Debates of March 14th, 1995

The Budget

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Another colonial paper.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

The Southam. Now we write off the Southams and we write off the colonials. The third great Canadian edits the Calgary Sun .

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

You are quiet now. No response.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

I see my time is up unfortunately. We are saying that there are viewpoints in western Canada other than those brought here by the Reform Party.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Being a rookie in the House, I am not too sure if I am doing the right thing. You can help me if I am not.

I seek unanimous consent for a motion that I would like to move at this time. Under Standing Order 52 I move:

That this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing the rail strike.

The strike now includes the longshoremen. In turn it is having a devastating effect on exporters and farmers throughout the nation. People are being laid off by the hundreds at this very moment. This is an emergency and I ask for unanimous consent to debate it at this time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House has heard the motion. Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Unfortunately the member does not have unanimous consent.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Now we know how they feel about the country.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order I would like to say that it disturbs me-

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe this motion is out of order.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would like to remind the hon. member that the motion has not received the unanimous consent necessary in order to be debated.

The hon. member for Vegreville has the floor on questions or comments.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. He talked about how the Liberal budget will do a wonderful job and how it will solve the problem in terms of the present fiscal situation.

How will the hon. member explain to his constituents the loss of jobs, increased and continued high interest rates and eventually the lost social programs that will result from the inactivity of the government?

Let me refer to the interest costs on the debt that have increased from $39 billion from the time the government took office. They will be $51 billion, just the interest payments on the federal debt, by the end of the three-year budget period.

How will the hon. member explain this to the people in his riding who are looking for jobs, looking for relief from high interest rates on their mortgages, and looking for security in social programs?

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Vegreville. On the matter of jobs he will know that independent statistics show that 433,000 new additional jobs have been created in the last year and a half.

On the matter of interest rates I would say to him kindly that he is less than honest if he gives the impression that a government of any stripe controls interest rates. As a government we can help create the climate but many elements outside the country determine interest rates.

Yes, the rates are high through no fault of the government. They came down a bit today because of forces outside of our control and his control. He mixes a number of items that are completely unrelated in my view.

If the members wants a yardstick he can look at the Statistics Canada figures which show that Canada's unemployment rate is the lowest in eight years. We must be doing something right.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments on the budget made by my colleague from Burin-St. George's. Of course, the hon. member found a very simple way of explaining the deficit Canada is now facing by using the vivid image of the discussions he had with his wife. I could tell him that I too had similar discussions at home, but I also went to my constituents to sound them out while Parliament was in recess.

My constituents often tell me that what they want to see most is the federal government setting an example of good management. I have a few examples, such as MPs' pensions. It is surprising that our old hand from Newfoundland made no mention of members' pensions and that his leader said "give me one day and I will solve the problem of MPs' pensions".

Unfortunately, I would like to tell you about the case of the windows in the building on the other side of the river. Madam Speaker, you are interrupting me. Unfortunately, good management is what this government is lacking. There is no vision of the future.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am not interrupting you, but unfortunately your time is up.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Frontenac demonstrates that I have difficulty communicating from time to time. He misheard me or I misstated it. It was not my wife; it was another man's wife.

On the matter of pensions there is a basic difference between him and me. He does not plan to be in the country long enough to draw a pension. I do.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to set the record straight on the budget.

Members across the way have spoken about hitting targets. All they are going to hit with the budget is a debt wall. They are

talking about hitting the right track. All the track is going to lead to is a catastrophic economic crisis in Canada.

I will illustrate where we are, where we were and where we are going. We had a $550 billion debt and a $220 billion debt provincially which is increasing all the time and has been increasing for the last 20 years. We take in about $120 billion every year and spend about $160 billion.

Last year the government had to borrow $40 billion to meet its obligations. In three years time another $100 billion will be added to the debt, which will increase the amount of money we have to borrow and the interest payment to $50 billion.

Furthermore it will decrease the amount of money we have to spend on government programs from $120 billion to $102 billion. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that we have a significant shortfall in the amount of available moneys to carry out government programs, in particular social programs that underprivileged individuals rely on for their well-being.

