Debates of March 7th, 1994

The House resumed from February 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1994, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me in this debate today. I recognize the necessity for the government to have a borrowing authority bill passed by Parliament.

The government does not receive all of its revenue from taxes on a specific date early in the fiscal year. Therefore, to meet its program needs when there is a shortfall in revenue it needs to be able to borrow. This is done all the time in the business world. What is new and extraordinary about the situation we in the House of Commons are faced with on this bill is the fact that the government knows now that there will be a substantial difference between revenues and expenditures, some $39.7 billion on the expenditure side, and has done nothing substantial to move toward balancing its books.

The only thing it has done is sought borrowing authority through this bill to make up the difference.

We were also told on Thursday, February 24, 1994 by the President of the Treasury Board that spending for the fiscal year 1994-95 only went up by $3 billion. Then he told us if we took out the increased amount to pay the interest on the debt, not the principal, spending only went up $.7 billion. What is most surprising is that he said this as if it were something to be proud of, some great achievement.

Does any of this make sense to the people of Canada, the people who pay all the bills? I repeat, the people who pay all the bills for everything the government does.

The government, in the overall scheme of things, is going to increase its spending, making a bad situation in relation to the deficit even worse. How can this government justify to Canadians any tax increase which puts more financial burden on Canadians when it will not even begin to put its financial house in order?

What does this government think Canadians want? What does this government think Canadians voted for on October 25 last year? They voted for a promise to create jobs and they voted for fiscal responsibility. If they did not want fiscal responsibility we in the Reform Party would not have increased our numbers from 1 to 52. The government's actions two weeks ago with the budget and the tabling of spending estimates and the borrowing bill will do nothing to create long term, permanent jobs, nor are they fiscally sound.

We have a short term, make work project through which we borrow money to create jobs, but nothing permanent. The president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has said that the Martin budget measures do not add up to a coherent plan that will help manufacturing grow, modernize and reinvent itself for the 21st century.

On the second issue of being fiscally prudent and attacking the deficit now, what are we told by the government? Just like any loser in an athletic contest: "Just wait until next year, or maybe the year after that".

Canadians thought on October 25 that they had elected a government with a plan, a plan for the economy, a plan for social programs, a plan for reworking unemployment insurance, a plan to deal with the provision of better health services. Really what they elected was a government with a plan to study, not a plan to act; a plan to pass the buck, a plan to spend a lot of bucks but no plan to act.

We have the red book but what does it say? It spends a lot of time discussing programs but little time discussing implementation. If the government had plans to implement change, then at least we could see where we are headed in relation to program change and tax savings.

My friend from Lethbridge two weeks ago asked the Minister of Finance when the results of all these studies came in, after the summer break, after these results had been considered by cabinet if he would bring in a new budget, a budget in the fall. The answer was no.

We believe it is time to act. The government was elected in October last year and we are now in March. We are now going to undertake studies, studies whose results will be reported to us in approximately six months. If the government had acted quickly and decisively when it was first elected, we would have the results of these studies well before the summer break, and a budget could reflect such quick and decisive action.

Does the government not realize that by reducing and subsequently eliminating the deficit we will eventually be able to start paying down the national debt?

By reducing and eliminating the deficit we would have in a very short period taxpayers' money freed up so that taxes could be reduced, thus stimulating the economy or perhaps this money could be used for retraining or to help industry, manufacturing, expand or retool so that permanent long term jobs are created.

Action on the expenditure side, action to reduce expenditure, will return to us as Canadians the economic freedom to choose which we have not enjoyed for many years. Again, what do we hear from the government? In three years the deficit will be 3 per cent of GDP. What does this mean?

It means that any hope of dealing with the country's debt is put off until the next century. We will still be devoting a huge amount of taxpayers' dollars to pay the interest on the debt without any hope of encroaching on the principal for many years.

If the government is not prepared to act on the expenditure side, I am serving notice today that we in the Reform Party are ready to act.

Each line item of each departmental expenditure plan will be scrutinized carefully by members of this party when the estimates are in committee. We will ask each minister and each deputy minister to justify every penny of the departmental expenditure plans. When we find expenditures which we believe are not crucial to the well-being of the people of Canada we will vote against them. The government wants to consult with members of this House. We will give the government consultation.

Second, I will press the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the government House leader to recommend the creation of a permanent standing committee of this House whose sole job would be to review the spending estimates of government departments.

