House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debt.
The BudgetRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I understand that the debate could excite emotions and even convictions, but I nevertheless ask the co-operation of the House in please addressing the Chair when making remarks.
Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Saint-Denis, QC
Mr. Speaker, the opposition keeps attacking the budget put forth by our government by using intimidation
regarding the culture preservation issue. As I said before, as did several other speakers, the budget has put in place measures to ensure that funds are available to preserve our culture as weknow it.
The fact remains that culture-perhaps the opposition will disagree-is something that evolves. There is no such thing as an unchanging culture. It grows and gets better over time.
Moving to other budget issues raised by the hon. member, the preservation of our social programs and the sacrifices that had to be made in the system we have enjoyed in Canada, we can be thankful for the measures that we have taken as a government to ensure that sufficient funding will be available to continue preserving the French language across Canada and preserving French language programming across Canada. The survival of the French-Canadian language and culture in Canada is guaranteed through the measures put forward in this House by the Minister of Finance to ensure that funds will be available.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wonder on which planet the hon. member for Saint-Denis lives, given what she said about subsidies being given to French speaking communities everywhere. She should reread this blue document called the budget. She will realize that there are cuts, year after year, and that the assimilation rate keeps growing. It is time the hon. member woke up.
The hon. member claims that her government provides many good things in its budget for culture. Let me just remind her of a few facts which she does not appear to have figured out: the CBC, cuts totalling $150 million and close to 5,000 jobs eliminated; Telefilm Canada, cuts of $19 million; the National Film Board, cuts of $10 million; the National Archives, cuts of $11 million; the writing and publications program-books are important, our authors tell our story-cuts of $14 million; heritage programs, cultural development, cuts of $22 million.
Please, wake up. These are cuts, not support. These are cuts and when cuts are made, it results in a reduction, not an increase, in production and in the number of jobs.
It is time to wake up and realize that the budget tabled in this House does not promote cultural development and does not in any way support one of the main recommendations made in the Juneau report, which provides that we should not only ensure the recognition of our cultural institutions such as the CBC, Telefilm and the National Film Board, but also their long term funding. Not only does this budget not follow up on these recommendations, which have gained unanimous support, but it also cuts everywhere, thus creating losses of jobs and services, while jeopardizing cultural development as a whole.
Herb Dhaliwal Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the budget which was introduced by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance.
There has been much discussion both in the House and in the homes of Canadians since the budget was brought down in early March. The overwhelming consensus is that truly this is an outstanding budget. Editorials from St. John's to Vancouver have hailed it as a major step forward in the fight against the deficit and to protect social programs. I know the Reform members would not know much about social programs.
Let us look at the economic and fiscal framework in which the budget is presented. We should take a moment to recognize the achievements of this minister. First of all, his tenure in the finance portfolio has been marked by a measured, balanced and disciplined action.
Let me just repeat for some of my colleagues that this is a balanced and measured approach. I know some members would say that we have to cut and chop everything out of government. However, Canadians see that the position the government and the minister have taken to have a balanced approach. An approach where we deal with the deficit on a year by year basis is the right approach, instead of ignoring the problem which some of our members would like to do. Other members would like to slash and burn. As Liberals we know that is not the right way.
When the Liberals took office, the country's finances were in a disastrous state. There was no vision and no plan. Under the finance minister's stewardship, the government has worked with Canadians to craft a sound economic vision for the future.
The Liberals realize that the deficit, employment, economic growth, inflation and taxation are all interrelated. That is why we need a sound economic vision for the future of our country. That is why the budgets have been structured with an integrated economic framework.
Just two and a half years after the Liberals assumed office the outlook for Canada is much brighter. The results of the fiscal framework are the following.
For example, short term interest rates have fallen by three percentage points in the last year alone. Imagine how much money Canadians are saving. People who have mortgages, people who finance their automobiles are saving a lot because short term interest rates have dropped. Something which I did not think would happen has happened. Overnight, interest rates are now lower than those in the U.S. This is a sign that the markets have confidence in this government and its economic policies.
