Debates of March 30th, 1995

Budget Implementation Act, 1995

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

That is not enough.

[David Walker, Liberal, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

For the NDP it is never enough. The bill provides for the regulation of maximum freight rates that can be charged by railway companies to move grain from the prairies. The transition from these maximum regulated rates to commercial rates will take place over a five-year period.

The bill also proposes the elimination of the Atlantic freight subsidies under the Atlantic region freight assistance program, ARFAA, and the Maritime Freight Rates Act, MFRA. These measures to take effect July 1995 will save nearly $100 million a year.

The Atlantic freight subsidies have proved inefficient in reducing shipper costs. They have, moreover, encouraged companies to structure their investments and organizations to meet regulatory criteria rather than for sound business practice. The subsidies are of marginal and declining importance to regional economic activity since transportation services in the region are now much more competitive than they once were.

To help ensure that elimination of a subsidy contributes to a better transportation system, the budget announced a five-year $326 million transportation adjustment program. Provinces will be able to target assistance under the program to meet local shippers' needs and upgrade infrastructure. Among other things it should help modernize the highway system in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.

A third area of concern is transfers to persons, particularly the veterans program. An initiative as sweeping as program review must inevitably touch upon some programs that provide payments to individual Canadians. When the Department of Veterans Affairs underwent review the decision was taken to preserve all essential programs and services for veterans who had served Canada. However the department took steps to control cost, eliminate overlap and duplication, and return programs to their original purpose.

Accordingly the bill proposes that the war veterans allowance be discontinued for former members of resistance forces and for allied veterans living abroad for more than six months within a calendar year. As well, new allied veterans will be ineligible for war veterans allowance unless they were pre-war residents of Canada.

Further, effective from budget day no new applicants will be accepted under the education assistance program because it duplicates other available programs. Also the veterans travel program will be restructured so that the benefits are rationalized.

A fourth area of concern is consular services. Not all departments offer the same scope for savings under program review. However each is contributing to the restructuring process. Cost recovery is one such step. The Department of Foreign Affairs,

for example, will be shifting a greater portion of the cost of consular and trade development functions to the prime users.

Therefore the bill includes provision that would authorize the department to levy an additional fee for Canadian travel documents such as passports. As a result of the measure the cost of a regular five-year passport is expected to rise between $20 and $30. However, even with the increase, the cost of a Canadian passport will still compare favourably with that of many other industrialized countries.

The measure will help the Department of Foreign Affairs to maintain the high quality consular services it currently provides.

The next area is the public service. The measures I have outlined along with other initiatives arising from program review mark the transition to a more focused, effective and frugal federal government. Such a government will need fewer employees to deliver programs and services.

At the time the 1995 budget actions are fully implemented federal employment is expected to decline by 45,000 or 14 per cent. The government appreciates the valuable service its employees provide. We are committed to managing the reductions in a fair and orderly fashion.

In keeping with the commitment the bill proposes to change the public sector compensation act to allow for an early departure incentive. The incentive can be taken up by as many as 13,000 to 15,000 employees in the departments most affected. We estimate the cost of the program for the public service, the military and certain separate employers and crowns to be about $1 billion, which will be included in the 1994-95 fiscal year.

Other proposed changes in the act will allow for cost neutral changes to non-salary terms of employment and for certain new kinds of leave. For example, employees will be permitted to take off blocks of time and have their incomes averaged over the year.

In addition, we are proposing amendments to the Public Service Employment Act that will give public sector managers more flexibility in staffing arrangements. This would include, for example, the block transfer of employees with their functions within the public service.

Employees affected by the downsizing who decide not to take advantage of the departure incentives will have a reasonable period of time to find employment elsewhere in the public service, but that period cannot be indefinite. The government simply cannot afford to pay people for not working.

Accordingly the bill also includes amendments to the workforce adjustment directive so that surplus employees in the departments most affected who decline departure incentives will cease to be paid after six months and will be laid off one year thereafter unless alternative employment is found.

The vast majority of items in the bill are obviously about reducing the deficit. However there is one that relates to financing the deficit and the debt. The bill contains amendments to the Financial Administration Act that will enable the government to efficiently sell debt securities to individual Canadians under the retail debt strategy. The amendments will allow the federal government to offer Canadians improved access to a family of safe and secure Government of Canada obligations.

The proposed amendments include new authority for the government to issue securities without physically printing certificates, thereby promoting more efficient and less costly electronic transfers.

The amendments will also enable government to buy its own securities at the time of issue. This way they can be sold to retail buyers through a special government agency set up for the purpose.

There is one final measure in the bill I should like to mention, locked-in RRSPs. Currently holders of locked-in RRSPs are limited to purchasing life annuities with the funds. In order to provide such individuals with greater flexibility in managing their retirement income, the bill includes an amendment to the Pension Benefits Standards Act that will allow holders of locked-in RRSPs to purchase life income funds.

Today's legislation will play a key role in setting our country on a course to fiscal responsibility and to governmental renewal. The legislation will help ensure that our budget goals are translated into real performance. It draws directly on the advice we have received from across Canada. It focuses on the total economic and social picture before us and addresses the challenges we all face.

The budget and the bill reaffirm the government's fundamental objective of sustaining growth and job creation. They achieve that by meeting the fundamental requirement of restoring fiscal health by refocusing government on priority roles and needs.

In summary, Canada needs and Canadians support the legislation. They have already demonstrated support, and I urge all members of the House to do likewise.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak again to some elements of the finance minister's budget through Bill C-76, which implements, in particular, three important provisions regarding transfer payments to the provinces, rail trans-

port and part of sea transport, as well as labour relations in the Canadian public service.

If I may, I would like to focus my remarks on the part of Bill C-76 dealing with transfers to the provinces. I will let my colleagues address other important aspects of Bill C-76 during this debate but, if I may, I would like to focus my presentation this morning on the important issue of transfers to the provinces.

As members know, Bill C-76, as announced in the budget speech by the Minister of Finance, provides for the elimination in 1996-97 of two federal transfer programs. The first program, commonly called the Canada Assistance Plan or CAP, is the federal government's contribution to the various social assistance programs implemented by the provinces. This contribution amounts to 50 per cent of the social assistance budget in most Canadian provinces.

The second transfer program to be eliminated, commonly called EPF or Established Programs Financing, is the federal government's contribution to the cost of provincial health care and post-secondary education.

Starting in 1996-97, Bill C-76, which derives from the finance minister's budget speech, would replace these two programs with a single payment called the Canada Social Transfer.

There is a snag, however. Before giving the money to the provinces, the federal government would slash the funds historically allocated to the Canada Assistance Plan, health care and post-secondary education. One might say that, in the next few years, the federal government will make cuts to this proposed single payment, this block funding, to the provinces.

It will cut transfers to the provinces by $7 billion over the next three years. I would put it to you, as we have repeatedly said before and as we can never say often enough, that this so-called reform of federal transfers is just a plot to offload onto the provinces deficit problems that the Minister of Finance is unable to solve.

In 1996-97, the cuts in transfers will be distributed among the provinces according to each province's share of transfers for Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan. Under clause 15 in Part V of Bill C-76, Quebec will be deprived of more than $650 million as of next year.

In 1997-98, the Canada Social Transfer-imagine calling it a social transfer-will be distributed among the provinces according to criteria to be negotiated. Although technical, the distribution criteria are crucial for the financial future of the Canadian provinces, and Quebec in particular.

Although my demonstration may appear technical, I urge you, Madam Speaker, to pay attention because it is of paramount importance in helping us understand the smoke screen, the fraud, the sham that is the reform proposed by the Minister of Finance.

