Debates of Feb. 24th, 1994

The Budget

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me just highlight the process we have in the province of Saskatchewan with regard to infrastructure program. I look forward to the infrastucture program in Saskatchewan because I think it has all kinds of potential, certainly for the city I come from.

We are looking at putting a sewer and water program in place that will cost about $4 million. Whether it will be selected as one of the projects to be approved by the province will be a provincial decision. What will it do for our area?

I know very well that many people in southeast Saskatchewan, particularly in the riding I am from, are looking for jobs. They are looking for an opportunity to do some work and to develop some skills.

What will it do? It will give us people who will work on those jobs, in those places and as those improvements to our city come on stream we can hire those people as part of our infrastructure program within the city. Therefore, we also have the feature of being able to supplement and have these people right on the job in the city as a permanent possibility for the city of Estevan. I look forward to the infrastructure program. That is just in the south part.

Let us go to the north part of Saskatchewan. The infrastructure program, as we have it set for the native people, has tremendous possibilities. We have the possibility for head start education; the possibility for them to determine for themselves new inroads in the educational field. For job opportunities I think there is tremendous potential.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the hon. member say that the budget is very good for farmers when, in the East, in just about every parish, there is a weekly auction, and he admitted that there was a 5 per cent budget cut. I am asking him to give me one benefit for Eastern farmers in this budget.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous potential for everybody. We can sit here, put our heads in the sand and say nothing will be done. That is what some people would like to do. Some would say we have gone too far and others would say we have not gone far enough.

We have come to a point in time when we have to make an effort to make the best of what we have. The farmers in Quebec and Ontario will do just as well as the farmers in Saskatchewan. Maybe they will have to be a little more ingenious, but it is a fact there are going to be some cutbacks. They will provide that incentive.

The people in the dairy farming industry will become ingenious. They are going to be competing with the United States and I think they will do very well. Yes, they have had to take a bit of the cut. However, I think of hon. members farther to the east where some bases are being closed and 2,000 jobs may be lost. The impact there is great. The impact was spread across the country. It is no different for Quebec than it is for Saskatchewan or any other province.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Canadians who were disappointed with the budget the government tabled in the House on Tuesday.

This disappointment is well-founded. Let us start by examining the words of the participants at pre-budget conferences, the words of government itself and the subsequent actions of the government in the 1994-95 budget.

One Calgarian participating in the pre-budget consultations stated: "Government cannot, in and of itself, create jobs. Government should get out of the way of private sector investment and employment". Many other Canadians share those views.

On page 7 of Facing Choices Together , one of the government's own booklets, the Minister of Finance acknowledged that the role of government should be:

-establishing a positive economic climate for the private sector, and particularly small business; reducing the burden of regulation and taxation; and strengthening education.

I thank the minister for acknowledging what Reformers have been saying for years.

It is unfortunate, however, that in the budget the actions of the government do not follow its words. Not only did the government back off in terms of action, but on page 8 of the same booklet the finance minister inferred that the people at these consultations are not to be trusted. To demonstrate this I will quote the minister:

-the government does not accept the view that there is no role for some immediate spending action.

The minister continues to ignore the views of the people by justifying a need for increased spending in programs like the infrastructure program. For the people to gain confidence in the integrity of a government there must be consistency between the words of the government and their actions. In this case there is not even consistency between the words of government on one page of their document and the words that follow on the next page.

Canadians used their common sense and said cut spending. In fact the government has increased spending. It is time for the government to start listening to the people.

I will illustrate how the figures in this budget affect the people in the Vegreville constituency and indeed across the country. At the end of next year, Canada's federal government debt will be approximately $550 billion. Approximately $40 billion will be added to this debt in the next fiscal year. Using my own family as

an example I will demonstrate the burden we are placing on the young people in Canada.

