Debates of March 24th, 1995

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1995, be read the third time and passed.

Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great interest over the last number of weeks to the debate on the budget while I waited for my opportunity to participate. I have been truly amazed with the disregard the government is showing for the intelligence of the Canadian public.

The budget represents a betrayal of the red book or election platform on which the government was elected; also the betrayal the dishonesty and the deceitfulness of the rhetoric surrounding the cuts that must inevitably come if we are some day to reach a balanced budget.

Canadians were told by the Liberals during the 1993 election platform that the Liberals could solve the deficit problem through economic stimulation and job creation. Today unemployment is still unacceptably high and the deficit is still out of control.

Canadians were also told by the Deputy Prime Minister during the 1993 election that they would eliminate in the GST in one year or she would resign. To my knowledge she is still a member of the House.

Another inconsistency the Liberals told during the 1993 election campaign was that they would never cut the civil service. Upon making this promise they were viewed as the friends of the civil service, unlike the Tories. We must wonder what these same civil servants are now thinking with 45,000 of them being shown the door.

Canadians who voted for the Liberals in 1993 believed they would never cut transfers to the provinces in support of health care, education or social services. All seniors believed the Liberal Party would never cut old age security. Lo and behold only a year and a half later the Liberal government has done a total flip-flop on these and other election commitments.

Are Canadians to believe the Liberals really believed these commitments to be realistic or was it really the old political strategy of telling the people what would get them elected because a long time ago Canadians gave up holding politicians accountable for election promises.

I do not think Canadians will forgive so easily. I will do my best to see they do not forget. I will remind Canadians the Prime Minister's red book commitment to rebuild respect and integrity in government was simply more empty political rhetoric.

During the 1993 election campaign the Reform Party presented a plan to balance the budget in three years and the Liberals labelled us the slash and burn party, the destroyers of health care and old age security. Now only one and a half years later in the budget the government has implemented many of the zero in three cuts and even went further than that zero in three plan, not because it would choose to do so but because as we predicted there was no alternative.

This year again Reform put forward a budget and a plan to balance the budget in three years and again the Liberals rile and rave about the proposed programs and put their spin doctors to work to sell their own deceitful budget and hide the reality of what must inevitably come.

They continue to hide the realities in rhetoric like the following: "By consolidating our existing resources into one human investment we can then sit down with the provinces as we are doing now on issues of child care and literacy and work out new partnerships and new arrangements with the provinces and municipalities and private sector partners. It gives us the flexibility we need now to engage in a new generation of social programming that really fits both the reality and the changed circumstances that the country finds itself in".

This is the best example I could find of the dishonesty of the rhetoric being thrown at us. I will leave members opposite to surmise which member might have spewed that gem on us.

The truth must be told and we must face the music now as painful as that may be because if we postpone balancing the budget to somewhere in the future, say the year 2000, the debt could then be approaching $800 billion and the cost of interest on the debt will have risen to the point at which we can no longer

sustain even the core of our social safety net programs which have made Canada the most desirable country in the world to live in.

I have heard the howls of disbelief from the members opposite. They say they are a caring and compassionate government. They say what about the human deficit.

I listened carefully and the arrogant hypocrisy makes me very angry. Who do these people think they are that only they have compassion or care about people? The single most important reason I joined what is now the least respected profession in Canada, at least outside of this place, is my concern for the future of this country and what 30 years of Liberal and Tory governments have done to the future of my children and grandchildren.

What this government is doing to future generations of Canadians is not caring or compassionate, it is greed and selfishness; it is the me generation saying: "I am not going to live within my means and the next generation cannot only pay for my greed but can no longer enjoy the benefits and the standard of living this me generation has had".

The best example of this greed is the refusal of the Liberal caucus power brokers to give up their gold plated pension plan. As long as I am a member of the House I will do everything within my power to see that the first pensioners who do not receive an old age security pension check because the country is broke will be the same greedy politicians who mismanaged this country to the point we are at today.

The examples of mismanagement are everywhere. A few examples lie within my portfolio as natural resources critic. Petro-Canada is one of my favourites. Every budget since 1984 has promised to privatize Petro-Canada. Canada's window on the energy industry was created by the Liberal government at a cost of over $5 billion. Petro-Canada has never provided any benefit to Canadians that could not have been provided by the private sector. Governments since have never had the courage to admit to Canadians they will only be able to recover less than $2 billion of the $5 billion it cost to create Petro-Canada. Although this is the second Liberal budget that has promised to privatize Petro-Canada, I doubt very much if it will happen soon.

