Debates of Feb. 7th, 1995

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

moved that Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take part in the debate on Bill C-65, an Act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, and to explain to hon. members the substance of the bill and announce certain measures for public service renewal.

Bill C-65 is part of a concerted effort to act on our commitment to government renewal, as part of our promise to give Canadians good government and restore public confidence in government. The purpose of this bill and other measures we are taking, which I will describe briefly today, is to usher in a new kind of federal government, a government that is less costly and more efficient and that concentrates on its fundamental roles and responsibilities, in order to give Canadians government services better suited to their needs.

As we said in our red book, the most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable.

During the last election, and since then, the people of Canada have spoken. Their message was loud and clear. They are tired of large government. They have entrusted us with the task of ensuring the careful management of public funds. They want honesty and integrity restored to their federal institutions.

The previous government made a process of selecting friends when making appointments to the many agencies, boards and commissions that cabinet is required by law to carry out.

Madam Speaker, you may recall that in the last budget the Minister of Finance announced that we would have a full scale review to examine the size and relevance of existing boards, agencies, commissions and advisory bodies in order to both achieve cost savings by shrinking the size of some boards and commissions and by eliminating those that no longer play a useful role.

Over the last year we have listened to Canadians and taken action. An obvious measure of the importance that we attributed to the renewal and downsizing of the federal government was the Prime Minister's decision to ask me to assume responsibility for public service renewal. In this capacity the government has moved simultaneously on three fronts which will lead to a leaner, more cost effective and efficient government.

Bill C-65 will bring into force some decisions taken last July to reduce the numbers of, the size of, and otherwise streamline the operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions where this is in the interest of Canadians.

As hon. members will recall, on July 8 of last year I issued an interim report on progress to date. With the co-operation of my cabinet colleagues I was able to report that decisions had been taken affecting 41 agencies in nine different portfolios.

The legislation before the House today will place into law those decisions requiring legislative action.

More specifically, this bill will make it possible to abolish, or significantly streamline, 22 agencies and advisory bodies. As a result, we will be able to eliminate 150 positions staffed by the Governor in Council. In concrete terms, this will mean an annual savings to taxpayers of $1.5 million, and this is only the first set of such measures.

I am sure you realize, Mr. Speaker, that it would take too long to mention all these measures individually. However, perhaps a few examples will serve to illustrate how proper planning can yield major dividends.

The Board of Directors of Petro-Canada Limited, which now has 15 members, will be reduced to three members. This agency has no employees, its sole function being to manage the remaining accounts receivable of Petro-Canada, which was privatized in 1991. By reducing the number of members on the board and replacing them with employees of the Department of Finance, the government will be able to achieve a substantial savings.

The Canadian Saltfish Corporation, which was created almost 25 years ago, is being abolished because there is no longer any need for it. When it closes, 24 positions filled by governor in council appointees will disappear.

The staff of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board will shrink from 18 to 7, which will allow it to rationalize its activities in Cape Breton and enlist more help from Enterprise Cape Breton to implement more effective programs in that region. Seven positions will disappear when the board of trustees is abolished for the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian fund to aid in research on the diseases of children. In the future, the Medical Research Council will administer this fund.

This is a very good example of what I mean when I say that good planning pays dividends. Continuing to study childhood diseases is essential. However, since the government supplies the funds but does not carry out the research, it is illogical in these times of fiscal restraint to keep paying for a board that only administers the fund.

By being more pragmatic and logical, we tried to expose areas of overlap and to see if we could merge or group together certain functions. This is what we did for the Fund to aid in research on the diseases of children. We managed to save the fund by having it administered more effectively by the existing Medical Research Council of Canada.

Another example of this kind of amalgamation was the elimination of Emergency Preparedness Canada as a separate agency. Emergency preparedness remains necessary and Canada will be well served in that area, except that this function will now be performed by DND.

The functions of each agency were also reviewed for relevancy, to see if they were still useful or had become redundant.

