Debates of March 21st, 1996

Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-10, the borrowing authority bill. The government is asking this honourable House for $18.7 billion of borrowing authority for the 1996-97 fiscal year. As in previous years, the amount of borrowing authority requested in the bill is directly connected to the financial requirements set out in the 1996 budget.

The budget which was presented on March 6 was good news for Canadians. It focuses on many important areas that need the attention of government. The areas being addressed that I am especially pleased with are the deficit, the economy, social programs and young Canadians. Bill C-10 will allow for the implementation of these initiatives.

I would like to applaud the Minister of Finance for keeping the government on its deficit targets with no new taxes. It is reassuring to see that it is possible for a government to make a budgetary plan, as was outlined in the Liberal red book, and then stick to it budget after budget. Our deficit targets are not only being met, they may be exceeded. This provides us with the confidence that our deficit target for 1996-97 of 3 per cent of GDP is secure, as well as our new interim target of 2 per cent for 1997-98.

The main objective of the Liberal platform during the election was job creation. That is exactly what we are aiming to do through creating the proper economic climate by getting our fiscal house in order. There is a direct link between deficit reduction, interest rate reductions and job creation.

The government has not only kept its promises, it has made new ones.

A very important focus in the budget is on children, youth and the future of our country. The budget provides an additional $165 million over three years to help students and their families deal with the increased costs of education. The budget will increase education tax credits, raise the limit on the transfer of tuition and education credits and increase the limit of contributions to RESP, the registered educational savings plan. That is a small price to pay to open up new educational opportunities to the younger generation. I welcome these measures.

Also announced was an additional $315 million of funding over the next three years to create new youth employment opportunities. There was a real need for government action in this area.

This country has a 16 per cent youth unemployment rate. That is unacceptable to me and it is unacceptable to the government. It is important to provide young people with new challenges and their rightful place in the workforce. That is why the government has committed to doubling the funding for the summer career program to provide students with the work experience needed when they graduate and seek their first full time job.

I am also pleased with the government's new domestic Team Canada style partnership approach between business and government to create entry level jobs for our youth. The government is also on the right track when it devotes funding to involving youth in the Internet. That has happened in several ways.

The SchoolNet program will eventually connect all schools throughout Canada to the information highway. This is vital in keeping Canada globally competitive. It provides youth with the technological skills which will soon be considered mandatory to doing business throughout the world. This also provides schools with a link to the rest of the country which promotes the exchange of information and allows students to learn about their country in new and creative ways.

I applaud the innovative plan announced in the budget by the minister to provide jobs to 2,000 computer students to connect 50,000 small businesses to the Internet. This not only provides valuable work experience for youth but will give small businesses the competitive edge they need to succeed in today's economy.

The financial security of children was also an important focus of the budget. I was pleased to see that new child support measures will be introduced. Fairer tax treatment has been called for by custodial parents for some time now and the government has acted. The new tax system will be simpler for parents. To be fair, the increased tax revenues received will be reinvested to support the implementation costs of the federal child support guidelines.

In addition to this, children will be directly aided by a two-step doubling of the working income supplement. This increase from a maximum annual benefit of $500 to $700 in 1997 and to $1,000 in July 1998 will help low income families cope with such increased costs as child care and transportation to work. This supplement is an added incentive to work rather than to collect social assistance.

This type of incentive is vital to break the cycle of financial dependence that many Canadians face. These changes will affect

upwards of 700,000 families by increasing their benefits an average of $350 a year. It is important to note that one-third of these families are headed by single parents.

A major focus of the recent budget which we are implementing with Bill C-10 will be helping Canadians who need it the most. This has been exemplified by the government's new initiatives for children and youth, which I have discussed, and for seniors with the new seniors benefit which will begin in the year 2001.

Along these same lines, the government has taken measures to protect those Canadians who need medical services, post-secondary education and social assistance. These services were secured in the last budget when the government created the Canadian health and social transfer.

The government in the budget announced a firm commitment for five years starting in 1998-99. For the first two years funding will remain constant at $25.1 billion. For the remaining three years funding will increase each year. This is good news for the provinces and for all Canadians.

Recently I met with representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They told me that they are very supportive of this on behalf of the municipalities. They feel it will provide them with the stability they need as they do their planning. That was very encouraging to me.

There is security in knowing that funding will remain the same or higher for the five-year period beginning in 1998-99. The government has made several other long term commitments such as the new seniors benefit. Not only does this allow Canadians the opportunity to plan ahead, but it demonstrates to business that the government has a long term financial plan that will promote a stable economy. They can therefore feel secure doing business in Canada.

I fully support Bill C-10 and the budget it is implementing. The budget contains much needed programs and additional spending in the areas I have outlined. We have met our deficit targets and will continue to do so with no new taxes in 1996-97. I urge all members of the House to vote for Bill C-10.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member opposite talk about his party's lack of vision in reducing the deficit.

The province of Alberta has adopted platforms which parallel what the Reform Party believes with regard to fiscal matters and responsibility. This year the Government of Alberta will not only balance its budget but also anticipates having a surplus. It can make a decision to either apply the surplus to the debt, to its health care system, to post-secondary education, or to the seniors program. Alberta has the luxury of a surplus because it has adopted some very hard and tough fiscal programs to get its deficit under control and its budget balanced.

How would the hon. member respond to that success?

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a vision or lack of vision with respect to the deficit; it depends on how one looks at it. I would be the first to acknowledge there are two plans, two visions for the future, two budgets: the budget presented by the Reform Party and the government's budget.

I said in my speech and I have said over and over that the deficit is something we must get under control. We are not only committed to reducing the deficit on a planned basis but to eventually eliminating it, then being able to use that money for programs and to pay off the debt.

There is a difference between the position of the party opposite and my position. I recognize there are two deficits while the member opposite only recognizes one deficit. He recognizes the fiscal deficit as I do but I also recognize the human deficit. We cannot put the people of this country at risk and make the human deficit worse by taking the approach advocated by the member opposite.

