Debates of Oct. 25th, 1994

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech by my hon. colleague, who described in a general way the monster that Canada's debt has become. I wish to point out to my hon. colleague that this monster was created by the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals created this debt under the guidance of the hon. Peter Trudeau and raised it to almost $200 million. The Tories then brought it up to where it is today and the Liberals, on regaining office, assure us that it will reach $600 billion very soon. We fully agree that the debt has become a monster.

Second, my hon. colleague has just told us that we stand on the brink of bankruptcy, another statement which we totally agree with. I think that our comedians are often much better than politicians at describing some situations. A Quebec comedian, Daniel Lemire, is always saying that we should probably declare bankruptcy and start over under a new name. That is exactly what we will do soon.

The government is now saying that we must deal with this monster, that we are on the verge of bankruptcy and that they must and will make cuts. They will cut unemployment insurance, social assistance, transfers to the provinces, increase education costs, generalize the GST-they will give it a different name but charge it on everything. They will probably eliminate the only tax shelter available to the middle class, RRSPs, and tax retirement funds. All this is sending out a clear message: they are attacking ordinary people. The Bloc Quebecois agrees that the debt should be tackled and that cuts should be made. This is not a problem. But we are against singling out ordinary people. That we disagree with.

While complaining about the lack of money and the huge debt problem, they easily find the billions of dollars needed to finance an unprofitable project such as Hibernia. While telling us there is no money left, they easily find the hundreds of millions of dollars they throw out the window every year, according to the Auditor General of Canada. They also give tax credits worth millions of dollars to the hon. Peter Trudeau and Brian Mulroney for returning their papers to the government, while telling ordinary people that tax credits will be cut.

My question is this: When cleaning stairs, one does not do only the bottom steps. I would like to know if my hon. colleague has ever cleaned stairs and if he realizes that he should start at the top and work his way down?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first let me clarify one thing: I never said that Canada was on the verge of bankruptcy. It goes without saying that the hon. member opposite would love to promote that idea, because it would serve his cause, which is Quebec's separation and the destruction of our country. Of

course we have financial problems. Every industrialized country in the world does. So, let us not start saying that Canada is going bankrupt. Canada is in the same situation as the all industrialized countries-If you want an answer-Did you not make a big fuss about proprieties of the House, about the need to be polite-

[The Speaker]

I wish to remind the hon. member that he must always address the Chair.

Order. We will hear the answer of the Secretary of State.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to provide an adequate answer to the hon. member who made a rather long speech.

We will not target only one group. As I said clearly, if we are to succeed in alleviating our financial problems, we must target every sector in our society. This is why the Minister of Finance and the finance committee are currently asking Canadians to tell them how they feel the problem can be solved and where cuts should be made to ensure fairness. Indeed, we want to be fair and the only way to do that is to ask sacrifices not just from one group but from all Canadians.

This has been the underlying principle of all the reforms announced by this government, even though the hon. member does not agree, for example, with the way we want to implement the social program reform. We can no longer afford to pay people to stay home. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois headquarters in Quebec City also denounced that situation. During the election campaign, it criticized every cut made by the Quebec Liberal government. Now that the Parti Quebecois is in office, it has decided that the Liberal government budget will remain untouched and that no changes are necessary.

We are all faced with the same problem and separation is not the solution. The problem will be solved by doing like the rest of the world, that is by working together and trying to find solutions and share those solutions. I am convinced that when the new Quebec government holds its referendum, Quebecers will vote to stay in Canada and they will continue, along with the rest of the country, to work to solve our financial problems, to put some order in government finances and to build a country in which they will be happy to live.

The fact is that in spite of our major problems, the United Nations just declared for the second time that Canada is the best country in which to live. I keep repeating to the hon. members opposite that there are millions of people in the world who would give everything to come to Canada. We are not bankrupt yet and I think Canada is still a pretty nice place to live.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

If you do not listen, you might as well be deaf. I would submit that the opposition benches are deaf, completely deaf. Their hearing has gone faulty.

I say that because we have said many times that the red book of the Liberal Party laid out a vision. For example, the red book made it very clear we would aim for and achieve a deficit of 3 per cent of GDP by 1997. The Minister of Finance, after the red book, after our election victory of a year ago, built on that vision by producing a budget. The budget reiterated our absolute unshakeable target of 3 per cent of GDP by 1997.