Where it was determined that we had to keep the agency, we then looked at its structure with a view, if at all possible, to fulfilling its role with fewer people, less money and, perhaps, more efficiency.

Some agencies had very large staffs. Given the present financial situation, that seemed difficult to justify.

Internal structure is also an important criterion and one that we have taken into account. For example, at the National Capital Commission, it is essential that adequate regional representation be maintained on the board.

Similar criteria of course apply to many types of boards and we have been careful to maintain appropriate representation of the boards that we will be reducing in size.

Over a dozen organizations will have their number of board members reduced, resulting in significant savings. Just to mention but a few in this group are the Canada Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Arts Centre and the boards of four of Canada's national museums.

I believe that hon. members will agree that this demonstrates, as I said last summer, we want to ensure that federal agencies continue to be relevant and that they are serving Canadians as effectively as possible. Bill C-65 will give effect to our objective which is the identification of sensible and practical actions to eliminate overlap and duplication and simplify government wherever possible.

Program review and efficiency of the federation: As I have already mentioned the review of agencies, boards and commissions is one aspect of the government's overall approach to streamlining and restructuring government.

The program review and our work in improving the efficiency of the federation are two additional initiatives. The efficiency of the federation initiative has allowed us to work jointly with the provinces in reducing overlap and duplication. With nine of the provinces and with two of the territories we have signed action plans which deal with specific sectoral issues where overlap and duplication can be reduced or eliminated within specific time frames.

I will soon report on the progress that we have made in this important area which will result in more effective and less costly government for all Canadians.

The program review is the other very significant initiative that will give the government a new look, a substantially different government which focuses on its core roles and responsibilities. The government is at one in understanding the absolute necessity for the government to renew itself, to restructure itself to better meet the evolving needs of our society during the next century.

As members know, the full details of the results of the program review will be announced by the Minister of Finance when he tables his budget.

Third, there is no such thing as the status quo; the federal system is evolving. What I have just described to you is but one example of this evolution in government. If we are able to take the steps I just referred to, it is because our system is flexible, adaptable and capable of meeting the changing needs of our society and our country.

Similarly, federalism is a form of government characterized by the capability of adjusting. Our history demonstrates the extreme flexibility of our government system.

Madam Speaker, if I can refer to my opening remarks of a few moments ago, where I mentioned the wishes of the Canadian people, I am certain that you and all colleagues in the House will agree that the government is taking the measures that will meet these expectations. Perhaps more than anything else, Canadians expect and want their government to be more responsive. A more responsive government will result from the efforts I have outlined here today.

To conclude, I invite all the hon. members to support Bill C-65. It is with legislation like this that we can give you a modern and efficient government. In closing, I would like to advise the hon. members that we will be introducing in a little while another omnibus bill to finish the job started with Bill C-65.

By the time our review is over, we will have dissolved many other agencies, boards and commissions; eliminated more than 600 positions and effected savings of over $10 million a year for the taxpayers. I cannot wait to be done with this review.

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise following the speech made here this afternoon on Bill C-65 by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. In the context of that legislation, the minister is also acting as President of the Privy Council.

Bill C-65 is a measure to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies. The bill amends and reorganizes 15 federal agencies by reducing the number of their members. It also dismantles seven other federal organizations. I say dismantle because, in some cases, the mandate of these agencies is transferred to the sector department or is merged with that of another body.

For several months now, the minister has been making a lot of statements regarding his reorganization of the federal public service.

Let us take a closer look at the effect of these cuts in the context of the public service taken as a whole. In its current form, Bill C-65 seeks to restructure the boards of 15 federal organizations and reduce the number of their members. As the minister said himself, the changes proposed in that legislation would result in the elimination of 150 positions held by governor-in-council appointees, as well as in savings of about one million dollars.

