Ray Speaker

[Gun Control, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a petition signed by over 2,000 residents of southern Alberta.

I would like to associate myself with the prayer in the petition which reads:

Whereas there is no proven connection between gun control legislation and a decrease in the occurrence of criminal activity;

And whereas all handguns in Canada are required by law to be registered;

And whereas crimes involving the use of firearms already carry severe penalties under the Criminal Code;

And whereas criminals by definition feel no compulsion to abide by the law;

We the undersigned feel that implementing more restrictive firearms controls which will affect only law abiding citizens is an unjustifiable action and the proper course of action for responsible governments to follow is more effective prosecution and tougher sentencing of criminals.

I will be forwarding the petition to the Minister of Justice.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

A fairer tax system would have a reflection on interest rates. What has to go along with that is certainly the deficit reduction we are talking about to deal with confidence in our country.

A number of investors in our country right now are looking at us. Those who judge our credit as a country are asking if we have dealt with the deficit and saying if we have not it looks like it is getting out of control. Then our interest rates go up and we have some problems. It is not only a proper tax system that deals with a rise in interest rates. It is certainly a question of whether the government has shown the will and dealt with the matter of the deficit.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

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

In terms of the infrastructure question that he raises, if a government must invest in some type of job opportunity or in some infrastructure project maybe jobs are created as a side benefit. However, if our country has good infrastructure such as roads, et cetera, the private economy has a good base from which to work. That is a very proper function for government and I agree with it.

The point I was making with regard to infrastructure is that it is not the solution to the problem. It is very short term. It is not a long term solution. We cannot keep borrowing money and investing it. Somewhere the hole gets a little too deep and we get into trouble.

I will deal with last question the hon. member raised.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whip of our party and pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), Reform speakers will be dividing their time.

In speaking to the resolution before us, presented by my colleague from St. Albert, we must recognize its focus and concern. The major focus is a request that the government look at balancing the budget. Instead of meeting targets that leave major deficits, it must look at balancing the budget and bringing the deficit to zero. That is what we are focusing on today, indicating to the government that there is some urgency in working toward that kind of target.

The other thing we make reference to in this resolution is a plan which the government could implement. We are requesting the government not hide behind the 3 per cent that it set for Canadians, that it will reach supposedly and hopefully in three years. We are saying it is owed to Canadians that we should go further, that the red book plan should be extended to a point at which it details and outlines programs within departments, the priorities which will be set with regard to social spending, the projections with regard to growth in the economy that will move us to the most important target, balancing the budget.

No government can sit and wait beyond one term to reach necessary objectives. The way the government is moving at the present time it is saying to Canadians: "We are going to leave you at the end of our term with at least a deficit of $25 billion". It wants to go back to the people at that point and say: "We did our job. We reached our 3 per cent". That is hiding behind the real problem, which is a truth that must be revealed. I hope the discussion on this resolution today reveals some of that truth.

Today is the anniversary of all of us being elected to the House of Commons. At this point we all have more confidence as to our purpose, our focus and the reason we are here. As finance critic, I have been given the responsibility of dealing with the finances and the budget of Canada.

One of the motivations and the reason I left my responsibilities in the Alberta government, moved to seek the nomination for the Reform Party, got elected and came to the House of Commons was a very focused purpose. When I lived in the city of Edmonton a number of young people from the University of Alberta were in my home day in and day out. Those young people were good, quality students with very excellent averages and tremendous abilities.

They said to me day after day: "We are going to get an education. We are going to be qualified to do something. But what is there out in the Canadian community that will offer us a chance to perform as we wish, to use our talents and our abilities? Will there be a job available?".

I examined that discussion and thought about it. I said to those young people that I thought there was only one place where we could resolve the problem we have, that is in the House of Commons and in the federal political arena. That was one of the reasons for making the decision to come to this assembly. I am here now and I believe the job must be done.

What do I believe? What do I believe is the secret or the road to dealing with the problem? Much of it is set out in the rhetoric and comments in the document presented in the finance committee called "Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate". A lot of good objectives are established by the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada. They want to work toward balancing the budget. That is a good objective. They also say that some very immediate things must be done. They set out a relationship between bringing the deficit into line, bringing it to zero, dealing with the debt and balancing the budget. In turn if those things are dealt with they will bring about growth in the economy and job opportunities for Canadians.

