Debates of March 21st, 1996

Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97

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

No, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there a suggestion that we have miscalculated the time? There has been some miscommunication. Does the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound wish to resume his debate or is he not speaking at this time? Might he indicate his intentions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cede my place to the hon. member for Red Deer.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. If you do not have the list in front of you, I can get you one if you need one.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The lists do not seem to be making as much sense as one would hope, especially when the day is about to begin. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound is not speaking.

Because the member for Capilano-Howe Sound is not speaking, by the rotation principle the right to speak passes to the other side of the floor.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-10, the borrowing authority bill.

The bill authorizes the Minister of Finance as of April 1, 1996 to raise such amounts by way of a loan or by the issue and sale of securities of Canada as may be required for public works and general purpose. This in essence is the content of Bill C-10. I urge the House to pass the legislation so that regular financing operations for the government may continue.

I will alert you, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton East.

Every government must decide where its priorities lie. This government has outlined its priorities in the latest budget. I believe it to be one of the best blueprints for growth and opportunity for the

country since the red book. Traditional Liberal views are what this party is about and Liberalism recognizes that the government plays a part to make sure that the market works well for everyone. The course the government has set leads to equal opportunity, economic equity and national unity, three main themes in the budget speech and in the direction the government is taking.

First, if we look at social reform, the most vulnerable are protected in terms of employment insurance, as we have been assured that the impact of changes will not fall unfairly on workers who are in most need of support. This will ensure that there is equal opportunity for every individual in the country no matter which region they happen to live in.

Who else can make the claim that they represent equal opportunity? The members of the third party certainly cannot. Whether it is the fishery, employment insurance, regional economic development, regardless of what it is, we know where they stand as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned.

The contempt for Atlantic Canadians by the third party was demonstrated by the member for Fraser Valley West who, when asked about commenting that he would run in Nova Scotia in the next election, stated: "I was trying to be nice because I knew it would be in the Atlantic Canadian papers. I did not want to say who the hell would want to run there". This kind of inflammatory divisive statement does nothing to advance the cause of equality in a system for all Canadians.

The announcement of an improvement to Canada's child support system with the particular objective of helping single parents and low income working families is very encouraging. This increased income from families living in poverty has been a particular concern of mine and many of my colleagues since being elected. I am pleased that the government is moving in that direction.

The focus on jobs for youth is good news for New Brunswick and Fredericton-York-Sunbury in particular, as the summer career placement challenge program will double. This is an important change given the number of universities in the area. The emphasis on youth employment is very important and programs such as the youth services corps have served our province and my particular constituency very well.

I welcome our commitment to build on these programs and the invitation to all of us to come up with more creative ideas. For example, we should be considering new ways of creating jobs such as recommending the distribution of work be changed so that the maximum allowable overtime annually by one worker is limited. This would encourage employers to hire more people and benefit the economy by reducing unemployment.

The federal government with the private sector and the provinces could help students pay off their student loans through partnerships whereby the federal contribution could be the pay down on student loans. This would provide students with a lighter debt load and would create jobs for an age group that suffers unusually high rates of unemployment. Also it would contribute to worthwhile projects in all of our communities.

A reaffirmation of our continuing commitment to the medicare system is reflected in the conditions set for the Canada health and social transfer. I am very pleased there is a commitment to establishing stable cash transfers from the federal government which will ensure that we are able to enforce national principles.

Our social policy committee of caucus recommended separating cash from tax point revenues. I am delighted the government is headed in that direction.

Many Canadians disagree with the government's direct approach. They would like to talk about Canadian institutions like the Senate and find ways of improving them. Canadians want their country to do well. They want the various levels of government to be efficient and to fulfil their respective roles. They want the federation to be modernized. That is the direction we are headed in.

I am pleased with the emphasis the government has placed on technology, as Fredericton-York-Sunbury has been identified in many ways as a forward moving, high technology region. The high tech park in Fredericton is well on its way in our community. Our universities are information centres which offer much opportunity for growth, whether it is distance education at UNB or the dissemination of information to seniors through third age centre programs at St. Thomas. When we talk about technology and creating jobs, it is good news for our region.

As for national unity, it is not a matter of party politics. It is a matter of concern to all Canadians. It has been the government's position not to beat around the bush, by promising to involve every citizen of this country in the debate. As long as there is talk of yet another referendum in Quebec will, this government will discharge its responsibility in ensuring that everyone is acting above board, that the rules of the game are fair, that the consequences and implications are made clear and that, wherever they live, Canadians can have their say on the future of their country.

Culture is an important component of identity. We are committed to strengthening such programs as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board. A country sharing a vision of itself is a country united.

At an upcoming first ministers' conference, we will have an opportunity to redefine the national economic development goal so as to determine our respective responsibilities as governments. Combined with the governments' commitment to cultural institu-

tions, this approach clearly shows that those in power fully intend to keep our country united, and I commend them for that.