In the last 13 months 263,000 jobs have been created. Since 1993 some 600,000 jobs have been created in the Canadian economy. Inflation is the lowest it has been in 30 years, reflecting solid productivity growth and virtual absence of cost pressures.
Let us compare Canada to other countries. On an international basis relative to other G-7 countries, our finances appear to be on a sound footing. Our financial requirements, deficit to GDP, our rate of inflation and unit labour costs are all looking good when we compare them to the G-7 countries. Of course, we cannot rest on our laurels for there is still work to be done but these numbers are sure signs that progress is evident.
We have seen in the international community how much more confidence there is by looking at interest rates, by looking at the targets we have met. So far we have been able to meet and do better on every target. The international community has a tremendous amount of confidence in us for when we say we will deal with the deficit we do, not through words but by action.
This budget represents another important part of our coherent and integrated plan to modernize government and to put in place the fiscal ingredients for a prosperous Canadian economy.
The major thrust of the budget is the future. Specifically, it speaks to our future by restoring health to public finances, defining a more appropriate role for the federal government in today's economy and federation, and by taking direct action to secure social programs for the future. It is very important to emphasize that we are taking direct action to secure our social programs, laying out a plan to restore confidence in our public pension system.
As the finance minister indicated in his budget speech on March 6, this budget is about addressing problems before they arise. It is about managing ahead and continuing to put in place new building blocks for security and prosperity. This is important because as we know we are in an age where social and economic transformation is occurring at a frightening speed.
Looking at the budget we can recognize the change that is coming in our society, the roles that information and technology are playing. That is why we are investing in those areas. That is why we are investing in our young people who are getting involved in helping small businesses take advantage of the information technology.
In British Columbia young people are working with small businesses. We as a government along with the private sector have said that we need to make sure that small businesses take advantage of the existing technology. That is why we are trying to bring our youth and small business together on programs that will take advantage of the information technologies.
That is why Canadians have given this budget glowing reviews. It minimizes the uncertainty of our future by simultaneously creating economic opportunity and safeguarding our cherished social programs.
British Columbians are very satisfied with the budget. I want to take this opportunity to explain why this budget is a good one for British Columbia.
Many of the Reformers are very supportive of this budget, particularly on our success in dealing with the deficit. Reformers have to understand that this government will not gut our social programs like they would do, nor would we destroy our cultural industries like Reformers would do. We will continue to ensure that we have social programs and that we support our cultural industries as this budget does.
The reaction in my home province and in my riding has been overwhelmingly positive. That is why the Liberals are over 50 per cent in the polls in British Columbia and Reformers are down to 20 per cent or less in British Columbia. They only have one issue and that is the deficit and it is no longer an issue because we have broken the back of the deficit. They are looking for other issues all the time and are unable to find them.
There are three or four issues which are near and dear to the hearts of the citizens of my province and the people of my riding. We all know the figures by now so there is no need to reiterate them. Perhaps we should ask why our success in reducing the deficit is important. There is a link between deficits and our goal of jobs and growth. That is our ultimate goal, jobs and growth. We want to create an environment where the private sector can create those jobs and growth.
Pursuing a lower deficit helps to keep our inflation and our interest rates low. Low inflation helps to smooth the bumps of the boom and bust economic cycle. It also helps to keep interest rates low. Low interest rates in turn help to stimulate demand in interest sensitive industries, foster high levels of investment and keep Canada competitive relative to our global competitors.
We have started this process of fiscal recovery. By doing this we can eventually attack the debt, and we will attack the debt, which as we all know consumes more than one-third of federal revenues. For the first time in decades, British Columbians know that when the finance minister says he will balance the books there is real substance behind the promise.
This budget speaks volumes about the differences that exist between this government and other parties in the House. The Liberals are a true national party which effectively represents all Canada's regions and people across the political spectrum.
Members of the Reform Party say theirs is a national party but we have not seen that. In every byelection the Reform Party has
not been able to prove it is a national party. It has been a disaster. In not one of the byelections was the Reform Party able to make any substantial effort or win any seats. Reformers have a long way to go to prove it.
