Debates of Sept. 18th, 1996

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Three minutes.

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

Let me make a comment and ask a question. "I think my gold plated pension is okay", says the hon. member for St. Boniface. The member talked about performance reports. Let me give him a performance report and then I will get to my question.

Here is a Liberal performance report. Early next month the national debt is going to reach $600 billion. Performance: The Liberals contributed fully two-thirds to that debt. The Liberals contributed about two-thirds to raising the interest payment on that debt to an astounding $48 billion. Performance: The Liberal government has driven the national debt up by $100 billion since it took over in 1993. Soon the Prime Minister will be known all across this country as the $600 billion man.

Does the member for St. Boniface really believe that this Parliament should give the Senate $40 million with no question asked? Does he believe that is the proper and accountable thing to do?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my colleague should rise and make a few comments. They are as profound as they normally are. We contributed supposedly two-thirds to the debt. Frankly, he is very poor in mathematics or he is really trying to be very misleading because that is totally inaccurate.

I received on my desk today an analysis of some of the statistics that Reform uses when trying to scare the Canadian population about violence in society. It was deplorable. I will give an example. Reformers took a crime rate that was used at one time by Statistics Canada before Ontario was involved. Ontario then became involved and they took that first figure and compared it to the whole of Canada proving that there had been 1,000 and some-per cent increase. They would be great in finance. These kinds of statements are deplorable.

Reformers are down to 7 per cent or 8 per cent in the polls because Canadians do not believe them any more. They make outlandish statements that one cannot even add up. They make absolutely misleading statements that people no longer believe. They were at 20 per cent, went down to 14 per cent, now at 7 per cent and I suspect they will be at 2 per cent pretty soon. I do not know how one can get below 0 per cent, but if it is possible for a political party to get below 0 per cent I am betting it is going to be the Reform Party. I believe this party will be the first party to attain that noble goal. That is what Reformers deserve with that kind of rhetoric, those kinds of misleading statements, the poor research, the exaggeration and the bluster.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I was not sure exactly what it was I missed about this place over the last several months but I am giving a new definition to wonderful Wednesday.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you are right, there are some things about this House that we can miss over the summer. I certainly enjoyed the peace and quiet of the country back in Morinville, Alberta. It was just wonderful. We are now back into the fray and debating the estimates.

I have a couple of points. The previous speaker, the member for St. Boniface, takes pride in his accomplishments. It is a real accomplishment that he has been able, through the chairmanship of his committee, to provide a pilot project that would give new information to Parliament. We hope it is going to provide better and more useful information to this House.

The point unfortunately is that once we have this new and improved information and once we are able to see how the government intends to spend the money and we make recommendations to reduce that amount, we are absolutely and totally stonewalled by the members of the government because they say: "Confidence is the order of the day. There is nothing that we can do. Whatever they say they want has to be voted through".

That is the shame about this House, not the other one, this House: the fact that the democratic will of this House is thwarted because the Prime Minister says that confidence applies to the estimates. Therefore any backbencher in the government who wishes to oppose, challenge, reduce or change any figure in these estimates had better think twice. They would not want to be back out in the hustings trying to get re-elected because the government might fall because of one backbencher. They are not prepared to stand up to the Prime Minister.

As a result, the estimates as tabled by the President of the Treasury Board are rammed through this House without any change of any kind being tolerated, regardless of whether or not we get new and improved information courtesy of the member for St. Boniface. It is not to detract from his work which is real and serious work. It is to say that in this House the democratic principle of representation of the people who sent us here to talk about these estimates and to act upon these estimates only allows us to talk about these estimates. That is most important.

Of course, there is the other house. I was quite surprised at the two members of the Bloc Quebecois. The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley talked about challenging their legitimacy to sit in this House. I thought they would blow a gasket. Their blood pressure went up. The rhetoric got hot and I thought they would stomp right out. Very sensitive they were to the challenges to their legitimacy.

The other House is well and truly entrenched in our Constitution as a legitimate part of this Parliament, albeit unelected, yes. Nonetheless it is part of our Constitution; it is entrenched and has a place in this Parliament. Does the Bloc have a place in this Parliament? That is a serious question and that is why when one questions their legitimacy to sit in this House, Bloc members get so hot under the collar that we have to stand back. Members know how it is.