The finance minister laid out a strategy in the budget and it continues. Part of the strategy is an unprecedented set of consultations that will begin almost immediately. The minister through the medium of the finance committee will be consulting Canadians from coast to coast on how best to achieve the target of 3 per cent of GDP. Can there be anything more democratic? Can there be anything more consultative than that?

I wanted to lay that out because it seems that the opposition parties do not want to listen. Canadians are going to participate. Canadians are going to join in achieving the target of 3 per cent of GDP. That is my comment. If the previous speaker wants to respond to it, be my guest.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous speaker. The government always talks about when Canada is compared with other countries this is the greatest country in the world in which to live. Quite frankly, it is no contest. Canada is, when you compare it to other countries, certainly the best country in the world in which to live.

I would like to suggest a real test for the government. Compare Canada as it is now with its huge financial crisis, its huge deficit every year, its huge national debt, with how it could be if we had had responsible government running the country over the last 25 years.

I look over at the government and I see a mirror of the Tories. The Tories' plan was not to reduce spending but count on revenue growth to get us out of this fiscal problem. They merrily spent like drunken sailors and, guess what, revenue did not grow. We ended up another $200 and something billion in the hole. The deficit climbed every year and the expected revenue growth simply did not occur.

That is what the government is counting on as well when it uses a figure of 3 per cent GDP by 1997. Theoretically by using that figure, the government does not have to cut costs. All it has to do is hope for the revenue growth to go up and it will achieve that percentage. But that is no accomplishment in thrift. That is no accomplishment in-

[The Speaker]

Order. This brings to a close the time for questions and comments.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Davenport-Environment; the hon. member for Selkirk-Red River-Foreign Affairs.

Resuming debate. I understand that two speakers will be sharing the allotted time, beginning with the hon. member for Kootenay East.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always helpful at the beginning of a speech to bring us back to the starting point. I would like to re-read the motion of the member for St. Albert:

That this House requests the government to table a clear detailed plan to show how and when it intends to balance the budget including a clear statement of its vision of the role of the government in the economy in order for the people of Canada to debate the plan and vision.

I would like particularly to draw the attention of the members to the phrase, only seven words, "its vision of the role of the government". I have a vision of the role of the government, possibly in the same way that we have the role of management in any organization or the way a team works. We have leaders on a team.

I would like to suggest that we think back. I guess I am showing my age when I talk about Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr or people like that. We saw them as leaders and as showing leadership. When they were virtually physically disabled they were out on the ice. They were showing leadership. They were working at a deficit but they were showing leadership.

We heard a very interesting story from a member opposite. I apologize that I did not catch the name of the gentleman she was talking about in a member's statement this week. I believe it was the chairman of the board of Algoma Steel who has the personal opportunity to take $400,000 through a bonus system as chairman. He is entitled to have $400,000. He is turning it back. He is not taking the $400,000 because he recognizes that if he is going to show leadership, if Algoma Steel is going to go ahead, then he must exhibit selfless leadership.

I suggest that the vision of the role of government in my mind is that of showing leadership. I believe that every member of the House from the Prime Minister to the independent has a direct responsibility to show leadership.

How does this fit together with what we are presently undertaking under the direction of the Liberals? Take, for example, the human resources review committee that will be going out and around the countryside. Members of the committee will be discussing issues like unemployment insurance, welfare and how we are going to be helping our children with their university educations. They are going to be listening to witnesses from organizations like this who are very concerned.

I have in my hand a note from one of my constituents. In part it reads as follows: "Numerous Canadians have lost their jobs over the last year. In most circumstances those who are terminated, laid off or fired do not remain on payroll". Seems reasonable.

"Canadians assumed when they put their x in the box one year ago today, October 25, that those members who they booted out of the House would be off the payroll. Not so. Canadians will be delighted no doubt to learn that in the 365 days since they terminated their MPs the public purse has shelled out for their former MPs' pensions, travel expenses, retraining, moving and severance. Add it up.

I am confident that those Canadians who are lined up at the UI office awaiting their miserable little UI cheques for years of hard work in companies that have folded due to previous governments' mismanagement will be comforted in knowing that the members of the government who put them in that line-up are still on the public dole of another kind".

