Debates of Sept. 30th, 1997

Supply

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, may I first thank the people of Madawaska—Restigouche who expressed their confidence in me on June 2.

In its speech from the throne, the government repeated its promise to apply any budget surplus equally to new program spending and to reducing the debt and taxes.

This promise left me very sceptical, naturally. In the Atlantic region, we are used to fine promises from the Liberals. That is probably why so we elected so few.

I was all the more sceptical of the Reform Party's wanting to talk about financial management. Until very recently, they were still loath to set specific figures and objectives for their financial management plan.

The reality is that, if this government can point to a balanced budget today, it is because it has made deep cuts to social programs and abandoned its responsibilities to the provinces.

Now the government is peering into its crystal ball and talking about better days ahead. This is small comfort to those who have paid the price for its lack of planning and vision over the past four years.

In my own riding, close to 50 percent of the population is unemployed or receiving income support. The changes to employment insurance brought in by the Liberal government have had a devastating impact.

The situation is so bad that it is a rare day in my riding office that I do not hear tales of despair from my constituents.

You may think I am trying to be melodramatic in this august place, but this is the sad reality our constituents live with.

I will be the first to admit that there are no easy solutions, but I will also be the first to say that solutions there are. They can work if the government takes the trouble to listen to people, to think, to give some thought to the long term, and to show some compassion, while behaving in a financially responsible manner.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the smaller deficit is largely the result of an increase in revenue, low interest rates and reduced payments to other levels of government. During their first term of office, the Liberals preferred to shift the burden of the deficit to others, rather than cut back on their own spending.

The government has forgotten that it is the average Canadian who is footing the bill for its decision; not the provincial, federal or municipal levels of government. In Canada, there is only one taxpayer.

And despite the recent propaganda about good financial management, Canadian workers and those on small incomes will always be stuck with the bill. As proof, I point to The Fiscal Monitor , a Department of Finance publication. In July, the minister was boasting about a $1.4 billion surplus in May 1997. This was due in part to an increase in employment insurance premium revenues (up $0.3 billion) attributable to the acceleration of monthly payments.

We have often pleaded with the government to reduce employment insurance premiums. To use what was once designed as an insurance to provide temporary income as a deficit cutting measure is unacceptable. This government has no mandate to impose an outright payroll tax. It is just plain wrong.

I have argued that reducing employment insurance premiums by 70 cents per $100 of income would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It would stimulate the economy and give Canadians the much needed tax relief they deserve. But then again, why would the king of Bay Street listen to me, a young Conservative MP from rural New Brunswick?

The Minister of Finance may not want to listen to me or my colleagues, but maybe he will listen to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other organizations which agree that reducing employment insurance premiums by 60 cents for example would create 170,000 new jobs. Those are the kinds of measures Canadians need, not just empty words and promises.

With this motion, the Reform Party wants to convince us that it has the monopoly on reason where proper financial management is concerned. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

The Reform motion clearly demonstrates their lack of concrete ideas on the question. They are very much like the Liberals in this, full of vague promises and no set objectives. Why does the Reform party want to waste its time debating something that is so simple? Taxes are quite simply too high. The problem must be addressed, now or never. Why wait for the near, or more distant, future? The Reform solution is to reduce taxes only when a budget surplus has been attained. That means that Canadians will notice no difference from the Liberals, where their pocket books are concerned.

The Progressive Conservative Party is the only party willing to act today. We are the only ones who want to give Canadians a reduction in their tax burden starting right now. The budget surplus we are about to have is built on the sacrifices of all Canadians, and they all deserve to reap the consequences.

Even though we speak of tax cuts for Canadians, our approach to managing the fiscal dividend is responsible. The leader of our party, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, has warned that the tax and cut government of the Liberals' first term has been replaced by the tax and spend government in the second. Unfortunately I think he may be right.

We are pleased there is a balanced budget on the horizon but the Liberals must be held accountable. This short term performance is not a permit to open the floodgates of government spending. If this government truly believes in its performance, it will have no problem committing publicly to it. Specific benchmarks must be established now.

This means that, first of all, we must have legislation calling for a balanced budget; second, objectives must be set for reducing the debt, based on a specific debt to GDP ratio; and third, there must be specific stipulation of the amount to be put into reducing the debt. Employment insurance premiums are far too high and constitute a direct tax on jobs. The government must, with no further ado, reduce employment insurance to $2.20 per $100 of insurable earnings.

Those are some concrete proposals aimed at putting more money back into Canadians' pockets and at putting this country's affairs in order.

I am setting the Liberal government the challenge to listen to reason and to implement our proposals, for the sake of our country's future.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of comments on members who have already spoken.

The hon. member for Willowdale who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party stated that one of the things he was proud of was Canada Council grants provided by the Liberal government. I would have liked to have asked him had the opportunity existed, and perhaps the hon. member who just spoke can comment on it, if he is really proud of the latest expenditure by the Canada Council. It is a $42,000 study, $42,000 of Canadian taxpayers' money being used to study the social origins of medieval Latin lyrical song.

I also would have liked to have asked the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he speaks so eloquently of how proud he is of the Saskatchewan government with regard to all the things it does in particular with medicare, whether or not he is proud that it had to shut 50 hospitals and whether or not the $2 billion that is spent across the line might be better spent trying to keep some of those open.

Finally, I would like to ask this of the hon. member who just spoke. We know from past experience that the Conservative government tried to balance the budget and in fact started to bring the deficit down and suddenly it turned around and became one of the biggest deficits we ever had. Does the hon. member have any special points that he might like to offer to the Liberals so that they do not end up doing the same thing? They have followed them so many other times in the past.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all our party has priorities. Our priority is to create jobs. We will continue to do so and we will tell the House how we will do it. I cannot comment because it is not a priority for our party and I do not think it is a priority for the House.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the new member for Madawaska—Restigouche who, I might say, speaks an exemplary French.

However, in his speech, he mentioned our government's accumulated deficits, and I would like to give him a little background quickly. Prior to 1970, the federal government had little deficit but, year in year out, the deficit accumulated.

With the arrival of the philosopher Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the helm of the government, the deficit began to grow. However, on his arrival, Brian, the hon. member's spiritual leader, whom he obviously dare not name, threw himself into lavish spending so that, in its final year in government, the Conservative Party had a deficit of $44 billion and an accumulated debt of $600 billion.

Obviously shameful. However, the word also applies to the party currently forming the government if not more than to the preceding government, when it draws an annual surplus of between $6 billion and $9 billion out of the pockets of the impoverished workers by unduly increasing the employment insurance premium, while cutting benefits, shortening the period of eligibility for employment insurance and tightening the requirements.

On this point, I support my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, but when he talks about the spending of the current federal government, I suggest he look in his own back yard to see what the Conservative Party did during its nine years in government. It spent extravagantly too.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague very much concerning my ability to speak French.

My colleague talks a lot about the deficit. Yes, I did look in my own back yard, and in fact we are now reaping what we had sown by the previous Conservative government.

The Conservative Party inherited a debt of more than $200 billion with an interest rate of more than 21 percent. We implemented free trade. Our friends opposite voted against the GST. We implemented it. They were supposed to scrap it. They did not scrap it, it is still there.

It is our measures that put the country back on track. I can tell you, I guarantee it. It is certainly not what the Liberals did, because they did not do anything concrete, absolutely nothing at all. We will be able to say thanks to the previous Conservative government, I guarantee it.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion of the member for Medicine Hat which bears repeating:

That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50 election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes, and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.