I appreciate what the member is saying. To a great extent we agree on many issues as they relate to the eventual elimination of the deficit, but there is a difference in approach. As I have stated, the main difference is the recognition by this side of the House that we must also consider the human deficit.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked my colleague to talk a little more about the 1,400,000 unemployed people in this country. He did not mention them. Of course, he referred to the program designed to provide summer jobs for students, but this program will not save Canada or the unemployed.

I would like to find out from my colleague what measures are favoured by his party to create high paying jobs that would enable people to make ends meet and to put bread on the table.

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member specifics but my timeframe will not allow me to do that.

I did address the question of unemployment. I did address the question of the unacceptable level of youth unemployment which is at 16 per cent. As I mentioned in my speech I also recognize, as I believe the hon. member opposite should recognize, the direct link between deficit reduction which will lead to interest rate reduction and will lead to job creation. That is a sound economic principle. I am sure the member opposite realizes that until we get our fiscal

house in order, businesses will not have the climate in which to create the jobs we need in this country.

We have had a good record of job creation but it has to get better. The unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent is still unacceptable. The youth unemployment rate of 16 per cent is unacceptable. I am convinced the measures we started two budgets ago and that we are continuing with this budget will over time reduce that rate. I am very confident of that.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, of course, wish to speak to this bill to provide borrowing authority so that the federal government can service its debt. This debate deals with the last budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for LaSalle-Émard.

I think it is important to remind our listeners that the 1996 budget contains no tax increases. There is no increase in individual income tax, corporate tax or the excise tax. In fact, there were no tax increases in this budget, which was very well received by the media in general, by the national and international financial community, of course, and by groups of young and not so young people, including seniors.

In its third budget, the government intends to continue keeping the federal deficit under control. Since the last two budgets, we have saved $21.5 billion. This is a significant cut in the present circumstances.

The government's third budget cuts another $1.9 billion. In 1992, Canada's debt amounted to 6 per cent of our gross domestic product. It was a very large debt, one of the largest in the western world.

This year, however, the debt has fallen from 6 to 3 per cent of GDP, and our goal is to reduce this figure to less than 2 per cent. Should we reach this goal, Canada's deficit would rank among the lowest in the western world.

I am also proud to tell you that, of all western countries, Canada is the one that borrows the least, so that it can service its debt and stimulate the economy.

This, I think, is serious evidence that highlights the government's competence and, of course, the finance minister's determination to help and especially to ensure-repeat, ensure-that the Canadian government remains fiscally responsible.

The budget touched on several issues. I especially want to tell Canadian seniors that they can rest assured that those over 65 years of age will continue to receive benefits. The only changes that were made concern people who have single status or earn $52,000 or more. As far as couples are concerned, the program will still apply to those who earn $78,000 or less.

As for young people, it has been announced that nearly $300 million will be invested over the next three years to encourage young people to re-enter the workforce as well as to set up apprenticeship programs. Also, the federal government intends to make sure that twice as many summer jobs are available for students.

I think the government is headed in the right direction. Much attention is paid to independent workers as well as to new technologies and new incentives for business to invest in various areas, including in the rural area.

The past year, the federal government invested in the information highway to make so-called remote areas more competitive and, of course, up to date as regards new technology and the new marketplace, as we know it.

I should also say a word about what has been going on in Quebec, especially over the last few days, as the Quebec government, through its premier, Mr. Bouchard-a former member of this House, as you know-is hosting a socio-economic conference bringing together union leaders, industry and Quebec government members of course.

I am rather surprised to see that the premier has the intention of bringing down a balanced budget within four years. But I think that what is important is to realize why the premier is aiming for the year 2000 with his plans to balance the budget, and that is because, at one time, this man was notorious for his cuts affecting the Quebec government and its employees, who suffered wage cuts in excess of 20 per cent during the 80s.

I think that Quebec will have it hard in the next few years, for two reasons: because of the size of the accumulated debt in Quebec and because Quebec is the Canadian province whose per capita indebtedness is the highest. I must also add that the signal sent to Mr. Bouchard on October 30 last by the people-by the industry, small business and the public in general-is the following: "Put your fiscal house in order and work toward economic growth. This is all we want and this is how we will pull Quebec out of its economic slump".

Unfortunately, the premier still seeks to achieve sovereignty, that is Quebec's independence.

Let me remind you that, as a cornerstone of the Canadian federation, Quebec is very much a winner. This year alone, Quebec will receive close to $11.634 billion in federal transfers, including $3.8 billion in equalization payments.

As regards the issue of equalization, opposition members often tell us that Quebec is the big loser in Confederation, but that is simply not true. Since 1993-94, federal equalization payments to Quebec went from $3.7 billion-again that was for 1993-94-to $3.8 billion the following year and $3.8 billion this year. In

1996-97, they will go up to almost $4 billion. It is obvious that Quebec benefits from being a member of the Canadian federation.

However, in spite of these federal transfers, Quebec is about to make drastic cuts affecting welfare recipients. It will reduce the schools' budgets. I feel, as do several other people, that Quebec will experience lasting difficulties if the political issue, which is a real threat, is not settled.

We are simply asking the premier of Quebec, and I believe I am speaking on behalf of a large percentage of Quebecers who want to remain in the Canadian federation, to sit down with the federal government to find solutions that will ensure jobs and a future for all. This is what we want.

Quebecers voted no for several reasons, the first one being of course that they want to stay in the Canadian federation. But I believe that the political maturity of Quebecers made them realize that, to move forward and reach the objectives that they had as a society, including getting the Quebec and Canadian economies back on track, we must work together.

Time is running out, but let me tell you that Quebec's economic growth will be dependent on political stability. Quebec's debt will certainly decrease, provided we believe in economic growth, which is the key to getting rid of the debt in Quebec and Canada within the next few years.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by congratulating the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. He is very involved in the regional development of his riding. He often wears his work shirt to show that he knows what work is all about. And work can also be profitable.

