Debates of April 16th, 1996

The Budget

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, this reminds me of a number of occasions in my professional career when I was asked to help explain math and finance to lawyers. It would not be the first time in my life that I have done that.

We are talking about three different things here. There is the rate of reduction in expenditures per year. For the Reform Party budget we were talking of a total reduction in costs or in government overspending, in other words a reduction of government expenditures over a three year period. Just as the Liberals projected, so did we project a-and I hesitate to use the word-conservative growth rate in the economy.

Our plan did in fact work over a three year period. It does not work if we compare the three year number with the one year number which we are talking about when we deal with the budget every year here. The member and I will have to get together afterward to look at the actual numbers.

The fact is when we did that budget originally when we did our planning during the campaign, the assumptions then were that the deficit was around $35 billion. It only came in over $40 billion after the accounting was in from the previous government. Obviously in our budget plan last year we took the new figure which I think was around $37 billion. If we take that number away, add the amount of economic growth, in fact in three years we did have a plan for a balanced budget. There is just no other way of saying it. I do not know how to explain it without the use of an overhead projector which I am accustomed to using.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, since being elected to the House of Commons in 1993 I have never forgotten that a nation is not made up of mere facts and figures but of real people, both young and old. So it follows that one key to a healthy country is to create opportunities for a group like Canada's youth. In fact, in terms of jobs and growth, the government's budget appears focused on youth.

It was announced for instance that federal funding for student summer jobs would be doubled and that the new Canada technology partnerships program would boost key sectors. It was also announced that jobs for youth would be a high priority and aimed

at doubling the number of federal summer jobs for students. Furthermore the government challenged other levels of government and the private sector to do likewise. As well, it was announced that this government will work with the provinces and the private sector to enhance youth job opportunities and help create new approaches for first jobs.

My own recognition of the need to create lasting jobs for young Canadians as opposed to only so-called "Mc jobs" can be seen by a petition I have sponsored in support of better working conditions for temporary workers.

It goes without saying that all job seekers are looking for employment that offers an income sufficient to live in a dignified fashion. Unfortunately many of them have grown discouraged by the shortage of jobs currently posted in Canada employment centres and are turning to temporary employment agencies for short term contract work.

Obviously these temporary help agencies are providing a much needed service by supplying employers with workers, but such so-called private temporary help services do not come cheap. By insisting on a portion of each worker's hourly wage and demanding compensation from employers as well, these agencies illustrate the need for government to encourage the growth of more enduring jobs.

That is why I hope to encourage a growing number of employers, including the various levels of government, to post their job openings, be they temporary or permanent, free of cost in Canada employment centres. I am inviting all businesses in my riding to let me know why some of them currently prefer to satisfy their manpower needs through costly private temporary help agencies as opposed to Canada employment centres.

If our current centres are failing to satisfy the requirements of employers, then it stands to reason they will prove unable to meet the needs of our unemployed. If so, let us learn to offer the kind of services both require. Unless we do, we might just as well close down all federal centres and turn the entire industry over to the private sector.

The throne speech also recognized that young Canadians should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. To help them cope with the rising cost of post-secondary education, the government announced it would increase education credits for tax purposes and raise limits on the transfers to parents for education and tuition credits.

On top of current funding for programs such as youth internship Canada and youth services Canada, the Liberal government announced it would reallocate $315 million to create new jobs for youth. Of this funding, $120 million is slated to go toward student summer jobs in 1996-97, doubling last year's federal contribution. Some of the $315 million will go to help find work for youth who have left school.

For my part, this spring I followed the lead of the government and devoted a full page of my latest householder to promoting the student summer job action program. A key ingredient of this innovative program is the many Canada employment centres for students located on various academic campuses across the country.

These offices help thousands of Canadian employers each spring to hire students talented in every type of job imaginable. Whether your business or home needs full time, part time or odd help, Canada employment centres for students are the place to turn to. Anyone interested in using the student summer job action program can call the new youth action line at 1-800-935-5555.

What about the young people for whom these programs are designed to help, the real people behind the facts and figures? As they shield their eyes with Ray-Ban sun-glasses and their ears with Sony walkmen, many youth across Canada are busy working as bicycle messengers, pizza drivers, yard workers, Wal-Mart employees and Mc-jobbers in today's low wage, low benefit service economy. They are the wandering nomads of the temporary employment world. In school they are a group of staggering diversity, not just in ethnicity but also in attitude, performance and rewards. After graduation they dream of graduating into jobs and moving out of their parents' house.

