Ray Speaker

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Perhaps I could start my own speech if it is appropriate or if Mr. Speaker permits I could ask a question of the hon. member.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to enter into this debate.

First of all I would like to congratulate the member for Elgin-Norfolk. I can sympathize with him in making his first speech in the humble assembly that is here. I can recall my first week in the Alberta legislature. I was asked to move the speech from the throne at the young age of 27. I remember a number of people in the government of that time who had been there for 27 years and had most likely heard 101 different speeches and I had to say something different to them. I remember that being a very humbling experience. I am sure the member felt that way today but respects this institution very much.

I would caution the hon. member that one of the diseases that often sets in after you have had the opportunity of being in this assembly is that the 10 minute speech early in your career seems to enlarge and enlarge until it becomes the 40-minute speech. So be careful of that disease as you go forward in your career. I wish you all the best and congratulations on your first speech in this assembly. Very well done.

[Labour Dispute, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

If mediation is not successful I would like to remind the minister that back in 1986 the government legislated the longshoremen back to work.

The hon. member then represented Winnipeg-Fort Garry, now Winnipeg South Centre. He said at that time: "We would support the bill primarily and fundamentally because of the situation faced by western farmers".

Will the government make the same commitment today to legislate the west coast longshoremen back to work under these circumstances?

[Labour Dispute, February 2nd, 1994]

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

The longshoreman's labour dispute on the west coast has taken a devastating toll on the agricultural sector in western Canada.

Canadian grain and alfalfa industries are losing products, customers, sales and millions of dollars because of this dispute. Farmers and alfalfa processors have asked me to ask the minister if they can ship their products through U.S. ports and still benefit under the Western Grain Transportation Act.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

As a Reform caucus we certainly considered the presentation of the Bloc Quebecois in its amendment to the main motion.

In terms of the concept of having a parliamentary committee to review the budget and the priorities and to look at areas where we could reduce and cut in a responsible way, I think it had a lot of merit. What made it very difficult for Reform members to support the concept were some of the other items listed in the major paragraph called the amendment. Because of that we felt it was not the right thing to do. The original idea, the concept of more study by a broader group, did have some merit.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

I certainly appreciate the question. It is a very leading question. It gives me an opportunity to espouse our position very clearly.

Some ingredients have changed since we set forward our zero in three plan in early 1993 in terms of revenue possibilities. The actual deficit is much greater than the one we projected. I believe we were looking at around $35 billion. We are now into a projection of $44 billion to $46 billion. There certainly are other areas of government that we must look at in terms of bringing about those kinds of expenditure reductions.

Basically the Reform Party looked at three areas. In the broad area of government efficiency we recommended that some areas have 15 per cent cuts. That is in the document we presented today.

The second area we looked at was grants that are now made available to businesses and special interest groups. In that area we felt we could reduce the expenditures of government by about $4.3 billion.

The third area we looked at were transfers to individuals. We have said clearly that health care was not one of them. We were to maintain the expenditure pattern as set out in the 1992-93 budget. It is to be kept at that level until we could maybe add to it, but there would not be a reduction in health care spending or in advanced education. We also had a hold on retraining and criminal justice programs.

Other areas we were looking at were unemployment insurance and old age assistance. For example, we wanted to look at an income threshold of $54,000. In examining that we could reduce the direct expenditure in that area by about $3.5 billion, by putting in that family threshold of $54,000. Those are some of the kinds of things we were looking at.

We have tested those with many Canadians and have had very positive responses. We intend to continue to do that. There may be others we will have to put on the table. Now that we have a major contingent elected to the House, it would be our plan to develop, refine and certainly be more specific in terms of further expenditure reduction patterns.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this is a great day to be in the House of Commons.

When I decided to take on the challenge of being a member of Parliament representing not only the Lethbridge constituency but the people of the province of Alberta, I faced in my home in Edmonton a number of young people, young men and young women who were concerned about their futures. These young people who had visited my home from the University of Alberta were quality students, young people who had the potential to make a great contribution to Canada. But their main concern was job opportunity: How do I get a job after I have studied so hard and taken on a major loan portfolio as well? That was their main concern.

At that time I said I thought I would like to take on the challenge of federal politics and be in the House of Commons, leaving the Legislative Assembly of Alberta where I had served my people for some twenty-eight and a half years. So today I feel it is a great day that I am able to stand and take part in this pre-budget debate and make a contribution that I feel should assist those young people.

We in Canada, specifically the people of my constituency as in other areas, have other concerns as well, with the deficit and the debt and with the type of leadership we will have this 35th Parliament. Will we achieve what we have established and set out to do? I would like to talk about that for a few minutes today.

During the past two weeks as I sat here in this assembly I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say and what the Minister of Finance had to say regarding their objectives and the hints they were going to give. I know as well as all other members do that they may not have been able to lay out a full plan with all of the details. That is because it would have been the traditional way where the government lays out the plan and then goes into a defensive mode and we in the opposition go into an offensive mode and we become adversaries over the plan as set out.

As I understand it the plan is still loose and is building and is open to suggestion. That is why we have this opportunity today to fulfil our commitment to Parliament, to the people and to the Minister of Finance, to fulfil that plan.

