Debates of Sept. 30th, 1997

Supply

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Reform Party member.

I believe what is happening is that some people do not understand what is going on in Atlantic Canada. The federal government even has trouble recognizing that the Atlantic fisheries are in crisis. How many times did we hear people say that Atlantic Canadians are lazy and do not want to work? Even the Prime Minister said he was going to get them out of their house and prevent them from going to the pub.

This image of the Atlantic provinces is totally unacceptable. It is not the fault of Atlantic Canadians if the fisheries are in a state of crisis. It is not their fault if a moratorium was declared on cod. It is not their fault if quotas for crab fell from 20,000 to 12,000 metric tons. It is not their fault if lobster catches are down. It is not their fault if herring quotas are down. It is nature's fault. It is because of what is happening in our region.

It is true that, at one time, our region of New Brunswick was a nice, prosperous place, where people could find work. Then, as a result of Confederation and other changes, everything went to central and western Canada.

Let me tell you one thing: if we want a united Canada, if we want to remain a united country, westerners will have to support easterners. If westerners support easterners, understand them and help them set up companies and get into secondary processing in the fishery and forestry sectors, if they allocate money for mining, then Atlantic Canadians will have work and will not have to move out west.

So, is the Reform Party member saying that the government should prevent Atlantic Canadians from getting employment insurance and let them starve?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with one of the premises raised by the member, that it is nature's fault the fish are gone. It is the federal government's fault to a large degree because it is the one that encouraged people to keep fishing when everyone knew fish stocks were dwindling.

Central Canada was largely strengthened when tariff barriers went up and the regions paid a huge price. That was the fault of the government of the day.

The things that are working well now in Atlantic Canada come from the private sector. The private sector is creating a tremendous amount of jobs at Voisey's Bay. That should be the model. There is not a nickel deposit every few miles but we have to understand that is where the solutions are for Atlantic Canada.

In some cases people do become dependent on unemployment insurance. To ignore that or to say it is not true is to put one's head in the sand. Two successive premiers of Newfoundland have said that people become dependent on unemployment insurance. We must start to be aware of that in the types of programs we design. That is what the government needs to start doing and that is certainly what the Reform Party would do.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to address the House today.

Concerning this motion by the official opposition, it strikes me as a little bit hypocritical. We are being accused of not having consulted Canadians adequately before announcing our program to share the expenditures for programs, tax cuts and debt reduction.

At the same time, the hon. member for Medicine Hat tells us that they plan to cut taxes.

They say we have not consulted, but without consulting they have presented tax cuts which they feel are so important. They have called for monstrous tax cuts in personal income tax, in business income tax, and in terms of getting rid of the increase in Canada pension plan premiums. They cannot have it both ways. Either they are to go out and consult in some undefined process which they have not outlined before us, or they are to allow us to set programs.

No party in the history of Canada has consulted more extensively with Canadians. Perhaps the greatest process of consultation in a democratic nation is putting a platform before the electorate. This is exactly what we did before the last election when Canadians spoke strongly and decisively.

Perhaps the Reform Party wants some type of electoral reform so that election results do not really count, so that the expressed will of Canadians during a federal election is not what really matters.

Not only did we go through a federal election where this was a key part of our platform, but it is this House that opened up the budget making process. It will begin this fall with an economic statement by the Minister of Finance laying out where we are and some of the available options. It will then be a task of the finance committee, of which the member for Medicine Hat was a very distinguished member and will be again I trust. The committee will go right across the country and will consult with Canadians from every sector and every walk of life on their budget priorities.

This process of consultation could not be one of which I am more proud because it is open. It has taken the budget making process out of the back rooms and into the public fora and into Parliament and has put it into the hands of members of Parliament. Surely he does not condemn that.

The member has set forth his priorities without consultation as he seems to say we have done. He wants to get rid of business subsidies. No program has been cut more than our subsidies to business. It was because—

[An hon. member]

Bombardier.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Bombardier. The fund to help Canada's aerospace industry to continue its ascent into the top ranks among nations in the world is not a giveaway program. It is refundable and repayable to the federal government. This was a result of consultations which our federal finance committee undertook and suggested and the Minister of Industry adapted. I am very proud of this program. It means the success of our aerospace industry goes back to the credit of Canadian taxpayers through repayments to the federal government.

