Pat O'Brien

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague.

On article XI, 20 per cent of my constituents are agricultural people in rural settings. As the hon. member well knows, one of the first issues the government dealt with was article XI. My constituents and I submit that most Canadian farmers understand, as the member said, we could not do much about it. Canada stood alone and voted to maintain article XI. I do not know what else the government could have done than to stand alone, virtually totally alone in the world on something that important.

For my colleague's information, my riding of London-Middlesex in southwestern Ontario is one of the most active dairy farming parts of Canada. Before the budget the concern brought to me was that the government would somehow give into pressure and suddenly totally end dairy subsidies.

Frankly as late as last week some leading dairy farmers in my riding advised me that the 15 per cent cut followed by am additional 15 per cent cut was the kind of gradual, common sense reduction that would allow them to adjust. They were relieved that the government had the common sense not to suddenly end the subsidy because there were those calling for it.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

That is right. Nothing is perfect and no budget is perfect. However Canadians generally accept that the budget is tough and fair and that the cuts undertaken were necessary.

Let me come to my constructive criticism that I have had the opportunity to make personally to the Prime Minister. In certain cases we could be selectively tougher. That is the way I would put it.

I hope future budgets will be a little tougher on wealthy individuals and corporations. I applaud the move to be tougher with the banks, but perhaps we will have to go further. Quite frankly the signal I hear from the minister and from the government. There is a message in the budget for the banks, for wealthy individuals and for corporations that there are other budgets to come and if they are not going to do more to help the economy of the country get going tougher measures can be brought in. This is something I will be watching closely as a Canadian and as a member of Parliament on the government side of the House.

The specifics of the budget are well known, but let me recall for Canadians two or three of the most important points. The key interim deficit target, as I said, was met and exceeded as my colleagues have pointed out: 3 per cent GDP by 1996-97.

The debt to GDP ratio, the size of the debt relative to the economy, begins to decline in 1996-97. The cartoon many of us saw was very appropriate. It was of Canada moving along the road, suddenly hitting something called the Martin budget and making a significant turn in the road. The budget represents a significant turn in the road. We are now on the path to getting out of the deficit and debt spiral we have put ourselves in for too long as a country.

For every dollar in new tax revenues $7 in expenditure reductions were made. That is the kind of downsizing Canadians are looking for from government.

To those who say that the budget was too tough, I say reflect on the debt load of the country. We do not want to see a collapse of our social programs. The cuts that were undertaken are necessary to ensure the social programs put in place by past Liberal governments, with I acknowledge many ideas coming from the NDP, will be preserved.

To those who say the budget was not tough enough, I say consider the reduced spending, the downsizing of government and the hitting of our targets. Indeed it was a job well done. Seventy per cent of Canadians support the budget. That is the reality.

I know it is not politically popular in certain parts of the House to acknowledge that fact. I understand that, but the reality is that it has been a widely accepted budget. It is one that Canadians can look forward to seeing repeated in years to come by the minister and the government.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

He exceeded those targets. They see this not as the ultimate end but as a major step in the right direction, contrary to what we have witnessed over the past several years.

What the minister has done in the budget is put the Canadian family on a diet. We have gained an unhealthy, crushing weight which must be lost. We know that. It is the deficit and the debt. This weight was not gained suddenly. It was not gained overnight. No one party, no one group of our society is at fault here, despite the views of some that look for simplistic answers and are quick to point the finger. This crushing weight was gained as a nation and that is how it must be lost. It must be lost gradually. It will not be effectively lost in any sudden downsizing or slash and burn approach to the problem.

Similarly it is a sensible way for an individual to lose weight. Canadians are all too familiar with the problem, many of them being overweight, as I confess to be. It is the sensible approach to take in trying to deal with the serious economic problems we face.

In October 1993 two visions were put before the people of Canada about this serious problem. There was the gradual, determined downsizing approach of our party and the more dramatic, sudden effort to downsize put forward by the Reform Party. In a democratic way the people of Canada spoke on October 25, 1993. They made it very clear with the results by passing judgment on the previous government's efforts in this regard. They very clearly chose between the two options presented by the Liberal Party and the Reform Party.

It is clear to me as it is to most Canadians that this nation deliberately chose a sensible, gradual approach to downsizing and to eliminating the deficit and debt. Given the reception of the budget in the two weeks since it was presented, Canadians have once again endorsed this approach.

Acceptance of this budget is very high. National and international financial experts have lauded it as balanced, as fair, as a common sense way to deal with our problems. I am not necessarily enamoured of experts, frankly. The people I am most interested in hearing from are the people of Canada. Roughly 70 per cent of them-this has varied by a point here or there from day to day-have consistently said they are pleased with the budget brought in by the Minister of Finance.