If the criteria established to determine how this fund will be distributed among the provinces, if the method of distribution remains the same as it is today, Quebec will have a $1.2 billion shortfall in 1997-98. I put it to you that this is not likely to happen since, according to the Minister of Human Resources Development, the method of distribution may be changed because, for example, Ontario-which elected a large number of Liberal members-demands such changes. Ontario, the wealthiest of Canadian provinces, feels discriminated against under the current distribution criteria because it does not receive a share consistent with its demographic weight within Canada.

In spite of what it may have been saying since the tabling of the budget, the federal government wants to change the allocation criteria of the fund, which was originally targeted for social assistance, health and post-secondary education, and use the demographic weight of the provinces as the primary criterion for allocating these moneys. In other words, Ontario, which has the largest population, would get the largest share, even though it is also the richest province. We keep asking the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister about this issue, and neither one will deny the intention to split the Canada Social Transfer according to the population criterion.

If this is the case, and if our fears are founded, the result would be catastrophic, particularly for Quebec's public finances. Such a system might also be unfair. Indeed, if the population of a province is the criterion used, as suggested by the Minister of Human Resources Development and not denied by the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, Quebec would absorb 41.7 per cent of the total reduction in provincial transfers, in 1997-98.

If this allocation criteria is used, Quebec's shortfall will go up from $1.2 billion, based on the current allocation system, to close to $2 billion in 1997-98. Quebec's public finances would already suffer a loss in 1997-98. The federal government is saying to the Quebec government: it is your problem; we did not have the guts to assume our responsibilities, but you do it. A shortfall of $2 billion is not peanuts.

Two billion dollars. And the government has the nerve to imply that it might not be the case. The members opposite do not deny anything, yet we are told that this might not be the case. Even if the current criterion is maintained, there will be a $1 billion shortfall. If you use the population as the allocation criterion for this federal money, that shortfall climbs up to $2 billion.

Someone will have to do some planning in Quebec. We do not know what awaits us? Why is that? It is because this government lacks the courage to get down to work, to assume its responsibilities and exert tighter control over Canadian public finances, but it is also because it is incredibly hypocritical. This government knows that Quebec is about to launch a referendum campaign and that Quebecers will have to make a crucial decision this year.

Consequently, it does not want to show its true colours. It does not want to show that the federal system is obsolete and going bankrupt. It does not want to show that the federal budget will hurt Quebecers, who will have to pay more and more taxes for fewer and fewer services, and who will witness a crisis in their provincial public finances, thanks to Ottawa. The federal government is hiding all that.

I can tell you that the allocation of federal money based on the population criterion is being formally discussed among top government officials. These senior public servants are saying: do not mention the fact that we told you. Do not mention the fact that this government is hypocritical, that it is waiting for Quebecers to decide on their political and constitutional future before giving them a shock treatment and making them pay and get bad news year after year, since this federal system can no longer survive and can only cause serious damage to Canadian public finances. Where is this said? Nowhere. Why? Because it would be tantamount to telling Quebecers: "Look, this is hurting you and it will continue to hurt you year after year".

This system is taking us nowhere, with the morose political and social climate it will be creating for the next few years, because cosmetic and hypocritical changes like those regarding transfer payments to the provinces will not fix the basic problem of the system. The problem is that it is a big machine, totally outdated and completely dysfunctional, no longer capable of meeting the needs of the 1990s and of the next century. The government will certainly not tell us that before the referendum.

Regarding transfers to the provinces, Bill C-76 also contains a provision that I consider cynical and arrogant, particularly as far as Quebec is concerned. Clause 13, Part V, provides for the maintenance of national health standards and the introduction of new national standards in the areas of social assistance and post-secondary education. Provinces who do not comply will lose their entitlement.

Imagine that, they will be cut off. As if what we get back from the federal government in the form of transfer payments was all Ottawa's to begin with. As if these public funds were a gift from this munificent federal benefactor to the provinces. The fact is that this is taxpayers' money being redistributed to taxpayers in Quebec as elsewhere.

In Quebec, we pay the federal government $30 billion in taxes each year, $30 billion. And they are threatening us? They say that new national standards on social assistance and post-secondary education will be introduced and that provinces who do not comply with these standards-which may be sheer nonsense in relation to the socioeconomic and cultural reality in Quebec-will see their transfers cut off.

Madam Speaker, can you imagine what that could mean to have, in Quebec, education standards imposed by the anglophone majority in Canada? Do you have any idea? Can you imagine how this sounds to Quebecers, with all the historical references we have?

Can you imagine Clyde Wells, in Newfoundland, with his friends and accomplices elected to the federal Parliament, determining indirectly, through Canada-wide standards, the content and goals of the education system in Quebec? Can you believe that we will be entitled to only 25 per cent of the power of decision over post-secondary education matters? Is that what the people of Quebec want? I do not think so.

They should know, however, that this is what this government stands for. We know what the introduction of Canada-wide education standards means. It means that Ontario, Newfoundland, the anglophone majority in Canada will have a say in how our education system, this system through which our identity and culture as Quebecers is perpetuated and passed on from one generation to the next, should operate. That is what is proposed, what this says.

We are told not to worry because, before Canada-wide standards can be implemented, negotiations will be held with the provinces and a consensus will be have to be reached. This is not a guarantee that there will be no Canada-wide standards. Given this government's record, a government that forced the repatriation of the constitution upon us, in spite of the numerous objections raised by Quebec, and the Quebec National Assembly in particular, we can easily imagine that these Canada-wide education and social assistance standards will be implemented.

This measure may not have a financial impact, but I can assure you that its political impact and the impact it will have on Quebec's culture and cultural future are indeniable. That is what is unacceptable to the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois.

It should come as no surprise that this bill contains a provision that thumbs its nose at historic facts and ignores the need for Quebecers to control 100 per cent of their future, their culture and what they are. It should come as no surprise that this political bludgeon should materialize in a bill on public finances.

I am certainly not surprised, and this week I had the same reaction when a motion was tabled in the House on Quebec's representation in the House of Commons, asking for guarantees-as was the case in the draft constitutional agreements that followed the demise of Meech Lake-that Quebec would have

25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, and I even saw Quebec members of the Liberal Party vote against the motion.

I saw the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, the newly elected member, the other guy's brother, rise in the House to say he was against guaranteeing 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. I saw the Minister of Finance and member for LaSalle-Émard rise in the House to vote against guaranteeing Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. This is a man who represents Quebecers, Madam Speaker, and he rose in the House to vote against this guarantee of representation in the House of Commons.

So it should come as no surprise to see one of the main pillars of the preservation and renewal of Quebec culture, our education system, bludgeoned in this way, and I am referring to the possibility that national standards will be imposed and that decisions will be made elsewhere on the orientation, content and objectives of our education. I am no longer surprised. Nothing would surprise me in this Parliament. Nothing would surprise me, coming from this Liberal government and its few distinguished members from Quebec.

It is a disgrace. I felt sick to my stomach this week when I saw that. I had the same feeling I did last week, when I saw a member from Manitoba speak out against revoking the conviction of Louis Riel for high treason. This was hard to stomach, especially from a member for the same riding Louis Riel represented before he was hanged for high treason. What is going on here? I knew, and we could tell from the outside before we were elected, and now we can see it firsthand. What is happening here is a disgrace, a patent denial of our history, and again, this refusal to make amends for certain historic facts that are a disgrace to Canada and Canadian federalism.