Is the member saying that he is against what we have done to protect and secure a dignified and secure retirement for seniors through our agreement with the provinces on the Canada pension plan?

He wants to renounce a deal made with the provinces including the province of Alberta, fine. He can go on record and say that he would renounce that deal. That is not the way we operate because we are prepared to operate in consultation and co-operation with our provincial counterparts.

Is the member prepared to renounce the type of co-operative arrangement we have worked out with the provinces in terms of the Canada child tax benefit where the federal government and the provinces will concentrate on children who are members of working families in the poorest income bracket? Is this what the member is talking about?

We believe this is a priority. These children living in the lowest income brackets need assistance. We are directing it to them in co-operation with the provinces to break down the welfare wall.

Does the member condemn our efforts and our tax cuts to help students by making more of their fees deductible and by giving greater tax breaks to parents who invest in registered educational savings plans? Does he condemn the fact that we want to provide scholarships to help make post-secondary education accessible to more and more Canadians?

One of our expenditure announcements in the throne speech which he condemns and which I am happy to stand beside is funding the Canada Council, giving it more funds to provide for arts and culture. I am very proud of our commitment to enhance Canada Council funding. I stand by it completely as do all members on this side of the House.

Does he condemn our program to help provide entry level jobs for young Canadians through our public sector internship program? We are giving work experience to young Canadians who might not otherwise have access to the workforce. It is a very valuable entry into the workforce.

These are some of the priorities we have set out. They have been the subject of consultation through the election. They will be the subject of ongoing consultation through debates in the House and through the finance committee.

We have talked about what we have done for young Canadians, what we are doing for our seniors, and what we are doing for health care in terms of increasing our funding by over $6 billion in five years to the provinces to help sustain the principles of the Canada Health Act.

Does he condemn what we have done in terms of innovation? We have given tax breaks for research and development in Canada. We created the innovation foundation to help restore the research infrastructure of our hospitals and our universities.

Does he condemn SchoolNet? We have helped classrooms to connect with all libraries and with everyone throughout the country. Canada will be the most connected nation in the world. It will have access to expertise and knowledge throughout the country.

I am happy to talk about our priorities for students, for young Canadians whose parents are among the working poor and who need a break. I am happy to talk about our steadfast protection of the Canada Health Act in the face of threats by the Reform Party in the last parliament which said we needed a two tier medical system.

We will not give in to their priorities. We will continue to be a most open government that consults with Canadians when setting our priorities. We will work to address the true needs of future Canadians. That does not rule out tax cuts. That does not rule out paying down the debt. These are priorities we have stated clearly and strongly.

The throne speech said that we would continue to be the government of fiscal responsibility. We are the government that brought the deficit down from $42 billion ahead of the schedule fixed by the Reform Party which called for a balanced budget by the year 2000. We will achieve that long before its target.

We will not take a lesson in fiscal responsibility from anyone, including the official opposition.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite catch what the member said. Did he say consult Canadians or insult Canadians? I cannot remember.

The hon. member raised a lot of different issues. It will be difficult to touch on them all. I will try to be brief.

I think everyone would agree the member is very naive if he is suggesting that Canadians voted with one voice on the government's fiscal platform in the last election campaign. Surely he acknowledges that people voted on many issues including primarily, I would argue, national unity. That was a huge issue in the election campaign.

The government's majority was diminished. What does that say of the support it has for its programs? It has the barest of majorities right now.

Instead of simply having an election on their economic approach, many provinces such as Alberta have consulted their citizens directly. It is time to go to the people on a fundamental decision such as that and ask them directly. We should not be doing it by a committee that travels around once in a while to ask people what should be in this year's budget.

The optimal size of government, the optimal level of taxes and the optimal level of debt are extraordinarily important issues. I am going to ignore most of the rhetoric from my hon. friend and make that point.

