Debates of June 6th, 1995

Budget Implementation Act, 1995

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Terrebonne for his questions. First, as regards the public service, the minister and the committee insisted on some form of co-operation between the unions and the government concerning substitution, that is that the retirement arrangement must be accepted by individual public servants. Perhaps, and I hope so, in the next three years, all government retirees will follow the course of substitution making use of the generous benefits offered by the government.

Secondly, as concerns national standards in education, neither our committee, nor the minister nor the budget will require national standards in education. This is surely part of the negotiations undertaken by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In listening to all the witnesses, we were very grateful to a group that suggested the standards in the area of education be not national, but international, standards of knowledge and excellence, given the area is a competitive one.

And we, like all Canadians, in Quebec, in British Columbia or in any province or territory, must take international competition and our own system of education across Canada into account, if we are really to take advantage of it.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite apologized twice. First, he admitted that the Liberals and the Conservatives were responsible for the national debt. I thank him for admitting that. Of course, everyone agrees that we must reduce the deficit.

The hon. member also referred to three sacred cows, but he forgot one. He forgot the multinationals. Again, everyone agrees that multinationals often enjoy tax shelters which are far too generous. The same goes for banks. It is a disgrace when banks hardly pay any taxes.

The cuts in transfers hurt the poor and the young. Our young people have almost lost all hope, since they basically have two options, particularly in rural areas: unemployment or income security. This situation hurts them a great deal. I wonder if we could provide more help to these young people.

The hon. member did not mention the cuts affecting the Eastern Quebec Development Plan. The plan had a budget of $6.5 million. That money will not be available next year. The provinces will have to pay. Our farmers will have to put up with a 15 per cent cut this year, and another one next year, which will amount to a 30 per cent reduction in their subsidies. Again, Quebec will have to pay.

I know that everyone must make sacrifices. People back home, and elsewhere, are prepared to make sacrifices. However, this does not mean that the poor have to make the biggest sacrifices. I ask the hon. member: How could his government provide a little help in rural areas and give some hope to people?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was right when he said that the poor should be a concern for every party and every member in this House.

He also referred to the deficits. Indeed, the federal deficits were the responsibility of the Conservative and Liberal governments, just like the Quebec deficit is now the responsibility of the PQ government, whose last budget did not do much to solve the problem. I urge all provincial governments in Canada to rise to the challenge and do what we are trying to do now.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, nuclear non-proliferation treaty; the hon. member for Bourassa, immigration; the hon. member for Essex-Kent, agriculture.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question for my colleague.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry. The time for questions and comments on the last debate has expired.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand again in the House, this place where Canadians look for leadership, for the proper fiscal management of the country, to speak to Bill C-76, the budget implementation act.

I must share with everyone that I have considerable frustration in this place. Since being elected to the House I am convinced that one reason we have the huge problem of debt is that we lack an effective mechanism to control it. The reason is simple. Governments basically respond to their election platform and rightly so.

Taking it back one step, unfortunately during election campaigns we have trained Canadian voters to be very selfish. Over the last 30 years we have assisted Canadian voters to not make prudent fiscal decisions but simply ones that appeal to their greed. My observa-

tion is that this has happened at all levels of government. I know it happened in Alberta for a number of years. Albertans were persuaded by politicians to vote in favour of spending their money in order to put the party into power that promised the most using the taxpayers' money.

It never made sense to me. I feel to this day that politicians who engage in that practice somehow are being unfair to the Canadian public. What kind of an option is it to give a person when one party says: "Vote for us and we will give you these benefits" and another party says: "If you vote for us we will not give you those things". People will vote for the party that will give them the most.

I am very happy that has now turned around. I am happy that a sizeable proportion of Canada's population is beginning to face reality. People are voting for and electing members who stand on a policy of fiscal responsibility, of reducing government spending, of reducing the amount borrowed each year, of reducing the debt and hopefully in the long run of reducing the amount of taxation.

It is a false assumption that if the government stops taxing the taxpayers or borrowing against the future taxes of our children and grandchildren somehow our economy will suffer. That very process erodes our economy more than if we were to stop doing it.