This is an important motion because it goes to the heart of what caused our debt in the first place. It is not surprising to hear the NDP say that it is opposed to our motion today, considering that it was part of the coalition that started this whole spiral back in the late sixties to begin with.

The country needs a good debate about what should be the size of the federal government. It is all about priorities. How big of a government do we really want? Are we willing to pay the taxes it takes to run a government of that size? Can we not, with a smaller government and lower taxes, create a far greater prosperity for our citizens? This is the debate the country needs. It is the debate that is currently taking place in Alberta which has two surplus budgets.

Since this is my first time speaking in 36th Parliament, I would like to thank the people who elected me in my riding of Peace River for returning me to the House of Commons. I hope I can continue to show that I am working on their behalf and respect that they have put their faith in me. I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair.

I am especially pleased to have been reappointed international trade critic because it is critical to Canada. It is also critical to my riding of Peace River and its economy.

Our export industries are oil, natural gas, agriculture and forestry. Nationally one out of every three jobs is related to exports. In my riding almost everything we produce in a basic industry line is exported and is vitally important.

Therefore I am always concerned about giving our Canadian businesses the best opportunities to take part in the global economy. Trade and investment deals open a lot of doors, but what happens if our companies cannot take advantage of these deals and conditions at home do not allow them to survive and grow? I am keenly aware that trade starts at home with sound domestic policies.

I congratulate the member for York West on becoming the Minister of International Trade. His ministry has an important role to play in securing Canada's place as we move into the 21st century. His job will not always be easy as there will be voices trying to hold Canada back. These voices will urge him to protect our industries from the cut and thrust of foreign competition. At the same time his department will urge him to resist these pleas for protectionism. I wish him vision and resolve to stay the course of trade liberalization which has meant so much to Canada in the last 10 years. I want to serve notice that I will be watching.

We heard the Speech from the Throne on last Tuesday. It touched briefly on the importance of trade to the Canadian economy. One in every three Canadian jobs now depends on trade. These jobs were not created as a result of team Canada trade missions. I admit that many business people make important contacts on these trade missions. I would even admit that there are some countries where high level government presence is critical. However, these multimillion dollar trade deals do not happen just because the prime minister touched down in a jet with his entourage in tow.

On the contrary, while it opened some initial doors, it is interesting to find that our trade, especially our exports to countries like China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay just to mention a few, went down in subsequent years after the initial trade missions.

There is a lot of bragging on the other side about the importance of the prime minister opening these doors. I suggest he has to do some work at home to look after some problems that restrict the ability of Canadian businesses to take advantage of the trade deals.

In light of these stunning failures I wonder whether the government will continue pinning all its trade hopes on a five day dog and pony show.

For all the government's talk of trade successes it just so happens that most Canadian companies do not export. In fact 80 percent of our trade is done by 100 companies. Literally thousands of companies have never sent a representative outside our borders or even sold a single widget or service to a customer in a province west or east of them. Is this because they lack the imagination or lack the courage to leave their own backyard? No, certainly not.

In many cases borders between our provinces have been more daunting than the Himalaya mountains. After being in power for three and a half years the last time and being in power a long time before that, it is outrageous the Liberal government has done nothing to dismantle hundreds of trade barriers that exist between our provinces.

In the subcommittee on the special import measures act last year members heard that in many cases it was easier to export from the American states to our provinces than it is from provinces like Ontario. This is absolutely absurd. We even heard from a Canadian company that actually left Ontario in disgust to move to Michigan. The company could not do business in Canada from Ontario, but once they located in Michigan they could trade into Canadian provinces. We have an absolutely ludicrous situation that has to be corrected. They are not showing the vision on the other side to resolve the problem.

The problem of internal trade barriers is one that will take imagination and courage to overcome. I submit the government has neither the imagination nor courage. Otherwise it would have tackled it long ago.

The federal government has the power to demolish these internal trade barriers. Doing so will do more to create jobs and exports in the country than hundreds of team Canada trade missions. In fact it has been suggested that internal trade barriers may be costing Canadians up to $8 billion per year.

The Speech from the Throne also mentions making Canada the location of choice for global investment. It is a worthy objective. Canada is a wonderful location, but I wonder sometimes if the government has actually examined some of the existing problems.

Has it examined payroll taxes? They are a killer and they are going up, not down. Canadian pension plan premiums are going up by 77 percent over 1996 levels. On top of that, the employment insurance fund will run a surplus of almost $13 billion by the end of the year. What is this for? It is obviously to help the finance minister bring down his deficit, but it will be done on the backs of workers and employers.

Does the government honestly believe foreign investors will come to Canada to have their pockets picked? Why on earth would high level executives want to direct foreign investment from their country into Canada after examining our personal income tax levels? These are over 50 percent higher than income taxes paid by our six G-7 partners.

Now blue skies and nice folks are important, but I suggest they are not the only reason that companies invest in Canada. They look at business dollars as savvy executives. Good business conditions is what they are looking for.

We desperately need to dismantle our internal trade barriers and lower payroll and other taxes. We also need to remove some of the red tape on regulation that keeps our business people from concentrating on the product or the service they are selling.

In conclusion, trade and investment start at home. If the conditions are right foreign investments and exports will follow.

My riding of Peace River in Alberta is located in the lowest taxed province in the country. It is not surprising that our exports flow directly south where many of our trade barriers have already been dismantled.

The Liberal government should take a major initiative. Instead of taking a team Canada trade mission to Latin America this year, perhaps it should concentrate right at home and correct some of the problems it has the power to look after.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last point the hon. member put forward with respect to internal trade barriers.

The hon. member should acknowledge that the government introduced a measure to eliminate internal trade barriers. I had the opportunity of sitting with one of his colleagues who contributed to that discussion quite effectively.

If the member wants to have an impact on internal trade barriers I encourage him to continue his dialogue. At the same time he should make sure he speaks to the provinces that are standing in the way of eliminating trade barriers that contribute to $6 billion or $7 billion of GDP. This is very important for the country and the jobs that need to be created.

The federal government is not standing in the way of internal trade barriers. I encourage the member to be very clear when he communicates with the constituents of his riding and other Canadians across the country. I am sure he supports the initiative, as do I and other members of the government.

However I want to make the point that the provinces are standing in the way. I certainly welcome any support he could provide in that instance.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Stoney Creek for his comment and question.

I certainly agree with him that initiatives are being made. There is an effort to try to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers. That initiative has been going nowhere. There are provinces, especially those led by NDP governments, that are resisting very vigorously.

Failing being able to resolve this issue by consultation, section 93 of the Canadian Constitution clearly states that there shall be no restrictions or barriers to trade across interprovincial borders. Clearly the federal government has the authority to make the change.

While a Reform government would devolve many powers to the provinces where they can be administered better by either the provinces or the municipalities, this is one area in which the federal government has to show strong leadership, and it is not currently doing so.

To show how ludicrous some of these interprovincial trade barriers are, a constituent of mine in the Peace River riding had a contract to do some gravel work using some of his trucks up in an area seven miles from the British Columbia border in Alberta.

When the day was done and they had finished their work, they wanted to drive those same trucks into Dawson Creek, which was the nearest community, to stay in the hotels there overnight and eat in the restaurants. But they were restricted from doing so because the axle spacing on their trucks does not meet B.C. requirements. It would have cost them thousands of dollars to meet that specification. Those are the kind of silly rules we have in Canada.