That is the sequence I agree with. I was very disappointed, I must say, with the red book plan of the government. In the campaign a year ago it was clearly stated by the candidate in my constituency, and I am sure by other Liberal candidates and those who were elected, that they were going to create jobs for Canadians. That is the wrong approach to job opportunity. Government cannot create jobs. It absolutely cannot create jobs.

The government initiated a program of infrastructure for Canadian municipalities in a variety of jurisdictions in Canada. Certainly there were jobs made available to Canadians. Those jobs were short term, for six months, a year or maybe two years. They were jobs made available to Canadians. They were not jobs created by the economy that would be there for a long period of time, would be self-supporting and would be part of the private sector or the private economy of our country. If those kinds of jobs are created they are long term and will will benefit our country. Certainly the Government of Canada will benefit by increased revenues into its coffers to take on its responsibilities.

In this term of office, between now and the next election, we have the opportunity to reach the goal of bringing the deficit to zero or near zero. The government must be more aggressive. I looked back on this year's performance of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance. I thought about that last night and I asked myself how I could describe what they were doing. Why is it that the Prime Minister on his first anniversary is high

in the polls, at 60 to 70 per cent in terms of popularity? That is very high. Why is he so popular?

If we re-examine what is being done there is not very much being done in Canada, not very much in terms of the government. There are a lot of studies, a lot of reviews and a lot of procrastination. The only concrete thing I can see is with regard to infrastructure. That was put forward by the minister. It is implemented and it is there.

How do I describe it? We have what I would call sort of a pied piper syndrome in Canada at the present time. We have this popular leader who is leading us down the road while playing a beautiful piece of music. The people of Canada are saying: "Things are okay. It is all right. Things are going to work out". A nice song is being sung but they are not focusing on the problem.

The deficit is being ignored because of the comfort zone being given to Canadians by our Prime Minister and the Liberal government. Some day they will wake up to the fact that the pied piper is taking us down the road. I recall my father telling me the story many times. The pied piper led the children into the river and they all drowned. My father had another innovation where they went into a cave and a heavy rock rolled over its entrance and the kids were lost to the families of the town.

The same thing is going to happen here. The people of Canada are being led down the road to where they will fall into the debt hole. We are going to have a crisis because we are going to fall into the debt hole and the government is not dealing with it. That was said in the document presented to the finance committee called "Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate". Page 25 of that document states very clearly what the circumstances are. This is the government's document. The Minister of Finance presented it to the committee on October 18, 1994.

It says that by fiscal year end 1994-95 the net federal debt is expected to be $548 billion. It also says that if program spending remained roughly in balance with revenue, compound interest alone at today's average rate of about 8 per cent would cause the debt to grow by almost 50 per cent, to more than $800 billion within just five years. That is before the turn of the century, before the year 2000. It goes on to say that by then the annual interest payment would be about $64 billion or $20 billion more than this year's forecasted debt charges. Can we imagine $64 billion out of the budget? Our budget now is $127 billion in terms of revenue, and $64 billion will be paid out of it. That is how serious it is.

The Prime Minister is getting all the laurels, all the credit, but he is leading us into a debt hole and into a crisis. The government must come up with a plan and give the people of Canada some details on how we are to be led out of this grave and difficult situation.

[Social Security Programs, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much.

If the government wants to meet its objectives of helping people find and keep work, protecting the vulnerable and ensuring affordability, it must recognize that major reductions in spending are required. Only when the financial situation of this country is brought under control will our social programs be safe.

In light of this the Minister of Human Resources Development must be criticized for neglecting to include financial details in the discussion paper. If the government continues on its present course with social reform and refuses to make the required reductions in expenditures, the time will soon come when Canada will be unable to care for those who are truly in need. Reformers are much too responsible to let that happen.

[Social Security Programs, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our whip and pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) the Reform caucus will be dividing its time.

I would like to comment briefly on the discussion paper before us on social security released by the Minister of Human Resources Development. As well I would like to comment on remarks made regarding the Financial Post and the poll it has taken. I note there is major support for what is called ``Axworthy's reforms''. The question is very simple: Do you support reform of the social security system? Anybody would say yes to that. Anybody. The question really does not have very much credibility when you look at it.

