Debates of March 14th, 1995

The Budget

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe it is not proper procedure to note members that are not in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sure the hon. member will apologize for having done that.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do apologize for that.

As I was saying earlier it is important that we set clear targets. As anybody or any business that has been in a debt situation knows you have to set clear targets and meet those targets. That is certainly what the government is doing.

You do not cut off your nose to spite your face. We still have to make investments in the future. We still have to get out from underneath the debt and deficit situation. We will do so by making strategic investments, by setting clear targets and by continuing to meet those targets as we have in the last year and actually exceeding them. That is the conclusion of my remarks.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in this debate in order to point out a number of contradictions in the budget, in the way cuts are made, cuts I would describe as bad.

The first thing I would like to draw to the attention of this House is the cuts in research and development, particularly in the agricultural sector. In this period of worldwide change, this time of market globalization, it is very surprising for a government to be cutting out all research in such a draconian and definitive fashion in the area of ovine production-production for the development of sheep farming. This type of production is both ecological and a source of diversification for a number of regions in Canada.

The decision was made in the budget to close the experimental farm at La Pocatière. This is a federal experimental farm, the oldest one in Quebec, which, only two years ago, was given the exclusive mandate for research in sheep farming for all of eastern Canada and in fact for Canada as a whole. A few years ago, a new sheep barn was built there at a cost of $10 million-money simply forgotten today. We are told that this farm will be closed, despite the fact that the sheep industry should get the most out of investment in research and development.

This situation is in blatant contradiction with the Liberal Party program and the guidelines of the present government on support to the agriculture industry. It is a contradiction, and I believe the government should reverse its decision and continue to pay the cost of research and development in sheep production

so that this industry can receive the support it needs to take its rightful place in the Quebec and Canadian market.

Another example of bad cuts in the budget is the substantial increase in port tariffs planned for the various harbours that come under Ports Canada and which are along the St. Lawrence River, among other places. They decided to raise port tariffs by 25 per cent and the ultimate result of this increase will be that a certain number of boats which would otherwise have docked in these ports will refuse to do so. For example, in Cacouna harbour, in my riding, the increase in port tariffs will achieve the opposite effect to that intended, which is to increase government revenues.

The result of the increase in port tariffs will be that fewer boats will dock there. This may cause an overall decrease. This is the kind of misjudgment of the situation which will have a negative impact on all ports, especially on the St. Lawrence, where 13 ports can be considered profitable when it comes to efficiency. This across-the-board increase in port tariffs will make some hitherto profitable ports stop being profitable and will make them a drain on the federal budget. I think that it is important that the federal government reconsider its decision to increase port tariffs by 25 per cent, because all users know that it will have an impact.

People who make calls for tenders, shipowners who entertain the idea of docking ships in Cacouna harbour or another could very well end up going to the east coast of the United States. We are going to eventually end up with even more harbour facilities which are not used as they should be and which will be increasingly in the red.

I think that these are examples where the government sets out in good faith to cut spending, but cuts in the wrong places and implements cuts which have negative repercussions for the economy of certain regions, like the one I represent, the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

Another example is transportation subsidies. Everyone agrees that these subsidies, which perhaps created an artificial market, must be abolished. The Minister of Transport was favourably disposed to recommendations that these subsidies be eliminated gradually, so that the impact on the regional economy could be evaluated. The Minister of Finance, however, has decided to cut them drastically starting July 1, 1995.

It is not possible at this time to predict the effect this will have on eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. It is not known if it will be beneficial or disastrous, or if some businesses will not be forced to close their doors during the summer of 1995 because of this decision.

Why did the government not follow the recommendations of the industrial commissioners of eastern Quebec, of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, of all the stakeholders in this sector ultimately, and reduce these subsidies gradually over four or five years? That would have allowed the various industries, whether in the forestry sector, dairy production, furniture manufacturing, or processing, to adapt, to explore new markets and to meet the new challenges of competition.

I think that a decision such as this one will lead on the short term to an increase in unemployment. I need not tell you that our economy does not adapt very quickly to change. Some people will lose their jobs and will not find others right away because the first step will be to rebuild the regional economy, to create an industrial fabric corresponding to the new market conditions resulting from the abolition of transportation subsidies.

