Debates of Feb. 23rd, 1994

The Budget

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the cancellation costs for the EH-101 will be borne in the overall budget rather than in the general budget revenues, thankfully not out of the defence revenues. The President of the Treasury Board perhaps could address that when he tables the estimates and it will be very clear.

The other question was what would we do to replace the EH-101s. If the defence review believes that we should have this capability, and I assume it will because we need a search and rescue craft, the old Sea Kings will be okay until the end of the century, but they will have to be replaced.

Obviously their replacement will have to come out of this drastically reduced budget. Not only did we cut $7 billion yesterday, added to the $14 billion the Conservatives had cut, but out of that we have to fund ongoing operations and also new equipment purchases such as a potential replacement, probably off the shelf, for the Sea King helicopters some years in the future.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the House of Commons of Canada, February 22, 1994 will remain the day of broken promises and betrayed hopes. A number of Quebecers and many Canadians believed the leader of the Liberal Party when he promised jobs, jobs, jobs. Unfortunately for them, it was only a flashing slogan, but nevertheless an election campaign slogan.

Broken promises, betrayed hopes by a party that promised to break with the Conservative policies and management, but whose budget is blatantly in line with and even reinforces the financial, fiscal, economic and social policies of the previous government.

The budget speech shows clearly that this government does not have the slightest political will to address unemployment. It does not have any employment policy except a few devices such as the infrastructure program, which will only mean about 15,000 non permanent jobs for all of Quebec for two years. Even worse, instead of addressing unemployment, this government is attacking the unemployed and the most vulnerable people in our society. Indeed, the Minister of Finance immediately announced, without any embarrassment, that he intends to cut social programs in order to collect more than $ 7.5 billion by 1996-97.

Let us look at these points one by one. On employment, not only does the government not have an employment policy, but it has seriously harmed employment.

It must be pointed out that this government, as early as January, increased unemployment insurance premium rates, thus adding a further $800 million to the tax burden of businesses and workers. The finance minister went so far as to recognize, as the Bloc Quebecois had maintained on several occasions, that this kind of payroll tax harms employment and businesses which are more labour-intensive than technology-driven.

Make no mistake about it, even though the minister recognized that such a tax was bad for employment and businesses, he has not reduced it yet. He has maintained it for the remainder of 1994. It is only next year, when it will have taken $800 million from workers and businesses, that he will bring it back to its 1993 level. He will do so, not only when it will have produced $800 million, but also after benefits owed to workers will have been reduced.

Therefore, such a measure compounds non-productive decisions which, far from helping the employment situation, make it worse. It is no wonder that the finance minister is forecasting in his budget that unemployment rates will only drop from 11.2 per cent in 1993, to 10.8 per cent in 1995. We know that Ms. Campbell paid dearly for similar comments she made early in her campaign. They are taboo during an election campaign.

Let us talk about unemployment insurance. According to the minister's projections, it is more than $5 billion he will save in that area. Let us see what he is planning and who will suffer. By increasing the minimum number of weeks a person must work to qualify for UI, especially the first time around, one will have to work 40 weeks to be entitled to 20 weeks of UI; by reducing the duration of benefits, the finance minister is pushing many people, especially in areas already economically depressed and those who are already experiencing major difficulties, on welfare. In so doing, the minister is passing the buck to the provinces, since there will be no jobs. He is making the poor poorer.

This flies in the face of the official discourse to the effect that we must bridge the ever widening gap between social classes and their income discrepancies. On the other hand, the finance minister proudly announces special measures in favour of the least fortunate members of our society. He is proud to say for instance that individuals with a weekly income of $390 who support dependants would receive 60 per cent of the average business income. But these individuals are already in a position such that they will not be receiving more than $234 a week in benefits. He stated that the benefit rate would increase to 60 per cent, but see under what conditions. This is important. It has not been emphasized yet.

Let us not forget that, in Quebec and probably other provinces as well, social assistance services have reported cases of single mothers who have suffered humiliation as their private lives were brought under scrutiny because they did not qualify for

this or that benefit because they had dependant children. So, when the minister introduces this notion of dependant children to justify bringing the UI benefit rate down from 57 to 55 per cent for all recipients, a rate which is getting close to the US rate by the way, when the minister uses that excuse to say: "How generous. We do have the well-being of the less fortunate at heart", he is actually taking us back to the dark old days when women had to prove they were worthy in their private lives of being recognized as independent, single mothers who needed adequate support.