Let us have a look at how this budget and this government in past budgets have squandered Canada's natural advantage in the world marketplace. Gasoline, a favourite cash cow for governments, has always been a cheap source of energy. It has allowed compensation for Canadians for the great distances we must move our produce and our people compared with other countries.

Governments have gone back to the well so often that in the last 10 years taxes on gasoline have risen by over 500 per cent if one includes the 1.5 cent increase in this budget. Almost 25 cents of every 50 cent litre of gasoline is tax. At the same time the government is moving to eliminate transportation subsidies across the country. Long gone is our natural advantage. The U.S. is importing Canadian crude oil with a $1.40 dollar, refining that oil and selling the same gasoline at almost half of what we are paying in Canada.

The final example is the elimination of the income tax transfer on privately owned utility companies. The finance minister stated in his budget that if government does not need to run something, it should not and in the future it will not.

How many provincially owned utility companies will ever consider privatizing under these circumstances? In spite of vowing to prevent discriminatory taxation against Alberta during the election campaign, the Minister of Natural Resources remains totally silent on this issue in the House.

I could go on endlessly but time does not permit. The budget does, however, represent a dramatic reversal in Liberal philosophy which the reform Party can take some credit for. That shift is so dramatic that even some of the Liberal dinosaurs in the Liberal caucus have threatened to withdraw support for the budget.

As dramatic as this change might be, it does not go far enough to break the back of the deficit. If in the next three years the government cuts $12 billion from spending and the interest costs rise by $12.7 billion, I hardly think the monster has been mortally wounded and I am sure after a short respite it will be back to threaten to destroy our economy.

Already the real agenda begins to leak out in well planned trial balloons. The Prime Minister says our health care system will be reduced to the provisions of 50 years ago. Liberal members are suggesting that the minimum pensionable age will have to be raised to 67.

These adjustments to our social safety net may indeed be necessary, but who knows? This government clearly has no plan to balance the budget in the foreseeable future.

One fact is indisputable. By postponing the balancing of the budget to the year 2000 or beyond, the cuts that will have to be made will be far more destructive and devastating than those proposed in our taxpayers budget. This is where the deceit and the dishonesty in the Liberal budget lie.

I think the Prime Minister and the finance minister would do well to heed the words of a very wise man, F. J. Clark, when he said: "A politician thinks only of the next election. A statesman thinks of the next generation".

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out one item of reference in the hon. member's remarks and then ask him a question.

I suppose it was primarily rhetorical in his remarks but he did refer to a deceitful budget. I am sure he and his colleagues recognize that a budget is a budget is a budget. Canadians can add and subtract. They can assess the wording in the statements of the Minister of Finance, the positions of the government and the Prime Minister and at the end of the day Canadians will make up their minds.

I do not think Canadians believe that they have been seduced or have been dealt with deceitfully in any way or that they even see deceit as part of the intent of the government. I hope the hon. member will accept the comment that the deceit referred to by him is purely rhetorical and not helpful in analysing the budget. He is certainly entitled to his views.

In an economy like Canada's when the measured overspending in the economy runs up to $25 billion or even up to $40 billion, a material proportion of overspending, if we were to simply stop or reduce the federal spending by approximately 20 or 25 per cent, if the overspending was that great, there would be a serious negative macroeconomic impact. This would put the country again in recession and would defeat the kind of economic growth that permits the country to build its way out of the recession and the overspending at the same time. Would the member not agree?

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the deceit that I speak about is not in the figures in the budget. It is the failure to tell Canadians honestly and truthfully the measures that will inevitably have to be made. We have no alternative but to cut another $25 billion from government spending or increase taxes to reach a balanced budget. That is where the dishonesty and the deceit lie in this budget.

To answer the question, I do not think the hon. member is correct in the assumption that those kinds of cuts would have a destructive effect on the economy. Certainly that has not been the case demonstrated in Alberta where government costs over a three year period have been reduced by 20 per cent. In fact, the exact opposite has been true. Those cuts have had a stimulative effect in the private sector and unemployment continues to drop.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak for my constituents about Liberal fiscal policy.