In 1983 the special committee created to study the standing orders and procedures of the House recommended an elaborate series of estimate review committees in its fifth report to this House. My proposal is simply to create one such committee which would in the course of the fiscal year scrutinize very carefully the estimates of perhaps only three government departments. It would then report back to this House and also to the standing committee which deals with a particular department on a regular basis.

This information could then be used by the departmental standing committee when the minister came back for supplementary spending estimates or in the following year when new spending plans are referred to the departmental standing committee.

The fiscal responsibility committee which I recommend be established would during the life of a Parliament scrutinize in detail the spending plans of virtually all government departments. This would not be glamorous work but it is the kind of work that is needed, the kind of tough work the government does not seem prepared to do, at least at this time.

I can assure my friends opposite that this is the kind of work that we in the Reform Party were elected to do and we are quite willing to spend the long and necessary hours to reduce government expenditures.

The time has come for action, not for talk. Canadians are a fiscally responsible people. They do not live beyond their means. If in a family something cannot be afforded then spending priorities change. We do not expect families to run out and borrow every time they see a new item they want to buy. Why should government be any different?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize because at the very beginning I should have told you on behalf of the whip, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), we will be dividing our time this morning.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, I would like to congratulate her on her remarks. There are some points about the budget that she did not include in her remarks.

She said that we were afraid to take on the tough decisions. I believe that is not an accurate assessment. We did announce policy reviews in our social security system, in defence, foreign aid, the goods and services tax which is being reviewed in committee right now for an alternative. We will begin our study in the industry committee in two weeks where we will have public accountability of financial institutions in Canada: a program review, overlap and duplication, tariffs and the paper burden. All of these are concrete actions taking place right now.

It is important we not leave in the public's mind the thought that the Reform Party is the only party interested in reducing or eliminating waste. If people can bring forward ideas on how to eliminate or reduce waste in a particular area we welcome their letters, phone calls or faxes. It is the same type of information the member receives as well.

The government has taken a very tough stand on reducing the deficit and our net savings over three years will be $20.4 billion. We have only been in government for three and a half months, but we have to put some hope back into the economy and get some job creation going. Any further cuts would cause the fragile economy to slip back into a recession.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments.

I stress again that I talked about reviews and studies. In answer to the hon. member, more reviews are not what we need. It is time for action. A deficit of $39.7 billion is certainly not tough at all and does not address the issues that have to be addressed.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Where would you cut?

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

The Reform Party put out a very good zero and three which went into detail. If I had another hour I would go through it with the member.

I would like to point out something to everyone in the House. I am very concerned about the infrastructure money. Where is the money coming from?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Existing budgets.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

I was in my constituency last week and they said they did not have the money for more taxes. The federal government is going to lend it to them.

An article in the Globe and Mail dated February 11 warns very much against the infrastructure money. Every tax increase causes a loss of jobs. Taking $7 from a taxpayer to pay for a construction industry job means taking $7 away from a job somewhere else: a department store, the auto industry or a clothing manufacturer. I insist that is going to be a problem down the road.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time appears to have expired. I might remind the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry that nobody heckled him while he was making his remarks.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not think I was heckling the member. I was merely pointing out some factual information that did not seem to be a part of the address. I certainly did not think that was out of order. I have been here, not as long as you, but for six years and-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is certainly not a point of order.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House for my first major address.

It is with a great sense of pride and humility that I stand before you and the rest of Canada as the representative for Edmonton-Strathcona. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding for the trust they placed in me as their representative in the 35th Parliament. I would like to assure them that I will do my very best to represent their views in the House of Commons. I would also like to thank my wife Dianne and daughter Margaret for their support and patience during the campaign.

The constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona is an extremely diverse riding with a wide range of small and medium sized businesses. It is also the home to, in my opinion, the best educational facility in the country, the University of Alberta.

It was the youth of my constituency who gave me the inspiration to seek a seat in Parliament. Clearly they recognized the implications of the national debt on their futures. Given the increasing debt and the demographics of our country, it is little wonder that so many of our population of all ages look with such growing concern at the future implications of this debt. While both the Reform Party in its blue book and the government in its red book have taken significantly different approaches to the debt problem, neither party has suggested it be attacked by placing the burden on youth.