This is another example of how, in the budget, the federal government has ignored the complex nature of markets and is making decisions that will have a major negative impact on the short term. This impact could have been reduced by taking into account the recommendations made by the various stakeholders in the local economy.

I would like to give one last example, which I think is even more meaningful, namely the Federal Office of Regional Development's withdrawal from capital assistance programs for small business. Under the pretext of saving, we will kill a very lucrative small business start-up market.

For example, a small winery like the one in my riding obtained a subsidy to build a warehouse, which allowed it to expand its market and secure a significant market share. This type of assistance will disappear. Consultants will help businesses find their way around the bureaucratic maze, but this type of assistance will not help launch small businesses. In this regard, I think that the federal government made the wrong decision.

I gave several examples of less than effective cuts which will be counter-productive on the long term, so that we will end up with an even larger deficit and regions will become even more dependent on transfers. The results will be the opposite of what the government is trying to achieve.

Of course, the government argues that it has to do this in order to cut spending. But we have not looked at the other side of the coin. For example, why did they decide to give family trusts until 1999 before eliminating the tax deferral and preferred beneficiary provisions?

It is a little like coming home one night to find a burglar and telling him: "It is now 11 at night; I will come back tomorrow morning around five o'clock, but in the meantime, keep quiet and do not steal anything".

We are telling Canada's wealthy families that have taken advantage of family trusts that they have five years to empty these trusts. At the end of the day, they will still be able to make the most of this unacceptable tax dodge.

Another way we could have saved money is by eliminating duplication in the area of manpower where, in Quebec alone, $250 million is wasted every year. I wanted to give these two examples to show that, if the government had taken action in the right places, it would not have been obliged to resort to such senseless measures as cutting Canada's only experimental sheep production research farm, which is located in La Pocatière.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to take part in this debate on the 1995-96 budget.

First of all, I must say that this budget is very disappointing. It is hard on the workers, the disadvantaged and Quebec. It does not contain any job creation measures. There is nothing in this budget for the 800,000 Quebecers on UI and welfare who want to work. In this budget like in his last budget, the Minister of Finance is announcing further cuts in unemployment insurance. Quebec however will get back less than it will contribute in 1995. It is clear that federalism does not profit Quebec.

This year, Quebec workers and employers will contribute $4.8 billion to the UI fund, but Quebec claimants will receive about $4.7 billion in benefits and various employment-related services. This will means a shortfall of approximately $118 million for Quebec. Just to restore the pre-recession level of employment, more than 800,000 jobs would have to be created in Canada.

In that sense, the budget offers no hope to the 1,200,000 jobless Canadians, based on Statistics Canada's figures.

Instead, the government sets itself a target of 45,000 job cuts in the federal public service, the most extensive one-time workforce reduction ever made in the public sector. Ottawa, Hull, Montreal, Toronto and many smaller cities and local economies will be hard hit by such a massive layoff of civil servants. I want to show solidarity with the Public Service Alliance of Canada and all government employees who will be laid off.

In addition, seniors' income is threatened by the government's announcement of an impending review of old age pensions scheduled for 1997 and designed to reduce program benefits.

In these times of drastic cuts in social programs, the government can almost certainly be expected to try and raise premiums, reduce benefits and tie pension income to family income. Thousands of seniors, UI and welfare recipients are very unhappy with this budget, particularly in my riding of Bourassa, where they are in great numbers.

The federal contribution to social programs, i.e. welfare, health and education, will be reduced from $17.3 billion in 1994-95 to $10.3 billion in 1997-98. This 40 per cent cut over three years will force the provinces to make further cuts with nothing offsetting these cuts.

On the other hand, costly duplication will be allowed to continue at the expense of the taxpayers, and so will squandering.

Also, the government does not go after the thousands of businesses which do not pay taxes, nor does it do anything about the tax havens accessible by virtue of tax treaties signed with other countries. This budget looks like it was drafted by Wall Street financiers. Tax on bank capital is increased, but only for a certain period. Consequently, banks will temporarily contribute about $100 million, while the Royal Bank alone made profits in excess of $1.2 billion in 1994.