We have more barriers to trade within our provincial borders than all of the European Community members combined. It is ridiculous. Seventeen 17 countries in Europe have been able to come up with standards so that trucks can roll across the borders, do not have to present papers and do not have special restrictions based on country of origin. Canada has negotiated better trade agreements outside our country than it has been able to negotiate inside Canada.

I suggest that when the member says that we need consultation and to put pressure on, the government clearly has the authority to make the changes and bring Canada into the 21st century.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your appointment. The job looks good on you.

I would like to thank the voters of Battlefords—Lloydminster for their support. I speak today on their behalf in support of the motion to condemn the government for its empty promises.

My riding is a large rural riding with a very active and diverse agricultural sector and a thriving resource industry. I would like to say that my constituents were very disappointed when there was no mention of their issues and concerns in last week's throne speech.

As a matter of fact, we are obviously not alone if we judge by the comments that came out of British Columbia last week. To my knowledge no one in Saskatchewan is entertaining the notion of separation, but we can certainly sympathize with the frustration that is contained in that expression. Even if much of that frustration is based on perception rather than reality, it still grows as Canadians beyond this central region see their concerns ignored and in some cases brushed off as insignificant.

On the prairies today grain piles up in the elevators, trains sit idle on their sidings and government monopolies continue to tell farmers what to do with the products of their labour.

Back in Ottawa the government announces new spending initiatives to satisfy a few narrow interests as it claims a balanced budget will soon arrive and perhaps then it will take a look at letting Canadians keep more of their own money.

Has the government ever really asked what is the number one concern of all Canadians? If it did, the answer from the left and from the right of the political spectrum would be jobs, long term sustainable jobs.

When an individual has a secure job, all the other facets of their life fall into place. They can make plans, develop skills, raise families and put their wages into the marketplace to the benefit of their fellow citizens. When people feel secure they can more easily turn their attention to the wider concerns of a regional or national scale.

Reformers believe that Canadians are generous and compassionate and given the chance will make decisions with their money that will benefit their fellow citizens everywhere.

We believe that if governments create the conditions that offer opportunity and security in the economy, then prosperity will alleviate many of the social concerns we are struggling to deal with here in this place.

For example, if the government would create the conditions that encourage business people to hire workers, then the benefits to everyone would be obvious. If someone is lifted from a social program, becomes a taxpayer and is given the opportunity to make decisions, it will help their fellow Canadian.

That is where we run into trouble. Some people still believe in the grand schemes that call for massive amounts of tax dollars and assume that a handful of bureaucrats making decisions in central offices are somehow superior to the choices made by ordinary Canadians.

Reformers and people with different perspectives from many countries have shown over and over that this philosophy is both wasteful and ineffective.

Taxpayers do not need more grand schemes. We need to let Canadians, including Canadians who choose to invest in their future, create businesses and hire their neighbours, to make their own choices.

I am not going to stand here and say that average Canadians have all the answers. When we consider the risks involved, the headaches and the aggravation of owning a small or medium size business, we have to wonder if wise choices are being made out there. There was a joke going around a few years ago which asked: How do you make $1 million in Canadian business? First you start with $2 million.

When we consider the number of obstacles which stand in the way of a Canadian entrepreneur, the regulations and red tape, taxes, fees, licences at three levels of government, including all the agencies and commissions, the regulations and fees of the banks, the suppliers and the competition, it obviously takes a special breed of people to want to have their own business.

To be fair, we are not unique in the world for this. There are just as many regulations meant to protect as there are to interfere. However, when we consider that there are nearly one million businesses with paid employees in Canada, of which 97 percent have less than 50 workers, and 1.1 million Canadians who describe themselves as self-employed, surely there are a few basic things that can be done to encourage those people.

Consider that 75 percent of all businesses in Canada have less than five employees. By convincing even half of these employers to hire one more worker on average, we would see 360,000 jobs created in a relatively short period of time.

The question becomes: What would it take to convince someone to hire that new worker? Quite simply, companies will hire only if it is in the interest of their profitability to do so. It is naive to think otherwise.

We often hear in the House that the measure of a country is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Where the debate goes off track is when some of our colleagues assume that the only measure of how we treat these citizens is how much money the government spends to deal with them. We forget entirely that citizens can help each other and that the choices of our fellow citizens must be part of this measurement.

Governments can better increase the profitability of businesses by reducing their costs, rather than by subsidizing certain activities. Labour is one of these costs and government can have a negative influence on this by, for example, keeping employment insurance rates higher than are necessary or by jacking up premiums on pension plans to compensate for 30 years of mismanagement.

Taxes of all kinds can also have a negative impact. Nobody has yet found a way to run a country without them, but it is the rates established in Canada that need serious adjustment. Taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income ignores the element of risk that an investor or entrepreneur brings to business, without which our economy would be stagnant. Taxes drive up the cost of nearly everything, and by so doing suppress purchasing and pass the costs on to the people least able to afford them.

We can see that potential entrepreneurs in this country are hit with a triple whammy. Government raises the cost of supplies and products without consultation, thereby affecting sales. If they succeed they are then hit with premiums, levies and taxes on the employees they try to hire to help them produce more.

Finally, if the struggling businesses manage to overcome all of this and show a profit, the government again comes looking for a share. There is of course the small business tax deduction, but it has not been adjusted since it was introduced in 1982.

Governments have compensated for inflation by increasing their tax take, but have done nothing to protect the people who generate those taxes. I do not wish to be dramatic. Clearly Canadians are creating businesses and, though not very often, are even pocketing some money and prospering.

The question that we have before us is this. How can we make more people more prosperous? The Reform Party discussion paper Beyond a Balanced Budget provides a great deal of statistical information and arguments on why we must address the issues of tax burdens and entrepreneurship in Canada. We invite informed discussion from all Canadians on the future direction of this country.

We stand at a threshold, as we did in 1970 when the government last had a surplus budget. What we decide to do in this House will not only affect ourselves and our children, it will affect Canadians for generations to come. I trust we can be much more prudent and thoughtful than our predecessors.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the member's maiden speech. I would advise him to do a little better research. He should look at what has been done with the Canadian Business Development Bank, for instance. Its mandate has been expanded and it is certainly helping tourism in Canada.

He should also take a look at the Farm Credit Corporation because its mandate has been expanded. Not only does it deal with farmers, but it is now dealing with value added product which is helping the agriculture industry.

He talked in his speech about things that he had not heard the government say. One of the things I noticed was that he did not talk about health care. I would like to get his opinion on health care and what it should be into the third millennium. One-third of Canada's population, 9.8 million people, are now turning 50. There will be 500,000 a year turning 50 each year for the next 20 years.

The health care system is going to be used at a very high rate as this segment of the population ages. I would like to hear what his opinion would be on how we pro-actively answer that problem.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his questions. He mentioned the Canadian Business Development Bank and Farm Credit Corporation. Certainly we welcome any positive conditions that they will introduce to further business in Canada. However, the one thing that usually flies in the face of anything that happens through developments like this is that they never really consult the people that they purport to serve.

I know in my instance, the Farm Credit Corporation having just gone through a major shake-up and a major reorganization in my area, has not really seen any dramatic growth or have I heard people saying “You are doing a much better job”. We just do not see that out there.

Regarding health care in my province of Saskatchewan, we have seen hospitals closed at a record rate. The line-ups are definitely longer. People are waiting longer and longer for less health care. It is unfortunate.

