Dianne Brushett

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that every member has come here with honesty and integrity, working their buns off 24 hours a day in some instances for seven days a week. I do not think many came here looking for the pension. My only hope is that I live long enough to enjoy it after the gruelling work days we go through.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-85. I would like to ask hon. members to think carefully about some of the issues underlying the design of the pension plan.

Over the last few years there has been a growing chorus of complaints from Canadians about the generosity of the pension plan. In general, the complaints focused on two features of the plan. The first was the immediate availability of regular monthly pension payments from the day of leaving Parliament for the rest of the individual's life. The second was the frequency with which former members were seen as being rewarded, not only with this lifetime benefit but with appointments to highly paid posts in public life.

The first criticism is certainly understandable. We all understand that the purpose of a pension plan is to provide income for individuals who have reached an age when ability and willingness to work have declined. At that stage of life it is reasonable to think that retirement from the workforce should be possible without catastrophic alterations in lifestyle expectations. That is why our system of taxation includes measures to encourage Canadians to save toward retirement years during their employment years and encourages employers to participate in the goal by providing employer sponsored pension plans.

While undoubtedly improvements could be made, I cannot imagine that anyone seriously questions the importance of maintaining a system of tax assistance for retirement savings. Obviously the question of when it is reasonable to begin receiving what is meant to be retirement income is a different matter.

We should really ask ourselves if we have in place adequate financial arrangements to allow a member of Parliament, who leaves the House before what could be considered normal retirement, to make the transition back to private life in a reasonable way.

The answer to that question, however, is not to begin paying a pension to someone who is only in his or her thirties or forties. Such a person will look for employment elsewhere and most likely will continue to accumulate retirement savings so that ultimately on retirement pension may come from several sources.

The establishment of a minimum pensionable age for the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act as proposed in the bill ensures that the pension plan takes its place as building a portion of ultimate retirement income for a person who may have several different types of employment during a full career.

As I have indicated, I fully support the action proposed in the bill with respect to the issue of what is commonly referred to as double dipping by former members who are receiving pensions and are appointed or become employed in federal jurisdictions.

To a great extent the problem has its genesis in the previous issue of the age at which pensions have become payable. The public is understandably concerned when a 40-year old is drawing both a generous pension and a salary from public funds. Obviously it would not be fair. Nor would it be in the public interest to preclude qualified former members from public service at the national level. However it is fair and respects the public view to act in the manner proposed in the bill to expect the former member to report such income and receive less or no pension for the period concerned.

The legislation responds to two specific criticisms of our pension arrangements. I commend the President of the Treasury Board for carrying through on our commitment in this area. I draw attention to the fact, however, that the president has gone even further and has made a very significant change in the formula used to calculate benefits under the plan. The change will affect all present and future members of the House by reducing the level of pension benefits earned.

Until this time members of the House of Commons have earned pensions at the rate of 5 per cent of average sessional indemnity for each year of pensionable service. For service after the bill takes effect the rate will be reduced to 4 per cent of average indemnity. This means that members will be earning 20 per cent less pension in future, which I am sure anyone would agree is a very significant reduction in retirement expectation for members of Parliament.

For example, based on current indemnity levels, a member will be accumulating $640 less pension for each year of service. We are told by the President of the Treasury Board that this reduction coupled with the introduction of a minimal pensionable age will amount to ongoing savings to taxpayers of something like 33 per cent of the present cost of the plan. This would mean that government contributions to the plan would be lower by more than $3 million every year.

Undoubtedly some will say this reduction is not enough, that the government has not gone far enough, that MPs are not worth what they are paid, that pensions are part of the compensation and so on, that the plan goes far beyond what is provided elsewhere, that the plan is illegal, and that no one else in the country would be permitted to have such a plan.

Clearly the question of how much is enough is one with no factual answer. Every Canadian will reach his or her own conclusion on whether or not the government has gone far enough.

A number of points should be considered by the thoughtful people of the House before coming to a conclusion. I should like to address the much publicized view that the plan is illegal in some way. Those who suggest that no other Canadian could have such a pension arrangement because of other legislation such as the Income Tax Act are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the rules.

While the income tax rules for registered pension plans are complex, the general concept is simple. The rules put limits on the maximum benefits that can be accumulated under a pension plan and thus govern the amount of contributions that can be made and tax sheltered. The rules do not prevent individuals or employers from setting aside other funds to provide additional retirement savings. They simply do not provide tax assistance for such savings.

