Lost his last election, in 2011, with 8% of the vote.
Supply October 25th, 1994
Municipalities, yes, I certainly agree with you, since I was a municipal councillor for 11 years in Ville Saint-Lambert, in my riding, on the South Shore of Montreal. They never had a deficit in Saint-Lambert or in any of the neighbouring towns or anywhere in Quebec, for that matter. If a town runs a deficit in one year, the deficit is transferred to the following year's budget. If this principle were applied by the federal government, it would not have a $500 billion deficit today.
Supply October 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from the Bloc Quebecois for this array of very relevant questions.
First, I would like to tell you that I agree completely with what you said, especially concerning the accounts payable. Naturally, the Canadian government was often compared to a business; thank God it is not a private business, because if it were, either a small, a medium-sized or a large business, it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.
What you said about the accounts payable is also true for the accounts receivable. How many millions if not billions of dollars in taxes are not collected by the Canadian government? As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I can say that our committee has the opportunity to analyze the recommendations made by the auditor general. Year in and year out, the Auditor General says the Canadian government lacks rigour in the collection of accounts receivable, meaning taxes, as well as in the area of accounts payable.
You talked earlier of the restaurants here, on the Parliament Hill. Recently, I read that these restaurants do not even make enough money to pay their staff. This is absolutely absurd. Basically, this is a sign of the laxness that the Canadian government has been guilty of for many years. In previous years, in collective bargaining, the Canadian government, as an employer, never stood up to the labour unions. And we are now
in the absurd situation where the revenues of the restaurants do not even cover their manpower costs. The restaurants on the Hill do not even make enough money to cover the fixed costs, let alone the variable costs.
You also talked about the $2 million it costs the Canadian government to play war for 48 hours. You were surely alluding to the William Tell competition that was mentioned here last week. Clearly, the whole defense policy must be reviewed. The Department of National Defence has a $12 billion budget. We have seen the government try to close bases here and there in Canada. That is not the Bloc's position. We think that the defence budget should be reduced by at least 25 per cent, which represents about $3 billion. The government just has to say no to these war games and to other decisions made by the generals. We know that, historically, in Canada, as in the United States and many other countries, oftentimes it is not the Minister or the Prime Minister who runs the Department of National Defence but the generals.
When the generals submit their budgetary requirements each year, they ask for a lot of what I would call military hardware to play war games. As far as I know, the Second World War ended in 1945. It is true that Canada was involved in the Korean War. It is also true that we have sent troops to several countries as part of a multinational force in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, but I do not think that it justifies a $12 billion budget today. It is us, taxpayers, who have been paying year after year for this military hardware to please the generals and other army leaders. I think the time has come for the civilians to regain control of this $12 billion defence budget.
Supply October 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion tabled in this House by my colleague from Saint-Albert. The hon. member for Saint-Albert sits on the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, and I want to let him know that I share his point of view on the sorry state of our public finances and on the finance minister's inability to resolve Canada's public finance crisis.
I also agree with him that the government should table in this House a detailed plan to show how it intends to balance the budget as well as its action plan schedule. The Bloc Quebecois, however, does not agree with the ways advocated by the Reform Party to balance the budget. The Bloc Quebecois does not share Reform members' vision of the role government should play in the economy either.
In our opinion, the government must not only create a healthy competitive climate encouraging people to develop skills and do their best, but also protect society's poorest and most vulnerable and help them get out of the vicious circle of poverty and dependency. Where are we as taxpayers today, a year to the day after the election of a Liberal government? The two papers tabled last week by the Minister of Finance simply note the deterioration of Canada's public finances.
The minister merely describes the state of government expenditures and revenue without proposing any vigorous action plan to correct the situation and substantially reduce the deficit. Yet, the red book, which all ministers misquote almost daily to save face in response to the questions asked by the Official Opposition during Question Period, contains many promises, and I quote: "The basic elements of our approach include fiscal responsibility and fairness, deficit reduction, and a balanced and stable monetary policy".