My wife, my five children, and myself owe about $140,000 as our share of the national debt. This year's deficit adds approximately another $1,700 to each person as their share of the debt. By the time my younger children reach their early twenties they will each owe a total of about $40,000 as their share of Canada's national debt if it keeps growing at the same rate.

I believe it is morally wrong for government to continue this wild overspending. If it continues Canada will reach a crisis situation, maybe as New Zealand did, within the next couple of years. If this happens, painfully drastic spending measures will have to be implemented. Some of this pain can be avoided if the necessary government cuts are made now.

I plead with the Minister of Finance to make these spending cuts or similar cuts in a mini budget in the early fall. Canadians cannot afford to wait another year for sanity to come.

Reform MPs have consistently presented positive, constructive alternatives to government proposals. In keeping with this I would like to offer some specific advice to the government.

Reform's specific proposals include: unemployment insurance should be made into a self-funding insurance plan where the benefits, the premiums and the funding are determined by employers and employees. If implemented this will save taxpayers about $3.5 billion per year. Eliminate business subsidies to the tune of about $3.4 billion per year. Stop funding special interest groups rather than just reviewing the matter, saving $500 million per year. Reduce foreign government aid by $700 million instead of the $400 million proposed in this budget. Decrease subsidies to crown corporations by 25 per cent saving approximately $1.25 billion per year. Cut non-salary federal government overhead by 15 per cent, saving about $1.8 billion per year. Target the Canada assistance plan to help poor Canadians for savings of about $1.5 billion per year. Reduce old age security for households making over $54,000 per year, saving $3.5 billion per year.

Excluding the unemployment insurance reform, the total savings I have just outlined amount to over $12 billion per year. The government should have made these, or similar, changes in this budget. They are the measures that were presented by Canadians at the pre-budget consultation meetings.

Will the minister and the government listen to Canadians this time? Will they present a new budget in the early fall putting their own words into action?

I will use the rest of my time to discuss agriculture in the budget. My greatest concern is that the government has made and will continue to make cuts in spending to agriculture before they have released farmers from the burden of over-regulation. For example, the government followed through on the 10 per cent cuts to the Crow benefit which were implemented by the former government in the 1993-94 budget. This eliminated funding of over $60 million to farmers. My concern is that while the funding is being reduced, the problems which plague the grain transportation system and further processing of agricultural commodities have not been dealt with.

Furthermore, the Crow benefit is still being paid to the railways. Grain cars are still controlled by at least three separate agencies and the Canadian Wheat Board restricts farmers from seeking out markets on their own and shipping to these markets.

Funding is being cut to farmers, but farmers' hands are tied so they cannot improve the situation for themselves. It is critical that over-regulation is eliminated before cuts are made.

At a conference I attended last weekend farmers made it very clear they do not want farm subsidies to continue indefinitely. They called for a massive reduction in government regulations to be followed by spending cuts. I hope the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who also attended this conference, was listening carefully.

During the campaign, Reform presented a budget for agriculture for the next three years. This budget outlined our plan to target over $2 billion in support to producers and save taxpayers between $400 million and $500 million per year. Reformers promised to present positive alternatives and we have certainly done this in the area of agriculture.

Once again I must emphasize that before cuts can be made, regulations that prevents farmers from achieving open access to free markets must be eliminated. Federal-provincial government overlap must be reduced, and high administrative costs in delivering the various programs that are in place must be substantially trimmed.

Some of the specific recommendations that Reformers support are: first, consolidate over a dozen unco-ordinated safety net programs into three; a trade distortion adjustment program, an income stabilization program and an improved crop insurance program.

Second, reform the transportation system so that products may be moved by any route, any mode, and in any state of processing.

Third, improve private sector participation in research, education and job training.

Fourth, better target research funds to meet the goals that are set out by farmers and agribusiness.

Fifth, improve regulations relating to safety, fair competition, and dispute settlement so the marketplace can work better.