As well, where employers sponsor such additional arrangements and set aside funds to pay for them, I am told that special tax rules come into play that considerably increase the cost of providing the benefits by applying a refundable tax of 50 per cent of all revenues to the plan.

The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act was amended in 1992 to conform with the rules we expect other employers to obey. Part I of the plan provides the benefits that are permitted under the tax rules, while part II provides the benefits that are offside of the rules. The benefits are provided on a funded basis, which means the contributions are made at a level that provides for the 50 per cent tax I mentioned.

While this is a complicated and technical area, it is important to understand the plan provides an arrangement that is not denied to any other Canadian by law. The reason it is done this way is to ensure we disclose to the public the full cost of providing the benefits on the basis available to any other employer. That is why the government is paying taxes to itself to ensure full disclosure.

Having ventured into the arcane and mysterious world of tax treatment of pension plans, I will with some trepidation presume to place on the record a few thoughts about the financing arrangements for MPs pensions.

We have heard many allegations about the total amount that members will receive in pension benefits over their lifetime. Often these comments are accompanied by the suggestion that there would be huge but unknown demands placed on future taxpayers to cover the cost of pensions. The suggestion is that we are hiding from the public the total obligations that are coming in the future. This is simply not true. It is not the case.

The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act imposes the requirement that each year the government contributes the amount which together with members' contributions will pay the cost of benefits earned by all serving members in that year. This means that enough money must be put in the pension account and shown as a government expenditure to provide for all pensions that will be paid in future in respect of members' service in that year.

In addition, every three years a report must be tabled in Parliament from the government's actuary giving his professional advice on whether or not the amounts in the plan are adequate to cover all the benefits to become payable under the plan. If there are shortages, the government must make additional contributions to cover them. This is disclosure.

While the funding of pensions is another complex and technical area, the point to be understood is that the full cost of all benefits, including those which may not be payable for many years hence, are recognized and expensed as the liabilities accrue. There are no hidden obligations which will only surface at some future date.

As I have indicated, these pension arrangements are legal. The proposal in Bill C-85 will make them significantly less generous for the future. I do not suggest this pension plan will be typical of the retirement arrangements found on average. It will still constitute a very good plan. Undoubtedly, some of the public and some members feel we should have gone further than a 20 per cent reduction in pension, but the consequences of such a step should be examined.

Rational people would agree that you get what you pay for. They would agree that members of Parliament should be fairly compensated for the work done on their behalf. It is unlikely that many of us are here for the generosity of the compensation package. I hope we are here in the spirit of service to our fellow citizens. We are here to do a very important job in the best way we can to serve our constituents.

The decision to seek public office is seldom an easy one in personal terms. It may involve personal sacrifice for each and every individual and for those closest to him or her in terms of their private time and their privacy. It certainly can involve financial sacrifice in terms of interrupting or abandoning a career outside government.

The question is: What level of compensation do we believe is necessary to ensure that qualified individuals continue to offer themselves for the service of this great country?

The Sobeco study commissioned by the previous government and tabled in 1992 certainly indicated that the overall com-

pensation package for members of this honourable House was less than that provided to individuals employed in other sectors in terms of what the report sees as equivalent responsibilities.

The authors of that study, who are professionals in the compensation field, did suggest that one element of the package, the pension plan, was unduly rich and should be cut back in favour of greater direct compensation. We are making a 20 per cent cut in that level of pension and instituting a pensionable age, a step the report also recommended. We are not increasing our pay. In fact, sessional indemnities remain frozen at the 1992 level and will for two years to come, and maybe more.

We have gone a long way in Bill C-85 in responding to the public's outcry that we do reform MPs pensions. We have gone beyond the promise in the red book that there would be an age limit and that we would reduce the input. We have responded to the public's interest and to their concerns while maintaining a compensation package that will not discourage well-qualified candidates from coming forward to serve this great institution.

We should not be reluctant to say to Canadians that we believe what we are doing on their behalf is important enough that it warrants a fair compensation package and that we will listen to their response.

