Debates of March 10th, 1994

Presence Of Canadian Troops In Former Yugoslavia

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House of Commons for this generosity.

I feel today it is appropriate to join with others to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his statement in the House today following up on the tradition that was first introduced in the debate in the House of Commons. As my friend in the Reform Party indicated, we appreciated the opportunity to share our views on behalf of our constituents and our political parties as to what the course of action ought to be in our judgment.

At that time our spokesman, the hon. member for Burnaby, indicated a Canadian presence ought to be maintained, the traditional role of Canada in its peacekeeping tradition ought to be maintained, and it was crucial that our presence be there.

I am pleased that the minister has taken time in the House today to announce the government's decision. We support that and encourage that.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that we want to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution Canadian troops have made to bring peace to this troubled part of the world. We also recognize, as my colleague in the Bloc earlier indicated, the support for the families. They also have borne a tremendous burden in this effort as their friends and loved ones were serving in the former Yugoslavia area.

There is a cost associated with this initiative. While we must be sensitive to that cost, if our contribution along with others representing the United Nations can be there and can bring peace to a part of the world where we have seen what can only be described as barbarism, it is a worthwhile cost.

I thank the minister for his statement in the House today. We support it and are very pleased that our troops will be there to assist in peacekeeping and making the peace for the next six months.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

The Budget

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before the member for Crowfoot begins his maiden speech-

-I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended 14 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b). The hon. member for Crowfoot has the floor.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to give my maiden speech in this House I would like to extend my personal congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I would like to express my feeling of respect and honour for the career that you have had in politics. It is truly an honour for me to be making my maiden speech in this House with you, a fellow Albertan, in the chair.

I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to thank the people of Crowfoot, my constituents, for giving me the privilege of representing them in Ottawa. The Crowfoot riding is comprised primarily of farmers, ranchers and people in the service industry who are hard working, honest and frank.

I have pledged to represent their views in the same open manner in which they conduct their lives. I live in Camrose, the largest urban centre of Crowfoot, with my wife, Glenna, and our four children Anne-Marie, Jackie, Spencer and Sterling. I would like to put it on record that I love them very much and I miss them very much. I appreciate the position of all hon. members who are separated from their families for long periods of time and the position of their families as well.

I am proud to represent this riding which is named after the great Blackfoot chief, Crowfoot. Although the Blackfoot band is no longer in my riding, its present chief, Striker Crowfoot, is a direct descendant of Chief Crowfoot. We met with him some time ago as a caucus committee and it was wonderful to sit in his presence and listen to his wisdom.

Given that my riding is larger than the province of Nova Scotia, it is a real task to travel to each part of my riding to consult with my constituents but I am committed to listening to the numerous opinions and concerns of the people of Crowfoot and to making their voices heard in the nation's capital.

During the election I encountered a great deal of anger, frustration and a feeling of betrayal from the voters that stem from a belief that the politicians and government had violated the faith and trust that people had placed in them, that members of Parliament had exceeded the parameters of fair play and common sense and that they had been irresponsible in the manner in which they had conducted the affairs of this country.

The people of Canada know that the stability of every organization, whether it is the family business, church or community organization, is governed by the fundamental law of economics which simply states that one cannot continually spend more than one brings in. If one does, one's organization will cease to exist.

For more than 20 years the people of Canada have seen their government violate this fundamental law of economics. By doing so, the government has left the impression it is beyond the law and immune to the consequences of non-adherence to the economic principles that govern the private sector.

The federal government has not balanced its budget in 20 years. It has simply refused to live within its means. This government's budget has shown that it is no different than the past Tory and Liberal governments that have brought us to the brink of financial despair.

It has ignored the enormous danger that overspending and over taxation poses to the economic well-being of our people and our nation, and by doing so has displayed contempt for the principles of economics that govern the private sector and that ultimately hold such dire consequences for every citizen of this country.

The greatest threat to the economic stability of the individual and the family is the unrestrained power of government to tax away our wealth. The federal government has increased taxes more than 35 times in the last 10 years, adding a tax burden of close to $1,900 to the average Canadian family.

The Fraser Institute claims that over 50 per cent of all we earn now goes to the three levels of government in the form of taxation. In spite of the enormous amount of wealth the federal government has taken from the people each year, we find ourselves in a debt hole of over half a trillion dollars and plunging another $40 billion into debt this year.

This represents a colossal mismanagement of Canada's fiscal and monetary affairs and a degree of irresponsibility unheard of in the private sector. While the politicians have been plunging us into debt the people of this country have watched as the same politicians gave themselves pensions so extravagant and outrageous that Mr. Clark, for example, will receive over $3 million in benefits by age 75 and Perrin Beatty will receive close to $5 million.

These politicians take home a pension cheque each month greater than the paycheque of the average Canadian worker. This is unfair and unacceptable.

The perception that politicians ignore proper practices and procedures has been reinforced in the past five years by the almost daily violation of the rule of law that governs the procedure of the House of Commons by members of Parliament.

On almost any day during the previous Parliament, Canadians could have tuned in and witnessed a violation of Standing Order 16 when hon. members interrupted procedures by shouting, hollering and hurling insults at each other. Canadians watched the complete disregard for the rule of law that governs the procedure of the very institution that creates the laws of this nation.

When hon. members show contempt for the rule of law in this House, why should we be surprised when those outside this House show a similar contempt for the law?

If we as members of Parliament cannot govern our own feelings and emotions, why should the people trust us to govern the affairs of this nation?

No wonder people have lost faith in their government and no wonder politicians are held in such contempt across the country. The faith and trust of Canadians have been violated and they feel betrayed.

What has been the result of this feeling of betrayal on the part of Canadians? The reaction has been two-fold. The political reaction of Canadians has been the complete destruction of the Tory government, the decimation of the NDP caucus and the election of 52 Reform MPs who campaigned on a platform of fiscal restraint, tax relief and parliamentary reform.

The economic reaction of Canadians to this betrayal of trust is much more ominous. An underground economy has developed in this country which some estimate at $100 billion per year. People are opting out of a tax system which they consider to be unfair and threatening to their personal and family survival. Canadians living near the U.S. border are shopping in the states to avoid the GST and other taxes. The number of normally law-abiding citizens willing to risk prosecution to purchase bootlegged cigarettes and other products to avoid high taxes is growing. These people are rejecting our tax system because they consider it unfair and a threat to their economic survival.

They see government over-spending and they see the waste of taxpayer's dollars on every side and they feel betrayed. They see a justice system run amok; a parole system that releases violent criminals onto the streets who continue to rape and murder; a Young Offender's Act that cannot hold 10-year olds accountable for their criminal conduct. They see legislation that is impotent and unable to protect society against criminal acts; legislation

such as the ill-conceived gun control bill which is wrongly aimed at law-abiding citizens and not at the criminal use of firearms.