We need to stop and think what happens when we as a country borrow money. We borrow a certain proportion from ourselves and it stays in the country. Presumably it stays in circulation and aids the economy. When people clip coupons from their Canada savings bonds and collect the interest, they may use the money for goods and services which adds to our economy.

Canada also borrows a great deal of money offshore. Every year it sends large amounts of money for interest out of the country. It is only logical that if it did not have a foreign debt then that money would stay in the country and would not just disappear.

Members need to be very serious in responding to what is the new fiscal wisdom of Canadian taxpayers in electing parliamentarians who are committed to reducing government expenditures and taxes. In the west where many Reformers were elected, it was the pivotal point in the platform which attracted a lot of voters. I hasten to add that to a certain degree it was what attracted voters who voted Liberal because the Liberals also included in their red book promises of more honesty in government, more openness and better fiscal responsibility. They promised it but what needs to be asked is whether they are actually delivering it.

Here again I want to be as gentle as I can but I must also as honestly as possible, level with the Canadian people on what is actually happening.

I have referred to some of these numbers in a previous speech but they bear repeating. When speaking of millions of dollars some people understand, but when speaking of billions a lot of people do not have the insight on what a number of that magnitude means. A good way of explaining it has to do with what happens if a person has a lot of money and is able to spend a dollar every second.

If I had a million dollars it would take approximately 11 and a half days to spend it at one dollar per second. If I had a billion dollars and I was spending it at the same rate it would take 32 years. When you put that into perspective you realise that the government is still overspending this year in the budget which we are being asked to approve, more than $32 billion. That is how much the government is borrowing in addition to the present debt. People need to grab hold of the magnitude of the problem, its severity and its urgency.

If you have ever done any boating you will know that if you have a hole in the hull the water will come in. Depending on the size of that hole, it may be insufficient to take a little cup to bail out the water because the water may be getting too deep to bail. Maybe what you need to do is to plug the hole. You need to put something into the hole to prevent the water from coming in.

The same thing is true with the national debt. The debt is so large and the interest payments on that debt are increasing at a rate over which we have no control. It is true the government is borrowing less now than it did last year. Can I be so brave as to commend the government for borrowing $32 billion this year instead of the $40 billion that it borrowed the year before?

Let us also put this into perspective. A good way to compare this is to use straight ratio and proportion. Let us consider the debt picture, the expenditure picture and the borrowing picture as it might relate to a family. I have used some of these numbers before.

A $120 billion expenditure, which is approximately what the government spent on programs three years ago, might equate to a family expenditure of $48,000. At that time the government was borrowing $40 billion, which equates to $16,000 borrowed by the family. Everyone understands this family is in trouble. Its income is $48,000 but it has spent $64,000. It has borrowed $16,000 in order to make up the difference.

It is true that the picture is now a little better. Instead of earning $48,000, this family is now earning about $52,000. Lo and behold, the borrowing, which has gone down to $12,800, results in a total value of $64,800. It has actually gone up.

However, the frightening thing is that in proportion, this family, with an income of $48,000 per year in 1992, would have had a debt in proportion to the Canadian debt of $168,000. The government was elected in the fall of 1993. After one year the debt had grown from $168,000 in proportion for this family to

$184,000 and now in proportion to $220,000. Clearly we are not heading in the right direction.

Somehow I wish we could impress the government with a better sense of the urgency of attacking government spending faster than it is because the water is still coming into the boat at a rate considerably faster than it is able to bail it out. The budget needs to be balanced and it needs to happen fast.

One of the problems is the mechanism of approving the budget. In my view and I believe in the view of most Reformers and probably a number of Liberals and some of the members from the Bloc, certainly many constituents have expressed to us that it is just not good enough. Is it not then regrettable that we have an inability to actually represent that?

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has made the news because he has had the courage to stand up against the government's policy on the budget and is voting against it. He is voting against it for completely opposite reasons from where I am coming from, but he believes that he is representing his constituents. That puts a finger right on the problem. The person who says this budget is not good enough ought not to be making news. He should be simply applauded because he is in the majority.

I do not often dream at night because I have late nights and early mornings here, as we all do, and usually when I hit the pillow I am unconscious, but I had a little dream last night. This is a fictitious dream, because I do not want to tell a lie.

