because
they made lateral staff cuts in the federal public service. They cut
staff, but wall to wall, starting at the bottom because it is easier,
because the mandarins, the senior officials at the top are in charge
so they are not likely to offer their own heads on a platter to the
government.
So we get to the point where, at the department of revenue, there
are not enough real workers to go after unpaid taxes. As a result, in
the last two years, out of more than $6.3 billion in unpaid taxes,
only $250 million to $300 million have been collected. Out of $6.3
billion. This is ridiculous.
If there was any reason to believe that they are concerned about
managing public finances soundly, about making the optimum use
of resources, about looking for money at the right place and taking
it from those who have it, we would support Bill C-10. But that is
not what the Minister of Finance has accustomed us to over the past
two and a half years. We cannot give him a blank cheque when he is
asking us to borrow $18.6 billion on the capital markets on my
behalf and on behalf of my colleagues, of the people of Quebec and
of the people of Canada.
The Minister of Finance is slowly starting to smell the coffee. It
is none too soon; we have been condemning this situation for
almost three years already. We have been asking him for nearly
three years to reform the tax system, and the corporate tax system
in particular, because it is full of holes. As usual, instead of taking
his responsibilities, the Minister of Finance has decided to set up a
task force to eventually look at the corporate tax system behind
closed doors, a task force that would not include any
parliamentarians-who, I should remind you, are elected by the
people to account to them-and to prepare a report in which it
would recommend revising the corporate tax system along such or
such a line.
(1955)
This report would be released and we would be expected to do
our job based on a document that was biased from the start. How
so? For the reasons we have already explained. As soon as the
Minister of Finance announced his plans to set up a technical
committee on business taxation and made the membership of this
committee known, we came out against this committee's
membership. Why? Because the committee is made up of experts
from various consulting firms, firms advising big corporations on
how to take advantage of innumerable tax loopholes to avoid
paying Revenue Canada what they owe.
866
And we would have been gullible enough to accept not to discuss
corporate taxation for a year and let these experts look at the issue
behind close doors and come up with a report saying: ``We
reviewed the whole corporate tax system and found that there are
not many problems with it''.
Such will be the findings of that technical committee on
corporate taxation. This is what the minister wants to hear. As we
said when the budget was brought down, this is tantamount to a
first class funeral for the work of that committee, and also for a true
reform of the corporate tax system.
We might as well forget about that. That committee of experts
will include people from firms such as Ernst & Young. These firms
not only give advice to major corporations on how to avoid paying
taxes, they also have subsidiaries in countries considered to be tax
havens, where hundreds of millions go in and out. The result is that
Canadian businesses that supposedly have to pay a 1.5 or 2.5 per
cent tax are not taxed by Revenue Canada because their revenues
have already been taxed in countries considered to be tax havens.
And we should have accepted that process? This is making fun of
us. It is making fun of Canadians and Quebecers. We are no fools.
The Minister of Finance intends to do with this committee exactly
what he did with the family trust issue.
You remember, last year: ``We are going to comply with the
demands of the official opposition, we are going to reduce benefits
linked to family trusts''. We were pleased. But when he said ``in
1999'' it was like warning the thief a day ahead that the police were
on the way. I would call it laughable. Now they are up to the same
thing again.
If we were alone in thinking that the Minister of Finance had not
tackled the real problems in two and a half years, we would say:
``Maybe we are mistaken''. But when we visit our ridings,
throughout Quebec, and also outside Quebec, in Canada, and
people come up and say: ``Keep up the good work, we are very
disappointed in the Liberal government'', and tell us, often in
English, in ridings that are Liberal bastions, in ridings often
coveted by our friends in the Reform Party, but that they will never
win if they keep on with their rather special attitude of the last two
weeks, then we begin to tell ourselves that our message is getting
across.
And, although it is not something I am used to doing, I have a fax
to read-yes, we in the Bloc also get faxes, not just the Reformers.
I got a fax last week from a Mrs. Jansen in Regina, in
Regina-Wascana,the riding of the Minister of Agriculture, which
reads as follows-please pardon my accent, but I shall try to render
the spirit and to some extent the content of Mrs. Jansen's faxed
letter. I would like, incidentally, to thank her for her excellent
analysis. She wrote as follows:
[English]
``This fax is to express my appreciation to you for presenting
several important issues during your response to the finance
minister's budget speech. While I recognize that your party, the
Bloc Quebecois, has specific aspirations, your comments mirror
the concern of many citizens in Canada. The duplication of services
and the consequent waste of fiscal resources that might be used by
the provinces, the lack of sincerity to attend to the tax break given
to large corporations as indicated by the implementation of the
secret commission to study this issue, and the $50 million
apportionment to the anachronistic Senate are symbolic of a system
that no longer works in the best interests of beleaguered
taxpayers''.
(2000)
[Translation]
I continue to quote, since I find this letter extremely interesting.
Mrs. Jansen continues:
[English]
``Cuts are not being made to senior bureaucracy but at the level
of direct service providers to the public. The civil service will soon
become so top heavy without sufficient support at the bottom that
the pretence of providing services to the average citizen cannot be
maintained. I have noted that since the election of the present
Liberal administration, all programs designed to assist emerging
and small firms have either been discontinued or dismembered.
``The rest of this country is beginning to severely suffer from the
effects of an administration that does not adhere to the old
democratic action of government of the people, by the people, for
the people. Rather recent policies lead us to the conclusion that we
have a government of the rulers, by the rulers, for the rulers.
``As the middle class and small businesses are increasingly
diminished by taxation and outdated regulations, we may soon find
ourselves within a feudalistic style of government: the rich and
powerful at the top, a few disenfranchised workers in the middle,
and the majority enduring poverty''.
[Translation]
When a number of us, in Quebec as in Canada-and I could have
read other comments from the Maritimes-think that this
administration has been remiss in its duty, that this administration
which is today demanding a free rein to go after $18.6 billion on
our behalf, when we have reached the point, Quebecers and
Canadians alike, francophones and anglophones alike, of
castigating this administration for not shouldering its
responsibilities, it may be time for this government to be brought
back in line.
867
It is perhaps time for all, in Quebec and in Canada, coast to coast
as they say, to be a little more vocal in our dissatisfaction with an
administration which has not, in two years and a half, done
anything more than pretend to Quebecers and to Canadians that
everything was fine, everything was under control, when from the
point of view of overall public funding, the exercise has barely
begun.
As for the increasing debt, the Minister of Finance cannot long
conceal from Canadians that this progression is not contained. For
this reason, as well as all those I have just enumerated, we in the
official opposition, on behalf of the people of Quebec and of
Canada, will refuse to allow this irresponsible Minister of Finance,
who is not fulfilling his responsibilities, who is not making cuts in
the proper places, who is not making the desirable reform in
corporate taxation in the timely manner it requires, to borrow $18.6
billion on our behalf. I shall be recommending that my Bloc
Quebecois colleagues vote against this bill.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
respect to the borrowing bill, I rise to simply say I am disappointed
that this government has to borrow so much.
Mr. Williams: Too much.
Mr. Silye: Too much. Having said that, let me lead into my
commentary about budgetary process, borrowing process and the
finances of this country.
Mr. Thomas Walkom wrote in the Toronto Star: ``To watch the
federal Liberals from afar is to marvel. This is a party with no
memory and no shame. In opposition, sanctimonious, in
government, hypocritical. It has raised duplicity to a high art''. I
concur with that quotation and I would like to submit some
evidence I have dug out myself.
No matter that the Prime Minister is on record as saying he was
firmly committed to universal social programs such as old age
security, the government ended it by replacing it with a means
tested program called the seniors benefit in the budget. No matter
that the Prime Minister promised to scrap NAFTA unless it was
renegotiated, the Liberals signed it anyway and now they take
credit for it. No matter that many Liberals promised to abolish, kill,
get rid of, scrap the GST in order to get elected, even with this third
budget they have not kept their final promise: replace. We know
why. They are trying to put the blame with this promise on the
provinces. Their latest kick is harmonization. Replace is what they
said; replace is what they should do. Now they have taken the
pressure off themselves and have shifted it on to the provinces
saying that if they do not comply with their proposal it will be the
provinces' fault.
(2005)
The Liberals are downloading on the provinces just like they did
with the Canada health and social transfer. They have reduced the
funding and guess which Parliament gets rocks thrown at it: the
provincial parliaments, not the federal Parliament. Guess which
Parliament has to handle most cuts to health, education and
welfare: not the federal government, the provincial government.
No matter that the Liberals promised to protect civil servants and
then turned around and fired 45,000 people while entrenching a
multimillion dollar pension plan for themselves.
No matter that the Liberals promised jobs, jobs, jobs and now
that they have failed they are blaming the private sector or the
business community, which never elected any Liberals; I do not
think they ran as a party; they never made the promises.
