House of Commons Hansard #182 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

It looks better in the books.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

Yes. My colleague says it looks better in the books, and that is exactly what it is. That is a snow job just like a whole bunch of other things in this budget. However, it is going to come back to haunt you.

I have one minute, Mr. Speaker? It is funny how time flies when you are having fun.

Let me give some other suggestions. They say we have to look after our young people, keep them in mind, because there will be no assets left for them. They talk about 3 per cent of GDP. It is like shooting at the outside rings of a dart board. These are comments from average, everyday, law-abiding, good Canadian citizens. Yet we have the audacity to stand in this House and say this is what the majority of Canadians want.

Finally, there are two other comments they made. Lobby groups do not want cuts. Some social programs are the right of the privileged. We should look at that. Another comment is that potential is being squashed in the country.

If we cannot listen to each other in the House and we are going to listen to all this rhetoric, maybe all members should end up with an advisory group and take their advice. It seems a heck of a lot more sound than what I have been listening to here.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—French-River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to take part in the debate on my government's budget. I will start, perhaps, by giving an overview and talking about the budget's objectives and highlights.

This budget does what is necessary to bring the deficit under control. These are the strongest fiscal measures adopted by the federal government in 50 years. This budget guarantees that we will bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the gross national product by 1996-1997. It enables us to meet our deficit reduction objective, without increasing personal income taxes. For the second year in a row, the government has refused to lower the deficit on the backs of taxpayers.

The program review introduced in this budget redefines the role of government, with the result that the departments will concentrate their efforts on the priorities of Canadians.

After the broadest prebudget consultation process in this country, both the financial markets and Canadians alike have told us that they want first and foremost for us to cut the deficit and to put our financial house in order.

As the finance minister said himself: "Come hell or high water, we will meet our 3 per cent of deficit reduction by 1996-97". However, there are ways to do that. We could have used the Gingrich-Manning approach, the slash and burn approach, and cut everything by 15 per cent to 20 per cent. However, this is the wrong way. We have to do it in a fair manner, taking care of the poor, the handicapped and the senior citizens in our society. I do not think it is appropriate to cut 20 per cent of something that is good and keep 100 per cent of something that is bad.

The new philosophy of this party is that if the government does not have to do it, we will not do it; we will give it to private enterprise.

Most Canadians approve of this budget. There are very few people who complain about this budget. Of course, there are those who want to destroy this country; they will not approve something as good as this budget.

Unfortunately, the premier of Ontario, Bob Rae, along with his strategists, had to go back to the drawing board. He was counting on us to bring in a bad budget. He was counting on this to start his provincial campaign. I have news for Mr. Rae. He can call an election and campaign against the federal budget. He will meet Brian Mulroney and his party, because in Ontario we can take a lesson. I think the Ontario NDP government can take a lesson from what we have done here at the federal level in terms of deficit control.

This budget is necessary medicine for difficult economic times. It is the strongest fiscal action by any federal government in 50 years. It will result in a total savings of $29 billion over three years; $25.3 billion will be saved by expenditure cuts. The Minister of Finance is sending a strong message to international markets that Canada is serious about deficit reduction. Cuts to government departments account for half of the fiscal saving in this budget. Departmental spending will be cut by $3.9 billion in 1995-96, $5.9 billion in 1996-97, and $7.2 billion in 1997-98. For every dollar in increased revenue there will be $7 in expenditure reductions. That is what Canadians told us they wanted and that is what we did.

I would also like to speak about the impact of the budget in my northern Ontario riding.

There can be no mistake that this budget was tough on northern Ontario, as there were no incentives for natural resources and about 80 per cent of the economy of northern Ontario depends on natural resources. We knew this was to be a

tough budget, but we in northern Ontario were prepared to accept that. We know that we have to share the burden of taxes and deficit reduction.

Let us look, for instance, at the natural resources department. It suffered one of the largest cuts of all departments, close to 50 per cent. The new role of the department will be to focus on the sustainable development of natural resources, the revitalization of the natural resources sector, national and international leadership, knowledge of the land mass and natural resources, and health, safety and resource related environmental concerns. It will maintain a presence in areas of federal responsibility such as international trade and science and technology.

Due to the current financial situation, the government did not renew both the mineral development agreements, the so-called MDAs, and the forestry development agreements, the FRDAs, which were cancelled by the last Tory budget in 1993. We said in the red book that we would review those programs and we did. We would have liked to have kept those programs for northern Ontario and other parts of rural Canada, but we had to cancel them because of the fiscal reality in the country.

However, the government responded in other ways. It responded by taking action in eliminating unnecessary regulatory barriers to mineral development. This was a key priority identified by the mining industry.

