House of Commons Hansard #50 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was region.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, any division or divisions on matters relating to government legislation requested this day be deferred to Tuesday, April 19, 1994 at 5.30 p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
Christine Stewart LiberalSecretary of State (Latin America and Africa)
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of various constituents of mine.
The petitioners are asking the government to make amendments to the Divorce Act to ensure that they have access to their grandchildren. Furthermore an amendment to the Divorce Act would give the grandparent who is granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions from citizens of Peterborough riding.
The first which is signed by 25 people urges that Parliament enact legislation to request effective tax paid markings on legal tobacco products. These citizens believe it is important to clearly distinguish legal, domestic product from contraband product and they believe that these markings will make enforcement of federal regulations easier. I have also signed this petition.
The second petition is also signed by 25 citizens of Peterborough. The petitioners point out that we export Canadian tobacco but there is virtually no market for this tobacco in the United States and so that tobacco is simply reimported. They urge that quotas be imposed on tobacco exports to ensure that only legitimate export markets are met by our exports. I have also signed this petition.
Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK
Madam Speaker, I have received yet another petition from constituents requesting the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code.
I would like to present it pursuant to Standing Order 36. It has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions. I wholeheartedly endorse the request of these constituents.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise in the House today to present a petition collected by the British Heritage Institute. The petitioners request that the government ensure that the provisions of Canada's multiculturalism policy apply to all ethnic groups without favour and to publicize widely its intentions to do so immediately.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
My second petition is on behalf of 4,500 residents of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to undertake a process to thoroughly investigate the very serious indiscretions committed by their elected representative to determine if he is fit to continue as the member of Parliament for the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
Rex Crawford Liberal Kent, ON
Madam Speaker, once again I am honoured to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition with several hundred names on behalf of my constituents of Kent.
The petitioners state an ethanol industry will provide definite stability for Canadian agriculture and the Canadian economy in general. Ethanol is one of the most environmentally friendly fuels available. Chatham, Ontario was recently selected as the first site for a major ethanol plant, 20 times larger than any in Canada to date, creating approximately 1,100 person years of work and contributing an estimated $125 million in annual economic impact.
Noting this petition, one of the signatures is the former hon. member of Parliament, Maurice Bossy, who was here 12 years ago and another is John Burgess, QC whose father was a member of Parliament here in the early 1950s.
Walt Lastewka Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise today to place before the House a petition signed by some 700 Canadians from the Niagara-Hamilton area.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I have spoken in the House before about the harm to society of serial killer cards. The petitioners state that they support the efforts of Debbie Mahaffy in her quest to have the killer cards seized at the Canada-U.S. border to stop their distribution in Canada.
The cards published by Eclipse Comic Books, True Crime Trading Cards and other publishers feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters. We do not want these cards in our community.
The petition goes on to state: "We abhor crimes of violence against persons and we believe that killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but rather contribute to violence. Therefore, the undersigned your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their products, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed".
I reiterate my support for this petition which I table in the House today.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of citizens of the riding of Etobicoke Centre. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take all necessary measures in legislation to protect the lives of the unborn.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos 6, 14 and 15.
Question No. 6-
Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC
What is the incidence of social spending by deciles of family income, in particular with respect to old age security, unemployment insurance, family and youth allowance, and other federal transfers to persons?
David Walker LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance
The following table provides the information requested by the hon. member form Capilano-Howe Sound.
The data in this table are based on Statistics Canada's survey of consumer finances for 1991 incomes, the latest year for which incomes data are available.
There are a number of different definitions of family. For the purposes of this tabulation, an "immediate family" concept has been used. Thus, a family is defined as either a husband and wife (including common law relationships) with or without children who have never married, or a parent living in the same dwelling with children who have never married. All other persons (including single persons living alone) are defined as a separate family unit. Thus, many recipients of federal transfers would show up in high income families because they live with high income parents/children. For example, a child receiving UI benefits could be living with high income parents.