Canadians have seen wave after wave of political patronage which has such a demeaning and destructive effect upon the integrity of politicians and government in the minds of Canadians. Now they hear the Prime Minister telling them it is disgusting and revolting to allow them the right to have a say in deciding important issues, moral issues like mercy killing.

The Prime Minister repeatedly reminds this House that Canadians knew what was best at election time. It was not disgusting and revolting for them to participate in the election of their representatives. However, as soon as he became Prime Minister he suddenly knew what is best.

From this I know best attitude, the hallmark of the Trudeau and the Mulroney administrations and now continued by the present Prime Minister, we have a nation beset with high taxes, enormous debt and a justice system that cannot protect the property and lives of Canadians.

In spite of all the budget consultations throughout the country, the I know best attitude is still evident. Canadians did not ask for or want another $100 billion added to the debt and yet that is exactly what the Liberal government is doing with this budget.

The government did not inform Canadians of this planned addition to the debt and it has omitted mentioning the dangers of adding $100 billion to the existing debt of half a trillion dollars.

Why does this budget not say a word about the consequences this will have upon our nation and our people? What will it do to our social programs, to our economic stability, to our international credit rating and to the one million children reported to be living in poverty? What will the addition of another $100 billion to the debt do to further enhance the sense of betrayal felt by a growing number of Canadians throughout this country?

This budget shows a lack of concern with the debt. This government is spending $3 billion more this year than last. It is taking more money from Canadians and out of the economy than it did last year. This budget shows no concern for the dangers to Canadians posed by the ever-rising debt.

Past governments, including Liberals, showed no concern about the dangers of debt. The Liberals left us with a $200 billion debt in 1984. The Tories could not handle that debt and simply added another $300 billion to it.

Now this government is promising to add $100 billion to the federal debt in the next three years with no mention of the devastating consequences this debt poses for our nation and our people.

This irresponsible action by the governments of the old line parties which is contained in this budget is absolutely unacceptable to me and to Canadians. These governments through the force of law have imposed a tyranny of debt and taxation upon the people of this nation. The mismanagement of our fiscal and monetary affairs by this and past governments is destroying the economy of this nation.

The life of this nation depends upon the economy and it depends upon the spirit of the people who constitute the nation. The feelings of anger, frustration and betrayal run deep in this country and are taking their toll upon the spirit of Canadians.

Nothing will change those feelings until Canadians are able to place their trust in the people whom they have chosen to govern them. This budget could have been a start. This budget could have helped heal the broken economy and sparked the spirit and hope of our people. It has not done this.

In closing, I would like to address the good that is in this budget and there is good in this budget. It has been spoken of by members on both sides of the House. From my particular viewpoint, I view the good in this budget like adding a needed piece of furniture to a house that is burning down.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the budget that was tabled on February 22 by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

The federal budget has set out a responsible course of action to bring the deficit under control and put Canadians back to work. It builds on the need to tackle the deficit, reform social programs and devise plans to assist our unemployed.

This budget reflects the government's belief that, by working together with Canadians, we must make changes to improve the economy. The budget's provisions will have a significant impact on every Canadian, but I believe the Minister of Finance has struck an equitable balance between spending restraints and carefully-planned measures that will encourage economic growth.

The goal of the budget, said the Minister of Finance is, and I quote: "- a balanced approach to fundamental reform-to create jobs, to continue to care for those in need, and to get the deficit down". Indeed, the diverse nature of Canada's economy places ever-increasing importance on a fast, reliable and low-cost transportation system.

Transportation is the life-support system of the country's exports and a critical factor in the competitiveness of Canadian industry. A prime example of the importance of transportation efficiency is the share of export prices attributable to transport costs. Between 18 and 45 per cent of the selling price of our primary products-coal, forest products, grain and lumber-goes to transportation. Transportation represents an estimated five per cent of the cost of manufactured export goods and, in some cases, is as high as 17 per cent.

The transportation industry is a major employer, providing for more than 442,000 direct and 378,000 indirect jobs-many of them highly skilled.

There are many significant challenges facing the transportation sector in our country. Changes brought about by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement demand an efficient transportation system. With the globalization of markets and new trading arrangements, Canada's focus is shifting to the growing north-south traffic and our increasing exports and passenger travel overseas.

Our east-west transportation demands must continue to be met and these needs should expand in the future with the successful completion of internal trade negotiations and improved market access for our primary commodities through the Uruguay round agreements.

However, our transportation industries, notably the airlines and railways, have suffered and continue to suffer major financial losses. Canada's two major airlines are in serious financial difficulty. Only time will tell whether they can survive.

Recent developments, such as the end of the Air Canada legal action and the entanglement with Canadian Airlines International over Gemini and other issues, illustrate our commitment as a government to work closely with the industry in every way and certainly to try to improve its commercial viability and its ability to compete in the global marketplace.

We are looking forward to analysing any proposals that may be brought forward by CN and CP to merge or otherwise rationalize their operations in Canada from coast to coast. Our evaluation of any rail rationalization proposal will attempt to strike the appropriate balance between the needs of users and the interests of workers. However, I want to stress that for me, for the government and for the department our primary concern will be the interests of the Canadian taxpayer.

Our decision will take into account the many dynamic changes in the North American rail industry and the economy in general, including the growing importance of north-south traffic, intermodal competition and integration, the possibility of increased competition from south of the border, which certainly exists, technological change and any potential economic efficiencies we may be able to achieve.

VIA Rail is another entity for which our department is responsible and which faces a very, very troubled future. There will have to be a remarkable combination of efficiency gains at VIA Rail and rationalization of its operations or the cost to the Canadian taxpayer to support VIA will escalate even far beyond where it is now.

We have to recognize that some of Canada's transportation systems are overbuilt and far too heavily subsidized. Ninety-five per cent of all Canada's air passengers and cargo are handled at only 25 of our many, many airports. Eighty-four per cent of rail traffic is carried on 33 per cent of the lines. Eighty per cent of port traffic passes just through 5 per cent of our ports.

We are spending a lot of money in this country for transportation. In the main estimates we have indicated that it is the government's intention to spend $619 million on the Canadian Coast Guard, $710 million on the air navigation system, $430 million on airports. We will pay $331 million for passenger rail services, $159 million for ferry services, nearly $650 million under the Western Grain Transportation Act and in excess of $100 million on the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act.

