Debates of Sept. 25th, 1997

Speech From The Throne

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember in 1967 the Toronto Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup and 90 percent of the team was made up of older players who brought a wealth of experience and knowledge to the team. Punch Imlach was able to bring the Stanley Cup to the Toronto Maple Leafs. Similarly, this administration and its leaders with a wealth of knowledge and expertise has done many things.

I congratulate the member on her election. She referred to damage done by the Liberal government's first mandate. I would like to talk about that damage for a minute: damage such as 900,000 jobs created in its first mandate; damage such as inheriting a deficit of $42 billion which her Conservative Party left us with—and it is now said to be anywhere from zero to $5 billion; damage such as creating the fastest growing economy in the G-7; damage such as creating opportunities for youth in the programs outlined in the throne speech and before; damage such as, as the national health forum indicated before the election, the need to make the ceiling $12.5 billion. Immediately the government restored it.

I have a question for the hon. member. She talked about lowering payroll taxes. Is the member aware that when the Liberal government took over in 1993 the Conservative government had it pegged at $3.30 per $100? Does she know what the Liberal government did from day one until now?

If she does not know, I will be glad to remind her. If she does know, I would like her to point out what the payroll taxes are today as opposed to what they were under a Conservative government.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond. I did not understand everything the hon. member said, but I think the deficit he is talking about was created by the Liberals. We too had to deal with that deficit, and, had the Conservative government not introduced free trade, we would not be where we are today.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my colleague from Shefford.

She spoke on a number of subjects, including finance, programs, children and the deficit, but the most important point the Prime Minister raised yesterday was Canadian unity. I heard no mention of that, particularly with respect to the people of Quebec.

I would like to ask her a question, because it is all very well to talk of the economy, but I think the most important thing is simply to reach a common understanding. What is the role of each province in the Constitution?

Does the hon. member acknowledge that the government's legislative program denies the existence and the culture of the people of Quebec? Does the member acknowledge the existence of the people of Quebec?

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member is that I am a Quebecer, I am proud to be a Quebecer and a Canadian, and that if we consider the latest polls, many Quebecers still want to be part of Canada. We must keep talking to try and find a solution.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate at the beginning that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.

It is a great pleasure to speak to this House in reply to the throne speech, which outlines the government's priorities for the first session of the 36th Parliament.

I would like to start by thanking the people of Simcoe North for renewing their vote of confidence by granting me a second term in the federal election last June. I would also like to mention the inestimable support I have received from my wife and family.

There are many positive elements in the throne speech. Thanks to the persistent efforts of the federal government and the support of Canadians, we can at last enjoy the fruits of our collective labours. Optimism is no longer the exception but the rule, since we now have regained the ability to address the priorities of Canadians fairly and equitably.

I would like to expand on three themes we find in the throne speech: social reform, economic reform and national unity. The legislation that will be introduced to implement the proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan and the non-taxable seniors benefit will, I believe, ensure that our public pension system will remain sustainable for generations to come.

I may point out that when the seniors benefit comes into effect in 2001, benefits for our neediest seniors will increase. In fact, about 75 percent of seniors, which includes nine elderly women out of ten, will have an income that is either equal to or higher than their present income.

I support unconditionally the government's commitment to maintain a comprehensive public health care system that provides universal access to high quality care for all Canadians.

After the National Forum on Health tabled its report this year, the government had to acknowledge its conclusions, and it did so in the throne speech. Canadians, including many of my constituents, were worried about the restructuring of our medicare system.

The announcement that the government, working with its partners, will develop a national plan, time table and fiscal framework for setting up a system that guarantees access to medically necessary drugs, and will also support home and community care, shows that the message sent by Canadians about public health care has been received and understood by this government.

I am very proud of the government's economic record. The throne speech reflects our commitment to thoughtful economic management. I would like to mention some examples of this commitment, for instance a balanced budget no later than 1998-99.

This will be the first time in almost 30 years that the country has had a balanced budget. With a surplus debt to GDP ratio the current account balance has gone from a deficit of 4.2 percent of GDP to a surplus of .55 percent in 1996. The government achieved the first annual surplus since 1982.

All the spending contained in the throne speech is funded by budgetary surpluses. I want to be crystal clear on this point. The budgetary surpluses during this mandate will be the source of funding for new programs.

