Debates of March 2nd, 1995

Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Only 40 seconds remain. The hon. member for Lotbinière.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I listened to what my hon. colleague said and I wonder if he could tell me how he would have divided up this $2,9 billion from coast to coast. Would he have divided it fairly? I would like him to elaborate on this.

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

Madam Speaker, you are right, I have very little time to answer a question that would require a good 15 minutes. At any rate, I can tell you that, as far as several of my constituents are concerned, and many Quebec voters, including farm producers, this budget is totally unfair and is an example of mismanagement.

Let me remind you again, Madam Speaker, that the oldest research station, in La Pocatière, was closed after $7 million was sunk into it. It had not even been inaugurated yet.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to advise the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today in support of this legislation and with it, to provide support for the budget presented to Canadians on February 27. I congratulate the Minister of Finance. His was not an easy task. He has worked in bringing together this country's varied interests and has delivered a budget that deserves the support of every single Canadian and every single member in this House.

The premier of Ontario has called it the most reactionary budget the country has seen in his lifetime. We had a choice. We could whine or we could take action. This budget is not reactionary but it does react to the concerns expressed by my constituents, the people of Guelph-Wellington. The Minister of Finance and the government have heard their concerns regarding tax fairness, government spending and deficit reduction.

The people of Guelph-Wellington made it clear to me they wanted action from this federal budget. They wanted a clear indication that we were to keep our promise to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP. They wanted their money better spent. They wanted a reduction in federal expenditures. They wanted most of all tax fairness.

Last December 1 I rose in this House and reminded hon. members that my constituents believed the only way to show the world that Canada was committed to real deficit reduction was to prove our commitment to fiscal discipline. On February 27 the government presented its budget to Canadians and the world. The reaction has been very positive.

Each generation has few opportunities, if any, to fundamentally change and better its public institutions. The people of Guelph-Wellington have asked me to offer them a better way of delivering public services.

In the last election they rejected politics as usual and they rejected parties that offered only a negative view of their country. My children and the children of every one of my constituents have asked me to come to this place and restore opportunity for them and for their children. This budget gives them that opportunity and challenges all of us to create a new and better Canada.

On the surface, Guelph-Wellington has fared well in this budget. We do not have a large population of civil servants, nor do we rely on a military base. My constituents welcome the news that there are no increases in personal taxes.

A recent editorial in the Guelph Tribune described my community as populated by those ordinary Canadians who are fed up with high taxes, anxious to keep their social fabric and critical of government waste and spending. For my constituents' sake, the measures before us here today and the entire budget must be approved as soon as possible so that we can continue to improve their lives and the lives of all Canadians.

The people of Guelph-Wellington are anxious about the future. They are not wasteful in their spending. They support the government in its efforts to not only reduce spending but to spend more wisely and more efficiently. As the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech, they do not judge on the rhetoric of political parties. They judge on results.

While Guelph-Wellington may have fared better than some Canadian regions, my constituents know the budget calls on them to share the burden. They know that when the Minister of Finance completed his speech, the country changed. They know that with this change they were challenged.

The challenge they accepted is to expect less from government and to rely on resources other than government, and to work with government to redefine itself in order to make this country stronger than it has ever been. My constituents are aware that this new challenge will mean more sacrifice, and sacrifice necessary to ensure fairness, economic growth and job creation.

They have asked me to spend their money on programs that build and assist. Guelph-Wellington is a proud community. Strong and independent, it is a community whose people want what is right.

Throughout our history we have supported government that works. We have rejected the notion government should be the answer to everything that is wrong. They know government can create problems as well as solve them.

They want their federal government to serve them, to act on their behalf and to concentrate on doing what it does well. They want action and renewal, and they want us to act now.

In the last 15 months I have heard from constituents whose comments were addressed in this budget. They asked me to cut spending. Spending will be cut by $29 billion in the next three years and we have initiated the lowest program spending in relation to the economy since 1951. They wanted no taxes on RRSPs and group health and dental plans and we have for the second year in a row introduced no increases to personal taxes.

They wanted tax fairness and were concerned about bank profits, family trusts and tax evasion. We have delivered, ensuring that every region and every Canadian will pay their fair share and contribute to ensure that we will succeed.

Most of all, they wanted the deficit reduced. They were tired of governments offering unrealistic goals and giving targets that could never ever be reached.

During the election I met cynicism and skepticism at the door. Guelph-Wellington people were tired. They were fed up with representation that did not deliver and governments that could not and would not face up to the challenge.

This budget is for them. It offers them targets that can be met. It gives them goals that can be reached. It provides realistic strategies that can be measured. For the first time in years, they know government is serious about what it says and that it does what it promises.