At the same time, the government is about to eliminate 45,000 jobs in the federal public service. If we estimate the average cost of these positions to be $40,000, a figure which includes the salary and the fringe benefits, these cuts could result in savings of $1.8 billion for the government. Compared to these drastic cuts and their impact on the government's budget, the changes proposed in Bill C-65 seem very minor indeed. They look more like a device to attract the public's attention than like a real change in the government's way of managing.

The savings which would result from the minister's piece of legislation represent merely one eighteenth of one per cent of the savings related to the anticipated elimination of the 45,000 jobs mentioned earlier. As you can imagine, the minister's interest in such cuts is great, given their impact on the budget; on the other hand, the savings resulting from the reorganization and elimination of some federal agencies, which amount to a million dollars per year, seem minor.

The fact is that all this publicity about savings of one million dollars is designed to prepare the ground and show that the government is setting an example. The aim is to show that political positions are being cut, before public service positions. Let us not forget that most of these political positions are part-time positions, and the people in them usually have another income. This is not the case for public servants, who work only for the government.

A bill, in proper form, to save one million dollars is far too little, when public service positions are about to be slashed. This is not good enough. In many cases, the savings will not be real. Costs will simply be transferred to the public service. The government wants us to believe the bill will reduce waste in public spending. What we need are fewer political positions, that is appointments by the Privy Council, in other words, by the Prime Minister himself. This bill is simply a smoke screen.

Saturday's Globe and Mail made it very clear that there was no shortage of political appointments under the Liberals. The article is headed: ``It pays to be a Liberal'' and goes on to list 84 Liberals who have been appointed by the government. Certain well-known Liberals were named to important positions. Some of them had supported the Prime Minister at the leadership convention; others had lost out in the October 1993 elections and others were longtime Liberal supporters.

This omnibus bill creates the illusion of government transparency. The red book makes the following promise: "A Liberal government will review the appointment process to ensure that necessary appointments are made on the basis of competence. Persons appointed by a Liberal government will better represent women, visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, and people with disabilities". Are the 84 appointments listed in last Saturday's Globe and Mail based on the red book's criteria? Or are there double standards? I shall let you judge for yourselves. We heard one speech during the election campaign, but, having been elected, they are singing a different song now. The same Liberal credo as usual.

The elimination in the bill of all legal references to commissions and advisory boards leads us to doubt that the Liberals are seriously committed to transparency in government operations. Will Parliament and elected members have the right to examine appointments to such advisory boards, which in fact will no longer be legally constituted?

These agencies will no longer be required to submit annual reports to Parliament. The expected savings may be quite minimal and government appointments may become even more concentrated in the hands of the executive. Is this the transparency that the Liberals promised us during the last election campaign in October 1993?

They have also been silent on the issue of consultation with the provinces. Is that the flexible federalism promised by the Liberals? At the National Capital Commission, the legal obligation to have a member representing each province has been lifted in favour of local representation, that means representation for the city of Hull and for the city of Ottawa.

And the government is still wondering why Westerners feel alienated? Why do Canadians from the west feel they are getting less than Ontarians and why was the government unable to have a majority of members of Parliament elected in the west of the country?

The North Pacific Fisheries Convention Act will be revoked and the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission will be created. Was the Government of British Columbia consulted during this process and on the changes proposed by this act? Again, the minister remains silent.

The Canadian Saltfish Corporation is being dissolved, says the minister, and the Saltfish Act, revoked. There is no more saltfish to sell anyway. The corporation was already inactive. Why has the government sat 15 months in office without acting?

Dissolving this corporation was not the decision of the century, you will agree.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act is being amended. Have the governments of the four maritime provinces been privy to discussions leading up to this decision? Have they been included? Once again, we are in the dark.

There will no longer be representatives of the armed forces on the National Film Board. The government finally recognizes that the NFB is not a propaganda machine. Does it also recognize that Canadian taxpayers should not be helping to pay for partisan propaganda? Is the government prepared to stop funding the Council for Canadian Unity and let pressure groups from the no side in the next Quebec referendum pick up the slack?