These are huge numbers, beyond the comprehension of most Canadians, but they are numbers that are going to have to be looked at very seriously.

We must separate the desirable from the essential-and the essential must be the focus of the transportation system of the future. There are tough decisions to be made. In this context, the budget calls on me, as Minister of Transport, to discuss with my provincial colleagues the development of a highly-effective, integrated, affordable, surface freight transportation system, and the redirection of subsidies to improve the efficiency of that system. For example, it has become clear that the national highway system in this country needs to be upgraded. The provincial and federal transport ministers have agreed on what has to be done. Now, the finance ministers must find a way to pay for it.

Scarce financial resources must be redirected to the development of an integrated, multimodal, affordable transportation system. We must bring together many of the components that are available to us in the transportation sector to make sure we have the best possible system. The challenge undoubtedly is going to be very difficult for industry to meet, especially for the railways and airlines when they are struggling to find more efficient ways

to conduct their business. The government too has to meet the challenges of very limited resources.

For our part at Transport Canada, we are implementing our own cost-cutting initiatives in keeping with the provisions contained in my colleague's new budget. We are pursuing approaches that involve a mix of modal integration, pragmatism, innovation and most of all hard-nosed realism. We are focusing on solutions that will be important for Canada's future rather than dwelling on the romanticism and nostalgia of the past, as important as Pierre Burton's view of Canada might be.

The budget provides for increases to the air transportation tax, an opportunity to demonstrate that we want to reduce the transportation cost burden on the taxpayer and shift costs to those who use the various systems.

Transport Canada provides many services. Users are contributing 42 per cent of the $2.1 billion cost of these services, but the taxpayer is picking up the remaining 58 per cent.

We are going to ensure that those who benefit most directly from a service or facility pay a fair share of the cost. A better balance between taxpayers and users was strongly supported by the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation and by the National Transportation Act Review Commission. Let me emphasize that Transport Canada's proposed fee increases for 1994-95 are related directly to inflation rates since the last increase.

The time has come for government to look at new ways of providing services. In his budget the Minister of Finance stated that we would look at initiating the concept of commercialization at Transport Canada.

I am a strong believer in the ability of the private sector to get the job done. In Canada, if ever there was a time when those who do the job best should be allowed to do just that, this is it.

We will look at every opportunity to collaborate with the private sector to provide transportation services to Canadians. We will not be timid about asking the private sector to do what it can do best. We will also make sure that the role of government, however, continues to be to set policy and to ensure adequate services for all Canadians.

Traditional ways of the past do not allow today for quick responses to rapidly changing needs. The government does not have to own and operate a system in order to achieve its public policy goals. I believe that commercialization is an attractive option since it brings business discipline to the provision of services often traditionally delivered by government.

Commercialization can take many forms from government operations to non-profit entities, special operating agencies and crown corporations and can include privatization, can include mixes of those various components. Regardless of the form it means we must adopt a businesslike approach which is more efficient, more responsive to clients and less dependent on the Canadian taxpayer. The benefits can be better capital planning, access to private financing, faster approval, easier introduction of new technologies and more user and client input.

There is great potential for commercialization including for example the air navigation system, St. Lawrence seaway activities, short line railways, coast guard. I believe that commercialization in these and many other areas of government activity can bring major savings to taxpayers and better service to clients. Any move to commercialization will respect our government's commitment to maintaining Canada's high standards in the transportation sector.

We cannot ask more of users than we ask of ourselves so I am pleased to tell the House today that new management initiatives at Transport Canada with respect to overhead costs will result in annual savings of some $50 million. This will involve the reduction in the number of positions in our department by about 1,000 over the next four to five years.

Overhead costs will be examined every year and in this context Transport Canada managers are aware of my very serious and deep concern about employees who may be affected by such changes that they must be dealt with sensitively and fairly in accordance with the government's workforce adjustment policy.

Over the years Transport Canada has achieved significant reductions in expenditures in the provision of facilities and services. Overall the net result has been a reduction, for example, in operation budgets from 1985-1986 to 1993-1994 of $.5 billion.

During the same period the workforce was reduced by 2,400 person years or over 11 per cent. These reductions have been achieved despite an increase in most aggregate workload indicators.

I have discussed some of the transportation issues that must be examined in the context of our new budget. I believe the components of the budget and the actions we are taking together with the co-operation of users of transportation services represent a balanced national program to meet Canada's needs.

Our government is fully committed to helping Canadians build a stronger economy. We intend to move forward on policies that will bring immediate gains in transportation efficiencies and we will try to protect jobs but we have to maintain transportation security and safety.

Canadians want to control their future and they are very respectful of their past. I have said on many occasions that aside from railroads and the nostalgia of the building of this great country, as important as it might be, we now have to look at the realities we face today. I will paraphrase the words of Geoffrey Simpson in the introduction of his book "Faultlines". He discussed the national railway as the national dream of the 19th century.

I think for most Canadians, as we go through this process of trying to find an equitable equilibrium between our resources and those services we want to provide for Canadians, recognize that there is a national dream at this stage in our nation's history. It probably has to do with taking care of people in social programs such as medicare.

Times have changed and we are going to have to reflect that. At Transport Canada because of the tremendous contribution that various sectors in the transportation industry have made to the development of Canada I know it is very difficult for many to accept these changes.

I believe that Canadians insist that their government have the means to maintain vital programs, policies and services and that we must have the flexibility to respond to priorities that we have become all too much aware of.

A national, integrated and affordable transportation system is not the new national dream. As we prepare for the 21st century a national, integrated and affordable transportation system is a national necessity.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

I can say that after listening to the Minister of Transport, there is one point on which I agree: if our current railway network corresponds to the national dream, that dream is pretty obsolete.

After listening to his speech, I concluded that the Minister of Transport had become a subsidiary of Treasury Board, because he told us basically that we had to cut costs and raise fares. I expected some vision of the future.

He told us that if there was a merger between CN and CP, they would examine it. But why does the minister not make a merger mandatory and provide clear guidelines on maintaining essential services, cutting costs and making railway services competitive?

Why is the minister waiting for CN and CP to come up with proposals, when today we are told this will take at least another year. Meanwhile, they will sell off assets. A lot of this property is on railway lines, and major assets will be transferred to real estate subsidiaries of these companies. These assets are now worth a lot of money and were probably acquired for a song, with government assistance.

There is another matter that is even more important for the future of this country, and the Minister of Transport did not even bother to mention it. The high-speed train project for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, a project for the future, a project based on new technologies that will be able to meet both transportation requirements of a billion dollar North American market for new technologies, and would you believe, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport did not say a word about this project?