Nevertheless, the federal government is now saying: Private sector,
you create the jobs.
No matter that this government is spending $4 million more per
day than it brings in. It claims it has broken the back of the deficit.
No matter that this government said no new corporate or
personal taxes, but through the tightening of some tax preferences
like deductibility of child support payments, increased revenues in
the next fiscal year by $100 million and $245 million next year,
these represent tax increases. This government is truly
sanctimonious, hypocritical and smacks of duplicity.
The finance minister brags about his budget. Let us see what he
has really done. Let us see how he has handled his first kick at the
cat. Is the problem the deficit or the debt? Is it one or the other or is
it both?
The deficit is defined in layman terms as that which is spent in
excess of what is generated in a year. It is an annual amount. It is a
deficit if the government spends more than what it brings in and it
is a surplus if the government spends less than what it brings in.
The debt is the amount of money that is the accumulated series
of deficits over a number of years that go all the way back to
Confederation. Thirty-two years ago our debt was zero. This debt is
an accumulated amount of deficits since Confederation, but in the
last 31 years we have managed with the two status quo parties, the
Conservatives and the Liberals, to inch our way up toward $600
billion in debt.
The government identified the deficit as the problem. This
finance minister said that the deficit as a percentage of GDP will
come down to 3 per cent. He set a target. Not only did he say he set
868
a target but he is going to beat that target. In this way he is going to
solve the problem.
If we look at the definition of a deficit and the definition of debt,
is this government solving the problem or is the government adding
to the problem? The problem is the debt because it keeps growing
as the deficit, although it is shrinking with this lower target. Is the
government adding to the problem or is it solving or eliminating
the problem?
(2010 )
I submit that by using the deficit as a percentage of GDP and
continually spending more money than what we bring in this
government is adding to the problem. Yes it can brag all it wants
that it is a lot less than the previous government and is this not a lot
better and therefore we can keep spending money over here for this
program and keep spending over here to subsidize business on that
program and we can keep wasteful spending up. But it is not
solving the problem. It is an illusion. It is duplicity. It is
hypocritical.
The government failed to recognize the problem. The problem is
the debt. The best way to measure the fight against the debt is to
look at the debt as a percentage of GDP instead of the deficit as a
percentage of GDP. If the percentage of debt to GDP goes down, we
are now solving the problem. We are now adding credibility.
I know the finance minister is aware of this. I know the finance
minister knows that is the button this party was going to push. I
know because in the Standing Committee on Finance I listened to
all the leading economists talk about this: the fact that this
government was going too slow in its cuts; the fact that there was
going to be a bigger price to pay for future generations. That aside,
what Canada needs and what Canada must have sooner than later is
a surplus budget and it must stop deficit spending or financing. I
will come back to the deficit and the debt as a percentage and see
how this government is attacking it on that basis.
The finance minister talks about a plan and setting targets. He
should identify the right problem and use the correct measurement
for achieving his target. It is amazing that when we analyse the
budget we find many facts that contradict the finance minister's
claim that the balance sheets of this country are in good order. Are
they in good order? Let us take a look.
The government had the privilege of running the country when
the economy started to come out of a recession. How do I know
that? The first thing in the budget documents and budget analyses
of the various years shows that when this government came into
power revenues were only $116 billion. They go to $135 billion and
they project to $141 billion in 1997-98, revenues due to the growth
in the economy, due to the recession starting to be eliminated and
things improving somewhat. Revenues. This government has had
the benefit of revenue increases of $25 billion. I would also submit
and remind Canadian taxpayers that some of that extra revenue is
about $3 billion to $5 billion in tax increases the finance minister
imposed in the two previous budgets.
Let us look at program spending which is an objective of the
Reform Party. When this government came in it showed program
spending at $120 billion. I am not sure but I seem to recall this
government wanted to blame the previous government for billions
of dollars and somehow or other it inflated it. It was the other guys'
fault. I believe that high number on program spending the
government uses is a bit inflated. Nevertheless, program spending
has decreased by $14 billion.
That is where the error has been. In the first year of government
it only cut $2 billion, the next year another $5 billion. Its cutting
habits have gone too slow. Its cutting habits have not kept up with
the interest costs. That is what the problem is.
Let us look at the interest costs. The public debt charges when
the government came in in 1993-94 were only $38 billion. That was
bargain basement. Now the government is projecting $47.8 billion,
close to $48 billion, a $10 billion increase. What is the purpose of
all these cuts if it is only going to go to service the interest costs to
service the debt? That is my case. The debt is the problem, not the
deficit.
Thank God the interest rates are low. Thank God this
government can stand up and brag about how interest rates are 3
per cent lower than a year ago, six months ago or whatever.
Imagine what kind of statement this would be if it were not like
that.
(2015 )
The interest costs to service the debt are proof that the deficit is
not the problem, the debt is the problem. The deficit is also the area
for which the finance minister has been getting lots of compliments
from certain members of the financial community because the
deficit is going from $42 billion down to a projected $17 billion.
During the whole course of the government's mandate it is still
spending more than it brings in.
Yes, it is going down. Yes, it is good he set a target. Yes, it is
good he is meeting that target, but the target he is setting and the
measurement of the economy he is using is not solving the
problem. It is adding to the problem.
What happens when we take a look at the revenues that have
been generated, the cuts in spending, the servicing charges? When
we add all that up what do we notice? Something very interesting.
After four years of government management under this finance
minister, the master of myth, we end up with revenues up $25
billion and, guess what, the deficit down by $25 billion.
869
What is left at the end of the day? There is still 17 per cent
left and the Liberals brag that it is only three per cent or might
end up being two per cent. Who cares? Are they not missing the
point? Is it not the point that we need to solve the debt, that we
have to make a payment somewhere along the line on that debt,
that we have to have a surplus budget in somewhere in there?
That is why we have argued for and pushed all along for a
balanced budget. That is the advantage of having a government that
during the course of its mandate makes a commitment to the
Canadian taxpayers and says: ``Sooner than later we will balance
this budget. Sooner than later we will get our financial house in
order so that we sooner than later will break the back of the deficit.
Sooner or later we will have a good balance sheet for the nation''.
The way to do that is with a balanced budget, not leaving with a $17
billion deficit and claiming victory.
At the end of four years the government, and let me be accurate
here, will have added $111.7 billion; almost $112 billion it will
have added to the debt. It came in here with $508 billion debt and it
runs the country for four years and just after four years, never mind
if it wants to take another year at it, it adds $112 billion to the debt
and says that is good financial management.
It says we can play with the future lives of our children and our
grandchildren, that we can gamble on interest rates staying low,
that we can gamble on uncertainties in the economy and the global
that we are all participants in. That stuff is all okay because come
hell or high water we will meet our targets and we will beat our
targets and we will keep our feet to the fire.
It is all great rhetoric. It is beautiful rhetoric. It is all the right
buttons to push to convince people when you are trying to fool
them that you are solving the problem.
My speech today is intended to shift the debate to the problem. I
believe the problem for all economists, for all business people and
for all taxpayers is the debt. The sooner we shift the debate to the
debt and look for ways to measure our success against that evil
monster, the sooner we will start to solve our problems.
Let us get to the GDP and using the debt as a measurement of
economic growth. I am submitting that a truer measurement in
using projections in how the economy is doing is the debt to GDP
ratio. If we take the actual numbers, looking at the budget from
1993-94 when the GDP was $712 billion to a projected $806 billion
in 1996-97, it shows actual numbers and it shows growth of about
3.3 per cent.
Then we take a look at the debt as a percentage of GDP from the
government's first year at 71.3 per cent to 72.8 per cent. Did it
solve the problem in year one or did it add to the problem? Under
the truer measurement it added to the problem. Even those
renowned economists from the Fraser Institute better be taking
note and paying attention to this.
(2020)
The next year, 1994-95, the GDP went up from 72.8 per cent to
74.2 per cent. Did the government solve the problem, reduce the
problem or did it add to the problem? It added to the problem.
This year the government is projecting a further increase that is
smaller. Nevertheless there is another one-half of one per cent
increase in the debt to GDP ratio. That means the economy is not
improving. Our financial resources, our financial situation, our net
worth is not improving; it is diminishing, it is decreasing. Yet
throughout the past three years all we have heard is how we have
set our targets, met targets, beat our targets and how everything is
so wonderful.
A colleague of mine mentioned a statistic earlier in the debate.
An Environics poll asked whether budget goes fast enough, deep
enough and is it the right way. Roughly 60 per cent to 70 per cent
said no and yet the government is claiming victory.
We arrived at an interesting point in the budget presentation by
the finance minister. This was where the master of myth started to
show his best stuff. He projected on the net public debt that two
years from now, although we have been averaging 3.3 per cent, the
GDP will grow by 4.3 per cent. He projected a whole per cent more.