However, I want to ask my distinguished colleague, who cannot seem to stop bragging about his new budget, how come in his riding, and especially in the Magdalen Islands, more than 10 per cent of the overall population rallied to protest against the tough UI reform. Every federal measure taken these days seems to go after the seasonal unemployed, numerous in his riding and in mine as well. In other words, the government is mostly picking on women and young Canadians.

Does this budget mention anything about tax shelters and tax avoidance? Not once. The Aucoins, from the Magdalen Islands, whom I had the pleasure to talk to again yesterday, as well as the Delaneys and Mr. Dalhousie are not very proud of their member of Parliament. A letter published in the op-ed page of L'écho du Nord and Le Radar harshly criticized not so much the hon. member, but rather the federal government which is hardly visible in the regions. It is as if the federal government only cares about the larger urban areas, while the smaller towns and communities in the member's riding are being hard hit.

The hon. member for Îles-de-la-Madeleine knows something about the predicament the seasonal workers and frequent users are now in. No wonder the deficit has been reduced, with the $5.6 billion the government is taking from the UI fund. A strange thing to do. While the big companies are not paying their fair share of the deficit and the taxes, the government goes after ordinary Canadians.

I think the hon. member for Îles-de-la-Madeleine should apologize to his voters. He should be ashamed. I think he will soon be invited to a meeting where he will have to explain the measures his government will take to water down the Axworthy reform, which has now become the Young reform.

How is he going to sweeten the pill for his voters? I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about all of this.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We undoubtedly want to hear what the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine has to say, but he is not being given a lot of time to answer in this five-minute question and comment period. With the consent of the House, I will give the hon. member a little more time, in fact as much time as the previous speaker, to reply to the hon. member for Frontenac.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member of the opposition that I naturally prefer work shirts to ties. I think that might answer his question. The hon. member across the way seems strangely interested in the riding of Bonaventure-«les-de-la-Madeleine, to the point where it almost sounds like he is considering running against me. It is, of course, a lovely area.

However, it will take a lot to kickstart the economy. Take unemployment insurance reform. I have had the privilege of meeting with my constituents, who had a number of very interesting and constructive ideas to pass on. I also offered my opinion to the minister. I implore him to make major changes to this bill. We are, in fact, going to invite opposition members and a number of Liberal MPs to suggest constructive changes to this bill.

Quebecers, and particularly the people of my riding, are no longer satisfied with the status quo, with an unemployment rate of 20 per cent and higher, with a dropout rate of over 40 per cent. This is why we want to introduce incentives to give young people a chance, to give them some hope in the region I come from. This is what is important.

Furthermore, I was the first to rise, as a member from Quebec I would add, when I told the minister that we had to re-examine the method used to calculate unemployment insurance benefits, that the 410 hours is unacceptable in my region. That is what I said. I also said that we must take a second look at this idea of penalizing

seasonal workers, of dropping from 55 per cent to 50 per cent of income after five years of benefits. I took a stand.

I have confidence in the minister, I have confidence in this government, and I want my constituents to know that it was the Canadian government, a Liberal government, that established this country's social safety net. It is to the great credit of my party and I have not forgotten it. But I can tell you that it was the former Leader of the Opposition who cut the budget in Quebec by 20 per cent in 1982-83. There are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Quebecers who have not forgotten that yet.

We want equity and with the amounts, the $300 million we will be transferring to remote areas, the programs to promote the employability of people in a number of sectors, particularly aquaculture and the high tech field, in order to give the young and the not so young a chance, a hope that they will be able to find suitable employment.

In conclusion, our government is an equitable one which seeks social justice above all and that is why I am here as the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, so that we will be heard loud and clear, listened to here in the House of Commons, and to ensure that these programs meet our needs.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This concludes the period of questions and comments. We have also used up the five hours of debate on second reading of the bill on borrowing authority.

I am told that unanimous agreement was reached earlier today for addresses to be either 20 minutes in length, or divided into 2 blocks of 10 minutes each. In both cases, however, there will be no questions and comments.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lévis. In connection with Bill C-10, I shall be attempting to strike a totally different note from what I have been hearing since this morning. I wish to speak of the government's borrowing authority.

Can we still afford to borrow? When all our credit cards are charged to the hilt, can we still afford to borrow? We should keep in mind how things were years ago in our families, in Quebec and Canada. Very often, Mother controlled the budget. She knew that the family had to live on the money that was available. Money was only borrowed as a last resort, generally to acquire such major items as a home, when there was no other way.

Today this government is borrowing right and left, borrowing to meet day-to-day expenses, borrowing just to buy its groceries, as it were. It is even going so far as to dip into the UI fund, the workers' fund, in order to get billions of dollars to reduce its deficit.

The government certainly does not seem to have the same family tradition as I. Why does it want to borrow so much money? And how, more importantly, can it want to continue to borrow and to put the people of this country further into debt? The budget presented by the Minister of Finance contains all of the answers to these questions, I think.

This government is not tackling the deficit, yet it is shouting from the rooftops that it has solved Canada's financial problems. Untrue. We know very well that, at the end of this year, the debt will have surpassed the $600 billion mark. You may well say "but that is just a drop in the ocean". The problem is, the government seems unaware that the ocean is raging out of control.

What is worse still, I think that it is stirring up the winds of storm even further with this bill. We need only look at what is going on in our own ridings. People are taking to the streets and with reason. Their message to us is clear.

Borrowing, at some point in time, also means having to pay back, and that is what we are doing. We are paying back $49 billion a year in interest and more than half of this goes abroad. It is money we could use, money that could be invested at home to create jobs for young people, money that could be invested in paying jobs and in research and development-all to improve things in our communities. But, no.

Why is this government rejecting the evidence. Why is it not putting its shoulder to the wheel when it is asking the disadvantaged to do so even more? I need only think of those receiving UI, who had been hoping to hear about jobs from the Minister of Finance, but who, once again, can see that those opposite are doing nothing about their problems, except add to them.

Here again, I repeat, he is using the unemployment insurance fund to refloat his deficit. People are not unemployed because they want to be. They are forced into it. It is jobs they want. If the money in the UI fund was used for jobs, the Minister of Finance could settle much of the problems of his deficit and his borrowing power.