[Motorcycle Awareness Month, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday on behalf of the Government of Canada, I proclaimed the month of May in Nova Scotia as Motorcycle Awareness Month. It is a time to raise the awareness of all motorists to the presence of the two wheeled vehicles that share the road. It is a time to promote education and safety among bike enthusiasts.

Since the end of World War II, motorcycles have increased in popularity, especially among the Canadian and American veterans who used them overseas. They were the ones who formed the first bike club as a means of recreation and fellowship in community service.

A motorcycle ride can be one of the most exhilarating experiences as I found out last Saturday when I was a passenger on a ride through Truro following the blessing of the bikes.

I congratulate the members of the organization, the Responsible Bikers of Nova Scotia, who have not had an accident or a death since their founding.

I urge all members of this House to participate in similar education programs.

[Volunteers, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, April 23 to the 29 marked provincial volunteer week in Nova Scotia, and throughout my riding numerous receptions were held to honour the wonderful people who volunteer in our communities.

There can be no dollar value placed on the selfless commitment of time and hard work by thousands of volunteers who make our communities better places to live.

Many seniors groups throughout Cumberland-Colchester have asked me to publicly thank the Ministry of Health for sponsoring the new horizons grants which help volunteers in so many communities to assist seniors projects helping seniors.

Volunteerism is alive and well. I thank the thousands of volunteers in Cumberland-Colchester who serve our communities which make Canada the number one country in which to live.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

Recently I brought to the minister's attention the fact that there may be loopholes in the regulations governing the goods and services tax as it applies to the sale of new and used automobiles.

Can the minister inform the House if he is investigating this matter to assure consumers that GST paid to automobile dealers is passed on to national revenue?

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

It is a great pleasure for me to participate in the debate on health care today. There are few issues which we speak of here which touch as many Canadians as health care. It is a central issue to the people of my riding, as it is to all Canadians. They appreciate the security which our health care system gives them and they firmly believe that commitment must be continued.

As we are in a time when there are questions about the commitment, some in the House favour steps which I believe would move us down the road to a two tier system, one for those with money, another for those without. Some in the House favour the balkanization of health care with a withdrawal of federal government from any real role in the health care field. How much support is there really for either of these perspectives? From what I hear from my constituents, not very much. They support the leadership which the federal government has taken on health care issues.

Leadership does not mean rigid centralization. In my remarks today I want to emphasize the flexible nature of federal co-operation in health care. More specifically, I want to talk about the Canada Health Act. This law is not a straight-jacket on the provinces; not now, nor has it been, nor will it be in the future.

The Canada Health Act is a very short piece of legislation. At its heart are five principles grounded in common values which we hold as Canadians, values very close to the hearts of every Canadian. They represent the essential ground rules that most Canadians expect the provincial and territorial governments to respect when it comes to guiding principles of the Canada Health Act. Let me talk about each one of them and the reasons for which every one still matters to the federal government and to every single Canadian.

The first principle is universality. Quite simply, the federal government provides financial support to provincial health insurance plans, plans that cover all citizens. People cannot lose their health insurance because they might be too costly for the system to cover or because they may be unemployed or because their health may be a high risk.

The second principle is accessibility. This means we should not face any financial barriers in receiving necessary health care: no extra billing, no user fees, no facility fees. If the service is medically necessary it will be delivered on the basis of medical considerations, not financial considerations.

The third principle is comprehensiveness. It recognizes Canadians have a range of health care needs and that those needs should be met. The Canada Health Act requires that all medically necessary services be covered.

The fourth principle is portability. This means Canadians should maintain their health coverage when they travel.

The fifth principle is public administration. Our health insurance plans must be operated by a public authority accountable to provincial governments and operated on a non-profit basis.

At various times since the act was passed in 1984 there have been issues that have brought these principles into focus. Between 1984 and 1987 extra billing and user charge penalties were levied against several provinces.

More recently, extra billing has occurred in British Columbia and we have acted by making deductions to the transfer payments. We now see other questions emerging, for example, as the Government of Alberta pushes its agenda of private, for profit health care.

These principles do not extend to dictating how provinces should run their system or what they should cover. Since the beginning of federal support for health care in 1957, decisions regarding what is a medically necessary service have been up to each of the provinces to determine. After all, they manage the system. They have the constitutional authority. They work with the appropriate medical experts and also pay a substantial portion of the cost. It is not for Ottawa to say this procedure or that procedure must or should be covered.