What did he base it on? I do not know. I sat on the Standing
Committee on Finance where all the leading economists said that
for the next two years the most we could hope for was 2 per cent to
2.5 per cent. No, all of a sudden the government can put 4.3 per
cent out there.
Then with the deficit at $17 billion, that number as a percentage,
the government said we went down to 73.7. Now the government is
agreeing with us that is the better measurement. It is agreeing with
us that is a good way of looking at it and two years from now things
will get better. These are projections.
Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
said we may not hit these, these are just projections. That is what
scares me. It is the uncertainty of meeting these targets that could
hurt.
If the government wants to solve the problem it has to stand up
and identify the right problem, which is what this party is trying to
do. We are trying to set the debate on the right issue. The issue is
the debt and the best way to measure our progress in the fight
against the debt, that monster, is through the debt as a percentage of
GDP. We get to see how our economy is growing. We get to see the
share of that growth, the share of the value we produce annually,
what we generate in sales, what our debt load is against that. That is
what tells us whether we have a good credit rating rating.
870
That is what helps the financial community continue to reinvest
the money we have to borrow from the foreign market. That is
what tells the brokers of this country that it has its resources in
order. That is what will tell the taxpayers there will be a reward
at the end of the tunnel.
After we have a few surplus budgets and we have paid down that
debt somewhat we do not have to do it; we can carry it. Once we
have a surplus budget, which includes debt servicing, that is when
we have a balance sheet in good order.
The government will exit having added $112 billion to the debt,
bringing it to $620 billion from $508 billion. I know I am repeating
this. I said this earlier. That is the legacy the government is
bragging about. That is the deeper hole it has dug while it has had
the privilege and the honour to run the country, to try to do what is
right for the people of the country. That is what it has really
contributed.
Another day older and deeper in debt, as the old song goes. How
that represents good sound financial management, how that
represents breaking the back of this evil monster, this evil problem,
is beyond me.
(2025 )
We have suggested and argued for a balanced budget in the
House. To this day not one member, not even the finance minister,
will give us a date at which we will see a balanced budget. It is just
promised.
It is on a wing and a prayer that the economy will continue to
grow as it does. That is what they are hoping. Keep interest rates
down. Sneak in a few tax treatment preference changes. They will
not call them tax increases. Take away a few more loopholes. They
will not call them tax increases. Eventually they will get to a
balanced budget somewhere, whenever. It will be soon because we
have gone, six, five, four, three, two-but, but, but. It is those buts I
am worried about.
If the government had really listened and had the political will to
do what had to be done and skipped the argument of whether it
would be over a three or four-year period, it could have produced a
balanced budget over a fixed period of time and done it as soon as
possible in its mandate so that the benefits would reflect in lower
interest costs, especially considering the size of the debt.
We have done the checks and the calculations. The difference
would have been $62 billion less to the debt. If the government had
listened to the Reform Party it would not exit with a $620 billion
debt. It would have exited with a $580 billion debt. Even a Reform
Party government would have added to the debt, we acknowledge
that, but only at half the amount. We would have a surplus by the
end of our mandate.
Let us talk about the difference. There would have been $62
billion less added to the debt. That means, depending on the
interest rates, $3 billion less in interest payments. That is the
reward, the advantage. Then the government could have decided
whether to put that toward programs spending, education, health or
welfare or apply it to the debt. Pay down the debt. Service the debt
or reduce taxes and offer tax relief if the economy is strong enough.
If the percentage of debt to GDP ratio starts to come down by 1
per cent to 9 per cent, perhaps 2 per cent per year, there will be
more flexibility. The government does not have that flexibility.
This is a very dangerous budget. Liberals are acting as if they have
succeeded. They are already starting to spend money as though
they have money to spend. They are already redistributing how
they are to do social programs when they are in fact looking for
ways to increase tax revenues. They are looking for ways to
convince us they have the answers to a very difficult problem.
I submit this whole debate on fiscal reform and on what is in the
best interests of the country lies in identifying the right problems. I
humbly admit that the government presented a red book in which it
made a lot of promises. It has broken a lot of those promises. It
seems it checked to see which way the political wind was blowing
and that is the direction it took.
The Liberals recognized that we agreed with the way a lot of
people were thinking. Now they have copied and followed some of
the recommendations we have made. However, it is unfortunate
they did not do it fast enough. They still have the opportunity to do
it with one more budget coming up. They could still address the
waste in government spending. They could still cut about $4 billion
to $5 billion in spending.
I am sorry to say the government will not do it. It is unfortunate
that this budget is more of the same; feel good, everything is okay,
do not worry, be happy.
The last time the Prime Minister spoke and behaved that way we
almost lost the nation.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak on second reading of Bill C-10, the borrowing authority
bill.
The government is asking this honourable House for $18.7
billion of borrowing authority for the 1996-97 fiscal year. This
amount is comprised of the financial requirements stated in the
budget for 1996-97 of $13.7 billion, exchange fund account
earnings of $1 billion and a $4 billion non-lapsing amount.
(2030 )
As in previous years, the amount of borrowing authority
requested in the bill is directly connected to the financial
requirements set out in the 1996 federal budget. The financial
aspect of the
871
bill is also contained in the budget plan tabled in the House of
Commons by the Minister of Finance.
I urge the House to give unanimous approval of this legislation
without delay. The Minister of Finance in the budget speech states:
``Let us act not as special interests but as stewards of the national
interest, knowing that the destiny of our children is in our hands''.
I remind the House that the word economics derives from the
Greek word meaning household management. The purpose of
economic life is not simply to gain material satisfaction but to
support families and the social institutions and identities that
evolve from families as the fundamental units of human society
and human actions.
Having said this, it should be noted that the 1996 budget does
just that. It consolidates and extends the actions taken under the
comprehensive strategy set out in the 1994-95 budget, together to
help Canadians secure their future, to secure their financial future,
to secure the future of the social programs, to invest in the future of
our people, our families, our communities and our country.
The 1996 budget is the third mile post in the government's
journey to securing fiscal stability and a vibrant, dynamic and
competitive economy for Canadians who must compete in the
tough global arena. Working together with the 1994-95 budget, this
budget continues a comprehensive strategy for federal finances that
is determined, measured and responsible; determined because we
are not letting up. As the Minister of Finance emphasized, the
attack on the deficit is irrevocable and irreversible. We will balance
the books. Furthermore, we will put the debt to GDP ratio on a
constant downward track year after year after year.
It is measured because our fiscal action plan is not
indiscriminate and mindless but structured to a pace that is
conducive to efficient adaptation. It is designed not as a quick fix
but to achieve long term and permanent progress. It is responsible
because it is a strategy that involves carefully weighing the needs
of the economy and society and equally carefully designing the
policy options to meet those needs.
Just as important, we are striking the balance necessary to keep
Canadians onside for our deficit reduction efforts. There remains
no question about the need for dramatic, disciplined action. High
public sector deficits and debt have sapped confidence, soaked up
domestic savings and led to a sharp increase in the country's net
international indebtedness.
Canadians were paying a painful price through the punishing
pressure that high deficits placed on interest rates. This drains
consumer and business investment and drives down job creation.
The lethal combination of high interest rates and deficit borrowing
also meant that a growing share of government resources must go
to interest payments on a growing debt.
This year those charges will cost the federal government $47
billion, money that cannot go to lowering taxes, aiding those in
need and helping the economy create new jobs.
Tackling Canada's fiscal problem is a fundamental component
for national growth, new jobs and economic security. With the first
two budgets the government began the process of restoring
Canada's finances and restoring credibility to the government's
fiscal policy after years of missed deficit targets.
By setting credible two-year rolling deficit targets, by using
prudent economic assumptions for fiscal planning purposes and by
establishing substantial contingency reserves to handle the impact
of unforeseen economic development on the achievement of the
deficit target, credibility is being restored to the nation's finances.
(2035 )
The first two budgets implemented unprecedented reductions to
program spending that are structural in nature and extend to the
medium term planning horizon.
With these measures, the 1995-96 and 1996-97 deficit targets,
bringing the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP, are secure despite
lower GDP growth than had been originally assumed. Contributing
to this progress is the fact that interest rates are also significantly
lower than projected. This has neutralized the adverse affects of
lower growth on the deficit.
The measures in the 1996 budget consolidate and extend those in
the first two budgets and further contribute to the economic and
financial objectives. We have maintained our focus on reducing
program spending because the debt is a problem created by
government and the solution should focus on cutting in our own
backyard.
There are no tax rate increases in the 1996 budget, not personal
taxes, not corporate taxes, not excise taxes. Expenditure cuts in the
1996 budget amount to $1.9 billion in 1998-99 and build on the
reductions of the two previous budgets to keep program spending
on a downward track.