The finance minister also told northern Ontario Liberal MPs that after the budget was presented he would be willing to look at alternative measures and incentives for the mining industry.

There is a campaign called "Keep Mining in Canada". It is a broad based organization of industries from across the country. That organization gave the budget an A-plus on the deficit reduction side. However, it would have liked to have seen tax based incentives for the mining industry. I have been pushing for that for the last year. I am a little disappointed they were not in the budget; however, I understand that the main thrust of the budget was deficit reduction. I also understand that the finance minister could not on the one hand, cut one sector, like agriculture, and on the other hand, give more incentives to another sector.

On the agricultural side, there are quite a few dairy producers in my riding. Only a few years ago Canadian farmers were caught in an international trade war that drove down crop prices and farmers' incomes. With many disputes settled, agricultural producers now receive more than a third of their income from the market. Our government will introduce a national whole farm stabilization program, along with crop insurance, instead of basing programs on individual agricultural commodities.

In 1997-98 $600 million a year from the federal government, in addition to $400 million a year from the provinces, will go into this program. This is after a reduction of 30 per cent, with a total savings of $250 million.

The greatest impact on farmers in Timiskaming-French River is the reduction of the dairy subsidy, which is 30 per cent over a two-year period. It is believed that this reduction may be made up in part by the cost of producing a pricing formula that ensures a fair payment to producers.

The elimination of the western grain transportation subsidies will save the government about $5 million annually. This will open the western economy to diversification and innovation and meet GATT requirements.

Since I only have two minutes, Mr. Speaker, I will address the regional development programs. There was a reduction of over $560 million by Industry Canada to ACOA, FORD-Q and western diversification. That is a reduction of about 49 per cent across the board. Fortunately for northern Ontario we have a program called FEDNOR. We were getting approximately a 1 per cent share per capita compared to other programs in Canada. True, with strong lobbying by northern Ontario MPs this program was not reduced but increased by $18 million. For that I have to thank the finance minister, who finally recognized that northern Ontario was not getting its fair share of regional development moneys.

It demonstrates that the Minister of Industry has listened to the concerns of the northern Ontario caucus and has recognized that northern Ontario was not getting its fair share of regional development funding and has acted decisively to correct this inequity.

Increases to FEDNOR will total $63.7 million over the next three years. The breakdown in funding is as follows: in 1995-96, $6.2 million to $23.3 million; for 1996-97 it will be up to $20.4 million; and in 1997-98 it will be up to $20 million again.

In closing I approve of my government's initiative to make this regional development money available on a repayable loan basis. I can say that the business people who are going to profit from these programs in my riding are also in agreement.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the budget before us on behalf of my party. There are many ways of looking at a budget. One can theorize and get into a macroeconomic analysis of the budget.

Personally, since the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean was announced in last year's budget, I tend to look for direct impacts on my riding. First, I look at the budget as a whole and what impact it will have on Quebec, and then I look at its

real and potential impact on my riding. Today, my remarks will focus on agricultural considerations affecting my riding.

While Saint-Jean is a semi-rural riding situated very close to Montreal, it has many farms and dairy farms in particular. From what I can see, these farmers will be hard hit by this budget which has been before us for some time now. I will try to show you how it will affect the farmers in my riding.

Overall, the budget for agriculture will be reduced from $2.1 billion to $1.7 billion, a 19 per cent cut, and 18 per cent of this cut is in personnel, which means the salaries often already allocated to researchers, because there are several agricultural research stations, including one in Saint-Jean, that I will talk about later. If we look at the budget as a whole, I think it is important to know just what percentage is involved. Overall, there is a 19 per cent cut to the Department of Agriculture, 18 per cent in personnel.

Now, let us look at the impact of this budget on Quebec. In this area as in every federal area of activity, Quebec foots about 24 per cent of the bill, while farming in Quebec accounts for about 17 per cent of all farming in Canada, but we get back only 13 per cent.

So, for the sake of equity, it would have been great to say: if there are cuts to be made in agriculture this year, perhaps we should make an effort to spare Quebec. Perhaps some cuts could be made in Quebec but not as much as everywhere else. The actual percentage was higher than the 19 per cent figure mentioned earlier.

I will tell you about the cuts affecting the Saint-Jean research station, and you will see that these are significantly higher than the 19 per cent figure for the rest of Canada. I mentioned the percentages for Quebec as a whole.

The budget also proposes to close the L'Assomption research station, which specializes in ornamental plants. It may be that the private sector can take over this activity. That research station was financed out of the budget of the Saint-Jean station. Indeed, although the two facilities were in different ridings, their budgets were centralized.