I state again that I believe the budget was a reaffirmation of traditional Liberal values, addressing economic opportunity, social justice and national unity. I hope we can all recognize the importance of an unwavering commitment to this agenda so that we can keep the opportunities it creates alive for ourselves and for our children. I urge all members to support this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

By unanimous agreement we have agreed to go back to 20-minute speeches. It has not been indicated whether the text of the motion indicates there will be a question and answer period and the Chair has not been able to determine that. Therefore unless somebody can correct the Chair, we will go on the principle that we do have, if desired, a question and answer period.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my friend opposite said. Unfortunately, I am not quite clear about what he said, and I would appreciate it if he could explain a few things to me.

Yesterday in this House, the Prime Minister was questioned by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who asked him if he intented to hold a socio-economic summit like the one in Quebec City just yesterday. He said no. His answer was that the necessary public consultation had taken place at the time of the general election, in which his party was elected, and that that was enough.

But it has been 24 or 26 months since the federal election. On the subject of culture, I remind the House that yesterday Mrs. Lambert, the Montreal architect, stressed the role Montreal plays in tourism and culture, as well as the need to preserve its architecture, and so on.

Am I to conclude from the Prime Minister's answer-the hon. member will tell me-that he has innate knowledge and, more to the point, limitless knowledge, or should he not show humility instead and consult with his social, economic and cultural partners in the Canadian community?

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the question by the member.

I point out a minor flaw in his preamble in reference to the fact that the government has not been a particularly consultative administration. In question period, although perhaps not coming from the member himself, most of the time the official opposition has challenged that the government consults too much.

My experience as a member of Parliament has been to participate in the social security review which was a significant exercise in consultation. This type of exercise should not be limited to the Prime Minister or to the government. We all have a significant responsibility to consult with our own constituents in terms of the direction the country should take.

In answer to his question, we have had a large number of consultations in Fredericton-York-Sunbury, 14 or 15. We had two consultations on the question of the budget. We had a consultation on health care, two consultations on the social security review and consultations on national defence and national unity following the referendum.

Therefore I challenge the suggestion of the hon. member that the government and this Parliament have not been consultative, quite the contrary. I am quite pleased with the opportunity given to me as a member of Parliament to consult with my constituents and bring their concerns to this place.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that the hon. member is mixing things up but, since we must always assume that people are acting in good faith, I will not say "deliberately". However, when developing major policies, a ruling party has to conduct consultations throughout the land, to reach as many people as possible to develop a consensus.

I know that the government does consult. It has even been criticized, and rightly so, for consulting regularly and often unnecessarily on some issues or subjects. Yesterday, in the debate on the motion concerning the committee set up by the Minister of Finance to review business taxation, we pointed out that this committee may not have been the ideal forum for consultation the minister could have devised.

But when it comes to the general thrust of a country's socio-economic policies, I think that the government never once brought labour and the business community together as part of consultations on this subject. I would like the hon. member who just spoke to tell me this. Is it superfluous to gather all the socio-economic players around the same table in an attempt to create a consensus?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said the first time the member put the question. I draw his attention to the social security review as an example.

There were business, labour, social activists, women's groups, anti-poverty groups and university students. I believe we received 600 briefs from organizations in all parts of Canada. It is probably one of the more comprehensive consultations ever been undertaken in the country.

I simply cannot concur that the government does not consult or that I have not been clear. On many occasions opposition members have challenged the government for consulting too much. I think that answers the question.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support Bill C-10, an act to provide for the borrowing authority.

I enthusiastically support the budget tabled by the finance minister on March 6. It budget sets a course for our future, securing our financial future, securing our social programs, all of it in order to build a strong and united Canada which will be able to compete successfully in the world in the 21st Century.

When the government embarked on this journey some 29 months ago Canada was at a fiscal and economic crossroads as a nation. It was faced with a structural deficit of over $42 billion and a debt of $508 billion which was growing much faster than our economic productivity.

Our social programs were captive to the whims of financial markets and vulnerable to rising interest rates which drove up the cost of servicing the debt, putting increased pressure on medicare, our social safety net and our public pension system.

It is a vicious cycle and it has exacted a heavy toll on Canadians. It sapped consumer confidence. It soaked up our domestic savings. It has increased our foreign indebtedness, reduced our productivity and dried up investment and job creation. We were on an unsustainable course. Quite simply, Canadians had lost faith in the capacity of the federal government to competently manage its fiscal affairs and create a climate for economic growth, investment and job creation.

Over the past 29 months our government has taken dramatic, decisive and disciplined action based on what Canadians told us in their local communities.

We listened when Canadians told us to refocus our spending priorities toward areas that are building blocks for our nation's future in a competitive world marketplace: a sustainable, publicly funded medicare system; a secure social safety net for vulnerable Canadians; an affordable pension system; investments geared to achieving the vast current and future potential for our youth.

The government is on track to meet these deficit targets: $24.3 billion in 1996-97. The deficit will be reduced 60 per cent over four years through fundamental and structural changes in our spending habits, the lowest level since 1949-50.

Over the past three years cumulative spending reductions have outstripped tax revenue measures by a ratio of seven to one. Six hundred and four thousand jobs have been created since we took office. There is further action in budget 1996.