The Liberals are a true national party which effectively represent all of Canada's regions and people across the political spectrum. We do this by providing government that is open, honest, forthright and rational. We recognize there is a fundamental need to change the way government works. We have not retreated from the task of bringing Canada into the 21st century. Instead we have enthusiastically embraced this challenge by recognizing that difficult decisions must be made.
In making these decisions we have found the balance between retrenchment and social justice. We have shown Canadians and indeed people around the world that it is possible to protect the social safety net while restoring integrity to our nation's finances.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a very short, directly answerable question. I would like to place a bet with you, Mr. Speaker, that he will not answer it. I cannot do that, I am sorry.
The BudgetRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I have been known to take a flyer or two on a few tips but I do not think we should engage in that sort of game.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
My apologies, Mr. Speaker. We will have to see how this speculation ends.
The hon. member knows a lot about business. If he were the chief executive officer of a corporation and when he took over the debt in that corporation was around $40 million and after four years it had grown to $50 million, would he be applauded by the shareholders? I would like the hon. member to give me a yes or no answer and I think he will not.
Herb Dhaliwal Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is concerned about direct answers he should talk to his leader. The last time I asked him a direct question about his party's stand on the turban issue with the RCMP, the leader of the Reform Party refused to answer. I am glad that some of the members have now brought this forward as an issue and they may deal with it at the next convention. If the member wants a direct answer he should start by talking to his leader so that he does give a direct answer when he is asked a question in the House.
In terms of corporations let me say that government is not a corporation. Some members of the Reform Party have to learn that you cannot try to compare a corporation with government. In government we are dealing with people. We are not dealing with the bottom line.
It used to be said that what is good for GM is good for this country. We have learned that sometimes what is good for corporations is not good for the general population. It is not good for Canadians. We are ensuring that we have a vision for the long term for our future generations, for our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren. We do not look at just the bottom line. We look at our future to make sure that we have a quality of life we can be proud of and we can tell our future generations that we worked toward that. We cannot compare a corporation and government.
We are concerned with the debt. The first thing we said as a government was that we were going to deal with the deficit. We cannot deal with the debt unless we deal with the deficit. We have put forward a constructive program to deal with the deficit. The international community knows that when we say we are going to deal with it we are dealing with it.
Once we have dealt with the deficit the next step obviously is to deal with the debt. We will be dealing with it but we have to do it in a balanced, rational and a measured approach so that we ensure we are sensitive to the human dimension of cutting deficits and cutting budgets. The way we are doing it will be seen in history as the right way.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Mr. Speaker, since this government has come into office and as a result of the budgets the finance minister has put forth so far the debt will increase by about $120 billion. The debt is ever increasing with no sign of that increase ending.
The government has made some cuts in spending but those cuts have been more than lost due to increases in the interest payments it takes to service the debt. The only reason deficits are decreasing in the projections is due to increased revenue, more money brought in by this government from taxpayers. Is this situation satisfactory to the member?
Herb Dhaliwal Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, first let me correct the facts. For every seven dollars cut there is only one dollar on the revenue side in action taken by the government. We have cut seven dollars for every one dollar of revenue whether it is through fees or in some other way. It is not accurate to say that most of the changes came about as a result of a change to the revenue side.
The approach this government has taken has not been to cut everything by 10 per cent or 20 per cent. We said let us look at government and see where we can improve, where we need to cut and where we need to add. Let us see where we need to add more money to government so that we have a core government, that we have an efficient government and we have a government that is working for the people of this country and not just a straight percentage cut everywhere. That is why we looked at the priorities of what is important for Canadians before we made the changes that we did in the budget.
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East, ON
Mr. Speaker, in less than a single full term in office this government has managed to cut the national deficit by $20 billion and at the same time cut the unemployment rate by a full two percentage points.
Canadians can have more confidence in how they are governed now that they have a Minister of Finance who sets and reaches ambitious fiscal goals without the destructive consequences of public service walkouts or wholesale elimination of service. Successes come from abandoning the failed policies of governments past.
A sixty per cent cut in subsidies to business was born from the realization that little can be gained by collecting taxes from business with the sole purpose of redirecting the same dollars to the same businesses through subsidies and grants. We have learned that the value of targeting funds is small and more than offset by the consequences of increased taxation, administrative overhead and the cost to business of hiring consultants and lobbyists to apply for grants.
