John Richardson

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his presentation.

As with any new concept such as the one he presented and which is also before the Americans, the hon. member may be aware that the Germans looked at the flat tax. I ask the hon. member to enlarge on this. The burden of proof is to see who is going be gaining on this. That is the big question.

Even in the elections taking place in the United States where it is getting a lot of play, the question that constantly arises and is not answered is "who wins and who loses?" There is no doubt it is simple, we all win in that way, but it does not look that it is going to be as fair as they say it is. I wonder if the hon. member had some adjustments to the one that Mr. Forbes is presenting in the United States. Is that a fair comment?

It is under attack for the non-disclosure of who wins and who loses. I ask the hon. member if he could enlighten us on his approach.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the 1996 budget.

A few weeks ago the government presented its blueprint for the future. The throne speech outlined the many areas the government said it would address in this session of Parliament.

I was proud of the contents of the throne speech. It was forward looking while addressing the immediate needs of our great country. I am equally pleased with the budget. It provides that the throne speech was not simply a feel good document as some members

opposite had labelled it. The contents of the 1996 budget proved conclusively that the throne speech is what it intended to be, a true working document.

The budget provides concrete actions for many ideals set out in the throne speech, especially on the jobs and growth front. It is that area on which I should like to concentrate today.

Since being elected in 1993 job creation and economic growth have always been top priorities. While the government has the ability to create direct jobs for Canadians as it did in the successful $6 billion infrastructure program, the true role of government is to provide the private sector with a framework for growth.

A healthy economic climate is the key to the creation of quality, long term employment. In our three years in office we have met with a large measure of success in this area. Interest rates have declined by 3 percentage points in the past year. Inflation is at its lowest in 30 years. Canada's economy is more competitive than ever. More than half a million private sector jobs have been created since we took office. Since November alone 123,000 such jobs were created.

Due to successive budgets that attack spending we have once again been able to hold the line on taxes. There have been no personal tax increases in the past three years.

Combined, these facts paint a future that is bright for all Canadians who must not be content to sit back and admire the progress that has been achieved. More work remains to be done on the job front.

In a world where fiscal resources are increasingly scarce, our governments must now make strategic choices about where they want to spend their money. That is why the government has chosen to focus on three areas which are keys to our future prosperity: jobs for youth, technology investment and encouragement, and trade.

I could go on at some length about the important role young Canadians will play in our nation's future but that is a speech in itself. It is one that contains fundamental truths that all Canadians share. We must provide our younger generation with the opportunities necessary to succeed.

Times have changed for young Canadians. The rapid changes brought about by the new realities in the global marketplace have affected youth. When I was a young man, a high school education was all that one needed to have success in the job market. Today post-secondary education is only the first step in the lifelong exercise of learning.

The message to stay in school has never been more important. That is why our youth need assistance more than ever before. The federal budget provides that help. The budget provides an additional $165 million over three years to help students with the increased cost of education. Education tax credits will be increased and the limits on the transfer of tuition and education credits raised.

The budget will also increase the limits and contributions to registered education savings plans. Broadening the eligibility for child care expense allowance will help more parents undertake education or retraining.

An additional $315 million will be provided over three years to create new youth employment opportunities.

Funding will be doubled for summer student jobs. The government will also work toward a Team Canada style partnership between business and governments to create entry level jobs for youth. These investments in our youth will pay large dividends in the future.

Let me turn to technology, the second area of the jobs and growth agenda. The budget concentrates on technology as our way in the future. Canada has been a world leader in the growth area of technology. The jobs of tomorrow are in the high tech field and Canada's future depends on our ability to provide continued leadership in these areas. The budget outlined technology partnerships to encourage the development of the environmental technologies, advanced manufacturing and materials, as well as biotechnology. It will also help maintain jobs in the aerospace sector which is subject to heavily subsidized foreign competition.

Additional funding will be provided to the Business Development Bank to provide loans to knowledge based exporting and growth businesses. We will accelerate our efforts to bring the benefits of information technology, especially the much talked about information highway, to the entire country. In particular, we want to connect rural areas-and there are many in my riding of Perth-Wellington-Waterloo-to a program in which 2,000 computer students will connect 50,000 small businesses to the Internet. That is also part of the government's plan. Combined, these efforts will allow Canada to maintain its role as a world leader in the burgeoning field of technology.

The third job and growth field that the budget addresses is trade. The idea is not how to avoid competition but how to get into the game. In this area I am happy to say that we have been very successful. Month after month Statistics Canada is reporting substantial increases in our exports. In the first nine months of 1995 Canada's merchandise exports grew by over 20 per cent and its trade surplus by a dramatic 63 per cent over 1994.