Quebec will also lose the La Pocatière centre. The consequences of that closure were explained by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I will get back to this particular case later on. A number of documents which I have here list the various research stations, and the reasons for closing them. In the case of the La Pocatière station, the reasons mentioned are highly questionable.

Let us now take a look at the impact of these measures in my riding. The budget for the Saint-Jean centre is reduced by 32 per cent, going from $5.6 million down to $3.8 million. As I mentioned earlier, the overall cut is 19 per cent. So, after the military college, the residents of Saint-Jean are once again paying more than their share, this time in the agricultural sector.

The closures in L'Assomption in Saint-Jean will result in the loss of 17 and 10 jobs respectively. If you exclude L'Assomption and only take Saint-Jean into consideration, you end up with a 21 per cent cut. Once again, Saint-Jean residents are paying for the cuts affecting the agricultural sector.

I seriously wonder about the meaning of this flexible federalism which we hear about these days. Based on what we have seen so far, this flexible federalism means that Quebec must always do more than the rest of Canada. I showed that to be the case with an example relating to agriculture. I also showed it on numerous occasions last year with the military college. This year, however, it is in the agricultural sector that this budget will really have a negative impact in my riding.

I also have a document prepared by the Research Branch. This is not the first such document which I come across. Last year, I saw one from the National Defence Department. These documents are simply a series of questions and answers distributed to senior public servants in the various departments. Research Branch officials received this particular one, which merely repeats the answers to various questions. I think it is important to touch on some of these issues.

We are told about the impact of the budget on federal agri-food research in Quebec. This is what transpires: "As far as the food research and development centre at Saint-Hyacinthe and the dairy and pork research centre in Lennoxville are concerned, the impact will be minimal. The work being done in these centres reflects the main priorities of the food industry- There will be cut backs in the grain research program at the centre for soil and crop research and development in Sainte-Foy". No further details.

The next item is research on small fruits which was being done in Saint-Jean, a major production centre for strawberries and raspberries. The paper simply says that research activities at Saint-Jean will be terminated and transferred to the research centre in Kemptville, Nova Scotia.

Imagine, under-funding is already a problem in Quebec and Saint-Jean. Now they cut this program to transfer it to Nova Scotia. The same paper provides a list of centres of excellence where research is to be concentrated, apparently to be closer to production centres and the industry. This makes no sense at all. I condemn the fact that ten experts on small fruits research are removed at Saint-Jean, in order to transfer the centre to Nova Scotia. I cannot accept that.

Next question. Why did the government close down two facilities in Quebec? The answer? There will still be a federal research laboratory that will work on every aspect of the food industry. Saint-Hyacinthe and Lennoxville are mentioned again. So the policy seems to be that when we condemn these cutbacks, they are supposed to answer: We are still maintaining facilities at Lennoxville and Saint-Hyacinthe. Yes they are, but part of the operation at Saint-Jean has been removed and operations have been eliminated altogether at l'Assomption and La Pocatière.

Why are they closing La Pocatière? There will be a significant impact on ovine research in Canada and ovine, for the benefit of our viewers, means sheep. However, we are told that the sheep growing industry is relatively small. Just when they are starting to develop some expertise at La Pocatière, the government says they are going to stop because this sector is not significant. Once again, a market niche that should be expanding because in Quebec, we have the right kind of pasture for sheep, has once again been sacrificed at our expense.

Taking the experimental farm at l'Assomption as an example, they say that as a general rule, since this is research on ornamental plants, the private sector will take over. They always say to Quebec that, yes, we will be making cuts, but the private sector will pick up the slack and the only changes, if any, that need to be made regarding research centres and centres of excellence, will be to move them closer to areas of production.

I have a list of all the centres of excellence in Canada and only 4 out of 19 are located in Quebec. Once again, we are not getting a share proportionate to our population and to our contribution of 24 per cent of the federal government's agriculture budget.

Voters in Saint-Jean are very disappointed. My colleague talked about the 15 per cent cut a year for the next two years in dairy farm, dairy production subsidies. In this case again, Saint-Jean has huge dairy farms. These people are already dealing with a war that is brewing between us and the Americans; the Americans want NAFTA to prevail and we want the GATT to prevail. We are already on the road to a war and the only help the government is offering is to cut subsidies, while it will compensate western producers for decreases in land values, by means of loan guarantees and additional compensation of $300 million during the transitional period.

I call that out and out injustice. Through this budget, the electorate in Saint-Jean will lose 10 experts who were building up a renowned expertise and to whom all farmers in my riding constantly referred for their input. Now they are saying to the strawberry and raspberry producers of Saint-Jean that they will have to call Nova Scotia for advice, and I very much doubt that production anywhere in that province surpasses that in my riding. Lastly, Quebec's dairy producers are left out. Once again, this budget, on the agricultural front alone, hits Quebec and the electorate of Saint-Jean, and it is my duty to denounce it in this House.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to join in the debate on the budget.