They tell us: Do not worry, national standards will be negotiable. It does not say anywhere in this bill that national standards will require unanimity or a consensus among the provinces. The federal government reserves the right to apply them whether the provinces agree or not. Here, the old guard is up to its old tricks: the current Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Human Resources Development were all there in the previous Liberal government. They are up to their old tricks of wanting to tell the provinces what to do and arrogantly imposing a centralist vision on all Canadian provinces, including one province they feel is just like the others, and they say that right here, and I am of course referring to Quebec.

It is the same gang that misled us in 1980, when those federalist members, now ministers, were out on the hustings. One is now Prime Minister. They went around saying: If you vote no in the referendum on sovereignty, it will be a yes to renewed federalism, yes to decentralization and yes to flexibility. A year later, they literally shunted Quebec and the Premier of Quebec and Quebec's aspirations aside, saying: We have an agreement, the federal government has an agreement with the other Canadian provinces, and Quebec will have to go along. That is happening now with a very ordinary bill to implement certain provisions of the budget of the Minister of Finance.

The old gang, the one responsible for the show of force in 1981, patriated the constitution. We have to keep saying this. We tend to forget what happened. Despite the near unanimous decision of the Quebec legislature, the Liberal government of the time patriated the constitution. This was the government of Mr. Trudeau, who is no longer a member here, and his acolytes-the present Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Human Resources Development and others. The Liberal government, at that time, also ensured Quebec's exclusion. I tell you I see the hand of the old gang in this bill. This is the gang that is telling Quebec: "Forget your nationalist and sovereignist claims, that is all over, you are going to be included. You will have to bend and we will make you bend", to the delight of the Reform Party members.

The government's objective with regard to transfer payments to the provinces is clear. The government presented things clearly too. It wanted to avoid having to make difficult decisions this year, because, with the Quebec referendum, it would mean revealing the failure of the federal system. Furthermore, it wanted to try and minimize the impact of cuts in social assistance, post-secondary education and health care transfers to the provinces. These cuts are serious.

The government, and its Minister of Finance, is an old hand at deception, illusion and hypocrisy. It managed to leave the impression that these cuts would hurt neither Canadians nor Quebecers. It managed to do what it wanted. Things this year do not look too bad, really. However, for next year, it covered up the fact that everyone is going to have to pay and that it is going to be tough and will keep on being tough. It will keep on being tough until 2050, because the system is outdated and does not work anymore.

I will tell you that the shortfall the Quebec government will be facing in the next few years is equivalent to the operating budgets of all of the hospitals in Quebec, except those in Montreal and Quebec City. This is a considerable amount. The money to operate all the hospitals in the outlying regions, that is what the federal government is cutting from its transfers to the provinces.

In other words, in this budget, with regard to transfers, the federal government is making Quebec and the other provinces shoulder the offensive part of the reform, which the Minister of Human Resources Development was unable to complete, for the moment, and which the Prime Minister wanted to keep under

wraps this year for strictly political reasons. I tell you-this is unacceptable.

In essence, the approach, the thinking, by the Minister of Human Resources Development is more or less as follows. I would not be stating it too directly by putting it this way: social programs and unemployment insurance have to be cut in order to stimulate job creation and growth. Imagine, Madam Speaker, hitting the unemployed and the poorest people in our society in an effort to stimulate growth and boost job creation. What great thinking. It sounds like Liberal thinking to me. It sounds like Liberal ideals.

I tell you, as is often said: this Liberal government is the most Conservative government Canada has ever had. Its thinking runs totally counter to Liberal thinking.

And I repeat, it is too important not to, that we have noticed over our 16 months here that the government believes it should cut social programs and unemployment insurance in order to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Even the ultraconservatives of the last century were less direct, less tough than that.

[An hon. member]

Less hypocritical.

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

You are right, dear colleague, most importantly, they were less hypocritical. But why should we be surprised? Earlier, we talked about the failings of the old Liberal gang coming out again in the national standards issue and the push to bring Quebec into line. And other old flaws are surfacing too. Relatively new old flaws, however, because they only go back a few months. They only seem old because we were so shocked by what they said that it seems that they have always been saying it.

Why should we be shocked by the ultraconservative philosophy of creating jobs and kick starting the economy at the expense of the unemployed and the most needy, when a few months ago the Prime Minister himself said to a group of influential Toronto business people, a bastion of federalism and of extreme right-wingers, maybe even friends of the Reform movement, that the unemployed all sat around and drank beer? The leader of the country and of the government, the Prime Minister himself, said that the unemployed sit around and drink beer.

In light of this, what is so surprising about creating jobs and kick starting the economy at the expense of the unemployed when the philosophy of the country's number one man, the head of the government, is not to help the unemployed, not to create jobs, but to call them all beer drinkers?

How do you expect the government to take a different approach in Bill C-76, which by the way, basically says the same thing as the Prime Minister except in more diplomatic and eloquent language, when the Prime Minister's opinion is that the unemployed, the people displaced by the structural changes in the workforce, all just sit around and drink beer?

Why should it come as a surprise that the Minister of Transport was cynical and arrogant during the latest dispute, when he once again used bully tactics, harshness instead of the civilized options proposed by the official opposition? Once again, in front of a large audience, he said things that were so revolting that union representatives walked out on him. He said how do you expect railway workers with only a grade nine education to understand what is going on? Just imagine the arrogance and cynicism it takes to say such a thing, that railway workers cannot possibly understand what is going on because they only have a grade nine education, and for the Prime Minister to say that the unemployed like to sit around and drink beer.

In your opinion, what kind of bill, what kind of vision of social and economic development for Canada can come from people with that kind of attitude? Such things as cutting the unemployment insurance fund, cutting everywhere. That is the Prime Minister's vision, which the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour both share.

This is not surprising, here I digress from the bill, but it is not surprising because last year, the Minister of Finance took $600 million from the unemployment insurance fund without batting an eye, this year, he will take $2.4 billion and next year, $4 billion. That is their full employment policy, the full employment of all means available to them to take from the unemployed all means at their disposal to replace a lost job with one of equal quality and to participate in the growth of the economy which has been stunted since the 1990 recession.

Overall, the federal government will cut transfer payments to the Government of Quebec by 32 per cent between 1994-95 and 1997-98. That is a lot. A $2 billion shortfall to be made up has been mentioned, but 32 per cent is enormous.

I repeat, this is no gift. The federal government is not giving us a gift. It is not a gift from any other source either. It is money from Quebec and Canadian taxpayers. The government is telling us that it is making cuts, but keeping certain other transfers. It cuts 32 per cent of our own money, which it redistributes in the areas of health care, post-secondary education and social assistance and we have absolutely no say in the matter.

No one at the prebudget discussions, and I attended all of them along with my hon. colleague for Témiscamingue, some of my colleagues went several times, no one told the Minister of Finance to do what he did. No one ever told the Minister of Finance he should avoid his responsibilities and offload his

problems onto the provinces. No one told the Minister of Finance he should blithely cut unemployment insurance.

At no time, during the hearings held across Canada, from east to west, in the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces and British Columbia, at no time did anyone say that education should be cut. On the contrary. Education is fundamental to the success of nations today. No one ever said it should be cut.

No one ever said there should be cuts in health care either. Canadian nationalism is built in part on social programs, and the health care system in particular. Canadians are proud of this system. No one called for cuts to this system. What we got, however, was a 32 per cent cut over the coming years. I can count on my fingers the number of people who advocated this route to the Minister of Finance. I could even name them for you, but it would be a waste of time, and I have other things to say.