As for family trusts, which Bloc Quebecois members denounced on many occasions, the minister maintains existing privileges for another five years. Over the next three years, the minister will cut $307 million from CMHC's budget, which is responsible for social housing, a very important issue in my riding of Bourassa, in Montréal-Nord. This unfair budget also reduces by $32 million the amount of subsidies to Quebec dairy producers.

The government also intends to reduce by $1.3 billion, over a three-year period, the budget for international assistance. That decision is in full contradiction with the white paper on Canada's foreign policy, which was tabled in February. I come from a developing country and I care a lot about this issue. It is a shame for our country, which will only allocate 0.29 per cent of its GNP to international co-operation, while the objective set by the UN is 0.7 per cent. This is the lowest level since the sixties. Meanwhile, at the recent world summit on social development, in Copenhagen, industrial nations, including Canada, just pledged to increase official development assistance. How hypocritical!

I also want to discuss the cuts affecting the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Because of drastic increases in immigration fees, family reunification will become increasingly difficult. The most blatant example is the tax on immigration. From now on, all adults who want to immigrate to Canada will have to pay $975, in addition to a $500 processing fee, which

means they will have to pay $1,475 just for the right to settle in Canada.

In many countries, this amount is the equivalent of a year's wages or even more. A family of four will have to pay about $4,000. Many people whose refugee status has been recognized cannot afford to pay $500 to obtain permanent residence. Some people arrive here without any money at all. How can they deal with this increase? It is unacceptable that future immigrants who never lived in Canada or visited this country will have to pay for the Canadian government's deficit.

The government overlooks the fact that the country of origin has already invested a lot of money in educating these immigrants who are a formidable asset to Canadian and Quebec society. Furthermore, people will have to pay $200 instead of $80 to obtain citizenship certificates. This is unacceptable. The government expects to collect more than $100 million per year as a result. This discriminates against workers and poor people from developing countries, like the head tax on Chinese immigrants in the 19th century, which was intended to discourage the Chinese from coming to Canada.

The government has shown no compassion at all for people who seek the protection of Canada under the Geneva Convention. The budget cuts will have a severe impact on the IRB. The number of commissioners who deal with refugees will drop from 175 to 112. The board's budget will be reduced from $82 million to $77 million. On the whole, the budget of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is shrinking, despite the fact that fees for services rendered have gone up, sometimes by 200 or 300 per cent.

Because of office closures, staff cuts, the creation of two huge processing centres in Vegreville and Mississauga and other operating problems, the department is no longer capable of carrying out its mandate.

On top of that, we had the appointment a few days ago of Jean-Guy Fleury as executive director of IRB. Mr. Fleury formerly held a position with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, a fact that was omitted from his biographical notes.

Why does the Liberal government want to establish this kind of association between immigration and intelligence and national security matters?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, this is by way of a comment because I really cannot let some of hon. member's comments go unanswered.

With the greatest of respect to the hon. member and his background in immigration, his lack of comprehension of the policies of the finance minister and the minister of immigration and our policy initiatives which have taken place during the last several weeks is tragic.

The idea that the department of immigration would not reduce its moneys is simply ludicrous. Of course it will. We all have to. Every single person in this country has to make a sacrifice to ensure that the country will continue and that the institutions of this country will continue to serve all Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if we could call a meteorologist. There appears to be some heavy weather on the other side.

At any rate, over the sounds of the empty barrels, for the edification of the hon. member for Bourassa, for the 3,000th time since the announcement was made I want to explain the situation with regard to the fee. Very briefly, the $975 will be charged to adults on landing. No one will be turned away. Government loans will be available. Immigrants and refugees have paid back their loans from this country at the rate of 95 per cent. To say anything less is insulting to immigrants and refugees.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I notice a great difference in the position taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when she was in opposition, on this side of the room, and her speech today, now that her side is in power. Why is she not giving the same pro-immigration and pro- refugee speech she gave before? Why has she changed so much? Today she is defending policies criticized by all of the organizations that assist refugees and immigrants. Everybody is against this immigration tax. Everyone opposes the $975 fee.

She tells us that no one will be denied entry over this fee, but she does not tell us that, to qualify for a loan, an individual must show that he or she meets the loan repayment conditions. In poor countries, few people earn $975 a month; sometimes they do not even earn that in a year.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to respond to a couple of points the hon. member from the Bloc raised.