Of course I do not have all the options and answers. We are here in this House to discuss them. I think of some of the things that we are going to have to do. We need a much more preventive medicine situation out there. We are going to have to allow some alternative treatments and so on like that.

We need to assure that people have the right to basic health care and make sure that we can sustain that into the next millennium.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the comments of the hon. member. As the Reform is prone to do, he has addressed in his comments specifically the financial end of his impression of the throne speech pointing out the inadequacies, making thoughtful suggestions on where improvements could be made.

My observations of Reform and the comments of its members seem to indicate that they are very regionally based and focused. In the Conservative Party six provinces are represented, including a great proportion from Atlantic Canada.

My question for the hon. member is specifically, what does the Reform have in mind. What is its approach to addressing some of the difficulties that Atlantic Canadians are facing, keeping in mind that those problems are national problems as well?

I have yet to hear anything too insightful or thoughtful on the part of the Reform on how to address the problems of Atlantic Canadians.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from my esteemed colleague. He talked specifically of help to Atlantic Canada. In our election platform and again here in the House we talk about equality of opportunity for everyone.

The member for Medicine Hat earlier today stated that cutting taxes helps people at all ends of the country. It creates jobs, lets small business become the small engine of the economy that we know it to be.

Subsidies and grants have proven not effective over the last number of years. There are too few dollars for too many people. We would also like to see a review of the infrastructure system in Atlantic Canada to help it facilitate the worldwide market that we are finding more and more out there. Those types of things will have to be addressed.

There is a fisheries crisis in Atlantic Canada. He talked about us being regional. We have an agriculture crisis in the prairies. We are not alone in coming to this House with regional viewpoints. That is much of the reason for the make-up of the House as it is. People are sending us here to address issues that are common to them.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this past June nearly 13 million Canadians voted in the federal election which established this 36th Parliament and our government, and that is a fact. It is one of those facts that today's opposition motion strangely ignores.

In that election our government looked to the day when, thanks to the foundation we put in place with four years of consistent effort and tough decisions, the federal government will no longer need deficit financing. That will be the day when we do not have to borrow to cover the cost of federal spending and debt charges.

The prospect of that tremendous turnaround raised an obvious issue. What should the federal government do when tax revenues begin to exceed our costs? As the prime minister said, and he proposed a very clear and concrete answer, one-half of the surplus should go to a combination of reducing taxes and national debt. He proposed that the other half be invested in addressing the social and economic needs of Canadians.

That proposal was made in the first week of the campaign. It allowed for weeks of debate and discussion by candidates and by commentators. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and other members of this House were out there debating at local debates in your constituencies. Most important, this issue was debated by Canadians themselves. The single largest group of Canadians said that is the approach they want.

Yet today the hon. member for Medicine Hat seeks to condemn this government for making that 50:50 pledge without adequate debate. Did he not engage in that debate during the campaign? Where was he during that debate in his campaign? I am sure the issue came up. I am sure he debated with other candidates who were seeking election. I am at a loss to explain why he now seeks to condemn the government for this proposal.

Perhaps he did not read our platform. Maybe that was it, I am not sure. Perhaps he just did not want to debate it. Maybe that is it. Perhaps he only has ears for his own rhetoric, but I have a higher regard for Canadian voters.

Our government has been addressing these issues, the size of government, taxes, debt, from the first day that we came to office. That is why we have cut the size of government and federal program spending by more than any other government in 50 years. That is in absolute terms, real bottom line dollars. That is why we have not increased tax rates in three consecutive budgets, because we know the tax burden Canadians carry is too high. That is also why we have lowered employment insurance contributions in each of our four budgets, and that is why we have introduced selective tax measures for those most in need, to help disadvantaged children and to assist charities.

And then there is the debt, a topic that has not escaped the notice of this House and our government no matter what the opposition would like Canadians to believe. We have made clear in budget after budget that deficit elimination is not the end of our fiscal journey. We also have to bring down Canada's debt as a share of our economy. We had to deal with the deficit. We have dealt with the deficit as we have said we would. We will be balancing the budget in 1998-99. The debt is still much too large as a percentage of GDP and we will continue to bring down Canada's debt as a share of our economy.

These actions and positions are a matter of record, just the fiscal turnaround we have worked so hard to put in place. They have been analysed, debated and critiqued for four years. After all that, Canadian voters decided last June that this record of achievement and commitment deserved a new mandate, the mandate they gave to this government.

This motion should fool no one. It is not about adequate debate. It is not about how the 50:50 pledge should be applied. It is not even about irresponsible spending. Instead it is really an attack on a concept of balanced government. It is an attack on the idea that government does have a role to play in investing in a stronger, more innovative economy, and it is an attack on the belief that government does have an obligation to help those in need and at risk.

We know that market forces alone will not do the job. There was reference earlier by previous speakers about the fact that Alberta is now out there consulting with Albertans on what to do.

The Reform Party should also acknowledge that for the first time Premier Klein is actually saying that there is a role for government and that government needs to invest in the future of Albertans, in his particular case. We as a government have always believed and will continue to believe that we need to invest in the future of Canadians and ensure that the investments pay dividends.

We have made clear that our government will reduce taxes when it is affordable, when a fiscal surplus is certain and secure, because we will never jeopardize the progress that we have made on the deficit. We will not jeopardize the rewards that this progress is delivering and the achievements that we have made over the last number of years.

One of those benefits is the low interest rates, the lowest rates in 30 years. It is as a result of the fact that this government has been successful in reducing the deficit and gaining a handle on the fiscal management of this country.

Clearly that is not good enough for the opposition. The motion obviously implies that any new spending is bad spending. It raises the spectre of the return to surging deficits, a staggering debt and renewed taxation. Let me say that this reform motion is wrong and it is misguided.

The official opposition may worship at the altar of laissez-faire, but we and the majority of Canadians know that laissez-faire economics can too often become the let them suffer public policy.

We are not prepared to nor do we accept that proposition by the opposition. That is why we have set out in the last budget, during the election and in last week's Speech from the Throne concrete priorities where a share of the fiscal dividend should go.

Members of the opposition say that is why we have such a big problem in this country. Members of the opposition can continue along that track and can continue to keep their heads buried in the sand and talk about the way it was. We are talking about the way it is going to be. The progress that we have made, the benefits that progress is bringing to this country and how we are going to bring this country into the next millennium, that is the discussion we will have.

There is ample opportunity for discussion in this House and there will be ample opportunity for continued discussion outside of this House, as every member of the government will be out in their constituencies consulting with their constituents, consulting with Canadians about the priorities and whether we have these priorities right and what we should be doing with our fiscal dividend when that dividend appears.

We established concrete priorities in the throne speech last week to children through further increasing the child tax benefit. Our goal here is working with the provinces to allow low income families to get off the welfare trap that creates a disincentive for work and that punishes children most of all.

On investing in quality health care and good health, our health care system has become a vital part of our national fabric, providing the security that represents both a social and an economic benefit.

We pledged to invest in measures to help Canadians respond to the expanding need for home care and community care and to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services and delivery.

We have placed the priority on creating opportunities for young Canadians. We have placed the priority and are demonstrating that priority through investing in knowledge and creativity.

It reflects the fundamental fact that in today's fast evolving, global economy there are initiatives that must be taken on a national scale. It is incumbent on a national government to take on that role. We cannot rely only on pockets of success in the face of tidal waves of international competition. We have to mobilize on a Canada-wide basis, drawing on all the stakeholders, the private sector, governments and community groups. We need to engage and we are engaging Canadians at all levels in ensuring we mobilize together.