Here is a point that must be emphasized. Of the cumulative fiscal
actions we will have taken from 1994-95 to 1998-99, a full 87 per
cent have been expenditure savings. Together the three budgets will
contribute $26.1 billion in savings for 1997-98.
This action, together with reform of the employment insurance
program, will ensure we hit the new deficit target to bring the
deficit down to 2 per cent of GDP. Through budget action, we have
set a further $28.9 billion in savings for 1998-99. This means that
the deficit will continue to fall.
872
There is no question that historic action has been taken.
Program spending, that is everything but interest payments, will
have declined six straight years through to 1998-99. Relative to
the size of the economy, program spending will fall to its lowest
level since 1949-50.
Over the last two and a half years, Canadians have turned to
governments not to invent jobs but to provide an economic and
social environment that will encourage the economic growth that
makes new jobs possible.
We are proud of our record to date. Since taking office in 1993,
unemployment has dropped by two full percentage points and
about half a million jobs have been created, mostly in the private
sector and almost exclusively by small and medium size
enterprises.
We realize that there is much work ahead. Unemployment
remains far too high and there is widespread national worry about
the job future for young Canadians, older displaced workers and for
women re-entering the workforce.
The government is intent on taking durable, meaningful steps
forward. Rather than relying on short term direct spending
programs, this more meaningful approach is being taken. It
emphasized collaboration with partners and strategic investments
to steer the forces of economic change toward greater employment.
First things first. For the sustained economic growth needed to
deliver new jobs, we must start by securing Canada's economic
fundamentals. That means getting the deficit down and keeping it
down. High persisting deficits go hand in hand with high interest
rates. High interest rates discourage investment borrowing and
consumer spending and ultimately discourage jobs.
We also need to keep inflation down. Low inflation reduces
pressure on interest rates and lowers business overhead. Of course,
keeping the cost of doing business to a minimum will encourage
investment and make us more competitive abroad.
Beyond providing a sound economic framework, the
government has looked seriously at what more it can and should
do. Some areas are so important to Canada's future prospects that
they warrant significantly increased efforts from the federal
government. Therefore the government has concentrated on youth,
innovation, technology and trade, which is set out in the budget
plan.
(2040 )
It also should be noted that financial institutions have a key role
to play in facilitating the growth of Canadian business. Over the
past year the banks have made progress in dealing with the
concerns of small business. However, more needs to be done to
ensure that financial institutions provide the best possible
financing for growing export and knowledge based business, and
for all small and medium size business.
Therefore the government will work with business and all
financial institutions, including the banks and insurance
companies, to ensure that this progress continues.
A temporary tax on large deposit taking institutions, including
the banks, was introduced in last year's budget and it will be
extended for a further year. Currently the legislation governing
financial institutions is being reviewed with a view to improving
the framework established in 1992. The conclusion is that the
financial sector has yet to fully adjust to this framework. Therefore
the present restriction on banks selling insurance will be
maintained.
The present framework for selling insurance through agents and
brokers will be preserved and the white paper covering this and all
other aspects regarding financial institutions under review will be
released in the coming weeks.
In conclusion, since I am sharing my time with another member,
I want to emphasize that this budget is a budget that secures the
future of all Canadians. It secures their financial-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry the hon. member's time has
expired.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member
finished up by saying that this budget secures a future for all
Canadians.
The point to be made is that it secures an indebted future for all
Canadians because in the life of this government it is going to add
$100 billion and more to the debt.
If you take an 8 per cent interest charge on that amount that
means $8 billion each and every year from now to practically
eternity that are going to be paid in extra taxes to service the debt
being incurred by this government.
I want to know how this member thinks debt secures the future
of Canadians?
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this budget. I
maintain my position that it secures the future of all Canadians.
It secures the future of seniors and of youth. With respect to the
growing national debt, I am proud to be a part of this government.
This is the first government that has addressed the financial and
economic issues of the country. It has also preserved the social
programs. It has concerned itself with the poor, with the aged, with
the needy and with single parents. It has addressed these issues.
The Reform Party is concerned about the rich and about
preserving economic issues, not for the economic concerns of the
people of Central Nova, the people that need to have these social
programs
873
and need to know that they have a Liberal government that will
protect and preserve them.
I am proud of this budget and so are the people in Central Nova.
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind colleagues that we are
talking about Bill C-10 which is a borrowing bill. We are not
talking about the budget.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for reminding hon. members that we are debating Bill
C-10. I am pleased to participate in the debate on this.
Bill C-10 is an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal
year beginning April 1, 1996. Under the borrowing authority act
the Minister of Finance with the approval of the Governor in
Council may raise money under the Financial Administration Act
by way of a loan or by the issue and/or sale of securities of Canada.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister
of Finance on his outstanding effort, not just with this budget, but
for the previous two budgets as well.
(2045 )
For the first time in a decade we have a finance minister who not
only sets objectives but he meets them. As well, he often exceeds
them. In the platform book we promised to reduce the deficit to 3
per cent of the GDP by the end of our mandate. We started at
almost 6 per cent when we took office and at the end of four years it
will be down to 2 per cent.
Those efforts have allowed the Canadian government to restore
its credibility, credibility not only among those in financial circles
but among Canadian taxpayers as well. Canadians now feel they
are getting value for the money they send to Ottawa every year.
Not since the 1980s have Canadians been able to see the light at
the end of the deficit tunnel. We all agree on the need to eliminate
the deficit. Now that objective can be clearly seen on the horizon.
When we arrive there we can start paying down the public debt, as
the spokesman for the Reform was saying in his speech, which
otherwise would be a burden on our children. I agree with him.
Both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party have been asking
what is in this budget in job creation. The simple answer is: plenty.
However, we cannot look at just one budget; we have to look at the
government's entire program. Interest rates are consistently low
and have been for quite some time. The spread between Canadian
and American rates has almost been eliminated. The dollar is stable
at a level that encourages exports and low interest rates. The deficit
has been brought under control and on target. These things together
have set the foundation and financial environment for a solid
economy capable of creating jobs now and into the future.
In the month of February alone, 44,000 jobs were created. There
are 170,000 more jobs in Canada today than there were in July last
year. Critics on the other side ignore these significant
accomplishments and have adopted the attitude of: What have you
done for me lately?
This government does not want to sit on its laurels when it comes
to job creation for Canadians. In the high tech field the government
is creating Technology Partnership Canada, a $250 million
program to facilitate the economic development of new
technologies, technologies such as environmental management,
advanced materials and manufacturing processes and the growing
biotechnology field. As well, Technology Partnership Canada will
solidify and build on the gains we have made in the aerospace
sector.
We are continuing our efforts to help businesses of all sizes.
Additional funding will be provided to both the Business
Development Bank and Export Development Corporation to create
new opportunities for business.
Team Canada trade missions have been an outstanding success.
The delegations led by the Prime Minister have secured $20 billion
in contracts and deals for Canadian companies. Ours is an export
economy and every billion dollars in exports is worth over 11,000
jobs here in Canada.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is taking a lead
in changing the Canadian focus from unemployment to
employment. We are increasing the earned income tax credit to
encourage people to re-enter the labour market. Both the
educational expenses deduction and the transfer of tuition and
education credits will be increased by 25 per cent. As well, more
people will be eligible for the child care expenses deduction,
including high school students. Single people will now be able to
claim credits currently available to couples. In two years these
efforts will put almost $300 million into the pockets of Canadians
and will allow them to meet the challenges of today's job market.
For the young people of Canada, the government is working hard
on employment opportunities. For many years young people were
told that if they worked hard to get an education there would be a
better job for them later. The economy has been slow in fulfilling
that bargain so the federal government is stepping up its efforts.
The government is doubling its funding for summer job creation
for students. An additional $315 million over three years will be set
aside to create employment opportunities for youth.
One of the Canada employment offices for youth is usually set
up each summer in my riding of Parkdale-High Park. I know this
additional funding will be welcomed by the young people looking
for jobs this summer.
874
(2050 )
The Team Canada approach that has been successful overseas
will be directed at home to co-operate with businesses to create
entry level jobs for young people.
It is easy to see the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are
wrong when they say that this budget does nothing about jobs.
Employment is the number one priority of this government and the
facts and initiatives speak for themselves. The March 6 budget is
about more than jobs. It is about promoting fairness and securing
futures for Canadians.
The government has listened to the concerns of parents about the
taxation of child support payments. Divorces granted after May 1,
1997 will require that parents who receive support payments will
not have to pay taxes on that money. The total amount will go to
support the children. As well, the government will introduce
changes to the child support guidelines under the Divorce Act to
ensure equitable support payments.
In recent months there has been much talk about how Canada's
pension system is collapsing. Nothing could be further from the
truth and the government is acting now to restore confidence.