That is why I want to denounce as a fraud a budget speech which is supposed to be liberal and progressive, but is in fact bringing us back to the days before the 1970s reform. This measure will open the door to all sorts of inquiries, nit-picking, whistle-blowing and create a system within a system, again, to save about $10 a week.

Chances are that this measure will not cost much, considering how long it takes for a decision to be made and for the first UI cheque to be issued. It is not true that we are creating this wonderful world. On the other hand, we are setting ourselves a dangerous course with this widespread consultation on social programs. The government is leaning toward the concept of family income, a concept which, in so far as social assistance is concerned, plunged us into a kind of inquisition situation which I denounced earlier.

The axe will also fall on seasonal workers, on those who have trouble finding steady work either because they are young, lack basic experience or work in areas where despite their qualifications, they cannot find work. These are the people who benefit from the 10/42 or 10/39 system.

Instead of attacking the regions' structural problems, the government is shifting the burden of responsibility onto individuals and restricting their access to unemployment insurance and to the benefits to which they are entitled. What is the Minister of Finance doing to resolve the problems of those who are in need? Nothing. He has failed to propose any solutions. Worse still, he has scrapped several tax incentives and regional subsidies, leaving people in the regions without any hope at all.

The extent of the cuts to unemployment insurance and the introduction of the concept of family income prove to anyone who may have doubted it that with its attempt at the so-called modernization and restructuring of social security programs, the government is merely turning the clock back to the 1970s. At the same time, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development are resurrecting the old ghosts of the 1970s. They are proposing to take a trip down memory lane and to reinstate the outdated, archaic concept of basing benefit levels on family status.

The government is announcing a reduction of more than $5.5 billion in the unemployment insurance budget over the next two years. And that is not all. That is only one aspect of the upcoming social program reform.

We cannot help but be concerned about another aspect, namely social assistance reform, and the more than likely decision on the part of the government not to renew the Canada Assistance Plan. It is indeed cause for concern because it is specific. As for total savings, the Minister of Finance says that the reform will have to result in savings of more than $7.5 billion by the end of 1996-1997. That is his objective and the consultation currently being planned may in fact never take place.

Three clear, inescapable conclusions can be drawn from the budget figures. First, the only major cuts announced in this budget-and I am not saying that the cuts to the military are not major, but when compared to cuts to social spending, they are minor-for the next two years affect social programs, more specifically, the unemployed and those who are often the most vulnerable.

Second, the Minister of Human Resources Development cannot continue making fun of Quebecers and Canadians any longer by pretending to consult them about their priorities and concerns, since his own priorities and concerns, namely moving ahead with cuts, are reflected in the budget.

I urge him, Madam Speaker, to immediately table his reform project and to get rid of these experts at $500 a day plus expenses.

Third, if the finance minister is able to assess so accurately the effects of reform, it must be because his government's project has been ready for a long time since it is that of the Conservatives.

We can understand by looking around us and guessing the rest why, early in the election campaign, Ms. Campbell shied away from the possible consequences of reform. She was not as cynical as this government, elected to create jobs, which is sticking to its predecessor's policy of cutbacks.

It must be said that, in their time, the Conservatives followed the Liberals' policy. They implemented all major recommendations of the Macdonald Commission created by former Prime Minister Trudeau, except for one, income security reform. That is where we are now. We are looking at the Macdonald Commission's plan, with variations we may admire, of course, but most of that plan is there, with details we can guess at.

Declarations by the minister followed on the heels of declarations by the deputy ministers. We must not forget that the deputy ministers who briefed the minister are the same ones who

briefed the former government, who briefed Mr. Benoît Bouchard before the OECD conference held on the 8th and 9th of December in Paris, where Mr. Bouchard gave a speech that the Minister of Human Resources Development could not disown, that could even be his.

Does this mean that there is no other way to play politics than the way of Liberals and Conservatives? For the Liberals, the answer is no. Until Canadian federal parties escape from the clutches of the big corporations that finance them and whose interests prevail government after government, Canadians will have a choice between six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Why did the finance minister refuse to go after the real sources of revenue and to ensure that large corporations pay taxes by blocking the royal road to tax shelters. Fortunately, and I was happy to see that our finance critic came to the same conclusion, Quebecers exercised that prerogative thanks to the late René Lévesque. No one is saying that governments are not in a difficult situation, but nothing less than equity between individual and corporate citizens is acceptable.