Generally, what people want is to survive without government handouts, but the minister has forgotten this. Digging in the pockets of the disadvantaged is something they know how to do. What about asking those who use tax shelters to make an effort-not a chance.

What about setting up mechanisms to plug the loopholes that enable taxpayers to avoid paying income tax-not a chance, either. Instead, a committee of alleged experts is set up and is to report within a few months. Reports like these often end up on the shelf.

Just ask someone who is unemployed if they know about tax havens. Those who come to my riding office do not even know what a tax shelter is. They are looking for a job.

The Liberal government can no longer meet the needs of those of its citizens in greatest difficulty. What is more, it is also passing on to the provinces a shortfall problem. The government is announcing it is cutting dairy subsidies. It keeps on increasing expenditures.

In this year's budget, it will spend an additional $104 million; great management, indeed. Moreover, the government wants to add to the debt with this bill. Enough is enough. It is about time our friends across the way realize that the Canadian people has had it, it is suffocating.

The finance minister should look at what has been happening in Quebec lately. This is a responsible government which consults people and takes their views into account. This is a government which wants a better future for its people.

When can we expect the Liberal government to go through a similar exercise? When can we expect the people opposite to listen to Canadians? Is this government afraid of true consultation? To look at what is happening with its unemployment insurance reform is to know the answer. As I was saying earlier, people have taken to the streets, and they keep on coming. This government is lending a deaf ear. These people are not protesting because they are lazy, this is not true. Nor because they are arrogant. They are protesting because their livelihood is at stake, their family's livelihood is at stake. I cannot help but repeat that the Liberal ship is rudderless in an ocean of troubles.

She is taking with her millions of people who are suffering and have no trust in the government. This government does not deserve their trust, anyway. Why? Because it has betrayed their trust. It is certainly not by putting the country further into debt that it will redeem itself and regain their trust. Therefore, we must fight any further borrowing with all our strength.

The finance minister should go back to the drawing board and make new suggestions. The Bloc Quebecois, in the Standing Committee on Finances, offered solutions; he should try them out. He should try to offer Canadians real solutions such as the one the Bloc Quebecois made.

But since it is not possible to review them all, I will mention only this one. The government could try to collect the $6 billion owed to Revenue Canada. The auditor general has criticized the government on several occasions for failing to do this. What is being done to collect from some 77,000 corporations which pay no federal income tax? I believe we should stop compiling statistics and start trying to get the money where it really is. The Bloc Quebecois made suggestions. Borrowing is not a solution. Therefore, we cannot support any further borrowing.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleague from Chicoutimi for having agreed to share his time with me. I am pleased to have a turn at voicing my opinion on Bill C-10 on the government's borrowing authority. I interpret this bill, in the same vein as my colleague from Chicoutimi, as the federal government's asking the members of the House of Commons' permission to put Canadians and Quebecers further into debt, for, in the budget presented to us, there has been no real effort to tackle the deficit and the debt.

The Minister's projection refers to the next three years, and we can see that his planning has not yet allowed him to successfully predict the day there will no longer be an operating deficit, when the deficit will be zero and we can start paying back that debt.

We need to realize that the public debt has increased by close to $100 billion since the Liberals came to power, on the federal level alone. I tried to use my calculator to divide that $600 billion by the number of people in Canada, a little over 27 million, to get a figure per capita. I must admit I had to give up and do it manually because my calculator was not able to divide $600 billion by 27 million.

I was amazed. I said to myself "Incredible". People hear about the public debt all the time, but in terms of billions. A billion more, a billion less, they do not have much idea what that represents. One of my colleagues figured it out the other day. He said it came to $100 million per day, $69,000 per minute. That breaks down to $1,100 per second. Imagine, this all adds up.

We are talking big numbers, but if we express it in terms of individual Canadians, when we reach the end of the fiscal year, when we have reached $602.7 billion, the figure will be $22,322 per person. Newborn babies in Canada owe $22,322 from day one, in terms of the federal debt alone. Earlier, I was saying that, with the Liberals, it is another $100 billion. Individual Canadians have gone another $3,800 into debt since the Liberals came to power.

Sometimes in municipalities they talk of taxpayers, but here every single Canadian, from infants to old folks, will owe $22,000. That means that a family of four, comprising two parents and two children, will owe nearly $100,000 in debt to the federal government alone. I am saying this, because people often look at their own budget first. It is, therefore, a considerable amount.

Of course the Minister of Finance planned to reduce the deficit from $32 billion to $24.3 billion this year. In one way, there is a reduction. But, how did he manage it? He did it over the past two years by cutting $7 billion in transfer payments to the provinces. He is asking the provinces to work at the deficit more than he is doing himself, because, if you look at the budget carefully, you can

see that it has increased in the end by $150 million. Federal expenditures are not really being cut.

Seven billion dollars in reduction comes from transfer payments to the provinces, and $5 billion comes from the unemployment insurance fund. The federal government is feeding off the provinces and the unemployed. They are the ones being asked to pay off the deficit and to work on the debt, because we will certainly not pay off the debt by the year 2000. We are only reducing the deficit.

I listened earlier to the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine when he talked about youth. He also talked extensively about the provincial government. I found that a bit odd, I thought maybe he wanted to run for provincial office. He devoted eight minutes, out of his ten-minute speech, to the Quebec government.

I will not make the same mistake. I will talk about the federal government, since this is where we are. This is the House of Commons, therefore, we will talk about the federal debt. My specific role as member of the opposition is that of critic for training and youth.

In the throne speech and in the budget speech, the government said it would double funding for summer jobs. Naturally, I looked closely at that; I perused the press release issued by the Minister of Human Resources Development on March 12, 1996. I read each line and each figure. I added the amounts and discovered that there is a $14,350,000 shortfall in the $120 million announced.