An example of that is the Canada foundation for innovation. It is an $800 million investment that has been applauded right across this country. We have been able to make that investment because of the fiscal progress that we have made in this country. It is about having a vision. It is about investing in Canadians in ensuring that the future of Canadians is bright. That is the role of the government.

More recently the prime minister has pledged the scholarship initiative, an even greater investment in what is the ultimate natural resource in this country, our young people. This is just one initiative, the scholarship fund, but there are many others that we have engaged in through the ministers of human resources and finance who have put forward a youth strategy to assist the youth of this country. It is not just members of the government. It is members across the floor as well. Youth are an issue that is important to every Canadian and every member of this House.

By working with members across, with Canadians, with the private sector and with all levels of government, we are beginning to deal with the issue. It has not been solved. It is still an issue. Unemployment for young people in this country is still too high. Canadians have said that to members across and to members of government. We know that but we are making progress and are taking initiatives to deal with the youth unemployment issue.

We will continue to do that and as the government continues to improve and balance the budget and as funds become available for strategic investments, one of the priorities we have set forth is youth and we will continue to deal with that issue.

I go back to today's opposition motion. It essentially implies that such investments in youth and in the Canada foundation for innovation will be a threat to our nation's fiscal future and long term economic prosperity. I disagree. The Canada foundation for innovation will add to the long term economic prosperity for this country. Investment in youth strategy and youth initiatives will add to the long term economic prosperity of this country.

I do not think we will find Canadians anywhere who will disagree with investing in youth, investing in innovation and ensuring we are equipped to move into the next millennium, ensuring this country is equipped and able to compete with companies and other countries around the world. I am confident that the majority of Canadians will see them as vital investments in our national growth and security.

We have worked hard for four years to bring Canada's finances to the point where we can begin to plan new initiatives. We will never jeopardize that achievement and the benefits that it has brought, low interest rates, impressive economic growth, hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

As the throne speech stated, we will continue to be vigilant and responsible about keeping the financial affairs of the country in order. We will implement tax reductions and lower the debt. However we have never lost sight of the companion obligation to use the resources that we do have in intelligent and effective ways to strengthen our society and advance our economy.

It reflects what Canadians across the country continue to support. I submit that a balanced approach is the best approach. It is the approach that Canadians have consistently said they support and will continue to support. That is why the House must reject this motion and the philosophy that it represents.

In the remaining moments I have, it would be incumbent on me to address some of the points that were made earlier today by the member for Medicine Hat. He stated that the government is playing games. Let us talk about the games the government is playing.

We have announced that we will balance the budget in 1998-99. The debt is on a downward track. We are committed to reducing the debt to GDP ratio. The economy is growing and we are leading the G-7. I submit that we are winning this game. To use the words of the hon. member for Medicine Hat that the government is playing games, we are winning the game. The member should read again what we accomplished in our past mandate and what we intend to do in the future.

The core issue which is raised continually is that there is no consultation with Canadians. Let me also say that Reform has no monopoly on consultation. For Reform to make that statement and think that other members of the House are not speaking with Canadians I submit is unfair. We all speak with our constituents and consult with Canadians. I do not understand it.

We began prebudget consultations back in 1993. And we are not speaking to Canadians? Was he in the same place he was during the election campaign? Did he miss out on what was going on or is this just an opportunity to put something forward without any real thought?

The member talked about irresponsible spending. What about our priorities on health care, education, youth and children? This is not irresponsible spending. These are the priorities of Canadians. They want to see a strong national government making investments in priorities. However, the Reform Party apparently disagrees.

Reform members disagree with the fact that there has been $1.5 billion put back into the Canada health and social transfers. They disagree with that reinvestment in the health care system and with investments in scholarships for young Canadians. I am at a loss. They apparently disagree with the concept of youth internship and lifelong learning.

Let me close by saying that as the fiscal situation has allowed, the government has pursued new spending initiatives in priority areas, health initiatives, R and D support, tourism. It is the essence of good management. The bottom line is that Canada is now on a track toward eliminating the deficit with a smaller and better government.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me immediately after my distinguished Liberal colleague from the beautiful riding of Stoney Creek finished his speech.

In his 20 minute speech, he raised a few points which may be worth looking at again.

First, he said interest rates are currently the lowest this country had ever seen. I would submit to him that, conversely, I experienced the highest rates at a time when I had a substantial mortgage. As it happens, his leader was sitting in the finance minister's seat, or very close to him, at the time. I have paid rates as high as 22 percent at a time when this same Liberal Party was running the country.

The debt is now $620 billion, or thereabouts. I will remind my distinguished colleague that the Liberal Party, which ran the country from 1970 to 1984, except for the nine months of Joe Clark's government, managed to make the accumulated deficit grow to $250 billion. The Conservatives made it grow twofold from 1984 to 1993. Since 1993, the Liberals have been at it again and, as a result, it has now reached $620 billion.

The GST. His leader had promised to kill it. The ruse he found to lull some Atlantic provinces was the harmonization that Quebec had already carried out in 1991-92 and that should bring in to Quebec about as much as was offered to the three provinces that agreed to harmonize their taxes. He therefore owes the people of Quebec some $2 billion.

He talked about jobs. I find it shameful for a government to take between $6 billion and $9 billion a year out of the employment insurance surplus to finance the deficit reduction effort. I fin it shameful for the government to come and boast in this House about working for the unemployed, for youth, for our students who are looking for work and training in their field. It is shameful and I am convinced that his constituents are not proud of the speech their member has just delivered.

I urge my hon. colleague, whom I had the pleasure to meet more often when we were sitting together on the environment committee, to try to raise awareness in cabinet and in the party to which he belongs, to make them more responsive to the demands of the working class.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the one point I would like to make is a point which I made during my speech.

We have an opportunity in the House to debate where we are going in this country based on the mandate we were given in June by Canadians. The hon. member however seems to want to continue to live in the past with the highest interest rates in history.

Today we have the lowest interest rates in 30 years. Canadians are benefiting because of lower interest rates. The economy is benefiting because of low interest rates. The debt is on a downward track and the government has made a commitment to reduce the debt as a ratio to the GDP.

If we want to start talking about the past, the member is certainly able to do that. However I would like to continue to demonstrate that this government has made commitments, has established priorities and will continue to meet those priorities.

With respect to the harmonization of the GST, Quebec has benefited from that. There has been no reduction in revenue to the provincial government as a result of harmonization of the GST. The member knows that yet he continues to stand in the House claiming that the government owes Quebeckers a payment. I disagree. The member should clarify his remarks. I look forward to the continuing debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Stoney Creek for his speech. I have appreciated working with him in committee. He has an ability to put the best possible face on a sorry situation and I want to congratulate him for that.

It is interesting that he talks about the benefit of lower interest rates as though the Liberal government has brought them down on its own when in fact the government is capitalizing and taking advantage of the interest rates on a worldwide basis.

He talks about an attitude of let them suffer. This is an attitude which I have a great deal of difficulty with as I travel throughout my constituency.

I think of an elderly woman whose husband died last year. She has a total combined income of about $13,000 a year. Now with the clawbacks of her old age pension she is having a great deal of difficulty and is finding it impossible to pay the taxes on the house that she owns. She is desperate to know what to do in light of these government policies.