As I looked at some of the remarks of the Minister of Finance during the past week I believe he gave us some hints. He said on page 387 of the January 26 Hansard : We are going to hit our target through a combination of growth, cutting unnecessary spending and building more equity into the tax system''. He went on to say on another day in Question Period:We are going to broaden the tax base and fill in the tax loopholes and this will simply remove inequities in the tax system and make it a great deal fairer''.

Those are noble objectives. What I hope we are able to impress upon the Minister of Finance is that in his budget he will have to implement the details that are satisfactory to the Canadian people.

I want to go a little further in Hansard as of January 26 and issue a bit of a concern in this listening process. One of our Reform Party members raised the matter of the Reform zero and three plan, or our proposal to reduce the deficit. The Minister of Finance in his comments of Hansard of that day said that our proposal was a kind of savagery.

I only say to the Minister of Finance that he should rethink that. And I ask this question: In this listening process has he taken the time to listen to all of the details, the tabling that our leader made today? Is he prepared to read through the plan to see if there are suggestions and ideas which can be used before he writes off in a partisan way suggestions that have been truly tested by hundreds of thousands of Canadians and supported by them because that is why there are many Reform members sitting in this assembly today.

After reading some of the comments of the finance minister and after what I heard today in Question Period, I get the feeling we could be on the verge of more taxes or new taxes or increased taxes. Certainly there will be a shift somewhere within the cross section of Canadians. Someone will pay more and maybe someone will pay less or pay the same. In that equity formula there will be an imposition of a greater amount of taxation. In this context I say to the Minister of Finance that there are very few people who support the concept of more taxes, especially new taxes.

An article in the Financial Post of January 30, 1994 referred to American growth relative to the Canadian growth, and I think the minister should take it into consideration. It stated:

Fast-paced economic growth in the U.S. is likely to drag Canada along eventually, economists say, but lack of consumer demand and government cutbacks will make it a struggle.

Despite booming exports to its neighbour, Canada will be hard-pressed to keep up with the U.S. economy this year.

These are the reasons given in the articles:

Fragile consumer confidence and rising taxes have left it several steps behind in the recovery process.

I suggest the minister should make note of the article. Another thing about taxation and the approach to it is that more taxation is not the way to cut the deficit.

I refer to a government document entitled "Canada's Economic Challenges" and dated January 1994. Page 48 of the document talks about Canada's tax burden. It states: "Canada's tax burden has been steadily increasing. Since the early 1980s total government taxes as a share of GDP has risen significantly". If we look at the graph over the last 10-year period it is about 6 per cent.

Page 39 talks about the public debt. It states: "The public debt burden continues to rise. Relative to GDP, Canada's combined federal and provincial debt has increased two and a half times since 1981-82".

The point I want to make to the finance minister is that even though taxes have increased significantly relative to GDP, our debt continues to rise. Just increasing taxes is certainly not the solution to the problem we face.

I listened very carefully last evening to the remarks of the Prime Minister in Toronto, along with my good colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. The Prime Minister indicated to Canadians and to the people in Toronto that he would like to cut the deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by the third year of the government's mandate. He said that there would be cuts but that the best way was through growth.

The Prime Minister did not talk about the kinds of cuts or the kinds of objectives. Again today the Prime Minister hedged on how we were to deal with the question of social programs. There is a challenge for the government. A soft Liberal approach will not work.

The Investment Dealers' Association made a submission to the Minister of Finance in January 1994. I have just received a copy in the last couple of days. Referring to the approach of the government, the association indicated that the government must do more than what the Prime Minister has said, that it must deal with the expenditure pattern of governments. The association indicated:

The deficit for the current year is now projected at $45 billion, about 5 per cent of GDP. The government's stated policy is to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent GDP within three years-requiring a $20 billion or 45 per cent reduction in the deficit.

We have to recognize that we are left with $25 billion as a deficit. The association went on to say:

This deficit target is a worthy fiscal objective. However, the government cannot rely on strengthening economic growth to close the deficit gap within the forecast period. The scale of expenditure reduction to achieve the 1996-97 deficit target suggests massive reform of federal and provincial spending will be required.

I certainly want to echo and support that. I believe it is the way the government must handle it.

What do I suggest Canadians are also saying? They are saying that the government must priorize its spending. I believe it should work toward deficit reduction and balancing the budget within a term of the 35th Parliament. I expect that in the budget there will be targets, priorities and a concrete time line for deficit elimination.

That is the challenge of the Minister of Finance. I am at the end of my time. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for the opportunity to make these remarks on the pre-budget debate.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 1st, 1994]

Does the House agree?

[High-Speed Train, January 27th, 1994]

Order. I realize this is the beginning of the session, but it would be preferable to refer to each other by the names of our ridings. I would urge all members to do so if at all possible. The hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans.

[Group Of Seven Summit, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as many of my fellow members know, Canada has the great honour of hosting the leaders of the Group of Seven industrialized nations for a summit in 1995.

It has come to my attention that the exact location in Canada for the G-7 meeting has not as yet been chosen. As the site selection process is scheduled to get under way shortly, Premier Ralph Klein of Alberta and I would like to recommend the Calgary-Banff-Canmore area as an excellent choice for the summit. This region has gained international recognition in hosting the 1988 Winter Olympics.

Alberta can also provide a vibrant backdrop to the meeting. On September 1, 1995 Alberta will celebrate its 90th anniversary as a partner in Confederation. To celebrate this celebration with the prestige of an international summit could only serve to highlight the country's strength. I encourage the Prime Minister to accept the invitation of Albertans.