This is the kind of hostility there is among the Canadian people. I make no excuse for it. I simply report it.

If all members of the House are really forthcoming they will agree with me that they have been approached by people in their constituencies; in their constituency office or accosted on the street or in the supermarket with sentiments of exactly that same kind.

It is the number one issue in my constituency. I have spoken about the Young Offenders Act. I have spoken about the deficit and the debt. But number one on the hit parade is the MPs' pensions.

I find it quite amazing that the vast majority of the people in the House, with the turnover of over 200 members being here for the very first time, are supporting what is the number one impediment, the number one wall between members of Parliament and the public. The public sees this whole thing as being completely unfair.

The member for Yellowhead rose in the House and also sent out a press release just the other day and I read in part: "The Yellowhead MP laid into the Prime Minister and his Liberal government today for turning a blind eye to the fast approaching national trough day.

On November 21, 52 current members of Parliament will qualify to dip into the lucrative MP pension fund once they no longer occupy a seat in the House. These pension payouts are estimated to cost the Canadian taxpayers $53 million. Among the 52 MPs who will sidle up to the pension trough once they are out of office are-". I am sure the Speaker would prefer that I do not go ahead and name people like the leader of the Bloc.

It goes on: "`Canadians find it absolutely unacceptable that the Prime Minister says he is dedicated to spending cuts when he continues to allow this kind of taxpayers' abuse', the member said to a round of cheers from his Reform colleagues in the House".

I am rather curious. I absolutely believe it is a barrier between good government, in other words people believing in the members of Parliament, people believing in this place of power and authority in our country. If the number one impediment is simply the long awaited reforms that the Reform Party has been demanding about the MPs' pensions, why in the world would the Prime Minister not have come forward before this point, particularly in light of the fact that the National Citizens Coalition is going to be launching an MP trough day campaign. There are going to be billboards all over the place.

As the human resources committee goes around led by its chairman discussing issues like UI, welfare and how we are going to be funding university education, what kind of response is that chairman expecting when he sits in front of students who are going to be at an exceptional disadvantage perhaps as a result of the changes that are going to have to happen? What kind of response does the chairman expect from the public for his committee when he sits in front of people who are the disadvantaged and are presently on welfare when that member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso is going to be drawing $1.5 million by the time he is 75 years of age? I wonder how the university students will feel about that.

This is a critical, crucial issue to the entire vision of where the government should be going and how the government should be showing leadership. Therefore, I call on the Prime Minister and the members of his caucus tomorrow in caucus to demand of the Prime Minister that this issue once and for all be finally put to rest.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I was quite surprised by the remarks of the member opposite. He knows as well as I do that the issue is not simply MPs receiving pensions or even significant pensions. The issue is one of double dipping, where an MP obtains money from the taxpayer-

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Not so.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

The issue is double dipping in my riding. I point out to the member, if I may, that behind him is the member for Lethbridge who is already receiving a pension of some $63,000. I will also point out that the $63,000 is from another level of government. I just want to say that the taxpayers' dollars are the same dollars no matter what level of government. I would like to know what the member has to say about the member for Lethbridge and the fact that he is double dipping right now.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first off I think it would be very helpful if we had from the member some kind of a definition of double dipping. However, I absolutely outright reject his comment about the fact that the issue is double dipping.

The issue is not double dipping. The issue is the fact that there are 52 more people who are going to be coming to the trough and this is the barrier. This is the problem.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and address this issue of double dipping which my colleague did not mention in his speech. He said the gold-plated MP pension plan is number one on the hit list that Canadian taxpayers do not like. I am here to verify that because that is the attitude in Calgary Centre.

The hon. member should realize that double dipping is when a member of the same government gets an appointment. Joe Clark was double dipping because he got an appointment while he was receiving a pension from this government. If Joe Clark wished to run for the provincial legislature of Alberta then he would be welcome to continue to receive his pension plan from the federal government and work as a provincial MLA. That is not double dipping.

Double dipping is defined as getting an appointment by the same government that you serve. That is where the conflict of interest is. There is no conflict of interest if you work for a provincial party and then leave that party to run for a federal party. If you then run for a federal party, you tell the people in your riding you are running federally. If those people in the province of Alberta elect you with one of the strongest majorities, that is not double dipping. That is not getting an appointment from another level of government. That is going before the people, laying it on the table and being duly and freely elected.