Many youths realize that some members of their generation may be the first to do less well than their parents. Fortunately they are also better equipped than my generation was to deal with the kinds of rapid change society is now facing. After all, from the 1950s to the 1990s, Canada's children went from a family culture of "My Three Sons" to one of "My Two Dads". Yet we often see these same young men and women at the mall buying groceries for busy moms and dads. If anything, they are survivors.

I myself am the father of two fine young people, a 20-year old son and a 15-year old daughter. It is on behalf of them and their generation that I dedicate this government's efforts at debt reduction and job creation. In last month's budget this government has shown its unwavering commitment to securing Canada's future by creating opportunities for a group that at times has felt disenfranchised: our youth.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to have the opportunity to address the government's 1996 federal budget which when combined with the initiatives of our previous budgets continues to move this country forward.

There are many wonderful, well considered and effective features of this legislation. Unfortunately time does not permit me to comment on them all. I would however like to comment in a little more detail on several points which are of significant importance to my constituents in Erie riding.

The seniors benefit is one of these. One legislative foundation of the Liberal government in Canada was the introduction of a national program of retirement support for seniors. With this budget our government is adding a vital new page to that history. We are taking the action necessary to safeguard the public pension system for all Canadians, in particular the young.

This is an issue that has concerned my Erie riding constituents for some time. The system faces a real challenge from the aging of our population. Canadians are living longer, healthier lives and as a result pension benefits are now paid out over a much longer time.

The post-war baby boom is having an even bigger impact. This generation will start to retire in large numbers around 2011. Over the next 30 years the number of seniors will more than double. The difficulty is that there will be fewer working Canadians to support the escalating pension bill. Over the next decade we will see a ratio of about five working age Canadians to help support each person over 65, but by 2030 there will only be three working Canadians for every Canadian of retirement age.

Finally we must take into account that growth in wage and productivity levels has been lower than anticipated when the foundations of the public pension were put in place in the 1960s. This pressure will force the capacity of working age Canadians to finance growing public pension costs. Taken together, these factors will increase the cost of our public pension programs faster than our capacity to pay for them unless we act.

This government is acting. Our government in partnership with the provinces and territories has already launched a major public consultation program on changes needed to the Canada pension plan. With this budget we are taking action on the second pillar of the retirement income system, the old age security and guaranteed income supplement.

It is startling when we consider that these programs by themselves account for one-fifth of federal program spending. This share is projected to grow rapidly over the next 35 years putting further strain on the system itself. It is time we put public concerns about the future of OAS and GIS to rest.

The new seniors benefit to take effect in 2001 helps fulfil our commitment to Canadians to ensure that they have a secure and sustainable pension system into the future. The Prime Minister and this government made a commitment that the OAS and GIS payments for today's seniors will be fully protected and this promise has been kept.

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 benefit is implemented in the year 2001, these seniors may choose whichever system is most advantageous to them, either moving to the new seniors benefit or maintaining the OAS-GIS payments.

I would like to review the seniors benefit in a little more detail. As I indicated it will replace the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. The new benefits will be completely tax free and will incorporate the existing age and pension income tax credits. Under the new approach, benefits will be delivered in a single monthly payment.

The seniors benefit will treat couples equally. Payments to couples will be made in separate and equal cheques to each spouse. For couples the amount of the payment will be determined on the basis of the combined income of the spouses as it is now and always has been in the case of GIS. We feel that since the income of low income couples are currently combined to calculate eligibility for additional help, it is appropriate to combine the incomes of wealthier couples to determine their level of government assistance.

The seniors benefit will be fully indexed to inflation. That includes both the benefit levels and the threshold at which benefits begin to be reduced. Seniors will only have to apply for the benefit once, when they turn 65. The level of benefits will be automatically recalculated each year based on the previous year's return.

Because the seniors benefit will begin in the year 2001, everyone under the age of 60 today will have at least five years to prepare. The new seniors benefit will help those who need it most. Recipients of GIS will get $120 more per year. The majority of seniors will be better off. Fully 75 per cent of single seniors and couples will receive the same or higher benefits and 9 out of 10 single senior women will be better off.