The Reform Party, while suggesting many cutbacks, also suggests that these cutbacks be priorized. In surveying our members and Canadians in general we have concluded that a number of areas must be maintained. These include federal grants to medicare, the environment and advanced education.

If we are to leave a Canada to our children similar to the Canada our parents left to us, then we must offer hope to the younger generation. We must not only attack our debt but do it in a manner which allows for a clean environment, a healthy and educated population able to confront the global economy in a confident manner. This is one of the major challenges of this Parliament.

To emphasize the present situation let me cite the following. A recent article by the Globe and Mail reporting on a study from Statistics Canada stated that unprecedented numbers of young Canadians have been wrestled out of the workforce. Proportionately more of them lost their jobs than adults and it will take longer for them to gain back these jobs than it will be for adults. The same article, quoting Dr. Phipps of Dalhousie University, suggests it is possible that by the time the economy does produce good jobs a fresh generation of better trained, better educated young people will be vying for these jobs. The prospect that a combination of all these factors could produce a lost generation is very real.

On a more individual level, I would like to cite a letter received by an employer in my constituency from a recent university graduate. In it he states:

I am a 1993 graduate of the University of Alberta with a BSc in meteorology. Unfortunately due to the state of the job market, I had no success in gaining employment in my field. I would like your company to consider me for any position that may be available from answering phones to lab analysis.

These are just two examples of problems facing the youth in our country today. What is perhaps of greater concern is that this problem of youth unemployment is occurring at a time when there are as many as 400,000 jobs available in our economy.

John Yurxa of Yurxa Research stated in a recent speech in Edmonton that "the economy will have no shortage of lucrative jobs in the remainder of this decade, it is just that you will need a new set of skills to get them. The fact is there are now over one and a half million Canadians out of work, yet many employers say they cannot find the workers they need. In fact, today, the mismatch between job seekers and job vacancies is so high that if it could be remedied overnight, up to 400,000 jobs would be created instantly".

It would seem the problem of youth unemployment can be found in the structural unemployment that is present in the Canadian economy. The solution to this problem lies in matching the training of our youth to the demands of the marketplace.

The recent budget included in its job creation an entire section devoted to apprenticeship programs for the training of youth. This apprenticeship program is to be introduced in 1995-96 and will cost the Canadian taxpayers $96 million in the first year and an additional $192 million in the following year. While I applaud the government for recognizing the problem of youth unemployment, some serious questions as to the structure of this program must be asked.

How did the government come up with these figures? Why $96 million? Why not $50 million or $150 million? Will these programs meet the needs of the mismatch between job training and job requirements? Who will be eligible for these programs? Where and under whose auspices will these programs be delivered?

As mentioned earlier, I agree with the government's decision to initiate the youth initiative program. However, if it is to offer real hope to our youth it must be tailored to the needs of the market. Another program that does not offer real prospects for employment will only add to the frustration of our youth.

I suggest the government take the following into consideration in developing the youth initiative program. First, identify through co-operation with industry, labour and the provinces those skills that are actually needed in present and future markets.

Employment growth in the Canadian economy in recent years has been in services. Throughout the eighties, however, more than 90 per cent of occupations covered by apprenticeship programs have related to manufacturing and construction. Most vacancies now exist in informational technology, telecommunications and environmental technologies.

My second suggestion is that industry participate, not only in setting the standards but also in the financial responsibility for these programs. Here we can look at two existing programs as models: One, the very positive aspects of the Canadian provincial apprenticeship programs already in existence; and two, the programs of other countries, particularly in Germany.

A third suggestion is that like trade apprenticeship programs, the youth initiative program should include some sort of credential on completion. This accreditation should be nationally recognized in order to ensure mobility from one province to another. This would allow for the free movement of workers to areas experiencing economic growth. This suggestion may be criticized by some who believe that apprenticeship programs are essentially a provincial responsibility. While this is mainly true, the provinces have already in place interprovincial standards under their red seal program which in Alberta covers approximately 90 per cent of the certified journeymen.

A final suggestion for the youth initiative program is that it must be focused on areas that do not jeopardize existing employees. To simply train our youth to replace at a lower wage present workers would only increase conflicts within the workforce.