I see the parliamentary secretary is here now. I wonder what happened in the government press release; there are three possible explanations for that $14,350,000 gap. It might be a printing error. If that is the case, it is unfortunate, but we should know. It might be a miscalculation. In that case, a mistake of $14,350,000 is cause for concern and one could be a bit insecure. If the human resource development minister cannot add figures, if his many civil servants cannot add properly, where does that lead us?

A third possibility is that it means new cuts since the tabling of the budget. We would like to know.

Assuming that this is a mistake and that the amount is really $120 million, instead of $60 million last year, we must understand that the $120 million the Liberal government is spending for summer jobs this year is even less than what the Conservatives were spending when they were in office.

The last year the Conservatives were in office, just before the Liberals in 1993, they spent $156 million for summer jobs. In the two previous budgets, that is for 1991-92 and 1990-91, they had spent $180 million for summer jobs.

The Liberals are boasting that they are doubling and increasing the amounts, but if we put that in perspective, it is a reduction over what the previous government was doing. And I do not take inflation into account.

Also, assuming that this $60 million is true, even if we cannot find this amount in the press release, that means $15 million for Quebec, $60 million to be divided by about 25 per cent of the population, which represents Quebec's population; for Quebec, it is $15 million more than last year. However, this year, as a result of a decision that was made last year by the then Minister of Human Resources Development, transfers to Quebec for post-secondary education will be cut by $150 million.

This is an additional $15 million to dissimulate a $150 million cut to post-secondary education, which will indirectly affect students since slashing transfer payments to Quebec in this area by $150 million will force educational institutions and the Quebec government to raise tuition fees. It has already started, and it is only going to get worse.

In fact, what they are doing is investing a little more in McJobs, in summer jobs, while forcing individual students, the targeted public, to borrow more money. This is what I would call an indirect transfer to students.

Among other measures in this budget, the Liberal government wants to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to make it even more difficult for new entrants to the labour force to collect benefits. While they needed only 300 hours of work in some regions and 400 in others, new entrants are now required to accumulate 910 hours to qualify. Is this helping young people? I think this is a masquerade.

In the old days, seniors used to warn us about getting candy, explaining that recipients should wait for the other shoe to drop. This is what is hitting us, what is hitting students. It is a little present. An increase on the one hand, but a cut that is ten times bigger on the other hand.

This is what I call smoke and mirrors designed to hide this government's unforgivable attitude toward young people, on whom this budget places the heaviest burden for paying back the debt.

In conclusion, the government is not making a special effort for young people. On the contrary, it is making a special effort to push them even further into debt.

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-10, which provides borrowing authority. The budget is an outstanding document. It is balanced and fair and comes to terms with our deficit while creating opportunities for Canadians.

I begin with a matter of deep concern to my constituents as well as to the constituents of Waterloo, the neighbouring riding, the announcement having to do with the insurance industry.

The announcement that the present restrictions will be maintained governing the selling of insurance by banks has been warmly welcomed in my riding of Kitchener. It was an important announcement. It has been applauded by large insurance companies such as Manulife, the Mutual Group and Economical Mutual, and by the many hundreds of agents who sell insurance in our area. It was an important decision which reflects the importance of the diversity in the financial services sector and which recognizes also the importance of insurance as the lifeblood of our communities.

The insurance industry, other businesses in Kitchener and the citizens of Kitchener are gratified that the budget takes an important step toward restoring Canada's confidence and toward restoring a sense of hope among Canadians.

Moreover, it addresses their worries about security. It has done this in so many ways, in direct responses in the changes affecting seniors security and in the broader questions of economic security. It addresses, in short, our fears and our hopes. Most important, it addresses a question which very much concerns my riding, the problem of youth and their future.

Let us admit that under the Liberal government the economy has shown significant improvement. Our interest rates have declined by three percentage points in the last year, a remarkable achievement. We were challenged to meet the American rates. We have done so and we will improve on that.

We have achieved a level of inflation which was unimaginable five years ago. It is the lowest level in 30 years. There is every indication that it will be lower.

The competitiveness of the country has been greatly improved. We are now a trading country setting a mark for the world to match. Our improvement in trade not only with the United States with which we have an agreement but with the rest of the world is improving rapidly.

Moreover, since our election in 1993, we have created 600,000 new jobs. In the last three months alone we have created 137,000 jobs. These are all real accomplishments but as the finance minister pointed out, much work remains to be done and we are doing it. We are assuring a future for our youth which can give them the kind of opportunities we had.

During the Christmas break I had the opportunity to speak at many schools in the Waterloo region and in my riding of Kitchener. I also spoke with many young people in my constituency office, over family dinners and at other gatherings during the holidays.

What struck me very strongly were the deep concerns of our youth. They do not have the opportunities we had when we were younger. They have legitimate fears about their futures. The youth unemployment rate is much higher than it was 20 and 30 years ago and it is very unacceptable for all of us. We are fulfilling our obligation to deal with these questions. The unemployment rate in my riding for youth under 25 is roughly 14 per cent. It is lower than the national average but is still absolutely unacceptable.

The stories I heard during my Christmas vacation were often very sad. I heard about individuals who studied for many years but who found no opportunities to use their degrees. There were fears of technological change which youth recognized could not be avoided. I sensed in their comments that although they had these fears, there was an enormous commitment to the challenges of the future and a recognition that learning and training were fundamental to the kinds of opportunities that our youth would have in the future.

The transition to work has been recognized as critically important in this budget and in all government policies: from school to the workplace, from the classroom to the shop floor. In this respect, the Waterloo Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Waterloo County Board of Education have been leaders in Canada in co-op education. I have been privileged to have co-op students work in my constituency office. These students have learned computer and filing skills which supplement what they are learning in the classroom. I am confident my hope will be reflected in reality that this experience will lead them to job opportunities in the future.

As I have said, the government has recognized the concerns and the problems and has striven to create opportunities. Let me indicate how it has done so. First, the government has reallocated $315 million in budget savings to help create employment opportunities for young Canadians.

Second, the government has devoted $160 million to youth internship programs and Youth Services Canada. In the Waterloo region, Lutherwood has a program under Youth Services Canada which brings together youths with seniors and the police to work at finding job opportunities in the broadest possible sense within the community. It is a very successful program carried out by an esteemed institution within our region.