Budget 1996 takes steps to put our social programs on a sustainable and affordable path. We have established a floor level for cash transfers under the Canada health and social transfer and we have put in place a five-year funding allocation arrangement which recognizes for the first time population growth in provinces such as Alberta.

We have established a new seniors benefit that will ensure future generations will reap the benefits of their contributions to the country. We have revamped the child support system to secure a future for children, our most valuable resource.

These are major achievements which resulted from our political will and our commitment to listen to the collective wisdom of Canadians.

On the evening of budget 1996 I held a budget round table in Edmonton East. It included small business owners, students, seniors, representatives from community associations and agencies. After watching the budget speech we conferences by telephone to discuss the impacts on Edmonton East. The general collective wisdom was that the budget took a careful and balanced approach to reducing the deficit by putting the interests of people first.

Round table participants pointed out that reducing the deficit was simply a means to an end. It creates positive conditions for economic growth, investment and job creation, and it improves the standard of living for all Canadians.

This shows the effectiveness of the government program review, the process designed to ensure that taxpayer dollars are value for money and are allocated to people's priorities.

Program review is not only about spending less money, but spending it wisely, more effectively and more efficiently by measuring the results achieved. There has been a fundamental difference between the carefully measured approach toward getting the fiscal house in order and the slash and burn approach of the Reform Party of Canada.

The government will sustain national standards in medicare and will ensure the viability of the social safety net. It will secure the public pension retirement system for future generations of seniors. It will protect children and target investments toward people and technology. This is what will build the innovative economy needed to compete on the world stage.

The Reform Party of Canada is proposing to reduce benefits to seniors by $3 billion over three years, to reduce funding to unemployment insurance by $3.4 billion, to reduce transfers to the provinces for equalization, health care, post-secondary education and social assistance by $6.5 billion over three years.

While the Reform Party is proposing to eliminate the fiscal deficit over three years, it would create a human deficit of such epic proportions it would hamper Canada's ability to compete effectively. It would leave those who are most vulnerable in Canadian society to fend for themselves, denying them the opportunity to participate and to contribute in building an innovative economy for the future.

What the Reform Party seems to forget is that deficit reduction is more than just numbers. It is about the future of people. When the Reform Party holds up the Klein government as a standard for deficit reduction, it fails to look beyond the numbers.

Fifty-eight per cent of the reduction in Alberta's deficit over four years, or $2.3 billion, comes from increases in personal and corporate tax revenues, oil and gas revenue windfalls, video slot machines, health care premium increases, profit from the provinces own commercial businesses and offloading to local governments.

Let us be clear for the record. The unconditional provincial grant to municipalities in Alberta has been reduced by 69 per cent from $1.74 billion to $58 million over four years. The provincial grant for community and family service support has been reduced by nearly 25 per cent.

Participants in our Edmonton East budget round table were unanimous in their view that slash and burn budgeting is not the answer to achieving long term stability for Canada and security for Canadians.

Measures to reallocate existing program spending toward the SchoolNet program that will ensure affordable access to the information highway for small to medium sized businesses and to encourage education and skill development through employment measures were seen as really positive by Edmonton East.

Although 604,000 jobs were created since the Liberals took office and the unemployment rate has been reduced by 2 per cent, our Edmonton East group wisely pointed out that youth unemployment continues to be far too high, sapping Canada's future economic potential. As one participant said, dealing with the human deficit of youth unemployment should be a priority for the government.

There was general support among the Edmonton East group regarding the government's focus on boosting Canada's innovative capacity as a means for fuelling productivity and growth. The establishment of Technology Partnership Canada will certainly be helpful to areas in Alberta where it is a growing sector of the economy.

Small business owners in Edmonton East share the national problem of securing capital and export markets for their businesses. They comprise 90 per cent of all Alberta businesses and create over 70 per cent of all new jobs on an annual basis. Their continued health and access to capital is absolutely critical.

Since we have come to office, we have done much to assist in this way. We have reduced regulations and paperwork. We have introduced single window business service centres and we continue to reduce the unemployment insurance premiums.

Budget '96 has taken further action. A program will be instituted in which 2,000 computer students will help connect 50,000 small businesses to the Internet. Fifty million dollars in new equity capital will be provided to the Export Development Corporation and $50 million will be projected into the Business Development Bank.

Participants in the Edmonton East Budget '96 round table also indicated their support with the tax fairness and equity measures contained in the budget. No tax increases, not personal, not corporate, not excise, not gas, was seen very positively by our group in Edmonton East. Our intention to consult Canadians on how the business taxation system could be improved was seen as vital. Canadians within their local communities, particularly small business owners, have valuable advice for us on the business taxation review.

Concern was expressed in Edmonton East about giving provincial governments, such as Alberta, increased flexibility over the design and administration of social programs. Many in Edmonton East had experienced firsthand the Klein government's dismantling of the health care system and its attack on the most vulnerable in society, the poor, the sick, the young and the aged.