The very highest income seniors who already have secure pensions and other incomes will receive no government assistance. For single seniors with incomes over $52,000 and couples with incomes above $78,000 benefits will be eliminated.

It should be emphasized that the 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 the program by 2030.

The seniors benefit is a positive initiative which meets key public goals. That is reducing the long term cost. It will make the public pension system more sustainable. Targeting help to those who need it most is the fairest way to reduce costs. More important, with the new seniors benefit all Canadians, particularly the young,

can be assured that the public pension system will be there for them now and in the future.

I now wish to address the child support reforms of this legislation. The 1996 budget is about the future, about securing a prosperous future for all Canadians. If any group represents the future it is our young people. That is why the government's commitment to fair, sustainable and secure social programs would be incomplete if it did not include action to assist children. That is why a new strategy has been introduced to strengthen protection for children buffeted by separation or divorce and who are often the most vulnerable and in the greatest need.

As the Minister of Finance told Parliament: "The current child support system has added to the uncertainty and anxiety many Canadians feel. Our view is that children should be first in line. Child support is the first obligation of parents. It is not discretionary".

The budget acted on this principle. It announced a child support reform which takes wide ranging action to ensure that the system is based on what is best for children. To start, the government is changing the way child support payments are taxed. Until now these payments have been tax deductible for the paying parent and taxable income for the parent receiving the payments.

The budget proposes moving to a system known as a no deduction, no inclusion. That means custodial parents would not 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 will continue to be deductible by the payer and included as taxable income by the recipient until one of these eventualities happen. This could happen if a support payment is changed by a court ruling or the parties add a clause to their agreement providing that the new tax system will apply, or the payer and recipient will file a joint election with Revenue Canada.

As a second major child support reform, the government is introducing child support guidelines to make support awards fairer and more consistent and to reduce the degree of conflict between separating parents. These guidelines will be used across Canada by the courts, lawyers and parents to establish appropriate support payments. They include payment schedule tables that show the basic amount of support to be paid according to the number of children and the income of the supporting parent.

Next, the schedule amounts can be adjusted to recognize individual family circumstances. Special expenses for the child are health care, education or extra curricular activities and can be added to the schedule amount, provided that these expenses are reasonable and necessary in light of the needs of the children and the means of the parents.

Last, the guidelines will allow the court to alter the award in exceptional circumstances that would cause undue hardship to either parent or the child.

The third aspect of the child support reform strategy will be the enhancement of federal and provincial enforcement initiatives to ensure that benefit from fairer child support awards are paid in full and on time.

We must remember that child support is mainly a provincial and territorial responsibility. Consequently the measures being proposed complement 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. These strategies include a national public awareness campaign aimed at changing public attitudes toward support obligations.

Provincial enforcement programs will be provided 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 default.

The federal government will provide up to $13.7 million over five years to help the provinces expand their 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 adding Revenue Canada to the list of departments whose data bases can be searched at the request of provincial enforcement agencies.

We will improve federal pension diversions to ensure that this measure can be applied to persistent defaulters. This can be done even if the defaulter refuses to apply for pension benefits, ensuring that the maximum amount of benefits go to the child.

Finally, improvements to computer systems will allow for the 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.

When a persistent defaulter realizes that this is concrete and substantial action, that they can run but cannot hide, they will have no alternative but to comply. The winner will be the children.

In conclusion, good government today must be fiscally responsible as well as socially responsible. We must create the conditions for job creation and economic growth. We must secure the future of our social programs. We must invest in the future, provide new

opportunities for Canada and for Canadians. The creativity of this budget propels us forward to meet these objectives.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech my hon. colleague just made. He concluded by saying:

Our government must be fiscally responsible-

I would just like to ask my hon. colleague a question. We know that the government has planned everything needed to undertake, during the summer or at the end of it, a review of the Canadian tax system. And to do so, the government has designated the best tax experts in Canada. These people will have to review tax havens, among other things. We have clearly demonstrated in this House that these tax experts are the biggest users of tax havens in Canada. They are the ones who advise corporations on how to use tax havens and to take tax avoidance to extremes.

Our hon. colleague says:

Our government must be fiscally responsible-

Can he tell us why the people who benefit the most from our tax system are asked to review the whole system? And what does he have to say about the members of this House being excluded from this review?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is an old adage that it takes a thief to catch a thief. Certainly the accountants have a job to do. They are familiar with the tax system. It is their right and obligation on behalf of their clients to see where a creative approach to the tax laws can provide a benefit to their clients.