It is better to leave the responsibility of determining medical necessity to the provinces and to physicians who deliver services and are aware of the circumstances under which they are delivered.

The Canada Health Act also leaves much to the discretion of provinces; ensuring the services of health care professionals other than physicians, charging for semi-private or private room accommodations requiring prior consent for elective health services provided out of province, and financing for a variety of methods not including those that require point of service charges.

Remember, the Canada Health Act does not force a province to comply to its requirements. The provinces can accept the cash penalties and allow the non-compliant situation to persist.

These facts alone show that any claims of rigid centralization are simply not founded. That will continue to be the case as we renew the health system.

The federal government and the provinces recognize the health system has to change. Provincial authorities are trying many different ideas in their efforts at renewal. They will continue to experiment but as long as they adhere to the five principles of the Canada Health Act it is unlikely there will be any disputes.

Not one of the principles in the Canada Health Act prevents us from looking at innovative solutions to health care issues. They simply define the limits of the system in a way that Canadians who rely on the system want it to continue. It is not a free for all. Canadians believe some limits are necessary and useful to preserve our accessible and comprehensive health care system which is available to all Canadians.

The federal government is equally committed to finding better ways to achieve our health goals. The most high profile element in that approach is the National Forum on Health. This was a red book commitment and it is a commitment that we have met.

The forum was created to help us adapt our health care system to the new social and economic realities of today. It will create a vision for health in the 21st century. It is made up of 24 Canadians, health care professionals, volunteers and health care consumers from across the country. It is chaired by our Prime Minister, with the Minister of Health acting as vice-chair.

Canadians understand these issues, as does the forum. They want to spark a frank and open dialogue with each citizen about the challenges that will influence the kind of health care we will receive in the future.

There is the impact of technology, the impact of new drugs, of aging and emerging possibilities thanks to research and great technological innovations. Our challenge is to deal with them in a thorough, comprehensive and sensitive way.

We anticipate an open process of consultation that reflects the attachment Canadians feel toward health issues and the commitment to finding real solutions. The government believes the National Forum on Health represents an excellent opportunity to address the future of health of all Canadians in a comprehensive and open way.

The forum is not going back to square one. It is working within the principles of the Canada Health Act quite simply because those are fundamental values that every Canadian has asked the government to respect, to maintain and to deliver on.

I want to end my remarks by saying that despite the ill informed critics, the Canada Health Act is still a valuable piece of legislation, one that enjoys the greatest support of the public. It is probably the greatest factor that binds Canadians together today. It is the underpinning of a system based on universal access to high quality, efficiently run health care. It is not a monument and our task is to find new and efficient ways to achieve better health goals for all Canadians.

As we undertake this process the federal government will continue to be an important source of the funding that keeps the system going. It will continue to be a staunch defender of the Canada Health Act. It will still work with medical practitioners and professionals, but we will protect the system.

The federal government intends to play the national role in health care that Canadians have asked us to do and that Canadians expect we will do. The Canada Health Act will be an important and flexible part in the role of health care in the future.

[Cree Nation, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, recently, Domtar and Mishtuk built a sawmill in Waswanipi, in northern Quebec, as a joint venture. The new company is 55 per cent owned by aboriginal people and 45 per cent by Domtar.

We have here a perfect example of a large corporation contributing to the self-sufficiency of an aboriginal nation. Eighty long term jobs will be created for the Cree.

This initiative should also be commended for its approach to sustainable management of our forests. Today I want to pay tribute to Chief John Kitchen of the Cree Nation and to the Domtar management team.

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

On March 27 of this year, Statistics Canada released its study on 39 medical procedures performed in hospitals across Canada. One of the procedures studied was hysterectomies. The hysterectomies that are performed on the women in my riding of Cumberland-Colchester are at a very high rate, as a matter of fact an alarming rate, the highest in the country. We have almost 1,137 hysterectomies performed per 100,000 women, when the national average is approximately 437.

In the county next to mine, Annapolis Valley, the rate is 137 per 100,000 women. That is a significant spread. Ten times more hysterectomies are performed in Cumberland County than in Annapolis County and they are in the same province of Canada.