Participants were relieved to hear the government reaffirm its commitment to sustain Canada's social programs by taking action. The $11 billion floor level for cash transfers was considered favourable. Implementing a five-year funding allocation arrangement for the CHST that emphasizes growth in population is seen also as fair for Alberta.

Ensuring that CHST cash allocations are tied to the provinces upholding the five basic principles of the Canada Health Act and the no minimum residency requirements for social assistance is also positive.

Our Edmonton East group has agreed with the need to set priorities for our future. One key priority is to maintain national standards within social programs, such as medicare, as a means of investing in people. There was absolutely no support for the dismantling of the publicly funded medicare system or massive commercialization or delisting of health care services as has been advocated by the Reform Party.

The Edmonton East group believed that our network of social programs is a reflection of our unique Canadian identity. This is a unity issue. It is an example of how Canadian federalism can work effectively to meet the needs of its citizens.

Edmonton East wants to be involved in the discussions leading to the development of shared values, principles and objectives, those that will underlie the CHST and the social union. They want to ensure that core Canadian values-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to sit here, coming from the same province, and listen to a message that I know the people are not conveying in our province. The people are saying: "What about the MP pension plan? You talk about setting an example and showing us that you really care about us. Are you taking the pension that none of us can get after only six years at age 55? Do you think that is fair? Is that setting an example"? I know what the people in Alberta are saying.

The member who just spoke had a meeting of 17 people and we had 800 people out to a meeting on the same evening. I know what the people there were saying. It is very difficult to sit here and listen to a misrepresentation of the grassroots. They care that their income is continually dropping.

The member is right. They care about medicare and so do we. They care about those terrible waiting lists that exist now. They care about the downsizing and the offloading that the Liberals are doing while saying that they are holier than thou. It is time they set an example instead of being all talk and no action.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.

Clearly, the people of Canada really need to be heard and understood. Each of us has a tremendous responsibility within our ridings to fairly represent the thoughts, feelings, wishes and desires of those people.

We also recognize that there are differences in the thoughts, feeling and opinions of the people of various ridings and people within ridings. But of incredible importance is the honest effort and desire to meet with and discuss matters with the people.

I have found it incredibly important to bring to Parliament the voices of the people of Edmonton East. We have discussed the issues. Our greatest desire is to bring understanding of these issues.

I have held nine forums on different issues of interest to Edmonton East. We have talked about aboriginal youth justice and euthanasia. We have included panellists who know and understand those issues so they can share with us the importance of understanding the issues before we make our decisions.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is once again showing its inability to provide measures that are fair to all Canadians and Quebecers.

Once again, low income people will be the ones paying for the Liberal government's unrealistic projects, for its shallow financial policies, for overlap, for the expense accounts of senior public servants-more on this later-for the maintenance of tax loopholes, not to mention useless structures-and the term useless is indeed the appropriate one-such as the other place, whose members were sleeping-and I will say it again to be understood-members of the other place were sleeping when the speech from the throne was being delivered.

I think it would be in the interest of all Canadians and Quebecers to know how this came about. In 1867, the provinces that subscribed to the idea of a common pact had faith. The agreement was based on mutual trust. Consent was given following an agreement based on mutual trust. However, the progressive centralization of power in Ottawa gradually deprived the provinces of what little power they had left.

This centralizing process reached its peak under the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. This is when the economy started to collapse. All hell broke loose, as we say. In 1977-78, Canada's deficit was $10 billion. The following year, it stood at $12.6 billion. A $2.6 billion increase in one year is some kind of a record.

The saga continued under Mr. Trudeau's successors. Former minister Allan MacEachen managed to accumulate a $56 billion deficit in three years. Marc Lalonde accumulated $70 billion over a period of two fiscal years. Michael Wilson accumulated $146 billion in six years. As for the current finance minister, time will tell whether he will pick up the pace in terms of reducing the debt, without adversely affecting the poor. I doubt he will.

Since the Trudeau years, Canada's spending has exceeded its revenues. We gave up the essential for the accessory. Imagine a family saying: "We do not have money to buy groceries this week

because we treated ourselves over the weekend?". It simply does not make sense.

This financial abyss is the result of the fight led by Mr. Trudeau to crush Quebec separatists by throwing money out the window to ensure greater federal visibility. This is what has been dubbed the war of the flags. Faced with Quebec's wish to be recognized by the international community, the current Prime Minister said: "What separatists want is a Quebec flag on the hood of diplomatic cars". And that person is our Prime Minister. The level of discussion in this House can be really low. I can understand why visitors in the public gallery are disappointed by this circus. I am an elected member and even I sometimes get depressed when I go back to my riding, in Beauport. The lack of decorum in this House is simply incredible.

By the way, in 1975, the accumulated debt was $23,958,000,000.

After the Conservatives came to power, the debt rose substantially, reaching $125.625 billion by 1983, and it has continued to climb ever since, now standing at close to $600 billion, the equivalent of $20,000 for each Canadian in the country, whatever their age. From the tiniest infant born a few minutes ago to the oldest person in the land, a 103 year old Quebec woman, they all have this $20,000 hanging over their head.