Anyway, there is the other House. We heard the member for St. Boniface. If they make us an offer, we are prepared to debate the issue.

There was an article in the August 5, 1996 Edmonton Sun . The headline is ``PM's sad slide on the Senate''. I will read from it:

Back in October 1990, the then opposition leader had a vision for the Senate, one he promised to enact. At the time of this momentous disclosure the Prime Minister was addressing 400 delegates at the annual general meeting of the Alberta branch of the federal Liberal Party.

He was speaking to his own converted people. Going on, he said:

Saying it was only the presence of Liberal senators that made the chamber of second thought effective at all, he went on to vow that "The Liberal government in two years will make it elected".

It is now nearly six years later, and the Senate is more a palace of patronage than ever. And as far as we know, the Prime Minister has never uttered the words "elected" and "Senate" in the same sentence since he was elected in 1993.

Talk about promises, talk about the red book. They enact the promises. The Prime Minister stood up in 1990 and said: "I want to see an elected Senate because they have almost stopped the GST from being rammed through against Canadians' will". That is why we need a House of sober second thought. It is to ensure that Canadians are represented. What they want is what they get. When they do not want the GST, they do not want the GST.

The Senate had its finest day in years. The senators were on television every night as they stomped out of the chamber. Of course the Liberal majority frustrated the will of the Tory government in this chamber until the Prime Minister of the day said: "I will fix that. I will appoint a bunch of my cronies to outnumber your cronies and then we will get what I want through that chamber because it is not elected". That is hardly democracy.

I asked the Library of Parliament for some background on the other place and they were kind enough to give me a paper that they had prepared for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 30th Canadian regional conference in New Brunswick in August 1990. I will quote from that paper.

On page 2 on the powers of the Senate it states: "The powers of the Senate, which have not been amended since 1867 except with regard to the amendment of the Constitution, are impressive on paper. In formal terms the Senate comes immediately after the Queen and before the House of Commons in the list of components of the Canadian Parliament. For a law to pass it must be agreed to by the Senate. If a bill passed by the House of Commons is amended in the Senate the amendment must in turn be approved by the Commons failing which the entire text will die on the Order Paper.

"Supremacy was conceded to the Commons only in the terms of financial initiatives. Money bills have been subject to dispute since Confederation. In the United Kingdom under the Parliament Act of 1911 it is up to the Speaker of the Commons to certify bills as money bills but no such procedure exists in Canada. It is generally accepted that tax bills, bills of supply and bills of appropriation fall into this category and that such bills may only be introduced in the House but must pass both chambers".

It continues on page 3, where the paper prepared quotes from a book by Mr. Robert A. Mackay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada revised edition 1963, pages 94 and 95 and it states: ``The Senate cannot be said to have abused its powers over money bills. It must be recognized that whatever its legal powers, it has not the same political authority as the Commons and that accordingly on money matters the commons has a clear priority and that the Senate's responsibility and rights are secondary''. They are secondary.

I read those quotes because a committee of this House asked the Senate to appear before the House of Commons committee, which has supremacy on money matters clearly and obviously, to tell this House why we should give the Senate $43 million to carry on its business and it refused.

This House has supremacy, clearly, obviously and distinctly. We are elected by Canadians. We represent Canadians from coast to coast. We, the House of Commons, are the ones who have the power to tax Canadians and we are the ones who have the authority to decide how that money is to be spent. The other place, which is secondary and subordinate to this House on money matters, has refused to appear before us to explain why it needs it. Yet the Prime Minister, his government and his backbenchers later on tonight, I can guarantee it, will vote the Senate every nickel that it has asked for without one question being answered as to why it needs the money and how it is going to spend it.

That is an affront to the people who sit in this House. It is an affront to Canadians who have to pay taxes that we will give the other place $43 million even though it says: "Put it in your face. We are not going to show up and answer your questions as to why we need the money". It is an affront.

Let me say no more about the other place until it is reformed.

On a broader scale, members have heard me talk about the fact that the Prime Minister asks and the Prime Minister gets as far as the estimates are concerned. Whatever we say in this House is of no matter.