This is a health issue. We know there are major causes of female problems that warrant hysterectomies. The number one cause is cancer of the ovaries, the cervix or the uterus; trophoblastic disease is another cause; fibroids; endometriosis; birth control in women where pregnancy would have meant certain death; and a few other reasons, such as Down's Syndrome, resulting in mentally handicapped children.

Hysterectomies are a very normal procedure, but they are an invasion of women's health. That concerns me very definitely and very sincerely.

We have tracked down the sincerity and the integrity of these numbers. They originated in the Department of Health in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and they have been tracked to the hospitals. The numbers have great significance, they have integrity and they are valid.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is, will we investigate this phenomenal anomaly, which is very significant to the invasion of women's health? Whether it is due to overzealous doctors looking for cash crops on surgical procedures or whether it is due to fundamental underlying health problems for the women of Cumberland County, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to pursue this great anomaly.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis for his comments. We have enjoyed a valuable asset in the rail system in building this country.

Many times I have gone through the province of Quebec, growing up in New Brunswick and living in Nova Scotia. It is part of our whole eastern heritage, part of our whole country.

These assistance programs are antiquated. They have come through the British North America Act in 1920, 1930, 1940. I say again that they are antiquated. It is important that we update and modernize. Our manufacturers, our grain growers, our furnace makers in Nova Scotia, our farmers, wherever they are, in Quebec or Nova Scotia have the same needs: to move products to the marketplace.

I cited some statistics taken by StatsCanada four weeks ago. Trains have increased some 19 per cent in freight in this country. If time permitted, I could address the question of railways, how a line in Nova Scotia from Sydney to Truro, my hometown was sold. It has become privatized. It was losing a million dollars a year and now it is making several million dollars a year. The amount of freight moving through those lines has increased. This is happening with short lines across the country. They are becoming profitable.

By taking the subsidies away we are allowing our manufacturers and farmers to have more flexibility. We are allowing them to be more efficient in the 21st century, to modernize and to look at creativity under a world trade organization as well. The transitional funding allows us to get to that point and to upgrade the highways.

The hon. member for Lévis knows as well as I from Cumberland-Colchester that the highways between Quebec and Nova Scotia certainly need upgrading so that we can share in trade wealth a lot better between each other.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House to address second reading of Bill C-76.

As I have stated previously, this budget may be viewed by future historians as a watershed budget. It is a very definite turning point in the history of this government, in the government of the day, when it had the courage to make the really tough decisions, to make the necessary cuts in spending in accordance with responsible financial management.

The budget redesigns the very role and the structure of government. It is a budget which achieves large savings to reach the deficit reduction targets set out in our red book plan. This budget is the cornerstone of the foundation of sustainable finances, sustainable social policy and sustainable economic policy for the future of Canadians. The budget is about nation building. It is about values and principles rooted in fairness among the regions, compassion, and above all, economic and financial leadership.

The future of the country is at stake with a debt of $550 billion and annual deficit budgets for more than a decade now. Because of this, a huge portion of government revenues are consumed by the cost of servicing this deficit and debt, money that could otherwise provide services and programs for Canadians or better still, reduce the amount of taxes we pay. The unexpected increase in these rates since last year's budget has put tremendous pressure on deficit targets. Meeting our targets is essential to strengthen confidence and bring interest rates down. This in

turn is essential for job growth and more job creation for Canadians.

Over $13 billion in savings will be realized through spending cuts and there will be no increase in personal income tax rates. Going beyond to 1997-98, our reforms will deliver a further $13 billion in savings for a three year total of $29 billion. This is the largest set of actions in any budget since the war years in the 1940s.

We are also taking firm steps to increase tax fairness and close loopholes. The budget delivers almost $7 in spending cuts for every dollar of new tax revenue. That is very significant, a 7:1 ratio of spending cuts to taxes.

The government accepted the challenge not only with this budget, but with several budgets to come, to work toward a balanced budget. This is not politically expedient, but it is the right thing to do.

The measures taken in the budget will ensure that Canadians can face the economic challenge of international competition and that we will be able to do so with growth and confidence. This budget is about restoring confidence in government and confidence in Canadians.

Measures which were taken last year in the first budget of this government showed positive results in our economy. Economic growth is at 4.5 per cent which is the strongest of the G-7 nations. 1994 was the most impressive year ever in Canadian exports. We showed a massive trade surplus with the United States and inflation was at its lowest in three decades. There were improved business profits and some 433,000 more full time jobs.