In response to some of the comments about the group of Liberals here today, they are different from some Liberals from the past. It is the nature of the times. They have come with a different perspective and it has shown up directly in the budget.

The overriding goal of the government since it came to power has been jobs and growth. We believe good economics and good social policies are one and the same thing. The most fundamental way good social policy begins is with a job. We must respond to the challenges of our times. We must adapt to the new economy and the new infrastructure based on ideas and innovation. The very nature of government must change. We must develop a new notion of responsibility. The time has long past when governments can or should do everything.

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

Since 1984 our debt has risen by three times. Compound interest is gobbling us up and the government now has a two track approach to sustained and sustainable economic growth. Growing economies produce jobs; economies that are not producing do not produce jobs.

The key to growth is productivity, which is how well ideas, workers, resources and investments are brought together in the country's economy. It is about ingenuity, better management and paying attention to the common sense of our workers.

How do we get high productivity growth increases, the only way we can increase real incomes? We must first improve our skills. We must have better innovation. We must provide a welcoming climate for investment, and let no one forget it. We must remove any disincentives we have created for people and business. Those were disincentives created by government. We must get our fiscal house in order.

The budget's plan introduces far reaching action to restore fiscal health which is essential for a strong, growing economy. The budget will fundamentally reform what government does and how it will do it. It will bring permanent change in the way government does business. The object is to get government right so it can fill its social and economic mandates and be more effective and sustainable. This will include deep cuts in the

federal program spending, not simply lower spending growth but substantial reduction in actual dollars.

That is fundamentally the philosophy of the majority of the governing side of the House. In a party of the Liberal Party's size there will be some who want to go further right and some who want to go further left. However, they do realize the government cannot be in every aspect of society.

I will comment on two or three things, overview of budget details and the program review undertaken, the underpinning for all of the cuts and directions of the government.

The budget is about getting government right so it can do a better job of helping to get the economy right by sustaining growth and confidence in creating new jobs while preserving our ability to help those in need. To meet this goal the budget delivers our commitment to cut the deficit to 3 per cent of the economy in two years. Some say that is not enough. Believe me, unless there is a target one can see on a daily basis, one will not hit the target.

Despite the impact of higher than expected interest rates, if economic performance is stronger than our prudent forecast, the deficit could fall at a steeper rate than was forecast. Our fiscal actions will total $29 billion in reductions over the next three years, more than any budget since the post war demobilization. In two years, program spending will be $10.4 billion less than today. It is a cumulative cut and will go on forever.

Just as important, the budget also changes the very nature of how government operates. This will ensure spending will be restrained beyond our two-year target period. The deficit will continue to fall, reflecting our commitment to eliminating it completely.

To achieve these results the budget takes fundamental action across government programs and operations. It implements the results of the program review, which I will speak to in a few moments, a comprehensive examination of departmental spending. We will focus on what is essential and do it better. The budget of some of the departments will be cut by one-half.

The budget also acts on a new vision of the federal government's role in the economy, one that includes substantial reduction in business subsidies. These will drop by $3.8 billion this year to $1.5 billion in the year 1997-98. The budget reforms major transfers to provinces, modernizing the federal-provincial fiscal regime, making it more effective, flexible and affordable.

These wide-ranging reforms mean a smaller public service. Some 45,000 positions will be eliminated, but we will manage this difficult process as fairly as possible, including the use of early departure and early retirement incentives.

This is also fair to the taxpayer. That is why the budget does not increase personal income tax. However, there are measures to improve tax system fairness. We eliminated the deferral taxes on investment income earned by private holding companies and we eliminated the ability of people to earn business or professional income by the ability to pick their own fiscal year end, an option that helps defer taxes, albeit only for the one year.

We are also eliminating all tax advantages of family trusts. We are temporarily reducing our upper limit on the RRSP contributions to $13,500 so benefits do not flow to people who earn more than two and a half times the average wage.

It is clearly a budget that places absolute priority on the expenditure reduction. It delivers nearly $7 in spending cuts to $1 in new tax revenue.

Let me speak of the program review. The budget agenda is not a plan for smaller government; it is a plan for smarter government and for the reform of the very structure of government and how it spends. The budget reflects the results of the program review we launched a year ago, and the actions taken to date secure structural reform irrevocably and deliver significant savings beyond the two fiscal years for which we have set firm deficit targets.

Achieving this goal demands wide-ranging bottom line action, and that is what the budget delivers. The size of government will be reduced substantially over the next three years. Departmental spending will be reduced by 19 per cent from the 1994-95 levels. For some departments, spending will be halved.