Of note also in that poll is another statistic that is relevant and I would like to talk about it here today. It is that 78 per cent of those people polled thought that reforms were to save money and to meet the government's goal of deficit reduction. People are very conscious of their responsibilities and of the current circumstances of the government.

This discussion document has established three objectives: first, to help Canadians get and keep work; second, to support those most vulnerable; and third, to ensure affordability. These are certainly laudable goals which all of us can support. However the discussion paper does not set out a realistic plan to achieve them.

First, the paper does not adequately recognize the gravity of the financial situation we are facing in this nation. Second, the paper attaches no price tag to any of the proposals. If the document is to enable Canadians to make intelligent choices regarding our social security system, it must include the cost of the programs and a realistic picture of how much money we can afford to spend. I certainly want to emphasize the word afford at this point in time.

The first objective of the social security review is to increase employment. How does the minister propose to do this? Three ideas are presented and it is worthy of note that none of them are specific nor do any come with a price tag.

The minister suggests improving employment development services. The list includes job counselling, training, labour market information and various other buzzwords that we read in discussion papers such as this one.

The paper notes that existing programs which provide these services have not worked very well, however no consideration is given for why they have not worked. This is the first place where the paper is inadequate. No time is taken to consider why the existing programs have failed to meet their objectives. Rather it is automatically assumed that what we need is a new program to fix the mess that was left by the old ones, just a new program.

Incentives for hiring unemployed workers are also suggested in the paper. Such schemes often call for the government to pay a portion of the worker's wages so that he or she can gain valuable work experience. This all sounds great on the surface, however

these types of programs lead only to rearranged jobs rather than adding new ones.

Furthermore when employment incentives are exhausted firms simply drop the formerly subsidized workers from the payroll and the cycle begins again. Another unemployed person is picked up by the government program only to be dropped shortly thereafter. That is not the solution to the problem. The OECD, and I add this as support, has examined such subsidy programs and concluded they cost more than the value of the benefit they derive.

The paper before us considers the unemployment insurance system. Certainly the unemployment insurance system needs reform but the minister should know that simply changing the name from unemployment insurance to employment insurance will not save the Canadian taxpayer one cent nor will it add one job to the economy.

At least in the case of UI the paper gives two fairly clear options. However they are once again without any type of cost benefit analysis. How much more money would it cost? We do not know the answer to this question. This is precisely what makes this discussion paper inappropriate as a consultation tool under the present fiscal circumstances. Hard financial choices have to be made and this paper seems to ignore those choices which must be made not only by the House of Commons but by the Canadian people as a whole.

The discussion paper also deals with the funding of education. Certainly literacy and lifelong learning are trendy concepts but where are the specifics? How will the government increase literacy and improve access to education? This is perhaps the section of the paper which is most devoid of any realistic and detailed suggestions. This is unfortunate since the government's own admission is that education is a key factor in economic growth and productivity.

In addition to the status quo only two options are presented. They include the use of RRSPs to fund education and training and also a system of income contingent student loans.

The government has turned to RRSPs to accomplish various whims of its social agenda. It does not want to deal with what I believe is the root problem: government overspending. RRSPs were used to stimulate housing in the first time home buyers plan. Now the government is considering them for education.

Canada's growing inability to fund essential programs cannot be resolved on the back of RRSPs even though they may be a good idea for saving not only for education but for a person's retirement. Rather the government must cut unnecessary spending in order to stop the crippling effects of our spiralling debt.

On the issue of income contingent loans I will simply draw the attention of hon. members to a private member's bill on this very issue by the leader of the Reform Party. We encourage members opposite to continue to read the blue book. It has given me great pleasure to watch the Minister of Finance as he has moved from the red book to the purple book to the grey book. Most likely one of these days he will see the light and accept the blue book.

The second objective of the government's social security review is to support those most vulnerable. We in the Reform Party support this objective as well. Once again, however, we disagree with the discussion paper as to the best way to achieve this goal. The role of social policy must be to foster the right balance between personal responsibility to care for yourself and your family and both public and private health for those truly in need; in other words, targeted support and assistance.

Since the 1960s the government has enacted program after program which discouraged personal responsibility and encouraged many Canadians to rely on the government for their support and sustenance. We see the devastating results today.