Starting in the year 2001, senior citizens will receive a new seniors
benefit directed to those in need that will combine the old age
security, the government income supplement, age and pension
income tax credits. Seventy per cent of all seniors will be as well or
better off under the new system. Indeed 90 per cent of single senior
women will benefit under the new seniors benefit. A senior couple
with outside income totalling $40,000 a year will receive over
$7,500 in tax free benefits under the new system.
In an effort to help all Canadians, particularly younger
Canadians, the government is eliminating the seven year carry over
rule on RRSP contributions. In the future Canadians will be able to
carry forward unused RRSP contributions for life so that young
people, young families making sacrifices now to pay mortgages
and educate their children will be able to make up for lost
contributions in the future. This measure will help people better
prepare for their retirement.
Canada's banking system has benefited greatly over the last
couple of years enjoying record profits while most Canadians have
been tightening their belts. The Minister of Finance has indicated
that the special tax on banks will continue. As well, to maintain the
present diversity of financial institutions, the government will
uphold the ban on banks in the direct selling of insurance profits.
The budget is about hope and opportunity for the future.
Measures taken will enable young people to get jobs they have
been trained to perform. Seniors and those preparing to retire will
be able to plan with confidence for their future incomes. Canadians
in all walks of life will feel more secure and hopeful as they see the
economy progressing forward with jobs and opportunities.
Most important, this budget is about trust. In 1993 the people of
Canada put their trust in the Liberal Party to do things right and to
get the economy moving again. I believe we have earned that trust
and we will continue to earn it under the sound leadership of the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
In conclusion I invite the government members, the official
opposition and members of the third party to give speedy passage
to Bill C-10 so that job creation can continue as promised in the
budget.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member
asked that we give speedy passage to this bill. I was thinking the
reason he wanted the speedy passage was so the government could
raise some more money from the money markets to keep itself in
business. He may wish to refute that.
At election time this government ran on a platform of jobs, jobs,
jobs. I am sure we all remember that great slogan people voted for:
jobs, jobs, jobs.
The government introduced the infrastructure program in which
it would use $6 billion of borrowed money in order to put
Canadians to work. It sounded good. However the President of the
Treasury Board was before one of the committees I sat on last year.
I asked him to tell us how many jobs this $6 billion infrastructure
program had created. He sheepishly said as far as he was aware it
had created 8,000 permanent jobs. That is $6 billion of borrowed
money in the taxpayers' name created 8,000 permanent jobs. Those
are the figures of the President of the Treasury Board. They are not
my figures.
(2055)
We would have been far better off to put the money in the bank
and give the interest to the people rather than putting them back to
work. The interest would have worked out to about three-quarters
of a million dollars per job created. The program did not work but
we are now more in debt.
Just a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister rose in the House
as we all know and he laid a heavy responsibility on the private
sector by saying: ``It is now up to you to create jobs, jobs, jobs
because we are a miserable failure at it over on this side of the
House''.
I ask the member: What is this government going to do that will
really provide meaningful, productive, creative jobs that people
can be proud of and that they can be sure they will keep for the rest
of their lives, rather than these temporary make work projects that
are done on borrowed money?
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the hon. member did not read
what is in the budget. The hon. member did not hear a word of what
I said. My whole 10 minutes was to emphasize how we have set the
environment since we came into power to create jobs, create jobs
875
for young people, create jobs in high technology. He did not hear
the Minister of Finance. He did not hear me when I said we are
going to use the Team Canada approach that has been so successful
internationally in generating $20 billion worth of deals and
contracts for Canadians. For every billion dollars of exports
generated 11,000 jobs are created. The hon. member does not seem
to take that into account at all.
The Team Canada approach was used in the infrastructure
program. The municipalities and the provinces told us what their
needs were. It is the first time the three levels of government got
together to meet the needs of the local communities. Each level
contributed $2 billion. It did create immediate jobs which was the
intent of that program.
I hope the hon. member will first of all read what is in the throne
speech, read what is in the budget and listen when we are debating
in this House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak tonight to the supply motion. But, as you may well
understand, this motion would not have been tabled without the
budget since the amount of money set aside is based on what is in
the budget. I will therefore establish a very close link between the
two and talk about this budget, as my hon. colleague did at length.
I know that, the day the budget was tabled, many Canadians and
Quebecers were relieved to learn that there were no tax increases.
This is quite a normal reaction at first. Nonetheless, for all curious
but perceptive people who call a spade a spade, this budget
contains bad news, which were announced last year.
Since the bad news was announced last year but included in the
budget this year-it has even started to bear fruit-the government
says that there is no bad news since it was announced last year. We
should find an appropriate adjective to describe this way of
submitting budgets, because, since taking office in 1993, the
Liberals have brought down three budgets.
(2100)
In only one budget out of three did the bad news it contained
materialize in the year in which it was announced. And I must say
that this first budget, tabled in 1994, was pretty terrible, in that it
stuck a direct blow at the unemployed, those jobless men and
women who need the kind of assistance provided through the UI
program. It struck a direct blow at the people of the Maritime
provinces in particular, who had voted Liberal full spin, yet finding
themselves, without having been consulted even for five minutes,
faced with a budget announcing a $630 million cut in UI benefits
for Atlantic Canada.
That was the first budget, the one containing the bad news for
that year and years to come, because the big cut, on which the
government's claims of sound management are based, the bulk is in
the UI program: $2.4 billion per year to begin with.
Then, in 1995, the bad news having already started taking effect,
more bad news was announced for the following year, this year, in
the form of additional UI cuts, on top of the Canada social transfer:
$2.5 billion this year and another $4.5 billion next year.
As a result, this year's budget looks pretty good, because the bad
news, the worst part of it, news that can be the dramatic in some
cases, was announced earlier. Now, they can rub their hands
contentedly and say: ``This is a good budget''.
We should find an appropriate adjective for a budget which does
not really say things, a budget which announces now reforms that
will affect pensions in five years, a budget which merely says that
things will be done later. Some people think: ``Whew, it will be for
later''. And since the other measures were announced last year, or
the year before, some say: ``Things are going well''.
This type of management has little to do with transparency, to
say the least. If one reads this budget without knowing what is said
in the budgets of the last two years, one cannot see that the bad
news was announced before and will be implemented this year,
often in a pretty dramatic way.
Can the ordinary citizen figure out what is really going on? It is
pretty hard to see through this budget. There is a place where he
will figure it out though. It is in his workplace, assuming he has
one. There he will realize that this good budget will cost him
dearly, especially if he is a low or middle income earner.
There are some who pay a high price for the feeling of
satisfaction of our Minister of Finance, who proudly wears a
carnation on his lapel. I am not referring to businesses or high
income earners. Not at all. The fact is that those who are paying
that price should not be the ones affected by such drastic cuts.
(2105)
Take the UI reform for instance. This cut was announced last
year, so much so that it was already factored in-the government
was so sure of itself that the House of Commons and everything
else did not mean a whole lot-so the cuts were factored in the
budget for 1996-1997. This means an additional cut of at least $800
million for this year and of $1.9 billion in the years to come. But
what does that mean, in the years to come? In three years, or four
years. In fact, it will be in the year 2000. But as soon as next year,
these cuts will already reach $1.2 billion.
What does that mean? Let me repeat this, since, as we all know,
repetition is the mother of science. Let us take the maritimes and
the province of Quebec for example. In the maritimes or Atlantic
Canada, since 1995, UI benefits have decreased by $630 million
every year. This is a lot of money for Atlantic Canada, especially
876
since the unemployment rate is very high in these areas. And
starting this year, there will be a new cut that will reach, in three
years time, $944 million a year.
For Atlantic Canada, a cut of $944 million distributed among all
its regions will mean that a lot of people will be affected. It also
means that these people, who would have had otherwise hundreds
and thousands of dollars more to spend, will have to do without.
We are not talking about cuts of $100 a year, or $200 a year, but
rather cuts totalling hundreds and thousands of dollars every year
in provinces that can ill afford it. And to pay what? To pay the
deficit. We finally get to the truth here.
This seems like a good budget, where we all wash our hands and
nobody pays. But it is not true. There are people who pay. Quebec
got $735 million less in 1994. And now the federal government is
taking away $640 million more from us. Do not tell me that this
$1.375 billion cut will have no impact and that ordinary people,
folks who are not at all well off will not suffer from that.
But that is not all. It has an economic impact. You cannot deprive
an economically weak region of that kind of money without
weakening its economy even more.
Let us get back to the main objective of these deficit related cuts.
Is it a sound decision to force regions whose economy is already in
trouble into a situation that will inevitably worsen the general state
of the economy and increase social spending in these areas? It is
not a sound decision. I am sorry. The minister, Paul Martin, may be
proud of himself, but I find this rather tragic. There are people who
pay, and they pay dearly.
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, but the member has forgotten
that it is not allowed to mention the name of a minister.
Mrs. Lalonde: The hon. Minister of Finance. It is much nicer
anyway.