I mentioned that in my previous statement, but I cannot overestimate the realness of these kinds of cuts. In total, these actions will deliver a three-year saving of almost $17 billion. Let me be clear. These are real cuts in absolute dollars. They are not measures that try to pretend that a drop in the rate of spending growth is somewhat of a spending reduction.

Government programs are being redesigned by this review to make them more efficient and cost effective. Regional development agencies, for example, will play newer roles and will focus on small and medium sized business, and assistance will emphasize repayable loans, not grants.

A basic philosophy of the program review was that the federal government should not be doing what someone else can do better. As a result, we are devolving some programs to other levels of government and we are privatizing other activities. For example, fisheries and oceans will devolve fresh water responsibilities to the provinces. Forest and mineral development agreements with the provinces will be discontinued. Airports and recreational harbours will be transferred to local authorities,

and the Minister of Transport will move this year to privatize CN.

There was a lot of work done on all aspects of government. The government we will see two years from now will be far different from the government we saw at the beginning of our tenure.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of Canadians watching today, I would like to repeat that this is a debate on the budget implementation act. That does not sound like a very gripping topic, but it is very important. Really what it means is that we are talking today about how our government spends our money.

It is important to emphasize to Canadians that governments have no money of their own. They simply use our money and they use lots of our money. In many cases, Canadians feel that we are supporting government instead of government supporting us.

Be that as it may, it is very important that we examine carefully and very logically how governments spend our money. Because I am a human resources development critic for Reform, I would like to spend the minutes I have to discuss the budget implementation act and talk about how social program spending is handled in this budget.

First, this budget is rather shockingly vague about how social programs, particularly very important social programs, are going to be handled by this government. For example, the budget says that unemployment insurance will be cut a minimum of 10 per cent. How much would be the maximum? We do not know. The budget is silent. Who is going to be cut? How are the cuts going to be made? When are they going to be made? We do not know. The budget is silent on that and so is the budget implementation act. We have big questions about that big program that are not answered in this budget.

The second thing the budget says is that the two pillars of the pension plan are going to be re-examined in order to make them more sustainable. When are they going to be re-examined? We are not sure. We were supposed to have a paper, promised by this government, months ago. Now the government says it thinks it will be in the fall. Canadians hope so, but experience has shown that the time lines of this government are a little flexible, to say the least.

Here we have the pillars of the pension plan, the Canada pension plan and the old age security; they are going to be re-examined. There are going to have to be some changes. Those are code words for cuts, because we know there is no extra money. But we do not know when. We do not know who. We do not know how. There is a lot of vagueness in how important programs are going to be handled.

The budget implementation act in part IV does talk about how this new transfer to support health care, post-secondary education and welfare is going to be handled. The transfers from the federal government to the provinces for these three programs have now been rolled into one big transfer of block funding. Now this block has been given a nice name by Liberal spin doctors. It is being called the Canada health and social transfer.

Really the bottom line is that the moneys that used to go to the provinces for these three programs are being cut substantially. That in itself probably would not concern Canadians because they know that we cannot keep funding these programs on borrowed money. We cannot keep mortgaging our children's future to pay for these programs. The real concern is that there seems to be no coherent plan at all about the future of these programs.

We can live with cuts; we accept that cuts are necessary. But we need to know where that leaves us. Where is this going to take us? Where it takes us is a big question mark. There are absolutely no long-range plans, no game plan, on what is going to happen, for example, to the funding for the Canada Health Act, the medicare plan, our health care.

The provisions that are being put in place, the cuts that are being made, are simply for the next two or three years and then there is a commitment to talk to the provinces, to have some kind of consultation. Then we will see what comes out of that.

I would suggest that health care is one of the most important things to Canadians. All of us know our vulnerability to health care problems. Yet here we have a very important program for Canadians being cut, but there is no long term plan. One has to wonder why this government could not have had a consultation with the provinces, put together a long term plan in consultation with other major players, and then come out with changes to the game. But no. This government simply sat on the sidelines and made changes to the rules of the game in mid-game, with absolutely no idea of where this is all going to take us on a very critical plan.

I do not think that is good management on behalf of Canadians. Canadians deserve a lot better than that.

We have had several promises to come up with papers to deal with pensions and the changes that are going to be needed in our social programs. However, there is nothing for Canadians to give us any idea of where we are headed on these matters. We know we are losing our programs. We know they are being cut back, and cut back without consultation with the provinces. For example, about one-third of all provincial spending is on health care alone. Yet changes are being made without any consultation with the major players.

The second thing that concerns me in this budget implementation act is the punitive approach that is being escalated in the matter of transfers from the federal government to the provinces.