A snapshot of our growth is found in Statistics Canada's report on railway car loadings. It showed that in a seven day period ending February 21, 1995, just a few weeks ago, the number of railway cars loaded in Canada increased 3.7 per cent from the same period a year earlier. Revenue freight loaded increased 6.9 per cent to 4.6 million tonnes. Piggyback traffic tonnage which is included in total carload traffic increased 9.5 per cent during the same period. Tonnage of revenue freight loaded as of February 21, 1995 increased 19.8 per cent from the previous year.

That is growth. Growth in freight means growth in GDP where it should be and not growth in government.

Cuts in government spending mean pain. The budget is about pain. However, the pain was spread fairly to all regions. In the west, grain transportation subsidies were eliminated, while in the east the Atlantic region freight assistance program was abolished. However, both the west and the east, including Quebec, will receive transitional funding helping to alleviate shipper hardship and upgrade transportation infrastructure.

The bill also proposes the elimination of the Atlantic freight subsidies under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act. This measure will take effect in December of this year. It will save nearly $100 million.

The MFRA and the later ARFAA subsidies derive from recommendations of the 1927 report of the royal commission on maritime claims, the Duncan commission. The report noted that the BNA Act had guaranteed construction of the Intercolonial Railway, an obligation long met at the time the Duncan commission was appointed. The commission concluded however that there was a particular intention behind the enactment of this guarantee and on its interpretation of this intention recommended a reduction in freight rates.

Therefore, we had the Atlantic freight subsidies program. However, it has proven inefficient in reducing shipper costs. Moreover, it has encouraged companies to structure their investments and organizations to meet regulatory criteria rather than for sound business reasons. The subsidies are of marginal and declining importance to regional economic activity, since transportation services in the region are now more competitive than they once were.

To help ensure that elimination of the subsidy contributes to a better transportation system, the budget announced a five year $326 million transportation adjustment program. Provinces will be able to target assistance under the program to meet local shippers' needs and upgrade infrastructure. Among other things, this should help to modernize the highway system in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.

The people of Nova Scotia know that the backbone of the economy is small business and that Atlantic Canada ended 1994 with the highest rate of growth per capita. Our region grew by 2.7 per cent. This was followed by the prairie region.

One of the most important elements of the bill is the reformation of transfers to the provinces. This represents new federalism. The federal government wants to create a transfer system that functions better and is more fiscally sustainable.

The centrepiece of this reform is the replacement beginning in 1996-97 of established programs financing for health and post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan with a single consolidated block transfer, the Canada health and social transfer.

The Canada health and social transfer represents a new approach to federal-provincial relations. This new approach is marked by greater flexibility for provincial governments and more sustainable financing arrangements. It continues the evolution toward more mature fiscal responsibility.

The Liberal government approach to provincial transfers passes three important tests. First, the federal government has hit itself harder through cuts. Second, we have given the provinces ample time, that is, one year notice of our intentions.

Third, the reduction in transfer payments is equitable. This is where the fairness comes in again.

Under the previous government the 1980s were a time of greed, a time of surplus and a time of waste. The 1990s under the present government are a time of basic need, not greed, a time of high efficiency and productivity, and a time of sustainability, not waste. It is a time to sustain our finances as well as our environment, our resources and as we all know, our fish stocks.

We made a commitment to the men and women of Canada to reduce the deficit while restructuring social policy. We take that commitment very seriously.

The budget of February 1995 is more than a bunch of numbers. It is one part of a very large social plan, an economic plan, as well as a financial plan. It maps out a very prudent and courageous incredible path, not only for our generation but more important, for the next generation of young Canadians to come. I urge all hon. members to support this bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I did enjoy the hon. member Fraser Valley East's speech on the budget. However, I would like to ask him if he has given consideration to the fact the deficit and debt did not

happen overnight. It has accumulated over a period of time. With respect to the budget, we are taking a planned period of time to deal with it very prudently and efficiently.

When the hon. member says we have no plan, we did have a plan and we made promises according to the plan to reduce the deficit. That is the number one priority on Canadians' minds today.

If the member feels the budget is something he cannot vote for, as he has indicated, why was the budget presented a few weeks ago by the Reform Party so heartily rejected by all Canadians and this budget so readily accepted?