Faced with the other option of irresponsible slashing and uncaring principles, the people of Guelph-Wellington said yes to the Liberal Party and they say yes to this budget.

It is not often that members of Parliament can debate a change so profound that future generations will look at them and thank them for making history and giving them a better country. We have this opportunity. We have the choice of criticising, of making desperate statements which support desperate policies, or we can rise above the negative and reach for the new and bold horizon.

My constituents demand nothing less of me. They demand nothing less of this government. This is not an easy budget to

accept. Change is never easy. The measures announced on February 27 will be hard on Canadians.

The Guelph Mercury stated in an editorial following the budget, and I quote for the Reform Party: ``The finance minister did not say it would be a painless budget. He said it would be a tough budget. And make no mistake, a tough budget is what he has delivered. Tough, but alas, necessary''.

As difficult as these measures are, we can only imagine what failure to act would mean for us, our children and our grandchildren in the years to come.

What we do in the next few months will be judged not by us but by the people we serve and by the generations that follow. We must act and these actions will mean hardship, adjustment and pain, meted out with compassion. This is the Liberal way of doing business.

Our country, like the community of Guelph-Wellington, can survive. The people of Guelph-Wellington demand no less. It is for their sake that this bill and this budget are worthy of support. It can be done and it must be done. The best country in the world deserves no less.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Guelph-Wellington on her speech and ask her a question.

The question relates to the interest costs to service the debt which the Reform Party believes to be the major problem facing the country, with the deficit a contributing factor. Last year's interest costs are going to be in excess of $40 billion. At the end of two years interest costs are going to rise to over $50 billion.

How does the member for Guelph-Wellington propose to face her constituents and tell them that she will solve the rising interest cost problem by cutting program spending equal to the rise in interest costs? How she will resolve those two sides of the equation that have nothing to do with compassion but have a lot to do with responsible government?

It is totally irresponsible to face your constituents, telling them the deficit is the only problem and by lowering the deficit the problem will be solved. How she will reconcile the rise in interest costs from $40 billion today to $51 billion tomorrow? All the sacrifices to come eventually in her riding will have to be to just service the debt.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will face my constituents very well. Already in my riding the budget is being received well and the hon. member across the way knows it is.

This has been a desperate attempt on the part of the Reform Party to try in some way to discredit a good budget. The budget will begin a process of honest reduction in all phases, at levels which our constituents have asked for. I am sure the hon. member's constituents have also asked for this.

I would ask the hon. member how he will face his constituents when they ask him why he would not support a budget that would support reductions in costs and reduce the deficit.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's constituents may be receiving this budget very well, but the people I represent in the riding of Matapédia-Matane are not.

The Minister of Finance told us in his speech, and he quoted his father, that it is necessary to plan ahead with courage and determination. I think that the Minister of Finance showed great courage and determination in looking to the least well off members of our society for money, and much timidity and hesitation in his treatment of the wealthy.

Very often, the members opposite accuse us of being negative. My honourable colleague, I am going to ask you a question and make a suggestion. I would like you to respond, positively I hope, to this suggestion. I will read you a few lines: "The Minister of Finance has deliberately avoided mentioning in this budget the large aquarium that is home to 104 elderly members of the same contented species, whose somnambulistic performance costs the government more than $42 million annually, not to mention the $349 million their former colleagues, also non-elected, draw in pensions".

Nevertheless, starting next year the government will quite happily go after the elderly. How is it that this budget does not touch the senators, who are costing us, who are costing the public, $42 million, not to mention their retired colleagues, who are costing a fortune?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, the budget touched everyone. The hon. member knows that.

It is important to understand that we all share a pain and a burden. It is important that we all shoulder it together. It will make for a better country, as my comrade across the way said. It will make for a better country and a united Canada.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply honoured to speak to Bill C-73, a bill to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1995. It will allow for the borrowing of funds by the finance minister, on approval of cabinet, to finance a shrinking annual deficit for the coming fiscal year.

I begin by extending my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Finance for a budget which has won the confidence of not only the international markets but also, and more importantly, of all Canadians. The budget displays a firm commitment to Canadian values by promoting jobs and growth and by protecting the most vulnerable Canadians by looking to government first for action. The deficit is primarily being dealt with through spending cuts in a 7:1 ratio over the next three years. This means spending cuts will amount to $7 for every $1 in revenue increase.

The budget, with its emphasis on fairness, has looked to spending cuts rather than personal income taxes to achieve its goals. We heard the Canadians who told us not to raise income tax and we have not. The budget is fair. The budget closes loopholes and tax breaks for the rich. It focuses on those who are able to contribute more and asks them to do so, like the banks. We all must contribute. It does not increase taxes for the middle class.