Consequently, the same accountants can know where these loopholes are and can plug them. It is a good step to use them. I would agree with my friend that having members of Parliament also on the review is certainly an issue that should be addressed and would be beneficial.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke a lot about old age security and the need to sustain different types of benefits for seniors. That is laudable.

What does he have to say about the government spending all kinds of money in areas that actually jeopardize that kind of funding for seniors. I referred in my speech a few moments ago to a $105,000 subsidy that was sent to the Canadian Bankers Association.

The one I did not mention, and my hon. friend opposite will appreciate this, is that for some reason the Canadian Bar Association received $277,000 from the Canadian government as a subsidy.

What does my friend opposite think of those subsidies? Will he be encouraging the government to start cutting back in those areas so that we can preserve social spending for seniors?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that my friend makes some startling revelations with those figures. I would be interested to know what those amounts were used for, and whether in fact they were subsidies. If they were, I would agree with him that unless expenditures of that nature can be justified, they should be cut out.

There is no question that there are certain priorities in our spending situations that we have to look at very carefully and address. We have to set our priorities straight and follow them. Certainly seniors are a priority for this government and for this member.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to have an opportunity to say a few words about the 1996 budget. The hour is late and we will soon be voting on the budget. Being the last speaker or very likely close to the last speaker, pretty well everything that could be said about this budget, pro and con, has likely been said.

What I want to do is concentrate on four areas which I feel are of some note. I also want to speak to my constituents about some of the concerns I heard in some of the public forums which I convened in my riding concerning the budget.

If I have a little more time I will talk about a couple of other things, but the four items I want to talk about now are: no new taxes in this budget; reducing the deficit; the goods and services tax and what is going to be done about it; and the excellent credibility of the Minister of Finance.

The first thing I want to point out, as no doubt many others have, is that this is a budget which has no new taxes. It has no personal tax increases, no corporate tax increases and no excise tax increases. This is the third budget in a row in which there have been no personal tax increases.

What that means to me as a taxpayer is very simple. If I spend more money than I earn and put it on credit cards, get a loan, borrow from Peter to pay Paul, et cetera, there are only two ways that I can end up paying back the money that I owe. Hopefully I can either get an increase in pay from my employer and assign that increase to paying off the money that I owe, or I can cut back on my expenditures, or I can do both if I am lucky enough to get an

increase in the salary that I earn from my employer and I can cut back on expenditures.

What the budget states is very simple. There is going to be no increase in my pay because the only way that the government can increase my pay is to increase taxes. Therefore, if there is no increase in my pay and I sit down and look at my family budget and see that I am spending more than I earn and I owe more than I have the capability of paying based on my salary, then I have to tell myself to cut back on something. I have to stop spending some of that money because I am not going to be earning any more money. That is what this budget has stated. The government is not increasing any taxes, therefore it is like not getting a raise in pay.

Consequently, if we are going to reduce the deficit, which we must do of course, then we have to do it in another way. The other way is cutting back on expenditures, spending wisely. This is very important because it dovetails into the second point I want to talk about which is reducing the deficit.

When people spend more than they collect they run a deficit. Debt itself is not a bad thing. For example, very few people in this country would ever be able to own a home if they were not able to go into debt to the bank for a mortgage. Just because they have a mortgage does not make it bad that they have debt, otherwise they would not be able to own a home.

The problem is when one's debt load becomes greater than one's ability to pay back the interest and hopefully some payment of principal on a monthly basis.

What has happened with the Government of Canada over a protracted period of time is that more money has been spent than is coming in for a host of reasons. When the present government took over in 1993, by almost all accounts it took over a deficit of $42 billion or something to that effect. When we talk in that magnitude of numbers it is almost impossible to comprehend what we are talking about in terms of billions of dollars. Whether it is $40 billion or $42 billion, it is still an awful lot of money to owe.

What did we say we were going to do to deal with that problem? I have the red book here and I have read it carefully. I have read it again. I have listened to some of the speeches from the members opposite. A lot of people say they have read this book. A lot of people say they have read it again but I do not believe them. They may have read a press account of what the press says is in the book, but I do not think they have read the book.