In the past, if the provisions of the federal government were changed or not adhered to by the provinces, then transfers for those programs could be cut. Now, under this budget implementation act, any transfer to the provinces from the federal government can be cut, even it if it is not referable to the social programs that the provinces are trying to change.

The federal government has promised certain transfers to the provinces. Now it can hold them hostage if it does not like what the provinces are doing in any area.

These powers are very arbitrary. It gives arbitrary power to the health minister to become the sole guardian of the Canada Health Act. If the minister is "satisfied" that a province is not in line with her own interpretation of the Canada Health Act, then she has the authority to effectively become the judge and jury of the provincial health system and can then ask cabinet to cut any federal transfer to the provinces.

This is just unacceptable when we are dealing with such critical programs. We need some certainty for our provinces.

When the health minister is asked how she is going to enforce these new arbitrary powers that she has been given, she says she will enforce them flexibly. However, when one examines the legislation there is absolutely no reference to any flexible interpretation of the Canada Health Act. In fact, we have members of the government and the Prime Minister standing up and saying: "The provisions of the Canada Health Act will be very firmly enforced by this government".

So we are hearing again two different interpretations of what is going to happen. If we are going to get our House in order and if we are going to ensure personal social security for Canadians, we need to have a great deal more certainty than we find in this bill.

It is incumbent upon the government, when it is bringing forward this kind of spending legislation, to tell Canadians how it is going to work, to give them a plan that they can count on, and to work with the provinces to make sure that the programs we have can be counted on and have some type of long term management rather than this cut and paste approach to what have become very important programs for Canadians.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

It being two o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by members.

Credit UnionStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jesse Flis Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Sunday, April 2, the members of St. Stanislaus-St. Casimir's Polish Parishes Credit Union held their 50th annual meeting in the constituency of Parkdale-High Park.

Founded in 1945 by Father S. Puchniak, pastor of the St. Stanislaus parish in Toronto, the Polish Parishes Credit Union takes pride in being today the largest parish based credit union in the world, with over 37,000 members and total assets of $223 million.

This unique credit union provides a full range of financial services, including personal, mortgage and business loans, RRSPs, RRIFs, OHOSPs, and automated teller services worldwide.

The success of this progressive credit union, with branches in Toronto, Etobicoke, Mississauga, Hamilton, Kitchener, Guelph, Oakville and Windsor, reflects the growth and prosperity of Canada.

It is creating together opportunity not only for its members and families but for Canadians generally.

Mouvement DesjardinsStatements By Members

April 3rd, 1995 / 1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Réjean Lefebvre Bloc Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, this weekend's annual meetings of the Mouvement Desjardins are proof once again of the huge success of the co-operative movement founded in 1900 by Alphonse Desjardins. The total assets of the Mouvement Desjardins have increased by 33 per cent and are now worth $73.8 billion. Furthermore, this institution has declared surplus earnings of over $314 million.

The Mouvement Desjardins has mirrored Quebecers' dynamism, since its inception. In encouraging Quebecers to invest their savings in Quebec, Claude Béland, the president of the Mouvement Desjardins, said, and I quote: "We have no hope of winning the development war if we hand over our arms to others".

The success of the Desjardins movement is the result of an economic development model based on co-operation. Quebec's economic prosperity requires all participants in the Quebec socio-economic scene to work together in the fight against chronic unemployment.

Gun RegistryStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, less than three weeks ago I asked the Minister of Justice how he could guarantee responsible gun owners that his gun registration system would be safe from computer hackers. He accused me of fear mongering and conjuring up images that frighten Canadians. Then he went on to state that without his gun controls we would end up with a gun culture and would go the way of other countries. We have not had his gun control laws for the last few centuries and we do not have a gun culture yet. I have to ask: Who is doing the fear mongering?

On Friday the Globe and Mail reported the arrest of yet another computer hacker. He has broken into several databases throughout the federal government and at IBM. If IBM cannot defend itself from computer hackers, how secure will the new national gun registry be?

I repeat: How can the justice minister assure law-abiding firearm owners who comply with his new law that they will not simply be providing gun thieves with a computerized shop at home catalogue?

Hon. Member For Beaver RiverStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government team in the House of Commons and the Senate and as chair of the Liberal women's caucus, it is my honour to welcome back to this place the hon. member for Beaver River.

Most here would agree that her presence has been missed. Her contribution to the third party is significant and important. Government members look forward to the hon. member getting the Reform Party to focus on the real issues and making some valuable contributions in improving the lives of Canadians.

There are only 54 women in this House. When one from our ranks is missing, Canadians notice.

Once again, bon retour. We wish the hon. member continued good health.

The EconomyStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, as economic growth continues to accelerate, this government is making great strides toward steering Canadians back on the road to competitiveness. Strengthening Canadian industry will continue by building a healthier marketplace, promoting workplace innovation, expanding trade, improving our infrastructure and harnessing leading edge technology.

Etobicoke-Lakeshore business leaders who previously impressed upon me the need to make Canada more competitive are now telling me that we are on the right track. They support the government's effort to assist the private sector in innovation and job creation. Competitive wages, low manufacturing costs, available tax incentives, encouraging research and development, a suitable workforce and an excellent quality of life all add up to an ideal community in which to do business.

I look forward to the Etobicoke-Lakeshore business community and the government working together in a greater partnership to build a more innovative economy.

Sikh New YearStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, Sikhs throughout the world are celebrating the 296th anniversary of the birth of the Sikh nation and the Sikh faith. I am sure all members will join me in congratulating the Sikh community on this auspicious occasion.

Sikh heritage includes a pledge to fight against tyranny and uphold the principles of justice, equality, brotherhood, honesty, the right of free and truthful expression and human dignity among all the people of the world, regardless of colour, creed, race, sex, religion or country of origin.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to share a traditional lunch with you earlier today and would like to once again invite you to attend a reception to celebrate the anniversary of Vaisakhi with us in the Commonwealth room following question period.

Only through increased knowledge of diverse cultures can Canada continue to be a country of tolerance and compassion.

ImmigrationStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration is insensitive to the plight of refugees who will now have to pay $975 in addition to the basic $500 for permanent resident status in Canada.

Last Thursday, the minister stated that $975 was the price of a colour television in Canada, intimating that the cost was within everyone's reach.

In 1990, the average personal income in Haiti was $320; in 1992, the average income in India was $370 and, in El Salvador, it was $870. These examples clearly illustrate the difficulties faced by refugees accepted into Canada.

The minister's remark demonstrates his profound indifference to the financial and political realities of many immigrants and refugees.

Canadian HeritageStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage has taken on the appearance of a dying turbot flip-flopping on the slippery decks of a trawler under siege. There is no focus, no direction and no guidance from the minister who continues to be AWOL, awfully weak and out of the loop.

What a string of broken election promises. There is the broken promise of new copyright legislation due last spring; the broken promise to Sports Canada for secured funding for amateur sport; the broken promise to assist the Canada Council as it refocuses its activities; the broken promise for a cultural policy review; and the broken promise to give future direction to the CBC.

Canadian cultural organizations need guidance to shepherd them into greater reliance on themselves and the private sector, but the government is failing to provide that leadership.

What has changed since the Tories? Nothing. The minister is having so many problems in his department that he has appointed a former Tory cabinet minister to give him a hand. And will he become the next fall guy in a government that no longer seems to know the difference between a Liberal and a Tory?

Foreign OverfishingStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents have asked me to express their total and enthusiastic support for the efforts of our government to stop overfishing of turbot on the Grand Bank.

Although my riding of London-Middlesex is in southwestern Ontario many miles from the Grand Bank, our hearts are with the valiant people of Newfoundland and all Atlantic Canadians as they struggle to save fishing as a way of life.

Our hats are off to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as he leads this important crusade. From coast to coast to coast, Canadians applaud his efforts and the leadership of the government. We stand shoulder to shoulder beside our fellow Canadians in Atlantic Canada. Together we must and we will save the fishery.

Alternative FuelsStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate a member of the other place.

The hon. Senator Colin Kenny has introduced Bill S-7, an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for internal combustion engines. This bill would see at least three-quarters of the 38,000 federal government vehicles switched to alternative fuels. Bill S-7 would generate estimated savings of $7 million per year and would serve as an important step in cleaning up our environment.

Bill S-7 is a positive addition to the recent announcements made by the government regarding federal support for the ethanol industry and the removal of MMT from gasoline. It is clear that positive environmental policy is being developed in both houses of Parliament.

My congratulations go out to the hon. senator and all those who are working to improve the environment in which we live. I will be happy to support Bill S-7 when it arrives in the House of Commons.

Beauce-Franco-Manitoban MeetingsStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Independent

Gilles Bernier Independent Beauce, QC

Mr. Speaker, Franco-Manitobans and the citizens of Beauce want to build a better Canada where everyone is accepted and feels he belongs. This is why they have decided to set up a partnership between the stakeholders in the political institutions and business communities of both regions.

Last week, Franco-Manitobans hosted a delegation from Beauce interested in exploring possible exchanges in the economic and cultural sectors that would promote better mutual understanding.

I would like to commend this initiative, which corresponds with the wish of French Canadians to draw closer to one another, to live in harmony and to work together to create instruments of growth and development. Such an association can only help to create strong bonds of friendship among all Canadians.