Last year the Reform Party put up quite a fight on the estimates. As a result of that fight the government said that it would create a subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee on the business of supply to see what could be done to reform this process. I did not think it would be a long, drawn out and complicated affair but unfortunately I have to advise that the subcommittee is still in existence. It has still to file its final report, and here we are 15 months from the time the committee was created.

We have heard the witnesses. We have listened to the people who put the current procedures in place as to why they put them in place and how they feel it is not delivering what they had anticipated. I hoped we would have reported back to the House before now, that we would be discussing these estimates under an amended procedure based on the work of the subcommittee on the business of supply, but it is not to be.

As the Reform Party critic for the Treasury Board, as a gesture of goodwill, we allowed the old process to prevail today. However, we feel this government has no desire to move and to amend the business of supply. We have been absolutely stonewalled about changing and reducing these estimates regardless of how legitimate our arguments are. Be assured that next year when the estimates are presented to the House the Reform Party will vigorously defend to the best of its ability its right to challenge the government to ensure that Canadians become fully aware of the charade that goes on here once every year, and also when we have the supplementary estimates.

It is just a done deal before we even vote because confidence is called by the Prime Minister and they on the other side all fall into line and say: "What the Prime Minister wants, the Prime Minister gets". This is regardless of what the people think, the people who sent them here. Regardless of what they think, what the Prime Minister wants, the Prime Minister gets.

We have heard the stories of responsible management, downsizing, efficiency and so on. What is the government doing? I am sure Canadians are not really aware what it is doing.

Look at some of the numbers: Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation has an increase in budget of 69 per cent. Its budget is going from $10 million last year to $17 million this year, an increase of 69.3 per cent. We have heard the speeches. They have been wonderful and glorious speeches about how the Liberals are cutting the budget and about how the deficit is coming down through their hard work.

Here is something else: The Canadian Museum of Civilization. I am sure we create a lot of jobs down there. It has an increase in its budget of 21 per cent from $38 million to $46 million.

The Canadian Museum of Nature has a 37 per cent increase in budget, from $18 million to $24 million. They must create a lot of jobs in museums these days.

The National Gallery of Canada has a budgetary increase of 20 per cent, from $27 million to $33 million. More museums: The National Museum of Science and Technology has an increase of 33 per cent, from $15 million to $20 million. There is no end.

Remember how critical the Reform Party has been of the minister of heritage and her flagrant and spendthrift waste, waving flags courtesy of the taxpayer. Everyone knows the story.

Status of Women, Office of the Co-ordinator has an increase of 222 per cent, from $4 million to $15 million. All these areas are under the control of the Deputy Prime Minister, that newly elected, wonderful member from Hamilton East who is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I am sure she is doing her bit to cut the size of government. Right?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Oh yes.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Right.

Let us talk about the Minister of Finance. He is the one who is prudent and tight with the dollars. He says he is wrestling the deficit down. There was increase in the Department of Finance of 19.1 per cent from $49 billion to $59 billion, largely because the debt is going up and up. It will be $100 billion more during the life of this government using an 8 per cent rate. That is another $8 billion each and every year out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

The largest transfer program in the history of Canada is the transfer from the poor taxpayers, the downtrodden, hardworking Canadian taxpayer and it is going to the moneylenders, the bankers, the investors, the overseas people who are buying our bonds. The largest transfer program in the history of Canada is the $50 billion to the rich financiers around the world.

Is that fiscal management? Is that prudent management? Is that sound management? Is that what the Liberals tell the people at election time? No, they say jobs, jobs, jobs and the unemployment rate is stuck at 10 per cent. The next time around it will be jobs, jobs, jobs and the unemployment rate will be stuck at 10 per cent. Not a single word will be said about the fact that the interest costs on the debt has gone up 10, 20, 30 and 40 per cent. It is now $50 billion and by the turn of the century that will be $60 billion.

We heard the member for St. Boniface talk about how the coast guard and the department of fisheries were working closely to reduce costs. At fisheries and oceans the increase is 15.7 per cent from $775 million to $896 million.

At Indian affairs, that wonderful department that creates all these jobs, has an increase of 6.2 per cent from $4.9 billion to $5.2 billion. The Federal Court of Canada has an increase of 60 per cent from $19 million to $31 million. It is all here.