I think of the small business people who have been established for years and are floundering under the weight of the regulations and rules of three levels of government and finding it impossible to pay for having to prove daily that they are keeping these rules. Comments about the new Canada pension plan startle me because they say that many of them are not going to be able to continue to operate and to pay these taxes.

I find it interesting that the member talks about the $1 billion scholarship fund when the students themselves are scoffing at it.

I would like to ask this member if he believes that the Canadian people are demanding higher and higher taxes for the level of service they are receiving which is putting them in such jeopardy in their established day to day lives.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the member for his comments and for the time I was able to spend in working with the member on the industry committee. There was a lot of good work that we were able to put forward through that committee. It was through the interventions of the hon. member that some of that work was possible. I am thankful for that experience.

With respect to the comments that the hon. member has made, we said before and continue to say that certainly the retirement income system of this country is an issue which we are very committed to improving. We know that through the new seniors benefit, when that proposal comes to the House, nine out of ten elderly women will be better off. The hon. member made reference to an elderly lady in his constituency. We know lower income Canadians will be better off through the proposed seniors benefit. Therefore there is commitment by this government to deal with the retirement income system. I am sure that the hon. member will be able to participate in that debate and add very articulately to it.

With respect to small business, there are many members on this side of the House who are certainly very committed to the small business sector and believe that the small business sector is the engine of growth in the Canadian economy. I myself have had the opportunity to work on a number of task forces supporting members of the small business community and ensuring that their voice is heard with respect to ministers responsible for that portfolio.

Regarding higher taxes, there is no question, and the Minister of Finance has said it before, that this government will deal with the burden of taxes for low and middle income Canadians. We have said it before and we will continue to say it. We stand behind that commitment. As I said in my speech, Canadians want a balanced approach. That approach means dealing with the debt, dealing with taxes, dealing with opportunities to invest in the future of Canadians. That is the approach we are going to take.

With respect to letting them suffer, that was a reference to the laissez-faire approach the Reform Party seems to be adhering to.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to share my time with my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford.

It is a pleasure to stand in the House today and to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague from Medicine Hat, that this House condemn the government for making its 50:50 election promise on future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of deficit spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.

Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. I look forward to the deliberations under your care and control. I would also like to thank the members of my constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin for participating in the democratic process of the June election, in particular those who worked to support my candidacy and my election. I am honoured to represent the views of Cariboo—Chilcotin and it is my intention to represent my constituents to the best of my ability.

The people of Cariboo—Chilcotin voted for Reform during the last election because, like many Canadians, they wanted three things. First, they want equality to be the guiding principle in the national unity debate. Second, they want accountability from the government, its department and agencies. This has been diluted more and more over the past years. Accountability has been taken from the House of Commons and put in the hands of the cabinet, with order in council administration, and in the hands of bureaucrats. This should be restored to the House of Commons. Third, they want fiscal responsibility to be the watch word of the government and every future government which holds power in this country.

It is the third point on fiscal responsibility which I will focus on. Specifically, I will do two things. First, I will outline where massive government over spending has led our country. Second, I will describe a plan that will save us from forever following that destructive and empty path.

Political pundits and financial analysts say that Canada is at a critical moment in its financial history. I am sure that we can all agree with this. Over the past 30 years we have seen successive Liberal and Conservative politicians repeat the same destructive pattern in government, irresponsible spending which has caused chronic deficits and spiralling debt financed by escalating taxes. Thanks largely to tax increases there is a huge and growing surplus in the employment insurance fund, subdued growth in public debt charges and cuts in provincial transfers for health, education and welfare. Also because of pressure from the Reform Party, the public and the financial markets, we are on the brink of resolving the second of the four problems, deficit spending.

Following our present course, Canada is at most two years away from a balanced budget and this is good news for all Canadians. This brings us to a critical point in our history. Reformers have circulated a discussion paper, “Beyond a Balanced Budget”, to seek the will of the Canadian people. This paper is not a policy paper, it is a discussion paper. It is a discussion paper seeking Canadian opinion. We will find this discussion not only in homes and offices but also on the Internet and in town hall meetings and we will find Reformers listening carefully to what Canadians are saying.

There is a real need for this national discourse. The last time the federal government was in a similar situation was in 1969-70 when Canada recorded a $139 million surplus. After that time, the road the government chose was one of massive overspending and mortgaging our future to borrow the money. It chose to run deficits year after year. Where did this course take us as a country? How can we ever avoid going that way again?

The result of consistent overspending and borrowing over the last 30 years gave Canada a debt that grew from $20 billion in 1970 to approximately $600 billion today.

Allow me to outline the magnitude of this debt. Our $600 billion debt works out to over $19,600 for every man, woman and child in Canada. For a family of four that comes to almost $80,000. I calculate it as $78,400. Canada's $600 billion debt is one of the highest debt burdens among industrialized countries. It is 74 percent of gross domestic product. As a percentage of GDP our net foreign debt is the worst of any of the world's major economies. Canada owes 25.3 percent of its debt to foreigners.

A recent study by the Fraser Institute puts total Canadian debt, all of our Canadian liabilities, at closer to three and a half trillion dollars after accounting for federal, provincial, local marketable debt, government business enterprise debt and debt guarantees, QPP, CPP, unfounded liabilities, hospital sector debt and total unfunded liabilities of the medicare system. Three and a half trillion dollars we are in hock.

To describe the size of our debt more graphically, a financial analyst in the 1995 Grant's Interest Rate Observer said that 8 percent of Canada's land mass is covered in water while the other 92 percent is covered in debt. That is how one financial analyst started to tell investors around the world about Canada. If the net public debt were converted to $5 bills and laid end to end it would circle the earth 1,448 times. I did not make that calculation, I only report it.

I have just described the legacy of 30 years of chronic overspending by successive Liberal and Tory governments. This is what federal government after federal government gave our country again and again to serve their own short term political ends at the cost of nearly bankrupting our nation. We could say so what, and many people do say that. So what if our debt is one of the biggest in the world? So what if government keeps borrowing?

Just as we cannot rack up personal debt and expect there to be no consequences, neither can the country. Let me outline for the House the major consequences of massive government debt that haunt and will continue to haunt future generations of Canadians.

First, interest charges. The federal government spends $46 billion a year to service the debt. That is about 33 cents of interest charges for every dollar in revenue raised by government. It is Ottawa's largest single expenditure, more than twice the size of the next expenditures on seniors and transfers to provinces. These interest charges mount by $5.3 million an hour and chew up $1 in every $3 in budgetary revenues. Think about that. We pay bankers $46 billion a year. We pay Bay Street, Wall Street, Hong Kong, bond bankers for money borrowed to finance yesterday's programs. We owe $46 billion to buy virtually nothing of value for Canadian citizens today.

The annual interest bill would be enough to run each and every hospital in Canada for two years. The interest for one year would pay tuition for four million Canadian youths to finish a four year degree at university.

There is a means of handling this situation. What should a balanced budget look like? What would we do? There should be legislation to prevent a government from increasing the deficit. Over a three year period a government should be required to balance its books or call an election. The first three year period would commence three years from the passage of the measure except for certain crises such as recession, severe flood, earthquake or war. They must be dealt with as they arise. These would be a release valve.

However, a balanced budget law would be an important first step in reassuring Canadians from coast to coast that the painful tax increases and reductions in the social safety net that were made necessary by previous governments will never occur again.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House, my second time, for this 36th Parliament.

I would like to start off by thanking those people in Langley and Abbotsford who re-elected me with a fairly sizeable margin, I am happy to say, over my opponents in the Liberal Party. For all those people in my riding, whether they voted Reform or whatever party, they may be absolutely certain that we will be looking out for their affairs as equal individuals participating in our communities.