The deficit forecast for this year is still close to $40 billion, more precisely $39.7 billion, while the forecast for next year is $32.7 billion. Even if the Liberal government met its target of reducing the deficit to $25 billion in 1996 and 1997, it would add $97.4 billion, almost $100 billion, to the $500 billion-plus debt already accumulated.
Even if the government met its goal of 3 per cent of GDP in 1996-97, it would still raise the debt to over $600 billion. Is that the deficit reduction promised by the Liberals in the red book? It is more and more unlikely that the government will succeed in keeping the deficit below the $40 billion level this year and below $33 billion next year.
The government recognizes at last, but a bit late, that the increase in interest rates, which was partly offset by the recovery this year, will entail additional cuts of up to $4.7 billion in 1995-96 and $9 billion the following year if it is to reach its objective of a deficit of no more than 3 per cent of the GDP before the end of its term.
Can we honestly talk about fiscal responsibility as the government promised in the red book? According to us, it looks more like chronic irresponsibility. In such a context, the red book looks more and more like a jumble of wishful thinking prepared just to seduce some disillusioned constituents throughout the election campaign. In that same red book, they also talked about fiscal equity.
Well, let us talk about it. The government's budgetary approach is based on the social security reform, that is on cutbacks in transfers to provinces and in social programs that will merely penalize welfare recipients and students, the unemployed and the elderly. The overtaxed middle class, which historically served as the milking cow for government taxation, is not reassured when even the Prime Minister talks about a possible hike in taxes, as opposed to what he promised during last year's campaign, and when the Minister of Finance is juggling with the idea of taxing RRSPs.
Naturally, this government lacks imagination in the fiscal area as in all other areas of management. They also promised a stable and balanced monetary policy. Interest rates have increased since spring and should increase some more during the coming months because you have to reduce the deficit if you want to relieve the upward pressure on interest rates and give more flexibility to the Bank of Canada so that it can, in turn, lower interest rates. So goes the vicious circle of indebtedness.
We in the Bloc Quebecois agree that government finances must be overhauled to reduce the risk premium Canada pays on interest rates, mainly on foreign loans. The government's budget policies should aim for a far more substantial reduction in the federal deficit. The Liberals are not on the right track and will not be able to keep their campaign promise of a balanced and stable monetary policy.
The red book says, and I quote: "A number of government programs and tax expenditures-some of which have been identified by the auditor general-are inefficient, poorly managed, or motivated by purely economic reasons. Just as we are proposing new measures to grow the economy, we will examine such programs with the objective of reducing waste and inefficiency and promoting economic growth. Expenditure reductions will be achieved by cancelling unnecessary programs, stream-
lining processes, and eliminating duplication. This effort will take place in partnership with provincial governments".
How ridiculous this sounds when we read it again today, a year after the Liberals came to power. Ridiculous, especially when we compare the red book with the two instruction manuals it spawned last week: A New Framework for Economic Policy and Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate . Upon reading these two documents, which list a set of principles and indulge in a lot of wishful thinking and which are to be used for consultation purposes, we realize that, for the government, social security reform remains the cornerstone of deficit reduction and of improving the state of government finances.
According to the Minister of Finance, improving the state of government finances will be achieved, as we said earlier, through cuts in unemployment insurance, student loans and social security. The jobs and growth strategy, says the minister, is based on the following main themes: encouraging Canadians to adapt to change; rethinking the role of the state; putting the economy on the right track; and creating a healthy fiscal and monetary climate by reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GSP by 1996-97, the ultimate objective being to balance the budget.
Aside from a few very general principles, the government's new policy framework merely reminds us once again of the red book's objective which is still to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP before the end of the government's mandate. There are no concrete proposals for meeting this objective, aside from a number of haphazard budget cuts.