As well, we propose these changes to the Canadian Wheat Board: first, make the Wheat Board accountable to the people who pay the bills, that is western Canadian grain farmers. Second, allow the board to handle any crop, but permit farmers and grain companies the right to compete with the board. Third, continue Canada's loan guarantees as long as other countries offer them. Fourth, give farmers the right to choose between a pool price and a daily cash price.

I believe these changes to the Canadian Wheat Board will increase the price that farmers get from the marketplace. This increase in market revenue will reduce payments to safety net programs, a reduction that is not included in the Reform budget on agriculture.

In conclusion, the government made few changes in the area of agriculture in this budget, nor should they have without a comprehensive review of agriculture policy. However, studies similar to the one being conducted in the dairy, egg and poultry industries are virtually worthless because the scope of these studies is limited from the start. In this study, supply management is retained as a fundamental principle rather than allowing farmers and others affected to discuss this principle and decide if supply management is needed at all.

While a study of agriculture-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I very much regret interrupting the hon. member. Is it his maiden speech? I do not think it is. Would the member indicate whether it is his maiden speech. It is not; then I am afraid his time is up. I am sure he will get a chance to make the point he was just going to finish with prior to all these questions that are waiting to be asked.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has touched on rail line transportation. In Alberta there has been some experimentation with privatization of abandoned rail lines, where they have been taken over by private entrepreneurs who have been successful in the operation of these lines.

Could the hon. member tell us whether his party favours the privatization of rail lines in Canada?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of the privatization of railroads and the question of the privatization of rolling stock, the answer is that we would certainly consider privatizing both.

There has to be a bit more study on the issue, but I believe there must be more competition allowed for the railways than there is now. Privatizing rail lines or nationalizing rail lines and allowing competition is important. How it can be done is up for debate still.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his address. He made a number of potentially very useful suggestions with respect to cost cutting.

It would be very helpful if my hon. colleague could indicate to us what impact if implemented the list of suggestions would have on unemployment. In other words how many more unemployed Canadians would there be?

My second question is with respect to the self-funded unemployment insurance program. Does the member know whether or not that would increase or decrease the premiums, whether or not it would increase or decrease the payouts to unemployed Canadians?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those questions. They are both excellent questions.

In terms of the last question first on whether unemployment insurance will increase or decrease premiums, we are saying that as a self-directed plan the decisions will be made by employers and employees on whether premiums are raised, benefits are reduced, or who in fact is eligible under the plan. It is up to the employers and employees to make the decisions on the plan, as they should, because they are the ones who are funding the plan and we say it should be strictly them funding the plan.

On the question respecting how much the cuts would affect unemployment, I believe the cuts we have laid out may affect unemployment over a very short term. I believe very strongly that as these cuts are made and as Canadians see that the government is finally dealing with its overspending problem, unemployment will be reduced within a year and a half to two years. Economics is not an exact science but that is my belief.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the suggestions made by the hon. member, but I recall that during the debate on the GATT we talked about subsidization of grain exports in many countries including Canada, United States and the European Community.

In the case of those countries we recalled that Canadian subsidization of grain exports amounted roughly to somewhere between 30 and 35 per cent; less than the Europeans and probably a little less than the Americans but considerably more than the Australians and the Argentinians. In the case of the Australians it is almost nil. In the case of the Argentinians it costs them to export because they subsidize their manufacturers.

Having said that, what would the hon. member think would be an appropriate figure for our subsidization agreement?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is specifically asking about what level subsidies should be at in terms of grain exports. Talking about grain exports specifically, the level has to be reduced over time. My goal and the goal farmers have told me they would like achieved some time down the road-and I cannot say exactly whether it might be six years or ten years-would be as close to zero as possible.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of Finance during the budget presentation say that he was looking for $400 million to be cut from operating budgets of government departments in the next year and a further $1.5 billion in the subsequent three years. I have a suggestion for where the minister could find that amount of money.