The government says it wants to put an end to political appointments and senseless references to advisers. Seven advisory councils have been abolished. This is all very fine and well, but the directors of agencies can still call on the services of these people for advice of all sorts. The same group of friends of the regime will therefore continue to hover around government agencies, but more informally, less visibly than before.

The government plans to table a second omnibus bill, the minister tells us, after bringing down the budget, while an examination of all federal bodies continues under the responsibility of the minister himself.

All in all, the two bills will affect fewer than 300 positions, the majority of them part time, and will save one million dollars at best.

As we mentioned, the reorganization of these 15 federal bodies and the winding-up of seven others provided for in Bill C-65 will abolish a total of 150 political positions. This initiative should be pursued, although it still strikes us as much too timid.

The government should be directing its attention to the process of appointing people to these organizations. This is the sore point. The existing appointment process leaves the door open to taxpayers' money being used to reward friends of the party in power. There will be fewer of these political appointees, I agree, but they will still be Liberals.

What has changed? Let us look more closely at the nature of this administrative reorganization by the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. The number of members of the Canada Council has dropped from 21 to 11. The position of assistant director is no longer mentioned in the bill's provisions. The Council could, however, create such a position without any other approval. Parliament is losing control. The position of secretary of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, Telefilm Canada, is in fact no longer mentioned in the bill. The creation of such a position will therefore be up to the corporation in the future.

The Minister of National Defence is henceforth responsible for emergency preparedness, the organization formerly presided over by the minister, but under the direction of the executive director.

Emergency Preparedness Canada is no longer required to submit an annual report on its operations. Of course, the risk of politicizing emergency preparedness for partisan purposes is still there and we must remain very vigilant in this regard. It is a matter of government openness and parliamentary control.

The established policy of no longer requiring departments to submit annual reports is part of the cheeseparing economies this government is trying to achieve, when its mismanagement in all areas is costing us billions of dollars.

A one-point hike in interest rates increases the deficit by $1.7 billion, which is close to the $1.8 billion to be gained by eliminating the 45,000 public service jobs targeted by the government.

The abolition of the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport was already announced in the 1993 budget of the Conservative government. Are the Liberals taking credit for these savings or are they using the same data a second time?

Any legal reference to the National Archives of Canada Advisory Board and the National Library Advisory Board is eliminated. Management at the National Archives and National Library will thus be free to set up an informal advisory committee that will be beyond control.

The minister said that other changes would be implemented as part of the reorganization through separate legislation, orders-in-council or administrative measures. These additional measures will eliminate 125 governor in council appointments and save $4 million. Did you notice that this government's estimated future savings are always much bigger than the savings generated by these concrete measures?

Bill C-65 and the second omnibus bill that will be introduced after the budget is tabled will eliminate 300 jobs and save $1 million, while future measures will cut 125 jobs and save $4 million. This second series of measures to be implemented in the coming year will thus save four times as much. The jobs that will be cut must pay much better than those already abolished.

[The Speaker]

It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

International Development

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is International Development Week. As we focus on our own problems, we Canadians must also remind ourselves from time to time that the vast majority of humankind is not as well off as we are. We must also recognize that our own interests and values require that we aid others in development.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this morning, aid for development attacks the threats to our own security that are posed by over-population, poverty, disease and conflicts in other countries. It also allows us to share our Canadian values of tolerance and pluralism; aid women in development; encourage the establishment of a vibrant private sector in developing economies; and help others create the foundations for democratic government that make this country so great.

In this development week we salute the non-governmental organizations, churches and other Canadian institutions, and the millions of individual Canadians who make such a tremendous contribution to others in the world, while enriching us all in the process.

Social Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, this government is contemplating raising to 30 per cent of income the rent geared to income in low cost and co-op housing, in order to save on social housing and apply these savings to reducing the federal deficit.

We recognize in this measure the unimaginative, heartless ways of the Liberals, and particularly their lack of vision. What this raise means, in real terms, is a 20 percent per year rent increase for the 110,000 Quebec families in social housing.