I represent communities such as Langley, Abbotsford and Aldergrove in British Columbia. They are communities with strong commitments to justice and very strong commitments to family and community values. They are also communities with great concerns about government, the size of government, the expenditures governments have and about their taxes and how they affect their disposable incomes.

I want to spend a good deal of time on this. The motion the Reform Party put to this House today, I believe, speaks well for the concerns of the individuals who live in my riding. For a government today to be talking about a potential surplus and to be fast off the mark suggesting that if we get that real fast it should find a way to spend it, I think it is quite appalling that we are back into that kind of spending mentality.

I want to relate some of the expenditures of the past Liberal government and why those kinds of spending habits are of concern to the average Canadian. I always use a litmus test. I always say that if somebody comes to my door and asks for money to spend on some government project, if it comes out of my pocket would I allow it. I guess that is the same as the government asking for money.

Let us look at some of the expenditures coming from the pails of the tax trough, which I used in the last Parliament as well. I think it emphasizes the problems most people have today with the kind of mentality this government has. For instance, $33,800 was granted to examine major league baseball in Detroit. I can think of a lot of people in my community who would say that is nice, but do we really want our disposable income reduced by that kind of expenditure. Is it really the prerogative of government to make that kind of decision? If you come to my home and to my family and ask me for some money to examine major league baseball in Detroit, I would not give it to you.

I and a lot of people across this country are asking if I would not give it to you why does the government. Does it not represent us in Ottawa? Is that not the question?

I heard some responses to this kind of critique of the government the other day during the throne speech. I was really quite surprised that some of the hon. members across the way would say such things as they do not agree with all the expenditures, some slipped by. They are not supposed to slip by this government or any government. These are legitimate concerns.

I think it is really quite appalling when one can reach into virtually any document today and find this sort of thing. When the government says to the people of Canada that it may one day reach a surplus situation and that it is going to spend half of it, panic sets in. If this is an example of how the government spends its money, we have reason to believe that the government is going to blow it out the door once again.

It spent $19,400 for a study for policing the boundaries of male sexuality from 1880 to 1930. I suppose that may interest some in the country. How does this improve our economy? How does this help the person with less disposable income in our communities today? Are these people even going to get to read this sort of study? Where is the value and where does government get off presuming that it is the wisest expenditure of our money?

If the government was really wise, it would make a suggestion that it will spend perhaps 50% of the savings made by cutting out these ridiculous expenditures. There would likely be no critique from this side of the House on that. Instead it basically says “We will ignore this kind of situation and we will spend more over and above that.” I ask the House, does that make any sense whatsoever? I think not.

Well, let us blow $105,000 on career markers and personal performance strategy development of expert and novice symphony orchestra conductors and provincial ice hockey coaches. Let me ask members, if someone came to my door and asked me for a portion of this $105,000 or any other hard working income earner in this country, would they get the money? If not, why did the government presume to spend it on behalf of these people who would not give it?

I suppose we might as well blow another $49,249 on a cross cultural study of semiotic management and transformation of facial features in the makeup and masks of performers or $20,000 to examine the ecclesiastical courts of 19th century England or $35,000 for a study on craft industries in post-medieval Iran. I could go on but the list kind of makes me just as sick as it does the folks at home watching this.

The message I am trying to get through to some of those who do not listen well on the other side is that this kind of stuff is not going to go away. For the next four years we are going to drill it and drill it and drill it again until the public finally gets enough and says that it is time the Liberals were put out of office. It is time that they thought the 50:50 split on the surplus should have gone to something called taxes, to lower taxes. I know it is difficult for members over there to understand. It should go to lower debt payments which will lower taxes.

I am not the only accountant in the House. This is economics 101. It is so basic, yet it is so hard to understand why the government in its throne speech can talk about spending more and not talk about trying to spend what it had a lot more wisely.

I have a few notes here. This is rather interesting. If the annual interest bill was converted to $100 bills and stacked the pile would be 118 kilometres high, a pile 214 times higher than the CN Tower. That is a great stack for a government. I know some of this was created by the previous government, but we cannot always blame it for everything. The fact is that this government overspent in the previous four years and added to the debt well over $100 billion. These folks have borrowed one hundred thousand million dollars in the last four years.

It is too bad that the message has not come through yet, but the Canadian public can look forward to us telling them over the next four years what a terrible job the government has done and what a terrible thing it is about to do, spending more money when it could be saving the dollars it has. It is shameful.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to the comments made by the hon. member. He talked about the performance of the government with respect to the debt. It is important to again state very clearly for the record that it is because of the actions of the government that the debt is on a downward track. The government is committed to reducing the debt to GDP ratio. It will eliminate the deficit in 1998-99.

The member is speaking as if the government has just put the country into a big black hole. We are moving out. We are moving into the next century, but the member wants to continue to talk about the misspending of the government.

I want to draw an analogy on which I invite the hon. member to comment. If a person pays off a mortgage but never fixes the plumbing or the roof, I am not sure that person will have a house to live in at the end of 25 years. It is the same with a country. We need to reinvest in the priorities. We have set what those priorities are and we will continue to adhere to our plan.

I want the member to acknowledge that we are on a more prosperous track.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I sense that the hon. member does not know a heck of a lot about what he is saying. The fact is that the deficit is on a downward track.

I would like to educate the hon. member on the difference between a debt and a deficit. A deficit is the amount of money the government blows more of every year over and above the amount of money the government takes in. That is a deficit. Debt, on the other hand, is something like a mortgage on which you have to pay interest. That is a bit of education for some people who do not understand it.

The other point is that it is a matter of the kind of house one builds in this country. When a house is rather old and needs to have the plumbing replaced, perhaps it can be replaced with new plastic plumbing. However, at the same time one does not put in stained glass windows or a brick driveway instead of a black-top driveway. It is a matter of how one rebuilds one's house.

The message here is that if one wants to build one's house, do we build a castle or get a refurbished house?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I listened enviously to the remarks by the Reform Party member on the list of government expenses. I will of course get myself a copy of the document he mentioned.

I am in the same boat as the Reform member. We are a bit frustrated at having a bunch of expenses like that and being unable to do anything about it.

I would like to ask the member his position on the several hundreds of thousands of dollars his leader spent on Stornoway.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my answer would be that we will also be prepared to take over 24 Sussex Drive and they better get that right, too.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be in this House a third time.

I would take this opportunity to thank those who re-elected me a third time with a majority of over 50 percent.

I am honoured to have been able to represent them for almost nine years now and I shall continue to work hard for them.

I want to say a few words about my riding. It is a reflection of what Canada is all about.

There is a large anglophone majority of approximately 80 percent and a significant francophone minority of nearly 20 percent.

It is made up of Canadians from virtually every single country in the world and, as well, our first Canadians, including the Metis.

I am fortunate to be able to represent a riding that is as diverse, as rich and as meaningful to Canada. These various people in my riding have learned to work and celebrate together. It is a lesson that we can share with other Canadians. Who knows? Perhaps that is the legacy that Canada can leave to the world, of having people of different tastes, different cultures, different languages working and celebrating together in harmony for the benefit of all.

I want to extend my best wishes and my congratulations as well—

—and to my colleagues of every political persuasion. I wish them good luck.

I want to get to the very heart and soul of this debate by sharing with my colleagues the motion that is before us for discussion this afternoon.