The table shows transfers before taxes. Thus, the table does not show the effect of OAS recovered from high income individuals. About $300 million of OAS benefits are recovered from individuals with incomes above $51,800. This represents about 15 per cent of total OAS paid to families in the top three deciles. While the entire OAS is recovered from an individual at $81,000 of income, a lower income spouse living with a spouse who has high income is not subject to the recovery.
Family allowances and child tax credit have been replaced by the child tax benefit since 1993. The table does not show the distribution in respect of the new program because the relevant data are not yet available. However, a table showing average child tax benefit by income follows.
Notes: (1) Incomes from some of the transfers in this table are not fully reported in the survey. For example, the survey does
not cover residents of Yukon and Northwest territories, Indian reserves and institutions (including homes for the aged). In the case of OAS, some $1 billion are not captured in the survey data. Further, incomes from some of the transfers are under-reported in the survey. (Reporting on the Survey of Consumer Finances is estimated by Statistics Canada to be 100 per cent for OAS, and 85 per cent for the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans and for Unemployment Insurance.) Hence total expenditures on each program may not correspond with actual expenditures.
(2) A family consists of either a husband and wife (including common law relationships) with or without never married children or a parent with never married children, living in the same dwelling. All other persons (including a single person living by himself/herself) are defined as separate family units.
(3) Each income decile represents about 1,150,000 family units.
(4) OAS expenditures are before taxes are collected, inluding the high income recovery.
(5) Statistics Canada data does not report Canada and Quebec pension plan benefits separately.
(6) The table does not include a number of other federal transfers to persons (e.g. veterans pensions and allowances) because Statistics Canada data does not report these transfers separately.
Question No. 14-
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
With respect to the conference on the deficit and the economy held by the Minister of Finance on December 13, 1993, at the Ottawa Conference Centre, were any of the conference participants' expenses, fees or honoraria paid by the government, and if so, what are the amounts, as well as the total costs of hosting the conference?
David Walker LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance
With respect to the conference on the deficit and the economy held by the Minister of Finance on December 13, 1993, at the Ottawa Conference Centre, the Department of Finance paid $10,380.84 in participants' expenses. No fees or honoraria were paid by the government. The total cost of hosting the conference is $24,244.91.
Question No. 15-
Cliff Breitkreuz Reform Yellowhead, AB
With respect to the GST and businesses which have gross sales exceeding $6 million per annum, will the government amend the GST regulations to allow these businesses to make their remittances on a quarterly or 60-day basis rather than on a monthly basis?
David Walker LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance
Under the GST, only the largest 1 per cent of businesses must be monthly filers. Small businesses have, of course, much more flexible filing requirements.
The filing periods for the GST are quite comparable to those in other countries.
Providing large businesses with an extra 30 days to remit their GST would entail a one-time cash flow cost to the federal government of more than $1 billion. This translates into an ongoing interest cost of about $60 million per year.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Shall the remaining questions stand?
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion.
Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-17.
Overspending, high taxes and the enormous debt we are paying interest on are the big, big problems this government has still to deal with.
I spoke before about high taxes that Canadians are paying, taxes that are preventing investment in Canada, taxes that are
making it necessary for both parents to go out and work so that they can pay their rent, their mortgage and feed their families.
Most of all I talked about the fact that high taxes have resulted in an underground economy that is going to be difficult to stop. Sure, we have halted some of the smuggling of cigarettes because the government has cut the tobacco tax, but in its place is liquor smuggling. Stories in this week's press tell of warehouses stacked to the ceiling with contraband alcohol. The reason for this is the high taxes that Canadians are no longer willing to tolerate.
I have also talked about the government's infrastructure program and the fact that it will not create the permanent high tech jobs this country needs. Rather, what we have coming are short term jobs, jobs that will last only as long as the government pours money into the program affected.
I mention high tech jobs and the fact that the government seems to be shying away from the realities facing this country. Whether we want it or not, high technology is already here. It is going to affect all of us at some point. The information network is the first example that comes to my mind.