Is that fiscal management? No. Is there prudent management? No. Help themselves to the taxpayers money? Absolutely yes. Absolutely yes because every nickel has come down on the deficit as being from increased tax revenues. There has been no reduction in unemployment to speak of. They have helped themselves to the money from the working people by refusing to reduce the unemployment insurance premiums. Now the government has a $6 billion slush fund that the Minister of Finance is using to say: "I have met my deficit target".

High unemployment insurance premiums kill jobs. We know the Minister of Finance is sitting on top of a slush fund so he can say he has met his target. He is putting people out of work because UI premiums are too high. Let that message be put out. Let the message go out to Canadians that this is irresponsible management. The government refuses to allow the a legitimate expression of all members as to what they think of these estimates. That has to change in this House and the way they are appointed and elected down the hall. That House has to change too.

There is no end to the improvements that the Reform Party could and will make.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member from the Reform Party had to say and, while he was speaking, I was thinking how lucky Quebec voters are to have members of the Bloc Quebecois representing them here in this House. How lucky they are and how lucky we in the Bloc are to be able to come to this House to defend Quebec's interests and share our views with members of the other parties. Our views are often different from theirs because we are linguistically and culturally different.

In 1968, the Government of Quebec was led by Daniel Johnson Senior. There is a big difference between the father and the son. I can tell you that the father was a great premier. So the then Premier of Quebec, Daniel Johnson, abolished the legislative assembly, which was equivalent to the federal Senate. Believe it or not, Quebec has continued to function since then. We realized that we did not need two Houses in Quebec. If this works for every province, why would it not work for the central government? This would resolve an enduring situation that has been deteriorating for a long time. We have talked about reforming the Senate for a long time. We now see that it is impossible to reform because we cannot agree on anything.

The Reform Party favours an elected Senate. It would not be so bad, at least, if senators were elected. But what is the advantage of having two Houses of Parliament?

We are a middle power with a population of 27 or 28 million. Every Canadian province has its own government. There are governments in all 10 provinces and in the territories. We have a central government, municipal governments and school boards. Why not do away with the Senate?

In my school days, we were told that the Senate was a Canadian creation modelled on the House of Lords. It was decided at the time to copy the British parliamentary system. The title of lord is hereditary. In the Canadian system, it was decided to appoint senators. It may have been a good thing at the time, not knowing how educated the members of the Lower House would be, to have slightly more educated people sitting for a longer period in the Upper House. But what good is it today?

One thing matters: those who represent the people must be elected. This prompts me to ask this question: Would Canada not do better with just one House instead of reforming a Senate that is beyond reform?

There was talk about reform in 1970 and again in 1975 and 1978. When I was in school, we kept hearing about all these plans to reform the Senate, but no agreement was ever reached. As a result, the Senate remains the same and carries on.

I think that not to abolish the Senate at this time is to show lack of respect for Canadian voters, who work hard to send people to represent them in this place. These representatives work hard, very hard. We all know how expensive it is to run a Parliament. The Senate alone costs $43 million per year at the lowest estimate and $65 million, when everything is taken into account. What a saving this would be: $65 million. With this money, we could afford to build one or two hospitals per year in Canada, and these would be much more useful than a Senate.

Nowadays money must be invested where it will be profitable. A Senate is not a profitable investment. All a Senate does is give the Prime Minister in office an excuse to appoint his friends, to reward those who have served the party well. So, instead of wasting our time stubbornly insisting on reforming an archaic institution, why not just abolish the Senate?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one notes that when the members from the Bloc talk about legitimacy they get very sensitive about the issue. I think it is because they feel quite sensitive themselves about being here and wondering about the legitimacy of why they are here in the first place or how they can stay here.

I believe I talked about this earlier on this evening. There is a need sometimes for the house of sober second thought, as the other Chamber is currently considered at this point in time. I have reasons for saying that. Let us take a look at a couple of situations.

A couple of years ago the GST created a furore in this House. The prime minister of the day used his majority to ram that legislation through this House before sending it down the hall to the other House for the sober second thought. The opposition party had the majority down there at that time. There was tremendous animosity around the country and this hated tax was not to be introduced.