The opposition motion reads as follows, and I want to be absolutely sure to read it correctly.

September 29, 1997—Mr. Solberg (Medicine Hat) moved that this House condemn the government for making their 50/50 election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.

When I read such a motion I have to ask the following questions: Did my colleague listen to the Speech from the Throne? Did my colleague take the time to read it? Did my colleague not hear what the journalists from television, radio and print had to say? Not some partisan petty little shot in order to score political points, but people who are out there to critique.

Yes, my dear colleagues, those whose job it is to try to tell the truth as they see it, rather than the members of the opposition, who are here to try to embarrass the government and to try to do you know what. I see a big grin.

Obviously, you know what they do.

He did not listen to the speech. He did not read the speech. He did not listen to what the journalists had to say on radio and television or in print. If he had, he would not have made that motion. Of all the motions he could have selected, of every single possibility, to show that they were indeed a responsible opposition, an opposition that saw the whole country, an opposition that was not prepared to play petty little politics at the beginning of the parliamentary session, of all the possibilities, he picked this one. He did not see the key themes.

Let me share with the House the key themes. We will balance the budget no later than fiscal year 1998-99, the first time in three decades. We will strive to split our budgetary surpluses on a 50:50 basis over the course of our second mandate. Half will go to a combination of tax reductions and debt repayment. Half will go to strategic investments in our children, our youth, our health, our communities, our knowledge and our creativity.

Those are some of the key points the hon. member who made the motion forgot to read. He also forgot there are several others worth emphasizing: investing in our children, investir de façon importante dans nos enfants.

We all know that investments in the well-being of today's children improve the long term health of the nation. I wish that would have been acknowledged by my colleagues.

We have important new initiatives. We will establish centres of excellence to deepen our understanding of children's development. We will expand the aboriginal head start program.

Are those the kinds of programs that my colleague is condemning? If so, let him stand and say so. Let him not hide behind some opposition motion brought forth to try to embarrass the government.

Did he see the one on investing in quality care and good health?

It is my impression that my colleague did not see the part about investing in good health and quality care. For some reason, he missed that. He did not take the time to listen to or read it.

We will be preserving and enhancing medicare. Canadians want that. We will be responding with expanded needs for home and community care and a national drug plan. Is that what he wants us to eliminate?

If that is what he wants, let him stand up and declare it to everybody, including his constituents.

We will be promoting health and new initiatives to address tuberculosis and diabetes in aboriginal communities. We will be renewing the national AIDS strategy. Are those the programs he wants eliminated too?

Are those the programs he wants eliminated, rejected and put aside? Does he think there are no needs in these areas, that we should not be investing in children, in health?

If he had read a bit more he would have seen that we want and are committed to building safer communities.

Building safer communities is one of the government's key objectives. There is no magic solution, despite what the political background of my colleague who has just advanced this proposal claims. It is hard work, it is complex. Progress must be made a step at a time, with healthy programs. That is what we intend to do.

We will continue with our safe homes and safe streets agenda which has helped us make solid gains in enhancing public safety. I hope my colleague does not want that program eliminated as well.

What about creating opportunities for young Canadians? Was that one of the ones he would have liked simply thrown out?

Creating opportunities for young Canadians is, to my mind, a huge priority. This has been referred to already several times since the start of the 36th Parliament. Surely he does not want to do away with these programs for our young people, push them aside, put them out of existence? That is surely not the case.

We will secure the future of our young people. We have important priorities to make sure the young generation makes a successful transition to the world of work.

We know how difficult it is in usual times, and these are unusual times. It is particularly difficult to ensure that young people who want to continue to learn have access to education. That is a critical priority for the welfare of all. It is difficult to be absolutely certain young people who found it difficult getting started in the workplace have a second chance when necessary. They often need that second chance.

Is that what my colleague pretends is foolish, inappropriate, insensitive, wasteful spending?

Is that what he intends? Another program he wants to see eliminated?

Here is another theme that we have heard nothing about.

We must invest in knowledge and creativity.

Does he not believe that investing in knowledge and creativity is important for the nation and the welfare of all citizens? Is that what he wants eliminated? Let him stand and say so.

We are increasingly an important part of a global village in a global economy. In this new economy, knowledge, innovation and creativity are the keys to preserving and enhancing prosperity.

We want to continue partnerships between private and public sectors. We want to devise targeted growth strategies that focus on knowledge intensive sectors. We want to have small and medium size businesses develop and commercialize new technology.

Because I have additional responsibilities in this area, I want to say a few words about science, innovation and technology. We as a nation have a decision to make. We will invest in a wise, sensitive, significant way in science, innovation and technology to continue to be leaders of nations, and if we do not we will follow. We have made some important investments.

We have made some very substantial investments and I will give you just a few examples.

To the Canadian Foundation for Innovation to enhance the structure of our universities and our hospitals when research is conducted, $800 million over five years. It has been applauded by most Canadians.

I have not heard one person say that was wasteful spending as the member and his party suggest. Perhaps he is not speaking for his party. Perhaps they will stand and denounce this kind of irresponsibility.

We have stabilized with funding to the centres d'excellence.

This is a great program to ensure that universities work with the private sector and that the best projects are funded, so that we are at the forefront, that we are the leaders. Perhaps the hon. member does not enjoy being first. Perhaps third, fourth or tenth is good enough for him. But not for us.

Has he heard about the technology partnership programs where we assist businesses that want to be on the leading edge of the development of technology?

Has he heard about IRAP which has several people out there advising and assisting people who want to develop new programs and projects? Are these the kinds of programs that he thinks are wasteful and ought to be eliminated?

Has he heard about the prime minister's advisory committee on science and technology, a group of particularly talented Canadians who advise wisely on science, innovation and technology so that we can make the very best decisions possible in terms of policy options and in terms of pursuing strategic initiatives and additional partnerships? Does he want to cut that too? Does he consider that wasteful? Is that an insensitive way to spend money? I am surprised he did not talk about that.

I want to talk a bit about another key theme that I suspect might have been discussed by the Reform Party: expanding opportunities in aboriginal communities.

We know we must improve opportunities for aboriginal communities. We all know that, in the vast majority of cases, their financial situation is extremely difficult. While Canadians may take infrastructures for granted, such infrastructures are non-existent on a number of reserves.

So, is this the type of programs the hon. member feels we should eliminate to further reduce the deficit and the debt? Is this what he wants to do? I hope not. I hope his colleagues do not share such unsound goals—

We on this side of the House want to see aboriginal communities become stronger and healthier. We are working to further their progress toward achieving self-government. We believe it will provide additional well-being and economic independence. That is what they want and what most Canadians want for their aboriginal brothers and sisters.

We are ready and willing to work with all interested parties to develop a long term comprehensive plan of action and partnership with aboriginal leaders and people throughout Canada.

We all realize opposition members are here to oppose, and I suppose some would say to criticize. I hope it would be to critique insightfully and sensitively a document such as the Speech from the Throne and say “Here are the initiatives we think are pretty sound. Here are other initiatives the government may want to consider. Here is how to improve them”.

No, we do not hear a positive word from any one of them. Why is that? Why? I hear from the opposition ranks that it is because they are the opposition.

If my colleagues want to say some positive things about the Speech from the Throne, about the prime minister or about my colleagues on this side of the House, we will not ask them to sit down because they happen to be in the opposition. I give them an iron clad guarantee. I have not checked with my colleagues but I suspect I could get unanimous approval.