But what does the government do? It announces it will be pulling out of the space program. It cancels KAON. Here the potential job programs of the right kind are to be found, high tech jobs. We are losing the opportunities to create and expand the kind of skills this country is going to need if we are to compete in future markets, markets that will be technology based.
A constituent from Williams Lake, British Columbia wrote to me about the space program. He is convinced there are very good reasons that Canada should stay involved in the space program beyond the fact that it provides an insight into cutting edge technologies. My constituent goes on to say that he does not want to see Canada put on the back burner, but not getting involved in high tech industries will put Canada on the back burner.
The future more so for the next generation is going to be exciting. High technology will ensure that this is so, but only to the extent that we keep up with all the changes. Just look at the last 10 years and the changes to the workplace brought about by computers. This leads me to my next point, being able to be a part of the changing face of the workplace.
The February budget made reference to investing in jobs and people. Today the government will introduce its five point education program and work strategy program aimed at solving the problems of this country's youth, who are rapidly becoming known as the lost generation. The aim of the program is to create a new work ethic for young people between the ages of 15 and 24. There will be apprenticeships and the Canadian youth service corps. Is this Katimavik revisited? There will be a learning package.
Apprenticeships can be wonderful things. We do need young people to have formal training and marketable skills, but we must not leave it to the government to take responsibility for teaching the people. The private sector has to take the lead role so that people are trained for the jobs that will be there, not the jobs the government thinks might be there.
The learning package is probably the most commendable part of the youth program. If it does offer hope to the youth, if it does offer promise and jobs, I commend the government on this. I sincerely hope it is not a false promise.
In Tuesday's Globe and Mail there was an article by a young university student. This student passed comment about the fact that the professor had to take time from giving the economics lecture to give the class a lesson in grammar. It is a fact that some university students, although they have got into university and will probably get their degrees, still will be unable to function effectively in the real world of business and commerce because they cannot write a proper memo. They cannot reproduce a report or a letter that can be understood clearly. This is a major problem. It is not an isolated incident.
The government intends to work developing national education standards in math, science and language skills. This is long overdue and is a good move by the government. Only when we ensure that our children can read, write and express themselves properly will we be able to see a decrease in the unemployment rates for the younger generation.
Education is a major key to self esteem. What satisfaction to be able to pass the interview for a job and to adapt to the rapidly changing world marketplace.
Although the government's first budget does have some positive attributes, it does not in any way address the most pressing problem facing the country: the need to get Canada's financial affairs under control.
Many Canadians have learned how to cut back on spending because they have been forced by economic circumstances to do just that. However it is plain to see the federal government has not learned this whole lesson yet.
Taxation at current levels is an abuse of power. We have a government that is taking money from people and businesses in such quantities that these people are unable to maintain their present standard of living.
It is ludicrous when a young person with a minimum wage job has to try to borrow money to pay taxes because his employer
did not deduct sufficient at the source. This is really being put between the proverbial rock and hard place.
It is just as ludicrous when a small business person is forced to shut down because after taxes, licence fees, the cost of special audits and all the intrusions that can come from government the income is just not there. The business closes down and the employer and employees are out of work.
At a time when the government could and must reduce its expenditures it stubbornly refuses to do so. Rather it borrows what it is unable to tax, while taking from people money needed to put food on their tables. What is the government using it for? Grants to special interest groups; building multicultural centres; enforcing bilingualism; grants to multinational corporations; duplication of services between departments and between provincial and federal governments. A lot of this is in the name of humanity and kindness.
The government talks about Reform policies being of the slash and burn kind. The Reform Party has never advocated slash and burn policies as we have been accused. Instead we have proposed a program of maintaining essential services such as health care, pensions and education while prioritizing areas of expenditure reductions with a goal to reducing taxes. Non-essential programs that are a heavy drain on the treasury have to go if we are not to go belly up as a country. Effective prioritizing must begin. The government continues to avoid such prioritizing.