Personally, I am getting sick and tired of the whining of the government about double dipping.

It says that it is going to do something about it. It has done nothing. I asked the Prime Minister in question period way back in January: When can we opt out of this gold-plated MP pension plan because many Reformers want to? He said: "Soon, soon, soon". He has done nothing. It is all talk. Talk is cheap but the interest on the deficit and the debt is not.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to address the members of this House in debate.

As the member of Parliament for Cariboo-Chilcotin, it is my duty and my privilege to represent the views and the concerns of the people in my riding. They are a diverse group but they share a common concern, the state of our nation's finances.

The Liberals have called upon the opposition benches, the opposition members, to provide them with some ideas. I hope they have been listening to this debate throughout the day. It is quite interesting to be over here and sort of be treated like a ping pong ball, to be asked to give ideas. Members do that and then they are slammed because the ideas are no darn good at all.

In the last federal election, Canadians were given three clear choices regarding the deficit. The Conservatives claimed they could outgrow the deficit in the hopes that economic growth would save the country's bottom line. The Liberals and the New Democrats said that they could contain the deficit focusing first on the campaign promises and paying the price some time down the road. Reform stood alone in saying that we must eliminate the deficit.

To prove our commitment, we set a target of three years to do that. We did it in a clearly outlined program of eliminating the deficit, zero deficit in three years. The people of the Cariboo spoke clearly on the matter. They wanted an end to sky high deficits, extravagant perks, government waste and yes, gold-plated pension plans too.

They did not want to outgrow or contain the deficit. They wanted it eliminated. The Liberals who do not share this view received a mandate to govern though I fear many opportunities to turn this country around have been ignored and have been lost.

A year has passed since the Liberals formed the government and our country is now a startling $535 billion in debt. With a financial catastrophe ahead of us the government has to commit itself to new ways of thinking. We are asking in this motion for the government to describe that. It has to eliminate waste. It has to eliminate overlap, redirect programs and then the lavish services Canadians can no longer afford and no longer want.

One program that I am particularly concerned about is the Canadian International Development Agency. CIDA was formed in 1968 under an order in council to distribute aid and help the poorest of the world's people. Since that time, however, CIDA has grown into an enormous organization with over 1,300 employees only 250 of whom work overseas and an over $2 billion budget. That is not much if one says it fast, but nevertheless it is $2,000 million for its budget.

Despite its size and expense, it has no official mandate from Parliament. This agency according to the Auditor General lacks the focus and direction to either make a concrete difference in the developing world or build enduring partnerships.

Another report found that it is more influenced by the bureaucratic environment than it is influential in the policy process. It has no long term plan and thus tax dollars are being wasted on programs that according to the report are having little effect on those in need.

What I find most disturbing is the fact that CIDA's work is duplicated in many areas by numerous non-governmental organizations. Many of these organizations receive the bulk of their funding from CIDA and this in my view is both wasteful and redundant.

This agency is adrift and directionless, wasting thousands of millions of dollars in the process. I call on the government to bring a mandate for CIDA before this House as quickly as possible to give this agency a firm direction and bring it under the regular scrutiny of the House of Commons.

The Reform Party has spoken out on CIDA proposing Bill C-250, an act to establish the Canadian International Development Agency. By formally establishing the agency and providing strict guidelines for its operation, Reform hopes to bring more control and accountability to CIDA. CIDA will then be able to focus on the tasks it must accomplish, leaving behind its heavy bureaucracy and saving Canadians a lot of money in the process.

I am more concerned though about one of the Liberal government's most glamorous projects, the celebrated infrastructure program. Reformers are committed to infrastructure; roads, railways, airports. They are all critical for the country. They tie the country together. They pull our communities closer together than ever before. They bring me as a member of Parliament from the isolated regions of Cariboo-Chilcotin to the federal heart here in Ottawa. Most important they keep Canada competitive in an expanding and competitive global market.

Investments in infrastructure must be seen as just that, investments. When starting a business, buying saving bonds or purchasing shares, people always have to consider the return on any investment. Governments can no longer spend money as they sometimes have in the past. The time for catering to regions or special interest groups is long gone. Governments today must invest in trying to help the most people with every dollar they spend, in other words getting the most bang for the buck.