Could the Minister of Transport perhaps give us some idea of what the prospects are for the future?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the hon. member's comments about the merger being discussed by officials of CN and CP, we said that we will certainly consider the proposal that might be made to the Government of Canada as CN's shareholder.

Of course we are willing to look at all these possibilities. Those who know Canada's railways even a little already know that Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island do not have any rail service. CP will abandon its lines in eastern Canada, east of Sherbrooke, next January.

My hon. colleague was there when all these things were decided by the previous government. For our part, we will certainly listen to what the two railways have to suggest to us. We are very aware of the need to find an efficient system that can be maintained in Canada, but we insist that all elements of the transportation sector must be combined in a system that is efficient and that we can afford.

Line abandonments will certainly continue. The Canadian taxpayer is certainly unable at the end of the 20th century to support a system that was undoubtedly efficient 30 or 40 years ago, but we are trying to phase it out as fairly and equitably as possible, taking account of other alternatives.

As for the high-speed train, my hon. colleague no doubt knows that the governments of Quebec, Ontario and Canada are now conducting a multi-million-dollar study. This study is to be completed in the spring and I hope that a report will be available to us this summer. I believe that it would be very wrong of me to say whether or not we should have a high-speed train system before listening to our colleagues from Quebec and Ontario, because we think that they have worked hard and deserve a hearing when they come to us with a report.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on his speech. It was certainly positive and we need to look forward to efficiency at a reasonable cost today.

The minister is genuinely trying to go in that direction. It is encouraging that the ideas coming out have not been shown in decades. I congratulate the minister for that.

Airports, particularly small airports in this country, have cost taxpayers millions of dollars. That is unfortunate but sometimes often considered necessary because small airports have trouble getting revenue from landing fees, expansion, and so on.

In my own community the Abbotsford airport, home of the International Abbotsford Air Show, has been trying for several years to have its own airport authority which would have seen the result of fewer tax dollars in the federal government and local taxing authority looking after the airport.

In many discussions we had in previous years with the previous government it seemed that we got into the bureaucracy and there ended what would be considered a fruitful discussion.

I wonder if the minister might enlighten us as to where these small airports are going to go eventually. Is the minister open to trying to get some of these communities that want their own airport authorities to get them moved from the Department of Transport locally?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps a small airport, yes. We are all very familiar with the activity at Abbotsford with the big air show.

I reassure my friend that it is the intention of the government to facilitate the devolution of operations for airports to communities across the country. We will probably encourage them very aggressively to do that.

I want to indicate that the operating budgets for smaller airports generally speaking should be manageable. We do recognize that the capital investment is not always possible. It is very difficult to raise capital. It is very difficult to find sufficient capital to be able to do the things that are required to maintain the levels of service at airports.

We want to be very even handed about it. We have said that with respect to Pearson and other large airports across the country. We want to be consistent. It is our philosophy to look at the wide range of options from government operated airports all the way out to privatization.

I suspect that we will be recommending a form of local authority with some degree of accountability. Where individuals from the community who best know their needs manage those airports in a form of relationship with the Government of Canada that will respect the interest of the Canadian taxpayer, we intend to do that very soon.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Minister of Transport who said that some significant investments of the order of $470 million are expected for airports, at least in the budget, if I understood correctly.

Also, I took note of the answer he gave to the hon. member for Rosemont earlier in which he said that he could not commit to a high-speed train project because a study was underway. I would like to point out to the minister, before I ask him a question, that all the studies on the expansion and upgrading of Jean Lesage Airport are done. They have been shelved and we are only waiting for the Minister of Transport to release the money needed to go ahead.

I would like to remind the minister that, in the Summer of 1993, this facility was given the status of an international airport. However, we are under the impression that this is only a token status, since Jean Lesage Airport is in rather poor shape, compared to other airports in Halifax, Winnipeg, and Edmonton. It only has a third of the space these other facilities have.

Does the minister intend to do something in 1994 to expand this international airport so it can meet current needs? There is consensus among experts in the field on this issue.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the situation in Ancienne-Lorette with respect to Aéroport Jean-Lesage, Quebec City's airport. You are correct in saying that studies have been carried out and proposals and specifications have been drawn up. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. colleague that we have not been able to do everything in four months. When we started to review these files, plans had been under way for some time already. Discussions had taken place and representations had been made. I regret that the previous administration was unable to complete the Quebec City airport project.

However, I want to assure the hon. member that we are working on proposals based on what it would cost to carry out the needed work at the Quebec City international airport. I hope that I will have an answer for him fairly soon. However, while we are on the subject of the budget, the figures that I quoted in my speech are generally associated with the cost of airport operations, rather than with airport construction costs. I hope that a decision can be reached, and that the comments of my hon. colleague will be taken into consideration.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance on February 22.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources and as the Official Opposition critic for training and youth, I

think, Mr. Speaker, it is only appropriate that I should address the social impact of the Budget and especially the impact on the future of our youth.

I would like to start by discussing the proposed changes in the unemployment insurance plan, because I think that is where the Liberal government has been most remiss since it was elected. But is unemployment not our most pressing problem?

In 1989, one million Canadians were unemployed. In 1993, there were 1.6 million, an increase of 60 per cent. Unlike what the Liberals said when they were in the opposition and during the last election campaign, they are applying the same policies as the Conservatives, in other words, they would rather attack the unemployed than try to create jobs.

For instance, they decided to maintain the increases in unemployment insurance premiums proposed earlier by the Conservatives. Although yesterday during Question Period, the Minister of Finance admitted this did not make sense, he will not make any changes for another year, apparently hoping that the social program reforms being discussed today will provide the necessary funding to create 40,000 new jobs next year.

Why not do it this year? After all, the government had no qualms about cancelling the helicopter contract and backtracking on the privatization of Pearson airport. Freezing unemployment insurance premiums last January would have been easier than rolling them back a year from now.

Generally speaking, the changes in the unemployment insurance program will mean that people will have to work longer to be eligible for lower benefits received for a shorter period of time.

A study by professors at the department of economics of the University of Québec in Montreal shows that more than half of the cutbacks announced in the latest federal budget will be at the expense of Canada's unemployed.

By introducing different benefit levels, the government is dividing the unemployed into two categories: low income unemployed people with dependants and the others. To justify its decision, the government cites a supposed notion of equity, when instead it is a breach of the universality principle which has been the cornerstone of our social programs since the beginning. It amounts to discrimination based on family status.

For example, what will happen to equity when both spouses are unemployed? Which one will be entitled to higher benefits? Time does not allow me to give more examples, but there are a lot more. With more diversified eligibility standards, it will become increasingly necessary to monitor claims. After the boubous macoutes we have seen in Quebec, are we going to have Martin macoutes and Axworthy macoutes?