It is estimated that 60 per cent of youth go directly from high school to the job market. Our experience shows a high school education, while necessary, will not be sufficient for the market demands of the future. The youth initiative program if done properly offers an opportunity and hope for our nation's youth. However, if done improperly it will be seen as a short term, quick fix government program and a waste of Canadian taxpayers' money.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's comments, particularly the positive light he puts on youth initiatives for employment.

The member posed a question: Why $96 million in the first year? Why not $50 million or $150 million? I could say that we could probably do a lot better than $96 million because the need is much greater. The reality is that we are trying to balance need and financial conditions. However I welcome his comments because I found them to be positive. I welcome his balanced approach, which is very refreshing to hear from that side of the House.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. He correctly points out-and we are consistently pointing it out to the Canadian people-that while a balanced budget is a necessity it must be done in a way that is priorized.

We see education as an investment for Canadians. That is one area our members and Canadians at large have told us very clearly should not be cut. We do not want to see a lost generation and the problems implied with such a lost generation.

While we believe in fiscal responsibility, our program of zero in three clearly shows many areas in which we can make responsible cuts to the budget. However we would not include in that advanced education, training of our youth, federal payments to medicare, or environmental concerns.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too enjoyed the member's remarks. I wondered what he thought about the internship and apprenticeship program described in the red book.

This a national program under which people will get interprovincial licences. It is, as I understand it, focused on particular trades and areas of activity where we hope jobs will appear in the near future. It is also an apprenticeship program based on competence rather than time.

Some examples the member mentioned were in other countries where people spend many years learning a trade whereas in fact it appears in modern times that it might be possible to proceed more quickly. Then persons might not only have one trade; they might have two or even three.

On the question of funds, has the member given any thought to the idea of the apprentices paying fees as do students in colleges and universities?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I ask the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona to be brief. There is about a minute left.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to briefness I will respond to the final question regarding fees.

I quite agree with the suggestion that fees are an appropriate matter. It has always been my belief that if a student in an educational facility takes some ownership of the facility, the training, he is much more likely to succeed than if he had not.

I would not be opposed to user fees in that they would serve two purposes. They would give the student some opportunity to participate in his own education. They would also cut back on the public expenditure.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on Bill C-14, the borrowing authority which would allow the government to meet its commitments and put into effect its budgetary policy. This statement, this budgetary accounting, indicates the choice our government is making for the next fiscal year and shows some very important fundamental changes.

The agenda before us is a very ambitious one. It is a difficult one and it is taken in a time of economic restraint. Notwithstanding, our main goal has been to create jobs and growth and to be innovative while being fiscally responsible. We also believe that with the co-operation of Canadians we can reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP within three years.

Our agenda and our priorities are no secret. Last fall we laid out our blueprint in the famous Liberal Party policy book. I know some members refer to it as the red book, but for me it is a fundamental policy book. It was our blueprint for job creation, deficit reduction, and a comprehensive policy review. Canadians have looked at it and have given us their approval by electing a strong majority Liberal government for the people, to speak with their voice and for them.

We are turning those promises into action. The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance is based on fairness for all Canadians. It stems from an unprecedented consultation process and dialogue, a process to which the government is firmly committed in many areas. It is an open process of which we can be very proud. Women and women's groups have participated in the process and our voices have been heard.

I am especially happy to point out to the House that the budget addresses a whole series of issues that are very important to women. The government is sensitive to the fact that programs and policies may have a different impact or a different effect on women. That is why we will ensure gender perspective is taken into consideration in all proposed changes undertaken as part of the various policy reviews. I can say that we are wearing gender tinted glasses, for that is what we are doing. Essentially my job is to make very sure that within the machinery of government we maintain that gender tint all along the way.

Women and women's groups have been very important in applying that theory and ensuring within our party that perspective is always kept in balance. This is the first time a budget clearly recognizes that women often bear the brunt of social stress and economic dislocation. It is also the first time that a minister of finance recognizes publicly that there are disparities in our tax system and income system that are detrimental to women.

The comprehensive review of our tax system which we will be undertaking shortly represents a unique opportunity for women to help us correct some of our system's shortcomings, such as the tax treatment of support payments, which are prejudicial to them. It is very important that women and women's groups participate in these consultations because by proceeding with these kinds of reforms, we will succeed in improving the lot of Canadian women and quickening the process of equality for everyone.