The budget is fair to all regions of the country. The Minister of Finance has taken great care to ensure that cutbacks to the different regions are distributed fairly and equitably. Our fiscal problem is a national one. All regions need to contribute to the diminution of our fiscal problem. We must work together.

Aspects of the budget such as the Canada social transfer will enhance the flexibility of the federal system by allowing provinces to determine to a greater degree how best they can meet their specific needs while retaining a role for the national government.

I must commend the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for working very hard on behalf of Canada's farmers through a very difficult budgetary process. We all recognize that every Canadian must share in the reduction of the deficit. Canadian farmers are not excluded from this effort. They have shown a willingness to participate before, they have shown resilience before, and I am certain they realize the necessity of the changes before us.

Spending has been reduced. However, farmers have always said that given good opportunities they would prefer not to be subsidized. Farmers are ready to adapt and succeed and they will again. These changes outlined in the budget affecting grain transport, income support and stabilization, trade, marketing, research, adaptation and rural development will reduce the cost to government but they will also improve efficiency and competitiveness to encourage economic diversification, value added production and processing. This will give farmers the opportunities they have always wanted.

In Saskatchewan the transportation subsidy known as the Crow rate provided cheap transportation of raw agricultural products but it also created an economy of dependence and inefficiency and in some cases was detrimental to the environment.

We needed to change the way we think about subsidies and transportation, not least because of the realities of the World Trade Organization which limits trade distorting subsidies. Farmers need to take a leading role in adhering to the principles of the World Trade Organization. I know that European and American subsidies will also decline. It is my view that Canada has much more to gain than lose when dealing on a level playing field because Canadian farmers have the highest quality products and are already the most efficient in the world.

Our priorities are cost efficiency and effectiveness in growing, moving and selling grain. Farmers will benefit from this and they will become more and more able to determine their own financially secure futures. Their reduced reliance on subsidies means that governments will be able to focus in an efficient and effective way on the things that government does best, providing assistance for people to adjust to the changing times and providing information on new markets and new production opportunities.

We will not leave the farmers to adjust to this change alone. They will receive a one time payment of $1.6 billion to assist them in the transition.

Our fiscal realities must be addressed. The government has faced these challenges fairly and in every area. Reduced spending is the golden opportunity for economic growth. Reduced spending helps to be more acutely aware of local economic opportunities and less enamoured with regulation and control where it is not necessary.

Let me share two examples from my riding of Prince Albert-Churchill River where relaxation of government regulations will allow and promote economic growth and jobs.

First, at the federal level the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has a monopoly at present over the marketing and processing of freshwater fish. In the past this served the fishermen well, but it has outlived its usefulness. The government must break inefficient monopolies like this one. In doing so a local fish processing plant within the riding will bring jobs and growth to the area and give greater support to northern fishermen with better prices for raw product.

Second, at the provincial level SaskPower has a monopoly over the generation of electrical energy in Saskatchewan. If this monopoly is allowed to be opened up in a sensible way, local initiatives could react more quickly and efficiently, and provide electrical energy at reduced rates. Weyerhauser Canada would be able to build an electrical co-generation plan which would make it more competitive while maintaining exacting environmental standards and enhancing environmental protection.

This may open the door for the further expansion of Weyerhauser's pulp and paper production capacity. The possibilities for economic spin-offs are great. These initiatives mean jobs, they mean growth and they mean a prosperous Prince Albert-Churchill River.

We must strike a healthy balance for the role of government in economic development. We must facilitate growth and allow for local initiatives to flourish. We must provide the context for a dynamic and innovative economy, unimpeded by the dinosaurs that have monopolized the economy in the past.

Governments cannot afford to be economic and social dictators any more. They can afford to be enablers of growth, enablers of individual community, provincial and national creativity, economically and socially from coast to coast.

Too much government money has created in us the belief that government can fix everything. It cannot. It has created economic and social dependency. The budget and this bill have set Canada on a course where people will be free to succeed. They will be free to build that sense of community, of caring and sharing that has been eroded by the misplaced belief that government can and must do everything. Governments will now be free to be true partners with one another and the people, a partnership that will result in economic growth and an even greater feeling of compassion and community.

Yes, we are all responsible one for the other. Because we borrow less money, because we use less money, we shall be free to prosper together and to help one another.

Once again, my sincere congratulations to the finance minister who has done a great job with a great budget.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.

The first one is with regard to agriculture. During the election campaign I heard this member and many of his colleagues from Saskatchewan defending agricultural programs, saying they were going to defend the farmers, that these things would not change, that the funds would keep coming.