I would conclude by asking—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Willowdale.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's question.

What is the optimal size of debt and what is the optimal level of taxes? You have obviously prejudged it. You have called for major cuts in payroll taxes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member is a practised and experienced parliamentarian and certainly does not mean to leave the Chair out of the debate.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are quite right. I thank you for first of all for reminding me and second, for your excellent presiding over this Chamber.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat is quite at liberty to suggest that debate is needed on what is the optimal size of government debt. We are looking forward to hearing his contribution to this very important debate. We know that, with a federal debt of $600 billion which is 74% of Canada's entire yearly economic output, we are way beyond where we should be. One-third of every tax dollar has to go to pay the interest on the debt. That is money that cannot be spent on tax relief, on debt reduction or new spending programs to help Canadians. This is why—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my honourable Liberal colleague, who is also the minister responsible for financial institutions and who had a tear in his eye just now for the poor and the sick, which of these is the right answer: by the end of its mandate, the Liberal government will have cut either $42 billion from social programs, or $42 billion from social programs, or $42 billion from social programs? Which of these three is the right answer?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had to cut spending. In 1993-94, our program expenditures amounted to $120 billion. In subsequent years, these fell by 13 percent to $105 billion.

While cutting spending, we kept the cuts in transfers to the provinces to a minimum. They were in the order of 8 percent and we retained equalization, which was really necessary for our vision of the future of Canada, a Canada in which we can share problems and opportunities with Canadians regardless of what part of the country they live in.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced this morning by the Reform Party, for reasons that have to do with what we have just heard from the other side of the House, namely that the government acted to improve public finances, with all sorts of figures being bandied about.

I can tell you that this government has fed us nothing but twisted information since the start of its first mandate. They have misled us about the actual state of public finances and the route it took to reach a zero deficit, a surplus even, this year, if we are to believe the results of the past three months announcing unprecedented budget surpluses.

We will support the motion of the Reform Party, not because we share their philosophy or their approach to improving public finances, but because this motion calls for a debate on the problem as a whole. A public debate is now very important because, for the past four years, they have been feeding us a line. We have been told that the deficit will exceed $17 billion, $24 billion, and so on, when they know very well on the other side of the House with their panoply of specialists and their good judgment, if they have any, that the budget and deficit figures are very different from what is being touted.

Last February, you may recall, the Bloc Quebecois made public a document analyzing the government's budgetary situation, as well as the deficit. Starting in February, we were forecasting that the deficit for the year ending March 31, 1997 would not exceed $10 billion and that, by 1997-98, the deficit would be zero. What did the Minister of Finance tell us back then? He said that we were talking nonsense, that we did not know how to count, that what we thought did not matter.

The result was that, as of last March—the figures will soon be out—the federal government's deficit will not exceed $10 billion, and next year it will drop to zero.

But what did the Minister of Finance do? He fed us a line. Why? Because he did not want the public to know that the federal government's finances were in better shape than he was letting on, and this was how he justified cutting assistance to the most disadvantaged, to the elderly, the ill, students and those on welfare. This is why a public debate is so important.

The second reason a public debate is necessary is because we are not in agreement with the way in which the federal government went about getting its fiscal house in order. For four years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been showing that there are other ways to arrive at the same result, a zero deficit, balanced budgets, without making the most disadvantaged members of society suffer.

There needs to be debate. If the government is to continue its efforts to put its fiscal house in order, and we agree it should, there has to be debate, since the past four years have shown us only too clearly how completely lacking in compassion this government is.

It has gone about reducing the deficit in four ways. First of all, each year the Minister of Finance has brought in a budget cutting funding for provincially run social programs by $4.5 billion, including a $1.3 billion annual reduction in funding to the Government of Quebec for social assistance, postsecondary education and health.

Quebeckers must realize that 93 cents out of every dollar cut in health care in Quebec results from cuts made by the federal government, not by the Quebec government; that is right, 93 cents out of every dollar.