The prime minister of the day used a very small quirk of the Constitution which had never been used before to change the majority down the hall to guarantee passage of his hated legislation. If that had been an elected Chamber, a Chamber where all the regions were properly represented and could not be tampered with by the prime minister of the day then or today, we would not have to tell Canadians that we would scrap the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister would not have had to put her seat on the line because she would not have had to make an election promise that she would scrap the GST. There is a very real reason for that House.

The other reason, as I said, is that sometimes we get a little headstrong in here and sometimes we get carried away. No better example is down the road in the province of Quebec, in the city of Quebec and the legislature of Quebec where the premier of the day says: "I don't care about the rule of law. I don't care what the court says about whether my actions are legal or illegal or whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. I get what I want". We need a second House to ensure that democracy is protected in this country. Even if it only pops up every so many years it is very important.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a few words. I want to share my time with the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester.

First, as far as the Bloc is concerned, it was not very long ago when its members stood in this House and praised the Senate. It was not very long ago when they were suggesting that perhaps the Senate was the only place that could protect the people from the legislation of the Tories, for example, the old age pension cuts and the GST.

What was the last piece of legislation that the Bloc stood in the House and supported that involved massive tax changes? What was it? Was it a bill from the government? Was it a bill from this Chamber? No, it was not. It started with the letter S . The letter S denotes the Senate. The Bloc stood in this Chamber and fell over backward. They tripped over one another to praise the Senate and all the work it had done on this massive tax change that was called S-9. They praised the committee system of the Senate. It was a massive, sweeping tax change. It was probably the biggest tax change we have had in about 20 years.

Why? Because the Bloc said: "This is a wonderful bill coming from the Senate. What it does is reduce taxes as it relates to the United States. We represent the people of Quebec who like the United States. Therefore, we are all in favour of what the Senate is doing".

They fell over backwards. In fact, they were kissing cousins with the Reform Party. They were hugging one another. They stood up, both of them, praising this legislation, a bill with an s on the front. It did not have a c , which means Commons; it had an s , which stands for the Senate. It came from the Senate. It originated from the Senate banking committee and they stood as one, the Bloc and the Reform Party. They praised it and they praised it and they praised it. Now the Bloc stands today and says that they are asleep in the Senate.

[An hon. member]

They are.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

The Reform Party of course says that it is a waste of money. The Reform Party says everything is a waste of money. I was looking at their alternative to these estimates. I was looking a moment ago at what they regarded as being a waste of money in health care, page 24.

What do Reformers say about health care in Canada being a waste of money? They say: "Medicare in which everyone receives everything health care professionals wanted to deliver is not only intolerably expensive, it is undesirable for other reasons. Consumers should be allowed to stay outside the publicly funded system completely if that is their wish, or to supplement publicly funded care with additional privately funded care if that is their wish". A waste of money.

Then the Reformers went on to say that roads and bridges were a waste of money. Let us see. They say on page 14 of their budget: "Typically, physical infrastructure refers to traditional features like highways, ports, railways and airports. Given our current fiscal climate however, governments are ill equipped to spend money on such improvements. In Canada this saving can be done by privatizing aviation, privatizing airports". Then number two, "allowing private sector companies to build and maintain roads and bridges".

Imagine the cost of driving the Alaska highway if that were the case with the Reform Party in power.

Then the Reformers went on to say on page 46 that unemployment insurance was a waste of money. They suggested an incredible thing. They suggested that the premiums not be reduced.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Not reduced.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

No. "Don't reduce the premiums", they said, "until all the deficit is taken care of, until a new fund has been built up". In other words, sock it to the employers, sock it to the employees. They said that after all this has been done, then they could pass on some savings to the employees and the employers. With the Reform Party everything is a waste of money.

What are we debating here today? We are debating to concur in the main estimates for the year ending March 31, 1997. For what country? To listen to the Bloc and the Reform, boy, what country do members think they are thinking about?

[An hon. member]

Burundi.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Let us take the G-7. Could it be Italy? Its growth rate is 1.2 per cent minus, no, not Italy. Is it France? Let us come up a little further now at 2 per cent, no. Is it the U.K. at 1.5 per cent? That is not what we are debating. Is it Germany at .8 per cent? No. Is it the great country of Japan? No. We are not even close to the top in economic performance. Oh no, it is not Japan. Is it the United States at 3.4 per cent? No, it is not. What country is it that we are doing the estimates on? Could it be that it is the country that has been judged by the OECD as being the richest country today in economic growth of all of the G-7 countries, the country of Canada? Is that what we are talking about today?