Our goal is to build a society in which women will have full access to the economic, political, cultural and legal spheres. I see that you are nodding in agreement, Mr. Speaker. There is no question that equality for women, equity and justice for all are tied to economic independence. Women must have the opportunity to participate in the labour market, to receive equal pay for work of equal value and to contribute fairly to our collective wealth.

The contribution of women to our society and to our economy is enormous. Yet, women are often economically disadvantaged because of the disproportionate burden they must bear as far as family and home are concerned. Today, 60 per cent of Canadian women are active members of the labour force and three-quarters of them hold down full-time employment. This is a rather interesting figure as it reflects the major shift that has occurred in the past twenty years.

Women of diverse ages, origins and cultures make up 45 per cent of Canada's labour force. By the year 2001, it is expected that women will account for nearly two-thirds of all new labour market entrants.

In the short term, our infrastructure program will help to create thousands of jobs. We are increasingly confident that this program will give our economy the needed boost to get back on the prosperity track. This program, by investing in local communities, will create direct and indirect jobs for Canadians and improve the quality of their lives.

Women too have a role to play in the development of legislation by introducing initiatives to increase the safety of their environment. I must say that women also have responsibilities. They must bring pressure to bear on mayors and municipalities so that their needs become a priority at the local level and can then be recognized as a responsibility at the provincial and federal levels. It is up to the mayors, aldermen and women's groups to demand whatever they consider important for their communities. That is part of our local priorities.

The program can be used for building day care centres, which has the triple advantage of creating immediate employment, providing important services to families and leading to long-term employment. We will be ready to go ahead with child care services when the economic growth rate reaches 3 per cent of the GDP.

On the other hand, our infrastructure projects are under review by federal, provincial and territorial co-presidents, as I just said. I can assure you that our representatives have been instructed to assess projects in terms of employment equity. I must thank the President of the Treasury Board for having taken this into consideration, while recognizing the need to take women into account in that regard.

Statistics released in January 1994 show that Canadian women still average only 72 cents for every dollar earned by men for working full time and that immigrant women make only 80 per cent of women's income. That is quite a gap that we will have to address. Women, especially during child bearing years, experience more career interruptions which impact on their advancement in the workplace and their lifelong earning potential.

The budget begins to address the fact that low income earners with dependants, primarily women, need a fairer system and that women live longer and have lower incomes in old age. The proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are designed to promote job creation, adequacy and fairness. The government has recognized that unemployment insurance programs must be linked to family status, dependants and other needs. As such these programs should be changed to provide assistance to those in greater need.

In today's economic conditions many households are under financial stress even where there are two income earners. More often than men, women tend to earn low wages and have dependants. Increasing UI benefits to 60 per cent for individuals with low earnings and dependants helps women, particularly single parents.

Amending and clarifying how the voluntary quit and misconduct provisions are applied stands to benefit women and improve the fairness of the entire process. That is something we complained about and felt strongly about in the last Parliament.

We recognize that some other changes to the unemployment insurance system may have a detrimental effect given women's weaker attachment to the workforce. However we must remember that these changes are temporary. The Minister of Human Resources Development has already initiated a full review of our social security system. Every measure will be closely examined after extensive consultation in all regions of the country.

In the meantime it is comforting to see business and labour leaders agree that Canada cannot afford to maintain barriers to the full and equal participation of women in the workforce.

In a report published a few days ago the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre makes some recommendations aimed at breaking the principal barriers to women's equality in the workforce. Among other recommendations the report proposes to provide family responsibility leave and extend flexible working arrangements.

When I read the report I thought back to 1967 and the beginnings of the royal commission. I thought how far we had come in some areas, at least in terms of sensitivity if not in terms of complete catch-up. When I read a report from the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre that says that family responsibility leave should be provided and flexible work arrangements extended, I remember when they wanted to count

every head from 9 to 5; employees did not move and could not leave.

Now at least there is some understanding that there has to be a flexible system. Establish a national child care system with professional salaries for child care workers. Reduce the work week possibly to four days with longer paid vacations and limits on overtime to free up jobs for more workers. Reduce stress for women who juggle work and family. Increase access to financing for women entrepreneurs.

There is really big news here. Actually the biggest news, speaking as a mother of four sons, is the fact that my sons can be involved in raising their children in a far more equitable way. I know that is something they look forward to doing.

The recommendations are good. Indeed this government has initiated many of them, including convincing the banks to supply more capital to small business. I know my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood is going to make very sure that the banks are going to listen. I told him what I said to the Royal Bank the other night. Go to it, Dennis. You and Berger make sure the banks listen.