Beauce-Franco-Manitoban MeetingsStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, last week, representatives of the Beauce region in Quebec and the French community in Manitoba met in St. Boniface to discuss the possibility of a pact of friendship between these two regions.

This visit is part of a process that began last year to look at possible exchanges between Beauce and the French community in Manitoba in the economic, cultural, educational and communications fields.

Our friends from Beauce had a busy schedule in Manitoba. They met with the Société franco-manitobaine, the Association of Bilingual Municipalities, the Chamber of Commerce, CKXL community radio, the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, the Société historique de Saint-Boniface, and I could go on.

This pact of friendship between the French-speaking citizens of Beauce and Manitoba is a fine example of the manner in which the two communities can work together to create jobs and get to know one another better.

I congratulate the participants in this pact of friendship, who are trying to build a Canada that is stronger and more united within the Canadian federation.

Criminal CodeStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Daviault Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, the recent events in Montreal, where bikers are fighting over control of drug trafficking, point to an urgent need to enact antigang legislation.

Yet, the Minister of Justice is still reluctant to act on the requests made in this regard by the Bloc Quebecois and members of the public.

According to a SOM poll published in La Presse last week, 80 per cent of Quebecers want an antigang law to be passed as quickly as possible in order to solve a growing problem which is threatening the lives and safety of peaceful citizens.

The Minister of Justice must consider the suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois if he wants to bring such criminal activities under control. If the minister decides to turn a deaf ear, he will miss an opportunity to protect citizens whose fears are legitimate.

Canada Pension PlanStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to remind all members of this House of a birthday. The Canada pension plan is 30 years old today.

Normally a birthday is cause for great celebration with balloons, candles and of course my favourite, a great big birthday cake. At 30 years of age you would think we could celebrate a long vibrant time, but CPP is tired and sick with iron poor Liberal blood.

Thanks to the Liberals, the Canada pension plan is another victim of mismanagement. The CPP fund is not self-sufficient and not actuarially sound. In order to be solvent, contributions will have to triple over the next 20 years. The Canada pension plan, introduced by a Liberal government 30 years ago, has been so mismanaged that future Canadians cannot look forward to collecting.

The recent budget does nothing to safeguard our social programs and social safety net.

The Liberals have burst the balloons for today's celebration. They have blown out the candles and have allowed our birthday cake to go stale and mouldy.

West Coast FisheryStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, the minister of fisheries has taken a very strong stand on behalf of the east coast turbot fishery. For that he is to be applauded. While he goes to the wall to save the turbot, I urge him not to forget the other coast of Canada.

The recent Fraser report and the Suzuki Foundation report point out that the five species of British Columbia salmon are at high risk due to overfishing and habitat loss. The report reveals that many more serious issues face the west coast salmon fishery and identifies specific initiatives requiring immediate action.

Our west coast salmon fishery is still a viable fishery. To ensure that it remains viable, it requires immediate attention.

It was a lack of proper management that placed the west coast salmon fishery at risk. I urge the minister of fisheries to give the time, energy and support to the west coast that he has so generously given to the east coast.

Carleton County Steer Show And SaleStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, on April 3 and 4 the 43rd annual Carleton County Spring Show and Sale of Steers will be held in Florenceville, New Brunswick.

Nearly half the entries are from 4-H club members. These youth are eager, responsible, committed to detail and capable of competing under pressure.

All exhibitors will be judged based on demanding criteria. Following the competition the annual auction will be held.

This year, all the exhibitors have joined together to donate a steer which will be auctioned off with proceeds going to the Volunteer Family Services Organization which serves the whole region.

I congratulate the organizers of the 43rd annual Carleton county show and sale. I wish them success again this year.

Reform PartyStatements By Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I see from the papers that members of the Reform Party are considering combining with the federal Tories. The papers say that the Reformers are disgruntled with their leader and they want a new party led by the member for Calgary West.

It shocks me that members of the third party want to change parties after less than two years in Ottawa. Surely they made commitments in the election campaign to their constituents as members of the Reform Party, not as Tories.

Have they forgotten their campaign promises? Have they consulted with their constituents on this change of party? And what about the so-called Reform budget that was presented recently? What can it be worth if Reformers are going to jump ship so soon after it was released?

We on this side of the House are proud of our party. We are proud of our leader. We know we have great responsibilities as the elected Government of Canada, but we are not daunted by the challenges. We Liberals are going to stay the course to help make Canada an even better place.

Presence In GalleryStatements By Members

2:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, I would like to bring to your attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Boguslaw Liberadzki, Minister of Transport and Maritime Economy of Poland.