By what reasoning can he defend his government's actions of drastically reducing the funds farmers receive? We came clearly up front during the election and said that we would take these funds and there would be a reduction. However, those funds would go into an account that would help prepare the farmer and protect him from subsidies by other foreign nations. Now the farmer is left with nothing. How can the member possibly reconcile this new radically different position from what they said during the election?

The second question is with regard to the MP pension plan. I am wondering how this member can justify borrowing money to pay himself and his colleagues a huge pension.

Why is it important to opt out of the MP pension plan, a very extravagant plan? It is important that we set the example. We can always find excuses about why we deserve more and how we ought to have more. If we realize as parliamentarians what a mess this country is in, I am wondering if we do not have to start by setting the example.

I was recently asked a question after this was announced of whether the MP pension plan will hurt me personally. Of course it will. If I opt out, it is as if I had the winning ticket in a lottery and never went to pick up my million dollars. Of course it will hurt. I will always know and live with that fact, that I could have gone back to my constituents and justified the fact that I deserved that money. However, I think there is a time when principles count for something. We are opting out to signal to Canadians how serious our problems are. I am wondering how this hon. member can justify borrowing more money to pay MPs an extravagant pension.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite indicates that he listened to me and my hon. colleagues say something different than what is happening now in relation to agricultural subsidies. It is quite obvious that he was not paying close attention to what was happening in Prince Albert-Churchill River if that is what he thinks.

It has always been my position that while we do need agricultural support programs, we need them at such a level where they are adequate and predictable, where they are not changing week after week as has been happening in Saskatchewan over the last number of years, where everybody is going to know what the rules are.

Specifically with respect to the Crow benefit, it was indicated during the election that what would happen with the Crow benefit was subject to what happened at the GATT negotiations which occurred after the election. This was clearly stated to the public, to the farmers. The GATT negotiations necessitate change and we are doing the change, which is exactly what we said during the election campaign.

With respect to the hon. member's talk about MPs' pensions, when members of the Reform Party opposite table in this House a letter from the Alberta government saying that one of its members no longer accepts a big pension while he is sitting here as a member of this House earning a salary, when the hon. Reform Party also sets forth a letter from national defence and the RCMP saying that members who are retired from those areas are not getting those federal pensions, then perhaps we can talk

about the views of the federal pension plans. There is a great deal of hypocrisy within the Reform Party on the issue of pensions.

This government said exactly what it would do in the red book with respect to MP pensions and has gone even further than it said in the red book. This government lives up to our commitments. We lived up to them before. We will live up to them in the future. The judgment has been made by the international monetary markets and all Canadians as to the success of our budgetary endeavours.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time with other Reformers.

I really become frustrated every day as I sit in the House. Every time Reformers rise to speak on behalf of average Canadians we are met with laughter, jeers, derisive comments from the Liberal Party. I began to wonder why we are mocked and ridiculed when we have the courage to be up front and honest with Canadians.

I did not come here to be on a power trip. I came here to solve the problems. The biggest problems we face are the national debt, the annual deficits and rising interest costs.

I have four teenage children who will pay over half of their income in taxes for the rest of their lives for the mistakes made by the Liberal Party during the past 25 years. Through my work in this House I hope and pray that my grandchildren will be able to see their taxes go down.

I hear the Liberals already saying it is not their fault, that the Tories were in power for nine years. That is a very lame excuse because not once in those nine years while the Liberals were the official opposition did they tell the Conservatives to get their spending under control, balance the budget and put a cap on increasing interest payments.

The Liberals protested every cut and they wailed for more government spending on social programs that do not work. The Liberals are responsible for the fiscal mess this country is in and even now while they are in power they are unwilling to face the painful truth.

During the 1993 election Reformers told the truth about the state of the country's finances and our zero in three plan. The Liberals put out a red ink book which played politics and ignored the truth.

In the taxpayers' budget we introduced last week Reformers told the truth. This week the Liberals introduced a budget which once again ignores the truth and plays politics. Because this government keeps putting off the inevitable it is slowly destroying the country.

The Liberals keep cutting back on programs and services, increasing taxes. Because they do not cut enough to balance the budget interest costs keep going up and the federal government keeps going deeper into debt.

Reformers have proposed two plans to get off this deficit and debt treadmill and the Liberals ignore the truth when it is as plain as the numbers in the budget in front of them.

This deficit is like a cancerous tumour, eating away at our flesh. It is making us sick and preventing us from living a healthy life. The most compassionate operation one could do is a surgical removal of this deficit tumour. Instead the Liberals operate very year just cutting out a little, letting the cancerous deficit tumour keep growing. As it grows it eats up more and more of pensions, welfare, health care and the programs run by the government. It does not take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the most compassionate thing one can do is undergo the pain of removing the tumourous deficit as quickly as possible.