Second, this government has used taxation in an utterly unfair fashion. After solemnly saying income tax had to be reduced, they turned around and increased taxes four years in a row. By not indexing tax tables among other things, they took $23 billion out of taxpayers' pockets, while talking about reducing taxes. With this $23 billion, the federal government is making taxpayers pay for its deficit reduction efforts in a sneaky, underhand, roundabout way. That is why there should be a public debate.

There is another important source of income. The Minister of Finance has dipped into the unemployment insurance fund surplus. Here again there should be a debate because the federal government has not been putting a cent into this fund for years, yet merrily helps itself to premiums paid by employers and employees, hence the need for a real public debate.

There are other ways to continue putting our fiscal house in order. At the moment, it is going so well in terms of objectives being met and deficit reduction targets surpassed that, if it really wants to fight poverty and underemployment, the federal government should meet our demands. It should give back what it has stolen from the provinces. It should immediately stop implementing its planned budget cuts, as set out in the 1996 budget.

It should give back to the provinces the $4.5 billion it has taken from them every year. That is the first thing it ought to do. Second, it must stop using the unemployment insurance fund surplus. It is important. UI premiums are job killers. Any payroll tax is a job killer. If the Minister of Finance is really committed to job creation, he must heed another suggestion made by the Bloc Quebecois and lower the rates of contribution to the unemployment insurance fund by 35 cents on every $100 of insurable earnings.

Another 35 cents should be used to pay back the benefits stolen from the unemployed, last January, through the employment insurance reform.

If he really cares about fighting child poverty, he should increase the child tax credit from $850 million to $2 billion, as suggested by the Bloc Quebecois, that is if he cares about it, but he does not seem to. There does not seem to be any government member across the way who cares. What they care about is the Canadian flag, federalist propaganda. To these people, that is more important than making sure children eat every day.

Third, the federal government should pay up the $2 billion owed to Quebec for harmonizing the GST.

Surpluses will still be generated by the end of next year, since the forecast is better than anticipated as far as reducing the deficit and running budget surpluses is concerned.

There are other ways to put our fiscal house in order. We are among those who want the effort to be pursued. Last year, we suggested three possible approaches. As you may recall, we released two papers: one on corporate tax reform and the other on personal income tax reform.

If it took its responsibilities seriously, the federal government might reform personal income tax to make it more equitable. There are individuals who pay very high taxes, while other do not pay any because of all the loopholes in our tax system, which has not undergone a complete overhaul in 30 years.

It is the same thing with corporate tax. The government should stop favouring millionaires and billionaires, and turn instead to small and medium businesses, which are the ones creating jobs. That is the road proposed by the Bloc Quebecois to continue putting our fiscal house in order as well as to help create jobs through targeted reductions in corporate tax.

If the Minister of Finance agreed to hold a real debate on the way ahead, looking at future means of putting our fiscal house in order and the ruthless ones he has taken these past four years and plans to keep using during this mandate, I think that would take care of a real concern people have: they want to be told the truth, where we are headed and who will pay.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. It was far more detailed and more balanced than the one we heard a few minutes ago from the representative of the Reform Party, which expressed almost universal radicalism. In fact, they engage in radicalism on the constitutional level, by attempting to provoke all regions of the country.

I feel obliged to remind them that all of us here are representatives of different regions of the country, co-owners of all that we have. With all that we have at stake, we are going to proceed cautiously.

It is exactly the same thing on the economic level, totally unacceptable radicalism. There is absolutely no compassion for the most disadvantaged. Our colleague has just referred to the great difficulties now faced by the near-majority of Canadian families, whose children go to school without breakfast. My colleague is absolutely right.

One of the things the present government voted against was adoption of the GST legislation. The ultimate purpose of the GST—and I take advantage of the occasion to ask the question of my colleague—was to arrive at an effective fiscal reform as far as income and other taxes are concerned. Such was the purpose of the GST.

He is right as well in his reference to the ruse of this government in using the battle against the deficit to its advantage, when we know very well it was the result of free trade and the revenues from the GST. As well, they are forgetting that, over the same ten year period, 1974 to 1984, they increased the national debt tenfold, while we doubled it during our time in office, because our structural measures such as free trade and the GST had not yet been adopted.