That leads me to the infrastructure program. This program is rooted in the myth that governments can buy jobs. The vast majority of jobs created in this program are short term, the kind of jobs Canadians would pass on if given the choice. Their desire is for real long term positions with real opportunities, real chances for improvement and real hope. The infrastructure program gives Canadians false hope. The good news is just a flash in the pan, careful or you will miss it as it goes by. We are

left with billions of dollars of added debt for our children and grandchildren to repay in the years to come.

The infrastructure program has lost control, coming on stream just as provinces start into municipal elections. Municipalities and provinces have taken advantage of the program to start on their pet projects even though a government news release said that any projects that are not infrastructure based will be refused.

What do any of the following projects approved have to do with infrastructure? A canoe hall of fame for Shawinigan, Quebec; boccie courts in Toronto; luxury boxes in Edmonton's Northlands Coliseum; rental cabins in Saskatchewan's Rowan's Ravine Provincial Park; an artificial ice rink for Gilbert Plains, Manitoba; duck and pond gardens for Winnipeg; removing overhead wires in Shelburne, Nova Scotia to film a movie. I could go on and on.

Infrastructure is supposed to be about roads and sewers. It is supposed to be useful, accessible and beneficial for all citizens in a community. How many people I wonder will be playing boccie in Toronto? How many will be able to afford a brand new luxury box at the Northlands? How many will be making use of the new cabins at Rowan's Ravine?

These are not infrastructure projects. They are pet projects. Their very existence goes against the words of those in charge of the infrastructure program, against the Liberal red book and against the promises of this government.

Then there is the issue of the program's cost. This $6 billion has to come from somewhere. I can only think of two places; either through more debt which will be repaid by our children and grandchildren or more taxes. At a time when Canadians are taxed to the hilt and their governments are broke, this program pushes us even closer to the brink. As the finance minister himself pointed out on so many occasions last week, the debt is our biggest obstacle to long term security and prosperity.

Why the government is making the obstacle harder to overcome for the sake of boccie courts and cabins is beyond me. To close, I believe the key to eliminating our deficit is to focus. To succeed the government must commit itself to cutting the deficit, not to some ambiguous floating target, but to a simple number and that number is zero. It is only then that we can begin to start pulling ourselves out of the deep pit that we are now in.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member from Western Canada had to say about how the government should balance the budget and spend its money. The member talked in particular about the infrastructure project and I would also like to address this issue and ask a question in this matter.

The infrastructure program set up by the government is not harmful in itself. On the contrary, I think it could help us to create jobs in the short run, help the economy to work better and help the workers to become more productive.

What I have trouble with is that the federal government is taking part in this infrastructure program. The federal government is getting directly involved in an area over which the municipalities have jurisdiction. This goes against the Constitution, because the federal government has never been willing, in the past, to directly impede on municipal jurisdictions. But the Liberal government has achieved to do so, without Canadians realizing what it was up to, because it says it was just trying to help the people. Canadians were taken in by the government, but they never realize that the money always come from their own pockets.

This is why I say again that the federal government's involvement at the municipal level is terrible, that it should not be allowed and will only lead to inefficiency, since we have three levels of government deciding which street to repair, what type of bridge to build, what project to undertake. This is terrible and should never have been accepted.

The federal government should have given the money directly to the provinces who, along with the municipalities, would have decided which project to support.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is some strategy, some rationale to my comments on the infrastructure program. We do have a stand. Reform supports the development of human infrastructure, supporting federal government activities that work toward the development of job skills, especially skills that are transferable to a variety of job positions.

Second, Reform supports the development of physical capital, maintaining airports, maintaining our sea ports and roads that enhance our economy for years to come and enhance our economic competitiveness in the world today.

On the other hand, it seems that the Liberal stand does not develop human capital. The skills developed are strictly for construction, general labour skills. The vast majority of jobs are short term basis. The minister cannot deny that. Skills developed are not transferable to other areas, just other construction projects.

It does not develop physical capital. For example, in the Liberal policy on infrastructure in Ontario less than half, 41.3 per cent of the money, is going toward roads; 23.3 per cent for sewers; 47 per cent going to non-residential projects like the ones I outlined in my speech.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the comments made by the member across the way.