Third, there has been a doubling of funds to $120 million for student summer employment.

All of these things are extremely important but ultimately success will depend on encouraging a climate of innovation within Canada and within our region. In this case, the Waterloo region and Kitchener are models. Kitchener was the centre of traditional industry and manufacturing. Thirty years ago Kitchener was called the Akron of Canada and tires were its major business. Tires are still made in Kitchener but far more people are employed in other industries and far fewer make tires. Textiles was another industry, as was furniture.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

And shoes.

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

My colleague from Waterloo reminds me of the making of shoes.

These industries remain but they do not employ as many people as they did earlier. Those thousands of jobs that have been lost in what we call the more traditional industries, which are still extremely important, have been replaced by others such as jobs in educational institutions, for example. A great university and one of Canada's leading community colleges are located in Kitchener-Waterloo. The auto sector and the aerospace industry have grown to fill the gap created by the loss of other industries. We have developed a fairly significant high tech sector.

The budget will help Kitchener maintain its competitive edge. An additional $270 million have been allocated over the next three years to encourage technological innovation. We have created through the technology partnership program in excess of $500 million over the next three years which will assist the aerospace industry in our area as well as in other industries.

For our youth in this year's budget we have allowed $30 million over the next three years for SchoolNet, an Internet computer program for young students. It is a program that I have personally examined and have found to be a remarkable achievement for Industry Canada. Its benefits can only be imagined in terms of the work done in schools and the effects it will have on young Canadians.

Once again this budget has created opportunities for youth and has dealt with the problems of the past. We have looked at the opportunities for the future and we can be proud that finally we are dealing with the hopes and fears of all Canadians, not only in Kitchener but throughout Canada.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting for me as a new member in this House to watch the business of budget creation.

I spent some time in the early eighties as a senior bureaucrat in the provincial Government of Manitoba and then some five years in the provincial legislature as the finance critic. I have participated in the creation of budgets from the perspective of a bureaucrat. I have participated in budgets from the perspective of a critic sitting on the opposite side of the House. For these last couple of years I have had the opportunity to participate as a backbencher of the governing party.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for his unprecedented openness in the budget development process. Never in my experience has a Minister of Finance been so willing to consult, to open the process up, to invite people in and to sincerely listen to and respond to their concerns.

After the last budget I sent out a letter to a cross-section of people in my riding which included individuals from a large university, small and large businesses, social services and labour. I asked them to take up the finance minister's challenge. He said to us at the end of the budget process last year that he would be as open to us as he could possibly be, that he would invite as many of us as possible into the process of examining possibilities and developing new approaches to the finances of this country.

I invited a large number of people from across Canada into those very discussions. We set up a series of working groups. We first spent some time looking at issues they wanted the finance minister and government to focus on. Over time we began to do more detailed research on the issues and worked them down. This fall we came up with a series of proposals which we presented to the Minister of Finance.

In my role as chair of the social policy committee of caucus I went through a similar process with a series of working groups in our own caucus. I want to reflect on some of that work today.

The people in my riding of Winnipeg South said this to the Minister of Finance: "Continue to meet your targets. We know it is tough. The deficit process has been a difficult one. It is not easy. Nobody likes the process of cutting but we believe that it is producing better decisions, more efficient decisions and in the end the pain will be worth it". That is exactly what we are beginning to experience as confidence has increased in the finance minister's ability to manage the financial affairs of the country.

The terrible fluctuations in interest rates, fluctuations in the dollar and the uncertainty about investment decisions has begun to diminish and we see a much more stable, secure investment climate for the people who are confronting those decisions in their lives today.

All of the indicators are moving in the right direction. The feedback response and the analysis of the course set and maintained by the finance minister has been extremely positive. I can tell the finance minister and the House that it meets with the complete approval of the people in my constituency.

There were some areas of concern. Seniors had a serious concern at the time of discussions on the reform of the pension program. I had a number of groups working on it, a number of people consulting with me on it. People were caught because they could see from the tables and the research produced that there was a serious problem with the Canada pension plan. They knew there were some serious inequities in the distribution of support under the OAS and the GIS. They had that information.

People who were on income support programs, people who were retired and receiving benefits or people who were close to retirement and close to receiving benefits were extremely concerned. These were people with very limited options. They had set their course, they had made their plans and to have those programs changed suddenly was very threatening and very frightening.

They have reacted to the finance minister's decisions with great support and great relief. He and the government are committing to no change in the benefit structure for people who are currently receiving pensions. The government has agreed to involve seniors in a process of change that will take some years. The idea that people can alter their planning as they approach their retirement has been received with great support and great appreciation.

Another great concern was the threat of very large cuts to social programs, particularly the plan to combine the EPF health, the EPF post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan into the Canada health and social transfer. People understand we have to deal with the major expenditure programs in order to get a deficit of our magnitude under control. They know and accept that. There was a great deal of concern about the size of the cuts and what the eventual outcome would be.

There was much work done within the caucus committee and a tremendous amount of time put into this by the advisory committee in my riding. It came forward with a proposal much like the one that came out of the finance committee, that a floor be placed on these payments which could be maintained until such time as the deficit could be brought to zero and we could start to reinvest in health care.

We are delighted the finance minister has chosen to take that route. Not only are we delighted he has chosen to accept the recommendations to establish a floor but that he has actually set a higher floor than we thought was possible. People are absolutely delighted that we will continue to play a role in medicare, post-secondary education and social programs in this country into the foreseeable future and that now the real work has begun on determining the national standards and principles in terms of providing a true social safety net for all Canadians.

Another area provoked a lot of debate in my riding because I have a very large university, the University of Manitoba, one of the best universities in Canada located fully within the boundaries of my riding. Like all universities it is undergoing tremendous difficulty right now as it works to restructure its programming, upgrade its style of teaching and its technology. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on universities across the country.