Given an average income of $10,000, these tenants will have to pay $500 more in annual rent, or $40 to $50 more per month.

Instead of going after the undue privileges of the rich-family trusts, tax loopholes and unpaid taxes-the federal government argues: let us make the poor pay.

The Debt

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, I participated in a debate at the University of Manitoba entitled "Generation X-Inheriting the Debt".

I sat in utter astonishment as I listened to the Liberal member from St. Boniface say to these students whose futures are in jeopardy because of decades of Liberal and Tory overspending that continued deficits have been worth it because "look at all the good things we have".

My astonishment turned to utter disbelief when the same Liberal member from St. Boniface stated that all the talk about MPs' pensions being so rich is just a crock. As this member and other Liberal trough feeders continue to extol the virtues of deficit spending and point to the frugality of their pension plans, one can be sure that the Canadian taxpayers recognizes that this Liberal defence in fact is just a crock.

Taxation

[Jag Bhaduria, Liberal, Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for 15 months now Canadians have supported the federal government's policy of deficit reduction and job development. We are all acutely aware of the impact these policies will have on the economic development of Canada.

Now with the impending budget Canadians are getting nervous because deficit reduction targets will not be met. They are nervous because of strong rumours of proposed tax increases in the budget.

Low and middle income Canadians have been taxed enough. They have been burdened by government mismanagement and excessive spending for too long.

I have proposed a solution to the Minister of Finance, a solution that every low and middle income earner in Canada will support. The solution is to designate 1995 a tax freeze year for low and middle income earning Canadians. It is time for the federal government to show leadership on this matter.

Chinese New Year

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week members of the Chinese Canadian community celebrated the beginning of the Chinese New Year, the year of the boar.

In Vancouver the Chinese community celebrated all week. I had the privilege to participate in many of the festivities ushering in the new year.

Parades, lion dances, colourful fairs and rich banquets brought Vancouver East to life. Even the dragon made an appearance.

The Chinese Canadian community is a great asset to our Canadian mosaic. Dedicated members of their community, Chinese Canadians are a good example of Canadian citizenship. Their will to generously share their traditions and culture with the rest of Canada is but another contribution of this great community to the building of a multicultural country.

They once again proved that the values they hold so dear are the values of many other communities: family, respect, friendship, work, hospitality. The Chinese Canadian community also enjoys, as do many other communities, good food, good fun and a great love for celebration.

Let me wish everybody Happy New Year, Kung Hey Fat Choy.

Oxford

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister for success in forging new trading relationships with the far east, the Americas and eastern Europe.

My riding of Oxford has many industries that want to benefit from these new trading opportunities. This was demonstrated by representatives from many sectors of my ridings' economy, including food processing, agri-business, manufacturing and education who met with representatives of the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce this past December in Woodstock.

At this meeting business people learned about the developing Ukrainian economy and the opportunities it presents to Canadian business.

The attitude of the people present was one of confidence in the skills and products they had to offer and willingness to investigate joint ventures and exchanges.

I can assure the Prime Minister and this House that Oxford will be doing its part in creating new jobs and new opportunities for all Canadians through increased trade.

Members Of Parliament Pensions

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to move on its promise of MP pension reform.

The Minister of Finance will deliver a tough budget at the end of this month. Canadians understand the difficult financial challenges facing our country.

Canadians want a budget that is fair and equitable, that ensures that those who do not pay their fair share do so and the things Canadians value the post are protected, our health, our children and our natural environment.

However, to be fair and equitable we must put our own House in order first. I campaigned on pension reform. I urge the government to act now.

Social Program Reform

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the social program reform gives the federal government an opportunity to treat young people like second class citizens.

At a time when young people must build a future in extremely difficult conditions, given the problems of unemployment and government debt, the Minister of Human Resources Development, with the support of the Liberal majority within the committee, jeopardizes their ability to get university and post-secondary education by triggering a significant rise in tuition fees. Moreover, the minister and the Liberal majority want to make it more difficult for young people to get UI benefits.