These figures are not from an organization in downtown Toronto or downtown Montreal. Where do these figures come from? Hon. members from the Reform and the Bloc should visit the parliamentary library and pick up the OECD Economic Outlook. Twenty-seven countries in the world whose job is to do what? They are representatives of 27 governments of the industrialized democracies of the world who discuss and attempt to co-ordinate their economic and social policies. What do they say? They say that Canada since the fall of 1993-what happened then? Wow, is that not a coincidence? Since the fall of 1993 to the beginning of 1996, for those three years Canada had the strongest employment growth of all of the G-7 countries. They did not stop there. Then they said for the year 1997 in terms of economic growth, Canada is projected to rank first among the G-7 countries.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[An hon. member]

Say that again.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

That deserves repeating. We have to repeat it, Mr. Speaker, because we are dealing with estimates of that country called Canada. Who has been the leader of that country, judged to be the most progressive nation in the world today, that the Bloc and Reform are saying here today is an absolute disaster? We are led by the most successful Prime Minister, the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever had and he will lead us into 1998 and beyond.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat embarrassed by comments made in this House. The member who just spoke said that Canada is the richest country and that it enjoys a very high rate of economic growth. However, the member seems to overlook another Canadian reality.

There is no reason to brag when one looks at all the shameful cuts made to social assistance and to unemployment insurance, and when one considers that one out of five children does not have enough to eat. I am somewhat embarrassed by such comments, because I think the economic reality is not that pretty.

I feel like we are in a school yard during recess and that we are discussing whether we could cut $40 million and give this very amount to sectors that have suffered these shameful cuts.

I wish to call to order the member who boasts about playing a role in a flourishing Canadian economy.

I wonder about that. Canada is no longer the country it used to be. The federal government keeps making cuts in transfer payments to the provinces. It gives the provinces the responsibility of maintaining a social safety net, while it no longer has the means to send-Quebecers pay $30 billion in taxes and they receive less and less.

To use a popular expression, this is nothing to write home about.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is why I mentioned right at the very beginning of my comments how incredible it was that the Bloc turned around and heaped such praise on the Senate and the banking committee for all of those changes that gave the big tax cuts to the big multinationals in the United States and in Canada. Some people agree with that. It is a legitimate way of looking at things, the way the world is going with globalization and so on.

I was shocked that the Bloc members would stand in this Chamber on behalf of those poor people they purport to represent and approve en masse the biggest tax cut to the wealthiest people in North America that we have seen in this century. And they are supposed to be the official opposition. There was no examination at all by the official opposition except for some members on this side

of the House. No, we did not vote against the legislation but we used our privilege and our positions in this great democratic party that we represent to question the actions of the Bloc and the Reform Party who welcomed those cuts for the rich so much.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls earlier in his presentation quoted from the document that is known in these circles as the "Taxpayers Budget" released by the Reform Party a couple of years ago, it reminded me of the day I brought home a shiny brochure of a nice new car. I put it down on the kitchen table and my wife went ballistic. I asked: "What is the matter, dear?" She said: "I know it is only a brochure on the table today, but it is going to be in the driveway tomorrow".

That is exactly what we will see with the taxpayers budget. It is on his desk today and it is going to be in their red book tomorrow, because it is a pathfinder. It is where the Liberals get their direction.

Where did we get the $600 billion debt? We all acknowledge the fact that we have a wonderful country. But we have a sacred trust to pass this wonderful country on to our children and their children and their children in at least as good a shape as we got it. How can we do that if we give them a legacy of $600 billion of debt, if 40 per cent of every dollar taken in by the federal government goes to pay interest on the debt, money that we have already spent? Our generation has enjoyed the benefit. If we do not make the tough decisions that the Liberals will make because they are forced to by the Reform Party, we will never get our House in order. If we had not kept the Liberals' feet to the fire there would not even be a sniff of a chance that we would be as far down the road as we are today.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it still has not sunk in to the Reformers that since the fall of 1993 Canada has become the fastest growing economy of all of the G-7 countries. We have done that and will maintain that. But we will also maintain our commitment to senior citizens and we will maintain our health care system.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow.

