House of Commons Hansard #166 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais Liberal Madawaska—Victoria, NB

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Lévis. First of all, I found it most interesting that he was defending the status quo, and Canadian federalism, when he indicated that he hoped that there would be no social program reforms, that he was a member of the parliamentary team which toured Canada, and that he had heard various comments regarding the reforms proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The member defended ardently and with great enthusiasm Canadian federalism and the status quo while the Liberal government has realized that, at the international level, things are evolving, and quite naturally so. As Liberals, we want to make sure that the future of Canadians, including Quebecers, will be much more promising than now.

I would also like to mention that Quebecers understand perfectly that the changes brought upon by this government are necessary to the future well-being of their children. I refer our colleague, the member for Lévis to a documentary, a survey conducted in Quebec, on the quality of instruction in the CEGEPs, which, after all, are the responsibility of the Quebec government. The results are not too encouraging for young people. I believe, therefore, that we should start putting our own house in order.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria, especially for her easy victory over the former minister of unemployment insurance cuts. We will not mention his name, but I want to congratulate her for that. However, she does not get so much praise for her inconsistency last year, when the first budget of her government was handed down and she supported cuts similar to those proposed by the member she helped to defeat.

However, as far as the status quo goes, we do not want any part of it. She misunderstood what I said at the end of my speech. We said that the federal government should mind its own business in the area of post-secondary education, respect areas of jurisdiction and transfer tax points because it is making expenditures in other sectors of education in Quebec. It should do what all the members of the National Assembly of Quebec are asking, even the Liberals.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join in the budget debate. The budget was the defining moment in Canada to develop a new direction in its financial dealings and also a new direction in the way the government does business with its people.

The budget was coherent. It had integrity and a sense of purpose. Every feature presented to us met all three of those features, coherence, integrity and purpose.

The overriding goal of this government since the day it took power has been jobs and growth. We believe good economics and good social policy are one and the same thing. In the most fundamental way good social policy begins with a good job.

We believe a country that continues to care for its citizens must be a country that can pay its bills. We must respond to the challenges of our time. We must adapt to the new economy, the new infrastructure based on ideas and innovation. The very nature of government must change. We must develop a new notion of responsibility. The time has long passed when governments can or should do everything.

Several major things have happened. The world economy has become truly integrated. We must think globally. Trade barriers have been brought down. Communications are instant and transportation is swift. Markets never sleep. There are no longer any islands. Like it or not, there is no place to hide.

Since 1984 our debts have risen by three times. Compound interest is gobbling us up a second at a time. The government has a two track approach, sustained and sustainable economic growth. Growing economies produce jobs. Economies that are not growing produce no jobs. The key to growth is productivity. Productivity is about how well ideas, workers, resources and investment are brought together in a country's economy. Productivity is about ingenuity, better management and paying attention to the common sense of our workers.

High productivity growth increases income. How do we do it? We must improve our skills. We must have better innovation. We must provide a welcoming climate for investment. We must remove disincentives that we have created for people and for businesses. We must get our fiscal house in order.

This budget's plan for action introduces far reaching action to restore the fiscal health essential for a strong, growing economy. The budget will fundamentally reform what government does and how. It will bring permanent change in the way government does business. The objective is to get government right so it can fill its social and economic mandates and be more effective and sustainable will include deep cuts in the level of federal program spending, not simply lower spending growth, but substantial reduction in actual dollars.

One of the things that gives this government integrity is that its plans have been prudent and it has met its targets. The budget actions have delivered on this government's commitment to

meet its interim deficit targets and the ultimate goal is a balanced budget.

The interim deficit target is 3 per cent of the gross domestic product for 1996-97. We will be achieving the usual prudent economic exceptions, incorporating credible fiscal action. The deficit could be well below that if economic performance is in line with the average private sector estimates. Significant reforms will ensure that spending will be restrained beyond 1996-97 and the deficit will continue to fall.

What are the major elements of expenditure reform? This budget is the second in a two stage process that began with the February 1994 budget. It takes fundamental action certain areas. It implements results of the long overdue program review and a comprehensive examination of federal department spending. As a result the government will focus on what is essential and we will do it better.

It acts on a new vision of the federal government's role in the economy. It includes substantial reductions in business subsidies.

It introduces major changes in transfers to the provinces that will renew and modernize the federal-provincial fiscal regime, making it more effective, flexible and affordable.

The major fiscal actions in the budget total $29 billion over the next three years, by far the biggest actions of any Canadian budget since the second world war and demobilization. There will be about $7 in expenditure reductions for every $1 in new tax revenues. This is the most significant event since that era.

Three years from now federal spending in programs will be $10.4 billion lower than it is today, approximately 8.8 per cent. The cumulative expenditure savings in that period will exceed $25 billion.