I am therefore pleased to congratulate my colleague and I would like to hear what he has to say on these questions.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi for praising the Bloc Quebecois. It is not often that we get praise from Conservative members and political opponents, so I am accepting it on behalf of my party.

My colleague was right when he spoke about improving the effectiveness of our tax system.

In fact, if the Conservative Party deserves praise—but let us not forget that criticism may follow quickly—it is for implementing at least a major part of the tax reform, as the member pointed out, by introducing the GST.

At the time, and this is another point raised by the hon. member, those provinces interested in implementing the GST were told to harmonize their provincial sales tax at their own expense, but that they would benefit from a much greater efficiency in the five or ten years that would follow, thanks to a more modern and fairer tax system.

At the time, the Quebec government, which was the only one to harmonize its tax with the federal GST, was not told that, a few years later, the federal government would give $1 billion to the maritime provinces to harmonize their provincial sales tax with the GST. It is totally unfair to treat Quebec like this and the federal government owes us $2 billion. The hon. member was absolutely right when he raised this issue.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my dear friend and colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his election. Three days before the federal election, we had a lively debate, and I feel I am once again at the Taverne Magnan. Those who are from Quebec will know that, in Montreal, the Taverne Magnan is almost like the agora, except that alcoholic beverages are served.

Whenever someone speaks on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, it feels like I am listening over and over to the same cassette. The only thing different is the name of the person speaking. Otherwise, it is always the same baloney.

I am impressed to see that many outraged members across the floor. We hear them whine, if I can put it that way, and it is terrible to see them continually say the same thing.

When we took over, our country was going bankrupt. We inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. But we made the right decisions and now the deficit has almost been eliminated. The member spoke about health programs. We are giving $1.5 billion back to the provinces for these programs. By harmonizing its sales tax with the GST, Quebec made money.

How can the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot make such statements when he knows full well that the facts do not match the content of his cassette and cliches?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of cassettes, I wouldn't go on about that too much, because they have one that is pretty long and rather out of date.

We in Quebec are not the only ones who think that the federal government stole $2 billion from us. The Canadian premiers unanimously supported Quebec's request at St. Andrews, because they considered it unfair to Quebec that it got no similar compensation when $1 billion was given to the maritimes to harmonize the GST with the provincial sales taxes.

If my colleague from Bourassa were more concerned about the interests of Quebec, he would encourage the Minister of Finance to give Quebec its due and would stop saying just any old thing.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

If I recall correctly, I was reprimanded last week for having used the word “steal”. Earlier, my colleague in the Bloc Quebecois used the word twice. He has just used it a third or fourth time. I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, whether there are two sets of rules in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With the greatest respect, hon. members, it is not just the word, it is the context of the word and whether the word is directed to an individual.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to once again rise in this House and say a few words. I was not here for the last four years.

I want to first thank the voters of Qu'Appelle for electing me as their member of Parliament. Despite the fact that I was an MP for 25 years for Yorkton—Melville, this is the first chance I have had to represent my hometown of Wynyard in the House of Commons. I am really pleased to do that.

I also want to take a half a moment to pay tribute to my two predecessors in what is now the Qu'Appelle riding. Simon de Jong was a member of Parliament from 1979 to 1997 in the old riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle, and Vic Althouse was the member of Parliament from 1980 to 1997 in the old riding of Mackenzie. They both served their constituents and their country well and I think deserve the applause and the commendation of all members of Parliament.

In rising to say a few words in this debate today, I would first like to agree with the Reform Party that we obviously do need a public debate on the direction this country should go in terms of its public finances and spending. However, I disagree profoundly with the emphasis it places on where we should go. It condemns the 27 years of spending by the federal government in the past. It condemns the size of government.

The Reform Party, and this is why I will not support the motion, is really a throwback to the past. Its members are the Fred Flintstones of Canadian politics. It is a party that is basically anti-government. It is a party that does not really believe that the government's role in this country is to help create the equality of conditions for our citizens. It wants to go back to the past. It is a very right wing conservative party. For that reason we cannot support this motion before us today.

