David Walker

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is going to be a much more elaborate process next year, in a good sense of the word elaborate. We all learned something last year. I think we would like to start a little earlier.

The consultations by the finance committee is a House order. We are mandated by the House to do these consultations. We will continue with them.

I can also point out that the government itself has changed the way that departments produce their budgets. Each committee is now going to be involved with the budget preparation. We are going to build upon last year's success. We are going to have a very strong process. The finance committee will be the centre of it, but unlike this year, we will not be the only participants. I welcome the work of other committees to make sure we improve the budget on an annual basis.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. This area is both old and new in Canadian politics, that is to say, how do we transfer money to the provinces?

Essentially the federal government's strategy since the mid-1960s has been to have a program called the Canada assistance plan. It allows the provinces to access money freely if they fulfil certain federal conditions. In the 1977 EPF program, we said to the provinces that they would have block funding for post-secondary education and health as long as they conformed to the Canada Health Act.

In several discussions going back to the early 1980s the provinces have been asking for greater flexibility in the Canada assistance plan to enable them to design more innovative social programs. At the same time there is the feeling at the national level by many national interest groups that as one moves about the country support for post-secondary education is varied. The types of services available under the Canada assistance plan are varied.

We have said to let us go back to the first principles. Let us move toward a way in which we can give the provinces a wider range of flexibility through social transfers. At the same time, as a national government we have to make sure we are true to the principles we want as a Liberal government. Through the budget consultations which normally take place when the budget laws are introduced, we will have an opportunity to discuss it. I am sure the ministers of finance and social policy as well as the prime minister will want to talk about it.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raised two issues on which I would like to comment. First, with respect to family trusts, we have removed all tax advantages related to these trusts and reduced the allowed deferral under the 21-year rule. We are beginning immediately to take action on family trusts.

There are two questions under family trusts. One is the question of income dispersed to beneficiaries which is going to be changed immediately. The other is the question of the capital tax. The 21-year rule is effective in 1999 which is the time it takes given the fact that the Conservative government eliminated the rule. There had to be a few years to allow for adjustment. On the income issue we will begin immediately; on the capital issue we begin.

On the other issue, the bank issue, we are raising a special tax on banks, which will bring in $60 million just this year.

We think this is a great step forward. It will begin to deal with the banks on several issues we think they should be addressing immediately.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the leader of the third party with humour, not anything else, that if he wants to speak without props I suggest he look around here, then look around behind himself where he came to this debate fully propped for his presentation.

It gives me a great pleasure to join in the debate today, which perhaps is one of the most important times of our history, the discussion of the 1995 budget presented yesterday here in the House by the Minister of Finance.

I do not have to tell the House that it not only deals with the questions of cutbacks, with the question of some of the nitty gritty and the program review. In a fundamental way the Minister of Finance has laid out for this government and for the people of Canada how we are going to go about getting government right.

This philosophy is clear. In order to fulfil the ambitions of this government-I hope of the whole House-our job here is to provide an environment for economic growth, for creating jobs for Canadians and to see that there will be new economic wealth shared by all Canadians. In this context that we have set out the first step we must take is to make sure we get government right and we do things properly here in Ottawa.

This budget will result in considerable savings so that we can meet our red book commitment to reduce the deficit. Furthermore, if the economy does better than forecast in our extremely prudent estimates, the deficit could go down even faster.

This will pay off not only this year, not only next year, but because we are getting it right this time, it will pay off long into the future.

As an aside, everyone in this House should be heartened by the tremendous positive reaction. This budget has been accepted by Canadians from coast to coast, by people who are concerned about our deficit but on the other hand wanted to be given hope that the government was not going to hurt their lives unnecessarily. Yes, the price is being paid by many people in many ways in many walks of life. On the other hand, it is also gratifying that Canadians have come to a point in this development where they can say this is the right step, that we are doing the right things for Canada. International observers who do have an influence on our success have also seen that the Minister of Finance has taken the right steps and is going about putting our house in order.

This budget is different, very different from the previous Tory budgets. People ask me that question all the time. We are not just making rhetorical flourishes. We are doing very precise things. We are going to be successful. It is not a budget of promises. It is a budget of commitment. We proved last year that we can fulfil our commitments. We will prove it next year, the year after and the year after that.