Because of such measures, which show contempt and a lack of understanding, the federal government fully justifies the dissatisfaction and resentment young Quebecers and Canadians feel toward leaders who do not care at all about their future.

Members Of Parliament Pensions

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

Mr. Speaker, last November I rose in this House to share the concerns my constituents and I have over the Liberal's inaction in dealing with excessive MP pensions.

Today I rise again on the same subject. Almost three months have passed since trough day, the day 52 members of the House became members of the pay cheque for life club, courtesy of the extravagant MP pension plan. This government is famous for putting off major decisions. Meanwhile the cheques keep flowing from Ottawa and Canadians keep demanding an overhaul.

In a recent Cariboo-Chilcotin householder survey over one quarter of all responses voluntarily singled out the MP pension plan as an area to be cut. My constituents are angry that this government has done nothing.

Reformers stand with all Canadians in demanding MP pensions be brought into line with those seen in the private sector. It is time the Liberals live up to their promises. Stop wavering on

the issue and bring forward an affordable pension plan for the members of this House.

Post-Secondary Education

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today joining us in the House of Commons are some 40 students from Concordia University who represent the views of Concordia students, faculty and staff in strongly opposing the changes in post-secondary education funding proposed by this government.

I join in condemning these unfair measures and call on the government to stop fighting the deficit on the backs of students and workers, particularly women, people with disabilities and visible minorities, and instead close tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations, lower interest rates and put people back to work.

The Minister of Finance can set a personal example by ensuring that CSL Steamship Lines Inc. hires Canadian mariners with Canadian standards to crew vessels built in Canada and subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. Instead, six of these vessels are registered in the Bahamas using cheap labour and substandard conditions.

Finally, let us make sure that we fully fund post-secondary education in this country and strengthen social programs, not weaken and attack them.

Science And Technology

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in recognizing the principle of no new taxes, we should also recognize that continued investment in advanced scientific and technological research, oriented toward industrial production and export abroad, particularly in information science and biotechnology in which Canada is a world leader today, is one of the keys to improving Canada's revenues and trade balance, thus increasing employment and reducing the deficit.

Taxation

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have received hundreds of letters from concerned constituents of Bramalea-Gore-Malton, all demanding no new taxes.

My constituents want the government to reduce the deficit and eliminate duplication of services. People want the government to create a climate beneficial to economic growth. They want more support for small business.

Ordinary Canadians would like tax loopholes to be closed, government spending reduced, and MPs' pensions brought into line.

I urge my fellow members to support the government in these worthwhile objectives.

Douglas Warnock

[Raymond Lavigne, Liberal, Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we may be living in a selfish world, but a ray of hope shone over my riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul during the Christmas recess.

I refer to a local hero, Douglas Warnock, and I do not use the term lightly. On January 8, Mr. Warnock dove into the icy waters of the St. Lawrence River to haul a young mother and her daughter back to safety. When he got out of the water, he was told about another young girl, unconscious and floating downstream. He dove back in and brought her to shore.

Shivering and freezing, Mr. Warnock went back to the Verdun yacht club to warm up, leaving the victims to be cared for by others in the crowd that had gathered. Today, that mother, her daughter and her friend are alive thanks to this man's bravery.

I ask all Canadians to join me in thanking Mr. Warnock for giving us hope by demonstrating that there are still people who care enough for others.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in March 1994, the Federal Court's Appeal Division ruled that by refusing to pay members of the RCMP a bilingualism bonus since 1977, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had acted unlawfully.

In other words, the commissioner had been acting unlawfully for more than 17 years. Today, members of the RCMP demonstrated on Parliament Hill to claim a fundamental right already enjoyed by other employees in the federal public service: the right to form a union. Members of provincial and city police forces already have that right.

Members of the RCMP see this as a way to stop this abuse of power by the RCMP commissioner, who is their employer and, as far as their grievances are concerned, is both judge and jury. It would be in the best interests of Canada to have an open RCMP, where police officers can do a good job and enjoy full recognition of their basic rights.