The third objective in the government's social security review is to ensure that social programs are financially sustainable. We all support that. It is a good goal. However, how is it going to be done? The green book contains the statement: "The debt needs to be tackled because it causes real damage to jobs and security". Where has the minister been? The debt has been causing real damage to jobs and security for quite some time now.

Perhaps the minister should pay more careful attention to his colleague the Minister of Finance. He recognizes that the debt and the deficit are hurting our economy now. It is crippling our ability to compete economically. One of the facts we know is that the annual cost of the $535 billion debt now consumes 42 per cent of federal revenues, excluding the unemployment insurance program which is self-financing.

I ask this question: Does the Minister of Human Resources Development understand the significance of our ability to finance social programs? What about the possibility of a recession? It could occur before the government significantly surpasses or meets the 3 per cent deficit to GDP target. What will that mean to government revenues? It will mean that they could dive, that interest rates could climb and possibly the debt will spiral. I shudder to think of the fate of our social programs and medicare under those circumstances.

From a financial perspective another serious problem with regard to this review process is the exclusion of the Canada pension program and old age assistance from the process. Under the present framework these two programs will become more expensive due to changing demographics. This expansion will increase payroll taxes causing a further drop in employment and increased economic insecurity. This is only symptomatic of a

broader problem. If unchecked, the growth in social spending when combined with interest on the debt will consume 100 per cent of government revenues by the year 2010.

As I have said, the traditional Liberal approach to social policy which is presented in this discussion paper denies the financial realities of today. Recognizing the extreme seriousness of our deficit problem and reducing social program expenditures is essential if we are to preserve the ability to help those who are truly in need.

Reductions in spending are not heartless. Consider the advice of the finance minister to our finance committee:

If people come before you and say that now is not the time to cut, ask them to describe the morality and the justice of letting the debt continue to run wild, unchecked, ruining the future of our children.

That is a significant statement and one that must be considered when we look at this social review. When the social review is considered in the context of Canada's economic situation, one hard fact emerges to which the green book gives little attention. The social security review must result in expenditure reductions. Seventy-eight per cent of the people polled said that must be a target.

The finance minister admitted this reality in his budget speech in February when he said the days of governments-

[The Economy, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we also extend our sympathies and appreciate the member's statement.

When interest rates shot up after the release of the Liberal government's first budget, the red ink book, Reformers were the first to call for immediate action to keep the budget on its deficit reduction path. Yet the government refused to acknowledge that a problem even existed. The Prime Minister repeatedly stated that no additional cuts would be necessary for the government to reach its deficit reduction targets.

Over the last few weeks the C.D. Howe Institute, the Business Council on National Issues, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have all said what we have been saying from day one: that the Liberal deficit reduction targets are billions of dollars off track. Yesterday's presentation of the finance minister only confirmed this scenario.

This government's unwillingness to reduce expenditures is threatening economic growth, hindering job creation and jeopardizing the nation's health care and social programs. The government cannot put off making hard decisions. The ticking of the debt clock is growing louder every day and now stands at $534,864-

[Taxation, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that every time Canadians go to fill up their gas tanks with $25 worth of gas, it costs $12.50 in federal and provincial taxes. Yet through her rather uncharacteristic silence she has implied that even higher gasoline and carbon taxes are possible; she has implied that.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. So that it is very clear to Canadians, will the Minister of the Environment demonstrate her commitment to improving the productivity, as was stated in the paper yesterday, of Canadian business by rejecting any kind of proposed tax grab in the carbon industry?

[Taxation, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister presented a policy paper that in many respects, to be fair, is supportable. One of the minister's points was that increased productivity was key to economic growth. Yet just the day before the Deputy Prime Minister released a report calling for billions of dollars of new gasoline green taxes.

Would the Prime Minister state the position of the government in promoting productivity? Does the government advocate raising taxes or lowering taxes?

[Taxation, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas the government seems particularly determined to tax is the retirement savings of individual Canadians. This will force Canadians to rely on the government's dangerously underfunded Canada pension plan and old age security program.

Has the Minister of Finance even considered the impact of reduced RRSP contributions on the government CPP and OAS programs when the baby boom generation of this nation retires?