The Reform Party is spreading all kinds of myths, for example that government programs are the cause of large deficits in this country. It is spreading some mistruths in this country, that social programs are a big problem in terms of deficit and debt and unemployment. These things just are not true. It is about time the Reform Party was taken on.

Back in 1992 Statistics Canada issued a report which stated that the debt in this country, some 50 percent, was created by high interest rates; 44 percent of the debt from tax breaks and only 6 percent by government programs. Of that 6 percent only half of that is from social programs.

Yet we have the Reform Party saying that the government has spent too much, there are too many social programs, we need to be cut back and that is the cause of high taxes and high unemployment. That is not true. Statistics Canada said that the biggest cause of debt in this country was high interest rates. Who brought in high interest rates? Right wing conservatives like the Reform Party. Its friends like Brian Mulroney brought in high interest rates in Canada.

We saw the exact same thing in Saskatchewan with Grant Devine and the Conservatives there. Again, this is the right wing politics of the Reform Party. That is the biggest cause in this country of the debt and deficit.

The other cause is tax breaks primarily to wealthy people and large corporations. Again, those are the kinds of breaks that are defended by the Reform Party in Canada. For those reasons we cannot support today's motion of non-confidence in the government.

What we need in this country are decent social programs and a tax system that is fair for each and every ordinary Canadian. We do not need to go back to the past like the Reform Party that would have us privatize a lot of our social programs, have us set up two tier medical care in this country where we would have one system for the rich and one for the poor, where we only have tax breaks for the wealthy, where we get rid of the public pension plans like the Canada pension plan and turn everything into private pensions or RRSPs that favour wealthy people because they believe they can look after their own future better than anybody else. That is back to the past, the Archie Bunkers of Canada. That is the direction we should not be going in.

That being said, let us take a look once again at the Reform Party. Where does it want to do some cutbacks? It wants to cut back, for example, corporate income tax. It wants cutbacks in payroll taxes. When we look at the different options we have, one thing we have to weigh when we do have government expenditure is how many jobs are created because we have a major unemployment problem all across Canada.

I have here some figures about the different options if we had a government expenditure of $1 billion. First of all, the multiplier the formula applied here affects the expenditures in a different way.

If we spend $1 billion in direct hiring, it creates 56,000 jobs. Spending $1 billion on goods and services creates about 28,000 jobs. Spending $1 billion on infrastructure creates some 26,000 jobs. That is one factor taken into consideration when we talk about how we spend government money in Canada.

The most effective way to create jobs, if we want to cut taxes, is to start cutting back on the GST. In the campaign of the New Democratic Party we advocated the elimination of the GST on books and magazines. We advocated the elimination of the GST on children's clothing, which is exempt in most of the provinces now from provincial sales tax, certainly in my province of Saskatchewan.

We also advocated the increase in the GST tax credit for adults and children by 30 percent. It would cost $1.2 billion for those three items and create 20,400 jobs in this country.

On the other hand, if we were to have a $1 billion cutback in the GST, we would create some 17,000 jobs. But if there were a $1 billion cutback in corporate taxes, there would only be 14,000 jobs created. If there were a $1 billion cutback on personal income tax across the board, there would be 12,000 jobs created. If there was a $1 billion cutback in the payroll tax, there would be about 9,000 jobs created.

We have choices. The question is where do we spend taxpayer money. What are the programs that have the most impact and the most effect in terms of job creation in this country?

I think what we have to do in terms of expending money on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers is to invest more in health and in education, those areas that need more spending, bringing people up to a greater standard of equality of condition. Those are also areas that would create jobs at the same time as investing money in education and health.

If we are going to cut taxes, the place to start is with the GST. I think that would help stimulate the economy more than cutting taxes in other areas, and the statistics tend to bear that out.

We have a debate in this country over where we are going to go in terms of the direction of Canada. On one hand there is the Reform Party, basically anti-government and anti-public institution, a party that wants to privatize and deregulate and scale back and get rid of government in almost every respect and aspect.

