Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House of Commons today to speak on Bill C-76. This budget shows once again our commitment to consulting Canadians.
The Minister of Finance has delivered a fair and honest budget. It is a tough budget, some may argue, but the measures introduced are essential if we are to face economic realities and reach our fiscal targets.
For the second year in a row, the Liberal government has refused to reduce the deficit at the expense of the Canadian
taxpayer. This budget will allow us to meet our deficit reduction goals without increasing personal income taxes.
This budget illustrates the difficult choices that confronted us when we undertook to revamp federal programs in order to increase efficiency without compromising the priorities of Canadians.
The budget reflects the most thorough review of federal programs ever. Through program review, the government identified $16.9 billion in cuts to programs over the next three years, not including transfers to individuals and to the provinces.
Some additional highlights of this year's budget I would like to highlight are the reform of government programs and procedures to eliminate waste and abuse and ensure value for Canadian taxpayers. We have just completed the largest program review ever initiated.
The second is the move toward a fairer tax system, including tighter rules for tax deferrals, foreign and family trusts, R and D incentives, and higher taxes for corporations and large banks. For too long corporations have been more or less excluded from taxation. This is one step in the right direction in ensuring that everyone bears the burden of this deficit.
Another highlight is the delivery of a new vision of the federal government's role in the economy that includes a reduction in business subsidies by 60 per cent over three years from $3.8 billion in 1994-95 to $1.5 billion in 1997.
At this point I would like to focus the House's attention on one aspect of the budget that unfairly affects many Canadians of Greek origin as well as other veterans. That is the announced changes to the war veterans allowance program that would return this program to its original intent. As a result, the war veterans allowance and related benefits have been discontinued for former members of the resistance. Also, all allied veterans with post-war residency are required to reside in Canada six months out of the year if they wish to continue to receive these benefits.
These changes will affect approximately 2,895 former resistance members in the Montreal region of whom 90 per cent are Canadians of Greek origin.
On March 2, 1992 the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended to remove the right of applicants with service limited to a resistance group to qualify for benefits. However, existing domestic resistance service recipients were to be grandfathered if they maintained their residency in Canada. Moreover, foreign resistance recipients were required to return to Canada and resume residency within one year or risk losing their entitlement to war veterans benefits forever.
More specifically, section 6.1 provided grandfathering to those who qualified on or before March 2, 1992 and would continue for life if they remained residents in Canada. There were approximately 700 resistance claimants who returned to resume residency in Canada. For some this brought on certain hardships: separation from their families residing abroad, resettlement, isolation.
While Canada is the only country in the world to offer such an allowance to members of the resistance, the announced changes will bring on added hardships to all individuals who depend on this source of income.
Many of my constituents have raised concerns about the problem of transferring individuals between the ages of 60 and 65 from one social program to another. To date the government, through the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance, have shown sensitivity and understanding toward this problem, especially regarding those people who are not yet eligible for old age security.
Benefits were initially scheduled to be discontinued about three months after the budget was tabled. However through the interventions of myself and other members of Parliament we have been given the assurance these cuts will not go into effect until August 31, 1995.
I asked how much would the government really save by having a group of persons transferred from one social program to another, from war veterans allowance to welfare, or by having a group, the allied veterans, return to resume residence in Canada. There are about 740 in total living abroad. The average age of allied veterans is 75.
We must compare the social impact of such a move. Would we really save by having these people return to Canada and take advantage of our social programs including health care?
I consider the situation of these individuals as unjust and I made recommendations to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence on this issue, as have other members of the House.
There has been some concern that benefits are being paid out to persons who are no longer living. Therefore, I and other colleagues have made recommendations that individuals could register with the Canadian embassy in their respective countries.
I appreciate the government's interest in finding a just solution to this problem and thank the Minister of National Defence for agreeing to review this aspect of the program review in light of the difficulties these people will face in returning to Canada.
I will continue to work with many colleagues in the House, the Hellenic Canadian Congress, the veterans associations of the Hellenic community and other concerned parties to see the concerns of these individuals are addressed.
Canada has not forgotten the contributions these veterans made to the preservation of democracy during World War II. It is the only country to offer this type of allowance to former members of the resistance. I am proud that Canada offered this.
The issue of fraudulent claims has also been brought forward as a reason for terminating the allowance. While there may have been certain individuals who took advantage of the generosity in this program, the majority are deserving applicants. The government did not terminate the program because of the few individuals who took advantage of Canada's generosity.
Cost effectiveness was the reason this allowance was terminated. The targets will not be met when we consider the cost to be incurred once these individuals cross over to welfare.
Most significant in the budget is that it marks the beginning of a new era, a new way of managing the federation. It is a simpler, more efficient way that accords with provincial responsibilities to design and deliver key services. Many have seen this move as a move away from traditional Liberalism based on the principle of shared social responsibility.
Over the years successive Liberal governments have shown their commitment to this value through their actions. Many of the laws and policies they enacted remain the basis of our system of social support through which we pool our resources to create programs that benefit all Canadians and help sustain people through difficult times.
We are presently in difficult times. The test for our government will be to rise to the challenge and ensure the announced social program transfers will not jeopardize our standards of universal health care, unemployment insurance, old age security, the Canada assistance plan and the Canada pension plan.
These are part of the Liberal legacy and must remain in place if we are to continue to be the country that is the envy of the world. Poverty remains a growing problem for Canadian society as we try to overcome the economic challenges facing our country.
While the budget does not, as some members of the opposition would like to believe, make its cuts on the backs of our poor, their future must be brighter. Furthermore, the structure of the economy is changing. As a result the family structure is also undergoing changes. There have been enormous increases in single parent families and in families with both parents working and in families living in poverty, as is the case in my riding.
The failed economic and social policies of the Conservative government have left over 4.2 million Canadians living in poverty, of whom 1.2 million are children. Sixty-two per cent of families headed by single mothers are living in poverty with their incomes failing.
The Liberals made a commitment in the red book to work toward greater equality of social conditions among Canadians, to redistribute opportunity more broadly so that many more people have a decent standard of living and can build good lives for themselves and their families, allowing them to live with dignity and respect.
We must do everything we can to maintain our social programs at current levels despite expenditure cuts. Like all Canadians, we believe that we must strive to balance the budget. We will achieve this responsibly and realistically, without compromising the gains we have made over the last 16 months in the areas of job creation and economic growth, and without compromising the values and priorities of all Canadians and of the Liberal government.