What is totally new is the strong endorsement this report has received from both business and labour. I have always said consensus of this type is essential to the advancement of women. I can only give this new consensus my strongest support. Unless we have men and women working together I do not think we can advance.

We are certainly on target. Our economic recovery plan is based on small business. I should add that women are a major element of our strategy, as 30 per cent of small and medium-sized businesses in this country are run by women. It is with great pleasure that I remind you that the proven rate of success of businesswomen is at least double that of their male counterparts. That is why, in the budget, actions concerning small business are essential for women.

We know that it is very difficult for small business owners, women in particular, to obtain funding for their businesses. Banks impose unrealistic financing conditions which prevent the establishment and expansion of small and medium-sized businesses, acquisition of new technology, development of new markets and above all job creation. The fact of the matter is that the risk taken by banks-and I point this out to my hon. colleague so that he can bring it to the attention of the presidents of the nation's banks the next time they get together-by increasing the percentage of loans to small and medium-sized businesses is very small.

Studies show that only 13 out of every 1,000 loans granted to small business are not repaid. In other words, Mr. Speaker, 98.7 per cent of borrowers are creditworthy.

In the actual conjuncture 98.7 per cent constitutes an incredible rate of success. It should impress even the leaders of the banks and the most conservative of the bankers.

It must also be noted that profits in the banking sector reached $2.9 billion in 1993, or almost 60 per cent more than the previous year.

That is a lot of money. I think they could start taking some risks along with our small and medium sized businesses.

That is why our government set up a finance and industry task force to study, in collaboration with banks and small businesses, the issue of access to capital. I hope that the hon. members here in this House who have ideas will share them with us and provide clarification.

In addition, business leaders asked us to urgently reduce unemployment insurance premiums, and we have done so. This will enable businesses to save $300 million a year and to reinvest this money in new jobs.

We will also cut red tape and reduce interprovincial trade barriers, create a Canadian investment fund, form strategic alliances in favour of small business, establish joint ventures between research services and small businesses, and replace the GST with a tax that is more equitable for taxpayers and less burdensome for businesses.

This being said, our budget also proposes many initiatives that focus directly on women's needs. It puts in place provisions to improve women's health by creating a centre of excellence for women's health and launching a prenatal nutrition program. The national forum on health will also give us the opportunity to redress disparities in the way women are treated in our health care system. I could go into that at great length because there is much to do in that area.

As soon as we reach 3 per cent of economic growth we will create 50,000 child care spaces a year until we reach an additional 150,000 spaces. The budget contains provisions for this in 1995 and 1996.

Our initiatives will assist the people of this country to fully exercise their rights in terms of the charter, the Human Rights Act and the Multiculturalism Act. I am referring to the creation of the race relations foundation, the restoration of the court

challenges program and the law reform commission, as well as a review of immigration and refugee policies. All these initiatives are aimed at making this country's society a fairer, more compassionate one.

We have to do that because we cannot allow the increase in racism that has been taking place and the manifestation of scapegoat because of the economic situation.

We must take steps to make people understand that we are a peaceful society, where we live together in reasonable harmony, either in English or in French, Canada's two official languages.

Finally, the budget reaches out to young people, the pride and the future of our nation. The aboriginal head start program, the youth services corps, the young internship program, the literacy program and the youth student loans program are all important because they fill a great need.

I see young people upstairs in the gallery. Your future is what we are talking about as we look at the budget and try to analyse where we will be going to put this country back to work and give hope to the next generation, which is our absolute mandate in this House.

Added to this basic reform and initiatives already announced, these programs will allow our young women and men to prepare themselves for the challenges the new global economy is imposing on them. Our young people are smart and creative. They are like their parents, hard working and dedicated. They want the opportunity to contribute to society. We have made it our mission to help them reach that goal.

In conclusion, I must say I am very pleased with the budget, primarily because it is fair but also because it reflects our commitment to including all Canadians in the economic and social life of this country. If philosophical and ethical considerations do not move people, then common sense considerations should. In an increasingly complex and competitive world societies which do not tap into the talents of all their citizens are societies which sooner or later will lose.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, perhaps the hon. minister would permit me to point out a couple of things.