Most important for people on this side of the House, this is not a Conservative budget in a fundamental way. It adheres to the Liberal legacy of nation building. It is clearly rooted in the principles of economic leadership, compassion and increased

fairness. We will not leave Canadians with another decade of disappointments in the development of the budget and the development of their government.

Today's budget is a call for action. It is a time for opportunity and challenge. As our Prime Minister has said on many occasions, if we have to make cutbacks in government, make them while the economy is growing. The economy is growing now and now is the time for firm action.

We have seen in the past year, not because of our actions but because of the collective wisdom of Canadians and their increased confidence, over 443,000 permanent jobs created in this economy. We have seen a growth rate that far outstrips all of our fellow countries in the G-7. We have shown the way among western industrial nations about how to grow an economy.

We do not take credit for that. We understand that it is not us but we hope that we are helping to provide the environment which makes businesses and individuals confident of the future because that is the way that this economy will continue to grow.

We also have an opportunity at the political level. Canadians clearly indicated that they wanted vigorous measures to reduce the public debt so that we can get rid of the crushing burden of high taxes and resulting interest rates.

The challenge we face is just as clear. Canada's economic future is in real danger because of the $500 billion debt which makes us extremely vulnerable to the brutal impact of interest rates.

These interest rates have continued to rise under pressure from the U.S. and Canada. Since October, short-term rates have risen by about 2.5 percentage points.

It is very important to emphasize this point. I want to say to all parliamentarians here today that sometimes during the course of our committee work we wonder if it has an influence, do the ministers listen, does the Prime Minister listen, do opposition members have an influence. I think the finance committee stands out in its work as a great example of how parliamentarians contribute to the development of policy.

We went through long hearings. We heard from over 650 witnesses in the fall. We came to the conclusion that the government must be prudent, that the government must pay attention to increasing interest rates, that we must take dramatic and deliberate actions to reduce the deficit. The Minister of Finance heeded those words.

Although we seemed to be on the drastic side when we made our recommendations our warnings bore out the truth, that interest rates have gone up and made the job of this government much more difficult.

To the credit of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and other colleagues in the ministry, they responded and produced a budget which showed our own willingness to reach our targets. This caution will be what propels this government to do the right thing in the years to come.

Let us stop and think. What would have happened if we had done nothing? There are voices in the country and voices on the lawn in front of Parliament which say this is really an okay situation, all this talk about deficits is some right wing plot to destroy our social programs. If we had not done anything we would have been $5 billion higher in our deficit this year and we would have missed the mark by $10.6 billion next year. In other words, we would be further behind than when we formed the government on the commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP. The actions are necessary and we are in the process now of taking the necessary steps to rectify the situation.

In order to reach our budget targets as the Minister of Finance explained yesterday we are implementing cumulative savings over the next two years of $15.6 billion. Over $13 billion of these savings will be in spending cuts and there will be no increase in personal income tax rates.

As the leader of the third party said a few minutes ago, this is great news for Canada. We have to realize that we have attacked the problem of government debt while at the same time recognizing the legitimacy of middle class families, that the tax burden has shifted over the past 15 years far to much to them and therefore to their children and their ability to have economic security.

This government has listened to that message and listened very carefully and responded with prudence, responded in such a way that Canadians understand that we are putting this government in order and are calling upon them as a last resort to lend assistance.

We are also taking firm action to make the tax system fairer, close loopholes and increase the contribution of big business to the fight against the deficit.

Taking the next three years together, the budget delivers almost $7 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenues. These actions are changing the size and shape of the government by hard choices on priorities. By 1996-97 program spending will fall from $120 billion down to $108 billion. This is the most dramatic action seen in any government for decades.

The most important point of all, in 1996-97 the debt will no longer be growing faster than the economy. When the Minister of Finance says on public occasions that we are going to break the back of this, we are going to get off this treadmill, this is the key point. The debt to GDP ratio will begin to decline. That is the key for the fiscal sustainability and that will put us on a permanent downward track.

There are going to be payoffs. We want Canadians to appreciate this. This is the first step. Budgets are not made or broken on one night's announcement, they are made by Canadians adjusting themselves and departments adjusting themselves. There will be a payoff. The payoff is that we will make sure we reach our targets.