Without this fairness, citizens are tricked, manoeuvred and manipulated by a clique who are not affected by the many and growing insecurities of ordinary people. They do not even have an idea of what it is like to be afraid of losing a meagre unemployment insurance or welfare cheque. They do not know the humiliation and anguish caused by the raised eyebrows of all the welfare and unemployment insurance officials in the land. They could not live for a single day on what a woman has to raise two children on for a whole month. And now this woman will have to prove that she really is the head of the family and that her personal income is such that she is entitled for a few weeks to 60 per cent of not much, scarcely more than the minimum wage. The minister tells us about the responsible management of social programs.

It is both scandalous and revealing that the Minister of Finance forgot to attack costly duplication, a big source of potential savings, in his speech. It shows that this government lacks the will to deal with this important issue, especially with the Government of Quebec. It also shows this government's desire to centralize and its eagerness to meddle in fields of provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something, and I thought about it twice. I had heard that the Minister of Human Resources Development was a progressive man whom I could help, in the strange way that the Official Opposition usually does. Now I know that is not at all the case; despite his generous words, he agreed to make the only significant cuts which the Liberal government is making at the expense of the most vulnerable people and their children. The Minister of Finance told us today, "We are advancing social security reform by taking specific measures affecting unemployment insurance and federal transfers to the provinces for social security".

We say to the Minister of Finance that he has not advanced social security reform. He has shamefully attacked the most disadvantaged. He has refused to attack the main cause of all these problems, employment. He has also refused to attack seriously the most important sources of potential savings: family trusts, defence and duplication. Because we in the Bloc reject this vision, which is the same as the one previous governments had, we want the people of Quebec to have a real plan for the future, which can only come about if Quebec goes it alone as a sovereign state, even though that will not be easy.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I was paying attention to the hon. member's speech and I was quite puzzled by some of the statements she made, particularly in relation to unemployment insurance premiums.

I recall a few weeks back when the hon. member was complaining that perhaps the premiums were too high at $3.07. Now we have reduced them so that we can give the type of relief to small business to go ahead and create over 40,000 jobs.

I will tell the hon. member that one thing she will learn very quickly in this House is that inconsistencies are quite dangerous, when we promote certain ideas in the House of Commons, particularly as a member of the opposition.

I am also quite puzzled by the fact that the hon. member would say that this government is not addressing the concerns of young people. Perhaps the hon. member should be reminded of the establishment of the Canadian youth corps and the national apprenticeship training program that this government introduced. It was part of our red book initiatives.

It is fundamental for the hon. member to understand that the issues we have raised in the budget are quite consistent with the commitments made in the red book. I will tell the hon. member why that is important. In case she has forgotten, that red book was what gave us one of the strongest-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. There are three people who wish to make a comment or ask questions. I do not think the purpose of this is to have a speech from the hon. parliamentary secretary. Would he make a brief comment or ask a question so that other members may participate in this part of the debate.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you may have been aware that there were three people who wanted to participate. I thought I was the only one who had the floor at this time and that is why I raised those issues.

There is some inconsistency. We have to really give a fair assessment of what this budget does. The budget does address the commitments made in the red book. I do not think it is fair for the hon. member for Mercier to somehow tell the Canadian people that it does not.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the inconsistencies are not on my side. When the government was elected it had the choice as to whether or not to raise UI premiums. The finance minister yesterday said that the raising of UI premiums is bad for small enterprises and for jobs. However, the government raised them from $3 in December to $3.07 in January 1994 for small businesses.

If the hon. member does not know it, he should look at the facts. The inconsistency is to say that it is bad for enterprise, taking $800 million from the economy and then a year after going back to $3.

The government was inconsistent by saying it was not good and then doing it. I am glad that it has done it. For me it was a pleasure to read that it is not good because it has done it.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the member.

What came to my mind is a quotation from Jesse Jackson, the American political activist, who stated that it was not the poor that attended the banquet of the 1970s and 1980s when we saw deficit financing by the Liberal and Conservative governments that created the inflation and tremendous increase in wealth and real estate, stocks and bonds, the over-indulgence to leverage buyouts, the huge waste of public money and private corporate money. It was not the poor that attended the banquet, but it is the poor that gets stuck with the bill.

