Mr. Speaker, normally when I start a speech I say how privileged I am to join in the debate. But let us remember that this is, after all, November 1996 and we are debating the throne speech that was tabled on February 27, 1996 approximately eight months ago. Throne speeches are when the government lays out its mandate and desires, what it wants to achieve on behalf of the nation. Unfortunately, over the years they have become perfunctory statements that are bland, wide-ranging and have very little meaning or substance.
The speech we are debating in November 1996 and was tabled in February 27, 1996, is bland, wide-ranging, says nothing specific. I cannot imagine why we are debating this seven months after the fact rather than talking about specific legislation emanating from the speech. The answer unfortunately is somewhat obvious. It is because the government likes these bland, innocuous statements rather than serious legislation to fix the problems that are facing Canadians today.
Members have heard the Reform Party talk about the one in four people in this country who either do not have a job, are looking for a job, or are concerned about their job because they feel that their jobs may be in jeopardy. We were talking about that in the House in question period less than two hours ago. The finances of a major employer in western Canada are in serious trouble and many jobs are potentially on the line. The government says: "It is not our problem at this point, " yet it ran on a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs. It seems rather strange to me that it continues to spout the mantra without delivering on any of the goods.
This is the lack of vision of the Liberal Party that the Reform Party has railed against for the years that we have been in existence. In the section "Ensuring Opportunity: A Strong Economy" of the throne speech it is stated: "The government will work with the private sector and the provinces to make the collective investments required to produce hope, growth and jobs".
We have not seen any tax reduction. The deficit continues to cause the government to borrow more money. The total debt is rising. It will soon be $600 billion. Yet, we have talked in this House in the last few weeks and have been critical of the government because it has given a company in Montreal, Bombardier, $87 million interest free.
Surely, that must be what the Liberals were talking about when they said they would work with the private sector and the provinces in their collective investments to produce hope, growth and jobs. I am concerned about the logic. It is the ordinary taxpayers, the people who work hard every day and remember that one in four of them are concerned about their jobs, who have to pay taxes to the Government of Canada because the government had to borrow $87 million which the government lent to Bombardier interest free.
Bombardier is a large and successful company with an international reputation. It has factories in production around the world. We are proud of Bombardier. We are proud of a Canadian success. But why do we have to be so proud of our Canadian success that we have to go to the ordinary Canadian in the street and say: "Can you spare a little more in taxes to pay the interest on the money we are going to borrow so Bombardier can have an interest free loan of $87 million?" That does not make sense. If that is the only thing the government had in mind in this line in the throne speech about collective investments with the private sector and the provinces, surely we expected a lot better.
Remember that the government's line was jobs, jobs, jobs. Here we are today, three years into the mandate and an election starting to loom on the horizon. I can see the next election being on the theme: "We didn't do it last time but this time it is going to be job, jobs, jobs. Trust us. We are going to deliver". That line is wearing thin. I doubt very much that Canadians will believe the Liberal Party this time if it runs on a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs. It does not wash.
Under the section on trade: "The government will continue efforts to expand NAFTA and will work toward more world trade liberalization. Where there are trade disputes, the government will spare no effort to promote and defend legitimate trade rights and interests". Nice words. Remember that the Liberals in opposition said: "Scrap NAFTA. We do not want anything to do with it". In the last election, they said they were going to amend it to make sure that it fit their philosophy.
As we can see, the Liberals have already moved a long way to acquiescence. After they won the election, they just said: "Where do we sign? Show us the dotted line for NAFTA". According to the throne speech, they are continuing efforts to expand NAFTA and work toward trade liberalization. My goodness, how they change when they get into power.
Of course in the next line the Liberals talk about promoting and defending legitimate Canadian trade rights. We had it right here today. The softwood lumber disputes should have gone to the World Trade Organization for a complete, satisfactory and final resolution but the minister stood up and said: "We got an agreement for five years. Isn't this neat and wonderful?"
We open the newspaper and find out jobs have been lost in rural Ontario. We find out jobs have been lost in rural Alberta. We find out that jobs have been lost in British Columbia. We wonder what the government really means when it talks about defending legitimate Canadian trade rights and jobs, jobs, jobs. We could go on all day.
How about the public pension plan. "The public pension system will be there to support people in their old age", the Liberals said in the throne speech. Within a few weeks thereafter, the Minister of Finance stood up in this House and said that universality for seniors is right out the window.
There will be no more old age security in 2001. There will be no more guaranteed income supplement in the year 2001. The first thousand dollars of pension income tax free is out the window. The age exemption that every senior has enjoyed as a tax reduction on their tax return is out the window.
Instead anybody with any reasonable income of any kind is going to have a 20 per cent additional surtax applied as a clawback on top of normal taxation. If they are in the higher tax brackets their total payment marginal rate to the government can get as high as 75 per cent. And universality is out the window.
Did the Minister of Finance stand up and say that in this House? No. He couched it in nice and wonderful language much like the throne speech and said: "Don't worry, be happy. If you can look after yourself, good, because we cannot afford to do it for you. The Canada pension plan is in trouble. We are going to soak the working people. We are going to take it back from the retired people. We are going to put the excess in our own jeans rather than saving the Canada pension plan".
That is what we found out in the throne speech. We are still waiting for the legislation. Eight months later and we are still talking about the throne speech. Surely Canadians deserve better. They do deserve better and it is outlined in the fresh start program of the Reform Party that we introduced a few weeks ago.
Rather than taxing seniors more, we are going to give a tax break to every Canadian after the budget is balanced. After the budget is balanced. Please note that we want that job done first and then we will talk about tax breaks. We have laid these things out.
We are going to cut unemployment insurance for employers to create jobs so that they pay the same rate as the employees, a 28 per cent cut. It is going to take this huge surplus in the UI fund and put it right back into the employers' hands because they are the people who create jobs.
We are going to cut the capital gains rate for the entrepreneurs to give them the incentive to create jobs.
We are going to talk about giving every family the opportunity for a deduction for their children in lieu of saying only if their kids are in day care can they claim a tax deduction and therefore they have no choice if they want to reduce their taxes but to put their kids in day care. We want to recognize that it is the parents who choose how to bring up their children. It is not tax policy that dictates how parents shall bring up their children.
These are the things we have introduced in our fresh start program. This fresh start is a new vision of Canada compared to the no vision, the bland statements that are still bland statements eight months later. They were introduced on February 27, 1996 and today in November 1996 they have not moved forward one single inch.
Let that record speak for itself.