It was a typical case in the previous regime that $100 would be taxed away from an industry with $1 or $2 spent in the collection process, as much as $20 more spent on grant administration and the remaining $78 dollars would be handed out to business as a great gift. However, $15 had already been spent by business trying to get its tax money back by hiring consultants and applying for grants.
At the end of the rinse cycle industry would be about 35 per cent better off had the government just stayed away. We have done away with tax and grant government. We no longer believe that the role of government is to seize and reinvest the earnings of private corporations.
Rarely has economic success ever been built on temporary grants and subsidies. It is true the odd business may be lured to set up a factory by the promise of grants, tax credits or some other concession paid for by the local businesses. It is also true that often these factories vanish as soon as the locks get changed at the house of the free money.
Government grants impose a psychology on business that slows sustainable job creation as entrepreneurs wait for handouts rather than accept private sector funding under market conditions. It is not rare to hear of a small business owner planning an expansion which might create 100 jobs. Typically the entrepreneur could find the money needed from private resources or a bank or venture capitalist, but then the prospect of the government grant would get in the way.
The entrepreneur would start spending his time visiting bureaucrats, filling out forms, preparing his case. Pretty soon he would get frustrated and hire a consultant who specialized in positioning companies for grants. The process would drag on for months. A hundred people were still out of work but our entrepreneur would sense the competition. If he did not get a grant his competitor might then be able to undercut his price. He would have to press on. More months would pass with still no word, still more consulting fees, still no jobs created.
Finally there would be a sigh of relief with rejection letters from all granting agencies. Now our entrepreneur could actually carry on his business, creating jobs by using private sector resources for private sector results.
Many forms of subsidy will remain in selected fields and to support exports. Generally business is being freed of having to apply to government for funds to stay competitive. Overwhelmingly the government is being reduced to a level that can actually be understood by citizens who are too busy working and paying taxes to study every branch or tentacle funded by their tax dollars.
The confidence the public has shown in the government and the Minister of Finance arises from our efforts to limit government to its original and irreproachable aims. In 1997-98 total program spending will fall to about $106 billion. Fifty-four per cent of this spending will go to seniors, the unemployed and to the provinces to support education, health and other social programs. Business subsidies by contrast will account for barely one and one-half per cent of program spending.
By the conclusion of our first term in office, the taxpayer will be comforted to know that fewer and fewer hard earned tax dollars are leaking away from the core of government's role. Government will soon be able to say it is doing only what it does best which no one else will do.
Our role is largely to redistribute cash to help seniors, the unemployed, low income earners, provinces with smaller per capita tax bases as well as support our national medicare system and affordable post-secondary education.
Some have criticized these programs, saying their home province is spending more than it receives, say from the employment insurance plan. This plan is about people, not about provinces. It is intended to treat individuals fairly according to the unemployment levels they face where they live.
Politicians in wealthier provinces who protest relief going to people in need in other provinces represent a view of the country shared by Lucien Bouchard, always calculating their share, discounting what they receive, focusing on any area where they pay more than they get back and never viewing Canadians as equal members of a single nature who have a long history of helping each other through hard times.
This 1996 budget does not give in to regional parochialism or selfishness. It preserves the Canadian sense of community by sustaining our social fabric while finding necessary savings in subsidies, administration and by closing tax loopholes.
In short, we have reduced Canada's deficit without reducing Canada.
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for a while now listening to some of the Liberal members who spoke. I have to admit that most of what they say sounds like it has been written by a speech writer in an office tower who is totally unattached to Canadian reality.
There is an occasional paragraph in some of the speeches where a few words have been added, but most of it sounds like pure political drivel by someone in the finance department trying to justify a rather uninspiring budget with accolades that are not shared by Canadians and which do not reflect the response Liberal members are getting from their constituents.
When looking at the budget we begin to see there are perhaps some changes coming for old age pensions and for CPP. There are some signs that perhaps the Liberals will not keep their promises. Liberals are great for not keeping their promises. They changed their minds on the free trade agreement. They said it was terrible and now they support the free trade agreement.
