Jim Silye

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Yes, an F, not for everything that is in the budget but more for what is not in the budget. Some of the members opposite will chuckle and laugh at this but yes, he rates an F. I know he thinks the whole world is in love with him and he can walk on water but he only deserves an F.

He gets an F for failing to recognize the real problem: the debt and the interest costs to service that debt. We are headed in the right direction by reducing the deficit but the finance minister gets an F for the inconsistent application of fundamentals, for not acting quicker on spending cuts like doing them in his first year, and for not making spending cuts in other areas, not just in the Canada health and social transfer and defence.

He took $7.5 billion out of direct aid to health, education and welfare. Yet he brags about the Liberals' philosophy of caring and sharing with Canadian society is the be all and the end all to the Canadian public. Only Liberals know how to serve the Canadian public. None of the opposition parties know. The Liberals have knifed, slashed, scorched, burned $7.5 billion out of health, education and welfare. That is too much.

We say in our fresh start program that we need to reinfuse, reinject $4 billion into health and education. Where do we get this money? We get it from reallocation of the existing budget and by reducing spending in the area of direct grants and subsidies to business by $2 billion. The elimination of regional development grants are close to a billion dollars. Also, savings through priorization could generate another billion dollars.

Do we really need another infrastructure program? All provinces, including our so-called ideological cousins of Alberta and Ontario, the Conservatives, have been duped. I say to Mr. Klein and to Mr. Harris: "Wake up". What the infrastructure development is all about is fighting over budgets: one-third, one-third, one-third. The federal government has convinced the provinces that they are paying for one-third and that the other levels of government get two-thirds leverage. Whichever they are, the other two levels pay the two-thirds.

The premiers should wake up. They are forgetting there is only one taxpayer, whose high level of taxation will remain high if politicians keep spending on untimely and unnecessary projects.

I am not against infrastructure. It is important. That is why taxes are paid. Alberta has a surplus. It should apply the surplus to the infrastructure and the social services that are needed without adding to the debt, without borrowing from the federal government, which in turn borrows from taxpayers, which keeps our taxes too high.

The federal government is simply buying votes and the premiers and mayors of the country who participate are willing accomplices.

This good but not great finance minister has raised tax revenues by $24 billion. He has not done that by raising the personal tax rate but by broadening the personal and corporate tax base and not lowering the rate. Yes, he gets an F for not coming clean with the Canadian public. He has raised tax revenues. He gets an F for saying he has not raised taxes.

He has reduced overall spending by $14.2 billion. By next year it will be $16.5 billion. However, he has increased spending by adding $100 billion to the debt, thereby adding an extra $8 billion per year to the annual interest cost to service the debt which will now stand at $46 billion. The government came in four years ago at $38 billion. The finance minister gets an F for not telling Canadians that this interest cost could jeopardize their future needs.

The interest cost is the cancer that is killing and shrinking the money which is available for our social safety net. The finance minister gets an F in finance for misdirecting, for three years, the public's attention solely to the deficit and creating the very false illusion or impression that once the deficit is under control we will have greater flexibility and prosperity will be around the corner. For heaven's sake, the finance minister has concentrated on the deficit for too long and used strong rhetoric for so long that the editorial board of the Toronto Star , that wonderful paper, asked: ``What is the finance minister going to do with this windfall of $7 billion that he is ahead on his deficit target?'' They want him to spend that $7 billion.

This government came in with a $38 billion deficit, inflated it to $42 billion, blamed the Conservatives, and has now reduced it to $19 billion. A $42 billion deficit is awful. It is bad. But a $19 billion deficit is awful. It is just as bad. The whole point of the matter is that we have to start to create a surplus.

If we do not reduce the debt, what will happen? What if the interest rate was 9 per cent today instead of the 4.5 to 5 per cent we are paying? What would our interest payment be? I shudder to think of it. That interest payment would be much higher than $46 billion. It would force Canadians to sacrifice much more than they are now. The finance minister gets an F for not sharing these possibilities with Canadians.

The debt to GDP ratio is important. It is more important than the deficit, yet we have spent four years arguing about the size of the deficit. What a shame.

If the debt is not reduced, interest costs could skyrocket and really blow a hole in our economy. So we continue to live in fear and uncertainty, which is why our economy stumbles along at a 1.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent growth rate per year. Now the Liberals are trying to tell Canadians that is a great growth rate, it is fantastic.

If we created surpluses in the budget we could service some of the debt, the economy could grow at 4 per cent or 5 per cent. That is growth. That is when opportunities would create jobs.