Given the sorry state of Canada's finances and the resulting prohibitive foreign debt, the Liberals' target of $39.7 billion in 1994-1995, again barely under the $40 billion mark despite the strong economic recovery, strikes the Bloc Quebecois as overly cautious and irresponsible in view of the size of the problem.
In order to point up the reduction in the deficit, you will recall that the Liberals overestimated the deficit in 1993-1994, the last year the Conservatives were in power, at $45.7 billion. The real deficit that year, however, was $42 billion. Without a change in policy, the government told us, the projected deficit that year would have been $41.2 billion. In our view, the minister's deficit reduction objective is still not high enough.
In a context of economic recovery, with Canadians willing to do their part, what kind of leadership is it to lower the deficit from $41.2 billion to $39.7 billion? This is a paltry $1.5 billion-it is laughable, really. The minister is not even certain that his timid attempts to improve the situation will achieve their purpose. As he told us last week, these two documents will be submitted for consultation. I, for one, have always believed that the government was elected to make decisions and to manage. The Liberals are trying to change the art of governing. For them, it seems to mean consulting.
Not only has it set its sights too low, but the Liberal government is erratic and hesitant when it comes to specific measures to eliminate an uncontrolled debt that has become uncontrollable under their leadership.
To reduce the deficit, the government must find enough manoeuvring room to meet its budget goals, which we find, as I said earlier, a little too ambitious based on the following measures. The government promised to tackle waste, duplication and mismanagement in order to reduce operating expenditures. Yet, year after year, the Auditor General finds numerous cases of waste and mismanagement. Many of his recommendations are not acted on. What about program assessment? Program expenditures now exceed $120 billion, while most federal programs evaluated cost less than $250 million.
No large-scale program has been evaluated yet, either in government departments or Crown corporations. On what basis and under what criteria will the minister responsible for reviewing all government programs conduct the promised review? Will this review integrate the Auditor General's recommendations? We do not know any more than that.
You will agree with me that the measures proposed by the Minister of Finance to create a healthy financial climate are not exactly innovative and ambitious. As the Bloc Quebecois already said, the minister only describes the government's balance sheet without proposing any concrete measure to reduce the deficit.
The reform of social programs remains this government's framework to reduce the government deficit. Although the government made a commitment not to increase taxes, the minister says in the document that "broadening the tax base is preferable to raising tax rates". What does this position mean for the future?
In the same document the minister says that given the scope of the measures needed to meet its deficit-reduction goals, the government must contemplate tax initiatives. This means that we must expect new tax increases at some point.
Tax breaks on retirement savings, or RRSPs, represent almost $15 billion, $14.9 billion to be more precise. The Liberal government must be tempted to eliminate RRSP deductions, which would reduce its annual deficit by 37 per cent in one fell swoop, without any additional streamlining effort. RRSPs account for 55 per cent of all the government's tax expenditures including the credit for charitable donations, the tax credit for research and development, the exemption for injured workers' compensation, and the largest, making up 55 per cent of the total, is RRSPs. How tempting to eliminate just one, that one, which would affect only one group of taxpayers. Only one group of taxpayers would be targeted and in one fell swoop more than half the tax expenditures would be eliminated.
The government is preparing us for this type of cut that will affect mainly the middle class. When he says that he must consider tax initiatives, the minister is surely thinking of RRSPs.
No offence to the member for St. Albert, with whom I agree, but the government has no detailed plan on how to balance the budget and will not table such a plan, nor does it have a timetable and a clear vision of the government's role in the economy.
To conclude, I will add that this government does not seem to want to keep its commitment not to raise taxes, it is vacillating and only as a last resort did it admit that it had to make more cuts to achieve its future budget objectives.
This government prefers to re-examine government programs instead of tackling the machinery of government as such. This government promised us "jobs, jobs, jobs" in the 1993 election campaign. Today, it tells us only about cuts and reducing the deficit. Its rhetoric varies depending on the prevailing circumstances, you will agree.