Bill C-73 is a disgrace. This bill is a confession of failure by this government and past governments. This bill clearly demonstrates how firmly entrenched annual deficits have become to feed the federal government's overspending addiction. This bill provides the evidence that governments past and present have been unable and unwilling to live within their means.

While many Canadians will think we are debating the budget today, I would like to clarify that we are debating a bill which shows the failure of all previous governments during each of the last 20 years to balance their budgets.

Each year we debate a bill like this one to give the federal government the authority to borrow the billions and billions of dollars which it says it needs to make life better. Canadian taxpayers are waiting to elect a government that will tell them the year when there will be no need for the government to introduce a bill giving it authority to borrow money.

This bill asks Parliament to give the government authority to borrow $28,900,000,000. I think it would be very interesting for Canadians to know something about the process. It has become so commonplace, so routine for the government to borrow billions of dollars each year, year after year, that it even has a permanent standing order in the House of Commons which limits debate on this bill to two sitting days during second reading. Not only does the government want Parliament to give it authority to borrow billions of dollars every year, it also does not want to give opposition parties or even taxpayers enough time to properly debate questions or propose alternatives for the government to consider.

The Liberal party says it needs money, fast; do not take too long about it either. Two days of debate is lots. How many

questions can we ask about borrowing $28.9 billion anyway? No amount of debate, no amount of intelligent questions, no amount of committee meetings, votes, amendments or motions to reduce the government's estimates is going to change one thing anyway, so why bother? Why bother debating it?

Liberals think that debating the budget or this borrowing bill is a complete waste of time. They think this because they know that when all is said and done, when the debates, when the questions, when the analysis are over they will not have changed this budget one cent. All this talk that we do in here every day has absolutely no influence on what is decided in those back rooms.

This budget is a disgrace because it spends too much, it cuts too little and it gives no hope to Canadian taxpayers that the Liberal government will ever be able to produce a balanced budget. This budget is a disgrace but this budget process is an even bigger disgrace. The process is a disgrace because it goes against common sense and against democratic principles.

Why can 295 members of Parliament not enter into an intelligent debate? If the majority agrees that there are more or better ways to save taxpayers' money, why would the government not agree to implement the recommendations? Why is the most important piece of legislation which the government brings down every year set in stone? Why will the Liberal government not allow Canadians to have input through their democratically elected representatives at this most critical point in the budget process? Does it honestly believe that this budget is the best there can possibly be? Does it honestly believe that every dollar outlined in the estimates is essential?

New ideas are developed every day, but this government says that it cannot change the budget. It needs to borrow $28.9 billion and nothing we can say or do will ever change its mind. Is that any way to run a country?

Any changes which we as Reformers suggested are scoffed at, even in committee. Not one change took place from all the changes I suggested. Some of the changes were small and none of them took place in that committee, which handles more money than any other committee.

If a Reform government were in power today it would have the budget balanced by 1998 and the Government of Canada would no longer need a borrowing bill. If a Reform government were in power borrowing bills would not be a routine occurrence year after year. A borrowing bill under a Reform government would be a rarity. Under a Reform government a borrowing bill would be such a rarity that taxpayers would want to know what fiscal or natural emergency brought about the occurrence. They would be asking their members of Parliament to rise to ask the government what had happened. It would be a national news story. What we are doing here today will not get any press. I would be surprised if it did.

There are two extremes in this debate. On the one hand the Liberals want to limit debate on borrowing $28.9 billion to two days during second reading in an attempt to circumvent the democratic process.

On the other hand, the Reform Party is proposing to implement a taxpayers protection act that would limit the ability of majority governments to run spending deficits, raise taxes and borrow money. Our taxpayers protection act would force governments to balance their spending and taxes over the course of each business cycle. It would put a cap on government spending and taxation. Eventually our taxpayers protection act would be entrenched in the Constitution to prevent future governments from changing it.

In closing I point out the major failing in the government's budget: the government is actually transferring more to banks in interest payments than it spends on social programs.

In this fiscal year the government will spend $49.5 billion on interest payments and $49.2 billion on social programs, which include old age security and pensions, health transfers, education transfers, welfare programs, and equalization payments to the provinces.

In 1996-97 the Liberals project that interest payments will be over $50 billion a year. Not only do the Liberals have to cut more spending to balance the budget, but every dollar that Liberals spend in interest payments is a dollar they cannot spend on social programs.

This is a failure. The bill is a disgrace. The process is undemocratic. I am frustrated with the House of Commons and what goes on here. We need to be taken more seriously.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Yorkton-Melville for his input. Many of us on this side listen to what they have to say. I know whenever there were good ideas that previous governments sort of gobbled them up and used them as theirs.