There are those critics that feel the budget was too easy, too soft and not tough enough. It is interesting because in consulting very widely with my constituents I have not heard that from the poor in the country. I have not heard it from the unemployed. I have not heard from the disadvantaged that the budget was too easy or too soft. I would submit that it certainly was not too easy or too soft.

Then we have critics who suggest that the budget is much too fair and is draconian in what it is attempting to do. I do not hear that from people who are trying to find work and are looking to us to help create jobs.

The unemployed with whom I have spoken know full well that if the government is to help create the climate for jobs and help them find meaningful employment, it will be done by putting our financial house in order.

I was gratified to hear from some of the unemployed in my riding that they understand the minister had to make the tough choices he made and the road to their personal economic future is that the nation's finances must be put back in order.

We hear seven or eight provinces claiming to be the hardest hit. How seven or eight provinces are hardest hit by the budget is beyond me, but that is exactly what we have been hearing.

When I hear a cry from one side that it is much too tough and from the other side that it is not tough enough, I am inclined to say that many of my constituents believe the budget is well balanced. It is tough but fair and the minister got it about right.

They do not like all of the budget. I do not like each and every single thing in the budget. Certainly Canadians do not like the pain that is in the budget for them individually, be they farmers in western Canada or some of my farm constituents, be they business people-

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has been two weeks now since the Minister of Finance presented his budget. I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on it and to share some of the views of my constituents after having two weeks to consider its implications.

The people of London-Middlesex have been very congratulatory toward the Minister of Finance. Despite the remarks of some members in the opposition they are very pleased the minister actually met the deficit targets he had set. There may be debate about those targets but he announced the targets and actually met them. He is the first minister to do so in years. This was very positively received by my constituents.

[Petitions, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition which calls on Parliament to oppose amendments to the federal Criminal Code to include hate crimes legislation.

[The Budget, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments. What she seems to ignore in her comments is the reaction from all the financial experts, both at home and abroad.

Almost universally the reaction to this budget from everyone except members of the Reform Party is very positive. In fact, in many glowing terms we hear how the finance minister has turned the corner on this country's debt and deficit problem. Yet the member says there should be no credit for the finance minister. I would remind the hon. member that for nine years the previous government was not able to meet its targets, yet this finance minister has done so two years in a row.

Quite frankly a misstatement was made that $25 billion is the ultimate goal of the finance minister. It is not even fair to say that on the floor of this House. The minister has been quoted publicly many times as stating that the ultimate goal is the total elimination of the deficit and debt. That is the ultimate goal. The minister has made that eminently clear. The research by the Reform Party seems to be awfully selective on these points.

Now to my question for the Reform Party member and the Reform members heckling as I speak. If there is such concern and compassion in the Reform Party for this country's social security system, why did the blue budget plan, the so-called taxpayers' budget of the Reform Party-if ever there was a misnomer that is one-slash so severely the seniors' pension plan? How can that be offered as some concern for the citizens of this country?

[Petitions, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as a member of Parliament to present three petitions today which oppose including the phrase sexual orientation in various pieces of federal legislation.

[National Forum On Health, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, with Canada's health care system at a crossroads, the Prime Minister has wisely established the National Forum on Health to develop a vision for Canada's health system into the 21st century. This vision must be capable of achieving a balance between care and health promotion, prevention and protection measures.

From various backgrounds and regions of the country, members of the health forum are seeking to identify national priorities and encouraging dialogue among Canadians on medium and long term health issues. Over the coming months they will focus discussion and assist in developing strategies to improve the health of Canadians.

I am proud that a member of the London community was appointed to the health forum. Ms. Shanti Radcliffe brings to the forum her experience in community based health for youth, women, seniors and immigrants. I commend Ms. Radcliffe and all members of the health forum as they help to ensure Canada has the best health care system in the world.

[International Development Week, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this week, International Development Week, is a time for Canadians to become more aware of the challenges facing people of developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. It is also time to recognize the effectiveness of the Canadian international development programs that support sustainable development and alleviate poverty in developing countries.

With assistance programs, more than 80 per cent of the world's children have been immunized, sanitation and water quality have improved, more people are living longer and healthier lives, food production has tripled, and there is greater literacy in the world.

Co-operation between governments, the private sector, the United Nations, international banks and other organizations has and will continue to bring immeasurable benefits to the global community. During International Development Week we should keep in mind that we do after all share one world and a common future.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague for his very interesting remarks and ask him to share his experience with us on this point.

All too often in my view we have heard-as he said in his remarks-names put forward that because there is some sort of party connection, that person should somehow be disqualified. Does the member in his experience feel that when a person levels that sort of a charge, there should be an onus on that person to show the individual appointed is in fact unqualified for the position? To do otherwise is just to smear people who may have this or that political affiliation, if that is the sole reason. It is my view that the onus should be on the accuser to put the case when they make the accusation.

I wonder if the member would share his experience and his point of view on that idea.