I find it quite clear that the Liberal platform that was developed in the red book was put in print and is a program that is not supposed to take all the action within a year. We said that in three years we would accomplish this goal. That was to reduce overspending to 3 per cent of the GDP. We are very much on line with that development.

However, in doing that it is extremely important to consult the public. The Reform Party often tries to put itself forward as one that consults the public. It is now saying: "We do not agree with your timeline".

The Canadian public agreed with our timeline. That is why it overwhelmingly elected a Liberal government.

Our infrastructure program was very clearly laid out to the Canadian public and it was asked to make decisions. One year ago it made that decision. Quite frankly, the infrastructure project has been a tremendous success in my riding from the response that I get back. These are programs and things that had to be done in every municipality across this country in order to increase the wealth of life of everybody in Canada.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the hon. member's motion today. This past week the Minister of Finance made it abundantly clear this government is fully committed to reducing the debt and controlling expenditures.

I can assure the hon. member that reducing spending is not the only action this government is taking to strengthen our growing economy. We are working in partnership with other levels of government and the private sector to build strong, vibrant economies that will keep our standard of living among the top 10 nations of the world.

I know hon. members will agree that our young people are the future leaders and builders of this great nation. This government is fully aware of the importance of ensuring that Canadian youth are given every opportunity to excel. That is what the youth employment and learning strategy is all about.

The hon. member asked about the government's vision. Let me tell the hon. member for St. Albert that our vision for young Canadians is to do everything possible to ensure they fulfil their educational potential, get a rewarding job and contribute to the social and economic health of Canada.

One way the government is doing that is through youth service Canada. We already have more than 1,000 Canadian young women and men participating in youth service projects. In the coming months we will involve an additional 1,400 participants. That is not the only investment we are making in the future of Canada. Through our youth internship program young Canadians are being given the opportunity to experience training in new and emerging sectors.

I assure the hon. member this is not a haphazard approach of smoke and mirrors. Far from it. Youth internship projects will train young people in skills that will lead to long term, highly skilled jobs. For example, we recently announced a demonstration project to help those interested to gain the skills necessary to pursue careers in the electric and electronic industries. Each project will involve 20 students in five provinces, with the benefits going to students all across the country.

I imagine my hon. colleagues will agree there is no better teacher than experience and experience is what the participants in the government's youth employment and learning strategy are receiving. We have said before, and perhaps the hon. member should hear it again, partnership is the key to making these programs effective. With the demonstration projects under youth service Canada and youth internship, the government is working hand in hand with a variety of partners, including sector councils, that are taking the lead in these endeavours.

One of the major aspects in economic renewal is that sectors share responsibility in determining and addressing their human resource needs. We are working closely with sector councils that represent their respective industries. I will say a little more on that in a minute.

Regarding vision, this government has enough vision to realize that we have to make adjustments where needed. That is what we are doing with the Atlantic groundfish strategy. The main objective of TAGS is to reconstruct the fishery in Atlantic Canada to make this traditional industry economically viable and environmentally sustainable.

We are working closely with fishermen's associations and the provinces to make necessary adjustments to the labour force, realistic adjustments that must be made. Since TAGS was announced in April, we are serving the needs of men and women in the fishery through the difficult transitional time.

So far close to 41,000 fishermen and women and fish plant workers are receiving support through TAGS. For the majority that support will continue to 1995. Financial assistance is not the only thing the government is doing for women and men whose lives have been devastated by the reduction in the fishery. We are also providing counselling to about 15,000 individuals thus far, and about 3,000 of these men and women are participat-

ing in other aspects of the TAGS program on their way to becoming self-reliant and able to once again contribute to the Canadian economy.

When the hon. member for St. Albert talks about vision I am wondering if he is aware of the resourceful measures this government has taken through its strategic initiatives program. We have set aside $800 million in the February budget to come up with creative ways to address employment problems associated with structural changes in the economy.

I am pleased to tell the House that the strategic initiatives program has been a marked success. Let me cite a few examples. In New Brunswick we are supporting NB jobs corps with a $40 million investment to help older employed workers. This project is very successful. At this time most of the 1,000 participants are working in nine provincial localities.

In Newfoundland a strategic initiatives project is investing $10 million to help students and the unemployed continue their education using tuition credits and wage subsidies.