Does the hon. member agree with Jesse Jackson's analysis and also agree that what this government is doing is presenting the poor with the bill even though the poor were not responsible for creating the deficit and the financial mess we are in.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment. I think he could draw his own conclusions from that document.

The fact is that there are people right now who do not have access to secure jobs. I mentioned in particular young people, women, many who live in remote regions, and others as well. In Quebec, more than 4,000 bright young engineers are unemployed. These people can only rely on the social safety net which the government wants to make even smaller, on top of making them pay for the inconsistencies of successive governments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mercier for her speech.

She made reference in the last sentence to Quebec sovereignty. Earlier this afternoon the first speaker for the Bloc spoke of Canadians and Quebecers. In referring to Canadians and Quebecers and to Quebec sovereignty, are the members of the Bloc Quebecois Party referring to Quebec separation from Canada?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that Bloc Quebecois members were elected on a platform that promotes Quebec's sovereignty. However, they are not in Ottawa to achieve that but, rather, to protect Quebec's interests. Quebecers respect and appreciate Canada, but during all these years of attempting to make reforms which would have given appropriate status to our province, the notion that enough is enough gradually grew stronger.

Instead of wasting time and let intolerance grow, for the very reason that there is so much poverty and unemployment, let us put all our energy into finding a solution to those problems. To that end, Quebec must assume all powers and develop the best possible relations with Canada. This is what I was referring to.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The point about sovereignty has been raised.

On a financial issue in that regard, the member concluded that as a result of the inconsistencies therefore the answer must be that a sovereign Quebec will be the solution.

I wonder if the member would care to advise the House how much of the $500 billion national debt Quebec is prepared to assume and how it intends to finance that and survive as a separate country.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before the hon. member for Mercier responds, with the Speaker having just left, I must remind members to please put their comments to the Chair. He gets quite upset if you do not do that.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand, and so will the hon. member, that the Bloc does not have a mandate to negotiate what will be a normal settlement under the circumstances. Assets, liabilities and the repayment of the debt will have to be examined. Some people in Quebec have already looked at this and I imagine that others are doing the same in Canada.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and her compassionate approach. She brought back memories of the short lived Prime Minister and what price she had to pay in the most recent process.

Never before have inclusion and consultation taken place with respect to putting the budget together. There is no question the minister has gone from coast to coast to coast. He opened up the process. He listened to the people. Based on what they told us he delivered with respect to the RRSPs and capital gains.

The member spoke about manipulation and humiliation. I do not see any manipulation in going out to the people and asking them what we can give them and for their input so that we can put a package together that will be good for all in Canada.

There were no tax increases. Does the hon. member not think that putting $300 million back into small businesses as a result of the reduction in the UIC will enhance their opportunities to hire people?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

I will say again that the raising of the UI premium has deprived small enterprises of opportunities to have more employees. I will not go back on that.

As for consulting, nobody is saying that the Minister of Finance did not consult people. In fact, as a member of a committee, I can say that I would appreciate being able to hold such consultations across the country, although I am aware of the cost of such an exercise. However, it may be that the minister did not consult enough young unemployed people, unemployed single mothers and others who will be adversely affected by the new system. In fact, the only ones who will really be penalized are precisely those who were not consulted.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from York-Simcoe.

As I was writing this, my maiden speech, I realized it was fitting to talk about my riding since I believe the success of the federal riding of Waterloo embodies the spirit of the government's budget plan.

My riding encompasses the city of Waterloo, part of the city of Kitchener, and Woolwich township in the heart of southwestern Ontario. I am proud to say the Canadian Chamber of Commerce recently selected this area as one of five model Canadian communities from which to seek advice in order to help other communities in their aim for success.

In addition, provincial government projections show that Waterloo region will be the fastest growing region in Ontario over the next two decades. My riding has been successful because there has been a partnership of business, academic and local government communities supported by the broader constituency. This has made Waterloo riding work.

As the government stated in the red book upon which the budget is based, we must do more with what we have by stressing the notion of partnership with all sectors of society and by taking advantage of economic and social opportunities that can only be realized when all of us are working together.