Now, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are overcome with remorse over their earlier financial management under the Trudeau government, realizing they had better do something with a federal election coming up, if this budget is any indication. We in the Bloc Quebecois have news for the Liberals. We are ready for them in the next federal election. They have decided to bring down an election minded budget. Fine. But this social reform is a source of discontent throughout the country, both in Quebec and in the other provinces. A demonstration by people exasperated by the situation is the top story in the news and concrete proof of the mood in the country.

And this brings me back to the lack of decorum in this House, about which I spoke earlier. I would like to add my comments, to give my opinion, regarding the remarks made by the Minister of Human Resources Development, which were the epitome of arrogance. This same Minister of Human Resources Development used the term "baveux" in referring to a colleague, this was acknowledged, and he was not asked to withdraw his comment. This is the same Minister of Human Resources Development who called the demonstrators against unemployment insurance reform lazy people with nothing better to do on a Sunday. There were 5,000 people demonstrating in Amqui, in the Matapédia valley. In other words, 5,000 lazy souls with nothing better to do on a Sunday than take part in a demonstration. This is an arrogant disregard for the unemployed workers of Quebec and of Canada. It is unbelievable.

I knew the Minister of Human Resources Development in the days when I was transport critic. This is the same man who, at a WESTAC meeting in Winnipeg on October 5 or 9, 1994, had the following to say about railway workers:

"Railway workers cannot be blamed for negotiating excessive labour contracts because they only have a grade nine education".

What an insult to the 62,000 railway workers in Canada, to say that they cannot be blamed for negotiating excessive labour contracts because they have only a grade nine education. I know the Minister of Human Resources Development is a lawyer, but I was taught-and I too am a lawyer-that competency and intelligence were not handed out along with your diploma. Having a diploma up on the wall does not make you any more competent. When a minister who ought to be concerned about labour issues behaves like that, one wonders: Is this normal. Is it acceptable in a society like ours to be labelled "baveux", swine, spineless, shiftless? It is unacceptable. We do not accept it, nor do the people we represent. This does not have anything to do with party allegiance, either, for in our riding offices we have federalists, both Liberal and Conservative coming in to tell us: "We will not stand for such unacceptable language. Denounce it."

And we do exactly that, when we have the chance, and that is what I am doing.

What I wanted to illustrate was how the government is always picking on the same groups. One wonders whether the heart of the government is in the right place. What is proposed in this budget is a semblance of decentralization, but with the provinces retaining only a few theoretical powers, while following in the wake of Ottawa.

Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau made a statement only a few months ago to the effect that decentralization of power would be the death of Canada. The present Prime Minister, and the present Minister of Finance, not wishing to contradict their mentor, are putting tools in place that will increase the decision making powers of the central government.

It cannot be denied; the federal government is continually encroaching on the exclusive jurisdictions of the provinces, guaranteed to them by the Constitution. The overlap it deliberately created in the area of social security hampers the provinces' ability to establish any effective policies.

The measures in the 1996-97 budget do nothing to contribute to reducing expenditures or this year's deficit. On the contrary, what we got was an additional expenditure of $104 million over the 1995-96 budget. The government is behaving as if it had created no waste, as if there was no duplication and as if there were no tax inequities. You would think there were no unemployed, no such thing as bankruptcy and no cases of violence arising from the state of the economy, because sometimes we tend to neglect this in our debates.

There is a lot of talk about job creation and the economy, but what does that do for tension in couples, in homes and among young people? What affects the level of suicide among young people and the dropping out rate? We should ask the question. Let us go to the source of the problem. What are they related to? Is it because things are going well? Are things going well?

Go and talk to the principal of a secondary school or a comprehensive school. Ask her how her students are doing. Ask her whether things have improved or worsened in her 25 years in education. It is incredible; it is a disaster, and I think we have to point out the link, a direct one in my opinion, between dropping out of school, suicide among young people, domestic violence, including violence against children, and the state of the economy.

I am not excusing those who commit violence, but, perhaps, when people are discouraged and feeling hugely stressed, they lose their patience. When all is calm, it is easy to control one's nerves.

As the chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I am very concerned over the use made of public funds. The reduction of the deficit, the Minister of Finance's pride and joy, is surreptitious, because the minister drew $5 billion from the surplus in the UI fund. This money comes directly out of the pockets of employers and employees, because, as we know, it is their contributions that keep the system afloat. The surplus might have perhaps been used to offset the continued under-employment of society's most disadvantaged.

The minister is using public funds to buoy up Canada's financial rating on international markets, thereby forcing the people of his own country into a social crisis. Not only is he misleading Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, he is misleading international partners by falsifying the situation in Canada.

Quebec considers this budget unacceptable, because it suffers the most when funding is on a per capita basis. According to this principle, Quebec alone will bear the brunt of 42 per cent of funding cuts. To make this bitter pill easier to swallow in Quebec, the federal government is announcing a one year delay, but what it is not saying is that the machinery has already been set in motion.

Moreover, the cuts announced last year, which are coming into effect this year, amount to $2.5 billion, of which $650 million in Quebec. In short, it is business as usual, Quebec is paying and the rest of Canada is lining its pocket.