I will make a couple of comments and then I will ask a question. One comment I hear a lot in the House from Reformers is about the red ink book. I am the member for Bruce-Grey and I want to tell them that the word redd means cleaning up a mess and getting the house in order. That is exactly what the government is doing.

In the sixties we had problems with a fuel crisis. There were mechanics who fixed old fashioned cars with carburettors. However, modern cars from perhaps 1993 onward are distinctly different; they do not have carburettors. When drivers put their foot to the floor in cars with carburettors, a certain volume of air came in through the carburettor, mixed with the fuel, and the fuel was dumped out the exhaust.

Modern cars have from one to four computers. When drivers switch on modern cars the computers react to the temperature outside. If it is zero degrees they know exactly what kind of fuel is needed. There is no RPM from the RPM gauge. There is no air flow through the manifold pressure sensing devices. The computer plugs in the value. The car starts and goes into what is called an open loop. In that open loop the computer triggers. The oxygen sensing device senses the fuel coming out of the carburettor. It knows that maybe it is too rich and sends a message back to the computer. The RPM works and so on and so forth.

I am using this analogy because the government is like the modern devices on cars. We have people with the talent and ability, such as the finance minister, the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet and members of the government including the rump over there, to adjust to new conditions.

In the case of a brand new car, if drivers want to pass they put their foot to the floor. The air conditioning system and everything that is not necessary are shut down. That is the first thing that happens.

The government found itself in the position where there was debt that had been incurred over two decades at which time no government had the political will to do what we are doing. We are chopping $29 billion over the next three years. We have contingency funds. We have gold reserves. We have dollars to back up situations when the interest rates rise to make sure that we can look after that particular eventuality.

In addition, we are not like members opposite who open the hood of a new car and shut it because they do not know how to fix it. They come back with old-fashioned ideas, looking for the carburettor that is not there or looking for some other device that is not there. That is their problem. If they have great ideas to suggest to the House, I assure them we will accept them.

What would the Reform Party do to repatriate our foreign debt?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. I listened to the preamble and the question had nothing to do with what he was telling me. There was absolutely no relation. It is the typical Liberal approach to a problem.

We have a huge government problem. The Liberals tinker with it a bit, make a few minor cuts and tell everybody how great it is that they are making these cuts. They do not look at the overall picture.

I like his example of cars with carburettors. The government is choking off the economy. If they put in too much gas, if they borrow too much money and have a government that is too big, they choke off the economy. That is what the government is doing. The government really does not have much of an idea about how the economy works.

I also like his analogy of using the colour red, because very often it means bleeding, bleeding, bleeding the taxpayer to death.

In conclusion I say again that the process is undemocratic. When I go home I am overwhelmed and humbled by the support I get. It is dishonest of the government to make fun of us.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House today to address the request of the government to borrow $28.9 billion, something that has become an extremely bad habit that the government must soon break before it breaks the country.

It is very important to put that $28.9 billion in perspective. As people in the House know, but perhaps the public is not aware of it, we have a debt today of $551 billion. It is one of the highest debt to GDP ratios in the world. We have huge problems with respect to the amount of overspending we have done over the last 22 years. I would point out that over that period of time mostly Liberal governments have been in place.

It is even more discouraging that the government has set a goal for itself: to spend another $100 billion more than it takes in during the four years before its mandate is up. We will have a debt of over $600 billion before its mandate is up. I find it shocking. I find it alarming. However, the government has put that into its plans. It says that somehow it is a good thing and the rational way to proceed. I reject that.

Let us talk about what happens to an economy when a government continues to overspend day after day and year after year. I invite hon. members across the way to look at what has happened to the unemployment rate and compare it to the rise of the debt and the deficit. They move in parallel courses, both rising upward very sharply. I find that quite alarming.

I invite members across the way to note that tax levels have rocketed upward with the debt and the deficit. That impedes the ability of the economy to produce jobs. By the way, I point out to my friends across the way that governments do not produce jobs. Business does. When they take credit for 450,000 new jobs being created, it is an insult to the business people who work everyday to make a living, to make a profit to support their families.

A country is a lot like a river. There is a tremendous amount of power in a river when it shoots down a river valley. It can produce a lot of good when there is a water wheel or a turbine in that river; as the river goes rushing by it produces a lot of energy. There is a tremendous amount of good out of that.

Governments are a lot like dams. The good governments are very small dams. Mostly they allow the river to keep flowing, to push forward to the sea, its ultimate goal. The bad governments are the very big dams. Those big dams are constructed when governments continue to overspend and overregulate. They

build the dam up bigger and bigger. Pretty soon the river quits flowing and the economy as a parallel stops.