This government observes and consults. It gives the people no concrete measures except for cuts in social programs and in transfers to the provinces. It is counting on the economic recovery in order to avoid making painful decisions, which will be even more painful because of its indecision.
This government no doubt has a work plan that it is developing in secret while its leading lights consult left and right. Even the Prime Minister is consulting the health stakeholders to define the health care system for the next century in the absence of the provincial premiers and health ministers.
In the end, the Toronto Star 's allegations are being confirmed: the shortfall of the next two fiscal years will be recovered through made up for with cuts in social programs. That is what this government's political agenda boils down to. I believe that Quebecers and Canadians deserve better.
Management Of Government Finances October 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, year after year, the Auditor General denounces federal mismanagement that costs taxpayers billions of dollars.
Do you want some examples? What about the $4 billion wasted by inefficient federal management of real property? What about the $3 billion of contracts issued without bids, when the Auditor General himself says that $1 billion could have been saved here? And what about the billions of dollars of military spending that is no longer justified today?
Instead of slashing only social programs that meet the needs of the poorest people in our society, the government should first clean up its own yard. Examples of wasted public funds are not lacking. The government should start by properly correcting its poor management instead of blaming the unemployed for all the fiscal problems in this country.
Social Program Reform September 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, last week the Canadian Council on Social Development published its latest report on the alarming increase of poverty in Canada.
According to the council's report, social programs are working, but the labour market is very sluggish and is responsible for the problems of unemployment and poverty that we are experiencing. The Bloc Quebecois has been repeating this message since the minister launched his reform of social programs. The federal government should first and foremost concentrate its energy on an active employment policy.
The Liberals, however, have identified social programs as the main disincentive to work and have decided to cut them as a way to encourage beneficiaries to return to work. The government is working on the consequences of the problem and not on its causes. The minister will find plenty in the council's report to redirect his approach and give hope to all those who are excluded from the labour market.
Committees Of The House June 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The committee held two meetings to examine chapter 5 of the 1993 Annual Report of the Auditor General with regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, specifically the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program.
The committee is concerned that all government programs include proper financial controls. It is also of the belief that full scrutiny and approval, by Parliament, of the programs for which it allocates funds, is a vital component of financial management and control. In the case of the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program, these needs were not met fully.
Now that the program has ended, the committee strongly believes that some valuable lessons have been learned from it. These lessons have considerable relevance for the development and implementation of future programs, and ultimately for the way in which Parliament conducts its affairs.
It is out of concern that the kinds of problems experienced by NCARP be either averted or diminished in the future that the committee makes its report and recommendations. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee asks that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Interest Rates June 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, for a number of days the Liberal government has tried in every possible way to divert attention from the real causes that are helping to maintain interest rates at high levels. Government voices keep blaming the uncertainty caused by the question of Quebec's sovereignty. Why was Canada's and not Quebec's credit rating for Canadian debt in foreign currency downgraded by Moody's?
The facts are all there. Canada's finances are in poor shape mainly because of the incompetence of the present government, which did not have the nerve to bring down a budget that generates confidence among foreign investors. Let the federal
government act responsibly, for a change, when handling the financial and economic affairs of this country.
Auditor General Act June 13th, 1994
Madam Speaker, Bill C-207, tabled for first reading on February 1, 1994 by the member for Ottawa-Vanier, provides in clause 1 that the Auditor General shall report at least annually to the House of Commons. This bill also provides, in clause 4, that the Auditor General may report to the House of Commons on a study of any matter undertaken for the purposes of this act upon completion of the study.
After second reading, the public acounts committee considered this bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board moved in the public accounts committee the following amendments, which were carried on division by the committee.
The Auditor General shall report annually to the House of Commons and may make, in addition to any special report made under subsection 8(1), not more than three additional reports in any year to the House of Commons. That was the main amendment moved in the public accounts committee by the parliamentary secretary.