In Prince Edward Island we are investing $1.4 million to tutor unemployment insurance claimants and welfare recipients to gain literacy and life skills.

In Nova Scotia the strategic initiatives program has invested $7.5 million for training and employment opportunities for adults at risk of going on welfare.

We also have strategic initiative projects in Ontario, the Northwest Territories and Manitoba. I am pleased to tell the hon. member that the provinces and the territories have shown enthusiasm for strategic initiatives from the very beginning.

Women comprise about 40 per cent of our labour force but they are still in many low paying occupations. The government is helping women realize their potential through projects such as the one the Minister of Human Resources Development recently announced in Rimouski, Quebec. In this case women who have no income are being trained to enable them to create their own businesses. These entrepreneurial women have a business plan but they need support to get it off the ground. This is another project that is providing an excellent example of what we can accomplish through co-operative partnerships.

I am delighted to report also the case for sectoral partnerships. This too is part of our vision. Sector councils are comprised of leaders in industry, labour, education and all levels of government. They work together to build a common vision of their human resource needs and to establish comprehensive and practical training programs to meet those needs.

We currently have some 18 sector councils breaking new ground in labour-management relations and we are working to establish more sector councils. This partnership includes education and training in the community so the school curriculum will help students develop the up to date skills necessary to work in today's economy.

Sectoral initiatives are involving the private sector in decision making in a way that government has not done before. Business and industry are investing dollars, time and expertise.

In closing, I suggest that the hon. member not be so pessimistic in his outlook. Just last week the International Monetary Fund reported that Canada's industrial production has surpassed the pre-recession peak of 1989-90. Of course there is still much to be done, but through programs such as the one I have outlined, investment in people, and through a revitalized social security system we will help Canadians to improve their standard of living and ensure a strong economy for decades to come.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party to which the hon. member belongs is planning on reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP within two years. Of course, the last time we had an annual deficit equal to 3 per cent of the GDP was 20 years ago, in 1974. I would like to remind the members that we started to have deficits around 1970, when our country was run by a Liberal government under the leadership of Mr. Trudeau. You certainly remember that, Mr. Speaker.

Year after year, the deficits started to grow and the Liberal government began to play Santa Claus. It made promises. The deficits continued to grow to a point where the current deficit exceeds 6 per cent of the GDP. Our country is on the brink of bankruptcy, and if we do not want to mortgage the future of many generations to come, we will have to change our mentality.

I ask the government member who just spoke if it is a change in mentality when the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member for Hull-Aylmer who is sitting on the other side, takes a government plane, a Challenger, to go and give two small lectures in the United States at a cost of $170,000 to Canadian taxpayers. Is it a change in mentality when we send a delegation of F-18s and F-16s to Florida to play war games? The William Tell competition cost no $2 million.

Is it a change in mentality when the Prime Minister tells us that the CSE does not spy on Canadians even though there is a building here in Ottawa housing over 1,008 employees whose job is to do just that at a cost of between $250 and $270 million a year? Is it a change in mentality to have all these duplications of services for the same people? We had a good example of that just recently. Last year, Ontario created the position of Commissioner of the Environment. Last week, in a statement, the Minister of the Environment announced the appointment of another Commissioner of the Environment here, in Ottawa.

As for manpower training, we lose $250 million a year just with Quebec. Both governments want to train the same worker. That costs $250 million a year. It is Mr. Bourbeau, the former Quebec minister, a Liberal minister, who said that, not me.

Will there be a change of mentality on the Liberal side? Will we still let the very rich take advantage of tax shelters and pay very little, if any, income tax, thanks to the family trusts where we could find a couple of billion dollars. Will there be a change of mentality on the Liberal side? When they attack the needy and those who lost their jobs, when they cut off those on welfare, when they bleed the poor and let the rich get richer, will that be a change of mentality?

In closing, I ask whether the Liberal Party will again play Santa Claus, make nice promises and mortgage our future? It is all very well to want to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent, but it will require more than mere wishes. Il will require courage, yes, courage, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it. The Liberal Party will have to be very courageous, but I question their courage, because their past actions do not bode well for the future.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague opposite defend her party.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I bring to his attention, however, that we are talking about vision and vision relates to the future. While we can learn from the past it is important to look to the future with hope; with great political will on both sides of the House, as he has suggested; with a tremendous amount of courage; and with a lot of sticking with it. I truly believe the Liberal government understands and will deliver.