We now have a huge dam on the river. We have a lot of water sitting dormant. I equate that to all the potential productivity in the country that is not fulfilled because it has to sit there. Then there is the water that evaporates from the dam. I would equate that to all the people who have left the country. I am talking about people with high skill levels and lots of capital who can go to other jurisdictions. Many of them have. We see doctors fleeing across the border. We see businesses running across the border. I admit the NDP government in Ontario has not been a big help; it has contributed to the problem.

We also see a lot of the water ending up in a backwater in sloughs. I equate that to people stuck on social programs who see no hope coming forward because the government has created safety nets that are more like fishing nets. People get caught in them and are unable to escape.

Unfortunately the human resources development minister has failed completely to come up with a new way to provide social security for people while at the same time not remove incentives to work.

The final thing that happens with a big dam is that eventually trickles of water start to undermine the dam or go around it because they flow up over the riverbank. I would equate that to the people who have joined the underground economy and are continuing to pursue their dreams in spite of the government and not because of it. More and more of that is going on all the time.

The last subject I want to talk about is my children and everybody's children. I phone home at night and talk with my youngest little boy who is six years old. I hear his little voice on the other end of the telephone line. I find it very exciting. I sit and talk with that little twerp for a few minutes about how his day was and what kind of aspirations he has. I talk with my 10-year-old about the same sorts of things. I find that very uplifting. At the same time I find it very sad.

Like everybody in this place and like Canadians everywhere who have hopes and dreams for their children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, I get discouraged and angry when I hear that the government is planning to load another $100 billion on to the backs of those children. Government members laugh about it. They sit there and laugh about it like they are doing right now. That makes me fighting mad.

I am telling members across the way that if they continue to do this they will have to bear it on their consciences. It is a big joke to them. They sit and laugh about it. However, Canadians do not laugh about it. They will pay a huge price the next election when they have to explain how they can justify adding $100 billion to the debt, driving people out of the country, driving jobs out of the country and destroying the social safety net.

When will they have the guts to do the right thing: start cutting, get the economy back on track and get a handle on the debt and deficit? I can hardly wait for them to stand and challenge me on questions and comments because I have some questions of my own.

Government members sit there blithely joking about the fact they will borrow another $28.9 billion. I hope they can explain it next week to their constituents who have children like I do and like most of the people in this place and are wondering how in the world they can pay back those bills after 22 years of overspending.

I appreciate the chance to talk to government members about this matter. I truly hope they get the message not only from me but from taxpayers across the country who are fed up with 22 years of overspending.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. Maybe he has not had a chance to read the newspapers today. In Ontario there has been a 78 per cent acceptance of the budget as it was presented. The lowest percentage of support in Canada was in Quebec and that was at 55 per cent. All the other provinces fell in between those two figures. What we have presented to Canadian taxpayers is a fair but lean budget, which is exactly what they called for. That is what my constituents called for.

I would like to challenge the hon. member because I have had a chance to read the budget which his party presented. What I read was something similar to the doctor saying to the family outside of the operating room that the operation was a success but unfortunately the patient died. The Reform party is talking about cutting $15 billion from social security. I would like to know from the hon. member where he would cut that $15 billion from something that is the fabric of this nation.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I reject very much the hon. member's premise which is that the social safety net is somehow the fabric of this nation, as though people in this country cannot somehow create their own tremendous culture by virtue of their own dreams and aspirations and in what they contribute to the country.

Having said that, I would be happy to answer the hon. member's question. He has asked where we would cut and we laid it out explicitly, unlike the government. During the election campaign government members said not to worry about social programs, they were not going to touch them. A year later, of course, they did a tremendous flip-flop. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce announced that the government has flip-flopped on its red book promises. There is still $20 billion that the government will have to cut to get its deficit to zero, at

least $20 billion by its own projections, and it has not laid out how it expects to get there.

Is the government telling people everything? Is it really not going to cut any more social programs, like it says, or is it going to get to zero like it tells people? It cannot be both ways.

We have been very up front with people. We said we would cut $15 billion. We would cut $3 billion out of old age security. It will go from $20 billion to $17 billion. We would make big cuts to transfers for welfare. We have said that. We are not embarrassed at all to say that. We know that we have to do that so that ultimately we will not allow social programs to completely unravel. We have to make those cuts.

I would like to emphasize again that for the hon. member to say somehow Canada is a social safety net is ridiculous. People who work every day for a living look at that. People who contribute to the economy and make great contributions to the culture of this nation look at that and say if that is the best we can do to become a country, produce some bloated government bureaucracy to come up with a bunch of social programs, that is not a country at all. That is a social welfare state. The hon. member across the way does not understand the country at all.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend's version of the new trickle down theory. He elaborated so much that it became a river flow for a while.