With the shortfall two things will happen. We will either have to make it up in an economic growth and/or increase taxes. There is no way the economy can possibly make up $18 billion in economic growth. The government will be forced to increase taxes. Furthermore it will crush the life out of the economy and compromise our social programs by having more people obligated to use them. That is the reality.

I will look at a few specific problems in the country. The government disguised its cuts irresponsibly in many ways. First and foremost it said it made cuts. It has actually removed money from the provinces, over $8.5 billion worth. Where does this fall? It will be on the shoulders of the taxpayer, the end point at every level. It is completely unfair and unconscionable.

We in the Reform Party gave the government a budget in two phases. One was in November last year and the other one was before its budget came down. We worked through the process and indicated the solutions to get our country back on track. The government ignored them.

We proposed cuts to the provinces but we proposed to give the provinces tax points to enable them to raise money to fund the programs they want. In effect it is a division of labour and a reduction in duplication. We also proposed a reduction in duplication at the federal level to effect a net savings to the taxpayer.

Let me speak about two specific areas that are close to my heart and close to the hearts of all Canadians. One is health care and the second is post-secondary education. Currently health care costs are rising dramatically, far greater than our gross domestic product, due to expensive technology and an aging population. The situation is not going to get better but is going to get worse.

Funding on the other hand has been stagnant. The government has taken $8.5 billion from the envelope of funding to health care costs, further exacerbating a staggering problem. It has in effect penalized the provinces to get its own so-called funding under control. In the same vein it has said to the provinces that they cannot raise any funds because they will be shackled to the Canada Health Act.

The government has said that it does not want cash register medicine. It does not want to compromise health care. Neither do we in the Reform Party. We are obligated to ensuring that everybody receives essential health care services in a timely fashion, which is not happening right now.

We have proposed that the Canada Health Act be amended to ensure that the provinces have the power to raise the funding and that the government takes it upon itself to ask Canadians to define essential health care services. Once we define the services we will ensure that everyone in the country regardless of income will have the services covered, which is not happening currently.

I will give a couple of examples. A lady in my riding has vertigo, a spinning sensation. She sees things. She probably has a brain tumour in the base of her skull. In Victoria she will have to wait two months just to get her CT scan and her MRI scan is booked on the 12th of never. I ask members to put themselves in her shoes and think about how they would feel. The reason this is the case is that there is not the money for her to have this essential health care service. I could go on and on about many other cases but there is not the time.

The government has also said that our proposal provides for a two-tier health care system. Yes, it does, but we have maintained that it is better to have a two-tier health care system that provides better services for all people than the same two-tier system we have now that is providing progressively poorer health care for all people.

The other aspects about health care are in the realm of the provinces. I do not have the time to discuss them here, but they have responsibility for managing them.

The most important factor in determining employability in the future is post-secondary education. The government has pillaged the amount of moneys available to post-secondary education, further compromising the ability of students to have the skills necessary to compete in the coming economies of the future. That is something we will collectively pay for and pay for in a large way.

We in this party have proposed the income contingent loan replacement scheme, ensuring that funding goes to the provinces. We would make a small cut but also give them the tax points to raise the funds necessary to provide for post-secondary education.

I went to Francis Kelsey Secondary School in my riding last week that looked into an interesting initiative. It looked into the future to determine the economic needs of the country. It is telling its students where the jobs of the future will be. The government should take it upon itself to direct and advise provinces of the economic needs of the country in the future so that they will be able to direct their education programs in that direction.

I would like to make a few points. The budget has added $100 billion to the debt and has severely compromised our social programs much more so than anything that has been done in the past five years. Rather than have a slash and burn policy economically, which is what the government has proposed, we have put forth the only effective solution to save health care, social programs and the other essential programs and to help those most in need. We are trying to preserve the framework of the social net of which we are so proud.

We would take the moneys from the upper third of the income brackets. We feel the moneys we are borrowing now to pay for the debt are in effect being borrowed from future generations.

In conclusion I would say that we in this party are more than happy to help the government out to have a balanced budget but we need to do it within the next three years. Otherwise those who will suffer most are those who can least take care of themselves.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 84(5), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House. The question is on the amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.