(2110)
Basically, what we need to wonder, as Canadians and as
Quebecers, is just how, after these budget choices, after all the
polite and general small talk of the budget, we will face the
economic and social realities?
I must pause here to add the bad news announced last year,
which will have a dramatic impact on provincial budgets and on the
most disadvantaged once again, or on the middle class: the
Canadian social transfer. It will be cut by $2.5 billion, which will
force the provinces to make painful choices between education,
welfare and health. These are painful and agonizing choices, which
will have economic and social consequences.
It is not true that this budget contains no problems, that it is a
good budget, that the government is headed toward its objectives,
that everything is fine, that everything is going along well and thus
the economy will start picking up. It does not strike me as
appropriate to say such things. Why has unemployment insurance
been the target of so many attacks? Why? The gist of the
government's defence was that continuation of social programs
must be assured. But that cannot be applied to UI. It is a
self-sustaining plan as it is required to be, and one that is sustaining
itself admirably well since the first cuts.
Mr. Speaker, are you aware that, without the additional cuts in
UI, by the end of 1996 there would be a surplus, an accumulated
reserve of at least $4.3 billion? So, this reform, which will have
such serious effects, is being launched despite a reserve of $4.3
billion and the rock hard certainty that, with the cuts approved in
1994, next year there will be another surplus of at least $2.4 billion.
My figures are very conservative.
This means, that at the end of next year, there will be an
accumulated surplus, very conservatively, without the announced
reform, of at least $7 billion. Is this the program to be cut to bits? It
is time to call a spade a spade. This so-called reform, counter
reform of unemployment insurance is aimed simply at reducing,
very temporarily and very artificially, the deficit or we could say it
allows the minister to reach many of his objectives, because, let us
be honest, that is what it is all about.
It must be said, however, that this approach to reaching
objectives is faulty, because, if we sink-and I hope we will
not-in two years' time into a deep recession, where the number of
unemployed is such that the accumulated reserve does not meet the
need, the government will not only not collect any more
contributions, it will have to borrow. This is not a real response to
the needs of the fight against the deficit. It is wrong. Unless, and
this is unthinkable, unless the government decided at the start that,
after collecting such excessive contributions to unemployment
insurance, if necessary, rather than borrow, it would further cut
benefits, this sort of action would be not only inexcusable, it would
be downright manipulation.
(2115)
If the government really wants to get down to the problem of
employment and of preparing Canadians and Quebecers for the
labour market and really wants jobs to be created, I can tell you this
is not the way to go about it. It looks for shortcuts, simple
solutions, the easy way out, although perhaps it will not be as easy
as that, if the truth be told. Perhaps the rallying of forces we have
seen is an indication of the disillusionment of the people who
always end up paying. Maybe it will grow.
We have not seen a movement such as this for a long time in
Canada and the hon. members opposite can tell us that the union
officials and social organizers are professional agitators, but from
experience I can tell you something. All the union officials and
social organizers in the world can organize nothing when people,
who do not let themselves be manipulated, know that it is not worth
the trouble. But when people know that it is worth it, that there is
877
something there, they wake up, and you never know where it comes
from or the proportions it can take.
We are talking about the people, and maybe they are angry
because it makes no sense. There is such a huge gap between the
conditions in which so many people live and the ease with which it
is decided to cut here or there without considering the aftermath on
social and economic productivity. It is possible that people are
truly angry.
The Bloc Quebecois feels a responsibility to speak out, not
because it wants people to rise up for nothing, but because it wants
the people of Canada and of Quebec to have hope.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-10, the Borrowing Authority Act
1996-97.
I am not going to dwell too long on the details. I believe the hon.
member for St. Paul's, the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of
Finance, laid out very well the details of the bill.
Very briefly, the government is asking for $18.7 billion of
borrowing authority for the 1996-97 fiscal year. This amount is
comprised of a financial requirement stated in the budget for
1996-97 of $13.7 billion, exchange fund account earnings of $1
billion and $4 billion non-lapsing amount.
The major portion of the borrowing requirement comes from the
budget. Throughout this debate all day long I have sat here and
listened to members comment on the budget and its relevance to
the deficit, the national debt and the requirement for borrowing.
(2120 )
This is not subject matter which is only of concern to Canadians.
I want to quote President Bill Clinton who, just a few weeks ago in
his state of the union address, made comments such as: ``We have
opportunities for all who are prepared to work for it''. He said:
``We have to live within our means. The era of big government is
over. But we cannot leave our citizens to fend for themselves. We
need self-reliance and teamwork''. Those words are also applicable
here in Canada.
In November 1995, along with all members of my party, I had an
opportunity to present to the finance minister our views and
thoughts on how to approach the fiscal responsibilities of the
government.
I want to read into the record the very first paragraph I wrote to
the finance minister as I laid out some of the suggestions I had for
him in this 10-page document. I stated: ``Whether one talks about
business or government affairs, the degree of stability shown and
the level of confidence earned are critical factors to success. The
public has responded positively to our government because we
have demonstrated fiscal responsibility. Through our consultative
approach, the electorate better understands our fiscal situation and
the reasons for spending cuts and the reallocation of resources''.
``We have also provided credible leadership, set overall fiscal
targets that were realistic and achievable and, most importantly, we
met those targets. We believe that these achievements have helped
to promote the essential elements of stability and confidence that
our future success depends on, continuing to reflect those elements
in our policy initiatives''.
The minister listened to the input of the House and of all
Canadians because the members of this House reflect and respond,
in our committees and in our communications with each other, the
feelings of all Canadians.
Reflecting on President Clinton's comments about not allowing
our citizens to fend for themselves shows the essential difference
between the approach advocated by the Reform Party and the
approach of the government. The government has said it has to get
its fiscal house in order but it is going to do it in a way that does not
leave tragedy in its wake.
Program spending for the government in the 1993-94 year,
which was the fiscal year ending just after the last election, was
$120 billion. When taken with revenues and other public debt
charges, the deficit for that year was some $42 billion, a very large
number. It is not a deficit that anyone in this place believes could
be eliminated simply by doing something different, flipping a
switch and making it happen. It cannot happen that way. It
represented 6 per cent of the GDP of this country.
In his first budget the finance minister undertook to reduce that
deficit to 5 per cent of GDP, 4 per cent in the subsequent year, 3 per
cent for the year ending March 31, 1997 and in recent addresses has
indicated that he will bring it down to 2 per cent of GDP by the
1997-98 year.
There is no question about the direction that the finance minister
is going and why he has asked Canadians to look at the essential
elements of what Canada must do to balance its budget, which is
what all of us want to do. I should not just stop at balancing the
budget, it is also to start creating a surplus in a way which will
allow us to start paying down the national debt.
The national debt is somewhat over $550 billion.
(2125 )
It did not exist some 25 to 30 years ago. Over these last 25 to 30
years Canadians have taken out of the system something like $350
billion more in goods and services than have been paid for. The
additional amount of the national debt is the compound interest that
878
has been accumulating. It is a problem to be dealt with. We have to
deal with the deficit first. The deficit has been dealt with: 6 per
cent, 5 per cent, 4 per cent, 3 per cent, 2 per cent of GDP by the
1997-98 year. We will have a balanced budget. We will be in a
position to tell the Canadian people that a balanced budget has been
achieved.
We will start addressing the debt which was the recommendation
of the auditor general. We have to get past balancing the budget.
We have to start looking at that debt. We have to reduce it to a
sustainable level. The House will have to deal with that issue.
I could spend the rest of my time talking about each and every
one of the budget elements and about how important it is to the
achievement of meeting those targets that the finance minister has
met. It is just as significant to have on the record what others have
said. It is one thing to pat ourselves on the back, but let us see what
others have to say about the finance minister's input.
Mr. Bill Good of B.C., a radio host on CTV Sunday Edition on
March 10 said: ``What the finance minister has done is he has
gathered a considerable amount of credibility by hitting the targets
he has said he was going to do''.
Dalton Camp said of media reports: ``Almost everybody liked
the budget. The strongest defence of the finance minister's fiscal
policies was uttered on budget night when the Reform Party leader
simply was at a loss for words, saying nothing''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member intending to use the
rest of his time to read press reports which most of us have read?
Mr. Szabo: I have only one more.
The final one is from Jeffrey Simpson who said: ``If the federal
government 10 years ago had introduced budgets like the last two,
including yesterday's-The fight against the deficit-debt has been
waged, thus far successfully, without major tax increases, to which
Canadians have become politically resistant. It has instead being
fought where it belonged-in the government's own spending and
in transfers to the provinces''.
These comments, along with others, are from people who
actually follow this place and understand the government's
approach to the question of the debt and the deficit and its need to
borrow to finance that, which is the purpose of Bill C-10.
As I indicated in the letter that I wrote to the finance minister, the
stability and the confidence demonstrated by the government are
extremely important.