On March 10 I held a town hall meeting in New Westminster-Burnaby. I heard firsthand how the budget is viewed. I regularly consult with my constituents about what they want in fiscal behaviour from this government. There are usually a variety of views expressed but there is one theme that is clear.

Our constituents may not be sophisticated economists or financial analysts, but they know in their hearts that the country is in deep financial trouble. They know that the economy is performing well below its potential.

When they ponder a little bit about what is wrong, they very quickly mention all the taxes they give to the government that are being frittered away in unproductive interest payments instead of being applied to social development and basic services. It is a simple concept for my constituents to grasp.

They also do not like the cutbacks that will be necessary to get the fiscal house in order. They ask: How did it get out of hand? Why are we planning to waste 50.7 billion tax dollars in interest to service past debt? That money could be spent on so many needy things or much of it should be left in the hands of the taxpayers for them to invest for their needs under their own control.

My constituents do not buy it when the finance minister says that everything is okay, government is on target and that they should trust it. My constituents know that each week when they go to the grocery store it costs a lot more to fill the shopping cart.

Some of my constituents know what it is like to line up at the food bank or to search hopelessly for a job. Some of my constituents suffer directly from the fortunes of the economy. I do not blame them if they get a little cynical and radical in their language when they express how the economy is not working for them.

If the finance minister keeps promising that some day a better employment picture will be there for them, make it clear that consistent deficit financing kills the economy. Government annual borrowing beyond the capacity of the economy to support the debt really hurts people. This government is hurting people.

Governments cannot create lasting jobs but they sure can affect the climate of private commerce where jobs are created. Governments can very easily mess things up through misguided intentions and mistaken assumptions.

The message I give to the Prime Minister is this: Your policy is callously hurting the Canadian people. The uncaring arrogance of pursuing discredited deficit targets is immoral. Three per cent of GDP is a scandal. The verbosity of the finance minister that reflects the bankrupt Liberals' social philosophy is a cruel hoax upon those on the margins of the economy: the poor and those who are helpless dependents on the social safety net.

Successive deficit financing kills the economy. Deficit financing eats the heart out of the social safety net. This Liberal budget plans only for more deficits. It is a plan that admits defeat in all its projections and then expects praise for the capitulation.

Chronic unemployment hurts the soul. Folk in my riding want a job. They also want hope. They want hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and hope that someone in government has set a course to a new Canada.

My constituents are willing to pay their fair share of taxes. However they get very angry about the conspicuous waste of this government, especially in view of the finance minister insincerely usurping the Reform Party pledge to have a government that lives within its means. Then he delivers budget numbers that betray that pledge.

I am standing here in this Chamber today on behalf of my constituents to say what they want me to say for them. Their message is clear. It is a message of two words, just two words, two elusive words which I prophesy will never be grasped by these Liberals. The two words are: balanced budget. One can be a little disappointed that those words are so easy to say and so easy to contemplate, but sadly never to be obtained by this group of old-fashioned Liberals, the tired system defenders.

What is the government planning for us in its wisdom that it says we need? A deficit. A deficit of $24.3 billion in 1996-97. The sad part is that the finance minister says he is proud of this. He is a blind system defender instead of an agent for change, hope and renewal.

I know the minister listened closely to the leader of the Reform Party when the taxpayers budget was presented on February 21. The plan proposed to lower the deficit to zero in three years. The numbers are all there in black and white. It is a wise and reasonable target and a pragmatic plan. However, the minister simply did not have the courage.

People expect governments to do the right thing. They expect governments to keep spending under control. They expect governments to always keep their financial house in order, for it all is in a trust relationship on behalf of the citizens.

What has this budget done to prove to the public that the government is on the path to solving this fiscal crisis? It is clear to me is that the only way we go after the accumulated debt is to first go after the annual deficit.

Last month was the finance minister's chance to really make a difference. The political mood in the country was there, but no resolve was taken by the minister. Canadians will surely suffer because of this irresponsibility of the government. It is a legacy of missed opportunity.

With this budget the debt is going nowhere but up. As a percentage of GDP, the net public debt for 1993-94 was 71.4 per cent. For 1994-95 the prediction is 73.2 per cent. For 1995-96 the prediction is 73.5 per cent. For 1996-97 the prediction is 73.4 per cent.

