Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to finally be able to speak to the bill on budget implementation.
In this bill we find more of the smoke and mirrors the government has been using on the whole issue of fighting the deficit. For a long time now, the federal government has been claiming that it has been fighting the deficit effectively. Yet it must be seen-and this is something the people of my riding have understood, and are telling me-that the federal government has fought the deficit in the following way: it let the surplus in the employment insurance fund build up, deciding to take out $2 billion in the next five years and reinject only $800 million. This means a deficit of $1.2 billion at a time when we need all the incentives we can get to create employment. There is no adjustment included in the present bill.
What is more, transfer payments are being cut. Today, all of the provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the others, are faced with problems that require them to make major cuts in health and education. This is always the result of actions by the federal government.
This past week we learned that the federal government has not cleaned up its own act. Since 1994, the objective had been to reduce expenditures in the order of 19 per cent. Today we see that the reduction has been about 9 per cent. So there is another 10 per cent that has not been saved.
We are talking about $8 billion worth of expenditures. If this amount had actually been saved, the government could have taken the pressure off the employment insurance fund and arranged for more money to be invested in business. When we talk about the transition job creation fund, about money from the employment insurance fund that is invested in projects, it could put a lot more into those projects than is now the case. The current problem stems from the government's decision to use the employment insurance surplus to pay off the deficit.
So the government aimed at the wrong target. It decided to fight the deficit. That is fine, but meanwhile, it could have taken more decisive steps in this year's budget to ensure that employment is again a priority, but there is no indication of this, and certainly not among Reform Party members who are being most unruly today.
So the priority that should have been set on employment is missing from this budget. People were waiting for some kind of action, for instance if we consider the government's procurement policies, this morning the government released the report of the parliamentary committee on government operations. After three and a half years in power, not one year but three and a half, we can say that this government is not effective, lacks openness in its procurement policies and does not use those policies to assist regional development across Canada.
I think that is inconceivable. The report as such is interesting, although it should have been tabled three years ago. The government should have taken steps two and a half years ago. This year, the budget should have contained measures to change the government's procurement policies, so that the negative impact of employment insurance reform on eastern Quebec and the maritimes could be compensated by meaningful expenditures, including government procurement, something that is sadly lacking.
There is no significant action on research and development. How will regional economies that need to diversify be able to meet the
challenges of the 21st century? They must be given a chance to transform their economy, to include research and development in the agri-food sector, for instance. There is room in secondary and tertiary processing for developing products that will be successful on foreign markets, which means they would not be stuck with primary processing where there are far fewer jobs today than was the case 20 years ago.
In agriculture, the future is in processing. We must keep producing primary products, but we must ensure that they are subsequently processed in this country so we can sell them in that form on American and European markets and throughout the world.
So, there is nothing dynamic in the present budget or in the practical applications.
The member for Matapédia-Matane pointed out to me that the approach to the forestry industry could have been very different so as to permit an improvement.
In connection with the new policy on U.S.-Canada relations, quotas were imposed on lumber exports. There is however a major new market to be developed and that is for wood which has been processed and which is not subject to quotas. If the processing industry is developed, it would mean increased exports to the United States, which are not limited by quotas. This paves the way for initiative, for original ideas. It provides a breath of fresh air to those who have come up with ideas in our regions to develop processing companies and development incentives. This will surely be one of the issues in the upcoming federal election, with people wanting to know what each party has to offer.
There was none of the originality we might have expected. Here in Parliament, the official opposition is often the source of originality, as we have seen in documents such as those tabled on tax reform and the RRSP employment proposal, which could have been included in the budget. But there is nothing like this.
The budget implementation policies are rather like the budget. We could describe the budget as neutral, rather lazy, failing to aim at the real target, unemployment. It should help us attain our objectives by creating jobs and breathing new life into our regional economies.
In the last part of this presentation, I would like to talk more specifically about a different problem, that of American pensions. Yesterday, the minister made an interesting announcement. It was the result of the efforts of members of pretty well every party, I think. In particular, I would mention those of the member for Bellechasse, with whom I set up a non-partisan committee to propose solutions to the minister, of the member for Windsor-St. Clair and of the Solicitor General, whose efforts I am aware of.
Once the new agreement between Canada and the United States is ratified, the situation will finally be corrected. In the meantime, however, one thing has not been corrected and could be in legislation to implement the budget, such as this. The federal government could have made an advance available to people who were penalized by the Americans' deduction of 25 per cent income tax from all American pensions. It often amounts to $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000, but it is money that enables people to buy food and pay the rent.
If the agreement is not ratified until January 1998, low-income people will have lived two full years with 25 per cent less than what they should have received. I think the government should go the extra step and provide advances so that people on limited incomes have at least 50 or 60 per cent of the money they should normally have. It could have done so through a bill like this one. Perhaps it is not too late. Perhaps the government could bring in an amendment to this effect, so as to put a lid on the inequity created by the change made to the tax treaty.
Once the U.S. Senate has ratified the agreement and the Canadian government has done so in keeping with the announcement made yesterday, the problem will be resolved, but in the meantime, there are people on very low incomes who will be forced to cut back on necessities for two years or two and half years, after which time they will receive a cheque covering the past two years. Why does the federal government not show some consideration and quickly give these people an advance?
These days, people are paying for mistakes made by governments when it should be the other way around. I would therefore ask the government to do that and to be more effective than it has been in reducing the deficit, to show more foresight than it has in curbing unemployment and, as far as American pensions are concerned, to show some consideration and take action to settle the problem once and for all.
In closing, it seems to me that the federal government still has a long way to go in terms of addressing the unemployment problem. The active measures one would have expected are nowhere to be seen, and that is probably the issue on which this government will be judged most harshly by the people in the next federal election.