I dreamed that in the House we actually had individually the freedom to vote on the budget as we really believed. I wonder what proportion of the members in the governing party would, if there were absolutely no ramifications to their decision, honestly express themselves and actually say: "No, this budget is not quite good enough". I really wish that members could have that freedom in the House. If they did, with that would come a mechanism which would force the bureaucrats, those who drive the agenda here in Ottawa, to go back and say: "Look, we need to do some more cutting. We can be more efficient. We can save money".

Members of my party have identified many areas where there is rampant wastage. It is not attributable to the government now. It is just the way it has always been done. The government, with its majority, have it in its power to fix it if it would only have the courage. I wish it would. Perhaps my dream will come true. Perhaps tonight there will be sufficient numbers of the governing party that will say: "I will stand on principle and I am going to vote the way I really believe".

I will respect those people who vote in favour of the budget if they honestly, truly believe that this is the best way to manage the fiscal affairs of the country. I have no problem if they vote in favour of the budget because of that honest and sincere belief.

I have a tremendous problem with people who believe that it is not good enough but who do not have the freedom to so express themselves. To me that is an aberration of the democratic process and is the root cause of the huge debt, the deficit, the huge interest payments, payments of $40 billion plus per year. These payments would be more than adequate to provide a wonderful health care system, to subsidize adequately the post-secondary education and give Canadians the ability to invest in the future of our country and in the future of these young Canadians.

It is a missed opportunity. Let us blame the past. Let us say that it was the governments of the past that did this to us. That is fine. It does not really matter who did it. As it says in the good book, the borrower is a slave to the lender and we have become slaves to the national debt. The member for Willowdale who just spoke pointed out very clearly-he did not use the word obscenity, but I will use it-the obscenity of the fact that $1 in $3 is used for paying the interest on the debt. I really wish we did not have that.

The politicians of the last 30 years, which is before most of us were here, so arranged the affairs of the country that we now have the problem and we have to deal with it.

I sincerely hope that my little three-year old grandson can some day say: "My grandpa when he stood in the House of Commons was able to persuade members on the government side to have courage and he thereby helped to save this country from going even deeper and deeper into debt".

We would set a tremendous precedent if this happens tonight. If enough members of the House of Commons would have the courage to vote against the budget I believe it would be the first time that it would have ever happened. It would be headline news tomorrow. It would say we finally have in Ottawa a group of people who stand on principle, who do what is right.

The government has failed to attack the problem of government spending. Instead it has replaced that by adding additional revenues. I am very much offended by measures like the rescinding of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. I believe it is very unfair.

This is a country where we believe in free enterprise, where we know that business has built this country. It is extremely unfair to think of two Canadians standing side by side, one of them buying natural gas or electricity from a utility that is owned by a government and another buying utilities from a privately owned firm. Because one of these Canadians buys utilities from a government owned organization he or she pays no income tax but the other one pays income tax. To me that is unfair.

Members can stand up and try to defend that. I do not want to sound just like a person whining about my region. That is not the total picture. We need to look at all of Canada. I submit very seriously that if it is good for one province, it is good for the country. We need to seriously ask ourselves the question whether such an inequitable tax is good for the country because it differentiates between Canadians based on their situations.

I have appreciated the opportunity to speak on this matter. I would be delighted to respond to any questions members have.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member used some words that seemed a little contradictory. In one instance he was admonishing the members to vote the way they believe, yet depending on some other questions, the member is admonishing members to vote along with their constituents. I simply raise this contradiction. If the member really believed that, then he along with at least the other three Reform Party members who are supporting gun control would also represent their constituents and vote for gun control.

The Reform Party took the liberty to produce a pro forma budget to put on the table what its plans would be. As we all know, they were basically to trash social programs and particularly to tax seniors. In the hypothetical situation that the Reform Party did form a government and did have that budget, would the member admit here and now that the Reform Party would have to borrow at least $100 billion before the deficit would be reduced to zero over the term of the mandate?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to what is indeed a very good question.

The hon. member used the word that our prebudget suggested trashing the social programs. Those were the words he used. There is a huge difference between trashing something and replacing it with something better. There is a huge difference between breaking down a house and leaving a hole in the ground and breaking down an old house in order to make room to build a new and better one.