The government will not be relying on borrowing moneys. We will not be spending our children's inheritance. Fifty per cent of budgetary surpluses will go to investments in social and economic priorities and fifty per cent will go to tax reduction and debt repayment. This 50:50 split ensures that the Liberal commitments to sound economic planning and to social responsibility will go hand in hand.

In the second mandate the government will do more on job creation for young Canadians. In February 1997 the government announced the youth employment strategy. This strategy consolidates over $2 billion in new and existing programs and services for young people.

The government will also work with the business community and the provinces to forecast areas of job growth. This planning ahead is a concrete example of how the government will help young people meet the challenges of the job market.

I recently lead community consultation on job creation in my riding of Simcoe North. The citizens of Simcoe North felt that apprenticeship and training programs would help young people get into fulfilling and well paying jobs. They also felt that the perception of various kinds of jobs needs to improve. For example, the skilled trades should be valued for the contribution they make to a vibrant economy.

The government will be initiating measures similar to those suggested by the people of Simcoe North. Internship programs will be extended and expanded. The government will provide enhanced funding for student summer placements. A Canada-wide mentorship program will be created in partnership with the provincial governments and the private sector.

Once again the government has shown that it is listening to Canadians and working with them to secure a better future for young Canadians.

I am particularly encouraged by the government statement on national unity. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I have had the opportunity to discuss national unity with Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia. The government's approach to national unity reflects the concerns I have heard from these Canadians.

First, the government is committed to the recognition of Quebec's unique language, culture and legal system. The government will work closely with provincial and territorial leaders to advance the progress made in the Calgary declaration. Recognition of Quebec's unique character, language and legal system will not entail any new powers, privileges or rights. This message must be carried to all Canadians in every province and region.

Second, the government will ensure that the national unity debate is conducted with clarity and frankness. It is critical that Quebeckers, especially francophone Quebeckers, understand the consequences and the implications of separation. It is equally fundamental that Canadians outside Quebec understand the same consequences and the implications.

In the words of the throne speech:

—the government will bring frankness and clarity to any debate that puts into question the future existence or unity of Canada. It will create a better understanding of the true complexity and difficulty for all of us in severing ties—

I congratulate the government on the commitment to deal assertively to bring clarity to this debate.

None of this government's programs could be carried out if our national unity initiatives were not successful. The government therefore views its mandate in that area in a global and encompassing fashion. Any measure that strengthens the country will have a unifying effect on Canada.

That having been said, we pledge to work in partnership with the provinces and territory. Our federation as we know it is flexible. This needs to be repeated over and over in the presence of separatists. Far from being fixed and immovable, our federation is one that keeps evolving.

During this second mandate, we will continue to reflect and meet the demands of every province and region. I am confident that, with such flexibility and the synergy fostered by this government, we will enter the new millennium with a new invigorated Canada.

I realize that Canadians have done a great deal to help the federal government put its financial house in order and strengthen the social and political fabric of Canada. We have come a long, hard way, but the end is in sight.

To conclude, I want to reaffirm my solemn commitment to represent my constituents to the best of my abilities and to co-operate with all members of this House to ensure our government reflects and is sensitive to the needs of all Canadians.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be here today. I feel privileged to represent the constituents of Kings—Hants.

Kings—Hants includes the Annapolis Valley where we grow the best apples in the world as well as the Hants Shore where the Minas Basin provides the highest tides in the world. I am sure the members of the government will recognize the strength of tides in the recent election.

The recent electoral tides in Atlantic Canada sent a signal that Atlantic Canadians were not simply frustrated with cuts but instead were frustrated with the lack of vision demonstrated by the government to the needs of Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canadians want a future where they have access to the free enterprise system and can utilize the tools of the free enterprise system to build a stronger, more self-reliant Atlantic Canada.

I am a Conservative, an Atlantic Canadian and a small business person. None of these are mutually exclusive. Earlier today the member for Medicine Hat referred to the member for Saint John as a New Democrat because she expressed compassion for the underprivileged.

Compassion is not partisan in principle. Compassion is something we all should have within the House. While some members in this House prefer to talk about fights for the right, there are some of us who prefer to simply work hard for what is right.

In closing, I look forward to working with the members of this House and to making a difference in the lives of Canadians. I would like to ask this government what, over the next four years, it intends doing to demonstrate vision for Atlantic Canada.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to indicate that the hon. member has some tremendous shoes to fill in representing the riding of Kings—Hants. The former member, John Murphy, served that riding extremely well. I visited the riding with John and know it well so I wish the member the best of luck in that endeavour.