They said some things about the GST and they have been back pedalling awfully hard on that one. Why should Canadians believe one thing these Liberals are saying?
I believe that because of the fiscal mismanagement of the country, one day the Liberals will have to get up in the House and say: "Sorry, old age pensioners, you will lose your old age pension even if you are low income". They will say: "Sorry, we mismanaged your CPP funds and you will lose them. We meant to tell you sooner, but we just did not get around to it". They will tell our young people: "Sorry, we have to raise your taxes. We did not do things quite right in the past. It just kind of crept up on us. We did not mean it to happen. That is the reality of the times".
Our debt is increasing at an enormous rate. In spite of all the drivel we hear from the Liberal members, the truth is our debt has increased by almost $100 billion since the Liberals took over and the interest payments on the debt are approaching $50 billion every year. This from a government that only gets a little over $100 billion in revenue each year and is spending about $160 billion each year. It is atrocious. It is terrible.
I wish the Liberals would come to their senses and recognize the seriousness of the situation and be prepared to do something constructive about it before they lose all of the so-called social safety nets they claim to be the champions of. It will be the Liberals who will destroy all of our social safety nets by pretending there is nothing wrong with their budgets or with the ongoing deficits they have been ringing up not only in this decade but in previous decades to the tune of almost $600 billion to date.
I had to get that off my chest because I am extremely upset that they would mislead the Canadian people by letting them think everything is okay.
I want to direct most of my speech today to the agricultural perspective of the budget. As agriculture critic I am very concerned about what the budget states with regard to agricultural issues. There are a few issues that need to be discussed today.
There was a formal announcement in the budget of the government selling off 13,000 grain hopper cars. This was not much of a surprise because it had been discussed and the government's intention had been made known before the budget was release. It became very clear the government was prepared to go ahead when the budget was released in March.
The so-called SEO group, the senior executive officers, made up of executives of the railways, elevators and other key players in the grain industry was set up last year by the federal government to develop a set of recommendations regarding future grain transportation systems in western Canada. In its set of recommendations to the Department of Transport and Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food last fall, the disposal of the hopper car fleet was considered. The railways would purchase these 13,000 cars on the condition that they be used to transport western grain. The cars would be sold for $100 million and the purchase cost would be recovered over five years through an approximate one dollar a tonne rate increase in transporting grains.
This all seems to be going down the drain. The recommendations for the car disposition seems to be derailed and any idea that the railways will be receiving the cars is very slim at the current time, which is not necessarily bad. Subsequently, a coalition of farm groups has banded together to develop proposals to buy the hopper cars. The primary objective of the coalition is that all 13,000 cars be sold together, that they be operated as a common fleet and that the first priority of use will be moving western Canadian agriculture products.
Members of the producer coalition have been critical of the federal government, suggesting it is difficult to develop a business plan or arrange financing until they know what the selling price of the cars will be.
I might use the illustration of a used car salesman. If any member of the House was to buy a used car and went to a used car lot, they would see a car and would ask the salesman the price of
the car. Our used car salesman, the minister of agriculture, said he wants to sell his used hopper cars to Canadian farmers but that there is one little catch, he will not tell them the price of these hopper cars. He wants the farmers to put together the financing by going to the Farm Credit Corporation or some leasing company and make all the arrangements and then he will finally get around to talking price a ways down the road.
We have heard of some pretty shady used car salesmen in the past but I certainly do not think farmers appreciate the used hopper car sales approach that is being used by the minister of agriculture.
In the budget the Liberals laid out a proposal that was far from specific and raised more questions than it answered: "The government will examine proposals for the acquisition of the cars, taking into account the interests of producers, shippers and railways and the need to make the most efficient use of the cars. The Minister of Transport will be authorized to adjust regulated freight rates effective August 1, 1998 by 75 cents per tonne on average to cover the cost of the acquisition".
Shortly after this announcement it was reported that the government was looking for somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250 million for the cars. However, this was only a rumour. There was no substantiation and no firm proposals put forward. There was no explanation as to how long the 75 cent per tonne surcharge would remain. There was no explanation as to the replacement process for replacing these hopper cars. There was no suggestion as to how they might be maintained. There was no suggestion as to how they might be allocated.