These days it is fashionable to talk about fiscal responsibility and the need to reduce spending at all levels of government. While it is not difficult simply to cut spending without regard for the consequences, it requires great care to meet necessary fiscal targets while ensuring that the government policies support the priorities of Canadian society.

In asking the House to concur with the appropriation bill, I would like to remind members that the estimates we have considered effecting today are taken to reduce program spending and at the same time to target spending on what is most important to the Canadian public.

For example, we have reduced direct support to industry in favour of policies that will stimulate growth and jobs. We have reduced costs by transferring the air navigation system and airports to not for profit corporations. We have taken steps to reduce subsidies to Canada Post and to VIA Rail. We have reduced defence spending by $200 million in 1997-98 and another $600 million in 1998-99. These are just a few examples of the actions we have taken to meet our fiscal responsibilities.

Under program reduction, many costs in services have been cut to the Canadian people. But one program brought in over the last three years was the infrastructure program. In Quebec alone, there were more than 2,400 projects. That brought in a total of more than $2 billion to the Quebec economy, resulting in more than 29,000 jobs.

In my province of Nova Scotia, there were more than 316 projects, which brought more than $200 million to the economy and more than 4,000 direct jobs. This is significant and it is particularly significant in the east, not only in Quebec but in Nova Scotia where the infrastructure is antiquated and much in need of a boost.

I would remind the House that this year's estimates are a vital component of that program spending regardless of the program cuts, and this year's estimates alone call for $157 billion in planned budgetary spending compared with $164 billion last year. This is a significant reduction while at the same time serving the Canadian people in programs they desire.

That intent and the reality has been that we wish to secure our nation's financial future, and that has been done that through serious, very methodical but very fair cuts, and through very serious methodical consideration of what the Canadian people want, while at the same time investing in the future which is the future of our youth.

When we went to the Canadian people looking for a mandate to govern the country, we set targets as a government and we set goals. The first goal was to reduce the deficit. When we took power in 1993, members will know that the deficit was around $42 billion a year. That is nearly 6 per cent of gross domestic product which had a very negative impact on the economy.

It was mandatory that we set responsible, credible financial targets that we could meet. For the first time in many years, the government has been credible. It has written the plan and it has followed through. There is confidence from the Canadian people.

The goal is that by the end of the fiscal year 1996-97, we will be at that real target of 3 per cent of GDP in deficit reduction and be around an annual deficit of $24 billion.

This is extremely important as we vote tonight on estimates that will pay for program spending over the next few months. What it has done is send a message to the Canadian people and to the world markets that the Canadian government is a very credible, very realistic government.

What it has done is bring inflation under control and interest rates down. Short term interest rates have declined by more than 3 percentage points since March 1995, which has brought the debt charges down. We are paying less money out on debt servicing as well.

We have also provided cost competitiveness in this country. This is the best it has been for the Canadian public for more than 45 years. That is a significant component of the Canadian economy.

We also have the largest trade surplus that we have had in decades. It is this trade surplus that sets Canadians in the front on the world stage. We can manufacture, we can market and deliver those goods competitively throughout the world. This is a very vital and a very important component of the overall economy.

As well, by reducing the deficit we have reduced our foreign dependency on dollars to simply manage the economy on a day to day basis. That alone is a significant part of the stability in our financial segment and of presenting ourself as a great leader among the G-7 nations.

The economy has generated more than 650,000 jobs over the past three years. That is also important because it is not the government that is creating the jobs, but it is government policies that are allowing the private sector to create the jobs.

It seems to me that the government has focused on the goals it set. It has delivered on what was offered to the Canadian public. The job is not all done but it will continue.

It seems to me that the reason the Reform Party put this motion to abolish the other place is because the government has set the goals financially and has been responsible fiscally and it has no argument on the financial front and so we now have to take a new debate and put it in place. The government has spoiled Reform's platform because it has delivered and provided a credible, fiscally responsible and socially responsible government.