One is if she would please address her remarks to the Chair. Again, to other members as well, please do not address other members by their names, particularly their first names.

A more important point if the hon. minister would allow me to make it, the Speaker neither agrees nor disagrees with anything that is said. The minister indicated I was in favour of something. I am in favour of everything that is said in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women. At first, I admit that I was eager to hear her, because she said "we have adopted a series of concrete measures" and I thought that this morning we would find out some wonderful things that we did not yet know.

Now I must admit that it was just a list of good intentions. It is a statement of principles that may possibly be good for the status of women, but there is very little specific in it. I will give some examples. When she talks about infrastructure, the Secretary of State wants women to present projects related to environmental safety, as well as projects that could increase the number of day care spaces. But having seen the infrastructure projects that will be put forward in my area, we know very well that the projects she is talking about will have lower priority, so there is little hope for them.

She also mentioned that women earn only 72 cents for every dollar men earn. I do not doubt it. What we would be entitled to expect is specific legislation and measures requiring businesses to correct that situation, but basically, we have nothing concrete there either.

I want banks to be more sensitive to small business from now on, but that is still part of projects that have yielded nothing so far.

She concludes by saying that we will create day-care spaces when the debt is no more than 3 per cent of gross domestic product, so parents who need child care will still have to wait and the government will not grant their request any time soon.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. Before answering, I must say that I appreciate and understand your neutrality. In my enthusiasm, when reflecting on the role played by my colleague for Broadview-Greenwood, I used his first name in a friendly way. I am sorry and I apologize for doing so. As you know, we sometimes get into heated arguments in this House, and I think that we all understand what happened.

As for my colleague's comments, I believe that the budget is very well balanced. Based on what we read in the newspapers, I think that all issues relating to the debt and all efforts made to create jobs so that Canadians feel useful were put in balance. Let us not forget that when we started developing our vision and our program, the debt was already at $32.6 billion. And when we took office, we discovered that it had grown to $45 or $46 billion. Consequently, we had to make some adjustments. Yet

we still found ways to ensure that the basic commitments would be taken into account and be fulfilled. We, the Liberal Party, stick to our word.

In these very difficult and trying economic times our Minister of Finance and all our other ministers found mechanisms to be creative, to be forward looking to answer some of the serious problems facing our society given the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

We have not been able to fulfil every commitment at this moment. The financial commitments in our policy book have been fulfilled, but there are others and time will tell. Consultations will take place. I hope members will participate and share with us some of the more creative ideas they may have.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech given by the hon. member very interesting.

At one point during her speech, the hon. member mentioned the people in the gallery and said how we were discussing the future for the young people of this country. I definitely agree.

Did the hon. member ever ask her children and her grandchildren or the young people in this gallery whether they wanted another $34 billion to $37 billion added to the mortgage for their future? This bill we are discussing today could add $37 billion to their debt load. How is the member going to explain to her children and her grandchildren that she supported mortgaging their future?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my grandchildren are a little too young, but my children are all in economic portfolios. The feedback I get from them and their circle of friends in all their different spheres of activity is quite fascinating.

They do not hold back on the criticisms that they would launch, nor the gun that they would shoot in the sense that mother does not know everything, which is true, I do not. When they looked at the budget their feedback to me from their colleagues, from the businesses in which they are involved, from the services in which they are engaged daily was absolutely amazing.

They tell me that whole attitude is holding. They think we have taken a grip and we are moving in the right direction, and they were not interested in having this whole country go into a tilt and a dizzy downward economic crisis because you want to reach a certain fantastic little figure in your head. You have to have some compassion, some understanding of where the future is. It takes money to make money, just remember that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would the hon. minister please not use the word "you" in this House.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciated what the minister responsible for the status of women had to say. But I also did not quite understand what the government means to do to improve the status of women in Canada. It is a well-known fact that women are disadvantaged in many ways, that they earn less money than men and that they support a chunk of the social and economic burden in this country. However, the minister had nothing concrete to offer, no initiative directly focusing on women.

The minister did mention changes in the unemployment insurance area. But these changes do not necessarily affect women. In fact, they hurt the unemployed.

The minister mentioned that 30 per cent of small businesses are controlled by women, as it should obviously be. Still, there are not a lot of women in that field. The system generally hurts women. What did the minister responsible for the status of women have to offer to change that? What concrete measures can be found in the budget which specifically focus on women?