With respect to the reductions of the dairy subsidies in the budget, I believe the member may have erroneously left the House with the impression that Quebecers and Quebec dairy farmers were the only ones who received these kinds of cuts. That is not true at all. In fact, I have just received information in my office of a Canadian analysis. Each one of the dairy farmers across Canada contributed equally to the reductions, in terms of those subsidies, to the tune of about $1,000 per farm unit. I can

report to the hon. member that the reductions in Quebec are the same type that were received in my constituency of Provencher.

With respect to unemployment rates, at the outset of his speech the member raised concerns about the inequities in terms of contributions in Quebec to the unemployment insurance fund and those collecting unemployment insurance.

Perhaps the reason there are not as many people collecting unemployment in Quebec as there were last year is the federal government's small business initiatives and the federal infrastructure program.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out, for the benefit of the hon. member for Halifax, that several members of her own party do not agree with the immigration fees.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

That is not true.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Yes it is.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Are you going to reply to the hon. member for Provencher?

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

I would like to give the hon. member an answer. Once again, Quebec is hit harder than the rest of the provinces. In the dairy sector alone, cuts of $32 million, and dairy producers are concentrated in Quebec. For the first time ever, this year Quebecers will contribute more to the unemployment insurance system than they will receive in benefits. The shortfall in unemployment insurance is $118 million. And there is nothing in the budget to help job creation. What about the promises? What about the Liberals' promise to create jobs?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to participate in the budget debate. During all my years in opposition, I heard many finance ministers deliver their budget speeches. From one year to the next, the same scenario repeated itself. The minister would make great forecasts and great promises only to tell us later that he had been completely mistaken.

Now the approach is different. This is a new era. For the first time Canadians can trust their government's economic assumptions.

The Minister of Finance has restored the confidence of the financial markets. He has also done something else of equal importance. He is restoring the confidence of Canadians and for that I salute him.

Today I want to talk about the implications of the budget for Canadian women. However let us be very clear. I am not only speaking to women; I am also speaking to men. Women's issues are everyone's issues. They are societal issues. They touch every citizen in the country.

Women are our mothers, our spouses and care givers. They are also taxpayers, consumers, workers and entrepreneurs. They balance the family budget. They manage businesses. They take jobs and they create jobs. They educate the next generation.

Women are very realistic. They know that as a nation we cannot spend more money than we make for a very long time. The time to pay back quickly catches up. Women understand that our country cannot continue to accumulate huge deficits year after year after year.

Now the time has come to face reality. The 1995 budget is the first step and only the first step. Our goal is to create good jobs and maintain our social safety net. We refuse to have decisions of prime importance for the nation taken by the bond sellers in New York, Tokyo or for that matter on Bay Street.

What lies ahead of us is a long journey, too long delayed. At the end of the journey we will emerge triumphant with our finances in order, a stronger economy, an ensured social safety net, and with renewed confidence in our abilities.

Before we reach that goal many sacrifices will have to be made by all Canadians. We will all have to tighten our belts. Everyone shall be called on to do his or her fair share to help eliminate the deficit.

Women really understand the need for fiscal restraint. They are ready to do their fair share but only their fair share, for fiscal restraint must never be used as an excuse to roll back the advances women have made in the past 20 years. Nor can it be given as a reason for delaying or postponing the further progress of women's equality.

The first piece of good news for women in this budget is that there is no tax increase.

We sincerely believe that the tax issue is not only a matter of tax rates; it is also a matter of fairness. By eliminating tax loopholes, the budget makes our tax system more equitable.

Second, the Canadian government wants to give the provinces more flexibility in managing programs like health care, post-secondary education and social insurance. We will achieve this goal through the Canada Social Transfer.

The minister stated that flexibility does not mean a free-for-all. There are national goals that still must be applied. We will combine flexibility with continued fidelity to our principles.

The government is absolutely committed to providing a fair and sustainable system of protection for Canadian seniors. This is also very important for women as they live longer and are often among the poorest in society. In order to ensure the sustainability of our pension programs, we will consult with seniors and Canadians in general on the nature of the needed changes later this year. That is part of open government.