I will name one, Thomas d'Aquino, the head of the Business Council on National Issues. He told the government to slash everywhere, everywhere that is, but in subsidies to Canadian business. He was the only representative of business to tell the government not to cut the $3.8 billion paid to business or to suggest it be done gradually to avoid having a harmful effect. He never said, however, that a $7 billion cut in the unemployment insurance fund would hurt. It was not a major concern for him.

Some business people suggested cutting transfer payments, but these are not the people the government has to serve if it really cares about meeting the needs of the citizens of Quebec and of Canada. It should be working for ordinary people in Quebec. But their hands are tied when they form the government and come against those who finance the federal party. That cannot be stressed enough.

When a bank contributes $45,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada, should we be surprised to later learn that the bank, and all banks in fact, do not pay their share of taxes? Why should we be surprised to see that they only have to pay a temporary tax, staggered over two years, which will bring in a paltry $100 million, even though banks made $5 billion in profits this year? That is what happens when there is no policy on the public financing of parties. That, and other things.

Regarding this 32 per cent cut in transfer payments over the next few years, I would say that although Canadian federalism was at one time profitable for Quebec, we all agree on this point-if we go back 30 years, as did one study recently, or 20 years-so, yes, it was profitable at one point, but it no longer is. They should stop trying to fool us.

Even André Raynauld, a good Liberal economist, whom I regard as very competent, a former Liberal minister at that, said when he appeared before the Bélanger-Campeau Commission in 1990, that from 1988 on, Quebecers had not been getting more from the federal government than they were putting in. That was in 1988, but since then the difference between the $30 billion in income taxes and other taxes that Quebecers pay into federal coffers and what the federal government gives in return has grown.

We are in the red. Look at it from any angle you wish, go ahead and crunch the numbers and try to make it look as if the deficit were equally shared by all the provinces. Between you and me, it is an exercise in futility. We all know that the right calculations, the true credit and debit entries show that Quebec gets less from the federal government than it contributes. And this deficit will only grow over the next few years.

And the reason is precisely because it represents 32 per cent of federal transfers to the provinces, including Quebec, 32 per cent less in federal transfers. In the case of one of the items, we were told that we were receiving more than we were paying. That was before this year, with reference to the unemployment insurance fund. But, this year, the fund will no longer have a surplus. This means that the contributions of employees and employers in Quebec will also correspond pretty much to what unemployed Quebecers receive. Even if the trend continues, there will be a deficit of 188 million dollars with respect to what employees and employers in Quebec are paying and what Quebecers will be receiving in unemployment insurance.

Therefore, not only is there no longer a surplus, but there are cuts of 32 per cent in federal transfers, and, as is always forgotten, that will be on top of this deficit. Given this deficit, the federal government's expenditure items need to be looked at carefully. We have always said, and it is even truer today, that the most important expenditure items are those which stimulate the economy, such as research and development, purchases of goods and services, expenditures in the agricultural and transportation sectors, and so forth, the expenditures that contribute to prosperity, economic growth and job creation. But in Quebec, these growth promoting expenditures are a concern. For 25 years now, Quebec has indeed had a surplus, but a surplus in terms of unemployment and social assistance benefits. And this surplus situation is attributable in part to structural problems in the Canadian economy. The problem was also that this system did not meet the needs of Quebecers in need.

And so we were told: "There are problems, but do not complain because you are getting larger transfer payments". This is no longer the case. Now, there is no longer any attempt to provide any relief for the increasing unemployment and poverty in Quebec, and, in addition, the transfers necessary for the

economy are not available. Hardly an advertisement for federalism. We have seen better elsewhere.

If at least-for there is nothing in the budget that I find acceptable as far as transfers are concerned-there had been some sign of a real, not just a cosmetic, improvement. Even the financial community has issued a warning, saying that, in the first year, the government's rating was being maintained, but that it was being watched. But no real improvements were made. The big federal machine, the heartless federal machine that is cut off from the needs of Quebecers and Canadians, rolls on.

No departments are eliminated. There is a transfer of expenditures, of deficit responsibilities to the provinces. Because the minister lacked the courage to assume his own responsibilities, he is letting the provinces do the dirty work, but the system as such remains unchanged. The big, inefficient system is still in place. They will say that we disagreed with them. Not only did they not do anything, not only did they not fix anything, but they hurt the provinces, the most disadvantaged, the unemployed, the people on social assistance, and they are about to do the same to seniors.

I would have liked to address the issues of transportation, labour relations and the disgraceful layoffs in the public service. Again, we never said that we should not cut fat throughout the entire system. This has always been our policy, except that there is a way to do it while showing respect for the workers. It is easy to see, however, that this government has no respect for anything. It does not even comply with the Canada Labour Code. It tried to silence us in last week's debate on the rail dispute and refused an opposition motion for more civilized labour relations and a return to work with the possibility of collective bargaining.

If only for the issue of transfers, I would like to propose a motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Châteauguay:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:

"Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."

In other words, the Minister of Finance should go back to the drawing board and do his homework, because he acted in a disgraceful way, even in trying to meet his goals some time in 1997-98.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

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

Madam Speaker, I tabled the motion, you read it and asked if we approved the motion. Some hon. members shouted "yes", others "no". I do not understand what happened after that. Can you tell me?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I asked if it was the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. The answer was "no". So, we are resuming debate.

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

No, Madam Speaker. We answered "yes".

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I will get back to you on this matter in two or three minutes, after taking advice. You may be right, but I would like to wait for further advice.

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

Normally, Madam Speaker, one would expect the Chair, after putting the question to the House as a whole, to ask us to vote "yea" or "nay" and then, if you declared that the motion was negatived, we would have stood up. But we were waiting for this cue to stand up.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I will get back to you in a moment.

Order. Resuming debate on the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, pursuant to Standing Order 67(1).

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

Madam Speaker, it saddens me that we have to debate Bill C-76 today. This bill implements laws allowing the government to put Canadians another $32.7 billion in debt. It saddens me even more that the government feels this is acceptable. It is not acceptable. It is a deplorable act of financial incompetence of a weak kneed government.

The government borrowed a few pages from Reform's taxpayers budget in order to cut spending in some areas. The Liberals only did half the job, however. They would have been much better off following all of our suggestions, not just a few select pages. A lot of the rhetoric was right, but a lot of the numbers were wrong.

Because of the Liberal's failure to make all of the necessary cuts to get Canada back on track to financial good health, we continue on the debt treadmill. The budget is the minimum possible budget. The Liberals cut only enough to compensate for the additional interest charges their over spending has created.

The net effect of the bill which implements a budget that creates a greater indebtedness is before us, and deficit financing continues into the future. The only reason the deficit goes down at all is that the Liberals plan to take over $10 million more out of the economy.

Even if everything goes their way, they will still have a $25 billion deficit which is unacceptably high. The finance minister and the Liberals do not get it. The Minister of Human Resources Development seems to think the role of government is to continually come up with new and exciting forms of taxation. The Minister of Finance hesitated to rule out the Tobin tax or any other new taxes. This is the best way to bankrupt a country. The government simply cannot solve the nation's financial mess by taking more out of the economy through taxation.

No nation has ever spent and borrowed its way to prosperity. Quite the opposite is true. Many great nations and empires have fallen because of the growth of government and taxation. Perhaps the most prominent among them is the Roman Empire. When faced with the oncoming barbarian hordes, many of the outlying states decided to throw their lot in with the barbarians, saying: "Better the barbarians we do not know than the taxes we do know".