Adding to the good news is the fact that this rapid growth is diversified. The good news does not stop there. This phenomenon is taking place in all the world's major markets. To ensure that this success story continues, the Export Development Corporation will receive $50 million in new equity capital for further innovation types of export funding. Other areas of export finance will be

increased and a review of business taxes will be undertaken with the goal of promoting jobs and growth.

We have lived up to the promises outlined in our jobs and growth agenda. I have only provided a brief overview of some of the changes put forth in the 1996 budget. I could go into some detail about other commitments that have been kept. For instance, we will easily hit the 3 per cent of GDP deficit target this year and have outlined an even more ambitious 2 per cent for next year.

The budget is also full of other good news stories such as reassurances of stability in our social programs and enhanced RRSP regulations. What is most important to me is our efforts on the prosperity front, our investments in youth, technology and trade to ensure that the Canadian economy has the ability to adapt and grow in the face of future changes.

We were elected on a jobs and growth commitment and we again spell that agenda out in the throne speech. The budget is just another example of our government living up to its promises.

[Stratford Festival, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about the Stratford Shakespearian Festival.

I note the important contribution that French Canadians have made to this success story. While the Stratford Festival is known as North American's foremost English speaking repertory theatre, this title does not reveal the whole truth.

It is a proud fact that the festival's success has come in large part from the dedication and skills of the theatre's French Canadian cast, crew and management.

Richard Monette, Berthold Carrière, Jean Gascon and Denise Pelletier are just a few of those Canadians with francophone backgrounds who have given so much of themselves to make the Stratford Festival what it is today. The festival is just one of many examples across Canada in which individuals from every culture and every language work hand in hand for the benefit of all. I encourage all Canadians to think about this and the many other examples of unity and tolerance that bless our great nation.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I should know better.

I wonder if the party opposite understands that this is an issue which has been given thorough examination by the House and by the Supreme Court. Even though on the surface it looks like it is a bad contract-and it is a bad contract in my mind-it is a valid contract. When a contract is valid the parties have to live with it, unless one side is prepared to acquiesce and say it thinks it is bad and it would like to amend it. That is the only way the contract can be changed.

Does the hon. member know of another method?

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Do you think-

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Churchill Falls contract has been in the

House many times. I put the emphasis on timing because this has been given a thorough contract and has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled that it was a binding contract.

It is the nature of the Reform Party's presentation that concerns me. Reformers came here saying they would do business differently, that they would play. The only reason they are here today is there is a byelection in Labrador. That is the only reason they would ever bring this forward. They cannot hide behind something like that.

We hear the praises that they will pave their roads. Those poor people are being taken down the garden path that you will fix the Churchill Falls agreement. Again, that is something you cannot deliver on.

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There being no further speakers, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to call it 6.43 p.m., which I believe is the scheduled time of adjournment, and that we then move directly to the adjournment debate if members are present and ready.

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Terrebonne. In his speech-

-the description of NORAD was well defined in the early part of the hon. member's speech. The preamble to that led me to believe that he was looking at this as a collective security agreement, which it is.

Then it got into something like it was the United Nations with all kinds of different aspects to it that were not under the umbrella of the existing mandate for NORAD. As a consequence it was sucked into the Organization of American States and other areas of co-operation, like NAFTA.

The reality is a aérospatial collective agreement. It is nothing else but that. It is two countries coming together for collective security to bring some stability and peace of mind in case there is the need to activate it in full force again.

What does the member see in the defensive aspects of the-

-North American Aerospace Defence Command as being positive?

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on his presentation. I thought it was enthusiastically put forward and I understand his commitment.

Does the member have any specific points which would enhance the present negotiations and would make the treaty more current and relevant than he suggested earlier?

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canada also benefits greatly from American intelligence, technology and expertise, all of which help us maintain essential military capabilities. We must not forget that NORAD is a cost effective exercise for Canada.

Our annual contribution to NORAD is only 10 per cent of total costs. Should it decide to assume alone its aerospace defence, the costs to Canada would be prohibitive.

Moreover, only 12 per cent of NORAD's total operation costs are related to headquarters. The rest is directly related to NORAD's operational activities. In other words, NORAD uses its resources efficiently.

In conclusion, shared values and interests have made Canada and the United States trusted friends and allies. Our defence partnership stands out in this respect. Our defence relations have been close and always successful. NORAD is a case in point. The challenge of co-ordinating activities of two air forces against a wide range of threats has never been easy but NORAD has proven equal to the task.

NORAD's success can be traced above all to its flexibility. Although its basic objectives have endured over the years, NORAD has responded to an evolving strategic assessment. Canadian forces personnel associated with NORAD have performed an essential national service over the years with skill and dedication. This new agreement gives them the opportunity to continue this service.