His question concerned the vision the government intends to show over the next four years. That is the subject matter of this debate. The Speech from the Throne is the blueprint. There is much that I and others have pointed out in our speeches which addresses that question. For instance, the new commitment of another $850 million to the child tax credit is something that will address the concerns that were addressed by the member in the prelude to his question. That is but one example of the vision that we need to show.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.

I wish to draw your attention to the speech made by the hon. member, who is an experienced member of this House, and who speaks in English in a certain way and in French in a different way. I heard him speak in English about being firm. When alluding to the issue of national unity in English he advocated the hard line, because he was addressing English Canadians, of course, but he used a much more conciliatory tone in French.

The hon. member for Simcoe North speaks good French since he is a francophone, but he is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I want to ask the hon. member if, as the assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he does recognize the people of Quebec. Is he prepared to say, in this House, that there is a Quebec people? Is the hon. member prepared to do that?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois' strategy in this debate is clearly to ask all Liberal members the same question. Of course, we use inclusive terms such as “society”. The word “people” has several connotations which may give rights in international law, but we use the word “society” because it is more inclusive.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

Before commenting on the motion before this House I would like to take the opportunity to thank the constituents of Windsor—St. Clair for their support in the June election. I am honoured to be asked to represent them once again and their faith in our government is not misplaced.

I wish also to thank the many volunteers who supported our campaign and whose friendship I cherish very much.

Windsor—St. Clair, which is basically the east end of Windsor, Tecumseh and the village of St. Clair Beach, have once again placed their faith in our government. Throughout the campaign they told us loud and clear what they were concerned about. Those things included health care, education, unemployment and in particular, youth unemployment.

These were local concerns but we would be mistaken to think that the constituents of Windsor—St. Clair have only local concerns. Indeed they were also concerned about national unity, Canada's role as a trading nation and Canada's role as an international broker of peace, her role generally in the global village.

The throne speech and the subsequent address yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister indicate that the government has listened to Windsor—St. Clair. Not only did we listen but we are putting in place programs to alleviate the concerns that I have outlined. All the while we are maintaining our steady attack on both the deficit and the debt. Canada will never under a Liberal government, in any event, return to the financial crisis that we faced when we came to power in 1993.

In addition to funds for health and education, we will continue our attack on unemployment in general and youth unemployment in particular. Programs like Youth Services Canada are already operating in Windsor—St. Clair to give young people work experience and a wage while they serve our community.

The focus of this government is such that we can be assured that the concerns of the constituents of Windsor—St. Clair will be met.

I would like to urge the government to work with us on more specific areas which will help our community to prosper even more. It is my belief that an economically prosperous community is able to better overcome other social problems. It is my belief that economic prosperity will lead generally to a better quality of life, to lower crime rates, to a lack of other social problems, to lower welfare rates and to a generally better lifestyle.

One way to do that is to offer more support to our local industries. It is no secret that Windsor is Canada's motor city. I like to say that Windsor is effectively the centre of the universe, but that may not be the case for some of my colleagues. I can say however that it is urgent and very important for our community to see support from the government for the automotive industry.

The automotive industry employs directly or indirectly approximately half of working Ontarians. It is the biggest employer in our province and as an industrial group the most important employer in our province. It is of the utmost importance for the Government of Canada to focus on issues like tariffs, apprenticeship training for skilled trades and on other areas that will offer support to our domestic automotive industry.

Canada is a trading nation and in the 1960s under the leadership of Prime Minister Lester Pearson and my predecessor in Windsor—St. Clair or Windsor—Walkerville as it was then, the Hon. Paul Martin, Sr., the auto pact was signed. The auto pact has reached an almost sacred position in our community because the auto pact is the engine that allows those industries to exist, to prosper and employs our citizens.

In my view it is important that the government continue to focus on agreements like the auto pact, to give them support and strength so that we will have more employment, more prosperity and therefore a better quality of life in Windsor, Tecumseh, St. Clair Beach and in the province of Ontario generally.

It is important also that we support other industries. In the last five or six years the tourism industry has become vital to our community. Tourism and particularly the gambling industry fuelled by Casino Windsor have become extremely important. However, there is a fly in the ointment. That fly comes from the Conservative government of the province of Ontario which has consistently refused and neglected to take the steps necessary in order to allow the government to legalize some aspects of gambling which would help the casino to prosper. I am talking specifically about games of dice.