Another one of the perverse effects of UI reform is the fact that it passes the buck to the provinces. By reducing the duration of benefits and delaying eligibility, in a time of high unemployment, this reform will push more people onto welfare, which will mean more expenses for the provinces and a loss of dignity for individuals.

Furthermore, a greater number of persons who want to participate in various training programs will be disqualified because, as you know, most of the federal training programs are now intended for UI recipients.

On the other hand, if the benefit period is shortened, unemployment insurance reform will lead some people to accept insecure, often low-paying jobs bearing no relationship whatsoever with their skills. By forcing them to accept low-paying jobs just to survive, we are preventing these people from seeking more appropriate employment.

Is that this government's new philosophy on human resource development? Being unemployed often pushes people into insecure, precarious jobs. The proposed reform affects honest workers who are actively looking for work and who have a hard time finding a permanent job because of the present economic situation.

Several studies have shown that more than 90 per cent of the unemployed have lost their jobs through no fault of their own or are looking for their first job. Most of them have no control over the duration of that job. The problem is not that the unemployed do not want to work, but rather that there is not enough work for everyone.

I also want to mention some statistics regarding our young people, such as the fact that 17.5 per cent of young Canadians and 20 per cent of young Quebecers are currently unemployed, for a total of more than 600,000 individuals. In Canada as well as in Quebec, the drop-out rate in high schools is around 30 per cent. According to a report published by the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse du Québec, close to 40 per cent of young Quebecers live in poverty. Across the country, there are two million young people under 30 who live below the poverty level.

Yet, in its budget, the federal government offers nothing really new to young people. The Youth Service Corps, which was widely publicized in the red book, seems to be the only government initiative for our young. Some meetings took place in December and in January, but a report has yet to be released.

According to the most recent information, that is according to copies which were circulated when those consultations took place, the Youth Service Corps would only include 2,500 young people the first year, 5,000 the second year, and 10,000 after three years. Is that an adequate measure, considering that there are 600,000 young unemployed in Canada? We do not think so.

Moreover, it seems that young people participating in this program would only receive $61 a week if they still live at home, and $121 otherwise. Ask yourself this question: Would you accept such an arrangement for your own children who are old enough to work?

To make things even worse, the Youth Service Corps seems, for the time being, more geared to occupational activities, with no direct link to the labour market, as was the case with the Katimavik project abolished by the Conservatives in 1986.

So far, all the organizations dedicated to helping young people which have been heard by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development have said that when young people leave school they need practical and relevant experience to find real jobs. The federal government would be well advised to increase its financial support to existing organizations instead of creating another structure such as the Youth Service Corps.

Since I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, I would like to conclude by relating what I have heard over the last few weeks from various groups and individuals during our public hearings on social programs reform. What has struck me so far is that the majority do not seem to be in favour of a reduction of resources, quite the contrary. Other trends are also evident. There is fairly widespread support for a major decentralization of the management of social programs and for greater involvement of local communities.

Also, it is increasingly obvious in this consultation that there are two social realities in Canada and two expectations with respect to the federal government.

Some groups in English Canada want a greater federal presence in social security and even more national standards; on the other hand, Quebec groups and organizations in general have a completely different vision. They turn more to the Government of Quebec. But the most significant trend with all groups is deep concern about employment. Obviously, we must bring together all available resources and target all our efforts to increasing the number of jobs.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

The Official Opposition talks about reducing the deficit but continues to seek increases in federal transfer payments. The Official Opposition talks about deficit reduction by cutting government administration, yet federal transfer payments and social programs amount to 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the budget. The books cannot be balanced without cutting federal transfer payments to the provinces.

When will the member realize that his plan falls considerably short of doing any such thing as reducing the deficit when he insists on having lucrative social programs supported by the federal government?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer might sound, to the hon. member's ears, like a repetition of what has already been said, but I believe that, at times, repetition is a good thing.

First, as far as job training is concerned, it is clearly established-and nobody denied the validity of the figures-that the elimination of all duplications would produce savings of $250 million in Quebec alone, which extrapolated for the whole country would mean a billion dollar saving. This is a first step.

The Bloc Quebecois never concealed the fact that it wanted cuts in military spending, but we were talking about administrative costs. In that sense we agree with several comments of your party. However, there is another question to consider, and that is unemployment among young people. Allowing young people with a university or college degree, and very often a heavy debt load, to be without a job paying decent wages, is denying the government revenues in the future, revenues that could help finance its spending program. More unemployed young people means more spending and less revenues. It is very important that we reflect on this and that we do it rather quickly.

Being unemployed is always traumatic, but for young people, studies have shown that failure to find employment related to the acquired knowledge or skills within two years can lead-and this is a widespread conclusion-to total despondency and erratic behaviour. This in turn could create serious social problems and significant expenses. So, we can expect more spending in the future and, primarily, people who will be unable to contribute to deficit reduction.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the Minister of Finance's budget statement, I would like to make a three-pronged retrospective. First of all, I would like to talk about the last election campaign, about the purgatory of the federal Liberal Party, the nine years it spent on this side of the House, and also about the nine years the Conservative Party was in office.

During the last election campaign, the party in office, under its leader, created a lot of hope among the people. Quebecers, as well as Canadians, were given the usual package of election promises and slogans which they sincerely believed in for a while.

Today, we have a rude awakening. We suddenly realize that we did not have just a bad dream, but that, once again, reality is striking us savagely in the face. The change of direction that Liberals were proposing is quickly becoming totally meaning-

less, and people are stuck with this monotonous, Conservative continuity, void of all rigour and fairness.

This government, opposite, promised without any restraint a major job renewal to the people, and here I quote a part of what it was promising: "We will, once and for all, put the people of this country back to work". What a lie!

Quebecers and Canadians fell into a trap. That party that now forms the government is far from the innovation that it was promising in the red book, and I quote again: "When we form the government, we will innovate, we will look at our problems in a new light. We will not go for the usual recipes". Again, what a lie!

National Defence, public service, unemployment insurance: the same targets, the same cutbacks as those of the previous governments, whether Conservative or Liberal.

On top of that, this government has misled the average workers, the senior citizens and those in need by emphasizing interesting future opportunities through a rewarding job or through social programs which would be humane and sensible.

It is quite obvious that the people of the county of Frontenac as well as those from the other counties in this country, once their votes were assured, were ignored, scorned by this government, which is quite clearly demonstrated in this budget. As a popular song written by the great Quebecer Felix Leclerc says: "The day before the election, he calls him son, but the day after, as one might expect, he has forgotten his name".