In one of the first speeches that the finance minister gave in the
House, he included in his statement: ``Good social policy makes
good fiscal policy and good fiscal policy makes good social
policy''.
I listened today to the speech of the member for St. Albert who
was talking earlier about the infrastructure program. He was
talking about spending $6 billion. This money was borrowed
pursuant to a borrowing act similar to the one we are talking about
tonight. He tried to explain to us how that really was not an
appropriate expenditure.
What he did not talk about was that the $6 billion, which was a
contribution to all Canadians right across the country based on
population, also had contributions from other levels of government
that matched those moneys. Jobs were created, real jobs for people
who were probably on unemployment insurance, people who were
looking and desperately wanted the dignity of a job. They got it.
Those jobs were created.
Because of that program people got off UI, they got off welfare.
They started paying their fair share of taxes. They had the dignity
of a job. I do not know how the member concludes that giving
people jobs is not a good thing for us to be doing.
I listened also today to the member for Calgary North who
started to argue what a terrible thing it was that RRSP limits were
not increased from $13,500 up to $15,500.
(2130 )
Members probably know that to be able to contribute to an RRSP
of $13,500 one would have to make $75,000 per year and much
more to contribute $15,500. In most of her speech the member
argued what an awful thing it was because we did not give a further
tax break to the top 2 per cent income earners in Canada. This is
unbelievable. Average Canadians are living from pay cheque to pay
cheque, never mind contributing to RRSPs.
President Clinton said we have to balance the needs of the
citizens and balance the budget. It must be done in an honourable
way, not on the backs of the poor, the disabled and the aged, which
is what I hear from the Reform Party. This is the kind of thing that
defines the differences of the philosophies of members of the
House.
One member is arguing on behalf of the top 2 per cent of income
earners in Canada. I say that when the budget includes things such
as eliminating the seven-year limitation on the carry forward of
unused RRSP amounts, it is a positive step because it makes sure
young Canadians who are just starting out and who do not have the
cash to put into RRSPs will be able to make it up later on in their
lives once they get a little cash in the bank.
879
I also heard the member for Lethbridge argue the Reform Party
budget would have chopped health care less than the Liberals. It
would have chopped post secondary transfers less than the
Liberals and also that cuts to seniors would have been less than
those of the Liberals. He also said Reformers would lower the
deficit and start paying down the debt.
I did not get the chance to ask the member a question. How can
Reformers do less cutting of spending than we did and still have a
lower deficit? They did not answer the question. It cannot be both
ways. These are contradictions.
The member for Nanaimo-Cowichan stood in the House and
made the argument that we are not creating jobs and that jobs are
the problem. I looked at the report which came out from Statistics
Canada, March 8: 44,000 new jobs were created in February,
following the creation of 44,000 jobs in January and 49,000 jobs in
December 1995, for a total of 137,000 new jobs created in the last
three months, 82,000 of which were full time jobs. That means that
more than 600,000 new jobs have been created since the
government took office in 1993.
Is that enough? No, not for a moment. There are still a million
Canadians who want work. There are still young people looking for
work. I have a son who is graduating from university at the end of
this semester and he will be looking for a job. He wants the dignity
of a first job. Unemployed young people, 25 per cent, want the
dignity of a first job just like we had. We have to work harder to
make sure they get it.
I mentioned that good social policy makes good fiscal policy. It
made me think about an element in the budget, child support
payments and their taxability. I quote again some points the
president of the United States raised in his state of the union
address a few weeks ago: ``We must cherish our children and
strengthen our families. We must take responsibility for our
children. It is hard to be a parent, but it is even harder to be a child.
All strong families begin with taking responsibility for our
children. Families are the foundation of our country's life. Strong
families mean a strong country''.
He said all those things and the word family was repeated over
and over. I thought about the words of the Finance Minister that
good social policy means good fiscal policy and about the taxation
of child support payments. I thought we have a tragedy here. We
are upset and spending our energies debating who should pay the
taxes on child support payments and we forgot that the family was
eroding. We forgot about this being the result of two people who
decided for one reason or another they were better off apart even
when there were children involved.
(2135)
How could this be that we are arguing tax dollars when it is the
children there? How can we be arguing this when we know that
family breakdown is a result of spousal abuse, economic and
financial abuse and all these things? How is it we are arguing about
the taxability of things?
The lady who argued this case in front of the Supreme Court,
Suzanne Thibaudeau, made a very passionate plea. Here is a person
who was paying less tax apart from her husband than they were
paying when they were together.
Why is it that they are better off from a tax standpoint being
apart than being together when we know that the family is the
foundation of our society? The change was made to the taxability
of the child support payment back to the husband and not to the
wife. It simply puts couples who separated on the same footing as
families have always been. That is the success in the budget move.
It is not a change in the taxability. It is a change that puts
separated couples on the same basis as the family. It is amazing. I
support the principle included in the budget but for a totally
different reason. The family is the fundamental asset that we have
in society.
If the family were cared for, if the family were honoured and
cherished, if working in the family home and caring for our
children were an honoured profession again, if spousal abuse were
treated the way it should be in society where the costs of all the
aggravation of spousal abuse in society were totally eliminated, the
deficit would be gone. If the family were strong, the deficit would
be gone.
That is the message that has to get out. It slowly came out in the
state of the union address. It will slowly come out in the debate on
the budget, on the borrowing bill and in the throne speech. It will
slowly come out if the people in the House have the guts to stand up
and speak up on behalf of the family. It is the family that will make
it. If a strong family exists in Canada, Canada will be as strong as it
can be. I wish I could spend the rest of my time talking about the
family. Most of my work has been related to family issues and to
taxation of the family.
The issue we are talking about, balancing the budget, has to do
with getting right back to what I wrote to the finance minister in the
very first place, stability and confidence. It is saying and showing
by one's actions as well as with words that one cares about the
country, that one cares about fundamental principles, dammit,
including family values. Those have to be there. They are not
strong enough. I will continue to speak out on behalf of the family.
I will continue to fight for tax fairness and equity within our
system.
We have opportunities before us and I hope all members will
look for those opportunities so we can one day, very soon I hope,
announce that not only do we have a balanced budget but that we
will start paying down that awful national debt.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with the member for Capilano-Howe Sound. It
is not too often that I start a speech with a compliment to a member
880
from the opposite side but I would like to echo the closing remarks
of the member for Mississauga South. He said if the family were
strong, the deficit would be gone. I believe the sincerity of his
comments and I go on record as echoing the same.
The Deputy Speaker: Permit me to apologize to the hon.
member for Mississauga South on the record for interrupting his
intervention. It was a result of sitting here for about seven and a
half hours today. The Chair had no right to interrupt when he was
speaking. I apologize to him.
(2140 )
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-10, an
affront to Canadians. It is a very short bill. It is only about one page
long but it has a very long tail on it.
I was reading in the Edmonton Journal a few days ago that this
weekend there will be a comet coming into our view. We will be
able to see something very small in the universe with a very long
tail. I thought it quite appropriate that it would show up this
weekend since here we are talking about a very short bill with a
very long tail. We will be paying for this for years, decades and so
on. We will pass it on to our grandchildren.
Clause 2(1) states the Minister of Finance may raise money by
way of loan or by the issue and sale of securities of Canada in such
amounts not exceeding $18.7 billion. That is $18.7 billion the
Minister of Finance will hang around the necks of Canadians in the
next 12 months. If that falls under his realm of good government I
do not know why I am standing here and I do not know why he is
standing there trying to tell Canadians this is good for us. It is not.
Eighteen billion, seven hundred million dollars of new
borrowing dumped on the backs of the hundreds of billions of
dollars that we already owe is an affront and has to stop. That is
why the Reform Party members said let us get the job done and let
us get it done now.
One of the previous speakers talked about the reallocation of
resources and how good this was. The Minister of Finance is
reallocating resources because he is cutting programs to the poor,
he is cutting programs to the needy, he is cutting programs to
families and he is transferring that money to the rich bankers and
the wealthy people from around the world who now enjoy the
greatest, richest and largest transfer program in the history of
Canada.
According to the Minister of Finance's projections when he took
office in 1993 it was consuming $38 billion of Canadians' hard
earned taxes paid. By the time he goes back to the people in
1997-98 that program will have grown to $49 billion, the largest
and most expensive statutory program in the history of the country.
It benefits no one but the rich at the expense of the poor.
That is why the Reform Party is very concerned about the deficit.
That is why the Reform Party said the deficit has to be eliminated.
The growth of this program has to be stopped now. We in the
Reform Party are concerned that we have money available to help
those who need it, not those who want to take it from us.
That is the fundamental difference between Reform and those
people on the other side who say let us ease this thing down gently
so nobody gets their nose out of joint. That is not what it is about. It
is about ensuring we can afford what is needed.