In the near future we will be faced with competition from gambling facilities in the city of Detroit. Those gambling casinos will have dice games. It is important that Windsor have the opportunity to compete but the initiative has to come from the attorney general of Ontario. In spite of consistent promises to the mayor and citizens of Windsor who want this to happen, nothing has been done to approach our attorney general in order to start the dice rolling, as we say in Windsor.

Tourism is a very important part of what our community can provide to Canada. It is a very important part of the puzzle that is unemployment. The more tourism there is, the more service jobs and jobs in tourism there will be. It seems to me that it is just a simple matter of a member of the Ontario government picking up a pen and writing a little note and whisking it off to the Attorney General of Canada. Once it gets here I am sure the Essex County lobby and others can make sure that the request gets the significant attention it deserves.

I hope members do not think this is too much about my community, but I would like to talk for a minute about the heavy taxation on distilled spirits. We are a town that provides what I like to think of as one of Canada's basic food groups, Canadian Club whisky. Canadian Club is an agri-food product and is also a great symbol of our country in my view.

The federal government has been trying to initiate discussions with the provinces. However, it is time for all of us to take a look at this commodity which provides hundreds of jobs in my community. The factory is a historic one and it is very important to the community that this serious problem be discussed.

In general foreign trade is very important to Windsor. I would encourage the Prime Minister to continue his trade missions and to continue to invite businessmen and women from Windsor, Tecumseh and St. Clair Beach to join him as he promotes Canada around the world.

As Windsor prospers economically our other problems subside. Our crime rate is lower than it has ever been. When one is downtown in the evening going to a movie or to one of our wonderful restaurants there is a sense of vitality and prosperity there that I challenge any other community in Canada to meet.

I would urge the government to take a look at those things I have outlined that are specifically of importance to Windsor. I would also urge the government to continue on the track it is on, and I would ask all members to support the motion of the hon. member from Parkdale with respect to the throne speech.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member across and I listened with interest to her colleague who spoke before her as they say they will continue to build on the financial successes of this government.

I think she indicated she would continue to attack the employment situation. I come from a region of the country that has suffered unemployment rates of between 15 percent and 20 p. cent for the continual life of the Liberal government.

Will the hon. member recognize that there is nothing in the throne speech to address the urgent needs of Cape Bretonners and Newfoundlanders and people in Atlantic Canada who have persistently suffered under this economic policy?

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

No, I will not acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. I think my hon. friend misses the point here. The point is this is a throne speech which leads us down the track of prosperity.

Just as I am disappointed that they did not mention Windsor, Tecumseh and St. Clair Beach, the virtual centre of the universe, I am sure he is disappointed that his towns were not mentioned specifically either.

The fact is this is a good general plan. Within that plan there will be solutions for Sydney, for the Cape Breton Island, for Windsor, for Tecumseh, for St. Clair Beach. The plan is there. The plan is working and the people of Canada have sent us back to continue with it.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate you on your appointment as acting speaker of the House.

Since I am a new member, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents in Manicouagan. Manicouagan is one of the loveliest ridings in Quebec.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech and I have two questions for her. Does she admit that the government's legislative program denies the existence of the people of Quebec and of their culture?

Does the member recognize the existence of the people of Quebec, and if so, is she going to support and vote in favour of the amendment presented by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois?

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see a theme evolving on the Bloc benches. There is a theme on the government benches too. We recognize that there is a Canadian people made up of a great many diverse groups.

I am proud to be a Canadian. I am pretty much satisfied that the majority of Quebeckers are proud to be Canadians as well.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, sir, on your appointment to the Chair. You look great.

I appreciate the comments that have been made but I wanted to raise a question about the throne speech opening up a pathway to prosperity.

The difficulty I see in my riding is that I talk to elderly people who are having to sell their homes because of clawbacks. They have small incomes and they cannot afford to pay the taxes. Youth cannot get enough money for education. Men and women are losing established jobs from established companies and those jobs are not being replaced.

I see nothing in this throne speech which would offer hope to these people. Is there some mechanism which the Liberal government has in mind to guarantee that taxes will not be raised and to give Canadians relief from the taxation which is killing us economically and destroying the social fabric of the lives of so many families?