Not only some in Quebec but some folks in the western provinces are using the huge debt and growing taxation as a platform for seceding from the federation. For the sake of national unity we need to eliminate the deficit quickly.

As well, the only way the Liberals will ever be in a position to bring taxes down is to completely eliminate the deficit. We know they will not do it by 1996-97. If the Liberals have a plan to do it after that, they will not share it with Canadians. This is bad news for the Deputy Prime Minister. She made quite a performance out of announcing that she would resign if the GST were not gone within a year. They cannot bring down taxes while running a deficit, so I suppose her career is over. That is a shame. I am sure the House will miss her shrill voice and her partisan, illogical grandstanding. She has looked after herself, however, with a generous two tiered MP pension plan.

As well as being a bad budget for the Liberal Party it is also a very bad budget for Canada. That is the important matter I want to deal with this morning. Apart from the negative impact of continued debt and taxation, the budget creates some inequities in the country.

The cuts made by the government have a very lopsided impact. For instance, the agricultural industry in western Canada is hit harder than any other industry. The loss of the Crow benefit will have obvious long term effects on the industry. The gasoline tax will hit farmers particularly hard. Farming is a very fuel intensive industry and travel is a necessity in rural areas. The government has increased the input costs for farmers, increased the cost of getting the product to market and offered no hope of tax reduction in the future.

Farmers realize many of these things are necessary in order to save the country from financial collapse. What angers farmers is that so many others got off so easily in the budget. If everyone had been hit as hard as agriculture, the budget would have been balanced. We would have had something to show for our effort.

For years farmers have been saying they do not mind doing their share and losing the rail subsidy if other subsidized agencies do the same. Farmers have been hit with a 30 per cent loss to their safety net programs and the entire loss of their transportation subsidy in the west.

At the same time the CBC only gets kicked with a 4 per cent reduction in its subsidy. Does the government feel that a 4 per cent cut to the CBC is comparable to a 100 per cent cut to grain transportation?

The removal of the Crow subsidy appears to have been a last minute decision. It appears pressure was put on the minister of agriculture to find more savings and so he axed the Crow without thinking through and planning for the implications. The minister of agriculture calls it a buy out, but the value of the WGTA is much higher. Some suggest it is more like $7 billion rather than $1.6 billion. He should have more accurately called a Crow buy off at fire sale prices because the federal purse has been mismanaged for so many years by Liberal and Conservative finance ministers they simply do not have the money for a real buy out.

For years the Reform Party has been calling for a long term plan for moving the agriculture industry toward a market system. The government has had a year and a half in office to plan for this transition but it has done nothing.

The government waited until the last moment and then sprung this crow buy off on farmers with almost no warning and no plan for implementation. To date the minister of agriculture has not been clear on who the buy out money is to be paid to, how the amount will be calculated, what the tax implications of the pay out will be for farmers or any of the other dozens of questions that my constituents and farmers across the west are asking.

I am starting to believe the minister's offices cannot answer these questions because it has not even thought through many of these problems yet. The elimination of the Crow benefit has been poorly designed, very ad hoc and in a desperate manner. The minister of agriculture campaigned on the red book promises to develop a long term plan for agriculture.

I want to take a few minutes to look at what the Liberal red book says and what the minister of agriculture has been saying to Canadians. In the red book the Liberal government promised to develop an overall policy for the agri-food sector which will build upon three component strategies: developing new domestic and international markets for Canadian food products; reducing input costs to make farming more viable; introducing a new whole farm income stabilization program that assists farm families to secure their long term future.

The one that jumped off the page when I looked at it was reducing input costs to producers. The government is increasing the input costs to producers. It is doing it through taxation on fuel and by its continued borrowing of money that has to be paid back through both interest charges and principal eventually; farmers have to play a role as they are generators of the GNP.

The red book went on to say that it would preserve policies and programs such as supply management. As soon as the Liberals were elected they were forced to change the nature of supply management as a result of the GATT agreement. Reformers knew this was coming. The whole world knew it was coming. The only people who seemed to think it was not coming were the Liberals. They campaigned they would preserve supply management in the state it was in before the GATT agreement. That was absolutely misinformation to give to the Canadian public. It is unfortunate they would perpetuate this type of propaganda in their election campaign.

They also said they would craft stabilization programs to minimize the impact of market price fluctuations; government support in developing new commercial markets for commodities in which the agri-food industry has a competitive advantage; sustainable agriculture practices to maintain and improve the quality of land and water; emission oriented research to increase productivity and create quality products to meet market demand.

They are very nice words but where is the beef? We have not seen anything yet from the minister of agriculture and there is certainly nothing in the implementation of the budget that would indicate that any of these promises in the red book are about to be fulfilled.

In the first throne speech agriculture was not even mentioned. It certainly does not seem to be a very high priority with the government.

Actions speak louder than words. Let us look at the record of the agriculture minister and the government since they came into power. As far as agriculture was concerned, 1994 was a year of indecision and inaction. It will be remembered by most as a year comprised of consultation and study groups that were not intended to be genuine but rather as a way of avoiding making tough decisions.

Issues that were pursued through legislation in the House were rather insignificant and inconsequential such as Bill C-49, the department of agriculture reorganization bill, Bill C-50, the Canadian Wheat Board research check-off act, Bill C-51, amendments to the Canada Grains Act, certainly not of any consequence to the industry.

Outside the House of Commons the minister of agriculture was heavily criticized over his handling of the durum wheat dispute with the Americans. After months of posturing the federal government caved into the American demands that Canada place self-imposed caps on shipments of wheat to the United States.

The minister also reneged on the promise he and the Prime Minister made during the election campaign. They made the promise they would hold a referendum on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board and barley marketing. They did not carry out that promise.

For 1995 the minister of agriculture is again making some promises and we will be watching to see whether he carries them out. He said in the Western Producer of January 5, 1995: ``It is a year when we can really see the turning of a corner on a lot of issues. I think 1995 will be a very active and vigorous year in which a number of these issues will come to a head and be dealt with''.

We are well into 1995 and to this point we have not seen very much positive by way of performance by the minister of agriculture. There certainly does not seem to be much in the budget to get excited about.

The minister of agriculture in 1994 delayed introducing legislation that would end the backtracking of grain from Thunder Bay to the west. It is a very costly and terrible practice which he had the power to correct. He said he would but then delayed the implementation of the act which would correct this problem and cost producers more money.

From the Western Producer on November 17, 1994 the minister said: ``I cannot tell you what the amount of the Crow benefit will be. I have to tell you in all candour and honesty that I will expect the number to be somewhat lower and that is a product of the harsh fiscal reality we are living in at this time''.

The minister was still giving farmers some indication the Crow benefit would be with us. When this budget came down, which we are implementing through Bill C-56, the Crow was gone. Why was the minister indicating payment would only be reduced when it would be eliminated? These were not the signals farmers needed to make decisions over the winter months as to how they would operate their farms in the current crop year.

Another very interesting issue important to agriculture producers goes far beyond the agricultural industry; it affects all exporters, transportation of our product to port.

I again quote the minister of agriculture from the Western Producer , March 10, 1994: I do not want to jump to conclusions about what is needed''. This was with regard to labour problems that plague the grain transportation system:I do not want to jump to conclusions about what is needed but I merely observe that it is important that all the players work on a way to

avoid this ever happening again in the future. The situation where losses occur for the grain industry because of a dispute outside their control is not acceptable".

That was a little over a year ago. He said it was not acceptable, that we had to deal with the west coast port labour dispute and lockout. As we very well know, we had to deal with the issue of the west coast ports again and the rail strike.