It has always intrigued me how the Reform party-and I say this with all respect because I believe it is serious when it makes these proposals-believes that somehow if we reward the rich and the wealthy the benefits will eventually trickle down to regular folks. I want to say to my friends in the Reform party that Canadians are fed up with being trickled on. For years and years there has been this trickle down approach, first from the Tories and now from the Liberals with the encouragement from my friends in the Reform party.

I listened carefully to my hon. friend's presentation today. The impression he leaves is the country with the least amount of government is the best country. By that definition countries such as Africa would be booming in terms of their economies and things would be great.

The fundamental reason we are the number one place out of 192 countries in the world in which to live and raise a family is government programs of all sorts.

What country in the world would he hold up as a model of his approach; in other words, an example of less government, fewer social programs?

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. While the member for Medicine Hat was on debate he was referring to his relationship with his children and the hon. member for London-Middlesex was hurling comments across the floor directed at the hon. member's children.

I find that absolutely reprehensible.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I do not believe that is a point of order. The hon. member for Medicine Hat, very briefly.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Kamloops, I guess the country I would hold up is the country that Canada used to be. There was a time when people were counted on to rely on their own resources to a great extent to find their way in the world. They did that most admirably and it enabled us to build a social welfare state that would protect the people who could not look after-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, it is a real opportunity for me to participate in this debate and to share with my colleagues on all sides of the House the activities that my departments and agencies will be doing over the next 12 months and for the next three years.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who tabled the budget here on Monday of this week, which addressed a number of fundamental problems that the Canadian government has been faced with not only for the last year and half but for the last nine or ten years.

I want to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on facts which are indisputable. For instance, over the last year there have been 433,000 jobs created in this country. The unemployment rate has fallen by 1.7 per cent. I think all members will recognize that although that is encouraging it is certainly not enough. However, it is a positive indicator.

Exports are at a record breaking level, something Canadians ought to be proud of. As we export our products it means additional investment for Canadians and thereby jobs for Canadians whether they are in New Brunswick or in other parts of Canada, including Ontario and western Canada.

Inflation is the lowest in three decades, another factor that ought to be taken into consideration. Canada had the best economic growth of any major industrialized country in 1994. Canada is set to have the best job creation record and the best economic growth record of the G-7 countries in 1995.

If that is not an indication of support for the Minister of Finance and the plan that he put before Parliament in 1994, as he did here on Monday evening, I do not know what further affirmation one could get to say that we have the full confidence in the Minister of Finance and the plans he has laid before the people of Canada.

I think many members would recognize that I do not like to be partisan in debate, and therefore I will select a quote from a newspaper today which I believe stated that 78 per cent of the people in Ontario, the largest province in this country, supported unequivocally the budget of the Minister of Finance.

This budget, as I have said both privately and publicly, is a tough budget because it affects the lives of a lot of Canadians. In my own departments and agencies there are some substantial reductions. I offer to the House, as I believe I did on a previous occasion, that there would be substantial cutbacks in Public Works and Government Services Canada. Over a three-year period my department will contribute toward reducing the deficit in that particular department in excess of $350 million. There are 5,263 employees who will be dislocated as a result of this federal budget. Those who have the audacity to suggest that kind of measure is not a tough measure are missing the point.

I realize I only have a few moments but I want to share with the House a couple of important features of the budget, particularly in my Department of Public Works and Government Services. Canada Mortgage and Housing is reducing its expenditures in order to contribute toward the deficit. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency over a three-year period will reduce its expenditures by $173 million with person years being displaced.

The Royal Canadian Mint will try to contribute to increasing the revenues for the Government of Canada by the introduction of the $2 coin and by reducing the composition of the different coins, thereby providing additional revenues.

I know members wish-

[The Speaker]

My hon. colleague, we are all waiting with baited breath for you to continue your words and of course when we return after Question Period you will be recognized first off.

It being two o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Nordic World Ski Championships

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I inform this House that for the first time in history the Nordic World Ski Championships will take place in our country in Thunder Bay, Ontario from March 9 to 19.

Picturesque Thunder Bay and its hospitable residents will be host to over 40 nations for this 11-day sporting event, including over 800 skiers, coaches and trainers, over 500 international media, over 200 officials and 50,000 spectators. An expected audience of over 400 million viewers will observe the action by satellite, including 31 hours of prime time coverage in Europe.

This spectacular event has been made possible because of the dedication of thousands of volunteers from the area and the continuous support of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his staff.