With regard to employment, the government is boasting it is creating jobs. The Prime Minister, answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition, replied: "Look at what journalists have been saying about our budget. They all think it is a good budget". I would like to quote the results of a SOM- Le Soleil poll conducted between March 1 and 6; 1,000 individuals throughout Quebec were asked: ``Are you counting on the federal budget to stimulate job creation?'' Twenty-eight per cent answered a little; 25 per cent answered not at all; 53 per cent of respondents know full well that the federal budget will contribute nothing to job creation, a fact which has proven true to a large extent.

With regard to our young people, the government is earmarking $60 million more for student employment, but on the other hand, is reducing post-secondary education funding by $150 million in 1996-97, and $400 to $500 million in 1997-98. These cuts are sure to result in increased tuition fees, which will limit access to education.

In this Parliament, we have young people working as pages, young people who are benefitting from the democratic availability of education. Under the present system, young people from any social background can go to university for reasonable, acceptable fees. The kind of family or background they come from matters not. This is what democratization of education really means.

If we go ahead with the increase, if we double or triple tuition fees-we could ask the young pages who work here if they would still be able to afford a university education if tuition fees were doubled or tripled. Possibly many would say they would not because they are not from a well-to-do family. There is a real danger in a country when you create two social classes of people.

Rich people can afford health care, they can send their children to university, but if you have the misfortune of coming from a middle-class family or one that is a bit hard up, you cannot afford health care and university. So you are condemned to low-paying jobs and that does not make for what I would consider a more equitable country.

How can we put public finances in order if, at the same time, we let senior public servants run up travel and expense accounts to the tune of $691 million? I see members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that I chair and I know that when time comes to examine this issue in committee, members from all parties will accept that we take a close look at those $691 million, a figure that was stated by Yves Séguin from the Mouvement pour le redressement économique du Québec.

Another example of the federal government not encouraging job creation is the allowable amounts for tax credits. This is seriously threatening the viability of venture capital funds of Quebec labour confederations like the FTQ and the CSN which create thousands of jobs. It seems there are 19 such funds all over Canada. It is not an issue that concerns only Quebec.

I do not understand why the Minister of Finance does not want to encourage such constructive and viable initiatives. Instead, he puts in place a technical committee on business taxation, some members of which are already taking advantage of tax shelters offered to businesses having branches in countries considered tax heavens.

I could also, but I do not have time, talk about the $6.4 billion in unpaid taxes by more than 400,000 delinquent taxpayers. Ordinary people listening to us who are about to file their income tax return, if they did not already do so, and include their cheque, would they have the right to be like the 400,000 delinquent taxpayers and not pay their income tax? It does not matter, the government is not going after them. It is not going after the $6.4 billion. This is incredible.

I could also have talked about old age pensions, talked about interference or talked about child support payments. Unfortunately, you are signalling that I am running out of time.

To conclude, with this budget, the government is proving once more that it is incapable of managing, of showing imagination and audacity in the search for solutions, and that it is incapable of acting in good faith to tackle, once and for all, the problems of the public debt and unemployment. This budget contains some paradoxical measures. It seems to be giving with one hand, while with the other taking away the means for people to get by.

It is high time that the present federal system be seriously revamped. It stifles development of the provinces, which now are simply regional branches. As to the majority of Quebecers, they believe that it is through sovereignty and creation of a new partnership, in an atmosphere favourable to good negotiations, that we will reach, together, the balance required to grow as peoples.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member from the Bloc is angry, disturbed and distraught about Canada. Life in Canada, the best country in the world, is very wonderful. I hope he will soon find peace and learn how to enjoy this wonderful country.

The member made several references in his comments about Canada and Quebec taxpayers. I understand the member is a separatist and does not respect Canada, but I invite him to get to know the rest of Canada by travelling outside of Quebec. He should believe, as I do, that he owns a bit of every part of Canada, every province, the lakes, the Rockies, Banff, the beautiful prairies and the wonderful maritimes. Walk on the rocks of Peggy's Cove and he will fall in love with Canada again and again.

The member also asked whether this party had a heart. This party does have a heart and a soul; it is in the Prime Minister who we all know always speaks straight from the heart.

The member in most of his speech basically said we have a lot of economic problems in Canada and gave examples of the consequences. He referred to things like school dropouts, teen suicides, et cetera. He contradicted himself by saying we were interfering in the areas that are exclusive jurisdictions of the provinces.

Schools are under the responsibility of provincial jurisdiction and the dropout rate now in Canada is something like 22 per cent. If he speaks to the school boards he will find out most school boards are not dealing properly with dropouts. They are spending a lot of money on school dropouts but they are spending it on kids who have already dropped out. They are not spending anything on children who are thinking about dropping out.

Rather than trying to rip the heart out of the country would it not be a better use of the member's time to start working within his riding to make sure we are spending and focusing our limited dollars on trying to prevent problems rather than reacting to them?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga-South mentioned that I should go to various places in Canada to get to know it. I will offer him the same thing. It is unfortunate that he will not be able to answer, but I wanted to ask him if he has ever been very close to my riding, in Saint-Ferréol-les-Neiges, if he has ever travelled around the Île d'Orléans, if he has ever been on the Beaupré coast, if he has ever seen the heritage character of the Royale Avenue, in Beauport.