He gets an F because he has not created or developed a business plan like the province of Alberta. That business plan should be published with the budget estimates, which would justify each and every program expenditure. It would not just say, "here is what we spent". It would be a business plan which justifies why the government is spending on infrastructure, why it is spending so much on health, why it is spending so much on agriculture, and for what purpose, and why it is supporting the wheat board and what the wheat board is doing. It would be a business plan.

Then we will find out that maybe we should not be involved in these areas and leave it to the provinces. Then the provinces can do the same thing. Maybe they should not be involved. They can leave it to municipalities and stay out of those jurisdictions. That is another big, huge saving.

He gets an F for not apply this financial acumen to his budget. He gets a huge F for his failure to recognize that if on the one hand we cannot lower personal tax rates during a deficit period, even though he claims to have broken the back of the deficit, how is it that we can increase spending, as he just did in Tuesday's budget by a couple of billion dollars? How is that? Are they not one and the same? One is when we spend there is a possibility of a return that would flow through the economy, but so does a tax break.

Finally, he gets an F for the contradictions and inconsistencies in applying his financial values. CPP has problems. CPP has to be corrected. There is no question. But he has changed it, he has panicked, he has over reacted. A 70 per cent increase is too much. There is a $39 billion surplus in that fund and yes, we take out more than we bring in on a pay as you go basis, but there are some other solutions.

He has an EI surplus of $5 billion, soon to be $9 billion, which belongs to the provinces, but the government only pays the provinces once a year. On the backs of the unemployed he is lowering that deficit and that is not right. He gets an F .

There is another F for going against generally accepted accounting principles. He did it last year with that billion dollar bribe-I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, with that billion dollar payment to the provinces on a plan for the harmonization which comes into effect April 1 of this year. There was only a letter of intent signed prior to March 31 of this past year. According to the auditor general that

was borderline. This year he is doing it again on investing in the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

He is charging off $800 million to year ending 1997. Is their a contract? Did the provinces sign? Do they know how to spend the money? Who gets the money? How can he do that? Against generally accepted accounting principles he is setting a bad precedent. He is playing "Monopoly" with the accounts of this nation and it is not right. He gets an F for going against generally accepted accounting principles.

He says he did a great job of cutting. Of the $14 billion to date he gets an F because over half of it has just been downloading on the provinces and he has not looked at his own programs.

The department of defence has been the best run department. It has done the best job of analysing, doing a business plan, making the cuts, privatizing and then what is left is to serve the Canadian public. Why can we not do that in Revenue Canada, that over bloated, over intrusive department of $2.2 billion in costs and 40,000 plus civil servants? It is away too big. Why can we not cut that down? But no. The finance minister gets an F on this budget.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Tuesday's budget. I rate the finance minister's performance an F.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget only proves that Reformers were right three years ago: the debt is the problem.

The finance minister has raised tax revenues by $24 billion and has reduced spending by $13, billion, a $37 billion gain. But lo and behold, we will still have a $17 billion deficit. Why? Where did the $37 billion go? It has gone to pay big interest on Canada's ever growing debt.

The finance minister blew it by not making cuts in the first year. He blew it by not reducing the size of the government faster. He blew it by not including businesses and regional development grants in his spending cuts.

Under Reform with spending cuts in the first year we would have balanced the budget today. Under Reform we would be talking about budget surpluses to share with taxpayers, hospitals and universities.

Yes, yesterday's budget only proves that Reform's zero in three plan was after all the best vision for Canada versus this slow pain for no gain, two year roll over, let us hit you somewhere else targets of this Liberal government.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. Certainly his comment and analysis of how you can promote Canada and disseminate information at a lower cost is a very valid one and I agree wholeheartedly with him.

It is clear in this whole fly a free flag program. A flag is supposed to be a symbol and if you are proud of your country why do you have to get a free one? Why not spend $15 and buy one? One could still be proud to do it. I think that is something we could have achieved for flag day and promoted.

The concept was a good one but it was going to cost $6 million, then actually $17 million and then another program on how to promote Canada, not knowing the cost. The cost could be in excess of what is in her budget, although a $3 billion budget is pretty good and there should some slush in a few places.

She said $6 million. It was finally $17.7 million with $2.2 million coming from the private sector, both corporate and individuals, with donations. That is $11.7 million net cost to the government. That is 195 per cent over budget. Obviously for this minister what is a million, what is a hundred million or what is fifty million?

In this promoting Canada and the failure of it, why when there were two 1-800 phone numbers for drapeau and for flag the rest of Canada subscribed to 89 per cent of the flags whereas in Quebec it was only 11 per cent? Why is it that we cannot wake up Quebecers? Why is it that we cannot wake up those Quebecers who want to stay in Canada and get them to stay in Canada? Part of this education program through the CD ROMs and computers should tell the facts and the truths.