We set up substantial contingency funds: $2.5 billion this year, $3 billion the year after. Even if interest rates go another full percentage point higher we will still be able to reach our targets.

It is this type of caution in the pasture which has caused us to reach our target, to do better than we told Canadians we were doing, and that is what is contributing to the confidence of Canadians in their national government. We are saying things that we can do. We are not setting targets five years down the line or ten years down the line so that when a crisis occurs like Mexico everybody says do not worry about this particular short term problem, we can put it off and look after it in the future.

What we are saying in this House is that as a crisis occurs we adjust, we reduce our spending, we reach our target year after year. That is the confidence builder, not having some vague target in the future which says we can reduce the deficit to zero in three or four years. That does not help anybody. That just frustrates people. That leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the politicians who are over promising.

It is very important that every member in this House understand the responsibility that we have in the debate, that Canadians understand that we are going to reach targets and that those targets will be reached in such a way that it is done fairly and consistently. When people look back at the period of the mid-nineties it will not be like it was in the mid-eighties, there will be real accomplishment by their national government.

Our contingency reserves could play a dual role in the future. Not only will they ensure that we will meet our objectives, but, if they are not needed they will not be spent and will allow us to further reduce the deficit.

This is yet another dividend to be reaped through prudent economic forecasting.

If interest rates and growth do better than our forecast and conform to the private sector average the 1996-97 deficit could drop dramatically. It could be much less than projected in the budget. We could have a deficit under 2.5 per cent instead of 3 per cent of GDP.

The government is being very careful on this point. We want people to understand that our targets are realistic and if we do better it is through good luck. We are being prudent in each of our particular projections because we do not want to fall short. We think that the credibility, not of this government but of the nation, is based on targets reached year after year.

The heart of the process to achieve these goals was not done in the hurried up fashion of a Minister of Finance sitting around a table with a few officials. In my first year the minister would call me in from time to time and we were trying to figure out what could be done. We had only been in office for a few months and it was very much a learning process.

What the minister decided quite appropriately, which was supported by his cabinet colleagues, was to have a program review which in some respects sounds esoteric. A program review gave a group of ministers an opportunity to talk with each other about what they wanted to see reshaped in government, a new strategy within government. It was not to throw around programs and say, cut here and cut there. It was to say department by department, what is it that we have to get out of and what is it that we have to emphasize? How do we redevelop an industrial strategy? My colleague from Don Mills is involved with that. How do we develop a strategy on science? How do we reduce subsidies in the agricultural field? How do we make the transportation system more effective? These are not catch as catch can questions, these are hard to answer; nor are our answers this year the final answers.

We will find this will be a progression of innovation. We will be back again and again suggesting new ways to do things. This budget is going to energize our colleagues on this side to do the right thing and to find new ways for the government to operate. I hope the opposition parties will make suggestions that we can incorporate so that we can develop a stronger and stronger national government.

Of course, we did not wait for the budget to take concrete action. Our review of agencies, offices, councils, boards and commissions-which ended in early February-will lead to the abolition of 73 of these 120 organizations. The 47 remaining entities will be restructured and rationalized. This will allow us to eliminate 665 positions held by governor-in-council appointees and save $10 million a year.

We could mention a lot of examples that have proven to be really fruitful in this process. Spending by fisheries and oceans will fall $210 million over three years. We have found that there are more officials than there are active fishers. Transport will move from being an operator of the transport system to a role of regulator and policy maker.

There has been a large question raised in the minds of the public about subsidies to business.

In fact, business subsidies will be cut in every department. The reduction will affect agricultural and transportation subsidies that were established decades ago.

Overall the budget will cut subsidies in half, from $3.8 billion to $1.5 billion by 1997-98.

We will also do other measures on cost recovery, for example in dealing with immigration issues.

On the question of provincial transfers, we are taking action to reform the provincial transfer system. We think that our innovations will create a system that is more sustainable and more responsive to community needs.

In the last budget, to set the stage to show ourselves to be supportive of each of the provinces, we renewed equalization for five years. There is no change in that commitment in this budget.

For 1996-97, the other major programs, established programs financing for health and education and the Canada assistance plan, will be converted into a single, consolidated block transfer called the Canada social transfer.