The pressure is very difficult to understand in some ways when we think that Canada is at the forefront of countries in transition to becoming knowledge based economies. By their very existence universities are major producers of knowledge. They are net generators of new ideas, of information, of new approaches and challenges to the ways in which we think of doing business.

Yet those very institutions that are so vital to our growth and our continued economic health are currently under tremendous pressure at all levels. Students have felt the effects of many increases in their fees to the point where people are beginning to make decisions not to go to university because of the costs. The pressure from new technologies and the questions about the style, the nature and the goals of training have put enormous pressure on the faculties of universities across the country.

They have been looking to us, asking us what our policy is on post-secondary education. They note that in the red book on page 111, which all members have memorized by this point, the second largest cash commitment we made was $1 billion in new money in the area of research and development. They have also noticed that in the budgets of the past two years, the first two years of this government, did not live up to that commitment. Not only did we not make those new investments, but we began to cut support for science research in Canada.

I am delighted and certainly the people in my riding are delighted to see the government begin to act upon this very important promise. The decisions on research and development, the support for students, the greater involvement of business and universities in the economic life of this country are decisions that are broadly welcomed.

Finally, the decisions around youth job creation were central to the discussions I had in my riding. People wanted to see us give more varied opportunities and options to youth in their search for employment and opportunities for wealth and security.

The decisions the finance minister finally made, which are reflected in the budget in terms of student aid, summer help and entry into the labour market, have been broadly welcomed. By and large, the constituents of Winnipeg South have been delighted by

the budget. We wish the finance minister well and look forward to working with him on the next one.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Minister of Finance. He gave an excellent political speech when he brought in his budget. He smiled throughout and came very close on a number of occasions to breaking his arm while patting himself on the back.

What we are talking about is a futurama like "2001: A Space Odyssey". Everything happens way down the street. We were pleased to see the minister admit and recognize what Reform has been saying for the past eight years, that in the present financial circumstances, universality is really an impossible dream. What must happen and what he did in this budget is to recognize that support must be focused on those who need it.

Sadly, the minister has misled the public. He said for instance, that 75 per cent of old aged people would be better off. He neglected to say that if 75 per cent are going to be better off then 25 per cent will be worse off. He did not mention that.

He said there would be no new taxes. Between 1993 and 1995, the average Canadian family income tax has increased by $993 in real 1994 dollars. Since 1987, disposable income before taxes has dropped by 8.6 percentage points. The minister said: "We are not raising personal taxes. We are not raising corporate taxes. We are not raising excise taxes. In fact, we are not raising taxes".

However, in the budget at least nine changes to the Income Tax Act provide for a tax grab through the back door. What about the reduction of RRSP termination age from 71 to 69? This adds only $100 million by the year 2000. What about no more tax deductions for RRSP fees paid outside the plan? This adds $10 million over the next three years.

The minister has frozen the RRSP contribution limit at $13,500, whereas it was supposed to rise to $14,500 and beyond. This is until 2003 and results in $215 million in extra taxes over the next three years. These RRSP changes send conflicting messages. People are asked to provide for their own future, yet the incentive and advantages of doing so have been stripped away. Taxes have increased.

What about the taxation of those paying child support payments? We were looking for the mechanism whereby we could be assured those child support payments went to the appropriate place, to the children concerned. The finance minister has said that the government will collect the taxes which may be diverted elsewhere. This was not the purpose of child support payments. It remains to be seen if the changes will benefit the children and the families involved.

Despite election promises, the GST and the Deputy Prime Minister are still with us. During the election campaign Liberal candidates stood on doorsteps and said that they were going to axe the GST, that they were going to scrap the GST, that they were going to abolish the GST. Here we are three budgets downstream and not a change has been made.

In yesterday's GST debate the Liberal government members voted against the motion to abolish the GST. Even if the GST were harmonized, as the government suggests it is going to be, this would increase taxes for all Canadians, except perhaps Albertans who do not have a provincial sales tax. It would broaden the taxation base.

Why or how did the finance minister think he would succeed where the former Conservative minister Wilson could not? Was he hoper-groping? Was this a rash promise, a naive promise or was it a deliberately calculated vote garnering election misrepresentation to the Canadian public? Whichever, it has become yet another broken promise. The finance minister even avoided using the term GST, referring to it rather as the federal sales tax. He is asking the provinces to help him achieve his deficit reduction. He has passed the cost saving measures on to them.

The government has also proposed spending $50 million to try to battle the underground economy. It expects to cash in on $185 million over the next three years. The root cause of the underground economy has not been addressed. This includes high personal income taxes and the GST. Obviously, as long as these remain in place there will be a higher and more active underground or barter economy.

The budget affects taxation in an indirect way. It backs off from fiscal restraint and does not provide any tax relief into the next century. These rolling two-year targets which the finance minister is so proud of exhorting are being met because they are too timid, too faltering and too slow. Almost anyone can be an expert high jumper if the bar is set only a foot above the ground. The reason the targets have been met, besides being set too low, is because we have had a growing economy and the interest rates have remained unexpectedly low.

Let us look at our next projection. The next deficit target is set at $24.7 billion. That is another $25 billion added to drive our debt to over $600 billion with another $2 billion added to the interest on that debt. Under the Liberals the debt has increased by more than $100 billion since 1993. The interest payments on the debt have gone from $38 billion to around $48 billion. That is $10 billion paid out at the expense of social programs.

The taxpayers' budget would have cut only $1 billion in health and welfare spending; whereas the Liberals cut $8.2 billion to the Canada health and social transfer. The Reform Party has been saying for the past eight years that the biggest threat to Canada's social programs is the debt and the interest payments on that debt.

The target for the following year has another $17 billion deficit and we will be well on our way toward a debt of over $700 billion.

If the Liberals would have adopted the Reform taxpayers' budget in 1994 instead of following their infamous soft rolling two-year targets, by this time next year we would be debating where to apply the surplus. Would we apply it to the debt or to social programs? By the next election, rather than increasing the debt by $112 billion the debt would have increased by only $50 billion, a difference of $62 billion, almost $3 billion less in interest payments that we would be required to pay.