A fairer tax system and sharing the burden of debt and deficit reduction is the goal of this government. The budget reflects the government's awareness and the heavy tax burden borne by Canadians and the cost this imposes on the economy. There are no increases in personal income taxes in the budget. Tax measures are largely directed at removing preferences and increasing fairness. To help meet deficit targets the budget announces increases in taxes on business and an excise tax on gasoline.

Significant features in the budget are jobs and growth. Economic growth is strong. The Canadian economy is stronger than it has been for many years. Real output was about 4.25 per cent in 1994, the fastest of the G-7 countries. There have been 433,000 new jobs created, all of them full time. The unemployment rate has fallen 1.7 per cent to 9.7 per cent this year. Manufacturing output is up a full 9 per cent. At 1.5 per cent, excluding the effects of the tobacco tax, it is the lowest rate in three decades.

Labour costs have fallen by 1.3 per cent since mid-1993. We have a trade surplus. We have a dramatic improvement in the current account and the highest business confidence since 1979. We have been picked by the OECD to be the fastest growing economy in 1995.

The budget will meet the targets set out in it and will meet the red book projection for jobs and growth for Canadians.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Madam Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo talk about this excellent budget in terms of job creation by the business sector, I think that he is probably mistaken. We will continue to have an enormous debt and enormous interest payments on this debt and we will have to keep borrowing from the countries to which we already owe this debt.

Some say that the deficit has been reduced, but it has merely been passed on to the provinces. For example, in the years to come, Quebec will receive $1.5 billion to $2 billion less each year. The federal government says that it may return $1.5 billion less to the province of Quebec. We all agree with that and we would even have preferred that it not return anything to Quebec but that it not tax Quebecers any more.

Finally, what the federal government is doing is not only to continue taxing Quebecers as much as before, but to tax them even more. Moreover, the federal government is increasing the debt of Quebecers by $7 to $8 billion for next year alone. This means that Quebecers will again become poorer and poorer.

When the government says that it wants to transfer to the provinces the responsibilities that belong to them, it must also reduce their tax burden.

But all the government is doing is transferring to the provinces, and especially to Quebec, the burden of the debt and the deficit as well as the horrible task to manage the deficit, a bigger chunk of which Quebecers will be asked to take upon themselves, since the federal government continues to increase taxes while reducing transfers to Quebec. This is unfair and seems to me like a very clever trick designed by the government. I hope Quebecers will see through all this and will understand what the federal government is doing to Quebec by reducing transfers and increasing taxes for Quebecers.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil points out the tragic part of our fiscal problem. It will be difficult to get our fiscal house in order because of the nature of compound interest and the running up of deficits. The plan is

a simple one and is the total purpose of this deficit oriented budget.

I mentioned it was two track. We will grow with it and out of the growth will come jobs and taxes paid back into the treasury. At the same time we will continue to reduce government operations by cuts and by making it more efficient. It will not be easy.

We have heard debate in the House over the past four or five days saying that we have done too much cutting. Others have said that we have not done enough. There is a fine balance and I think we have found that fine balance in this budget.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB

Madam Speaker, the hon. member in his presentation said that he was quite proud that the government has met the deficit reduction target of 3 per cent of GDP in three years. The member stated that beyond 1996-97 the deficit will continue to fall under a Liberal government.

If this is the case why does the Liberal government not set a definite date for arriving at a balanced budget? Why does it not set a definite target? The positive results of setting a definite target will be that businesses will expand and new businesses will start up. That is what creates jobs. A positive effect would be lower interest rates and security for social programs which cannot be provided under this continual overspending.

Why will the government not commit to a definite date for eliminating the deficit?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government has gained integrity. It has set targets. It is hitting the targets. The more we bring down the deficit the more the membership in the Reform Party goes down. I hope in the four years we keep bringing it down. When we get to zero I hope the membership in the Reform Party is zero.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, first let me congratulate my friend and colleague from Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.

I want to say a few words on the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. It goes without saying that I do not agree with the sentiments in his amendment. If we read what he is saying about offloading on the provinces and doing nothing for the unemployed and so on, I do not believe even he believes that really. It is a nice motion, nicely worded and grammatically correct, but factually incorrect, very incorrect, almost to the point of being irresponsible.

Sure the budget is tough. Is it tough enough? It depends on whether we listen to the Bloc or the Reform. The Bloc says it is much too tough and the Reform says it is not tough enough. I guess that means, as I say to my friend from Lotbinière, that we are probably doing something right over here.