The minister boasts of his deficit as a percentage of GDP. Well, what about the debt percentage? What a pitiful shame. We are getting nowhere. Even more significantly, the overall real debt that must be served by this one Canadian economy and our one group of Canadian taxpayers is more like $1.7 trillion, if all factors are considered for our population of 28 million.

The Reform Party has shown with the taxpayers budget that it is serious about moving forward and manifesting substantial innovation. Should the Liberals follow through on their election promise to be more innovative with economic policies, may I suggest that they take a closer look at the Reform Party's taxpayers budget. Just in case members opposite do not know what this is called, I remind them that it is simply called leadership by example.

In his speech the finance minister said that the budget must focus on cutting spending, not raising taxes. I think I have missed something here because when I was driving to the Vancouver airport this past week I noticed that the gasoline prices have really jumped. I thought the minister said he was not raising taxes. I heard one Liberal member say that at least there were no personal tax increases. Well, the last time I filled my car with fuel, I used my cash to pay for it and that makes it a personal tax.

South African author Nadine Gordimer summed it up best: The truth is not always beauty, but the hunger for it is. Canadians want the truth and they rightly deserve it. They want a government that bases its principles on honesty and integrity.

The budget of the finance minister puts the best face on a sad situation and yet he smiles. The minister is a well meaning gentleman who does not take kindly to my words about him being cruel to Canadians, but his face is covered over with his Liberal social philosophy. The captain of the Titanic was also well meaning. Former British Prime Minister Chamberlain kept hoping beyond hope in face of dark storm clouds, a nice individual.

We need a dramatic course correction. We do not need to hit the berg. We need a reality check against false hopes. We need to take immediate remedial action.

I call on the finance minister to table a plan that will balance the budget and save social programs. Table a plan that begins to wind us out of the national debt trap and lowers taxes so the economy can take off again and produce those badly needed permanent jobs.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I have a message for the Minister of Finance: We know you are only a Liberal, but take courage and Reformers will help you. Save this country and lead us responsibly. Lead us by example with true fiscal responsibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the Reform member and I must admit that there was some truth in it when he said that, whatever happens, Canadians will have to deal with a huge global debt in the future. Some people ask how Quebecers will ever pay their part of the federal debt if they choose to form a

sovereign state. We can say for sure that if they remain within Canada, they will definitely have to deal with that debt.

Does the hon. member not agree that this colossal and uncontrollable debt is not so much the result of inefficiency on the part of individuals-although there might have been some of that-as the result of an unhealthy competition between various levels of government? Were we not overly greedy for visibility and did we not try to make sure that provincial and federal levels would invest equal amounts in any project on the map? Sometimes we announced projects which were not entirely realistic, the investment in Hibernia for example, just to make up for the weaknesses of the economic policies implemented by the central government.

Did we not also lose control over the budget largely because of the confusion of jurisdictions? We never know who is responsible for a specific issue, the federal government or the provinces. Does the hon. member not believe that the solution lies in a major change in that area so that each level will know perfectly what are its own responsibilities and what it will have to deal with in the future?

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about unnecessary duplication between provincial and federal governments. I remind the Bloc member that a lot of the duplication found in Quebec is because the Quebec government, with its independent mind, wanted to unnecessarily duplicate federal services.

He should also bring the message to Quebecers that under the Reform Party plan Quebec could truly be master of its own house and provide some of the services they have talked about. A Reform Party government would find that vision. That is the message that we want to get through to Quebecers.

On the other issue of deficit financing, is he suggesting that if Quebec leaves Confederation it will abandon its social responsibility and abandon the debt created in its name? Studies have shown that although Quebec represents about 25 per cent of the population, consistently over time it has received about 30 per cent of government spending.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to some now well known communication technology, the minister of finance had organized the release of his 1995-96 Budget so that the Canadian public would be prepared for the worse.

The medias took part in this, and we could hear or read comments from reporters, analysts and doomwatchers predicting, before the fateful day, that the Budget would really hurt. So we had to take advantage of these last moments before the axe would fall.

On the said day, everyone was almost unanimous. It was not so bad after all. Only the opposition members were criticizing. And criticisms from Bloc members and Reform members are normal, since that is their job. That is why they are here.