For four years in the in the high schools in the province of Quebec they were teaching their Quebec students that with respect to their contribution to equalization payments, they paid more into Canada than they received when the facts were just the opposite. They took more out of our $8.5 billion equalization payments. The province of Quebec receives over half of that. They misrepresented the facts and this government let them get away with it and that is what I object to. It has the power, the knowledge and all it has to do is make some decisions. It does not cost to fix what is right. It does not cost a whole lot of money to be proud to be Canadian.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Beaver River for an excellent and rational point of view on this whole issue.

The motion before the House today, an accusation from Bloc members of funds being squandered on propaganda, is a bit of a narrow-minded, hypocritical motion. I would like to point that out.

The balance of the motion states that instead of spending money on free flags and the Canada Information Office and in light of the cuts to the cultural institutions that more money should be spent on health care and education, et cetera.

I would like to point out to Bloc members that their former fearless leader who sat in this House, that same Lucien Bouchard who is now running and guiding the province of Quebec, in his next budget and the budgets in the ensuing years will cut spending on health care and education. He will have to make cuts and eliminate the waste in those areas because that is where savings can be had and that is where, even in welfare and other social programs, he is going to have to revisit.

This party, which claims it can do all and be all for everybody, will have to face the stark reality of what governments are all about. Governments are all about taking tax dollars and reinvesting them back into the country, for natural infrastructure and for human infrastructure. The group of people that best knows how to do this is the group that should be running this country.

For 30 years we have had politicians who have mismanaged these finances. They have mismanaged them so badly that they have had to borrow close to $600 billion to cover everything they wanted to do for the people of Canada. They would not live within their means.

The stark reality for everybody, no matter to what political party you belong, is that we are in a time of fiscal restraint. We are in a time of having to balance budgets. We are in a time of not squandering and wasting taxpayers' dollars.

When talking about this motion that attacks the Department of Canadian Heritage we must ask what is its purpose. Why do we have a Department of Canadian Heritage? The purpose of the department is to promote Canada. The purpose of the Department of Canadian Heritage is to invest in Canada so we can be proud of ourselves and our country.

Let me point out what the department currently does in dollar terms. According to the public accounts, the Canadian identity program costs half a billion dollars. We spend over $300 million on Parks Canada. We spend $1.171 billion on the CBC. We spend $95 million on the Canada Council which promotes Canadian arts and artists. We spend $190 million on Canadian film development and the National Film Board combined. We spend $91 million on museums of heritage, civilization, science and technology. We even spend $4.45 million to protect the battlefields of Quebec. We spend $23 million on the Canadian radio, television and telecommunications, plus an additional $10 million this year because the Liberal government now wants to give stable multi-year funding to the CBC for the next five years. We spend $19.6 million on the National Arts Centre which is right down the street.

We spend $98 million on the National Capital Commission, the fourth level of government in this area of Ottawa-Hull. I have a hard time with that. Is there a need for four levels of government in the city of Ottawa? There is the federal government, provincial government, municipal government and a National Capital Commission on top of that.

Nobody gives you a ticket around here because they are afraid to. If they do give you a ticket they do not force you to pay for it because nobody knows whose jurisdiction it is. If there was ever a city that needed to be cleaned up, it is Ottawa. Toronto is a megacity. Why do they not make this a megacity, combine

everybody and kick the National Capital Commission people out of here. Let us just have one city and be proud of the city called the capital of Canada?

Across the bridge, Hull, Aylmer and Gatineau are thinking about getting together and forming one city. It is a great idea and there will be savings. We will have fewer politicians to boot which is what we need in this House and all across Canada, fewer politicians.

The National Gallery of Canada, the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada add up to $129 million. That is $2.9 billion, close to $3 billion, which is recorded in the public accounts, that we spend through Heritage Canada to promote Canadian identity. That is to promote Canadian human infrastructure and to communicate information about Canada through the telecommunications medium.

Is that not enough? Should we not now be proud Canadians? Should we not now be able to show all across Canada, across the 10 provinces with $3 billion that we are together and that we have it together? No, it is not.

This government throws money at every problem, from Indians to separatists to oil and gas people. It just throws money at everything. It does not throw what is really important at the Canadian public. What it does not throw is pride and the idea of being proud to be Canadian. There are better commercials from the private sector on being proud to be Canadian than what comes from this government.