It is a matter of converting the Canada Assistance Plan to the block funding system already used for EPF, thus allowing the provinces to innovate according to their priorities.

However, the budget also makes it clear that the principles in the Canada Health Act must be adhered to. And there is no change to the principle that the provinces must provide social assistance services without minimum residency requirements.

The introduction of the CST will see total provincial transfers reduced by $2.5 billion next year and the year after that by $4.5 billion. This means that the total of all major transfers to provinces in cash and tax points will be 4.4 per cent lower next year than it is today.

By comparison, the drop in federal spending will be 7.3 per cent. To put it in another perspective, the reduction by the second year will equal only about 3 per cent of all provincial aggregate revenues. We have hit ourselves harder than we are hitting anybody else.

There are two other issues which are still outstanding: unemployment insurance and support for the elderly. I will touch on them very briefly.

Sometime this year, the Minister of Human Resources Development will be tabling legislative proposals to put in place, based on the best features of the UI program, a reformed program the emphasis of which will be on assistance rather than dependence.

This reform will take place in 1996 and will reduce the size of the program by a minimum of 10 per cent. For 1996-97 this means the reform will secure savings of $700 million. I will choose another time to speak about the payments to the elderly.

This may be a difficult budget in some ways but the optimism with which Canadians received it last night and today shows that we are on the right track and that we have the support of the country.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this government was elected on the question of jobs. We have created over 400,000 jobs. More important, the economy has created 400,000 jobs.

We are very supportive of companies, particularly small businesses that are expanding. We will form a budget that supports the creation of jobs in small, medium and even large businesses in this economy. Our job here is to support others who create the jobs.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for industry is very interested in the tourism industry. He believes, as does the government, that we can really create jobs by supporting our tourism industry. I have no compunction about saying in the House that we will do everything we can to support tourism.

With respect to cutbacks, there is only one area the third party will not cut money from. It is not tourism. It is not regional development. What is the one area that it will not take a penny from? Jails. Members of that party can only be positive about jails. If we stop and think about it, we wonder what kind of perverted logic that is. We are looking at the way government spends money and the only thing they can be positive about is jails.

To their credit they are also supporting the Department of Justice on gun control by allowing money for that, and it is appreciated. However, we have to be concerned with more than just jails. We have to be concerned about job creation, about creating another 40,000 jobs, building enthusiasm and showing support for the entrepreneurs and companies in this country that are trying to rebuild our economy.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Kootenay East is doing serious reading. He started out with Maclean's , went to the Financial Post and then the Vancouver Sun . I am glad he stopped his reading list right then and there.

I think there are more serious ways of looking at what rating companies do. There is no doubt that everybody is concerned about it. The Minister of Finance expressed his own concern in answering questions in the House of Commons last week.

I am not going to downplay the concerns that we have about how the world sees us and the volatility of the money markets over the last 12 months dealing with issues such as the referendum, dealing with the national debt and the provincial debt. All these questions weigh heavily on the government. To belittle them would be self-denial.

The question becomes how we approach the country. Do we approach it as a sad sack? Do we approach it as if this is about to be the end? Or do we say to ourselves this is a strong country, we have a tremendous economy? The OECD says we will continue to lead the industrial world for the next two years in economic growth, that we have the fastest growth rate, around 4.5 per cent. This is strength. These are companies and individuals going out and doing something.

We have rates of expansion in our export markets which are second to none in the world. We have strength. What we should be doing as parliamentarians is adding to that strength and not exercising the negative.

Yes, the report from Moody's was a very negative report. That does not necessarily mean it is correct. It does not mean that we should all sort of give in and say this is a terrible country, why do families stay here, why are we bothering doing anything here. As parliamentarians our job is to say that this is a pretty good country. What we should be doing is building upon this base and not trying to destroy it.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

What is the price attached to that? It is not known.

Empowering the unemployed and job creators: tax relief or reform. Empowering citizens to meet education needs: this is after suggesting that we should get out of education.

What do they say? They refer to an annual federal-provincial conference to define national standards. Have they ever gone to a federal-provincial meeting where they did not contribute anything and did not have any authority? Who is inviting them? What are they doing at the table? Nobody cares if they are there if they are not contributing something. However they have said that is what we are supposed to be doing.