The member talked about new approaches. That is what this is all about. As we go into our budget deliberations we certainly know that we need to do things in new and different ways.

We talked about leadership a little earlier. There was one suggestion that the Liberal government decides what it wants to do and does it. That is the old approach. The new approach is to talk to the stakeholders and talk to the people who pay the bills. That is where we get the wisdom. That is where we learn to understand the priorities of the people.

It is my view that what is in the red book is truly the priorities of Canadians. That is why the government was elected.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the dissertation of my colleague from Edmonton East. It was interesting in so far as it gave us a somewhat biased appraisal of the accomplishments of the Liberal Party, probably since the beginning of time, but we will suggest it was perhaps from the beginning of this Parliament. However it had absolutely nothing to do with the premise being debated today.

What is the government doing? When is it going to balance the budget? That is the essence of the question. When will the Liberal government get at it? The Liberal government was in opposition for nine years. It has been in government now for one year. Certainly it is important to get at solving the real problems. The time to do it is at hand.

I have a question for the member. One suggestion that has been brought forward in the House on numerous occasions to make our tax system fairer, more equitable and far more responsive to the needs of Canadian business and individuals is the notion of a flat tax.

Would the member opposite give the House the benefit of her impression of the values or the negative aspects of a flat tax and what it would do to help move the government along to where it should be going?

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.

It is my understanding that we are discussing a vision of the government's role in the economy. It was for that reason I spent most of my time talking about how we would invest in people so that they would be productive and contribute to our economy and the fabric of life in our country.

The member spoke rather negatively about the success of these programs but let me remind my hon. colleague that the whole idea of the $800 million for this strategic initiative was to try to experiment and be creative in new and innovative ways to train our people for their future roles in the work of the country. That is the essence of my comments.

I might mention another thing that is extremely important. Every program I talked about today will undergo the same program review in the future that all our existing programs today are undergoing. That is what makes us sure we will be able to measure success in terms of whether or not it delivers what we expected it to deliver.

I look forward to working with my hon. colleague on those exact kinds of reviews.

[The Speaker]

I should inform colleagues that the last speaker for Edmonton East took 10 minutes and I allowed 10 minutes for questioning because she had 20 minutes to speak.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the motion, specifically the part of the motion that refers to the role of the government in the economy.

Since 1986 Reformers have been talking about the financial crisis in the country. We sent warnings to the Tories when they were in power and they did not listen to us. We in the Reform Party have been warning the government for months and months of the impending financial crisis in the country arising out of the mountain of debts and deficits.

We warned that investors feared the economic uncertainty in our country. We warned that spiralling debtloads would hamper the country's ability to create jobs. We warned that consumer confidence would not return unless the government got its financial house in order. These warnings have simply been cast aside by the Liberals in the last several months and they have branded Reformers as fearmongers.

They would say there was no crisis, the debt was under control or cuts simply would do more harm to the economy than good. Now the Minister of Finance says that debt stands in the way of the growth we seek and limits our ability to create jobs. He says that his ultimate goal is a balanced budget.

This new Liberal stand leaves Canadians sort of confused since only eight months ago the Minister of Finance tabled a budget rife with new expenditures and new taxes, a nefarious combination that encouraged an ever expanding underground economy, a nefarious combination that leaves investors nervously standing pat and consumers keeping their wallets in their pockets.

Now the government tells Canadians to forget that budget, forget the $34 billion it would add to the debt, forget the $100 billion it proposed to add to the debt in the next four years but trust it today, for in the last 32 weeks it has been mystically reborn and sees the evils of it spendthrift ways.

It is this confusion, this flip-flopping or lack of focus that leads Reformers to call for the government's clear vision of the role it will play in the economy. To date the vision of the government and its role in the economy have been shortsighted at best. It continues to intervene in the marketplace creating disincentive for investments, disincentives for Canadians to work and disincentives for Canadians to spend.

One way in which the government stunts the wealth creating potential of the economy is through its measures of taxation, and the Liberals know all about taxation. The capital gains tax exemption was removed in February's budget and this will discourage people's will to invest. We pay tax on interest in savings accounts and now there is talk about taxing RRSPs.

[An hon. member]

Never.