Elwin Hermanson

[Parliamentary Reform, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has done nothing in the area of parliamentary reform in its first year in office. The thinnest part of the Liberal red ink book is a chapter on integrity and parliamentary reform. Once again the Liberals set low standards for themselves and failed to meet them.

The red ink book talked about giving MPs a greater role in drafting legislation. It has not happened. Whenever a committee begins to show any independence, government members are whipped into line.

The red ink book talked about giving committees greater influence over government spending. It has not happened. Committees could not reduce the estimates by one dollar.

The red ink book talked about parliamentary review of order in council appointments. That has not happened either.

The red ink book also promised to change the outrageous MP pension plan. In good Liberal fashion, they have talked about it, they have studied it, but they have done nothing. They will not even allow conscientious MPs to opt out.

That just about sums up the Liberal's first year: All talk, no action, just broken promises.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

That is the Tories all over again.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech. I did not hear him comment too much about the fact that given the government's current plan for budgetary spending, our debt will grow by $100 billion in three years and our deficit will still be $25 billion a year after three years. These are the government's projections. Our annual interest bill will go from about $40 billion to $50 billion a year. This is in spite of a time of economic growth in Canada. At the end of these three years we may face a recession given the cycle of business and the international marketplace.

Would the member comment on whether he thinks the current 3 per cent of GDP deficit ratio is acceptable in light of those statistics?

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make this brief.

I was interested in the hon. member's adamant support for the universality of our health care system. I would like to compare the current problem we have in our health care system to that of buying a car.

If a person wanted to buy a $20,000 vehicle and found that he had only $15,000 and had to get the other $5,000 from another source, who should be in control of the car? Should it be the person who bought the car and put the majority of the money in or should it be the lender who gave him the $5,000?

Our current health care system is primarily funded by the provinces yet the federal government wants to call the shots, dictate the terms of the Canada Health Act. I would like the hon. member to respond to that.

[The Economy, October 24th, 1994]

Is the finance minister looking for cuts exclusive of the $3 billion contingency fund he has, or are his deficit reduction goals so timid that he is banking on the contingency fund to meet his deficit reduction target?

[The Economy, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister knows well we have tabled plans that would help him to accomplish the goal he has asked us to accomplish. We are willing to work constructively.

It took a year for the minister to admit that the Reform Party was on the right track and he was on the wrong track with regard to meeting his wimpy deficit targets. I hope he takes our advice a little more quickly this time.

The minister has set aside a contingency fund of $3 billion for the 1996-97 fiscal year. If the finance minister commits this fund to deficit reduction he will only be halfway to meeting his target.

[The Economy, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the finance minister that the Reform Party is doing all it can to help him to convince his caucus to move in the right direction and reduce government spending.

The minister's plan to trim the deficit will in three short years add $100 billion to our debt and increase the annual interest payments from $40 billion to $50 billion. If the government cannot do better than that we will be in a disastrous position when the business cycle delivers its next economic downturn, a recession.

Because our economy is not recession proof, is the finance minister willing to risk the economic consequences of going into the next recession with a $25 billion deficit, a $50 billion yearly interest bill and a $630 billion total national debt?

[The Economy, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the C. D. Howe Institute put it bluntly when it said that the 3 per cent of GDP deficit reduction target signalled the lack of urgency. Many question whether the government will seize the opportunity to get its financial house in order at all.

C. D. Howe, the Globe and Mail , the Financial Post and other commentators speak for a growing contingent that criticize the finance minister for not moving decisively toward the goal of a zero deficit.

The economic growth which Canada temporarily enjoys affords the government a great opportunity to put its fiscal house in order. I ask the finance minister: Will the government abandon its timid deficit reduction target of 3 per cent of GDP in favour of the more ambitious target of eliminating the deficit by the end of its current term in office?

[Social Security Programs, October 20th, 1994]

What is the sense of having forums when there is going to be no program?

[Social Security Programs, October 20th, 1994]

It's going down. There is less now than there was before.