It is a tough budget but it is not tough for the sake of being tough. There are people in this world who get their jollies out of doing tough, rough and crude things. This is not a tough budget for the sake of being tough. This is tough of necessity. This is the way we had to go.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB

Oh, oh.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

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

That is one of the not tough enough people who just spoke. It is a good opportunity for the gentleman from Vegreville. Does he disown or want to be part of the so-called Reform budget? Is he part of that budget? If so, let his constituents know that he would slash old age pensions to start with. It is not that kind of tough.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

You tell him Roger. Who are these people?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

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

I say to my friend from Halifax that it is all right. We have just demonstrated that sometimes these people sing in tune. From time to time they sing in tune.

Madam Speaker, despite the heckling and despite the shouting, the government and the Minister of Finance are on the right track. Is it a perfect budget? No. We are working at getting it right. There are some things in the budget that I do not like. There are some things that other people do not like. On balance, is it the right approach? Yes.

One of my constituents told me-

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

That's because you are listening to us.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

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

The gentleman from Lethbridge has had 30 years to get it right. I bow to his wisdom on many points.

One of my constituents phoned me-

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Why aren't you out there looking for ships?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

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

Is the gentleman from Wild Rose not interested in what one of my constituents said? Would he deny that constituent the right to be heard here through me?

One of my constituents called and said, "Simmons, did you really clap for that budget? Did you applaud that budget?" I proceeded to tell him why, indeed, I did clap for the budget. I started by saying: "Is it the best thing in the world? Is it what we would really have liked to have done if circumstances were absolutely right? No". Then I put it to him in terms of his family budget. I said: "What a great morning it would be if you could get up and say to your wife, `This month I have a plan. We are going to buy that Cadillac we have always wanted, the yacht and the extra skidoo"'. She would say: "How are you going to do that?" "We are just going to borrow more. Whatever we need we will borrow."

Contrary to Reform doctrine there is nothing particularly sinful about borrowing. If so, many millions of Canadians sin every day on that score. Borrowing is not to sin. Being unable to pay back the loan is a sin.

The credo that says that somehow it is a great crime to borrow is not the issue and that is not what I was saying to my constituent. I was saying that it is a sin if we borrow beyond our capacity to pay back. As I took him through the example I said: "Suppose you say to your wife that you are going to buy the Cadillac, the skidoo, et cetera, and she asks how you are going to get the money and you say, `We will borrow more. If that is not enough we will borrow more after that"'.

Eventually, of course, he put the question to me: "Do you have to pay it back?" I said: "Forget paying it back, just pay the interest on it". Then he said: "Does that not get to the point where you are using all of your income to pay interest?" I said: "Buddy, you have it. You have exactly the problem that the Minister of Finance had".

I told my constituent there was another approach. He could say to his wife in the morning: "Let us pay off all our bills right now. Do not buy any groceries. Tell the youngsters they will not eat for six months because we are paying off the debt". He said: "Come on, Simmons, what are you giving me?" I said: "Basically the Reform budget". "Do not eat now youngsters, just hold your breath. Do not get too thirsty or hungry for six months because we will be back when all the bills are paid."

We cannot do that. What the Minister of Finance had to do, and what I support him in doing, was to present this necessarily tough budget that goes down the middle. It tries its best to reduce the debt and at the same time tries its best to maintain essential programs.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that some of my friends in Reform do not agree with that. It pains me to stand here and say something they do not agree with. Sometimes we do not agree on every point. One of the things we do not agree on is that we need a slash and burn budget, that we have to have a budget that destroys essential programs. There is another way.

They shake their heads at me. I am just a bumpkin from Newfoundland. Let me read for them what some other people are saying. I will let them decide whether they are bumpkins and where they are from.

This is what somebody said: "Martin's '95 budget chewed heavily into spending reductions while taking a relatively light tax bite. The result is a budget the Canadian economy should be able to digest without an extreme amount of heartburn or acid indigestion". That person was not from Newfoundland.

Another person said this.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

Have respect. These are legitimate Canadian citizens who have a right to speak. A second one said this: "Ottawa treats deficit and debt as a serious problem to be dealt with prudently. There is no crisis mentality here. Indeed, there is ample time to plan orderly change rather than risk the chaos that swift and deep cuts can bring". That was another Canadian.

This is one other: "It's the budget-"

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Reform

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

What institution is he in?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

I am glad the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia asked that question because he is going to get the answer in a moment.

A third Canadian said the following: "It's the budget that grassroots Canadians said long and loud they wanted from this Liberal government. It meets the crucial criteria of leaving money in the pockets of those ordinary Canadians. It heeds the message that there is simply not time to lose in getting this country's deficit and debt under real control in very short order".

Three great Canadians. One edits the Calgary Herald .

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

No, no.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

One is a Toronto paper and they have written off that part of the country. Their views do not count. There goes Newfoundland. There goes Toronto. We are up to four million people that do not count so far. Let us keep going.

Let us let them show their cards on this one. The second person who said there is no crisis mentality here and it is a matter of orderly change is the editor of the Edmonton

Journal