Empowering those who cannot help themselves: tax relief. Those who cannot help themselves get tax relief. If I were to tell the people on social assistance in Winnipeg North Centre that I was going to help them with tax relief, they would be very curious about what taxes I was relieving them of when they cannot afford anything and they get about $400 a month on social assistance.

Empowerment for aboriginals: many Canadians are frustrated with the administration and the development of self-government in Canada. It would be wrong to deny that. The Reform Party suggests a substantial savings on the aboriginal community. It is about $500 million; I do not have it in front of me.

What do we do when that population base increases about 6 per cent per year? The baby boom within the aboriginal community is the most pronounced generational problem in the country. If we did that we would not just be freezing money, but on a per capita basis when dealing with questions of housing, education and assistance to young people within the aboriginal community there would be phenomenal cutbacks.

The Reform Party has pronounced a huge cutback in the CBC, with a savings of $375 million. Those of us who look at the CBC carefully know there have been a lot of criticisms. I am sure the CBC understands this, but to cut $375 million would probably end CBC television.

This morning when the leader of the third party stood up in room 200, what did he arrange to have? Well, well, well, national broadcast by the CBC. What does he want to use? He wants to use national broadcasting to promote the end of the company doing that national promotion. Does he ever mention it in his speech? No, he just swerves right by it and remains silent on the whole issue. That is the nature of this presentation.

This goes on day after day. Those members talk about equalization. The first thing this government did, Bill C-3, was to stabilize equalization for the poor provinces across this country. This is a very important point because as we move toward other funding and as we begin to deal with the provinces and as we can tell from the report of the federal-provincial meeting last week, these are going to be difficult times for many of the provinces which have to be given credit for the fact that they have shown leadership and produced near balanced or balanced budgets.

Pretty well all the budgets in western Canada, for example in my own region, are getting close to being balanced. Different strategies are being applied, some gradual, some very abrupt strategies but nevertheless they have been stabilized. Equalization is an opportunity for the federal government to make sure

that the other provinces which have a more difficult time have some stability.

They suggest a $500 million cutback in stabilization. However, if we look at it, stabilization increases about $500 million a year. Therefore to freeze it at the level they are doing is a much more extensive cut than they have said. Sixty per cent of equalization payments in this country go to the province of Quebec. It is a very important contribution that the federal government makes.

I would suggest as we are moving into a very difficult year in fighting out the referendum. All parties should appreciate the extent to which the federal government supports the economy of Quebec and not undertake budget initiatives which destabilize that economy at a very important time in our history.

To not acknowledge in the paper whether or not they understand the relationship between equalization and the economy of Quebec, whether or not they just choose to ignore it is a moot question which I am sure they will be willing to address later on.

However, the federal government has a responsibility when it set out a program in March of one year to the next year to continue that program and to continue the stabilization.

They go on to talk about the reform of the social security structure. They have a new program to come out which is basically to disband the RRSP idea. One of the most expensive programs that we have in this country, the way the federal government helps families and individuals, is through pensions. It is through support of the RRSPs and through the support of the registered pension plans. We by most estimates allow $15 billion of contributions to go into those plans without taxes. That is one of the major tax expenditures that we have.

If one wants to have a balanced budget within three years, I would suggest that there are limits to ways that one can extend new programs. To put out the feeler or just a vague idea to Canadians that there is going to be tax relief, there is going to be tax reform, it is going to be made easier for them in the future is a subtle signal that it cannot be sustained by any logical argument.

The last part of what they talk about is a taxpayer protection plan. This has been tried in other countries. The fact is that the last government played with the idea also. We have a parliamentary system. In the parliamentary system it is very difficult to contain a government from doing what it wants to do. That goes back to Walter Bagehot and the English Constitution.

Whether one likes it or not a parliamentary system does have a lot of power. To argue that by law one can change the behaviour of a government is wrong. In reality one has to change it in the spirit of the government and by the moral commitment it makes to be reasonable with taxpayers' money.

That moral commitment, that fiscal commitment, is here in this government. To offer taxpayers protection act again puts out this phoney signal that there is a solution just around the corner: "If only the government would agree with our act".