His budget speech was very impressive. I was really caught up in it. He said: "The budget being tabled today follows an unprecedented process of consultation with Canadians. We have gained a great deal from listening to Canadians but one thing stands above all others: Canadians are fed up with government inertia. They seek determined fundamental change. Canadians know the kind of Canada they want".

I was really impressed with those words. I was therefore a little surprised to find that the minister and the government had not been doing the consulting they pretended to do. They came up with nothing, for example, in the way of cuts to official languages. I hear from my constituents in Nanaimo-Cowichan that it is one place where cuts should surely be made.

I wonder too if the hon. Minister of Finance was consulting with his own colleagues. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier across the way said on January 27: "A serious study should be undertaken by an individual to determine whether the Official Languages Act is working as intended". I agree with the hon. member. A serious study should be undertaken. My impression and that of my constituents is that it is not working and it is costing far too much.

Before I go further I would like to correct an impression of the Bloc Quebecois on what the Reform Party policy is on official languages.

The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe said, "If they think that English should be the only official language of the federal government, they should say so clearly". I would like to say clearly that we do not think that English should be the only official language. There must be two official languages, English and French, everywhere. But it must here in Parliament, in the courts and in government offices.

The Reform Party's official policy on bilingualism is that we support individual bilingualism. We support territorial bilingualism as far as the federal government is concerned, that is to say-and let us take Quebec as a specific example-services must be given in the French language throughout the province of Quebec because obviously the numbers warrant it. Within the city of Montreal it is evident that services in the English language should be given in the regions of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Saint-Luc, Beaconsfield, et cetera.

Services must be provided in the appropriate languages wherever there is a need.

Let us now move to another phase of why I am tackling official bilingualism. I underline again that we are in favour of bilingualism, personal bilingualism. Let us have more of it, but official bilingualism is divisive in the country and is wasteful. It is a terrible waste of money.

How wasteful is it? I quote from Diane Francis in the Financial Post : ``Translating technical documents involves the 500,000-page technical manuals for two new frigates currently under construction. A full translation of these manuals would cost $100 million''.

In their defence National Defence and Supply and Services shot back that the real cost could reach $43.5 million. Unfortunately the real cost of translating those manuals will likely never be known since it will be buried in the overall cost of the frigates. That is one of the big problems we have not only with government but with estimates and everything else. Costs are buried and it is very hard to find them.

Another problem I have with the official languages policy in the country is that it is a product of the Ottawa elite. The elite in Ottawa says and has said for a number of years that this is what we should be pushing, that it will be wonderful for the whole country and it will certainly help keep Quebec in. I do not believe that is true and I do not believe the people of Quebec believe it is true either; not official bilingualism as it is practised here.

Typical of the attitude embraced by the Ottawa elite is the official languages commissioner who was recently quoted as saying: "We must not be deterred by the opposition which there is in public opinion. They are great adversaries with whom we have to attend". That was in spite of or perhaps because of a March 1992 Gallup poll which showed that 64 per cent of Canadians believe official bilingualism has been a failure.

How expensive is it? I do not know. It is almost impossible to find the real cost, but let us look at one example. National Defence admits official languages program activities cost nearly $48 million in fiscal 1992-93. Yet nowhere in the 1992-93 public accounts for National Defence is that figure recorded. It is buried somewhere.

In fact the person who prepared the report on official languages cost in National Defence to send to my office said in his covering letter: "The true costs of official languages activities for DND are higher than those given in the enclosed fax sheet. Unfortunately Treasury Board reporting guidelines do not permit us to report, among other things, salaries of military personnel attending continuous language training and the bilingualism bonus for civilian employees". That is part of the problem of identifying costs.

Let me conclude by saying that the budget should be tackling the deficit. One way of attacking the deficit is to cut expenditures, especially in areas where it is creating division in the country. One such area is the Official Languages Act. I say to the government: "Please look at it and cut".