The average taxpayers from the county of Frontenac and elsewhere were deceived and they are the ones who will have to pay the tab. The Minister of Finance predicts a revenue increase of 15 per cent for 1995-96.

This increase will have to be made possible through additional taxes imposed on the middle class taxpayers, because of the 10 million taxpayers, almost 85 per cent declare an income which is less than $30,000. So it is an unfair and shocking measure.

Older people as well are getting a taste of the same medecine since they are progressively losing their tax credit while dividends on shares and family trusts are still exempt from tax. It is the very taxation system which is scorned by this government.

How am I going to explain to the unemployed in the riding of Frontenac-whether it be in Thetford Mines, East Broughton, Sainte-Méthode, Coleraine or Plessisville, that this liberal government has no plan whatsoever to create jobs and has not considered any-I repeat, has not considered any-long term job creation measures?

How am I going to explain to the people of the riding of Frontenac that this budget does not contain any measures to stimulate economic growth or any measures regarding job creation, in view of the fact that this governement has been elected on a platform that proclaimed loudly and clearly its strong commitment to the creation of good jobs to restore dignity and hope?

Yet, Canadians, in particular Quebecers, have two clear and well defined objectives. First, they want a gouvernment that creates jobs and at the same time a government that has a broad plan towards employment. Second, they want the governement to be more responsible in its management of taxpayers money, especially in these times of recession.

How am I to explain to the unemployed in the riding of Frontenac that from now on, the period during which they will be allowed to receive unemployment benefits will be shorter, that their benefits will be 2 p. 100 less and that they will have to work longer in order to qualify for unemployment benefits, so as to help reduce the deficit? How do I explain to unemployed workers that they must tighten their belts while the member for Hull-Aylmer, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, spends more than $150,000 in travel costs to give a brief speech-listen to this-on the benefits of sound management?

How do I explain to them that the Minister of Finance spent $800,000, or nearly $1 million, on public consultations? How do I explain to the president of the seniors club of Saint-Alphonse parish in Thetford Mines that 800,000 people age 65 and over will see their age credit reduced or quite simply eliminated, depending on their income, while at the same time, the Governor General hosts a costly reception to mark the opening of the 35th Parliament?

My constituents no longer trust the old-style federal politicians who often treat them with cynicism and indifference. The Minister of Finance saw this for himself during the last election campaign during a swing through Thetford Mines. At the Balmoral, barely 30 people showed up to greet him at a $30 a plate evening fund-raiser. Not 3,000 people, but barely 30 voters.

The budget is unfair in that it spares the wealthy, who are often friends of the government, contribute to the election coffers and enjoy a strong, well-organized and effective lobby to influence the policies of the Minister of Finance.

With his half-laced Kodiac work boots, our Minister of Finance was not a bit like our asbestos miners. He bore no resemblance whatsoever to a good, hard-working individual. It was a disgraceful spectacle, one that only seasoned actors can get away with. Only, the spectators certainly did not enjoy being the butt of this joke.

The clever tricks employed by the Minister of Finance during the pre-budget period did not escape the public eye. No one was fooled by the old trick of setting people up well in advance to expect the worst in order to get them to swallow a very bitter pill.

However, and this concludes my remarks, the medicine has had the desired effect. My constituents are bitterly disappointed and sick at heart. They feel betrayed and victimized because they have been repeatedly targeted. As environment critic, I must comment briefly on this department's budget.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Questions and comments period. I am willing to recognize the hon. member for Rosemont, but he should stand in his place. I can wait for him to go back.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

I appreciate your great kindness, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I would like to ask my hon. friend from Frontenac, who is the Bloc Quebecois critic for the environment, to tell us what this budget means for the environment.

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

I would like to thank the hon. member for Rosemont. It is a very pertinent question, because, as you very well know, Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the economy and the environment go hand in hand. Moreover, it was a very important part of the red book. Since the member for Rosemont is also a well-informed environmentalist, he is interested in the environment and I want to take the opportunity to denounce what the budget does on environmental issues.

The Department of the Environment is one of the few to have its budget increased-you will see later why I mention this. Of course, we must be grateful for a 4.1 per cent increase, but some measures are not so good. Listen to this: the budget for Phase II of the St. Lawrence Action Plan will increase by $18.4 million. Of course, I am pleased with this initiative that will implement Phase II of the project. This increase shows that this program is giving excellent results. So why has the agreement for this second phase, which was to be signed with the Government of Quebec in December, still not been signed, and even worse, has $18.4 million been added to this part?

It would also seem that 40 per cent of the pollution in the St. Lawrence River comes from the Great Lakes. From the latest report of the International Joint Commission which was presented to us less than three weeks ago, we know that pollution in the Great Lakes affects human health. Despite that, the Liberal government opposite is cutting $5 million from the budget to clean up the Great Lakes, and we know that 40 per cent of the pollution in the St. Lawrence River comes from the Great Lakes.

[An hon. member]

Something is not working!

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

Yes, something is not working. So on the one hand, the budget to clean up the river is being increased and, on the other, the budget for cleaning up the more polluted body of water, the Great Lakes, is reduced. It makes one wonder what has become of the coherent approach to sustainable development, Mr. Speaker.

I conclude with that and I thank all hon. members for listening to me so kindly.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order! Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Bourassa-Immigration.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as the member of Parliament for York West to participate in the debate on the government's budget.

Budgets are about many things. Budgets are about ledgers. As the government and specifically the Minister of Finance approached the budget essentially two ledgers were imposed on him, on the government and indeed on Parliament.

On the one side of the ledger was a population of Canadians who were looking to the government and to Parliament to try to control spending and to try to bring the deficit and the debt into line. On the other side of the ledger were those who expressed themselves through the recent election campaign and essentially demanded some economic renewal, some economic hope, a strategy and a plan to put Canadians back to work.

Those in essence were the two ledgers with which the Minister of Finance and Parliament has had to come to grips in the budget. I would suggest we will have to come to grips with the two ledgers for the duration of Parliament and this mandate. They are not two easy ledgers. Both are very real. Both are very worthy. At the same time both are priorities as articulated by average Canadians.

We have talked about the budget cuts. We have talked about the $8 billion in cuts. We have talked about the base closings. There is a base right next door to my riding that was closed. Those decisions are not taken easily. Those jobs that have to be transferred from the bases to other sectors of our economy are not easy. In fact that was debated moments ago during the question and comment period. Yet I believe Canadians are understanding.

Budgets have to go beyond ledgers. Budgets have to go beyond simple figures and numbers that obviously make up the bottom line. Budgets are also about a document that should provide and inspire a sense of hope and a sense among the

population that budget and fiscal commitments have been honoured and kept.