As an example we in the Waterloo region have what is called spinoff companies. These companies have used technology and human resources transferred from the university community as a prime ingredient in their business. These companies have already created over 2,000 jobs in Canada. The concept of universities and businesses working together is outlined in the budget.

Waterloo riding, apart from having many companies in the new information based economy, also has many traditional companies doing well. That is not to say we have not had our share of companies and people deeply affected by the recession: names such as Seagram's, Uniroyal, Goodrich, Labatt's and others. That is why the budget is important, as it creates the environment wherein businesses can grow and flourish to create the jobs which will put these constituents and others like them across Canada back to work.

To the victims of the recession and the evolution of the economy we need to show compassion. The status quo will not do for the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians and the millions who rely on assistance. I applaud the government for undertaking a major effort to build a responsible social security system that is fair, compassionate and affordable.

Canadians deserve a hand up, not a handout. The ultimate social program we can design should provide an economic climate so that every Canadian who is willing and able to work can find meaningful work. When Canadians work Canada works.

In particular the budget supports the small and medium sized business sector which will continue to be the number one creator of jobs in Canada. This holds true in my riding as well. Our strong economy is helped greatly by their entrepreneurial drive. The global economy is not just a catch phrase of local businesses; it is an integral part of their market.

The concept of networks of organizations outlined in the agenda of the budget has been practised in my riding for some time now. Local businesses, civic leaders and academics have formed networks for exporting, environmental companies, computer technology firms and total quality management. Total quality management practised for years by local governments in my riding has become a plan that will be pursued by the government with its commitment to streamlining government

operations and reducing spending to make them more efficient and effective.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are to be applauded for recognizing the concerns of my Liberal colleagues and myself that middle class Canadians would not tolerate an increased tax burden. I am pleased to note the Minister of National Defence has taken courageous steps in the budget to rationalize the excessive national defence infrastructure on the basis of need and function. He is further committed to examining my concern about government waste, including government moves, a commitment to cost savings and efficient operations in government. That has always been part of my public life and continues to be so in the House.

In keeping with this idea we should debate expanding the number of seats in the House. It is my strong wish that any reallocation of boundaries be reconsidered in keeping with the central premise that the number of MPs be restricted to the present number of 295. Canadians do not want more politicians; they want us to do more with what we have.

People in the community have also been working on creating a community venture capital fund by which the community could support its own entrepreneurs through capital investments. It is ideas like this one which embody the spirit of programs such as our Canada investment fund.

Environmental issues are not simply a current trend in my riding. The University of Waterloo has been a leader in environmental studies education for years. The Waterloo public interest research group was created by students from the University of Waterloo 20 years ago. Through voluntary contributions of time and money it has spent over $1 million on consumer and environmental concerns. Environmental related companies are a growing segment of our business community.

For this reason I join with Friends of the Earth to applaud the finance minister who is the first ever to speak about sustainable development in a budget speech and the government's commitment to this end.

To achieve this objective the budget outlines the establishment of a task force involving government, industry and environmental NGOs to identify barriers and disincentives to sound environmental practices and to find effective ways in which to use economic instruments to protect the environment.

The expertise of the riding's workers, managers and entrepreneurs is enhanced by the presence of the post-secondary institutions mentioned previously, namely Conestoga College, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University. These world class institutions participate in explicit transfers of expertise through their excellence in co-operative education and apprenticeship programs.

The riding can enjoy a recruitment advantage in this well trained pool of potential employees. As a result the post-secondary institutions of the Waterloo region offer their expertise to the community well before their students graduate.

Until now there has been an alarming trend for our best resources, these students, to look for a future in other countries. It was a sad commentary that these students were looking to companies such as Microsoft in the United States for jobs. In effect we had our own brain drain.

I am happy our government has addressed this problem by active promotion of programs such as the Canadian technology network and engineers and scientists program to keep our most precious resource, our youth, in Canada.

Our commitment to established programs financing expenditures to universities will be maintained. This government is concerned with education and literacy as demonstrated by fully restored funding to the national literacy program. This is important to my riding as well.

The public and Catholic school board systems offer high quality education to our region's students. Both offer progressive innovative opportunities for individuals in the region. The public school board offers the opportunity for the region's workers to complete their high school diploma through on site classrooms in the workplace. As well, the separate school board is world renowned for placing a priority on full and successful integration of challenged students into the mainstream classroom.