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a long question and, leaving aside the preamble, the nub of it was are we going to cut taxes. The answer is that there is still a deficit and there is still a debt. As well we have some spending to do to assist Canadians with respect to health care, education and youth unemployment.

Let me say that when the deficit is settled, when we are sure that the country is healthy, we will spend time looking at taxation. We will spend time looking at the debt. We will make sure that Canada is on the right track. We will do what the Canadian people elected us to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today in response to the throne speech.

I want to thank the constituents of Prince George—Bulkley Valley who in the June election gave me a huge victory. I want to commit to them, as I have in the past, that my task here is to represent their voices and concerns to this Parliament. My promise to them was to keep the Liberals accountable for every single thing they try to do, and I will do that.

It is predicted that the Liberal government will in 1998-99 achieve a balanced budget, using Liberal numbers. I do not know whether we can trust Liberal numbers, but let us say they are fairly accurate. It must be remembered that this could be the first balanced budget that we have had in some 30 years. It is sort of ironic considering that some members of the government are the same members who sat in previous Liberal governments which helped to run up our massive debt and helped to create our deficits which occurred year upon year. It is surprising but at the same time I suppose somewhat remarkable.

Before anyone decides to heap any praise on the Liberal Party for this predicted balanced budget it is important to clearly identify the reasons why this balanced budget may be occurring.

I do not think the Liberals should be expecting any praise for the prediction of a balanced budget. I suggest that this Liberal government should be giving thanks to the millions of Canadian taxpayers who have been taking all the hits over the last three and a half years as the Liberals have attempted to dig themselves out of this massive financial pit that they along with the Tories, cheered on by the NDP, have created for Canadians.

I would like to give the House some examples. I am talking about the employers and the employees of the country who have contributed significantly to the reduction of the deficit through employment insurance overpayments. Let us make it clear that the Liberals have been treating the EI surplus as if it were their own money to put toward deficit reduction and to cover their wasteful spending. Everyone who can think clearly has to consider the EI overpayments as being simply another tax. That is what it is, another tax.

Would it not be preferable to let Canadian workers keep the amount of this EI overpayment and let them have the freedom to spend, invest or save? All these things would create jobs in this country and would help to get a more buoyant economy.

Would it not be preferable to let Canadian businesses and employers keep their overpayment to the EI fund as well so they could invest in their businesses and hire more people, which would also lead to the creation of a more buoyant economy?

Talking about people who have taken hits, let us not forget the public servants in this country who have been working since 1990 without a raise. They have also been forced to make a tremendous sacrifice because of previous Liberal-Tory overspending.

I also believe the Liberals should give thanks for their deficit reduction prediction to the people in Canada's poorer provinces who have had to bear the brunt of Liberal offloading because of reduced equalization payments.

This is my favourite one. Let us not forget that during the last three and a half years of Parliament this Liberal government, this very Liberal government that is going around looking for pats on the back for its balanced budget prediction, increased taxes in this country in 36 different areas. There were 36 individual tax increases brought in by this government. It wrenched out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian investors over $25 billion in increased tax revenue. Let us not forget that.

Is the government heading for a balanced budget because it has been prudent in saving money? Mr. Speaker, I know you will agree with me that is not the case. Let us not forget how the Liberals got there. Let us not be too anxious to go over and pat them on the backs as they are expecting. We see the Liberals running around seeking praise for such a great job they say that they have done but, to use the famous phrase of the finance minister, the fact is what they have really been doing is pulling on their magic tax lever to fill their coffers while Canadian businesses and Canadian workers have had less and less to spend, less and less to invest and less and less to save.

In the throne speech they mentioned the word partnership many times, over 10 times. Given the Liberals' performance one can only assume that the Liberal definition of partnership means “you work, send us most of your wages and hey, we're partners”. The sad part of this is that despite all the taxes Canadians are paying, by the end of the century we will still only be getting about 68 percent in services for every dollar they send to this place.

Let us also remember that these tax and spend Liberals are not as compassionate as they like to appear. They took little or no notice of the pain they were inflicting on Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian businesses over these last three and a half years as they grabbed this tax lever and over and over again pulled it and pulled billions of dollars more into their coffers.

To add insult to injury, at the same time these Liberals were heaping tax upon tax on the Canadian people, they were still pursuing their insatiable appetite for spending money in ridiculous and wasteful ways. Our member for St. Albert has a weekly waste report. I would like to read a few of the ways the Liberals have spent some of the money so that people can get this into perspective.