When the minister said it was not acceptable, the problem is he realized it was not acceptable but he did not do anything about it. What is really sad is that he had the opportunity to do something about it. He could have supported the hon. member for Lethbridge when he introduced Bill C-262 in the House. It was a votable motion. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could have supported it. It would have legislated final offer arbitration for essential services such as the transport of grain to tidewater from the farm gate. The minister of agriculture recognized the problem was unacceptable. He had the opportunity to do something about it and he failed to do it. That is unacceptable to western grain producers.

With respect to research for agriculture, the minister of agriculture said it is fundamental and needs to rank very high in what we do in the future:

I have not yet had the tough conversation I expect I will have at some point with the Minister of Finance. If you are inconsistent in your research objectives or your research funding you can do a lot of long term damage. I would like to be able to reallocate resources within the department of agriculture should that prove necessary, to make sure that vital things like research do not get fundamentally undermined in the process of reworking the budget. I actually would like to see the situation (funding levels) improved. That may be a bit ambitious in the short run in the face of necessary restraint but the fundamental objective for the long term has to be to increase research and development.

That is from the Western Producer of January 27, 1994.

In the budget the minister did not follow through on his commitment. The way I would interpret it is that he was saying: "I do not think I can increase funding for research. I will going have a tough conversation with the Minister of Finance. Certainly we are not going to reduce it".

What the finance minister did in the last budget was cut funding to agriculture research. He is asking the private sector to make up the difference. Perhaps that is a fair request. We could debate that in the House. The problem is the minister of agriculture said something else. He did not follow through on what he said. Not only did he cut funding for research, he also cut seven research station facilities across Canada.

He also said research for the smaller sectors of agriculture would be those hardest hit. What if that had been our policy in the past? There would have been no research to develop canola, one of the greatest assets in the western regions. Perhaps we would not have developed the lentil market we have had we followed the agriculture minister's policy. Perhaps because of his policy we will not develop the herbs and spices market to its full potential. That is a step which would harm diversification rather than assist it. The minister said he is committed to diversification and a broadening of the scope of agriculture. The agriculture minister's actions and his words do not line up.

I would like to return to the situation of supply management. What has happened is very unfortunate. Specifically on on article XI the minister of agriculture stated:

It is no secret that there is not a great deal of support for our position among the other GATT members. But we will continue to fight for that position. Our bottom line is that we will do what we have to to protect supply management.

It was obvious to the whole world, surely it was obvious to the finance minister, that Canada stood alone in its defence of article XI and that there were to be changes. The agriculture minister should have done the responsible thing and communicated the reality of the situation to agriculture producers. He should have done that before the election rather than waiting until after the election. Now their support is so slim they can do nothing whatsoever and they will have to go along with the changes proposed in the GATT agreement in 1994.

With respect to international trade, in campaign ads in his attempt to win the Liberal nomination in Regina-Wascana in 1988, his material contained the following:

This election will be the most crucial in our lifetime. It demands strong, decisive action to stop the bad Mulroney trade deal which threatens our future and our very way of life.

That is from the Leader-Post of September 15, 1988.

As the whole world knows, we need trade agreements. More of them are being put in place every day. We also know the Liberal government, including the minister of agriculture, campaigned against the free trade agreement. However, once the Liberals got into power they did nothing to change it although they said they would change it. They said they had wonderful changes planned for the North American free trade agreement. Once they got into power they made no changes whatsoever. Again, what the agriculture minister said and his actions were two separate things.

During the 1988 free trade debate the agriculture minister said that the current Minister of Finance and he stood strongly against the trade deal. He said it was not a fair deal but a sellout of our nation. How could it be a sellout in 1988 and then supported in 1993?

There are some real positive aspects to the North American free trade deal. Certainly it is not the perfect deal. Maybe there is no such perfect deal. The problem is that the minister of agriculture and the Liberal government flip-flopped on the issue. They did not keep their word. It is very unfortunate that we do not know what direction we can take from the words of the agriculture minister and his colleagues.

I would like to read one more quote with regard to the durum wheat dispute last year with the Americans. The agriculture minister said:

Those on the other side of the border who might think that action can be taken against Canada with no consequences, should think again. There will be consequences-I want our American trading partners to know that Canada is not going to roll over and play dead-For every action there will be a reaction.

That is a quote from the Ottawa Citizen dated March 30, 1994.

In the newspaper The Western Producer the minister said: ``No deal is better than a bad deal''. That was April 16, 1994. As we know, the minister of agriculture caved into the Americans and agreed to export restrictions of 50 per cent of previous exports to the United States of Canadian durum. Again that is very regrettable. Again the minister of agriculture did not match his actions and his words.

I want to read one final quote regarding the agriculture minister because the Canadian people need to be aware of this. It is with regard to deficit reduction. As members know, for some time Reformers have called for the government to come to grips with the deficit. I have a very interesting statement made by the minister of agriculture in the past with regard to the deficit. He said it is more than irresponsible, it is immoral. Those are the words of the agriculture minister.

I agree with the minister of agriculture. It is immoral to pass on the deficit and debt to future generations. However, the agriculture minister is part of a government that is adding billions of dollars to the debt by annual deficits, last year, in the current budget and in the one that is projected for next year.

I have three primary criticisms of the Crow buy-off in the Liberal budget. I would like to put those on record. First, the government's action on the Crow benefit comes as too little, too late. Three years ago Reformers suggested that the funds for the transportation subsidy for grain should be rolled over into a trade distortion adjustment program that would protect producers from damage received as a result of the grain trade wars. We did not hide this information. It was very public. The Liberals had access to it when they came to power. They determined that they would stick with the old Crow until they could bargain it away in the GATT negotiations when they had no cards left to play in the deck.

Second, the government should have designed and introduced a transition plan prior to the discontinuance of the Crow benefit, not a year or more after it ends. It seems incomprehensible that the federal government would end the Crow benefit on July 31, 1995 and then say it is going to introduce a transition program in the 1996-97 fiscal year. That is really putting the cart before the horse. The Liberals are going to eliminate something and then not have any idea what they are going to put in place for transition. I cannot fathom that thinking.

Third, the government is justified in reducing support to agriculture if, and only if, it reduces spending in other departments and programs by equal amounts so that farmers do not carry an unfair portion of the pain caused by fiscal restraint. This has not happened. In many cases, which I will mention in a few minutes, the federal government has actually increased spending. This is unacceptable. The minister of agriculture has obviously not considered those most vulnerable to the loss of the Crow, namely young renters. I have had many calls from young farmers in my constituency who are renters. They will lose at both ends with the Crow buy-off. First, they are not recipients of the $1.6 billion buyout. Second, they will bear the cost for the additional transportation with the ending of the subsidy. This is truly regrettable because often these young farmers have a pretty tight cash flow situation and low equity. They are not able to go to their banker and command the same infusion of cash for their operations. It is very difficult for them to plan to farm again this year.

I want to really stress this. I am not complaining about the cuts in support to agriculture. I will say it again so that it is clear to the House. I am not complaining about the cuts in support to agriculture. Probably Reform would have done some of the cutting differently and I think better.

I want to point an accusing finger at the government because it did not level with Canadians about the way cuts would be made. It did not level with farmers about how cuts would be made. Particularly it did not level with the western grain farmers about how cuts would be made. It did not level with supply management about how it would deal with that industry. It failed to fulfil its promises. That is truly regrettable.

While farmers took a triple whammy in the budget, the government continues to subsidize special interest and advocacy groups such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and others. It continues to provide huge tax breaks and subsidies to big business and doles out millions to western economic diversification and other regional agencies. The Lib-

erals are still planning on sending billions of dollars overseas while cutting programs for Canadians.