For example as part of its so-called cuts in spending the Liberals have slated closing down the chinook salmon hatchery on the Quesnel River in Likely, British Columbia. The reason given is that the hatchery is uneconomical. This is true, but the reason it is uneconomical is it is being operated at 10 per cent of its capacity. How could it possibly be operating in an economic manner at such a low rate? The major risk of losing this hatchery is the real possibility of also losing the chinook salmon in the upper Fraser system. Along with the salmon will go the hatchery workers' jobs.
André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, I feel it is my duty to speak on Bill C-17, particularly the part concerning unemployment insurance. A duty because I am the member for Jonquière and-according to the weekend papers-the Chicoutimi-Jonquière region has again the unemployment record for Canada, 14.7 per cent. This is an official figure. You know as well as I do that many people are discouraged and no longer looking for work. These people do not show up in the statistics, but they nevertheless live in our communities.
In my area, 25 per cent of the population might be on welfare or unemployment insurance. Last week, I received a paper from a professor at the Université du Québéc which said that, in my area, the rate might be close to 50 per cent if everyone who wants to work is counted. This is enormous. That is why I feel it is my duty to speak out.
The bill reduces unemployment insurance payments, raises the minimum entry requirements and reduces the number of weeks during which unemployment insurance can be paid.
I read the bill carefully and the only rationale for the government to introduce such a bill is to save money. I agree that government spending should be rationalized, and during the election campaign our party was calling for deeper cuts than the ones proposed.
But why single out the unemployed? There seems to be a philosophy in that bill which says: "That is it, the government is no longer going to support you, you are going to be thrown out in the street, and then you will have to manage on your own". What we are doing is applying to the unemployed the law of the market, which is the law of the jungle. Everyone must manage on his or her own with less and less help from the community or the country.
I find this attitude scary. We are telling the unemployed: "You are probably out of work because you want it that way, you do not really want to work". We are calling into question the honesty of our fellow citizens who, we claim, like to do nothing and get paid for it. You know this is not true.
If we send people into the street to find jobs, there must be jobs to find. Where are they? The government has just launched an infrastructure program that is supposed to create 45,000 jobs in Canada. The program has just started and there is nothing concrete yet. Statistics show that many people would like to work, but are unemployed. Where are the jobs? We are often told that there are tens of thousands of unfilled positions because there is no one qualified to take them. Where are these positions?
I am a guidance counsellor by training. Before I had the honour of representing the riding of Jonquière in this House, I worked in a vocational training centre and was, among other things, in charge of admissions. Whenever I met people who wanted to be retrained and better prepared for the workplace, some would ask: "Which field has jobs available now?" These people had read in the newspapers and heard politicians say that there might be tens of thousands of jobs available. Where are these jobs advertised? In the newspapers or in the offers of employment? We do not see very many there, nor on the bulletin boards of UI offices. In my riding, there are people skilled in leading sectors because they received training in new technologies at the Université du Québec in Chicoutimi. At the CEGEP in Jonquière, at the vocational centre where I worked, people are
told to develop skills because there will be jobs available, but these jobs simply do not exist.
Madam Speaker, if we reduce benefits and force the unemployed to go back to work, there should at least be jobs available, which is not the case. This is not the time for the Government of Canada to go after the unemployed. What is needed are well thought out policies to stimulate employment. And, in particular, we should take advantage of the current unemployment situation to retrain those who are in need of training.
I mentioned earlier that I worked in a vocational training centre. I used to receive a lot of calls from unemployed people, since massive layoffs took place in my region, including at Alcan, Abitibi-Price, Cascades, as well as in some stores and other businesses. People are not stupid; they realized that they might not get their former job back, so they wanted to develop new skills and be retrained. This is why they would get in touch with the centre where I worked.
I would meet with them to assess their retraining opportunities. But when it came to the crucial issue, that is, "how will I survive while I am retraining and while I am in school?", I would tell them: "Right now, you get your unemployment insurance benefits, but if you come to my training centre to take courses during the day, or even at night, and you join some groups that are already there to be trained, well, you will have to give up your benefits." People were saying: "That does not make any sense, I have to support myself and my family." So, they would postpone their training plans.