I hope the Minister of Finance and the people who support him
on that side of the House realize the clock is ticking and the longer
it ticks, the greater the chances he will run off the rails and the job
will never get done. I could go on at considerable length.
I am also very disappointed that the Minister of Finance stands
in the House and tells us about how he is meeting his targets, how
wonderful the Liberal government is, how we should have
confidence in the government and in what it is doing. Let us look at
what it is doing.
Did anyone see the reference to Nav Canada in the Globe and
Mail today? Nav Canada is this new not for profit monopoly the
government is creating to run our air navigation services. I have a
little problem with the monopoly but let us leave that aside for the
moment.
(2145)
The government is going to force Nav Canada to go out into the
money markets to borrow $3 billion to buy these assets to pay for
some kind of $1.5 billion profit the government is going to make as
it sells these assets and turfs them over to this new not for profit
monopoly called Nav Canada. The government is going to end up
with a $3 billion windfall from the sale of assets that belong to the
people of Canada paid for with taxpayers' money.
Did the Minister of Finance tell us: ``Oh by the way, while I meet
my deficit projections it is because of the windfall profits that I
forced them to go out, borrow the money and give it to me''? Did
he tell us that? No.
What about the fact that he has changed the rules in the
collection of UI premiums to force people with large incomes to
pay all the premiums in the first few months rather than spreading
it out over 12 months? This forces them to pay sooner which means
the government gets its money in this year instead of next year, and
generates a $500 million windfall. Did he tell us that? No.
Did he tell us that when he got rid of the $2 bill and introduced a
$2 coin which falls apart that through this whole concept called
seigniorage the government is going to get a windfall profit of
$500 million this year? Did he tell us that? No.
881
Did he tell us that while he is not increasing income taxes at all
and has not for quite some time that people who are 69 and 70 years
of age can no longer get a tax deduction for contributing to their
RRSPs? They are now going to start paying taxes on the annuity as
they start withdrawing from their RRSPs because he has changed
the rules which force them to do that. No, he did not tell us.
Did he tell us that he is going to change the rules in child support
to collect another $240 million out of the pockets of the people who
in many cases need every penny they can to provide for the kids
because there are two homes involved? In doing so a whole new
business for the lawyers is going to be created so that money goes
into the pockets of the lawyers rather than to feed the kids. Did he
tell us that? No. It goes on and on.
He has forced small business proprietorships to go through
endless hoops and expensive accounting bills in order for him to
suck the money out of their pockets by changing their fiscal year
end from whatever it was to December 31. He can collect his
money faster and they have to scrape it out of somewhere, he does
not care where, so that he can get a windfall bonus by squeezing it
out of the people who are trying to create jobs. And he boasts about
not increasing taxes.
He extended the surtax on banks so he will collect another $40
billion next year even though that was supposed to pay the way and
he tells us he did not increase taxes. Smoke and mirrors, deception
at every turn. The Canadian people are being led down the garden
path.
The government talks about waste and the Minister of Finance
talks about it explicitly twice in the budget speech. He was going to
wring waste out of the system in order to ensure the taxpayers'
money is well spent.
I read an article in the Globe and Mail today about Nav Canada.
We have about 6,000 civil servants who are going to ``lose their
jobs'' with the government. The following morning they will have
a new job, which is the old job, working for a new employer which
is this not for profit monopoly set up by the government. This new
job, which is exactly the same as the old job, and they did not
notice except the name on the paycheque is different.
These civil servants are going to share in a $200 million bonus.
They get their severance pay because they are being laid off from
their government job and they will be transferred in an off balance
sheet situation.
(2150 )
The government can collect its $3 billion windfall profit. It is
going to cost the taxpayers, people who are looking for jobs, people
who are trying to keep their jobs and people who are not sure they
are going to have a job next year, $200 million in severance pay for
people who are not even going to be out of work one single day. It
goes on and on. It is a shame and it is disgraceful.
I have one final point. I rather hate to bring this up but I do have
to raise child care and child support. The government is now going
to legislate child care and child support. I really appreciate the
heartfelt sincerity of the member from Mississauga. Why for
example in Alberta, does a parent with three children, who makes
$38,000 going to have to pay $750? Parents in every province will
have to pay over $700, yet in the province of Quebec and only in
the province Quebec it drops below $700 all the way down to $640.
Why the exception for that province?
There are many other things I would like to get on the record but
my time is up.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure how much I look forward to speaking for 10
minutes on this subject since I have been here since eight o'clock
this morning and it is now the 14th hour of my rather full day.
Nevertheless, Bill C-10, the borrowing authority bill is a rather
important bill or it should be an important bill.
For a long time I remember in the United States there used to be
the need for the government to go to Congress every year to acquire
permission to increase the debt limit. This bill focused the
discussion on issues about spending and deficits which were very
salutary.
I wish in the parliamentary system we had an opportunity to
focus our discussion on what these deficits do to our children and
grandchildren who are not represented here because they cannot
vote. I know this is a cynical point of view, but I believe if they
really were in our minds when we voted for these kinds of increases
in deficits, these appropriations to spend more and add more to the
debt, we would not do it if we remembered what we are doing to
our children and grandchildren.
Unfortunately we have a system here where all the conclusions
are pretty well pre-ordained. What we have is a lot of talk. Let me
add to this talk on a subject that is of great concern to me.
Today several members opposite spoke about an article written
by my good friend and colleague, Dr. Mike Walker, an economist
and director of the Fraser Institute. He published an article in the
Globe and Mail last Thursday. The title is ``Budget out-Kleins
Klein-Another Perspective''. In this short editorial, Dr. Walker
indicated his enthusiastic support for the budget that was brought
down last week and which at this moment is being debated in the
context of the need for more borrowing to which it gives rise.
882
The editorial bases its enthusiasm for the budget on something
very interesting, an index which the Fraser Institute has called the
Klein index. It is alleged to be an objective assessment of the fiscal
restriction imposed by a certain budget. As Mr. Walker indicates,
he believes this takes subjective judgment out of the debate. I am
really puzzled by this. Dr. Walker in co-authorship with Robert
Richardson in the February issue of Fraser Forum, a monthly
publication of the highly respected institute, with circulation in the
thousands, has published a paper entitled ``How to Balance the
Federal Budget and Keep Canada together''. Mr. Walker suggests
cuts in program spending. This is money spent on everything other
than the debt and excluding social transfers to individuals and
provinces.
(2155)
Dr. Walker enthusiastically endorsed the need for further cuts.
He would have doubled according to these proposals the cuts to
program spending of $6.9 billion enacted by the Minister of
Finance last year. He would have added $6.3 billion in order to
achieve the targets he thought were necessary.
I will give in a moment his summary of why he liked and why he
suggested this budget. He gives here a long table on how he would
find the extra $13 billion. For the department of agriculture he
suggested an additional cut of $600 million out of a budget of $1.2
billion, and so on.
The second element of his budget proposal which was very
important suggested an increased clawback of all social transfers to
individuals and families. His emphasis was on families, social
transfers in the form of UI, OAS and CPP together. He gave a
schedule on how he would have done that and he suggested that
another $8 billion should have been taken out of this program.
Why did Dr. Walker and his co-author suggest this would be
necessary? It would bring about in two years an elimination of the
deficit, and a surplus would begin.
He concludes the article with the following paragraph: ``By
balancing its budget within the next two years and beginning to
reduce the national debt, the federal government can restore the
confidence of most Canadians in the financial, economic and
political viability of one Canada for all Canadians into the 21st
century''.
This of course has been the platform of the Reform Party since
its election campaign, reinforced in the taxpayers budget published
last year.
The Liberal budget did nothing Dr. Walker proposed two months
earlier. There were no further cuts. There was no dealing with the
problem of social program spending to high income families.
It is a very puzzling phenomenon to me. How can a man within a
couple of weeks change his mind? On the one hand he would have
predicted that if this budget did nothing of what he recommended,
it would have been a failure. He then turns around on the basis of an
objective index and would say this is a wonderful budget.
I can see only two explanations. One is that, as he said, this is an
objective index. Maybe he was not objective when he wrote the
first budget, when he made his budget proposal. I do not believe
that. I have co-authored several books with Dr. Walker. The last
one has been published in Chinese.
The only other alternative I have as an explanation is that there is
a serious flaw in the design of the so-called objective index. I
believe what is missing is any kind of weight given to the speed
with which a fiscal restraint is enacted. I believe that is a fatal flaw.
I look forward to talking to Dr. Walker on the telephone in order
to clear up this puzzle. I can assure him he has given enormous
support to the Liberals, all of whom rave on all the time about how
this conservative leader of the economics profession in Canada has
seen the light and swung around. It is a total puzzle to me. I tried to
explain it. Maybe I will have more news tomorrow.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker: It being 10 p.m., pursuant to order made
earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 10 p.m.)