I say to the members of this House that the opposition parties had plenty of opportunity through the Meech Lake accord, through the Charlottetown accord, for which both parties expressed their distaste and their opposition. However, they had the opposition at that time to deal with the other place. It would have provided an opportunity for restructuring and for looking at some of these issues that we are looking at here in the government. The government has been about restructuring for three years, about program cuts, program spending and it is dealing with it in a realistic manner. It will have the opportunity again to deal with the other place.

It is my belief that every member in the other place probably would look for restructuring as well because as this century closes and we move into the 21st century time is moving so rapidly with so many changes that it is imperative that every institution in all parts of society must come forward and look at restructuring in order to keep pace with the rapid changes.

Over the summer months I did a survey in my constituency and throughout Nova Scotia. I made the statement that the government had set a strategy at the outset of reducing the deficit, keeping inflation at a manageable level and lowering interest rates to generate a fiscally responsible climate so that the private sector might come forward and the entrepreneurs flourish in creating jobs and developing that very competitive economy. That strategy was set by this government in 1993. I asked my constituents: "Are you in favour of the government strategy".

I would like to tell the House tonight that in those questionnaires that came back to me through the summer months more than 97 per cent of respondents indicated they were in favour of the government's financial strategy and their policies and that we should proceed in that direction.

The public is in favour of this fiscal strategy, of the program cuts that the government has made. They are not all perfect but they are done fairly and equitably across the country. I have suffered them as many members have in their ridings, but the public is aware of how difficult it is.

I believe that this is why we are debating the other place tonight. It is because the government has followed through on its financial commitments and delivered a responsible government. It is my belief that in fiscal year 1997-98 the size of the debt in relation to Canada's economy will decline. It will be the first time in many years that the economy will grow faster than the debt and deficit.

I believe we have answered the challenge from the opposition parties as the Government of Canada. We have fulfilled our promises. We have set the stage and have been responsible financially. The passing of the estimates tonight will support what Canadians believe, that what we are doing is appropriate for them. Because we have become responsible fiscally, we have stolen the platform from the opposition. That is why they would rather debate the other House. The time has come to restructure the other House as well.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my Liberal colleague's speech. However, I would still like to say that I find the Liberals have drifted away from what liberalism and the philosophy of liberalism are advocating in this government. I will explain.

This government has made cuts, it had to, everyone agrees. Everyone elected to this House realizes and understands that the size of government has to be reduced. We have an accumulated deficit of $600 billion. It is so large that it is difficult to calculate.

In the past, the philosophy of the Liberal Party was always to redistribute the wealth. This was where its strength lay and what in fact made the difference between our society and that of the United States. Here in Canada, we believed that the wealth should be redistributed.

Let us look at what this government has done since it came to power. What has it done? First of all, it has reformed unemployment insurance, now known as employment insurance, but this is really just semantics. It has reformed unemployment insurance to the detriment of the unemployed and of workers, who will now receive much less. They will now have to work many more hours to qualify for the insurance they are paying for, despite the fact there are surpluses in the fund. That is one thing the government has done.

Second, they have cut provincial government subsidies. The Minister of Finance has very cleverly offloaded the deficit on the provinces. That is what he has done. The provinces cannot do this because they are another level of government. The minister was clever, but he must be denounced. Less money for welfare, less money for families.

Finally, who pays? Low wage earners, the middle class, and the most defenceless are the ones who will pay and who always pay. We know that the philosophy of this big party which governs the country was to redistribute wealth. At the moment they have forgotten about that. It is far easier for them to tax the poor than to go looking for the money where it really is, so that is what they do.

The government lacks courage. I see them looking into their book and not saying much. They know I am telling the truth. It is a government lacking in courage. They have made cuts, and everyone agrees that cuts had to be made, but they have not cut where they ought to have. They have cut back on the budgets for the poor, the low wage earners. I find that a great pity.

A program was announced in the red book-remember the red book?-about creating daycare centres. They have forgotten about that.

Before asking my question, I would like to speak of the infrastructure program. That was a good program, one of the few good ones, maybe the only one, they brought in. You will recall that this is a joint program with the provincial and municipal governments, so there are three levels working together, each one contributing a third.

In my riding, there is no money left. The question I am asking the hon. member is whether we ought not to bring back this program, as soon as possible, in order to create short term employment?