It reminds me that, in 1980, when I was campaigning door to door and speaking with Mrs. Asselin, my neighbour in Chicoutimi, she told me: "Michel, I cannot vote yes, because we will lose the Rockies". I said: "But the Montmorency falls in my riding will not stop flowing if we become sovereign tomorrow morning. A valve will not be installed at the top of them. We will be able to come and visit them, and we will be able to go see the Rockies". The Alps are in a different country, and when we want to visit them, we take the plane and go see them.

The Rocky Mountains as the symbol of Canadian unity, what a joke. Anyway, you are cutting the railway, you are cutting the very thing that led to Canada being built, the railway. And you, the Liberals, are hacking it to bits. Mr. Bouchard, last night, said it: a project such as the high speed train, which could link Quebec to Windsor, would be an interesting partnership project. I made some speeches here on the HST, some carefully wrought speeches at 5.30

p.m., the best time slot, and of the 177 Liberal members in front of me who could have come to listen to my speech on the HST-on which I had worked three days and three nights-not one was there to listen to it. So, you do not have a prayer.

The hon. member speaks of the "best country in the world", yet, he seems to be forgetting that the "best country in the world" is mortgaged to the hilt and living on credit. Personally, I could have a fantastic lifestyle if I loaded my credit cards to the limit. That is precisely what the "best country in the world" is doing. It is living on borrowed money, with every single baby born in the past ten minutes already saddled with a $20,000 debt. It is incredible. They will never convince us that ours is the "best country in the world".

The hon. member said: "I understand, the member is a separatist". Just saying the word "separatist" makes them feel better. Yes, I am a separatist. The member is right. I admit it. But saying that I do not like Canada is not true.

What we want, far from destroying your country, is a country we can call our own. I like Canada, and I do enjoy travelling in Canada. When I am in Vancouver, I find English Bay quite beautiful. When I visited Thunder Bay with the hon. member for Thunder Bay, I enjoyed Lake Superior. We do not want to destroy your country, but simply to build our own.

Furthermore, we heard the hon. member's heartfelt cry, because the Liberal Party does have a heart. That reminded me of 1967, when I first got interested in politics. I was only 14 years old then, but I still remember the large signs saying: "Canada, stand together; understand together". We are now in 1996, but how could we explain that we reacted to such words in 1967? How is it that nowadays, in 1996, there are still 50 or 51 per cent of people in Quebec saying that this country is not working? Will you, once and for all, get it into your head that this country is not working? Get that into your head.

Why is it that, since 1967, there are sovereignists saying: "We want to get out. Let us go. We want to leave"? Why are you not letting us go? Because it suits you that we stay.

Here is my last point, because I want to give other members who would like to speak the opportunity to do so. I like that, it gives us the opportunity to make another speech.

Dropping out from school, I agree with the hon. member, falls within the school boards' jurisdiction. I agree that it is up to the school boards to put whatever energy the money is needed into preventing dropping out. However, when I made my point about dropping out, it was to point out that that happens within a whole economic climate, like suicide among young people. We see an increase in the number of dropouts in the current economic conditions.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to move this debate away from the heated rhetoric which has been taking place here today to the issue that really counts, the people of Canada, those of Longueuil, Lac-Saint Jean, Montreal, Papineau-St. Michel, Toronto, Hawkesbury or Victoria.

The issues being discussed today affect everybody in the country. The hon. member brought up the issue of overlap in government. This is a problem we are all labouring under. We need to solve this problem for all our constituents, including Canadians in Quebec.

The net transfer of payments in the order of billions of dollars has been going to Quebec for many years. Where does it come from? It comes from the west, British Columbia and Alberta. Do the people of Alberta and B.C. complain? Absolutely not. Why? At this time we are enjoying economic prosperity whereas the east is not.

Since we are all Canadians we do not mind transferring the funds to the east to help other individuals in the country who are not doing as well. That is a part of being a Canadian.

What will they do when the transfer funds are eliminated if they separate? The business community has repeatedly told the premier of Quebec that if there is separation there will be a huge negative economic impact on the people of Quebec.

What does the hon. member think about that, and what does he think about our 20-20 plan which is a comprehensive plan on how to decentralize federal-provincial jurisdictions for all Canadians across the country?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member speaks about the transfers to the provinces, about equalization, he says that the people of Alberta and British-Columbia are paying a lot to support other provinces. Should we not also think about the poverty level in the Maritimes? Is British-Columbia paying for the Maritimes?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Yes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

But when he says: "We are paying and we are glad to be part of Canada", I want to remind the hon. member that I went to Vancouver, last year, at the invitation of two Reform members, to speak on the sovereign movement in Quebec. I was even invited as a guest speaker at the annual meeting of the Reform Party to talk about the sovereign movement. What do we hear more

and more often in British-Columbia about Quebec: "Let them go. Let them go. We are sick of paying. Let them go."