But this is absolutely criminal! It is criminal that, in vocational training centres like the one in Jonquière, there are spaces available in disciplines which are part of the new technologies, such as electro-mechanics, digital controls and refrigeration. In my training centre alone, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested in equipment and instruments. Often, these are not being used. And in the streets, in stores, there are thousands of people who want to be trained, but who are wandering around, trying to occupy their time.
I think it would have been important in the present situation to have a concerted and effective vocational training policy which would make room for people and allow them to be supported by the community during their training. After that, they could go on the labour market and become an asset for society. But this is not what has been done.
What did we do during that time in terms of training? We argued. I have witnessed that in my own training centre.
Often, we waited for information from the federal government to see if unemployed workers wanted to apply for various training programs. At a certain point, the federal government would inform us that, for the time being, it did not have the funds and that personnel might be available in three or four months. Yet, workers cry out for training while various levels of government cannot agree on a clear policy.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois have denounced the present overlapping in occupational training. The federal government makes decisions, the provinces make decisions, the Department of Education decides to structure its programs the way it wants and, at the end of the day, we have a situation where people who want to be trained have no training while places remain empty in our training centres.
This is outrageous, and that is why I condemn this bill, because it sends the following message to the unemployed: You cost too much, we doubt you really want to get back into the labour market, and so we are going to shorten your benefit period, but things should turn out in the end. But they will not.
One really wonders about the logic behind this kind of budget proposal. It takes a short-term view of the problem. The government wants to save billions of dollars in unemployment insurance benefits for a couple of years, but the money will be spent on welfare benefits because-and one of my colleagues made the point this morning-there are some very scary figures, and by that I mean that we can calculate the cost of the unemployment insurance measures proposed by the government. There are new welfare recipients in Quebec and people who are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. This is a frightening situation, because the government is introducing measures, knowing there will be a significant negative impact, and meanwhile, it does not hold out any hope for the unemployed.
Last Wednesday, I attended a seminar organized by people who are concerned about regional development. At this seminar, a number of young people had this to say: We want jobs, and we want real jobs. We do not want another Katimavik program. We do not want be kept busy painting fences in the parks during the summer. We want to get into the labour market. We want to be part of the social, political and economic life of our country.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and of course I will vote against Bill C-17, because I think it is absolutely unfair to the unemployed.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill C-17 which has been introduced with a fair amount of rhetoric but very little substance.
I would like to quote from a news release dated Ottawa, March 16, 1994 which says that the twin "objectives of the bill are job creation and deficit reduction". I started to think about job creation.
When the Liberals won the election in October of last year, one of their first acts was to cancel the helicopter program and introduce their job strategy-job creation program which was to pave more roads and build a few more sewers.
Maybe we did not need the helicopter program but we certainly do need the experience, the research and the development in the high technology field. If there is anything that is going to bring this country out of the doldrums it is in and show us the way into the 21st century, surely it has to be the electronics industry rather than the paving industry.
We have in front of us the electronic highway that will be crucial to the development of the technological business of industry over the next many number of years. We very much stand to lose our competitiveness around the world if we do not invest in this high tech area. Yet the government has seen fit to cancel everything in that area and introduce a subsidized, government paid job creation program that is going to pave some more roads and build some more sewers.
We had the opportunity to develop a highway that would go at the speed of light and yet we think we are only going to build a highway on which we can only travel at 40 or 80 kilometres an hour. The electronic highway is the way of the future. It had vision. It had substance.
The job creation program that the government sees has in my opinion no vision, no real hope for 400,000 young people. It has no real vision for saying: "We have a program that is going to see you through school right through to your retirement. It will give you opportunity and prosperity". All it can think of is short term job creation programs to help them through the summer and carry on from there.
Six billion dollars was supposed to create 65,000 short term jobs. I understand that the Minister of Human Resources Development may be talking at a news conference at this very moment. As he said earlier today, he is going to announce a program to spend another $100 million for 10,000 young Canadians to see them through the summer. It is with no long term vision. That is what upsets me most about this bill.