What the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport are asking are for farmers to buy these cars. They will have no locomotives to pull these cars. They have no idea as to what kind of an allocation process will be put in place for these cars. Yet they are supposed to put the financing together and go storming ahead with this process.
It sounds an awful lot like the way the minister of agriculture handled the whole Crow situation. When the Crow buyout was announced it was supposed to be offset by efficiencies in rail transportation. The problem is the minister of agriculture forgot to address the issue of the efficiencies before he ended the Crow. It was kind of like putting the cart in front of the horse.
Certainly in this whole Crow fiasco there were a lot of mistakes made. Certain crops like forage were not included in the payment even though they were part of the regular rotation of eligible crops. There were instances where a renter and a land owner were going to arbitration and it was costing them an exorbitant amount, anywhere between $500 and $1,500 a day for arbitration for a cheque that may not be much more than that.
Cheques were to be mailed out in January. However, there are still constituents in my riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster who have not received that initial Crow buyout cheque.
I was talking to some people from the Farm Credit Corporation. I told them this whole Crow buyout plan allowed that the payment would be going to FCC for land they held and was being leased by a customer. If the customer chose to use that money as a down payment they could purchase their land and get it back. I asked how this plan worked. The corporation said it was really not working at all because they had to meet a December 31 deadline and many of them still did not have their initial Crow payment.
They were not able to put together interim financing. They were not sure what the amount would be. Therefore, he said: "It is very rare that you would see a client of the Farm Credit Corporation using the Crow buyout as a down payment to repurchase his land". There was some very bad planning in the whole process.
Let us go back to the grain hopper cars. It makes sense for the government to develop a clear plan of action rather than taking the ad hoc approach that we are becoming quickly accustomed to in this House.
The minister of agriculture has stated publicly a bias in favour of some form of producer ownership. If the government would like to see the hopper cars go to the producers, it should develop a transparent and open framework that will accomplish that. The minister of agriculture should not be giving the producer coalition preference when he cannot guarantee the cars will be sold to the producers.
Second, if the government has already made up its mind who should own the cars, there is very little point in having a lengthy consultation process to arrive at a conclusion that perhaps is predetermined. There has been no openness in discussing the negotiations or the intentions of the government other than the minister's expressed wish that the producers somehow buy the hopper cars without knowing the details.
According to the budget, the bottom line is that the hopper cars will be sold. They should be sold. While the government should attempt to get a reasonable amount of money from the sale, producers that utilize the rail system should not be pained unnecessarily for paying off the cars. The ending of the WGTA subsidy has already increased farmers' transportation costs on average by 75 per cent. What is needed in the car disposition process is a clear and concise strategy that will prevent the process from going off the tracks.
The agriculture minister failed in the whole disbanding of the Crow. He is failing on the hopper cars. He failed on the durum trade
dispute Canada had a year or so ago with the United States and he failed on the transportation bill, Bill C-14.
The minister of agriculture spoke to a meeting of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in my province and indicated that he would be a point person, the person who negotiated the best possible transportation act for prairie producers.
Every prairie representative who I know that came before the transportation committee said that there were fundamental flaws with Bill C-14 which needed to be changed. If it would be enacted, it should be fair both to shippers and the railways. The minister of agriculture failed to represent that interest, which showed how hopelessly inadequate he was or how inconsistent he was in keeping his word.
I want to briefly touch on the reduction of the dairy subsidy and the creation of a single federal food inspection agency, which are also parts of the budget.
With regard to the reduction in the dairy subsidy, the Reform Party has stated that the supply managed sectors must not rely on federal subsidies to sustain their existence in the marketplace. Instead, producers must rely on their competitive advantage and create an environment that is viable, self-reliant and market driven.
The Liberal government has failed to come clean with producers when it told them that the status quo approach with a few cosmetic changes would allow the supply managed sectors to go unhindered into the 21st century. Once again, the government has relied on an ad hoc approach to the detriment of Canadian farmers.