The Liberals thought it prudent to give the multibillion dollar company American Express $17,000. One has to ask did they get any flyer points for that. How about Big Bill's furniture and appliance store, $176,000. I wonder if that is a relative of one of the Liberal ministers. How about Nothing Fancy stores, $89,000. Here is one that I should not be upset about but I am. A golf tournament for literacy received $85,000.

Literacy is a good cause. However, I would like to remind the House that I host an annual golf tournament for the special Olympics organization in my riding. I do not get any grant. I raise $25,000 a year on that one-day golf tournament. I do not ask the government for a grant. I go out and look for sponsors, supporters and people who believe in the cause. I do not look to the Canadian taxpayer for money.

It goes on and on. One hundred and sixteen thousand dollars was given to a committee to study the sexual habits of seniors. One has to assume that by the time someone gets to be a senior he or she probably has his or her sex life figured out pretty well.

The throne speech is like a shell game. I am glad that we are the official opposition because without the Reform Party here the Liberals would not even be talking about reducing the deficit. I assure the House that we are going to keep the pressure on.

Our approach to ensuring responsible future spending will include asking Canadians what their priorities are. Do they want debt retirement, tax relief, reinvestment in health and education or a combination of all of these?

With the Reform Party as the official opposition, and these Liberals know it, the government is finally going to learn the difference between good spending and bad spending. I know the difference, Reformers know the difference and ordinary Canadians know the difference. By the time this Parliament is through, the Liberals are going to know the difference.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to the question posed by my friend from Prince George. First, let me congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on assuming your position in the chair today. We are sure that you will fulfil the mandate required of all Speakers. All of us on this side of the House wish you well. Someone on the other side who was speaking earlier made some reference to your looks. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from my advantage point down here you look a lot better than the people to your left.

I am really quite taken aback by my friend who just spoke. Evidently he has not been listening to his leader for the last two or three years. All we have heard from the Reform Party is its interest in making sure that we had a balanced budget and that we reduced a horrendous debt that was left to us. I do not know how to refer to Reform members, but would it be kind to say they were kissing cousins of the previous government that had the administration of this country for nine years? If not kissing cousins, they slept in close proximity to each other.

The debt that we inherited in 1993 was what the Reform Party, when it first came into the House, talked about incessantly.

What we have done as a Liberal government in four short years is simply this. We have eliminated the deficit which is what Reformers have been talking about. Once we have the deficit in this country under control then we can take a good run at working on the debt that was assumed by their kissing cousins or whatever way we want to refer to them.

Before we took government, if they look at the facts of the situation, the debt in this country was $140 billion. When the Conservative government left power it was about $530 billion. We have been able to temper that debt over the last four years by something under $600 million. We are beginning to reduce the debt because we know how to administer the financial affairs of the country. That is basically what their leader has been saying and that is what we have done.

I cannot believe that my good from from Prince George is not giving the Liberal Party and ourselves the credit for that. I would like him to respond to that, but just one more minute.

I want to know what my friend from Prince George has against finding out about the sexual habits of seniors? What has the hon. member got against the senior citizens in this country? Could he respond to that please.

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

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member from Thunder Bay that he will never ever find a Reformer kissing a Tory. That is a certain thing.

Second, I have nothing against seniors having fun. My parents are seniors and they are always happy, so obviously they do not need any books.

There is an interesting point about reducing the deficit though. Yes, we have been talking about this Liberal government getting the deficit reduced. The difference is that we wanted the government to reduce it by cutting its insatiable spending appetite, by cutting the grants and handouts that are rampant throughout the waste reports, by cutting the patronage organizations, such as the western economic diversification fund and the economic development funds that are in eastern Canada, all the hundreds of millions of dollars that it gives to Quebec companies to keep the Bloc off its back.

We ask the government to be more prudent and reduce its spending. That is something that is foreign to a Liberal government. Yes, it may get to a balanced budget but it has done it, as I said, by wrenching an additional over $25 billion out of Canadian taxpayers, Canadian workers and Canadian business. That is why the government is having such a hard time getting the unemployment rate down. It knows, though it will never admit it, that taxes kill jobs.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. We are very confident that you will be an impartial Speaker. It is a great thing to see you there. It is a great thing for your constituents as well.