That is what it stands for. It is a stroll back to the past. It misleads the people of this country. It propagates myths around Canada. A big problem we have is government spending. Another problem we have is spending on social programs.

Statistics Canada showed us in 1992 that 6 percent of the debt is caused by government spending in Canada and only half of that is spending on social programs. Fifty per cent of the debt is caused by the high interest rates that we saw during the Brian Mulroney years, another version of a very conservative party in Canada. Another 44 percent of the debt is caused by tax expenditures, tax loopholes and tax giveaways to the large corporations that are the friends of the Reform Party.

For those reasons we cannot support this motion before the House today.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech by the hon. member to have some very creative accounting. It was quite interesting.

If government spending created jobs, if it created all these wonderful jobs, the government has overspent $600 billion at the federal level in the past 25 to 30 years. If we add the overspending of the provinces to that, in total it overspent maybe $1 trillion. If throwing government money at problems could fix them, how come this $1 trillion that has been spent has not bought three jobs for everyone of us throughout the country? That is the first question.

The hon. member talks about the medical care system and how he would like to see jobs created in medical care. I would like to ask him whether he realizes that about $2 billion crosses the border into the United States every year with wealthy Canadians who buy medical services in the United States. Would it not be a good idea since he supports jobs in the medical care system to try to bring that money back into Canada in some way, to provide an alternative choice for those people who are already spending $2 billion across the border? Let them spend it here and certainly put rules in place so that doctors cannot run into that special new program. Let people spend it here so that new jobs will be created in the medical care system.

If the member would look at examples in other countries which have done this, such as Britain, Sweden and New Zealand, he would see that the medical services jobs almost doubled as a result of introducing such plans.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I appreciate the frankness of the member of the Reform Party in advocating two tier medical care in the country. I certainly do not support what he is saying. He is advocating one system of medical care for the rich and one for the rest of us.

Maybe he does not know what ordinary people are like. Come to my riding in the inner city of Regina. How many of those people can afford a medical care system when they have to pay extra for it? They are very poor people and are living hand to mouth. The Reform Party is advocating two tier medicare which we have fought against in this country for many, many years and which the NDP will continue to fight against.

In terms of jobs, if the member of the Reform Party would unplug his ears and listen, he would find out that the greatest expenditure in the country has been on the interest on the national debt, approximately 35 cents out of every dollar. Another great expenditure in the country are the tax giveaways to multinational corporations, to the wealthy in Canada. If the member wants to look at an example of fiscal responsibility, look at the Government of Saskatchewan with a balanced budget and the lowest unemployment anywhere in the country at 5.6 percent.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome your appointment to the Chair. I am sure you will do fine work on behalf of all of us in the House.

I welcome the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. We all know that he is anything but a new member. He spent about 25 distinguished years in the House and I am delighted that the voters in Qu'Appelle have decided to send him back to the House. I think he has made an enormous contribution to the debate that is taking place. I look forward to more interventions from him.

Now that we have five official parties in the House, this Parliament will work better and all regions of Canada will be better represented in the 36th Parliament.

Let me say that I too welcome the debate on what the government is going to do with greater revenues as a result of a growing economy. I welcome the suggestions made by the member for Qu'Appelle. However let me say that I think Canadians are a balanced people, are pragmatic and believe in balanced approaches. This is the reason why the government and the Liberal Party said in the election campaign in May that we propose to spend half of any surplus or extra revenues on tax reduction and debt reduction and the other half on the development of social and economic programs. I believe that is a balanced approach and something that Canadians support.

I would like to hear the member for Qu'Appelle comment on that.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there should be a division between new programs, enhancing existing programs and tax cuts and paying down the national debt. The debate will be what new programs we will look at and what enhanced spending there should be. I believe it should be in the fields of health and education. When we get the tax cuts the debate will be over where they should take place. I believe we should start with the GST, reduce it. That is the fairest way to go about doing it. It is also the way to create jobs in this country. That is the real debate: what kinds of tax cuts, what kinds of expenditures and what kinds of enhancement to existing programs.