I thought it would be interesting to go through the budget and the estimates for this year and take a look at the areas where spending is actually rising. The result is quite interesting and I would like to share my findings with the House.

Spending by the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will rise by about 70 per cent from last year to $17.5 million. The Canadian Museum of Civilization will receive 22 per cent more, bringing the total to $46.2 million. The Canadian Museum of Nature's budget goes up by 33 per cent to almost $25 million. The National Gallery of Canada gets a 23 per cent increase to bring its budget to over $33 million. The list continues. The National Museum of Science and Technology gets a 25 per cent increase to $20.5 million. The Status of Women Co-ordinator gets a-wow-322 per cent increase to $15.2 million. I know that farm women do not support that increase to the budget for the status of women.

The increase to the Immigration and Refugee Board, $11 million. Perhaps it is to install more hidden cameras. This is very interesting. The finance department gets a $9.7 billion increase. With a bigger deficit and a bigger debt comes a bigger finance department. That is a real reward for incompetence.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal receives a $500 million increase. The Federal Office Regional Development Quebec, $34 million; the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, $38,000; the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, $121 million. Maybe he will be able to buy some more extravagant furniture with the increase in his budget.

National Health and Welfare is receiving an extra $321 million. It is spending more money while services are eroding. The Medical Research Council, $2 million; Statistics Canada, $5.5 million; the justice department $500,000; Indian and northern affairs, $285 million. That one year's increase is equal to a six-year Crow transition fund. It is just appalling. The Federal Judicial Affairs Commissioner, $1 million; the Tax Court of Canada, $180,000; the Atomic Energy Control Board, $165,000.

The Senate of Canada, $1,000. It actually gets an increase and its members do not even show up for work most days. The Privy Council Department, $4.5 million. More money for the people who brought us the Fowler-Doyle affair. The Canadian Intergovernmental Secretariat, $250,000; the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy is a new agency and its entire $3.3 million budget is new spending. The security intelligence review committee, $6,000, more money to reward recent poor performance; the correctional service, $50 million; the RCMP, $10 million; the RCMP external review committee, $91,000; civil aviation tribunal, an extra $15,000; Treasury Board Secretariat, an extra $32 million; western economic diversification, an extra $26 million.

All of this is new spending. Those departments and agencies are all having their budgets increased while farmers are taking it in the neck. It is not fair.

Overall government spending has moved up since the Liberals took power. In 1993-94 total government spending was $158 billion. The Liberals came to power. In 1994-95 it was $160.3 billion. That is an increase. This year in the budget it is projected to be $163.5 billion. Spending is increasing. It is not decreasing despite some of the spin doctor campaigns that the Liberals are promoting to say that they are reducing the deficit and cutting spending. They are actually increasing spending.

The government has sent a clear message that it feels special interest groups, business subsidies, regional patronage handouts and foreign aid are all more important than the agriculture sector. The budget is nothing more than a raid on the income of hard working Canadians so the Liberals can continue to fund their pet projects with $1 billion of additional tax revenues to help them along.

The budget is a failure. It fails to get Canada off the debt treadmill. It fails to demonstrate that we can avoid hitting the wall. We are already seeing the ill effects of the budget in the value of our currency. The U.S. dollar is plummeting versus other international currencies and our dollar is losing ground to the Americans. The Canadian peso, as it is becoming known, is at constant risk and interest rates may rise because of the weak budget.

It is interesting that the minister of public works is planning to issue a $2 coin. It indicates how little value our currency holds. Soon a coke machine will require a two buck piece for a can of the real thing. The coke will know doubt be more real than the money we use to buy it.

In an effort to prevent a rout on the Canadian dollar and a decrease in our credit rating, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other members of cabinet have been trotting around the world trying to convince our creditors that we are still a good credit risk. The very fact that our status is in question demonstrates the seriousness of the problem caused by the government and its Liberal and Conservative predecessors.

The best way to sum up the budget is to read a poem written by Dr. John Robson. The poem is based on Casey at the Bat by Earnest Lawrence Thayer. Dr. Robson apologizes to Mr. Thayer for sullying his poem by including Liberals in it. I would like to read the poem to the House. It is called Marty at the Bat :

It looked extremely rocky for Canadians that day; The deficit was growing; how short time was none could say. So when Wilson died on OAS, and The Maz did the same, A pallor wreathed the features of the patrons of the game. A straggling few then went off shore, leaving there the rest, With that hope which springs eternal within the human breast. For they thought: "If only Marty could get a whack at that," They'd put even money now, with Marty at the bat. But the PM controlled Marty, and Coppsie always sounding off, And the former was a pudd'n, the latter face down in the trough. So on that stricken multitude a deathlike silence sat; For there seemed but little chance of Marty's getting to the bat. But the PM gave him Finance, to the wonderment of all. And the much-despised Coppsie saw her influence free-fall. And when the dust had lifted, and they saw what had occurred, The HRD man had folded, and Marty could ride herd. Then from the gladdened multitude went up a joyous yell- It rumbled in the mountaintops, it rattled in the dell; It struck upon the hillside and rebounded on the flat; For Marty, mighty Marty, was advancing to the bat. There was ease in Marty's manner as he stepped into his place, There was pride in Marty's bearing and a smile on Marty's face; And when responding to the cheers he lightly doffed his hat, No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Marty at the bat. Ten million eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with ink, Five million tongues applauded when he sat him down to think; Then when the writhing Moody's ground the rating in its hip, Defiance glanced in Marty's eye, a sneer curled Marty's lip. And now the budget '94 came hurtling through the air, And Marty stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there. Close by the sturdy batsman the deficit unheeded sped; No need for haste,' said Marty;Strike one,' the markets said. From the benches, black with Lib'rals, went up a muffled roar, Like the beating of vast spending when the tax can rise no more. Kill him! Kill the lender!' shouted someone in the stand; And they might well have defaulted, had not Marty raised his hand. With a smile of Liberal charity, great Marty's visage shone; He stilled the rising tumult, he made the game go on; He produced no mini-budget, and once more tax dollars flew; But Marty still ignored it, and the markets said,Strike two.' Fraud!' cried the maddened Lib'rals, and the echo answered,Fraud!' But one scornful look from Marty and the audience was awed; They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain, And they knew their Marty wouldn't let his chance go by again. The sneer is gone from Marty's lips, his spreadsheet's clenched in hate, He swears he'll cut most drastically, before it is too late; It comes to budget time again, the deficit still high; And Marty swings beneath the ball, and hits an infield fly. Oh, somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright, I think it's in Reformland where Presto has got it right; And somewhere children laugh, and adults raise a festive cup, But there is no joy in Canada-Paul Martin has popped up.

This budget implemented by Bill C-76 raises taxes. It increases the debt by over $100 billion over three years. It offers no hope of tax relief to Canadians. No member of this House who has any concern for the welfare of their children and grandchildren can support a bill that enables the government to increase the debt load and therefore the future tax load we are leaving for them.

I call on all members of this House to join with my Reform colleagues and me to defeat this budget implementation act. Canada and Canadians deserve better.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe.

It might have been quicker if the hon. member had read War and Peace into the record, but if brevity is the soul of wit, then the poem was neither brief nor perhaps particularly witty.

It has been said by another poet that nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. That poet was speaking to attitude. We just had a very good portrayal by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster of the Reform Party attitude about the budget.