Here is where silence is not golden. They talk about taxpayers. What do they not define? The taxpayer. Who is one of the most common taxpayers? Corporations and banks. Are they saying that tax base should never be changed, that there should never be another tax, that Canadians are happy with the corporate and bank tax structure in this country, that none of us have ever heard people ask what we are going to do about the tax on this and the tax on that? What about the foreign ownership of the Canadian economy? Are we going to remain silent on that, a taxpayer issue that we are going to put into the Constitution?

My time is limited and my comments are extensive. I have tried to contain my frustration with an opposition party which is misusing an opportunity immediately before a federal budget to give Canadians the false hope that there is an easy solution, that we can somehow magically eliminate all the problems and all the bad judgments made by governments over the last two decades. Yes, I include the government and my own party in that.

We have accumulated a lot of debt. To acknowledge the accumulation of debt is also to admit that we have a very difficult problem ahead of us. All of us will have constituents who will suffer. If any member in the House thinks that their own constituency is going to be exempt, that their own lifestyle is going to be exempt, that we will not feel the effects of this budget, they are kidding themselves. Our job is to maintain a consensus in this country, not to have a social struggle, not to have class bitterness, but to understand that we are all in this together.

I thank the House very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate and I look forward to comments from other members.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the third party for bringing the motion to the floor of the House, beginning with its press conference at nine o'clock this morning.

I will be very measured in my response. It is very rare that I can be so angered as a parliamentarian with the presentation of a case by the opposition parties. However when one cuts corners to the extent of deluding Canadians about the task that faces us, it is something that all parliamentarians should take seriously and look at closely.

This is an opportunity for Canada to turn the corner. I do not think any of us discount the anger felt by taxpayers and Canadians in general about the nature of the debt we now face. As a government we have undertaken with a great deal of pride and deliberation to ensure that our deficit is under control. We are the first government to set targets. We are the first government to meet its targets. We have approached the problem with a reasonable determination to succeed. We believe Canadians want success in deficit reduction more than anything else.

It comes as no surprise to anybody in the House that this debt is one that tragically encumbers our ability to be successful as a government. Speaking on behalf of the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, we will succeed in these objectives.

In this context we have an opposition party that has sought to play with fire. Those of us who have been in Parliament for a while all know what happens when a parliamentarian plays with fire. Scenarios and perceptions are created perhaps deliberately or not deliberately that are simply false. People are given the

impression that a solution is just around the corner or that a solution is merely writing things off with the stroke of a pen.

I come from a very poor constituency. I have seen families in economic difficulty. The hardest thing is to say to them: "Things are not likely to be better for one or two years, but if you really stick to this poor paying job and your family gets an education things will be better". It is hope for a better future that makes us all work together as Canadians.

We cannot go to families encumbered by a lot of debt and say: "In two or three months things are going be fine". We cannot tell Canadians that in one or two years things are going to be fine because I do not think they will be all better within two years. Do I think it will be better in the near future? I actually think that. The government believes that and will work toward that objective.

Let me refer to some small items. The non-votable motion before us takes the government to task for its deficit reduction targets "within two years". The taxpayers' budget, the so-called document of the Reform Party, talks about three years. On the one hand we have set out a two-year program. We have been silent on the third year except to say, again in a very determined fashion, that we will meet the new targets we set. Those targets will get us closer and closer to a balanced budget.

By this sleight of hand the leader of the third party talks about his three-year plan and juxtaposes it with our two-year plan to get within 3 per cent of GNP. That is the unfair nature of the document.

I have another point. He opened his address this morning and very carefully chose not to be in Parliament where he could be criticized and subject to scrutiny such as the Minister of Finance will be next week or the week after or whenever the budget is presented. He very publicly said that we must not be subject to the $40 billion of debt that we borrow from foreigners each year.

We did not go to the debt market for $40 billion. The opposition critic and his assistants who he very nicely complimented during his speech know that under Bill C-14 our borrowing limit was far below $40 billion. We have not come back for an amendment. At no time this year did we say we would be borrowing $40 billion. In fact, if last month continues to be as suitable as the first 11 months of the fiscal year, it will probably be closer to $30 billion under Bill C-14. That is either poor research or a deliberate effort to tell Canadians something that is substantially not what it is.