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must point out as a Franco-Ontarian that during the 1960s and 1970s, I had a chance to learn a second language. I learned another language, and I want to make this clear to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, thanks to the institution of bilingualism. During my school years and when I was employed in the private sector-

I had an opportunity to work with several large firms in this country which acknowledge readily that official bilingualism is a lot easier when you put, for instance, English on one side of the Kellogg's box and French on the same side. It is far more efficient to try to communicate to the seven, eight or nine million people in this nation who do speak French and who are not confined to one single region of the country.

I am living testimony to a system that works, a system that helped me learn a second language. I hope the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan will agree that having two official languages was one of the great things that happened to this country, and that it gives us, as Canadians, an edge in our business dealings.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member learned to speak English and French. It is a good thing for this country, and I certainly agree with him. However, I maintain what I said in my speech, that a tremendous amount of money is being wasted in this country. You are an example of someone who learned both languages, and that is wonderful. However, I can assure you that, although they agree with the principle of learning both official languages and other languages as well, most people in Western Canada feel that money is being wasted, and I repeat what I said in my speech in this respect.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask hon. members, whether they speak English or French, to address the Chair.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to know about costs for the official languages policy of this country, there is no policy on official bilingualism. I would be delighted to share with him an article that I published on that very subject matter which outlines those costs. No one has ever challenged them.

With respect to the comments that he has made about costs, it is those kinds of things that are said that exaggerate the fears that are found throughout the nation. We do not know what they are but they are big.

What about this comment about the Ottawa elite?

What about the French language communities-like St. Boniface, St. Albert in Alberta and other francophone communities across Canada. Those are the elite, those are the people who are asking for services in French.

Does he realize we have unilingual senators and members of the House of Commons here, some unilingual French and others unilingual English, Canadian soldiers who speak only French or only English? Are these people not supposed to talk to each other? What does he really want? Does he want to scare Canadians? If there is any waste, let us identify it. Waste can be eliminated, but removing a policy that makes it possible to talk to each other is ridiculous.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I have nothing against bilingualism and neither does the Reform Party, and when I say the elite, I am not referring to the people of Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan, or Grande-Prairie or St. Boniface. The elite are here in Ottawa, where they force the issue by saying: We will have this legislation enforced by inspectors who will monitor its implementation, and we can spend any amount of money on this. That is what I object to.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in the House to present my maiden speech.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to the chair.

I will begin in recognition of the International Year of the Family by thanking my own family for their encouragement and the support they have always given me.

I would also like to thank the most dedicated campaign team for all their hard work and the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex for the trust and confidence they have put in me by electing me as their representative in the 35th Parliament and may I also add as the first female representative for the riding since Confederation.

Prior to my being elected, I also had the privilege to work with the former member for Lambton-Middlesex, the Hon. Ralph Ferguson, who was the agriculture minister in the Turner government.

Hon. members may be interested to know that Lambton-Middlesex has a pivotal role in Canada's history. The historic Battle of the Longwoods took place in Middlesex country during the War of 1812. In fact the great Indian Chief Tecumseh was killed during the Battle of the Longwoods. No doubt were it not for the role of Tecumseh in repelling the Americans, we would probably be a part of the United States today.

On the Lambton side of the riding oil was discovered in the mid-1800s in Enniskillen Township, the first oil discovery in all of North America. In fact some of these oil wells have been producing for over 100 years and are still producing today.

Lambton-Middlesex is one of the largest ridings in southwestern Ontario. It is predominantly rural in nature, containing 18 municipalities, several towns and villages, one urban centre, Strathroy, and four native reserves.

The single largest industry in Lambton-Middlesex is agriculture, producing fruits, vegetables, corn, soybeans, raising poultry, dairy, pork, and beef, just to name a few.

I am proud to say that a number of very prominent Canadian leaders in the field of agriculture reside in my riding.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention that Cuddy's turkey farms, one of the largest turkey breeding farms in North America, is located in Lambton-Middlesex. It exports turkey parts all over the world.

