Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate.
This is not an easy budget and it certainly has been the subject of a great deal of discussion. It does signal some fairly significant changes in the way government in this country carries out its business and its service to Canadians. Nonetheless, notwithstanding what the member who just spoke had to say, I think we realized very well when we ran for election in 1993 and when we made certain commitments to Canadians as part of that election that this country was facing a difficult economic situation.
Certainly a good part of the commitment we made to Canadians was a commitment to deal with that very difficult economic and fiscal situation. This budget is stage two of doing that and of continuing our two prime commitments to the country: one, jobs and economic growth to provide a more prosperous future for all of us and for those who come after us; and as part of that, deficit reduction to a target of 3 per cent of GDP by 1997, half of what it was when we took office.
It is really important to remember that without achieving that target many of the other things that we want to do as a government and that I believe Canadians want to do as a nation will not be achievable.
Let me speak of a couple of things in particular on which I have been receiving a great deal of feedback from constituents and from others. One thing is the Canadian health and social transfer, which is certainly a cause for significant concern. It is one of those major changes I talked about in how we carry out our responsibilities as a government in this country. I do not think it helps to pretend that it is not a significant change when it is. However, it was a necessary change in order for the federal government to maintain some influence and some impact over health and social programs and post-secondary education.
By combining the transfers to the provinces to cover those three fields of post-secondary education, health, and social services, what we are doing is maintaining the ability with smaller amounts of money to have some influence on all three areas of expenditure.
I think we are also getting rid of some rigidity in the system. As one who has worked closely with a number of agencies in my community, I am well aware of the frustration that has been there with the stringent requirements of existing social programs and the existing Canada Assistance Plan Act, which prevents really innovative and often preventive programs from being funded under the current act and under the current transfer programs. As a former municipal councillor, I well remember the frustration of some very good programs not being eligible for federal funding.
The combined transfer allows the provinces to be more innovative. I expect and hope to address prevention in the delivery of all three of those programs. It also signals very clearly that those three programs are very much linked. Education is very much a part of solving some of the social problems this country has. Health is very much a part of solving both educational and social problems that we have.
I would like to provide some information that will make that point very clear. Let us look at the poor children in our country. It is a shame for a country with the wealth that Canada has to have well over a million children living in poverty. A poor child is four times as likely to become seriously ill, die, or even commit suicide. Poverty has a direct impact on our health services and of course on the quality of life for those families living in poverty. A poor child is only one-quarter as likely to go to university as the average Canadian child.
I learned a long time ago that these issues are not separate from each other. There is not much point in treating an elderly woman for bronchitis and then sending her back to a damp basement apartment because she cannot afford adequate housing and does not have enough money in her purse to feed herself properly. She will soon be back, if not with bronchitis then with something more serious, unless the whole problem of her social environment and the amount of money she has to live on is dealt with.
With the combining of these payments I certainly hope that the provinces will start recognizing the link between these three fields of public policy and public spending and start to set the priorities so that we are dealing in preventive ways. We are concerned about the extra cost of our health care system. Yet I believe that unless we deal with the social problems, in particular the issue of poverty, which tends to contribute to ill health, then we are never going to solve the problems of an ever growing cost of health care.
People are concerned about national standards and so am I. Very clearly we are setting the residency principle that no matter where you live in Canada, people cannot be required to be a resident of a province to be eligible for social assistance.
There are two other principles, which are not incorporated in the legislation and which I am concerned about and have heard concerns about. It is all the more important to recognize that the combining of payments to the provinces is a way of keeping some clout in all three fields as our share of those expenses diminishes. That has been happening under the existing agreement and will continue.
I hope we will endeavour to negotiate as national principles with the provinces that need be the basis of establishment-anybody in need would be eligible for assistance-and that there be an appeal process to the social welfare system.
Another issue of great concern to my constituents is the significant and dramatic changes we are making in the public service.
We have taken a thorough look at what government does, and in virtually every area of government activity we are looking for better and more efficient ways to serve Canadians at less cost. The result of that over the next three years is going to be a substantial reduction in the number of people working for the public service.
There are measures in the bill that will make it easier for those affected by the downsizing to get on with their lives in a number of ways. We expect a vast majority of people will take advantage of the early retirement incentive, which has already been passed in regulations. It will enable them to leave the public service on full pension and remain in their communities as contributing members.
The second measure in the legislation is the early departure incentive, which will allow people to voluntarily leave the public service and get on with other opportunities or another job.
I compliment the President of the Treasury Board for showing some flexibility on how the downsizing is being managed and for doing what appears to have been resisted a few months ago: allowing people who are interested in leaving the public service to vacate their jobs and make room for somebody else who does not want to leave at this time.
As long as we are spending one third of the taxes we collect from Canadians just to pay interest on the debt, there will continue to be pressure on our social programs, pressure on the services government can deliver. It is extremely important therefore that the primary direction of the budget is to reduce the deficit, reduce the amount we are wasting on interest. I regard it as a waste because it accomplishes nothing for us. Yet the amount continues to spiral every year and will continue to eat away at everything we want to accomplish as a government and as a nation.
I encourage the finance minister to continue with greater tax fairness, as he has done in the budget. I encourage him to look at every way possible of reducing the foreign debt, because it is money going out of our economy and not being taxed in Canada
There are things that many of us do not want to see in the budget, but I believe that fundamentally it is heading in the right direction.