If we were to analyse what the Reform Party is proposing for social programs, it is proposing a better system. We believe in individualizing social security so as to do away with all of the problems which arise when UIC and social security are competing.

The poor person on UIC or social security has to refuse a job at $8 an hour because if he or she makes a little money in effect they are taxed 100 per cent on it. There is a tremendous disincentive to taking a part time job because of the loss of benefits. If that were individualized according to our plan, then the individual could take a part time job, supplement their income and use their personal retirement and their personal security plan only as needed to top up in order to meet the needs of the day.

If the member would like to take the time to do the arithmetic on it, I would be pleased to sit down and help him with this. If he were to do the actuarial math on how the money grows, if he were to look at the employer's and employee's contributions he would see how they grow. He would see how quickly the total benefits substantially exceed what can be given through a bureaucratically driven and inefficient UIC program. Perhaps then the member would have a different view of what it means to replace a social assistance program that is not working with one that is logical and defensible.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, I feel constrained to rise because of the comments of the hon. member opposite about this wise and logical social program for Canada that his party is suggesting.

I would suggest to the hon. member that the program the Reform Party seems to be proposing is a program that would work for the rich and not for the underprivileged or for people who just need a leg up in our country. It is a program intended to put more money in the pockets of people like the hon. member, people who have an upper middle class income and is not a program to support the people who need our assistance.

There is another interpretation for the fact that Liberals are voting together on the budget. As Liberals, unlike members of his party, we have the same common goals. We have the same common core set of beliefs and we do agree on this issue.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this question and would like to answer it by asking another question.

A good economic system will benefit all Canadians. If we look at the history of the industrial world going back over the last 150 or 200 years, there have been some very rich people. It is also true when there are some rich people that it generally provides many good jobs and a good livelihood for a lot of people.

What is better, for everybody to be taxed to death and we try to help a few people with handouts, or to allow those with good leadership abilities, good business skills to set up an economic environment in which they could thrive? Maybe they would do fairly well and perhaps the people in the neighbourhood who had been on UI and social welfare and were making $12,000 a year could now have jobs with the new firm at $30,000 a year. That happens. If we look at history, that is the way the economy works.

When businesses are excessively taxed there is the exodus which has been experienced and observed in Ontario. Excessive taxation and a bad economic climate are not a promotion of business. Ultimately everybody, not just the rich, but the working class as well suffers more than they would under the other regime.

At the same time we need to be very careful here. Over and over I hear Liberals saying that we are a compassionate society. I believe that too. I believe in individually helping people who need help. If that is really true and a government system is taken away, we can count on individuals and organizations moving in to fill the gap and they will do it more efficiently.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Madam Speaker, I carefully listened to the speech made by the member from the Reform Party. He talked abundantly about the debt. He used good images to explain it, especially when he used the family as an example.

I realize today that no matter what the debt is and no matter what the cuts are, the debt will go up anyway. My friends from the Reform Party very often say that we are going to hit the wall, which is what I think also.

My friend says that the situation is urgent, that we have to move rapidly and find a solution to the problem because water is getting into the ship. At the same time, my friend tells us that he has dreams and wishes, but the dreams and wishes will not lead to a solution. It does not matter what solutions we bring here, if they are not accepted by the government, they mean nothing.

Does my friend have the sensation sometimes that he is doomed to paint the ship while the ship is sinking?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it definitely does seem sometimes that the ship is going down, but I am not totally pessimistic. I believe there is a window of opportunity. That is why I am so sincerely urging that government members set a precedent today. Defeat the budget in order to force it to take more dramatic measures to balance it quickly so that the ship does not go down. My dream is for the individuals to do that based on their own conscience.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the twilight moments of the debate on Bill C-76. If I may say, the House is in a mood of detente and relaxation which it is not always in. I have appreciated the comments made on both sides of the House in the last hour or so.

Bill C-76 represents a translation of the undertakings made by the government when it was elected and basically its program that it would conquer the deficit, reduce the national debt by a dynamic program of creating new jobs, generating new revenues. This is essentially the thrust of the budget.