He was very effective as a prophet of doom and gloom in speaking about the budget. Quite frankly, as most Canadians know and indeed as the previous speaker well knows, perhaps to his chagrin, the budget is being very well received by Canadians. Although every decision perhaps is not what Canadians would have liked, in general the budget is being very well received and for some very good reasons.

I would like to speak first to the process the hon. Minister of Finance followed in this budget and indeed in his first budget. There has never been a more open and transparent process which has taken place by a finance minister. There has never been a greater opportunity for Canadians right across this land to have input into the budget.

There is very good evidence of that in my riding and in the city of London, Ontario where I live and part of which I represent. The finance minister was in our city for an open forum with a cross-section of groups from London and the surrounding area and other individual Londoners. He received tremendous input during that evening.

All members of Parliament have the opportunity to hold special meetings. I know that most of the members on this side of the House held special prebudget consultations with their constituents.

With the encouragement of the hon. minister, Canadians have never had a better opportunity for input into the budget. Whether one accepts and likes every single budget decision or not, universally the process very correctly is being praised.

It is my view that the budget is both balanced and fair. Now we come to what I said in terms of attitude. We can adopt the philosophy of the Reform Party and the attitude of doom and gloom and that everything is negative, or we can face the fact that yes, there were significant cuts which had to be made. They were necessary. In some cases I would say they were regrettable but necessary.

It is quite clear that Canadians expect us to come up with a more efficient, more effective, leaner but not meaner government in this country. To cut, slash and burn at a more hectic pace, which is what is being suggested by the Reform Party, would produce a much meaner government and a much meaner society which is something I reject as a Canadian and Canadians generally reject.

We had very good evidence of that on October 25, 1993. Canadians were given a clear choice between a gradual, common sense, determined approach to reducing the deficit and debt in this country as outlined in the Liberal red book, and a much more dramatic and draconian approach to the deficit and debt problems put forth by the Reform Party. Canadians spoke very clearly in October 1993 about what choice they preferred. Indeed, they have endorsed that choice again with the reaction we have seen to the budget in the weeks since it was brought down.

Why is that? In my view it is because Canadians understand that if private sector businesses are facing the situation where they must downsize and become more efficient and effective, then so too must governments. It is not incumbent on any government more than the federal government to show by example that this must be done.

I heard repeatedly from my constituents the phrase to just share the pain equally and all Canadians will support it. Just make sure we are spreading it out equally. That is exactly what my constituents have told me. Urban constituents, rural constituents, people in business and in farming, all of whom I represent, have told me they are content with the budget and they think we are on the right track.

One of the best indicators of the budget being very fair and balanced is the fact that we are now up to eight provinces out of 10 that have claimed to have been the hardest hit by this budget. That is one of the clearest signs that the budget is fair and is trying to treat all provinces as equally as possible.

Critics from the left are saying the budget was much too tough. Critics from the right are saying that the budget was not tough enough. Perhaps the surest way we Liberals have of knowing we have reached the right, common sense, balanced decision is just to acknowledge the fact that at the same time on the same decision on this budget we were getting criticism from the right that it was not tough enough and from the left that it was much too tough.

[Some hon. members]

We must be right.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

That is right. As my colleague says, that must obviously give us some evidence that we must be right. Canadians certainly feel that we have reached a balanced position in the budget.

We have met our targets. For the first time in over 10 years a finance minister has announced deficit targets and has actually held and met those targets. He has exceeded those targets. In just a year and a half this minister has produced two budgets both of which have cut spending and have begun the important government restructuring which must take place as we move toward the 21st century.

In the next three years over $29 billion in savings will be realized. I remind members that there are $7 in cuts for every $1 in revenue in this budget. It is quite clear to Canadians that this budget turns the corner. It puts us on a national diet, if you will. It indicates the way in which we must start to seriously attack this deficit problem with the view to totally eliminating it when that is possible.

The minister's two year rolling target is a sensible determined way to go about this. No, it is not endorsed by the Reform Party, which wants to be much more slash and burn in its approach, but then again Canadians do not generally endorse that view.

The reaction I have had in my riding to this budget has been quite favourable. My constituents are pleased. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have indicated repeatedly that they are pleased. No, not with every single decision in the budget but they are pleased in general that the minister and the government are on the right track.

In my riding I have formed an agricultural advisory committee. The previous speaker from the Reform Party pretty much solely addressed large parts of his comments to agriculture. The farmers I represent have made it clear that yes, they took a hit, but they acknowledge that business subsidies were cut by 60 per cent. The farmers I represent feel that the finance minister got it about right.

It would seem that except for Bob Rae who has an election coming up pretty soon which he would like to duck and some of his colleagues in the NDP-

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

Bob who?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Yes, it will soon be Bob who? Except for those people on the left and the Reform Party-I prefer to call it the excessive conservative party-except for those two parties on the extremes in this country, most Canadians have reacted favourably to the budget. That is the reality. That is the fact. I know it is not popular to members on the other side but then again, that is life.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest as the member opposite was going through some Olympian hurdles and patting himself on the back for the marvellous job they did.

Reference to the Olympics would be fair and accurate because the Liberals do have this new Olympic sport. It is called low hurdles. No matter how tough it is, you can only bruise your shins going over the Olympic low hurdles of the Liberals.

We know we have to take some serious hits and Canadians by and large are prepared for it. They are anticipating it and want to do it. We do not want to leave a bankrupt country to our grandchildren. The essence is that it must be fair. If it is not fair, it will not meet with public acceptance on a broad base.

My specific question has to do with the fairness of the budget. It has to do with the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. How is it that this affects one province disproportionately, the province of Alberta? It affects Nova Scotia and Alberta, no other province in Canada.

The hon. parliamentary secretary said that the reason it is being cut is that it is not being passed along from the province to the individual taxpayer. Does it matter? Is it any business of the federal government what the provincial governments do with that money? It does not belong to the federal government; it belongs to the province.

The idea behind that tax was to ensure that all utilities were treated fairly. An enterprise that establishes itself in Nova Scotia or in Alberta has relatively the same base of taxes for its utility demands.

The hon. member's arm must now be relaxed after all that patting himself on the back. Would he speak to the fairness of two provinces, Nova Scotia and Alberta, being singled out for this punitive tax measure, which is $70 for every single homeowner in either province?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague.

I recall for him that I applauded the efforts of the finance minister. Then again, I just joined the vast majority of Canadians who are neither in the Reform Party nor perhaps Reform Party supporters in applauding the minister for a job very well done.

As to the specific question, it is interesting that my colleague singled out Alberta. I would not say he was whining, but I am tempted to think that it sounded a bit like a NIMBY type complaint. Then he corrected himself because he heard information from this side of the House that Nova Scotia was being hit by the same measure.

It was not something that was aimed at the province of Alberta. My colleague had to correct himself in asking his question. The government felt there was no good reason for the measure in that it had to be reformed and it was not aimed at one particular province.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. If his constituents are so pleased, is it not because the government is hiding the truth? Did the hon. member tell his constituents that the federal government was not making any effort to recover the $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes? Did he tell his constituents that they are the ones who will end up paying for the cuts of over $7 billion in federal transfers to the provinces, because the Minister of Finance lacked the courage to put his own fiscal house in order, and chose instead to dump his deficit problems on the provinces?

Did he also tell his constituents that 70,000 companies did not pay taxes, including CN, which made profits of $400 million and did not pay one cent? Mr. Tellier is certainly privileged. Does the hon. member tell the truth to his constituents?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask for the indulgence of my colleague to give me the gist of the question again. I had to step outside as he began his remarks.