As the finance minister said yesterday, the budget reduces the deficit by $6 billion next year and by $7 billion the year after. This is an important accomplishment in light of the fact that the previous government underestimated the deficit we inherited by $13 billion. Over the next three years for every dollar of deficit reduction on the revenue side there are $5 of spending cuts by this government.

What was demanded by Canadians in pre-budget consultations was a fair and equitable budget. This has been presented by our government. It is our commitment to make this government transparent. We will work together, as I know personally from my riding that Canadians can, to build a partnership that will create opportunity for this country. This budget is the foundation that will make that happen.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo on his excellent speech.

I remind him that the neighbouring riding of Kitchener is also encompassed within the model community cited by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

The hon. member is well known in the area for his interest in and knowledge of environmental matters. I was wondering how the budget would affect the Waterloo riding and community. He referred to the Friends of the Earth comment about the finance minister and this particular budget. Waterloo is an area where environmental related businesses are most prominent. Is it likely that those businesses will be assisted by this budget?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and neighbour from my sister riding.

There is no question that the Waterloo federal riding and my community has a great history of involvement in environmental matters.

I refer to a situation which probably started in terms of heightening environmental awareness in Canada. In the Love Canal in the United States toxic substances were impairing the lives of people. The company working on that was Conestoga-Rovers which is located in Waterloo. It is one of many companies that has started up in our region.

I can say to the member for Kitchener that yes, this budget will very much enhance those operations. We hope to be one of the centres of excellence. I believe we already are and we can build on that to make sure in the new economy Canada gets its fair share of international business for cleaning up the environment.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I would like to ask him a question about the budget.

Does the hon. member have an opinion as to the consequences this nation will face if we add another $100 billion to the federal debt in the next three years? There is no indication within the budget speech or the budget itself of any such consequences.

Would the hon. member care to comment on it?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago that I and many of my colleagues were debating these very questions at all-candidates meetings. I have always been amazed at the extent to which it was hard to get the point across, particularly to members of the Reform Party.

Our position has been very consistent. It is in our red book. We went to Canadians. We told them about it. We put the plan forward and it is the foundation for everything we do. I believe this is where we differ from their approach. Fundamentally, we as Liberals believe in making this economy grow. We have outlined in our expenditure program that is exactly what we are going to do.

The Reform position was that it would eliminate the deficit within three years. Our position was that we would cut back the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP in three years. The leader of the Reform Party has stood up on different occasions and challenged the government to attain that 3 per cent of the GDP. From looking at this budget and from studying the figures my answer is that we can.

I have to say to my friend from the Reform Party I hope he will stand in this House and applaud when we do accomplish that. We believe we have to make this economy grow. We cannot shrink it. If the economy shrinks we will go back into a recession. We have to believe in ourselves and we have to believe in the Canadian people.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of Parliament I am pleased to deliver my maiden speech.

I am humbled by the history of this place and yet comforted to be part of the long tradition of Canadian democracy. This is not to say that tradition is static, unchanging. In fact, this is far from the case. Tradition, particularly the Canadian parliamentary tradition has adapted and evolved throughout the history of this institution.

There are many pressures on Parliament, on government and on parliamentarians to transform the way government operates. Economic, social, environmental, technological, political and global forces all act in different ways to challenge, to push and pull, to mould a new kind of relationship people have with their institutions. The Minister of Finance and the government recognized and welcomed this.

As a result the Minister of Finance has set upon an unprecedented budgetary process, a process that does not end with this one finite document. It is a process that if allowed to develop fully will lead to a new kind of partnership, a real and meaningful partnership among the people of Canada, their government, and their social and economic institutions.

It is only when we are able to understand the full extent and nature of our problems and when we undertake exploration of the widest possible range of solutions that we will ever begin to address the tough economic problems that affect our nation.

Canada has a rightful place as a leader among the nations of the world in the 21st century. Through the kind of consultation process the Minister of Finance has just begun we will not only solve our own problems successfully but we will also provide a model for other countries to emulate. The Minister of Finance has given all of us a great opportunity to work together and let our voices be heard, let our ideas be tested, let our vision of Canada meld with the rest to form the Canada we all want.

We have a difficult and challenging task before us: to restore integrity to government and erase public cynicism. As one parliamentarian I stand here today and say to the constituents in York-Simcoe, to Canadians from across this land, and to my colleagues on the other side of this House: We have the political will to open dialogue. We have the political will to renew the social, economic and political institutions of the country.