Members will notice the attention to prudent economies, the cutting of government operations, new approaches to federalism and federal-provincial relations. At the same time there is a redefinition because it inevitably follows in the federal-provincial balance.

I think this was the basic promise made by the Prime Minister and it is reflected in the budget, that in approaching the economic crisis our emphasis would be on job creation.

We have also undertaken to maintain the integrity of the social services structure, in particular medicare; to maintain the Canada pension plan, the social security structure that distinguishes Canada from the United States and other countries committed to the free market economy; and interesting and new approaches to unemployment insurance. We are getting away from the static approach intended to present a situation of continuing dependency by a new emphasis on job training and a new emphasis on training people for a better future and giving them some confidence in their ability to achieve that.

Last, in the area of federalism the approach to federal-provincial transfers in some senses redresses a balance in federalism that had occurred by glosses on the system established by the federal government entering what we could say in retrospect, were areas of provincial constitutional responsibility. There the argument was and it was a necessary one, that if the federal government had not moved in these areas the provinces would not have moved either and there would have been a vacuum in terms of important areas of social policy.

I will have something more to say on each of these particular issues at a later moment.

I do note that Bill C-76 will implement a savings of $29 billion over the next three years: $5 billion in 1995-96; $10.6 billion in 1996-97; and $13.3 billion in 1998. We think this is a responsible, realistic way to go. It sets out a program. A budget not less than any other type of law is itself a system of law in the making. It is a dynamic system and we build upon the achievements of one year in the next year. We have set up those goals on the basis of a three year period.

I think this is a very important part of the government economic structure. We have honoured the undertaking of no increases in personal income tax rates. We are closing the tax loopholes and we look for continuing guidance from Parliament and members on that. We are trying to improve tax fairness. That is an objective. At the same time the incentive to get the economy moving again will be to avoid increases in personal income tax rates. I mention in social services the maintenance of the integrity of the pension system because this has been a very important part of retirement planning for senior citizens and

others approaching that condition. That is maintained and it is very important in terms of-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member.

Pursuant to order made Monday, June 5, 1995, in accordance with Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put all the questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that government orders were extended by some 12 minutes because of a ministerial statement made earlier in the day. I am wondering if perhaps we are not ahead of ourselves here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The clerk tells me that you are indeed right.

The hon. member may continue. Government orders have been extended by 12 minutes.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very graceful reprieve, if I may call it that. It gives me an opportunity to continue the dialogue. I think I can pick up from the middle of the sentence if I can recall the beginning of the sentence. Here it is, in any case.

We have tried to emphasize a policy of fairness to all regions, which brings me into the area of federal-provincial powers. One of the great dilemmas in establishing the new system of transfers to provinces is you are recognizing that these are areas, constitutionally, of provincial responsibility. They are in essence moving back. One is in effect cutting through the gloss of custom that has been established over the last 20 or 30 years. In fact the general feeling in Canadian political circles is that if the federal government had not acted the provinces would not have either and this was the reason for the federal initiative. If the power returns effectively to the provinces, it will be done through the system of the block transfer, the new Canadian social transfer.

Some statistics are relevant and important. The average cut to the provinces in terms of transfers will be 4.4 per cent, which is less than the 7.3 per cent the federal government is imposing on its own programs, and there is a period of two years' notice built into that, which becomes very important in areas such as education, where planning far ahead is very important to individuals entering the structure, not merely to administrations.

One issue raised here is the ability to maintain national standards. Can it be done solely on a matter of reliance on the good faith of individual governments? Will there not be somebody out of step? I think this is a matter on which we are still waiting for the work the minister of intergovernmental affairs is doing, but let me say that I think there is no doubt that constitutionally in certain areas we still have the power to impose and enforce the national standards. Enforcement, as such, is an ineffective system of social control. "Friendly persuasion" and "example" are the bywords. I think in this particular area we will find a large and increasing degree of federal-provincial co-operation because of what are, after all, the common goals.