There is still no time line for a balanced budget. The minister simply will not say when he intends to balance the budget. That means there is no tax relief. This is causing economic concern and a lack of confidence for both the consumer and the business community. This constrains spending and expansion which in turn constrains employment opportunities.

The government has said that it is going to strike a technical committee to study the business income taxation act which will look for ways to encourage job creation and investment, yet another committee. This is simply window dressing. Based on past experience, we know the cost of a committee is anywhere from $500,000 to $5 million.

The Liberals spent $6 billion on the infrastructure program. We know every well this created no lasting jobs and was borrowed money that went down the drain. The best way to fuel the economy and to create jobs is to balance the budget and start to pay down the debt.

Canada is a rich country despite the huge debt we have. However, it needs a far sighted, courageous government willing to do what must be done. This government, this budget lacking in foresight, courage, ideas and leadership is not doing the job. Most of these budget measures will not be implemented until after the next election. Promises, promises. Much like the past election, the Liberals make them, but they do not have to keep them. This budget is not the budget Canada needs at this time.

[The Speaker]

I believe there is time for questions and answers. I propose that we do that right after the question period. We will recognize questioners at that time.

It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Ciau Basketball Champions

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the best university basketball team in the country, the Brandon University Bobcats.

Coach Jerry Hemmings' team out ran, out jumped and out scored its opponents last weekend at the CIAU championships in Halifax. On the way to its fourth national championship in 10 years, Brandon had to get past excellent teams from the University of Toronto and the University of Alberta. The Bobcats rose to this occasion.

Tournament MVP and all Canadian Keith Vassell took his team to new heights as he led them toward the championship. In the final it was Jason Scott, the home grown athlete who elevated his game to shut down Alberta's top scorer.

The constituents of Brandon-Souris are proud of the team's accomplishments. Way to go Bobcats. Congratulations on yet another outstanding season.

Racism

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in remembrance of the massacre of several Black protesters in South Africa, today we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the UN resolution proclaiming March 21 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

All Canadians and Quebecers must pledge to fight this curse by developing values based on fairness, justice and mutual understanding.

I take this opportunity to mention the exceptional contribution of ethnocultural communities, aboriginals and visible minorities to society in Canada and Quebec. I am proud to represent the riding of Bourassa, whose population truly reflects Quebec's multi-cultural character.

May this day remind us of the importance of being tolerant, open to the world and respectful of people's differences.

Nisga'A Land Claims

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

Mr. Speaker, the future of British Columbia is about to change. The

Nisga'a agreement in principle is to be signed tomorrow, an agreement that lays the template for 50 other agreements.

This odious, non-transparent process took place behind closed doors without the full consultation of the public. The Nisga'a people must realize that no agreement can take place without full consultation with all people.

It is balkanizing British Columbia, creating many states with their own laws and regulations. It constitutionally protects a commercial fishery for aboriginal people where no legal precedent exists. It transfers the management of other resources to aboriginal control. It is not accountable to existing laws and regulations for the protection of the environment for all people.

The Nisga'a agreement in principle is apartheid. It creates different laws and different regulations for different people. It is by its definition racist.

Apartheid never worked in South Africa and it will not work in Canada.

Pay Equity

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in February 80,000 public servants in occupations dominated by women thought they had won a major victory in their 11 year struggle to win pay equity from the federal government.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled against the government's attempt to quash the findings of a study that found a large wage gap between women and men in comparable positions in the public service and began hearings on how the government could make good on its legal obligations.

However, today we learned that the Liberals will try to steal that victory and continue to deny pay equity to public servants. The Liberals ought to be ashamed of the way they are evading their legal obligations at the tribunal's hearings by bringing forth the argument that pay equity discriminates against men. The idea is to pay women more, not men less.

The Liberals should heed the advice of Canada's human rights commissioner and take the lead in pay equity. The Liberals have thrown out a challenge to the private sector to be responsible. We in the New Democratic Party join with those Canadians who also expect the federal government to be a responsible employer.

Fredericton High School

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

Mr. Speaker, last month during heritage week Fredericton High School held an assembly to mark the week which celebrates our cultural diversity and to learn about our rich history.

Fredericton High School is the largest high school in the British Commonwealth. It wanted to raise a flag for unity. I presented it with a large Canadian flag which had flown over this building and which is now flying proudly among many others in my riding.

I commend the school on its vision for a united Canada and Jack Davies in particular for his initiative in organizing the event. I urge all members of the House to encourage people in their ridings to show their support for the fly a flag for Canada initiative.

On behalf of FHS and in particular the class of 1973, I challenge all high schools in Canada to do the same.

Young Offenders

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently a constituent of mine, Mrs. Ferraro, lost her son in a tragic head-on collision. A young person has been charged.

In the hopes that no other family will have to suffer such a loss and experience her family's pain, Mrs. Ferraro circulated and collected the names of 7,785 Canadians requesting that Parliament take stronger actions against young offenders who commit a crime causing serious injury or death. These young offenders should be treated as adults and given stronger punishments.

I encourage all members of the House to work with the Minister of Justice and the members of the justice committee to see that changes to the Young Offenders Act are made. Being a young person is not and should not be an excuse for committing crimes causing serious injury or death.

It will be my honour to present this petition to the Minister of Justice on behalf of Mrs. Ferraro and her late son.

Racism

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, March 21 marks Canada's eighth anniversary of observing the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. Today we are reminded that racism still exists and of the challenges we face each day to take a stand for the values we hold dear as Canadians: mutual respect, understanding, equality of opportunity and justice.

This year's fourth anniversary of the end of apartheid in South Africa is a poignant reminder of the will of the people to end the oppression of racism. Today we join with the citizens of the world who represent every religion, colour and racial origin in a mutual commitment to end discrimination and racism.

Through education true respect for each other's differences and an awareness of each other's strengths and struggles can be achieved. Let all of us of every colour, race and religion pledge ourselves on this day to live together in united harmony as one people of many colours under one flag.