So, instant relief replaced the anxiety of the day before. And the ink that was used to print that budget had hardly dried before that the relief was replaced with concern. Why? Because several of the cuts announced will once again affect the poorest of our society, or the middle class which, ultimately, pays more than its fair share. Because several government decisions were put off indefinitely.

Subsidies to transportation in the East were eliminated. The federal government will now have to agree with the Quebec government on what to do about the $80 million, or $15 million a year, needed to compensate for the loss of subsidies in transportation. There is some uncertainty about whether that money will be used to build many kilometres of highways or to create permanent jobs.

Are we going to be bright enough to devote only a small part of these millions to asphalt and the major part to an investment fund to promote the creation of lasting jobs in eastern Quebec?

Changes in unemployment insurance rules, but the reform is shelved for now.

As for old age pensions, the universality principle is questioned due to the introduction of a family income principle which, when implemented, will be detrimental to many women who will be deprived of their pensions because their husbands have high incomes.

Transfer payments to provinces are being reduced through the creation of what the hon. member for Outremont called the NCST. I hope it is not a venereal disease, although it might be just as bad.

Post-secondary education financing and the loan and grant system for students are being modified.

The defence budget was not cut enough.

Family trusts will remain unchanged until 1999.

Taxpayers are the only ones to foot the bill through increases in the price of cigarettes and gas.

The lobbying by banks and large corporations worked well, their tax increases were so insignificant that we are almost justified in saying that the rich were spared by the last budget. The poor, the unemployed will pay about 120 times more than these large corporations. Yet, the banks had profits of $5 billion last year, which was not the case of the unemployed.

Now that we are over the sigh of relief that followed the budget, we have to face reality. Several reforms will wait until after the referendum. Liberals are asking the people of Quebec to vote no. Yet, if we believe the recommendations of the C.D. Howe Institute, voting no means saying yes to hard times. The federal government is offloading its problems onto the provinces and there is no doubt that Quebec and Ontario are the hardest hit.

The deficit is still too high and the budget is doing nothing to deal with the debt. How is all this going to affect Canada's famous credit rating? There is still a lot of suspense regarding this budget, and we do not yet know its complete aftermath. Already, some of those who, at first, gave it the benefit of the doubt, are getting disillusioned. This budget does not stand up to a serious analysis. Tomorrow might be too late.

While we are waiting for the government's real agenda to be exposed, let us have a closer look at the Department of Canadian Heritage budget. Although the CRTC is holding hearings on the information highway, even though the department has already recognized the critical role of information in the economy of today and tomorrow, the budget makes further cuts in the so-called cultural industries.

Conservative and Liberal budgets come and go and are almost identical, but for the fact that Grit cuts are going to be more drastic that Tory cuts, without solving the issues of the deficit or the debt. Therefore, one must wonder who really benefits from this budget. Certainly not the CBC since, in spite of the stubborn denial on the part of the Canadian heritage minister, the announced cuts from parliamentary appropriations will indeed amount to $350 million over the next three years. We never saw the likes of this under the Conservatives who at least had the decency to keep up appearances.

Important cuts were made to Telefilm and the National Film Board which stand to lose $17 million in 1995-1996 alone, and that is over and above the more than $100 million they have lost since the Mazankowski reduction plan went under way.

The budget also indicates that the department intends to order a review of the mandate of these three agencies and to readjust their funding accordingly. Some people are concerned about this operation, and rightly so, given the importance of the presence of Quebec and Canada in this North-American sea of English.

The publishing industry will also be hard hit. For example, we expect over the next three years a 24 per cent cut in the mail subsidy program which is considered a direct subsidy to help Canadian magazines pay part of their mailing charges. These charges will now be offloaded onto the subscribers. So, for us, this will mean another indirect tax.

Indeed, following the program review process, Heritage Canada will lose over three years around $676 million, almost 25 per cent of its total budget. At this time, we have no further information on how these cuts will be made. We only have concerns.

We also know that some programs relating to our Canadian identity are doing fine. For example, lieutenant-governors will be awarded a pay increase next year. Why are these individuals not subject to the same rules as the rest of the public service, and members of Parliament and senators, whose wages have been frozen for three years?