I would like to spend the few minutes available to me talking about the ledger, about jobs and about keeping economic hope alive. Individuals in the House have suggested much more Draconian cuts to try to bring the deficit and the debt under control. They have a cost; they certainly do not come free of charge. In fact the ultimate aim of the budget was to try to balance the two ledgers.

During the recent election campaign I heard that the ledger on the side of jobs and economic growth was not only important to the future aspirations of Canadians looking for work but as a long term answer to the other ledger, trying to come to grips with the debt and deficit. Particularly as a member coming from the region of metropolitan Toronto I am sensitive to the kind of commitment Canadians gave to the government which had the ability to convince them that it was in a position to offer economic hope.

I come from a city that is not and should not be seen as the fat cat city of Confederation. Yes, there is the city on the shining hill. That is certainly a side of metropolitan Toronto and we are very proud of it. However there is another city in metropolitan Toronto. There is a chronic underbelly that speaks to a sense of despair over the last number of years. We have been through a very brutal economic recession that has also touched metropolitan Toronto.

Sometimes we thought that Toronto would have been sheltered, given that Toronto and Ontario are seen as the economic engine in terms of the manufacturing heartland of the country. Sometimes we felt Toronto would be sheltered from the ravages of a national recession.

Obviously the reality is there for everyone to see. There are record line-ups at food banks and record welfare rolls. Canadians who for the first time in their lives found themselves on the unemployment line were embarrassed to come to see me during my Saturday constituency days. They were actually embarrassed to ask me how to fill out a claim for unemployment insurance or to ask me to help them find a job that would give them back dignity.

I am familiar with that side of the ledger. In the last number of years metropolitan Toronto and other parts of Canada have not had an easy time of it. As a government we have lived and seen reality. We have campaigned largely on the question of how to put the economy back on track and to focus on job creation and economic growth. That bottom line dictated the outcome of the election campaign.

There were many more issues than just that one, but the national overriding concern was who had the answer, who was able to capture the imagination and create economic growth and economic hope. I would submit the budget that was presented kept faith with that side of the ledger. It kept faith on what we talked about with respect to small businesses. The budget also kept faith on a number of areas we have talked about in the throne speech and during the campaign.

I remember when I was sitting on the other side of the House in the last Parliament. I moved, for instance, an opposition day motion respecting the credit crunch faced by small businesses because, like many members of Parliament in this House and in the last Parliament, we ran into countless numbers of small business and medium size business owners who simply could not get the time of day from lending institutions.

Many individuals who had been good corporate citizens of lending institutions, who had good ideas and good projects, who had track records in their communities, who in the end wanted a lifeline not only to be able to expand their businesses and realize those ideas and dreams but to see their way through the economic drought, were simply turned down.

I believe there needs to be a shift in the banking culture in the country. In the red book and in the campaign we talked about moving and encouraging our lending institutions to be better equipped and better structured to meet the realities of the small business sector.

The Minister of Finance followed through on that in the budget by establishing a task force of small business leaders and with the leadership of lending institutions to come to grips with the credit crunch. I believe that crunch is a reality. We are not trying to suggest that the blame should be cast on the our lending institutions; far from it. However, they have a key role in the economic equation of our country. They have to go the extra mile to put on solid footing the network of one million small businesses.

Why is it that banks, parliamentarians, economics professors and economists tell us freely that 80 per cent or 85 per cent of job growth and job creation comes from small and medium size firms? Why is it that 25 per cent of the overall business loan portfolios of our big five or big six banks, if we include the National Bank of Canada, are loans to small and medium size firms? This means that 75 per cent of business loans go to the large multinational corporations of the country. Why is that? Why is it so out of whack that 85 per cent of job growth comes from small businesses, yet only 25 per cent of business loans or thereabouts, according to the Canadian Banking Association, go to small business?

I am not suggesting that we have to tell the banks who to support. I am not saying that the banks should not be beholden to their shareholders. I am not suggesting that the banks should not worry about their credit worthiness.

I am suggesting that if politicians and Parliament have to change the way they do business and if the world is changing at a rapid pace, just maybe the banks have to revisit how they do business.

Sometimes it is easy to understand why a lending institution would rather make 10 loans of $10 million each rather than 200 loans of $200,000 each. Obviously there is a greater investment of time and labour. Obviously the big corporations might have the business plans all fit and proper with professional accountants, as opposed to spending time with small and medium sized entrepreneurs. If job growth is to come from the small and medium sized sector there is an onus on the banking fraternity that gets its licence exclusively from Parliament, through an act of Parliament, to work with us and with the small and medium sized businesses in better partnership to try to resolve the credit gridlock.

If we were to do so, we could imagine the one million plus small industries across the country and the kind of job creation that would accrue through that partnership. Therefore I am excited by a task force that tries to create that partnership. I am excited when the Imperial Bank of Commerce appoints a small and medium sized business ombudsman, a senior corporate vice-president to redress and look at the complaints with respect to lending applications of small and medium sized firms.

Some may say it is a small step, but it is an important recognition on the road to trying to change the way the lending fraternity does business with small and medium sized firms. Therefore I believe the budget has kept faith with the small business sector. In addition to the other issues enunciated by the Minister of Finance including the premium rollback on UI, a net creator of some 40,000 jobs with the millions of dollars that will be saved through that program initiative, the budget keeps faith with the infrastructure program. Some will say it is not a good program. Some will say it is a wasted program that talks about tinkering with construction.

During the election campaign the former Prime Minister almost ridiculed the kinds of benefits that would accrue in construction, trades and home industries across the country, as if construction workers, trades people and the infrastructure of our cities and towns were not important enough.

We should talk with the mayors of the municipalities. Many individuals in the House were municipal politicians. I started there. I only served two years, but I speak from experience about the numbers of projects that would otherwise dwindle on the shelves, that would never see the light of day because there was no partnership with senior levels of government. For instance, I served on the city of North York council. Given that it only gets dollars from the local property tax base, it was not in a position to fund many of those projects; it was not in a position to fund 100 cents on the dollar.

Now we have a partnership, one program. We are not saying that is the nirvana of the economic miracle. We are saying it is one program. Nonetheless it now offers the city of North York, as it does cities across the country, the opportunity to fund some of those projects and kick in 33 cents on the dollar. Yet, as we contemplate that, it would be doing two things. First, it would be upgrading their facilities, their infrastructure as a city or as a town. Upgrading our facilities is paramount to trying to upgrade our competitiveness. That is a variable in the competitive equation, whether members like it or not.