For those people, let me quote from page 20: "Any responsible government-and this is any responsible government be it Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Reform-"must have as a goal the elimination of the deficit". That is obvious. That is our goal. This was the Liberal Party speaking when we were running for election as the government of this country. Our goal is the elimination of the deficit. Let there be no doubt about it, it was plainly stated. Of course there are many ways to get to the same goal.

I am absolutely delighted that as we approach the end of this debate there is some activity on the benches opposite. I can actually hear some people listening. It means somebody is listening to what I am saying.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

I tell you, there hasn't been very much on that side, Tom.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

We listen to everything you have to say.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Now that I have the attention of my hon. friends, perhaps they can listen to this lecture. I am quoting again from the red book:

Given the current state of the economy, a realistic interim target for a Liberal government is to seek to reduce the federal deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of its third year in office.

That is the goal we set ourselves. We said this is what we would do. Let us put that into some kind of a context. Let us put that into the context of my home.

Let us say that I am running a debt and I am running a deficit with my credit cards. I can say to my family: "Look. We owe a few thousand dollars. We are going to have to cut back a little bit so you will not be able to take all of the lessons you want to take. I will not be able to go out as often as I want. Even though I might like to go to the concert, I will not be able to pay $100 for a Julio Iglesias ticket because we cannot afford it. Yes, we will be able to go to something else. Maybe we will be able to go to a free concert offered by somebody on July 1". I will cut back here and there. I will still buy groceries of course. I will still buy clothing. I will still put gas in the car. I will still have a car that I can drive so I can take the children to and from their various activities. I will still do those things but I will cut back.

What will this mean? Yes it will be a little tough but over a period of time, over two or three years, we will pay off that $2,000 or $3,000. Once we have that $2,000 or $3,000 paid off then I will be able to handle the debt load.

That is one approach and it is the approach I think the Liberal Party is taking. It is the reasoned responsible approach to reducing the deficit.

There are others who might approach their family and say: "Listen. We are $2,000 in debt so we are not going to buy any groceries this week. We are not going to go anywhere. We are not going to go to any lessons. We are going to get rid of the car, we are going to get rid of the house, we are going to get rid of everything. By golly we are going to pay that $2,000 back". I am not going to have a family left if I take that approach.

That is not the Liberal approach. The Liberal approach is a reasoned, carefully considered slow approach to deficit reduction, to running a deficit of zero. Once we get to zero then we get to positive numbers and we can start paying off some of that debt, remembering that not all debt is bad. Otherwise we cannot have some of the things that all of us have taken for granted.

What target did the Liberals set? We set ourselves a realistic target for three years. Guess what? We are going to meet that target. Not only are we going to meet that target, we are going to drop from over $40 billion to about $17 billion in 1997-98.

Compare that to the bombast and the sad predictions made by the Conservative government over a period of nine years. That government also came into office promising that it would get rid of the horrendous debt which the Liberals had run up in the profligacy of their time. They had run up a debt. There is no question. Over the whole course of Confederation from 1867 until 1984, a debt of approximately $250 billion had been run up. Remember, it took our entire history to get to that point and in nine years the Conservative government doubled it. That was from a government which promised to reduce the debt.

What have we done? We have kept our promises. We have reduced the deficit from the $42.5 billion when we took office and we will keep our promise by bringing it down to $17 billion. What does that mean? It means it is decreasing. In the next mandate we will still be decreasing the deficit and we will reach zero on a rolling target basis, as our finance minister says.

The proof is in the pudding. The deficit has decreased. Hon. members opposite can heckle all they want but the deficit is decreasing. That is a fact and they cannot argue with fact. They can be rhetorical, they can make all kinds of comments, but one thing is certain: the deficit is going down. It is going down under a Liberal government. It was going up under the previous Conservative government. It will continue to go down under this government. That is the key promise of this budget. It is one of the reasons I support it.

Now I will turn to the GST. What did the red book that everybody professes to have read say? It is interesting. It is right in there.

I remember when I was campaigning. My campaign office was open to everyone. There were copies of the red book. There were copies of summaries of the red book. I had campaign literature which I distributed to the people in the riding. In fact, I told the people in the riding what we were going to do before the election was called. Nobody in Scarborough West can say they did not know what our promise was. What was our promise? It is on page 22:

In the first session of a new Parliament, a Liberal government will give the all-party Finance Committee of the House of Commons a 12-month mandate to consult fully with Canadians and provincial governments and to report on ways to achieve tax fairness, simplicity, and harmonization.