Why are lieutenants-governors an exception to the rule?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

It is a disgrace.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

You said it.

The Council for national unity will continue to benefit from Ottawa's generosity. It will receive over $800,000 from the Open House Canada Program, which allows young people from the middle and upper class to travel across Canada, learning to love their country through official propaganda. The overall budget of this program is $2.2 million.

We also have to add to the Canadian identity budget the expenses that will be incurred for the six trips that the royal family will make to Canada during the year, at our expense of course.

Meanwhile, the government announces a 21 per cent cut in the arts program, a 13 per cent cut in the heritage programs, a 24 per cent cut in the cultural industries program, a 20 per cent cut in the official languages support program, the major part of which will be passed on to the provinces through cuts in second language training funding. It also announces a 20 per cent cut in amateur sport just one year before the Olympics in Atlanta even though, when interviewed by the CBC in Lillehammer, the Minister of Canadian Heritage had promised the world to our athletes. This promise has changed into a 10 per cent cut in funding.

At the same time, the increase in corporate management services spending will be 13 per cent. Thirteen per cent more to manage a department whose minister never has any clear idea of what he should be doing. I hope that he will at least take advantage of those 130 extra jobs in his department to answer our questions.

Fortunately, the cultural affairs budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs will remain unchanged, at $4.7 million, although there has been a change of policy and the emphasis is on the NAFTA countries, and Europe is left out. That way, Quebecers will have no more visitors from the Francophonie. Are we to understand that some ministers wield more influence than others?

Most of my remarks have been on cuts in the cultural sector and what I consider frivolous spending subsidized by the department. While in times of austerity and financial difficulty it is normal for the government to try to rationalize its expenditures, it should establish a set of priorities to do so. The priority

for the Department of Canadian Heritage should be cultural products. Even in times of budget restraint, cultural products should be protected from cuts, since they are the key to the future. The government should invest more in this area.

We can readily support our cultural industries and find money for research and development in artistic creation with cuts to departmental expenditures and by eliminating empty programs like the campaign promoting the Canadian flag, raises to the lieutenant-governors and grants to federalist organizations, without naming any, to enable them to do their propaganda work during the referendum.

The minister is sacrificing the production of cultural works for programs that attempt to promote an empty, artificial identity aimed at imposing a national identity on everyone and denying ours. The situation at present in cultural and communications matters clearly indicates that the head of the department cannot give us what we need to go forward.

Worse, if the present is an indication of the future, we will see that the minister is more inclined to protect programs promoting Canadian identity, like promoting the flag, than programs that provide for investment in cultural products as such, something that would be more in keeping with the requirements of our historical context.

Heritage Canada still sees culture in folkloric garb, when it long ago moved into the age of telecommunications and the information highway.

As we live through the technological revolution, it is vital that we have a Minister of Canadian Heritage who is credible and capable of defending cultural interests in cabinet. We are therefore asking Mr. Chrétien to act accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Heritage critic did a good job of demonstrating how inefficient the Department of Canadian Heritage is.

I would like to comment on transportation subsidies in particular. For decades now, certain businesses in the east of Canada and in Quebec as far east as Lévis or La Beauce have received financial assistance to transport their products.

The government decided to cut these subsidies. I do not think that people strongly disagree with this decision, but the regions affected would have wanted the government to do an impact study first. Instead, the regions are facing radical cuts, the short-term economic impact of which is hard to predict. The decision will affect each industry differently, some favourably, some extremely unfavourably.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata's speech contained some novel ideas and some interesting suggestions on which I would like her to elaborate. In particular, will she specify how we can ensure that the money invested in the compensation fund will have lasting effects? How can we avoid finding ourselves saddled with investments that we will be forced to abandon five years down the road? Will she propose a solution which will guarantee that the money invested will have a lasting impact and enable the economy of eastern Quebec to turn the tables around and, once and for all, enable it to harness its strengths, skills and its bountiful natural resources and break free from the central system?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly not make myself very popular by replying with my usual frankness, but there is, I believe, in our region, a politician who has built his career on the Cacouna-Rimouski highway. I think that it would be a monumental error to invest the whole $80 million in asphalt. In five years, the few companies that laid the asphalt would have benefited financially, and in another five the road would be full of holes again and there would be no money to pay for more asphalt.