As co-chair of the ethanol task force and ad hoc committee exploring the viability of a Canadian ethanol industry, I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is willing to review the necessity for greater assurance of federal excise tax exemptions for ethanol. I would urge the minister to make this his next top priority.

We have a window of opportunity that we must not ignore. We must encourage the greater use of ethanol blended fuels. It is good for the environment. It is a renewable resource and will create huge new markets for corn and grain.

This budget sets in motion some of the most fundamental far-reaching reforms in government policy in decades in such crucial areas as social security and defence.

Canadians have told us they are fed up with government inertia. They want a government to have a game plan and stick to it. We have a game plan, our election platform, Creating Opportunity, the red book.

In this budget we are funding every key initiative in the red book. We are delivering on our commitment.

What pleases me the most is that this budget offers a balanced approach because of its three main goals: economic renewal, deficit reduction, and social reform. These are all foundations for our top priorities, jobs and growth.

By focusing on these three goals this budget directly answers the concerns and priorities expressed by Canadians during a first-ever series of consultation conferences. The budget takes action through funding for infrastructure programs, a commitment to rolling back unemployment insurance premiums to the 1993 levels, and through new strategies to promote small business, the engine that drives the new economy.

The recession has taken its toll, as it has all over Canada, on some of the small businesses in my riding. However, a number of enterprising factories producing footwear, auto parts, frozen foods, mobile homes, to name just a few, have bravely weathered the economic storm through their own diligence, creativity and hard work.

I am especially gratified and relieved that the $500,000 exemption for small business and farm property will remain.

I am also very pleased that the home buyers plan which allows first time home buyers to use RRSP funds as a down payment is now a permanent program. The use of RRSPs has grown by leaps and bounds in Canada as more and more Canadians make use of them as a retirement supplement.

In agriculture areas such as my riding of Lambton-Middlesex RRSPs are often the only means of ensuring retirement security. Small and medium sized businesses do not want handouts. What they require is an environment characterized by improved access to capital, the encouragement of innovative leading edge technology, a commitment to better management training, a reduction of the regulatory and paper burden and the adoption of an aggressive trading mentality to take advantage of new export markets.

I am delighted that this budget addresses all these areas. In fact this budget is a winner I believe for small business. The following programs are being initiated: the Canada investment

fund to provide venture capital for companies, improving access to capital for small businesses by establishing a task force to work with Canada's banks to develop a code of conduct for small business lending, establishing a Canada business service centre in every province to provide one-stop shopping for government services, and rolling back the unemployment insurance rate to the level of 1993 for 1995 and 1996. This is going to save businesses $300 million a year, money that can be invested in new jobs. Our small businesses need a break and this budget provides it.

If I had to use one word to describe the message contained in the 1994 budget, then I would use the word hope.

Canadians have also said they want changes in our social security system to ensure it is fair, compassionate and affordable, a reform that delivers incentives for work and creates jobs and opportunities.

That commitment to change has already been launched by the Minister of Human Resources Development. The budget highlights important steps in meeting this challenge. The link between the length of time a person works and the UI benefits is being recalculated.

Assistance is being enhanced for those with dependants to increase benefits to 60 per cent of their wages. Other individuals will receive 55 per cent of their original wages.

This government is committed to deficit reduction. Our program of net spending reduction over the next three years is the most significant of any budget in a decade. A major goal of this budget is to take concerted action to bring government finances under control, action that is essential in Canada's economic revitalization.

In planning this budget the finance minister has relied on cautious, prudent projections of economic growth for this year and next. These projections based on consensus of private sector forecasts are in stark contrast to the overly optimistic expectations of those presented in some previous budgets, expectations that resulted in deficit forecasts that were wrong by millions of dollars.