As far as supply management is concerned, before the election Liberal candidates and Liberal members of Parliament were suggesting that article XI was safe, that they would defend article XI under the GATT. Once they got into power, they quickly broke that promise as they broke many others. They said, sorry, we did not have enough support in the international community. We had to break our word.
I fear that the Liberals are doing the same with supply managed industries. They are making promises that they are not going to be able to keep and that is unfair.
One of the promises they broke was the discontinuation of the dairy subsidy. I heard nothing prior to the last election that a Liberal government would discontinue the dairy subsidy. In power, that is what it has turned around and done.
Reform was very open. We had a dialogue with the supply managed industries. We said that in the overall scope of things we would reduce and eliminate the dairy subsidy, but we would do it in co-operation with the industry. The industry would know what was going on and there would be other avenues that it could follow to compensate for the losses the farmers would have.
The Liberals were not open and straightforward with the industry. They mislead the industry and now they are pulling the rug out from under an industry that was not prepared to deal with the end of the dairy subsidy. That is not good government and that is not a good way to deal with the agriculture sector.
As far as the single food inspection agency is concerned, that is a positive development if it brings about the forecast of expenditure reductions and if it continues to provide the service that is required.
It is about time the government realized that amalgamating the same services of three departments under one department will promote efficiencies financially while reducing the duplication among various levels of government and government departments.
It is clear that some of the other federal departments should follow this and reduce inefficiencies. We have to be vigilant to make sure that the government actually reduces the departments where there is overlap rather than reshuffle people around, create this new single inspection agency, but yet keep unnecessary bodies around in the other three departments because it is not prepared to make the cuts and do the decisive things that need to be done in the department of agriculture.
The Liberal delay in addressing the deficit will cost Canadian taxpayers in excess of $10 billion. If Canadians would have elected a Reform government in 1993, by the year 2000, taxpayers would have been $10 billion better off than they are under this Liberal government because of its mismanagement of the economy and of the budget.
A Reform government would have halted this waste by balancing the books more quickly. Furthermore with a balanced budget taxpayers would see a sustainability of funding for social programs and tax relief.
That is the compassionate way to deal with seniors. That is the compassionate and right way to deal with our youth. That is the right way to deal with the agriculture sector as well.
The sustainability of Canada's social safety net, job creation and a prosperous farming sector can only be achieved by creating a healthy economy through a balanced budget, reduced federal spending and a shrinking federal debt which will result in modest surpluses and a growing economy. That comes from proper management and proper budgeting and a finance minister that has more courage than our current finance minister.
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I simply could not let the member's words about drivel go unnoticed.
I wonder if he would agree with Bill Good, B.C. based radio call-in host, who said on CTV's "Sunday Edition": "What Paul
Martin has done is gathered a considerable amount of credibility by hitting the targets that he has said he was going to hit, that is keeping interest rates relatively low because international investors now believe Paul Martin is serious about deficit reduction".
Would he also agree with Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail columnist who said: ``If only federal governments 10 years ago had introduced budgets like the last two, including yesterday's-The fight against deficit-debt has been waged thus far successfully without major tax increases to which Canadians have become politically resistant. It has instead been fought where it belongs, in the government's own spending and in transfer to the provinces''.
Would he agree with the Montreal Gazette editorial: ``For the most part Mr. Martin deserves praise for keeping his government's promise to keep federal finances under control without damaging the core of the country's social services and without hurting too many people too badly''.
Perhaps he would agree with Jason Moscovitz that the reason for the drivel of the member's opposite is that, as Mr. Moscovitz said: "With the Liberals showing the deficit declining, the Reform Party appears to have been caught flat footed. Paul Martin had a day he may not soon forget. In straight parliamentary terms he beat up the opposition-
The BudgetRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I hesitate to interrupt at any time but I think it is important to remember that although sometimes we might quote from any publication, the rule of the House is that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. In other words, directly we would not name the Minister of Finance. We would refer to him as the Minister of Finance.
I know we have been away for a few weeks and we are a little rusty. I just bring that to the attention of the House once again. I think the question has now been put.
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting. What the member was doing was quoting from the Liberal finance department's briefing notes. This is what the hon. member should say in response to Reformers. Use this quote, this quote and this quote, and see what happens.