I read in the Globe and Mail today that the federal government and the Government of Quebec are now at loggerheads over which will do the job training in this part of the country. Therefore the whole idea of job creation is stymied, put on the shelf. It has been delayed. It has been postponed. Young people desperately need the government to get its act together to do job creation.
The only job creation I see is that civil servants in Ottawa are at loggerheads with civil servants in Quebec City. That seems to be going on ad nauseam and it is not benefiting the country. It is not job creation.
If we are going to have job creation and deficit reduction, surely we must hold out the vision of lower taxation, lower deficits and controlling the debt. As we tell Canadians, they are going to be faced with higher taxes and more government spending.
There is no real incentive on anybody's part to invest in the real wealth creating jobs in this country. The government has to go back to square one and back to basics and rethink its whole strategy on job creation, job training, job motivation, building and creating wealth and prosperity. The bill is a very poor start.
The government also said in its press release that there would be a two-year extension of the freeze of public service wages. Many Canadians would be glad to have a freeze if their jobs were assured. Jobs are in jeopardy; jobs have been lost. Many people are now on the unemployment rolls and are asking what their futures are.
I would like to offer them some real hope that we are spending their tax money wisely, but I cannot even offer that. I am looking at the Ottawa Citizen article of April 9 written by Mr. Greg Weston and entitled ``Pink (Slip) with Envy''. He writes about the fictitious Bob who has been working for the federal government as follows:
No matter what Bob's rank in the bureaucracy, he will be given at least six months on the payroll to look for another job. During that time, he and other surplus people like him will have priority over everyone, everyone (except ex-political hacks) applying for similar positions elsewhere in the government.
They are going to shuffle the deck at taxpayers' expense and maintain some jobs that may or may not be necessary in the federal government. Poor people out there are working hard to pay their taxes while civil servants in Ottawa and elsewhere around the country feel quite cosy with their job security and will not be laid off. The writer continues:
In fact, under a deal worked out with the unions in 1991 the government has agreed not to lay off anyone without first making them a "reasonable job offer".
Again the whole concept is to recycle the civil service rather than make it efficient, responsive, lean and affordable. He continues:
Even when Bob is finally given directions to the nearest unemployment insurance office, he still remains at the front of the government line for government jobs for another full year.
Even if somebody who is qualified and on UI he plays second fiddle to our hypothetical Bob who is at the front of the line just because he used to have a federal civil service job. He is guaranteed to be the first in line for the next one that comes along. In conclusion he writes:
In the past seven years only 5,629 public servants were actually laid off. That is an average of about 800 a year out of the 230,000-odd people working for the federal government. Among those landing on the street, about 60 per cent spent more than six months on the public payroll doing nothing.
Is that the type of job creation program the government likes: people being paid by average Canadians who have to pay their taxes to keep people on the public purse for doing nothing? He continues:
No one seems to have any accurate figures on what all this is costing Canadian taxpayers, but the tab is at least $60 million a year just for the 1,700-odd bureaucrats currently floating around in surplus never-never land.
That article tells us that the government has neither addressed deficit reduction nor job creation in a positive and serious way. It is time government members heard from all Canadians. They are certainly hearing from Reform Party members on this side of the House that it is time they acted seriously and brought in some serious job creation programs. That attitude would create an environment or playing field for the private sector to create job creation programs.
While I still have time I would like to mention I am appalled the CBC is now going to be given authority to borrow money. Surely the country has enough debt. It is time to recognize we cannot keep borrowing money. We cannot keep giving every agency in the country the authority to borrow more money, off budget by the way, so the finance minister can tell us that the deficit is coming down. He has just passed the buck over to the CBC.
I will wrap up my speech by saying I am opposed to the points raised in the bill. The government should bring in something positive and concrete to do the job properly.
Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB
Madam Speaker, I stand today to respond to a few of the comments on Bill C-17 by members of the opposition this morning and on previous days.
I am a strong believer that we have the good fortune of living in the greatest country in the world. I would also include the province of Quebec in my country. It is part of Canada today. We certainly look forward to it being part of Canada for many years in the future.