Women's groups have a great interest in these consultations and I encourage them to make their views known. I have asked my department to specifically focus on this issue in the coming year because we all have to contribute to the fullest degree possible to the design of the program.

Women have a major stake in the budget measures, seeking to replace dependence with independence. An important element of that effort is the new human resource investment fund. We have to ensure that women's particular employment situations, their training and employment patterns, their incomes, family responsibility and life experiences are fully taken into account, both in the design of the new fund and the planned changes to unemployment insurance.

I am also delighted that the Minister of Finance has announced several measures to encourage small business.

Close to 40 per cent of small businesses in Canada are headed by women and their success rate after five years of operation is double that for men. That is the truth.

We can be proud of this success, which, however, did not come easily and without pitfalls. Businesswomen have to face what we call financial sexism. This does not come from me but from a new study released a few days ago by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

This study shows that women applying for business loans at financial institutions are turned down 20 per cent more often than men. It is a disgrace. And if they are approved, 95 per cent of the time, they have to pay higher interest rates on their loans. Do you find that fair? We certainly do not. All this, I remind you, in spite of the fact that women are very responsible and successful in business.

No wonder that, according to Pierre Cléroux, Vice-President of CFIB, these figures prove beyond any doubt that financial institutions are discriminating against women entrepreneurs.

Hats off to the Minister of Finance for stating in his budget speech, and I quote: "This government is determined that small businesses will have access to the financing they need to continue being our number one creator of jobs".

On behalf of all women entrepreneurs, I might say the sooner the better.

Let me turn to the principle of good government. There is no doubt in my mind that we have to redesign the role of government in the economy to fit the size of our pocketbook and the priorities of our people.

Last year, soon after being elected, our government undertook an extensive review of all programs and agencies it is responsible for. As part of this program review, the role of three organizations dedicated to women's equality, namely Status of Women Canada, HRD's Women's Program and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

The review process found that all three promote women's equality and in various degrees they all conduct research, consultation and undertake communications. All three also work closely with women's organizations.

The government concluded that the best way to increase both effectiveness and efficiency would be to consolidate its actions for women's equality at Status of Women Canada. In this regard effective April 1, 1995 the women's program of human resource development will be transferred to Status of Women Canada. The presence and the role of their local, regional and national staff, those offices and their services, will be maintained.

As well, effective April 1, 1995 the mandate of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women will end. This will result in a streamlining of resources and costs, removing duplication and eliminating all order in council appointments.

The CACSW's research, consultation and public information functions will be consolidated within the overall operations of Status of Women Canada.

The CACSW will be given the time and support it needs to wind up its operations. Once we move the functions to Status of Women Canada we hope we will be able to absorb some of the advisory council's staff to fulfil these functions.

The Canadian government is firmly committed to women's equality. As a matter of fact, this commitment has motivated all our decisions. This consolidation will enable this government to further the cause of women's equality in partnership with women's groups, the provinces and territories, the private sector and volunteer organizations.

The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women played a major role in the formative years of Canada's modern women's movement. At its inception in 1973 following the Bird report, the report of the royal commission, it filled an important

void. The modern Canadian women's movement was in its infancy. Women lacked a strong voice in the public arena. They also lacked vehicles through which they could advance equality.

Since then Canadian women have made progress in government, in education, in business and in the academic world. More important, women have formed hundreds of small, medium and large organizations throughout the country to ensure that their needs and concerns are heard and met.

These local, regional and national organizations work in many fields like violence against women, child care, the treatment of women in the health, justice and immigration systems, and the needs of women entrepreneurs among others.

As our society evolved the need for some of the functions of the council changed. Over the years its role as an interpreter of the voices of women has been overtaken by many strong, established national, regional and local women's organization.

We owe a great deal to the pioneers who worked within the advisory council. I salute the years of hard work and dedication of the committed women and men who have served the advancement of women through the advisory council.

I wish good luck to its outgoing president. She has been very helpful in my thinking the whole approach through and looking at new avenues for creativity and new dimensions of the work we are about to undertake.

The vitality and the strength of today's women's organizations and the dedication of their members will ensure that the important work done by the advisory council will continue. Its independent research capacity and its ability to consult and communicate information to women and the general public and its documentation centre as well are important supports to public policy making.