This is the reason I decided to run for office. I believed it is important, now more than ever, to rebuild the trust that has been broken between the people of Canada and their elected officials. I am sure that many of my hon. colleagues in this House have similar goals.

As Canadians, the most important thing we can remember is that we are in this together.

When I was elected a member of Parliament I did not stop being a citizen of Canada. I also have a stake in this. I have a family that I love dearly, a community that I am committed to and I have a country that I honour.

Like other Canadians across the nation, like my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House, I want this country to succeed. I want this Parliament to succeed.

My colleagues and I need all Canadians to have patience because as the hon. Minister of Finance said yesterday in his speech, the challenge today is not to rush. The challenge is to get things right.

We are not asking Canadians to have patience while the government sits back and does nothing. We have acted on our commitments and will continue to do so. We have fulfilled our promises to reinstate the court challenges program and to implement the national infrastructure program, the youth services program, the aboriginal head start program, the women's centres of excellence, the Canadian technology network, as well as many others.

The red book lives in this budget.

We need to have an opportunity for ideas to be generated and tested without being torn down. Creative juices are quick to freeze in a climate of frosty, unconstructive criticism. Now more than ever, it is necessary to develop alternative understandings and approaches to problem solving.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, everything has changed but for our way of thinking.

If we are to approach government differently, we must all understand that not only government must change but we must change as well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I am very sorry to interrupt the member during her maiden speech but is there unanimous consent to let her finish, another four or five minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

I thank my hon. colleagues in the House for the patience they have shown me.

Government has a responsibility for taking leadership to create the framework and environment necessary for open, inclusive dialogue. The issue now is for government to continue to build on the consultation process that has lead up to this budget.

As members of Parliament we can support this process in our own ridings.

Fairness and equity are important principles upon which this budget is based. These principles must continue to be the cornerstones upon which the consultation process rests.

Equity is served when consultation is inclusive, when all perspectives that represent the differing aspects of Canadian diversity are respected and validated.

Our diversity arises from geography, race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, physical and intellectual capabilities, class, education and physical appearance, among many others. Equity is served when our intergenerational responsibilities are acknowledged, when our global roles and relationships are honoured.

Equity is also served when the natural environment is respected.

All costs, be they social, health or ecological, are economic in the long run. It is very important that the government, through these consultations, finds a way to include a new accounting, a new way to value the ecological and health benefits and costs that government programs, subsidies and taxes provide.

This new, ongoing budgetary consultation process, coupled with the review and renewal of major government departments and policies, particularly human resources, health, defence, and industry, means that this government is serious about taking action to meet the central challenges facing this nation.

This results in the kind of responsible government Canadians demand and deserve.

It was in my riding of York-Simcoe where the seeds of responsible government were first sown in Upper Canada. It was here that the rebel, William Lyon Mackenzie, joined forces with the farmers and small business owners to challenge the Tory family compact.

Although it has been over 150 years since responsible government has been instituted, the descendants of these rebels have carried on the tradition of farming and operating small businesses in York-Simcoe, a riding which I am proud to represent.

Today their farms grace the landscape of New Tecumseh, King, east and west Gwillimbury. The world famous Holland Marsh is located near Bradford. Small businesses were and are still the heart of the economic engine in communities like Newmarket and Bradford. Their trades have always been carried

out along the main streets of the villages of Sutton, Keswick, Mount Albert, Beeton, Tottenham, Pefferlaw and Schomberg.

My riding of York-Simcoe is also graced with the beautiful beaches of Georgina along Lake Simcoe. A tourist trade booms here all year long with boating in the summer and ice fishing in winter.

We are also fortunate to have a First Nations band, the Chippewas of Georgina Island. This band is determined to achieve its inherent right of self-government.

I am privileged to stand here today as a representative of a riding that reflects the diversity of this great nation. The 35th Parliament is a milestone in the Canadian parliamentary history as it, far more than any other, is representative of the rich tapestry of Canadian diversity.

Sitting in this Chamber I look around at my colleagues on both sides of the House and I know that we are merely passing through. This institution will exist long after the pages of Hansard fade and crumble.

As parliamentarians we will be measured by the respect that we show all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.35 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)