Did I see the word harmonization? There it is, right in the red book.

Did we deliver on that? Yes, we did. That is exactly what the House of Commons committee did. It continued: "In particular the committee will be mandated to report on all options for alternatives to the current GST", and it did. It continued: "A Liberal government will replace the GST"-there is the word replace-"with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization". There is the word again, twice in the same paragraph, in advance of anybody casting a vote.

In 1993 prior to the election, I issued a communique to the people of my riding. It was four pages long and it talked about the goods and services tax, what was wrong with it and why there were problems with it. Among other things this is what I said: "If we are given the privilege of governing, a Liberal government will, as a first priority, mandate an all-party Commons finance committee to consult Canadians and various levels of government on options to the current GST. Our objective will be to replace the GST with a system that, while generating the same revenues, will be fairer to consumers, easier to administer and will promote federal-provincial co-operation rather than tax competition".

That sounds very similar to what is in the red book, but it was issued before the red book. Why? Because it had been widely discussed and it was known when we were criticizing the Conservative government that this was going to be our approach. So even if somebody says that they did not see the red book, if they had been following the debate since the introduction of the GST, they would know that this was not some rabbit being plucked out of a hat, it was a longstanding policy of the Liberal Party. I say longstanding in the context of when the GST was brought in.

I want to talk a bit about the history of the GST because it is important to recognize the context. The Conservative government brought in the GST as a replacement for the manufacturers sales tax. It was not supposed to get the government more money. It was supposed to be revenue neutral. This was the big promise.

When the government found out it was going to collect billions upon billions of dollars more than expected, it decided to come up with the GST rebate. That is why people get cheques today for the GST. That is why they apply for GST credits on their tax returns. It is because the tax takes in more money than was expected when it replaced the manufacturers sales tax. People forget that because

now they get their nice GST rebate cheques and they want to continue receiving them.

The point of the tax was not to pay down the deficit and the debt. The point of the tax was to collect the same amount as the manufacturers sales tax but in a fairer and more open way because the manufacturers sales tax was a hidden tax. That was the whole point of the GST and it failed miserably. That was one reason we opposed it. It was not going to do the job and it was going to cost too much to administer.

That is why we are continuing to do what we can to meet our promise. We have until the end of our mandate to meet the promise. We on this side of the House are going to do the best we can to meet that promise. We have done that with the rest of the promises we set forth in the red book. I do not want people to forget the historical context of that.

Finally, I want to talk about the credibility of the finance minister. In my view, his credibility is impeccable. I was in the last Parliament and those who were here will remember that year after year Michael Wilson stood and delivered his budget address and made predictions. Year after year we could bet the mortgages on our homes that his predictions would fail, and they did.

When he moved over to international trade and Don Mazankowski became finance minister, he made predictions that failed. The finance minister was never right. For the opposition it was like shooting fish in a barrel. All the finance minister had to do was predict something would happen and we knew right away it would not happen based on his track record. We had ample time to set up our artillery and take our shots at him. It was not even a challenge for us.

We now have a finance minister who has laid out certain goals and has met them. He did not go off on some tangent and promise the undeliverable. He has said: "Here is what we are going to do in the first two years. Here is what we will do in the next two years". And guess what? He did it. Who can argue with that? It is almost inconceivable.

One can see the frustration of the opposition parties. How can they argue with success? How can they argue with a finance minister who says he will do something and then he does it? They cannot argue with that. But oh, no. The opposition parties have to say that he did not promise enough and that they wanted more promises.

Well, our finance minister is a man of cool head and reflection. He knows how to bring the deficit down to zero. The way to do that is by rolling targets, exactly as he has said.

In my view there is no question of the credibility of the finance minister, of his judgment, of his commitment to the principles in the red book. There is no question at all we will meet the commitments we made. There is no question at all that the government and the people on this side will keep their promises.

That is why today at 6.30 p.m. I will be voting in favour of the budget.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being6.30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Ways and Means Motion No. 1.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I declare the motion carried.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I noticed the member for Edmonton East came in late and her voted was still counted. I would like to know why.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The member was present for the reading of the motion and therefore the vote counts.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to know the purpose of the whips walking through and all of us being in our seats before they walk by if you can get to your seat after they walk by. What is the purpose of that?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being6.47 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.)