I was examining on the weekend, in the constituency of one of my colleagues, in Richmond, the area of intergovernmental co-operation, not merely federal-provincial but federal, provincial, and municipal. The process of co-operation can work. It is not our belief, in any case, in contrast to prognostication of gloom and doom, that in making the block transfers to the provinces the national standards will disappear and we will get an anarchic system of different standards such as Voltare described with the situation of the French civil laws. As he said when he left Paris, every time he changed his horse he would be under a different system. I do not think we are dealing with that.

Our message on this is that the status quo of the federal-provincial arrangements, the practice that had grown up over the last 30 years, was bound to come to an end as provinces accepted their own obligations of maintaining common standards throughout the country and not falling behind. Here the finances are related directly to the power and there is the two-year building in period in which federal and provincial governments can work out and eliminate any contradictions.

There in essence is the budget. It is best to finish on the general philosophical note that it does reflect the promise the Prime Minister made during the election and it would not be a negative, give it up approach to eliminating the deficit. We would expand the economy and would generate new revenue by creating new jobs. The budget cannot be divorced from our work in manpower. It cannot be divorced from other activity in other departments directed toward this goal, and it does rest on a large degree of faith in the ability to manage federal-provincial relations in a renewed spirit of co-operative federalism.

I think this is one of the keynotes of the present government, that it is reviving attitudes of co-operative federalism that for various reasons and for various attitudes of political parties have been dormant for some years.

On this basis, I am happy to commend Bill C-76 to the House for adoption.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks, but I must take him up on the fact that the day after the Reform Party issued its alternative budget we were together on a radio program in Vancouver, at which point he hammered me because in that budget we had similarly proposed the maintenance of standards through co-operative agreements among provinces. This is very

consistent with Reform Party policy that we should have less power at the centre.

I will never forget the hon. member saying that as an expert in constitutional law he would tell me that it will not be possible for the central government to either create or enforce such arrangements because there is no leverage. I am now very pleasantly surprised to hear that he has come around to the policy the Reform Party had pronounced before this budget came out and which he now feels is doable.

I have a practical question for him. Even though the Reform Party says that it would support this kind of an effort, does the hon. member really believe that a maverick province like Alberta would slow down its efforts to privatize and rationalize medicare by for example allowing more of the services to be provided by the private sector? Does he believe he could get from Alberta agreement of the nature he thinks is necessary if even at the present time, when there is a threat of withholding funds, this province, according to the minister, apparently is doing all those nasty things?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the learned hon. member. He has, in spite of his dour mien, a delightful sense of humour for those who know him very well.

I do recollect this debate conducted at a distance of 3,000 miles with bad telephone connections. I feel his telephone connection was not as perfect as mine on this. When he presented his shadow budget I did suggest to him that perhaps he had not paid enough attention to structural problems of government, that he had to spell it out.

By the way, I should never be as egotistical as to suggest in a public debate or elsewhere that I was an expert in this or in anything else. The hon. member will remember Lord Justice Denning's reply to somebody who quoted to him somebody and said "This is an expert". Lord Justice Denning replied "Is he dead?" The answer was "No, milord, he is among the living". Lord Justice Denning said "Well he is not an expert. The only expert accepted by the common law is somebody who has been dead for 20 years." This status will undoubtedly occur to the hon. member at a certain period in his career.

What I did try to suggest was that he needed more work on examining the unstructured approach to co-operative arrangements between the federal government and the provinces he was presenting. I think the hon. member will recognize that there are gaps in his armour. I know he is an expert on the South Seas, on skiing, and on very many things, and I respect his knowledge of economics. However, on this thing I did suggest that the Reform Party program was rather light.

To return again to his basic question, I think it is a matter of changes in attitude. The attitude of federal-provincial relations is different from what it was 20 or 30 years ago. One sees the arrangements in the province of Quebec, a province where the government is committed to a program of separation from Canada. But if we look at the structure of administrative arrangements developing between the two governments, there is a good deal of solid empiricism in that. I would predict that the Premier of Alberta will also recognize the advantages of co-operation.

We have no objection in this government to privatization. In fact if one examines the budget there is great emphasis on privatization. Getting rid of the CNR is something the hon. member himself has proposed in the past. If one in looks at it, we are very much into privatization too. However, in the examination of national standards, we will use friendly persuasion to ensure co-operative-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In accordance with the order made Monday, June 5, 1995, and pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.