Where the additional reports are concerned, the Auditor General shall send written notice to the Speaker of the House of Commons of the subject matter of the report the Auditor General proposes to make under subsection (1). Then, again according to an amendment moved by the parliamentary secretary, the additional report shall be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons on the expiration of 30 days after the notice is sent or any longer period specified in the notice.
A third amendment was also moved, to subsection 8(1), concerning the presentation of a special report. It was worded as follows:
8.(1) The Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in the opinion of the Auditor General, should be reported immediately.
That clause 3 was replaced by the following:
8.(1) The Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in the opinion of the Auditor General, should not be deferred until the presentation of the next report under subsection 7(1).
This amendment was moved in the public accounts committee by the parliamentary secretary.
Since the present act, which is 17 years old, has existed, subsection 8(1) concerning special reports has never been used by an Auditor General.
As well, in his testimony before the public accounts committee on May 26, 1994, the Auditor General stated: "An amendment to allow the office to table, say, four times a year would enable me to do what I would intend to do anyway. There are few issues that cannot wait a month or two for reporting, and in those cases there is always subsection 8(1) of the current act for use in real emergencies". In fact, that section has never been used in the 17 years of the acts existence.
Why not simplify this entire system, as proposed in the amendment by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, and add to the annual report, which will continue to be tabled, the possibility of not more than three additional reports?
I have already stated in the House that the request by the member for Ottawa-Vanier during Question Period on January 20, 1994 to allow the Auditor General to increase the frequency of that person's reports was the 16th such request since July 1980; there has been a 17th in the meantime. It is time that we took action on this bill.
The federal debt, combined with that of the provinces, has now reached the critical level of 91 per cent of Canada's GDP. Furthermore, according to economist John Richards, the author of a study published by the C. D. Howe Institute, the measures announced by the Liberal government to reduce the deficit will probably fail. In Mr. Richards' opinion, it is highly probable that the present program to fight the deficit will not even achieve the most modest objectives contained in the Liberals' red book.
In the present situation of indebtedness, since we have reached a critical point and have a program to fight the deficit that is worse than shaky, why not give the Auditor General more elbow room and promote a more flexible and workable way for that person to publish work and take action?
Why put the number of reports by the Auditor General in a strait-jacket of one annual report, to which in the long term no more than three additional reports would be added?
In order to give the Auditor General more room to manoeuvre and more latitude to take action, I move the amendment tabled this morning, that is:
That clause 1 of Bill C-207 be amended by striking out lines 4 to 11 on page 1 and substituting the following therefor: The Auditor General shall report annually to the House of Commons and may make, in addition to any special report made under subsection 8(1), at least three additional reports in any year to the House of Commons.
By means of this amendment, the Auditor General could publish at least three additional reports, indeed four, five, or even more. The Auditor General could still publish the annual report, to which could be added three or more additional reports, depending on the situation.
This amendment would avoid pointless and tedious proceedings to amend the act two or three years from now to allow for more additional reports, if the Auditor General considered that appropriate, and would be in the spirit of the initial bill tabled by the member for Ottawa-Vanier, which did not put a ceiling on the number of reports by the Auditor General.
That member's bill specifies only a minimum of reports each year; the amendment moved by the parliamentary secretary puts a ceiling of three additional reports in addition to the annual report; and the amendment I am moving today is in agreement with the bill tabled by the member for Ottawa-Vanier: a minimum of three additional reports, and thus a broader base, in addition to the annual report, which would still be published.
Auditor General Act June 13th, 1994
moved:
That Bill C-207, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 1, with the following:
"under section 8(1), at least three".
Committees Of The House June 6th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
In addition to its annual report and the special reports provided for in section 8(1), the Auditor General should be allowed to present to the House up to three additional reports a year. We also recommend that the Auditor General send a detailed advance notice to the Speaker of the House. The additional report would be submitted to the Speaker of the House on the 30th day following the advance notice.