I am not sure of the economic credentials of some of the people who wrote some of those articles. I am sure they are all excellent journalists in one form or the other. A lot of what the member said is true. The finance minister has hit his target.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, if you put a string a foot above the foyer I could jump over it without any problem. If you put the target up where it should be, where I would be competitive, in my case it still would not be too high because of the shape I am in. Let us say three or four feet and then it would be a challenge.
The finance minister has set his sights very low. He is certainly hitting his targets but he is doing it at great cost to future generations. Low income seniors will not have their old age pensions and CPP because of the finance minister's low targets. Young people today, our kids and our grand kids will be paying taxes that they cannot afford to pay and they will be looking for jobs that are not available because the finance minister set his targets far too low.
Mr. Simpson said that this should have been done sooner. It certainly should have been done a whole lot sooner. The debt was $17 billion in our centennial year. Now the deficit is $30 or $40 billion a year.
One of the worst finance ministers during that period is the current Prime Minister. He started us down the wrong road. The Mulroney government came along and it could not fix it either. Canadians finally started getting mad and now they are electing Reformers because they realize they were headed on a course to disaster if we do not get the federal ledger balanced and get it done soon.
As far as Mr. Moscovitz is concerned he is a great reporter. I enjoy watching his show. He is always entertaining but he reminds me in that statement of a lot of reporters who said in 1988 that the Reform will never elect an MP. These are the people who said that. "They will never elect an MP. You will never see one of them sitting in the House of Commons". In 1989 we elected our first MP.
They said that Reform would never get anywhere outside of western Canada and it will never be anything more than just a rump in the west. We hold the majority of seats in western Canada and we elected a member in Ontario. We were the second strongest party in Ontario.
The other day we almost won a seat in Newfoundland where the experts had written us off and said we would never even get a toehold.
Mr. Moscovitz may be wrong. We see the Liberals breaking their promises, taking away OAS, not being able to fund CPP, not being able to support post-secondary education. Then Canadians will say the Liberals betrayed us, the Reformers were right and that is where we had better put our stocks in the future.
The BudgetRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Before I resume debate, earlier an hon. member raised the issue of a wager. The last member who spoke made mention of how high he might be able to jump. That might make for an interesting wager.
Let me see if I can get some clarification here. Is the hon. member for Elk Island seeking the floor for debate?
The BudgetRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Let me clear the matter up as best I can. The last spokesperson from the Reform Party, the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, went well beyond 10 minutes if there was split of the debate time. I am having great difficulty in recognizing someone from the same party at this time.
I hope that the hon. member will understand. I might have been of more assistance if I had asked the member if he was sharing his time. I failed to do so. I regret the confusion.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I was of the opinion that we were splitting our time, however I will gladly defer if you can assure me that some time down the road I may get another opportunity.
The BudgetRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I am sure the hon. member will get another opportunity. The matter of debate today is the amendment of the official opposition. It will be voted on no later than after the bells at 6.15 p.m. I believe there is still some debate time left on the budget motion. Could the table officers indicate to me that there is still some time? There is still some debate time on the budget, and so the hon. member for Elk Island will have an opportunity.
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sorry if I went over my 10 minutes. I was of the understanding that we had indicated we were dividing our time. Could you indicate whether there is still part of the half-hour slot remaining? Would the member for Elk Island at least be able to use some of that time if there is some time remaining?
I apologize if I went longer. I was expecting a sign from you when nearing the 10 minute mark.
The BudgetRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Normally in all likelihood I would have given any member some indication when getting close to his or her time. However, not having the previous information that the member was to be splitting his time, once we got beyond the 10 minutes I accepted the fact that possibly the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster was to take the full 20 minute slot.
Again, I apologize if I contributed to this confusion but I must look to the opposite parties now for debate.
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for using more time. It is probably my fault and I accept responsibility.
Would the House consider granting unanimous consent in the short time we have before the bells ring to give the hon. member for Elk Island about 10 minutes to give his speech. If the House denies I understand, since it is my fault, but if the House would be generous I ask for unanimous consent.
The BudgetRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Could the hon. member for Elk Island possibly summarize in five minutes?