I think that it is important to use some of the money-say 25 per cent-to do some resurfacing if necessary, widen the highway in spots, bypass a few towns, do some grading. There is work to be done. But I think that the greater part of the $80 million, around 75 per cent, should most definitely be put in an investment fund for the development of eastern Quebec, to create sustainable jobs. Eastern Quebec needs jobs if people are to stay.

When we have a highway and everyone has gone to Montreal, we will need something more to interest tourists in visiting the Gaspé. And that something is people, development, infrastructure. We need an investment fund if we are to succeed, money that would be loaned to companies and that they would have to pay back.

This would ensure a long term fund that would continue over 20 or 30 years, because those who left would pay us back and we would always have money for job creation in Eastern Quebec.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata, who, with his well-known verve and oratorical skills, demonstrated that this budget is even more conservative that the one the Tories dared to table when they were in power.

She put her finger on one of the government's shortcomings by saying that there was no one to defend culture on the government side. On hearing that there was no one to defend culture, I wondered who, in the last year and a half, has been defending the most disadvantaged as well as students, seniors,

middle-income earners and workers? They have shown how trigger-happy they are in their handling of the rail dispute.

The Liberals are knuckling under. They even knuckle under history when we ask them to correct it. Last night, I felt sick when the Liberals on the other side of the House refused to correct history regarding the high treason charges against Louis Riel. They even refused to refer the matter to a committee of the House. I was appalled.

So there is no one to defend the most disadvantaged, to defend culture, to defend students, middle-income earners and workers, to defend history. What has happened to the Liberals since the election campaign, when they presented us with a red book full of humanitarian and social democratic principles as well as promises to defend the most disadvantaged? What has happened since then? I am putting the question to my colleague.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

This is an excellent question, Mr. Speaker. I must say that, as usual, the question was planted and I am stuck. Anyhow, as far as knowing what happened to the red book is concerned, I say it is at the National Archives. That is what happened to it.

[Some hon. members]

Ha, ha!

[An hon. member]

They are in the red.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

The Minister of Canadian Heritage runs his department so well that he must have hidden the book carefully, or in the National Archives. Or perhaps it is in the waste basket.

I think, dear colleague, that you have drawn the essence of what I wanted to convey in my remarks: this budget is worse than any budget tabled by the Conservatives. The Liberals are making cuts that are more severe, in a way. They boast left and right that they want to manage properly their great Canada, the best, the number one country in the world, and so on. But they are forgetting one thing: they are not getting money from those who have it. This way, those who keep sending them money during their fund raising campaigns instead of spending it on taxes will be able to continue supporting them. So, the wheel turns and traditional parties are maintained in power because of this.

We are often accused of having our motherhouse, or head office, in Quebec City, but it is well known that theirs is Power Corporation. Just take the piece on satellite television published in La Presse . They sought the opinion of the public, but on the corporate side, they only sought that of Power Corporation, while this a very widely known issue. They could have met with officials from Cancom, Expressvu and others, but no, Power Corporation of Canada managed to get exclusive coverage in La Presse , to show off. Everything else was left out.

It is all in the family and it is clear that they failed to check their red book carefully before preparing their budget.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to compliment the hon. member on her excellent speech. I think it hurts the government to hear the truth, to hear what is really in this budget. My question will be very brief. I know that the hon. member is a formidable defender of the status of women. I would like to hear from the hon. member what this budget has to offer women in the way of unemployment insurance and wage equity, for instance.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, because I do not have much time left, I think that as far as women are concerned, the budget is again a total loss. The government wants to apply the principle of family income to unemployment insurance and in so doing will put women at a disadvantage. The government transferred the equal opportunities for women program from the Department of Human Resources Development to the Department of Canadian Heritage, but funding was reduced. Since this was discretionary funding that could be used for political purposes, the program was transferred to the Department of Canadian Heritage. How much are they going to give?

The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the only agency that did research on the status of women, was shut down. It is no more. So this government has chosen to ignore women, youth, the poor, the elderly, gays, and just about everyone, except the rich who line the party's coffers.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would give me one minute's notice before the end of the period for government orders so that we can proceed as agreed with respect to the division on this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Does the official opposition Whip also wish to take part in the debate?

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

Yes.