I would also like at the beginning of my maiden speech in the House of Commons to thank my constituents for this great privilege. It is a humbling experience to stand in this great Chamber of democratic deliberation for the first time and experience what the veterans are familiar with. I only hope that I can, in whatever modest way, meet the aspirations and expectations of my constituents of Calgary Southeast.

I have been asked to speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne is remarkable. It occurred to me that it was simply a more stilted and formal version of the 56 page red book II, the one that we released ahead of the Prime Minister. It was a book filled with congratulations. The government congratulated itself on what it sees somehow as a brilliant record. But let us take a closer look at that fiscal and economic record.

The Liberals talk about job creation and prosperity. What we have today is 1.4 million Canadians out of work. We are now in the 98th straight month of unemployment over 9 percent, the longest string of high unemployment since the great depression. That is the economic record of this government. Youth unemployment is over 17 percent. In some regions it exceeds 25 percent. Young people, people of my generation, are without hope. They have lost economic opportunity because of the policies of this government.

We have seen a 7 percent decline in the after tax family income of the average family since the beginning of this decade because of the tax increases of the Liberal government and its Tory predecessor.

A quarter of Canadians tell us that they go to bed worried about job security, worried about whether the next day they are going to have enough money to put bread on the table and take care of their families. We see anaemic economic growth of under 3 p. cent. While we have 9 percent unemployment, our largest trading partner, the United States, has an unemployment rate of almost half that. Our second largest trading partner, Japan, has an unemployment rate at a third of that level. The government calls this an economic record to be proud of.

The Liberals tell us that they have managed nearly to balance the budget which they helped to create over the last 25 years with their Conservative friends. How did they do that? By acting responsibly as so many of the provincial governments did? By acting in the same way a small business or family would by paring back the non-essentials, by cutting? No, it was done by increasing the tax burden on Canadian families, by killing jobs, by increasing payroll taxes. It has income tax hikes riding on top of the de-indexation of the tax system imposed by the Tories in 1986. That grosses $23 billion in new government revenues through 36 tax increases on top of the 72 tax increases introduced by the Mulroney Tories. That is the shameful fiscal record of this government. And what has it done?

It has added $100 billion of debt and called it responsible fiscal management. That $100 billion brings our total indebtedness to just under $600 billion which, of course, does not include another $600 billion in the Canada pension plan Ponzi scheme for which my generation is going to have to pay. That is the fiscal record of this government which has led to $47 billion a year in annual interest payments, a sum large enough to be the operating budgets of five of the the smaller provincial governments. That is a shameful record and one it ought not to applaud.

So what is the answer? One would think that here in this last Parliament of this century, in this throne speech which sets the agenda for the new millennium that there would be a great vision, a new departure, a new direction for Canada. It might take the advice of the overwhelming majority of the people in the business communities who know how to create wealth because they do it every day.

Instead, the government has gone back to the traditional, old 1970s Liberal policies of bigger government, chequebook politics, trying to buy the votes of its special interest friends by opening up the treasury yet once more for all its pet projects. The throne speech is filled with page after page of new spending programs. There was only one mention of tax decreases and debt reduction while we are sitting in the midst of an economic crisis in the country. There is no imagination, no vision in this throne speech.

Why can the government not think about the kind of real economic distress that real Canadians are feeling? For instance, what about providing Canadian families with tax fairness? The government's throne speech is filled with talk about children who do not seem to have families, children who seem to be the worthy recipients of government programs designed by the Liberal government's social engineers. It does not talk about traditional families who choose to have a parent stay at home to raise their children receiving tax fairness, even though this House with all party support in the last Parliament passed Motion No. 30 sponsored by the member for Mississauga South, calling for tax fairness in the tax code. The government has done nothing to act on that. It seems to be satisfied with penalizing families who make the sacrifice of giving up a second income to get by. They really believe that Liberal politicians and big government bureaucrats know better how to spend a dollar raised from the taxpayers than does a family or small business person or someone who is struggling to get a foot up in the labour market.

I want the government to listen to the message it got from the last election. It came within a whisker of losing power. We know that the Liberal Party exists to take and maintain power. The government ought to listen to the message that was sent by the voters. The message was, let us not go back to the future. Let us try a different approach.

What about tax fairness for families? Heaven forbid, what about cutting capital gains taxes to increase investment and productivity, to reward people for taking risks in our economy? What about cutting payroll taxes so that we are not penalizing people for creating jobs and small businesses? What about cutting income taxes and doing it now so that people can see the light at the end of the tunnel and not just another big government spending program? Why can it not see that there is a different solution.

