René Laurin

[Public Finances, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is having a very hard time answering my question. Let me ask him another.

Does the minister recognize that the additional cost of the risk premium on interest rates equals the cuts and sacrifices imposed on the unemployed and the poor?

[Public Finances, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The federal budget does not appear capable of putting our public finances in order, considering that it foresees a record-high deficit of nearly $40 billion, does not address the numerous instances of squandering brought to light by the Auditor General and rests on unrealistic revenue assumptions.

In the meantime, the pitiful state of our public finances requires an additional risk premium to be paid on interest rates, a premium which could cost the federal government as much as $5 billion a year.

Does the minister not realize that his lack of credibility with the international markets in the fight to curb the deficit is the direct cause of this $5 billion surcharge in interest costs to the Canadian taxpayers?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want the hon. member to be too disappointed at not hearing my thanks. I am pleased to thank him today because the Liberal Party decided to accept one of the many measures which we proposed.

Since not many of our suggestions were accepted by the Liberals, you will agree that I cannot spend ten minutes thanking them. I would rather let the hon. member remind me that he congratulated me, and I really appreciated that.

As for the other measures, particularly as regards unemployment, I want to point out, as I said in my speech, that the poor might once again be willing to make an additional and ultimate effort. People in our ridings discuss this issue when we meet them. If ordinary Canadians could be guaranteed that this ultimate effort would eventually help improve their financial situation and reduce the deficit, I think that they would be willing to make that extra effort, but only on the condition that they would not be the only ones to pay. But the government still has not given us that guarantee.

Indeed, the poor and the middle class are affected, but the wealthy have kept their most important privileges. They are only affected in a symbolic way. This is what the poor find unacceptable. They say: If we are an integral part of this society, are we an integral part only when the fiscal burden must be shouldered? Are we there only ones to pay? Should we not also get some benefits?

The humble privilege which should be granted to the poor is the right to collect UI benefits when they become unemployed, usually involuntarily. Instead, the government decided to impose stricter conditions for them to be eligible to UI benefits.

I do not think this is the just society which the Liberals were so adamant about, and I will be very pleased, in a future speech, to thank the hon. member and the government opposite if they are willing to accept our numerous other requests.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth day of debate on the 1994-95 budget. According to this budget, expenditures will reach $160.7 billion, which is $39.7 billion more than the anticipated revenue.

While the expected deficit should be 0.2 per cent lower than in 1993-94, it still remains an enormous burden for Canadians, and particularly for the middle-class and the poor.

Indeed, this budget asks the unemployed to tighten their belts even more. It asks the middle class to forget about salary increases, even though this has been the case for the last four years. It asks the elderly to accept smaller pensions. It asks small businesses to still wait for an economic recovery which will come of course when the recession ends. It asks municipalities which, in many cases, cannot afford it, to get even more into debts to improve their infrastructure and create a few thousand temporary jobs.

However, this budget reassures the well-to-do by maintaining most of the benefits which will enable them to increase their wealth as well as the gap between them and their less fortunate fellow Canadians. The rich will continue to get richer by taking advantage of tax shelters. Wealthy families will continue to avoid paying taxes, thanks to the maintenance of family trusts. Similarly, major corporations will continue to cash in millions in non-taxable profits, thanks to tax havens. The 90,000 companies which, in 1987, realized profits of $27 billion without paying any taxes, according to professor Léopold Lauzon, will carry on their operations without having anything to fear from the tax man. The underground economy will be able to continue to prosper.

Yet, according to the Association of Canadian Distillers, liquor smuggling alone results in an annual loss of $1.2 billion for the various governments in Canada. Last November, Gallup conducted a survey to ask Quebecers and Canadians if they had contributed to the underground economy in the 12 previous months. Thirty-three per cent of Canadians and 42 per cent of Quebecers candidly admitted to having paid cash for purchases, so as to avoid paying applicable taxes.

In fact, it looks as though it is perfectly acceptable to promote the emergence of two classes of citizens: the poor who have trouble meeting their basic needs, and the rich who live the life of Riley. The noble definition of just society advocated by the federal Liberals since the days of Mr. Trudeau has very little to do with the reality experienced by Canadians as well as with their perception of that notion.

The deficit is a chronic problem for which the federal government is the primary responsible, since close to 80 per cent of the total public debt in Canada is attributable to it. Yet, the Auditor General tells us that, for several years now, the federal government has been doing a rather good job of monitoring its budgetary expenditures. This was also the case at the end of the Conservative administration. So where is the problem?

To understand the root of the problem, you have to realize that this federal debt results from the accumulation of deficits over time. If we look at the evolution of the deficit in relation to the GDP, we can see that the debt really grew primarily under Liberal governments.

Indeed, from 1970 to 1985, the debt-over-GDP ratio went from a surplus of 0.3 per cent to a deficit of 8.5 per cent, an all-time record.

Usually, increases in budgetary revenues tend to follow a rise in GDP. However, during the 1992-93 fiscal year, the federal government's budgetary revenues fell by 0.41 per cent, despite an increase of 2.6 per cent in GDP during the same period.

The trend has continued. According to the forecasts of the Department of Finance, budgetary revenues will decline by 3.74 per cent or $4.592 billion during the 1993-94 fiscal year. This was abundantly confirmed by the results for the first eight months of the current fiscal year, since federal budgetary revenues were down 5.2 per cent, from the same period in the previous fiscal year.

During the second and third quarters of 1993, GDP increased 3.6 per cent and 3.7 per cent, respectively, on an annual basis. The decline in revenue is largely attributable to a decline in personal income tax payable, another indication Canadians' fiscal threshold had been reached.