Therefore, these functions and the associated financial resources will be maintained. Its initiatives will enhance our ability to understand and respond to women's equality issues that take shape at the grassroots level and create a new synergy between research, policy development and the government's programs.

The consolidation of these three organizations will, I outline and summarize, create a single window operation; eliminate confusion and improve access to government; provide the government with a critical mass of expertise on women's issues; improve research, communications and public information services; strengthen links with local, regional and national organizations, NGOs and universities; ensure that funding for research that is independent of government continues to be available; and allow the government to focus its efforts toward promoting equality for Canadian women.

Since the day the Prime Minister appointed me as Secretary of State for the Status of Women, I have been meeting with women's organizations across this land. I have been having round table discussions with them and with many of the groups here in Ottawa. I have listened to their concerns with a great deal of interest.

In the new structure we will work to reinforce our collaborative partnerships and our abilities to network on a broad spectrum of issues by ensuring the involvement of these many women's organizations with their differing perspectives and the voluntary sectors and the universities works well.

I also want to explore how we can use the new communications technology in this new era of information. I would like to see us build an ongoing dialogue with our constituency using Internet and E-mail or both, or library net. These are all fabulous ways to keep in touch and keep informed and we want to do just exactly that.

We want to make sure that women become full-fledged partners in our society. As the Prime Minister rightly said recently: "In Canada, women continue to further the cause of economic equality. Relying on their own means and abilities, women help shape the future of this country. As for the Canadian government, it is meeting the challenge. Women's equality is not a matter of special interests or rights, but rather a matter of social and economic justice, a matter of good government".

We will work together and work toward equality in partnership with women, men, and the public and private sectors to overcome the obstacles that are still blocking our way. It is by involving the talents and dedication of every Canadian, all of us, that we continue to enhance our prosperity and make this country still a better place in which to live. When we involve all of its people we are in the best position possible to make things work.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for her convincing speech on the continuous struggle of women towards equality. I have two daughters and I do hope that they will live in a society where equality will be even more of a reality.

My question concerns some measures which seem in contradiction with the objectives and arguments stated by the hon. member.

First, one of the recommendations made by the Liberal majority on the human resources development committee provides that future UI beneficiaries, that is those who never received UI benefits before-this means a majority of young people and women-will have to work a greater number of weeks than other beneficiaries to be eligible for UI benefits and these benefits will be less than those that will be paid to people who have already been in the system for years. This seems to be

in contradiction with the principle governing the UI system and with your concept of equality.

Second, the same committee recommended that, in the future, students will have to run up higher debts, something which will affect women even more than men since, in the course of their careers, there are times when they are not gainfully employed, for example when they decide to stay at home to raise their children. Consequently, these women will be burdened with larger debts and for a longer period of time. That also seems to be a contradictory measure.

Finally, there is the plight of women who do not receive any welfare or UI cheques and who are not eligible for programs such as the assistance program for independent workers, which helps people start businesses.

Does the hon. member not agree that the government could have made an extra effort regarding these three areas, or should at least, through the social program reform, ensure that women in Canada and Quebec are not adversely affected by recommendations which are neither appropriate nor adequate in terms of helping them get where they should get in the future?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. As a father of two daughters, his interest is clear to me. We are certainly on the same wave length in that both our sons and daughters should enjoy equal opportunities and wage parity. I certainly agree, and I commend him on his position.

I want to say to the hon. member that he should not be too worried about unemployment insurance. So far, no decision has been made. It is still hypothetical. The report drafted by the people who worked so hard to listen to what the public had to say has been tabled, and the final decisions will be made at the appropriate time.

As for female students, if I am not mistaken, in the last two budgets the situation improved, and it is easier for women to get bursaries when they want to do a doctorate. There are certain situations, and I do not remember the exact circumstances, but I will certainly make enquiries and send you the rest of the details, but I know that women have been privileged in this respect, and if we want equality, I hope that the time will come when we no longer have to take this kind of action to ensure that women have the opportunities to which they are entitled.