In closing I invite my colleagues on the opposite side of the House to take a serious look at the kind of economic record that 30 years of Liberal and Tory big government spending has brought us. Governments around the world are doing that.

The government's ideological friend in Washington, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, said last year that the era of big government is over. The Labour Prime Minister in the United Kingdom said that the end of the welfare state has come. Yet this government is the only Liberal government in the developed world which seems to think that the old policies of the welfare state are the ones that can sustain a healthy and prosperous economy.

Their allies overseas and outside this country know differently. Governments like the New Democratic one in Saskatchewan know differently. Provincial governments that have made the hard decisions know differently. It is time that this government finally came down on the side of fiscal responsibility, growth, hope and opportunity for Canadians by providing them with real meaningful tax relief.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the member on what I believe is his first speech in the House. I would like to welcome him to the House. I am going to try to be very quick because I know the member for Broadview—Greenwood would also like to ask a question.

We on this side of the House heard the message of the last election. We won a majority government, something that has not happened that often in this country. The people endorsed our programs.

I would like the member, who has been thoughtful on these issues for some time, to step aside from the rhetoric that he has brought into this House from his research department and sit down and itemize for me on the record the cuts that he would make in order to do it differently.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would hate to point out to the member that they won a majority government but with the smallest percentage of popular vote in Canadian history for a majority government. If that is not chastisement with a divided opposition, I do not know what is. We still see the Liberal arrogance creeping into that member's comments.

We were very clear in our fresh start platform document about precisely which programs we thought were priorities and those that we thought could be cut. Let us talk about some of this. How about eliminating grants and handouts to special interest groups whose sole purpose is to demand more government spending? How about paring back some of the giveaway programs of the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage, like her $23 million flag giveaway? How about starting with the hon. members pension plan?

Mr. Speaker, 51 of 52 of my colleagues in the last Parliament gave up their pensions as a sign of sacrifice, as have many provincial legislators engaged in the same deficit cutting exercise. Why don't my hon. friends start with the same kind of leadership by example?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate you on your appointment and I would like to congratulate the member on his election.

It is unfortunate that there are not more members in the House today. It may be due to the fact that we keep hearing all the negativism. Canadians are fed up with negativism. Clearly we point out to the member that his party not that long ago talked about the deficit as the number one issue in this country.

Maybe the member of the opposition went to the school of Orwellian politics, doublespeak. On the one hand, they want the deficit eliminated. Now the deficit is being eliminated and they say “Well gee, we don't like the way this is being done”.

My comment is that in order to stimulate the economy, we had to get that deficit down, slay that $42 billion dragon. Clearly there are more Canadians going back to work. We saw 900,000 Canadians put back to work because of this government and the actions of this government. Want ads are fuller today than they have ever been.

Clearly reducing taxes, yes, I think all Canadians would like to see taxes reduced. The question is the timing of those reductions basically because, if we are taking in more money in order to be able to deal with the deficit and certainly the debt—we have a $600 billion debt which I hope they would deal with—I would say that the hon. member talks about chequebook politics. Could he explain to me what are the chequebook politics? Helping Canadians I believe is what the government is doing in the throne speech. Maybe he should read that.

Could the member comment on what he defines as chequebook politics?

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, talk about Orwellian rhetoric. My goodness, that is quite a question. I am not sure whether the member is from the Liberal or Tory party seated to my right and I am not sure that it matters.

The simple answer is yes, we did call for the elimination of the deficit and the reduction of the debt, not as an end in itself but as a means to an end. That end is greater prosperity, hope, growth and opportunity for Canadians through tax relief. You cannot provide Canadians with tax relief if you are spending the money instead of reducing it. It is a simple mathematical thing.

Perhaps you have never balanced a family budget. Heaven knows this Liberal government has never balanced a government budget. But when you cut your spending, you get a surplus and that means that you can reduce people's taxes. That is why we have been pushing successive governments in this country since the Reform Party was founded a decade ago to get our finances under control so we could let Canadians keep more of their own money. It is not money that belongs to this Parliament or this government or the Liberal Party of Canada. It is money that belongs to Canadians and they ought to be able to keep it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to inform the large number of members who want to ask questions that the time for questions and comments has expired.

The hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood on a point of order.