To which we answer: "We want to go. Let us go. You say that you are sick of paying for us, that you are sick of supporting us. Because you seem to think that you are supporting us. Very well, then let us go; we want to go. Let us go. Stop paying $99 trips from Vancouver to Montreal to come and tell us that you love us just three days before the referendum."

Do you really love us right now? You say you love us, but is it really true, with all the insults you hurl our way in the House? Quebecers will not be taken in at the next referendum. They will never forget the rally held on October 27, 1995. We will not be fooled again.

The NDP member from Burnaby said: "Next time, 60 per cent of Quebecers will vote yes." The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is right; he knows Quebec and shows some respect for Quebecers' wishes.

The hon. member also talked about the companies that could flee Quebec. Do you think these companies have decided to settle in Quebec just because they like us?

I was born in Chicoutimi, just like the hon. member representing the riding of Chicoutimi. In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, we have Alcan and the paper mills. Why do you think Alcan chose to settle in Arvida, far away from the big markets? We are used to seeing aluminium plants springing up close to Chicago or Boston. Why do you think Alcan chose Arvida, in the depths of the country? Because of a natural resource called hydro. God created the Shipshaw and the Saguenay rivers and Alcan harnessed them to produce electricity.

This is why some companies have chosen the province of Quebec. These companies are not in Quebec because they like us or just to please us. Their goal is to make money. No matter what political system is in place, if there is no longer any money to be made, these companies would take up and leave. There is no money to be made here anymore? Let us go to the Philippines or to Mexico.

Once Quebec is sovereign, these companies will remain in Quebec if there is still money to be made.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lincoln.

The Bloc member is long on demagoguery and very short on substance. He started shouting because he did not like hearing questions asked by another member. Maybe he did not like these questions, but I can tell him I did not like his answers at all, to put it bluntly.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the member opposite is disrespectful of the Quebec people, of Quebec electors when he says: "Let us go". He knows the people in his province said the contrary in a referendum. Who is lacking respect in this House? The hon. member who just spoke. This kind of demagoguery is in no way conducive to good understanding.

I could also comment on his speech on the budget and the government's economic policy. Did he forget-I know he will listen carefully to what I have to say-that 600,000 more Canadians have found a job since the government came into office? Did he forget that? Why did he not mention it? Of course, too many Canadians are unemployed, but, at least, 600,000 more have a job now. What is the difference between interest rates now and on election day? Canadians know that our economy has improved thanks to the good management and leadership of our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Let us talk a little about the deficit, another point the hon. member criticized. The deficit went from 6.6 per cent to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product this year and will go down to 2 per cent next year. We are close, in Canada, to having a balanced budget.

In 1993, when we were canvassing and telling people that we would bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the GDP, many did not believe us and said it was not possible. Why? Because the previous government had never kept its word. In nine years, it never succeeded in making year-end figures and budget agree. As for us, we never failed even once in three years to make them agree. That is the difference.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

That is great planning.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thanks to good management and to good planning by the Minister of Finance and our government, as my colleague said. Sure, we had to make some cuts. But we did not do it in the Mike Harris style. That is why we do not see tens of thousands of demonstrators today in front of Parliament.

Yes, we had to cut, but we proceeded according to humanitarian principles, which is the best way to do things, and not as members of the Reform Party would have it, that is, cutting even more than we did to reduce the deficit. Of course, this depends on which Reform members we are talking about because some of them, like the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, are a little more reasonable than others. But some of them are extremists who would cut everything now in the Mike Harris style. In that case, we would have demonstrations. We would see people reduced to a state of dire poverty as so many have been by the Ontario government. This

is not what we want. We want to treat people decently. Of course, we have to make cuts, but we also want to treat people with respect.

Listen to what certain Canadians have to say about the budget. Let me read quote a few of them. Most Canadians, men and women, know what Mrs. Solange Denis said, and I quote: "No, I do not think that they took advantage of me to catch people's attention. I agree entirely with Mr. Martin's plan. I have always supported the Liberals." Bill Good is the host of an open-line program in British-Columbia, and it is well known that, in that part of the country, they do not always agree with the measures proposed by the Liberal Party. He said, and I quote: "The Minister of Finance gained a lot of credibility by meeting the goals he had set, namely, by keeping interest rates relatively low." I ask the members opposite to listen carefully as I continue: "International investors now think that the Minister of Finance is serious about reducing the deficit." Members of the Reform Party would learn a lot if only they listened to Bill Good. He also said this: "Yes, they would want him to go faster, but he met the goals set and, in fact, he even exceeded them, something neither Mike Wilson nor Don Mazankowski even accomplished." He said that, not I.

So that is what people say.

I can quote others. Jeffrey Simpson, of the Globe and Mail , who is not considered to be a great Liberal, said: ``If only the federal government had presented ten years ago a budget similar to those of the last two years, including yesterday's budget-'' That was on March, 7. Those are the praises we are hearing.

Ghislain Dufour, president of the Conseil du patronat du Québec-