With regard to Bill C-17, I am extremely proud of the Minister of Finance and the time he took for consultations across the nation. As every member of the House is well aware he gave every opportunity to bring forward expertise from the various sectors of our community and our business world. He did this in addition to bringing together a number of economists and other people with background and expertise in various fields.
In addition he did something a little different. He allowed the House to have the opportunity of a pre-budget debate. Members of opposition parties had the opportunity to bring forth suggestions, ideas and input previous to presentation of the budget.
I must welcome the occupant of the chair. We have a new Acting Speaker, a member from my home province of New Brunswick who looks exceptionally good in the chair of the House of Commons.
I am extremely proud of the minister and the opportunity he gave each and every one of us in the House to bring forward our ideas and thoughts. It should not have been an opportunity just to bring forward our own thoughts and ideas on the subject matter. It should have been an opportunity for us to bring forward the thoughts and ideas of our constituents. Like every member of the House I received many pieces of correspondence and many telephone calls with sincere suggestions, input and ideas about the forthcoming budget.
After all the consultation and opportunity, the Minister of Finance brought forward a balanced, fair and equitable budget for all parts of Canada and all Canadians. Some difficult decisions were made in the budget. They were difficult for the minister and for government members. Yet they were responsible decisions.
For example, I am sure no one on the government side anticipated prior to the election a $46 billion projected deficit for 1993-94. Even after being presented with it, did the government back off and say it was going to change its plans? Was it going to do something different because it was new and different news? No. The government said that it made it more difficult but it was going to keep its commitment to Canadians over the next three years of 3 per cent of gross domestic product. The government is not going to back off. It is going to carry forward on the commitments made in the red book that all members of the House have held up from time to time and referred to by section and page. It was well read across Canada. It probably was the most well read book in 1993 and we are extremely pleased by that.
The bottom line is that every decision the government has taken is looked at in light of what it would do to create an atmosphere in the country that gives our business sector an opportunity to create jobs for the future. We stated that up front, first and foremost, and we are backing it up today. We are going to continue to announce programs with that specific purpose in mind.
I cannot imagine why that is something anyone should be ashamed of, as some opposition members mentioned earlier. I am extremely proud to be working with the Minister of Finance. We will certainly continue to work with him in that endeavour.
Now is the time for the government, all members of the House and all other Canadians to work together. We have to continue to build confidence in our people and confidence in business and industry. They are the people who will create jobs in the future. Since February 22, the date the budget was brought down, that has been certainly brought forward to the people in my constituency and many other constituencies across the country. A new and modern Canada will see an opportunity for young people. This plan will bring back hope to Canadians, hope for their futures and the futures of their families.
During the recent break we had a couple of weeks ago I had an opportunity to meet with many people across my constituency in public meetings. Their comments were very positive. They were saying: "You are on the right track. Keep going in that direction. It is a good balance. It is a balanced budget. We think we can make it work". They had the confidence we want to see.
On arriving in Ottawa I am sure everyone in the House, especially the new members, had heard about our perks. One of the first things the government did was to look at the so-called perks. I have never had an opportunity to use low priced shoe shine outlets or to have low priced haircuts. Maybe that is obvious today. I have never had the opportunity to have free gymnasium workouts or masseurs. That was one of the things the government said first and foremost would be gone with one mighty slash.
In comparison to a projected $46 billion deficit, $5 million may not sound like much but to me $5 million is a lot of money. To my constituents $5 million is a lot of money. I believe to most Canadians $5 million is a lot of money. That is the amount the action of eliminating those perks is projected to save Canadian taxpayers during the next year. There is a lot more to be done, no question about that, but we have to continue moving forward with input and consultation with the citizens of the country. When we start working together that is when we start making accomplishments, that is when we start getting action and that is when we start building an economy and getting people back to work.
I am not embarrassed by the fact that every decision the government has made is based on creating the opportunity for jobs. I am proud of the Minister of Finance and proud of this government. I am proud to continue working with this government toward that goal.