We have to start promoting Canadians. One thing this government could do, which it does not have the guts to do-I know that is a parliamentary word, I know I can use it because it was used today in question period. This government and its Prime Minister do not have the guts, they have the power. But the heritage minister does not have the guts-yet she has the power-to do one thing on our census form. One simple little thing that would shut the separatists up. One simple little thing would bring us altogether from coast to coast to coast and that is to allow us on our census to put down Canadian, not Hungarian Canadian like I might have to put down, not French Canadian, not English Canadian, not Ukrainian Canadian, not German Canadian, not Polish Canadian but Canadian. Why do we not do that? Why is it that the government, with all its power, is too lazy and too stupid to do something so simple and so common sense?

We are all, first and foremost, Canadians, not French Canadian or English Canadian or Canadians from Quebec. We can be proud of the region we come from. We can be proud of our cultural distinctions and our differences but we are Canadian. Why do we not just put down Canadian? What would be wrong with that? How much would that cost? Very, very little and this government will not do it.

I have said that Heritage Canada spends close to $3 billion on Canada, on Canadian identity and promoting this country. What about bilingualism? The separatists sit here and say we are not giving them enough. The Official Languages Commissioner claims we spend at least $600 million, but that is ridiculous. We know the cost of bilingualism is a lot higher. The cost is probably more like 5 per cent of the gross expenditures of the government which is about $120 billion.

Therefore, it is safe to say that we spend a great deal on bilingualism, on having everything in two languages and on promoting French outside of Quebec and English inside of Quebec, which the separatists do not want. The separatists believe in democracy, freedom and respect. You can take Quebec out of Canada but you cannot take anything out of Quebec. You can protect language as long as it is French. You do not protect English. That is hypocritical of this party. The cost of bilingualism promotes Canadianism and Canada and is another expenditure that we have.

My main point is that the government has not done enough. It has spent $3 billion in Heritage Canada. It has spent anywhere from $600 million to $6 billion on enforcing official bilingualism.

In conclusion, national unity cannot be legislated. This fly a free flag program was a disaster. Where was the Prime Minister on Saturday? Where was the leader of this country? Where was his pride? Was there nobody to strangle this weekend? Was there nobody to get his hands on this weekend? Where was he? The papers state he was out grocery shopping. Yes, right. Why was he not proud of what his minister was doing?

National unity cannot be legislated. It cannot be done. You cannot make the separatists happy. They have it in their minds that they would be better off by themselves. They are not correct in that assumption. We have to do more for Canadians in Quebec. Why does the government, which has a lot of bilingual ministers, not go in there and do more for Canadians in Quebec, more for the anglophones and more for the francophones who want to stay in Canada? Just to fly a flag is not enough. It is a failure. It was empty rhetoric.

I would like to see Canada come together and stay together. The start would be with the census where we would mark down our origins as being Canadian. Everyone who is born here is Canadian no matter from which province.

[Points Of Order, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is on another point of order.

On another reply during question period, the finance minister said that the Reform's position on the MP pension plan was something. Our plan is to cancel-

[Points Of Order, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

[Points Of Order, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

This also arises out of question period today. It involves the finance minister who, in one of his answers, claimed that the leader of the Reform Party should not mislead the Canadian public. I take exception to his blatant misrepresentation.

[Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Dartmouth, I do not think he is a Liberal. He spoke of all the virtues and strengths and benefits of a free trade agreement, of the North American free trade agreement and this wonderful agreement with Chile. My goodness, he sounds like an entrepreneur and a free enterpriser if I ever heard one.

He also spoke of the advantages of Halifax. With his forward vision I am surprised that the Liberal Party under John Turner was against free trade. We hear these great sounding speeches from Liberal members which is quite an about face, but I might add a welcomed about face. However, I take exception to the reference in his speech about the NAFTA in terms of the dispute mechanism settlement.

When the Liberals ran in the last election their three big issues were jobs, jobs, jobs; get rid of the GST and renegotiating NAFTA. We all know that they did not renegotiate NAFTA. They signed it the way it was presented.

They made the mistake of not sticking to their original principles and by not adhering to their commitment to hold the agreement up until there was a satisfactory dispute settlement mechanism. That has really cost this country severely. It has caused a severe problem in international trade and trade with our partners because the Americans are taking advantage of us very chance they get. We would not have the dispute over softwood lumber. It would have been settled. Settlements would be a lot faster if there was a proper dispute settlement mechanism in place in the NAFTA.

Based on the comments in his speech that he feels this is a good deal with Chile because it is the same as the one Canada has with the States, I submit we are not happy with the one with the United States. It is causing some problems. I would like clarification of that kind of double talk.

[Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we had discussed that we would allow one question on the Liberal member's speech and then after that no more questions, just finish the speeches if they wanted.