On the subject of small business, I dare say that for the first time we have, if not threatened, or at least strongly suggested or advised, the banks that if they did not give small businesses the kind of protection they need and did not give them loans on request, we would apply sanctions that would be a little more severe than was previously the case. And when we see that 40 per cent of all businesses started by women have a better success rate than those started by men, I think it is because women tend to take a more thorough approach. They do not take as many risks, that is true, but in the end they have a better success rate.

A study has found that 50.1 per cent of businesses that have been in existence for 25 years are run by women, and these are incredibly successful businesses with sales that are absolutely amazing. I hope that this more or less answers your questions, but I can assure you that we have not yet won on all fronts. We must take action through partnerships with people like the hon. member, and I am counting on the co-operation of everyone, especially here in this House.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. minister's presentation. I appreciate a lot of things she had to say, particularly in the opening part of her statement where she said that women have a very good understanding of fiscal restraint and what it takes to run a business or a household.

My wife is a person who does understand. It is a shame my wife is not here to hear the comments of the hon. member for Halifax. I am sure she would take issue with that. Perhaps she is watching this on television. My wife does understand as the minister rightly said the need for fiscal restraint. My wife also is 100 per cent supportive of my opting out of the gold plated MPs pension plan. Why? Because like millions of other Canadian women who understand the need for belt tightening in these times of financial crisis in order to get our country's finances on the road she believes that leadership should start right at the top, here in the House of Commons.

If the women Liberal government members do support leadership by example, then why do they still cling so fervently to this still gilded MPs pension plan?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker. Women know how to handle money. They know how to turn a nickel into a dollar. They have been very cautious and careful. They have had to be, because men have not always been very sharing or very open with their wives or their children.

With respect to the pension, my husband thinks the pension is just right, just fair and he has no objection. Quite frankly we all work very hard. I am sorry if the hon. member thinks it is not worth being paid or recognized for working many hours a day. We do not agree with him. I think our pension system with the changes we have brought in is more than fair, more than equitable. My husband is not upset and neither am I.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister about her commitment to child care. The budget eliminated a subsidy that allowed for a great deal of transportation funds to be available to farmers in western Canada. In the past, rural women have found themselves having to find child care when child care was not available. With the elimination of the Crow benefit the pressures on the financial aspects of farming will be increased. Rural women who have in the past called for child care I am sure will be asking the minister for her support in the future to see a federal commitment to child care in rural areas.

Can the minister tell us if she continues to be committed to child care, especially in rural Canada?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that I have not changed my mind or my view of society. I have met with the Rural Women's Childcare Coalition. I have met with the farm women of Canada. I am very much in support of measures that will give them the kind of child care they want. A universal system is not always what they want.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has been working with the provinces. There are propositions out there. I can assure the hon. member that our commitment to the increase in child support and child care is a well founded commitment. It will be met within the term of our red book time. I can also assure him we will not change our minds on gun control either.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate in the House, although today's topic does leave a lot to be desired.

Canadians have a debt of over $550 billion. We have continuously overspent our budget, creating annual deficits which we add to our debt. In turn, this increases the amount of interest we must pay, already over $40 billion.

On February 27 the finance minister told us that he, his department and the government had balancing the budget in mind. He said it was a priority of this administration, but the finance minister does not tell us when it will achieve the actual balancing of the budget. Instead, each year we have been told of one more step in the budget balancing stroll that he and this government are leading us on, and that strolling in this manner for three years will achieve 3 per cent of GDP, assuming present conditions affecting this forecast remain constant and that those conditions or situations anticipated actually come to pass.

A plan that takes three years to reduce an annual deficit of more than $35 billion by $10 billion does seem like a stroll down some indeterminate path. It is not suggestive of a plan that would be considered a high priority by the people who implement it when there is no end in sight.

The longer we maintain the need to borrow large sums of money from foreign lenders the longer we will continue to add to our debt, increasing the amount of interest we will pay. The interest money we pay to foreign lenders could be utilized very effectively for services or benefits for Canadians at home.

It reminds me of the situation with credit cards. When a person uses a lot of credit cards to buy certain things and then sit them all in front of them and add up the amount of interest they are paying, it is taking a huge chunk of their salary. The person wonders why they thought buying on credit was a good idea.

