Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
It is my privilege to rise in the House today to participate in the budget debate. I compliment the Minister of Finance on a masterful budget the addresses the concerns of the business community, the international markets and the Canadian taxpayer. He has made great strides to bring our deficit under control and meet the targets we set in our election campaign. In 1996-97 we will reach the 3 per cent of GDP target we outlined.
Over the last few days a great deal of speculation about the budget has been replaced by some pretty confident and solid comments about the Canadian economy. They have been addressing the positives in terms of what we have seen in the budget.
Mr. John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Business, said that it was very believable and very credible. The powerful Canadian Manufacturers Association called the budget the first serious attempt at resolving Canada's books and balancing them properly. The Montreal based bank, the Laurentian Bank of Canada, led the way in cutting its prime rate by one-quarter of one per cent on budget night. Since then and through this week we have seen the Canadian dollar go to a solid 72 cents. At the same time most of our lending institutions announced that they would be cutting their lending rates from one-quarter to one-half per cent. Mortgage rates will be down.
What does this mean to the average Canadian taxpayer? It means that we will have more money in our pockets. Average Canadian taxpayers are making payments on loans and on mortgages. When they come up for renewal they will be paying less for borrowing that dollar. It is a positive point about the Canadian economy. It is the point that will create more spending, bring back consumer confidence and lead us to more jobs.
Over the past 10 years Canadians heard finance ministers Wilson and Mazankowski give budget speeches that promised to reduce the debt and the deficit. Their assumptions and targets were so far off base that year after year we fell well below the targets. They mismanaged the economy badly. When they were elected in 1984 the debt of the country was $168 billion. In nine
short years from 1984 to 1993 they tripled the debt, going from $168 billion to $500 billion.
At the same time, the Canadian government under Wilson and Mazankowski had to keep interest rates high to attract the bulging demand for foreign capital. We as a country became more and more subject to foreign investors. We became more and more a country with rising foreign debt. As a result we needed a major change and the Canadian public was well aware of it. Our Liberal government when elected in 1993 set realistic, achievable goals.
This year's budget, with a total saving of $29 billion over three years, is realistic. It is achievable. As a result, because we based our budget on basic, realistic, achievable goals in our economy, we as a government will create a positive climate that will move forward in a very positive way. I forecast that not just three years down the line but in five years from today, by the year 2000, we will be looking at a no deficit budget. We will be looking at a balance sheet where we can start digging into the debt and reducing it.
What does the budget mean to the average Canadian taxpayer? As I said, money is going to be in their pockets through reduced interest and borrowing costs.
I have heard the opposition complain very bitterly that Canadian taxpayers will have to pay an excise tax on gasoline. Yes, we added 1.5 cents to the cost of a litre of gasoline. There is no question about that. I would suggest that when average Canadian taxpayers fill up their cars once a week they probably put 50 litres in their gas tanks. The increase will amount to 75 cents a week or the price of a cup of coffee. Would they rather pay the price of a cup of coffee and see their mortgage rates go down or, as Reformers would state, have absolutely no expenses? I do not see their logic. I do not see their reasoning. I have talked with a lot of Canadians and they are not upset by the 1.5 cents per litre increase.
There are, however, other people in this dimension. Over the last several months large corporations and banks have announced record profits in their businesses in Canada. They have been targeted to help reduce our deficit, as well they should be. Over the next three years we expect to generate $910 million from tax increases to very prosperous institutions. They as a group have been demanding that the government get spending under control, and they are the group that has a responsibility in helping us do so.
My riding of Essex-Kent in southwestern Ontario is very dependent upon agriculture for its livelihood. It is an industry that producers over half a billion dollars in the two counties of Kent and Essex that I represent. We are very mindful of the partnership between government and the agri-food industry working together in that sector.
The government in streamlining research has designated some areas as centres of agricultural excellence. In southwestern Ontario the Harrow Research Centre will become a national centre of excellence for research in the greenhouse industry and the food processing industry. Streamlining services in Harrow will centre the research where the high concentration of greenhouses and processing crops is. The value added and tax initiatives that very instrumental to Essex and Kent counties will help our economy a great deal.
In the Chatham area we will see an ethanol plant that will have a great impact on the economy. The plant is a result of a real desire on behalf of the government to improve value added production in Canada. The benefits of the initiative have great potential across the country. There are very serious concerns about MMT that is presently being used to boost the octane of most Canadian gasolines. Ethanol is far more environmentally friendly and will be the choice of Canadians in the future.
Liberals can take pride in our legacy of caring for people and ensuring that our seniors will be financially secure. Measures have been introduced to guarantee their incomes and to make certain that over time in the future they will have definite pension plans that will pay to support them. They can be sure that with the studies and discussions presently ongoing the old age security and guaranteed income supplements will remain. The government will remain committed to providing a fair, reasonable and equitable situation for them.
Cash transfers to the provinces have been questioned very much. I was a little appalled this morning when I saw Bob Rae on television complaining about Canadian support to the provincial government. Bob Rae, the premier of Ontario, has totally mismanaged the economy of Ontario. Between 1990 and 1994 the federal government increased its funding for Ontario hospitals, colleges and universities by 26 per cent, while Bob Rae only increased funding to hospitals, colleges and universities by 17 per cent.
What does that mean? It means that Bob Rae did not participate in those services as the federal government has and did not carry his fair share. He mismanaged the economy and downgraded services, accepting totally the transfers from the federal government but not spending them within the province with matching funds.
It has to be made clear in looking at the services that above all we are trying to make certain Canadians across the land get fair and equitable treatment.