The opposition party also plays footloose with the tragedy that happened to the Mexican economy and the difficult remarks made by Moody's last week. It takes glee in telling us: "I told you so. We are almost a basket case".

Does the party opposite realize the cost to Canadian homeowners? Does the House realize the cost to the housing market or the price we all pay because of these international factors? We should not take with pride that the Mexican economy collapses. We should not join the chorus of the Wall Street Journal and some editorial writer saying: ``We think Canada is just like Mexico''.

When the opposition party puts that into public record, some researcher in a Wall Street office or over in London looks it up and says: "Gee whiz, there are parliamentarians in Canada who think Canada is like Mexico". That is the finance critic. Then interest rates go up another half a per cent or another per cent. The housing market gets into difficulty. Families find it difficult. Credit card rates go up and we are charged greater prices. Then they can turn around in April, May or June and say: "See, I told you that you were getting into difficulty". That is essentially irresponsible.

The opposition party went through its taxpayers' budget and it went through $10 billion of cutbacks in government programs. I thank that party, as I did during the finance committee hearings, for the directness and willingness to work on the issue. The finance minister and the government in program review are looking for significant ways to cut federal expenditures. As I said in my opening remarks, we will not in any way, shape or form back off from the objectives we have set ourselves.

There is an honest way of doing it and there are other ways of doing it. Let me suggest one point. The top item all of us on this side agree with is to reform MPs' pension plan, eliminate excessive travel of federal officials and reduce the number of ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries for a savings of $10 million. Now $10 million is a lot of money. Everybody knows that the pension plan produces no savings in the next three years. There are roughly 20 parliamentary secretaries and we all get the grand sum of $10,000. That would save $200,000. The ministers of state get a bit more. Let us say the total savings would be $500,000.

That leaves us with $9.5 million for excessive federal travel. The $9.5 million at $1,000 a trip would amount to 9,500 trips every year. That is a lot of unnecessary trips. If we look at each week, it would be 190 trips a week out of the Ottawa International Airport. This is excessive federal travel. If a deputy minister or a minister thought that level of excessive travel was happening, we would find the responsible public servants and politicians reined in. I would argue that this type of oversimplification is what brings the wave of anger across the country on to the floor of Parliament and does not filter as a responsible parliamentarian would what is honestly wrong with the system and what is not.

As long as they play to the crowd that this is corrupt place, a place where people do not work and a place where people try to rip off the system, the country will not feel good about itself.

The major transformation we have to make, which the government has taken to its Prime Minister as the primary responsibility of governing, is to ensure Canadians have confidence in their government, confidence in the way their dollars are being spent and confidence that we have a plan for the future. Each of those objectives is being met by the government. We are not about to roll over and allow cheap criticisms in any way, shape or form to pull us down from this honourable sense of purpose.

Empowering individuals, families and communities: if we read each of these items carefully we see that the Reform is promising tax relief.

Let us go back. We want to balance the budget. One of the most difficult things to do at the federal level is to protect the integrity of the fiscal base of the central government. We are under a lot of pressure. We have an underground economy about which people argue as to its depth. We have many thousands of concerned Canadians voicing their opinions. I received petitions on behalf of newspapers and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation yesterday.

There are many hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are disturbed by their level of taxation. We would be wrong to ignore that in the context of making a budget.

Empowering seniors-long term tax relief or reform. Why do Reformers include that? They announced a $3 billion dollar cutback in payments to seniors within the next three years. I know the member for Kingston and the Islands would be interested to know that they are going to do it after consultation. That means this year is lost. They also do not recognize the fact that the senior population is increasing. If we do not do anything in this government, the actual current levels of expenditures go up because of an increasing population.

They are not taking out $3 billion but $5 billion. That is fair enough, but they should say $5 billion and not say $3 billion. They should do their research to understand how people are being helped and not being helped.

Empowering families: strengthen the capacity of families to care for themselves with tax relief.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe this is an important point because if the opposition party is basing this on a document which it is willing to produce to Canadians, it should have distributed it. I would point out that it is not available to the government at this side.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are generally pretty generous with each other in the House but there is an obligation with members to be careful in the way they insinuate such things as people receiving pensions when they are sitting in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to actively encourage people to follow the public record more carefully.