Obviously the Canadian people will not stand for any more of these rude surprises. The 1994 budget actions, coupled with moderate economic growth we are projecting, will reduce the deficit from $45.7 billion in 1993-94 to $39.7 billion in the coming fiscal year. A further drop to $32.7 billion is expected in 1995-96. For every $1 of revenue increase there are $5 of spending cuts.

Finally, I think it is fair to say that the 1994 budget was developed following unprecedented public consultations that brought together a wide spectrum of Canadians to discuss the economic and fiscal challenges confronting the country. I salute the finance minister in his pledge to continue to consult openly and widely with Canadians.

May I conclude, by saying that I am proud to be a part of this government, a government that has pledged to restore honesty, integrity and accountability to all its operations.

If we continue to honour this pledge then we will have won back the public trust, enabling us to fight to rebuild Canada as a strong, independent sovereign nation, a nation that makes its own decisions, a nation that is caring and compassionate, a nation that will be united from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to the hon. member on her maiden speech.

I assume that she is a new member as I am. I know one feels after one gets that first speech done. It feels great. Thank goodness it is over.

Although the hon. member did not mention specifically about getting our own house in order I know she alluded to responsible spending and the accountability of politicians, the importance of it, being careful with the money, being very cautious in our spending so that we do not get carried away. I would like to know how the member feels on some issues and I will pick on three because the list is quite extensive.

There are a couple of things that are happening in this country that I find disturbing. One of them was mentioned by the Minister of Human Resources Development when he said that over a million children were living in poverty in this country. It is really a shame to hear that kind of news.

I have here on the top of my list that the Challenger jets cost us in excess of $3 million a year, the little blue cars that the cabinet ministers drive around in cost us in the neighbourhood of $1.3 million a year, the outrageous tax funded pensions for MPs are over $2 million a year. We are coming up to about $10 million.

Does the member agree with me that cutting that kind of fat out of the spending from the government and transferring those funds to help the poverty stricken children in this country would make a lot more sense?

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind remarks and for his questions also.

I too believe that one of our first priorities, one of the issues I ran on when I was campaigning last fall, is that we should certainly take a look at the funding and the way government spends its money.

As to the examples the hon. member has given me, pensions for instance, that question came up quite often when I was at all-candidates meetings. I certainly appreciate the member's question on that.

I felt that with the Canada pension plan I always referred to pensions for members. Perhaps we could look at it in that fashion. I am sure it is going to be reviewed in the near future and work it on the same basic principle as Canada pensions.

I know several people came up to me after these meetings thinking that was a genuine way of looking at Canada pensions, making them more fair to the general public's pension plan.

I certainly agree that governments have to address spending but as to the Challenger jets and so on, there is security. The Prime Minister has said at different times that he would prefer to be one of the regular folks on economy class but he cannot travel in that fashion. When one is elected to that office, there are standards one has to live by. We have to certainly respect his security and the security of whomever is Prime Minister.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would congratulate the member for that first speech.

I am really hesitant to put her on the spot but I would like to at least give notice of a question. This is a really genuine and serious question.

She quoted from the budget speech that for every $1 raised in new revenues, we will cut $5 in government expenditures. That is a worthy goal. I may be putting a new member on the spot here but sometime I would like the answer to where is this being cut? How does it then occur that our government expenditures keep rising every year in the plan, the debt keeps going up and the deficit each year is also going up? How can we then have a ratio of five to one in cuts?

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It certainly is a good question and I do not pretend to be the finance minister here. I thought the finance minister had given time and time again during question period really good answers to this question. There have been several cuts made, whether they were the helicopter cuts, the defence cuts. We have heard those questions asked and answered during question period. Really, the issues are all outlined. All one has to do is read the budget papers that we have presented and the answers are there.

I thank the hon. member for his question.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the next speaker will not have time to finish his speech. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow him to finish his 10-minute speech before the question is put to a vote.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House agree to give 10 minutes to the next speaker so that he can finish his speech.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.