Despite the extent of the deficit and the national debt, Canadian taxpayers may be willing to make additional sacrifices, provided all members of society and all economic partners do their fair share. And also provided that those sacrifices will be used solely to improve their individual and collective economic situation. As a guarantee to Canadians that this will indeed be the case and that the objective will be achieved, the government should immediately put in place mechanisms that will inform Canadians quickly and accurately on the state of the economy.

Since so many complex factors are involved, it is not easy for the average person to get a clear picture of the country's financial situation. Since the experts often disagree on the best way to deal with the economic situation, I realize it must be hard for the average citizen to weigh his own immediate interests against the broader, long-term interests of the country.

However, we must not underestimate the ability of average Canadians to make up their own minds if they are given clear and precise information or a number of simple indicators. As was pointed out by the Auditor General in Chapter 5 of his report to the House of Commons, it is important the government provide Canadians and their elective representatives with the appropriate tools they need to grasp the essence of the problem.

Simple tools and periodic information must be made available to Canadians so that they can evaluate the government's forecasts and its achievements. Any discrepancies between the two should be explained to them.

Canadians must be told with delay about the impact their future choices will have. For example, if it had been properly explained to them that the revisions to the 1992 economic plan made in the 1993 budget would mean an $8 billion increase in the projected deficit for 1993, if they had been told clearly that this would translate into an increase of $65 billion in the total debt six years down the road, then they would have understood that the government's objectives sometimes have considerable future cost implications.

The more Canadians know about the state of the government's finances, the less chance they have of being taken in by questionable interests. Better still, they will understand when the time comes to make difficult decisions.

In conclusion, let me just say that if this government honestly believes that it can achieve the economic and financial goals set out in this budget, then it should have the courage of its convictions and immediately provide the public with adequate evaluation mechanisms so that all Canadians can judge for themselves well before the next election whether they made the right choice when they democratically elected this government.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. minister responsible for the public service, one gets the impression that he is a new politician with definite and unquestionable experience, that he is a very articulate man who should bring about changes, at least as far as renewal of the public service is concerned.

The minister alluded to the importance he attaches to the public service, to the importance he attributes to public servants who support the work of members of Parliament, ministers and Parliament as a whole. I think he is right because none of us could work effectively if we could not count on public servants.

The minister knows what he is talking about since he himself was, until very recently, until his election, a senior public servant. That is why I believe that he knows what he is talking about.

However, I am surprised that nothing in this budget reflects this appreciation of the Public Service. There is no tangible evidence in the budget. Although the vast majority of public servants helped to elect this new government, and it is public knowledge that the Public Service supported the federal government, they could at least expect some appreciation of the services they provide. What they got is a slap in the face.

The budget does not contain a single measure that would communicate to these people the government's recognition and appreciation of the work they do every day to support its operations.

I would like to know if the minister is planning any statements in the near future about Public Service renewal and if he will finally demonstrate that proposals will be followed by concrete action. Instead of coming down harshly on the people who are important to us, perhaps the government should start a dialogue and agree on ways to improve morale and maintain the level of professionalism and fairness in the services they provide.

[Reorganization Of The College In Kingston, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister telling us that the decision to close the Collège de Saint-Jean was taken hastily, without even knowing the financial implications of the reorganization of the College in Kingston?

[Reorganization Of The College In Kingston, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to the information given by the Department of National Defence, a portion of the staff and students of Saint-Jean will be transferred to Kingston. These changes are over and above the relocation of teachers and several courses given in French in Saint-Jean.

Since the Minister talked about costs a few minutes ago, what will be the costs, first, of reorganizing the College in Kingston in order to increase its capacity and, second, of enabling it to fulfill its new role and new mandate as a bilingual teaching institution?

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that most of the comments and arguments in support of this bill are, as everyone will concede, quite logical. Sadly, these arguments should have been made one, maybe even two, years ago when the Government of Quebec requested Ottawa's help in halting the spread of contraband activities and in eradicating this problem.

We were experiencing similar problems with our young people. They were dropping out of schools and joining smuggling rings. However, the problem was not viewed as too serious because it was occurring primarily in Quebec. Now that Quebec, through the presence of 54 Bloc Quebecois members in Ottawa, has forced the government's hand, forced it to take action and support Quebec's position, others are starting to get worried. It is as if suddenly, it is morally right to abolish a law which had become punitive.

People no longer obeyed the law, not because they had become thieves, but because they were no longer able to obey it, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are trying to denounce today.

Steps should have been taken two years ago so that these situations could have been avoided altogether. In some cases, it is perhaps too late. Our young people have been drawn into these smuggling networks. Perhaps the future of these 15 or 16 year olds who make $1,000 a week through their involvement with smuggling has been ruined forever.

The government should have admitted at the time that the problem existed, not just or primarily in Quebec, and that it represented a real danger for the rest of Canada. It should have intervened.

If the government takes action that is too harsh, such as imposing ill-considered fines, it runs the risk that these fines will be paid under the table. If people start bribing officials, our jails will never be big enough and we will have another problem on our hands. That is what always happens. I hope that the government has learned its lesson and that in its budget speech this evening, it will not announce further ill-considered taxes which will push citizens to the breaking point.

[Goods And Services Tax, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance not agree that, instead of replacing the GST, it would be wiser to simplify it, to iron out all its administrative problems and to take the necessary steps to collect all accounts in arrears which total more than $1.5 billion?

[Goods And Services Tax, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday, appearing before the Standing Committee on Finance, the Auditor General warned the government about the high cost of replacing the GST by some other tax of a yet unknown nature. He pointedly noted that the implementation of the GST had cost government and businesses a total of more than $800 million.

Does the Minister of Finance share the view of the Auditor General that replacing the GST would needlessly cost millions of dollars to government and businesses, when those businesses are not yet totally familiar with the tax?