Second, it would create and stimulate jobs in a key economic sector of our country. I was in Windsor last week and, automotively speaking, people in Windsor were very happy that the big three would be moving positively and aggressively in the coming months and years. The prognosis is very healthy for a kind of recovery in the automotive industry. That is a key economic indicator.

So is construction in the trades and in the home industry. Certainly in my home town of metropolitan Toronto where that part of the economic pie has been dead as a door nail for far too long they see this as an economic hope or a partnership that stretches out an olive branch.

When we look at the creation of 50,000 to 60,000 direct jobs across the country, we are putting people back to work. We are stimulating the local economy because there are spinoffs and indirect jobs that flow from those direct job impacts.

We are upgrading our cities and towns, our communities, our neighbourhoods. Which country can afford not to upgrade its cities and municipalities? We do it as a family, we do it in our homes, and as each of us does it our neighbourhoods go up.

Look at the city of Montreal. I believe that Montreal, with all due respect, is a classic example of how the lack of upgrading of its infrastructure has reduced the ability of Montreal to be able to compete aggressively. In a city like Montreal, which I visit from time to time because my wife's family is from there, you can see over a number of years that the inability or the avoidance of keeping those infrastructures upgraded has had an impact in the overall economic life of that urban centre.

Third, this budget has kept its faith with training. We also know that we have to do a better job about how we go about training and educating our workforce. We often have pointed out by constituents and colleagues alike some of the European models. Germany is often put on the table very quickly. We are told that we need to do a better job of equipping individuals, our youngsters as well as those who are displaced from one economic sector and have to face a future of shifting their education or their training.

Our budget has committed itself over the next couple of years to investing almost a billion dollars in the area of training. It creates youth internship and apprenticeship programs in partnership with the private sector, not at the exclusion of some big government program, but together with the private industries of this country. Only in that partnership will those training programs be the success that we all hope they will be.

It keeps its commitment to trying to equip our country and our peoples with the right tools. That too is upgrading our national infrastructure. As we give our Canadian people the skills and the equipment needed, we are also upgrading the skills and the talents of our country.

It also keeps its faith with the youngsters through its youth corps. Again one program, but we heard countless times over the course of the campaign and certainly after it about the consternation that parents have about the future for their children. Here is one project, just one, and we are not suggesting that it is the cure-all, that once it is up and running will take approximately 15,000 young Canadians per year and have them do a job in a community outside their own so that they get to see what this country is all about. It will also give them that first all important experience so that they can hopefully get on the march toward establishing themselves in their careers.

You mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that my time has just about run out. I suppose I should have timed my remarks because I had wanted to say a few other things in terms of the innovation, the new economy and the job and entrepreneurial skills that immigrants, for whom I have the honour of being the minister, bring to this country.

I look forward to concluding my remarks at another time and answering any questions if there are any.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said a number of things in reference to the budget which I would like to address. I know that you are going to limit my time in making those remarks so I will limit myself to two points.

The first point is the deficit. The minister mentioned that cutting the deficit would impose costs on the population of Canada. Unquestionably that is true. He also implied that more severe cuts than the present government has made would really impose undue hardships.

Has the minister considered the other cost, the cost of not having taken sufficient measures to cut the deficit? This government has admitted that over the next three years $100 billion will be added to our deficit. Even at a nominal rate of interest of 8 per cent that means that the interest on that additional money will be $8 billion. There is no question that has to come from the taxpayers of Canada. I suspect that it will entail extra taxes.

The minister also mentioned small business and the reluctance of banking institutions to loan them money so they can improve their business. I agree with that, but we too did a survey of small business during the election campaign and prior to it. What they kept telling us was that the best thing that government could do for small business was to reduce taxes and reduce the bureaucracy: "Get out of my pockets and get off my back". They said that if the government does that they can make a prosperous business work. It will get the economy going, people will have more money, they will spend it more and our businesses will flourish.

Has the minister considered the effects that this minimal intrusion into the deficit is going to have downstream because we will now be $600 billion in debt? We are going to have to borrow that money because even then, if we achieve the 3 per cent of the GDP which the government aspires to, we are still going to be borrowing $25 billion in that final year.

Has the minister considered whether this is really the best way to go?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his two questions on the aspect that small business requests less government and less taxes.

I think those were the very words the Minister of Finance spoke about when he announced his budget in reference to small businesses. The payroll deduction, the question of trying to have less red tape and less bureaucracy for small businesses and a consistency in trying to allow them to grow with some kind of predictability are the very elements that underline the elements in the budget with respect to small business.

I believe we are both on the same wave length in terms of the budget as it treats small businesses.

With respect to the deficit and the debt, obviously he and I are agreeing to disagree. His party certainly came at the national campaign and since then with the feeling that we should have moved further. There have been a number of commentators in the country who have suggested that we cut too much and others who have said that we have done too little. Perhaps once one gets commentaries on both sides there is an indication that one has probably done the right thing at the right time.

We come to this Parliament with our first budget after nine years of a Tory administration that made it its focal point to be a government that was going to reduce debt and deficit. We certainly know something untoward and something very different about that. We believe that the commitments we made in our red book with respect to the 3 per cent that the member alluded to is the correct approach.

This budget starts us down that road. We believe that allowing the economy to grow, providing some job creation and some confidence in the marketplace is certainly an impact that should not be underestimated in order for us to address the other ledger. It is also a question about balance. I think the budget that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, presented spoke to the

balance between the two ledger sheets that are both, not one but both, on the mind of Canadians. Both are priorities.

I think we can only do justice to both if we try to balance both a responsible reduction in our costs of government and doing government which we did and at the same time try to ensure that the economy will certainly produce as Canadians would want it to.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try once again-I have tried this several times-to go through this funding for the infrastructure program.

The infrastructure program is supposed to spend $6 billion, $2 billion from municipal sources, $2 billion provincial and $2 billion federal. At the end of the day through this exercise we have spent $6 billion.

The minister has indicated that the municipalities were in favour of this. Having talked to a mayor of a municipality his feeling was that "my public works program is going to continue as it always did". The difference here is that the residential taxpayer will only see one-third of the usual cost because the provincial and the federal governments are going to share.

No wonder the municipal politicians are in favour of it. We are going to carry a fair bit of burden at the federal and provincial levels. Nevertheless it is the same taxpayer who pays regardless of which level provides the funding.

My question I suppose is going to be obvious. What can the minister tell us that we have at the end of two years other than spending $6 billion and employing 60,000 people, I believe the number of their book was, over two years? What is left after the two years besides $6 billion in expenditures, some kind of capital structure and maybe a very few people employed to maintain the structure? What is left for employment, besides a very large bill to pay?