The Budget

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to give fair warning to the government in anticipation of its pending budget.

Canadians have been contacting Reform Party members of Parliament to express their rage about any possible taxation of dental benefits and RRSPs by the Liberal government. We have received thousands of calls, letters and petitions.

The Reform Party opposes any increase in the general tax burden imposed on Canadians. The budget must be balanced, but through expenditure reductions rather than tax increases.

Does this government not understand that Canadians want a reduction in the burden of government? In my riding over the last three weeks my constituents have made it perfectly clear: reduce the deficit without increasing taxes. Our voices of protest must stop the Liberals from making any tax grab.

I give fair warning to the government: do not tax dental benefits or RRSPs, do not raise any taxes, reduce spending.

Canadian Airborne Regiment

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands denying any racism in the video depicting the conduct of some members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment indicate how difficult it is to understand racism.

In the video a black paratrooper, like his white colleagues, was personally humiliated but in addition he was challenged and degraded at a second level. In the video his captors wrote on his back with excrement "I love the KKK". Had they written that message on a white recruit the meaning would have been lost. Its intended effect was only achieved because its host was black. In this case the individual was humiliated but as well all members of his race were implicated and humiliated.

This is racism in its simplest form; so simple that it can become systemic in our society.

We can say and be proud that Canada is not a racist nation. However, if we do not recognize racism when it exists and when it occurs I am afraid that our protestations may become hollow and untrue.

Liberal Government

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, economic development, growth and jobs are the priorities of the government. I encourage the Prime Minister and the government to continue with this agenda during 1995.

During the past year this government has created an economy and the confidence to enable thousands of permanent jobs to be created across Canada. As a matter of fact, our country is a leader in growth among all G-7 nations.

This agenda is working. We are on the road to recovery and Canadians have renewed pride and confidence in our country and in our economy. Atlantic Canadians have a goal of self-sufficiency and the jobs and growth agenda is an important part of the future achievement of this goal.

We must continue with our agenda for jobs and growth to build and even stronger economic climate that will provide the opportunity for employment for all Canadians.

Income Tax

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now that the financial community is becoming increasingly sceptical about the government's willingness to deal with the deficit, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have refused to promise not to raise taxes in the next budget. Once again, the government is about to attack the middle class, which is already heavily taxed.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister claim that, three weeks before the budget, he still does not know whether the government will raise taxes and, above all, how can he renege with such impunity on a campaign promise that he would not raise taxes during the first two years of his mandate?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the final decisions concerning the budget have yet to be made, so it would be premature for me to say anything definitive on certain aspects of the budget.

What we have to do is not an easy job. Decisions are in the process of being made, but they are not final. As soon as we have finished the job, the Minister of Finance will be able to announce the budget date, and members will get their answers on the night the budget is brought down.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the Prime Minister's arguments do not release him from his commitments. He was elected on the basis that he would not increase taxes during the first two years of his mandate.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that during the past year, his government's failure to cut spending was mainly responsible for increasing mortgage costs by up to $200 per month for the same taxpayers who would be affected by his surtax.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again, a budget will be brought down in the House a few weeks from now. I want to point to hon. member that Canada's economic performance has been exceptional.

We have achieved higher growth objectives than any other western country. We have had a year with zero inflation. For the first time in a very long while, the forecasts of the Minister of Finance with respect to the deficit have been reached. This will be explained in the budget.

Our performance was excellent, and we intend to keep it that way. And when the Minister of Finance rises in the House to propose budget cuts, I will be delighted to see the hon. member supporting those cuts.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we are in such good shape, why not promise not to raise taxes? Why this reluctance to make certain decisions, when the government is prepared to make decisions like the one I am about to mention?

Considering the present state of our public finances, how can the Prime Minister justify a decision to give away $2 billion in tax credits to the wealthiest taxpayers in this country who can afford a vacation home in the United States?