By the time the government reaches its target of 3 per cent of GDP in 1996-97 it is estimated the interest payments on our debt will have reached $50 billion. To say it is rather easy for us these days, but it is really hard to identify with the reality of a billion dollars.

I have heard some examples, such as circling the globe at the equator with $2 bills, but it is hard to visualize how big the equator is as well. One example very easy for me to identify with is that if a person made a dollar every second they would be a millionaire in 11 days. To get a billion dollars it would take them 33 years. That puts it into reality for me.

Canadians have expressed concerns about most of the services provided under the social program umbrella, for example, health care, pensions, unemployment insurance, et cetera. We know these programs will be cut in the near future. However, we will not know until the autumn or maybe even later how these cuts will affect our lifestyles.

We also know that federal funding for health, post-secondary education and welfare will be lumped together and cut by $2.5 billion in 1996-97, and a further $4.5 billion in 1997-98. These cuts will have an effect on us, but it will depend on how the provinces allocate the moneys they receive to implement and maintain the services. Again, we do not know at this time the effect the budget will have on our lifestyles.

Even though it is a step toward decentralizing or transferring the management of these programs to the provinces and territories, it is unfavourably implemented when the cash cutbacks are not coupled with compensation in the tax credit area by increasing it.

With this budget plan, it is inevitable that health services will be cut, if not directly this year certainly next or the year following that.

This year health services will probably feel some effect from the cuts as applied to the medical research council, a 10 per cent cut, and the patent medicine prices review board, 15 per cent cut and another 15 per cent cut to the hazardous material information review commission.

Some aspects of the mandates of these departments or services certainly contribute toward the quality of our overall health program. Reduction in the services from some of these sources is bound to influence health care services.

I have identified some areas where cuts are to be implemented. These plus other cuts in the budget are apparently insufficient to prevent the need to continue borrowing possibly large sums of money in order to operate within the budget.

A possible contributing factor is that this government's budget does not apply cuts equitably and fairly across the board, but singles out some services to cut while allowing others to actually increase. Even though the growth rate is restricted there is still an increase taking place. An example of this is the Indian health care service program in which the growth rate will be restricted to 6 per cent for 1995-96 and 3 per cent for 1996-97 and again 3 per cent in 1997-98.

We need to balance our budget as soon as possible. We need to relearn how to live within our means and not continuously borrow horrendous amounts of dollars. Once we have achieved a balanced budget we can implement a plan systematically and consistently to apply funds to our debt and reduce it.

The Canadian people are aware that we have a deficit problem as well as a debt problem. They are aware we must resolve our deficit problem before we can adequately address our debt problem.

Canadians are looking for leadership, for a plan that will not only provide guidance and direction necessary for all Canadians to participate in resolving our deficit problem as soon as possible, but would also identify what it would mean to our lifestyle during the whole process of achieving this.

Two plans have been presented. The government's budget plan reduces our deficit problem by less than half over a three year period, of which one year has already passed, and involves cuts in services to some Canadians and not others.

The Reform Party taxpayer's budget calls upon all Canadians to accept a decrease in services across the board and to participate in a nationwide plan to eliminate the deficit in a three year period.

The Reform Party's taxpayer budget not only achieves the position of living within our means in three years, it also achieves implementing the decentralizing of some services such as health care to their rightful administrative positions, the provinces. It also removes the cash payment whip, increasing the tax credits in such a manner to allow the provinces to acquire the income necessary to meet the standards of the Canadian health care program as dictated by the Canada Health Act.

There is no need to stroll through the years toward the balanced budget target-we do not know when that is-and borrow horrendous sums of money along the way, as we are being directed by the Liberal government. We do have an alternative plan, an action plan complete in three years, not some indeterminate time period.

We have this in the form of the Reform Party's taxpayer budget. We have Reform members in Parliament who, given the opportunity, are willing and committed to provide the leadership necessary to lead the people of Canada to a balanced budget in three years and to eliminate the need to borrow horrendous amounts of money from foreigners in order to live the lifestyles we wish to enjoy.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, with the taxpayer budget, as the Reform Party presented it, how would the member provide assistance to those old age people who are receiving OAS at the present time with the tremendous cuts they were prescribing for their budget?