Ray Speaker

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the minister of defence. The Reform Party did call for reductions in the area of defence spending based on budget figures of some eight to twelve months ago. Things have changed somewhat in the interim. However, our figure at that time was in the area I believe of 25 per cent, around $2 billion dollars.

In terms of where we are at the present time, we support the reductions that have been made. We are concerned, however, that we sort of put the cart before the horse.

Like other members, and I am sure the minister would like to have done this, we would like to have been able to examine Canada's defence position in total. Then, once we have agreed as to what our objectives are, we could work back and have the budget facility there to support those objectives.

I am sure the minister would like to have done that and we would as well. Under the circumstances, we cannot always have the conditions that are most favourable.

Concerning the reductions that have been made, we support those. I think now we should get on quickly and do the review so that we can then look at whether further reductions can be made.

In terms of specifics, as a caucus or a group we have not done an analysis of each one of the bases. I cannot answer the hon. minister's question regarding that. If I had the information, I would lay it on the table. Our caucus has not taken a step-by-step procedure through which we have made a judgment on each one of those bases.

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I will adhere to that directive from the Chair.

The red ink budget presented to us told Canadians that there was going to be an increase in taxation levels and that the government would be relying on increased revenues for a large portion of its deficit reduction program. That was unacceptable.

Canadians have said in the last few months that we must stop overspending and get rid of the deficit now. What did that red ink book say to Canadians? What did the government say yesterday and today?

The budget will contain a $40 billion deficit and there will be minor expenditure reductions to reduce the deficit, a little today but mostly later. Mostly later, not today. If we examine the budget further we find that most of those reductions were taken by other expenditures, new expenditures of government, so we did not get ahead. We are $40 billion in debt.

Canadians wanted a long term plan, a plan for at least the 35th Parliament. Did we get it out of the red book? We got a two phase plan but it did not meet the request of Canadians. It is totally silent on a formal plan to deal with Canada's economy.

Another thing Canadians wanted was jobs, jobs and jobs and this was on the marquee of the Liberal Party during the election. When we read through all of these documents presented to us, the budget speech, the budget plan, the supporting documents, and the hearings we attended, there was no mention of numbers in the goals for jobs, either through job creation or job opportunities created by small and medium sized businesses across

Canada. The numbers there are minor to the real need of Canadians. There is nothing comprehensive in a plan that speaks to Canadians as to what this government intends to accomplish.

To sum up why I call it the red ink book plan it is because this government has not heard what Canadians have said on taxes, on the deficit, on the plan. Most important the government has not dealt with the question of jobs.

The minister claims he is going to do that. He presented the budget in a pair of what I call farm work boots. I want to say this very clearly. If someone came to my farm one morning, I hope ready to work, and at noon those boots were still clean and nothing really had been done, I would not keep that person around very long.

It is time for the Minister of Finance to get to work and get those boots dirty. It is time that the minister, the Prime Minister and other ministers of this government take on the tough job they face in terms of the economy. They have to show the will to deal with the difficult circumstances, the overexpenditure, the high taxation which is suppressing businesses across Canada, the high taxation which is creating doubt and a lack of confidence for investment that would create job opportunities for all Canadians.

I want to make some remarks about taxes and the attitude of the Liberal government on taxes which is highlighted in the budget. The minister was so proud when he presented it. He said: "For every $5 of cuts we only are raising taxes $1 over the next three years on a three year average".

Looking at some of the projections on the cuts, they are questionable in terms of whether the government will achieve them with the present policies which are in place. That is number one. However the other indicator that may be more realistic is the 1994-95 budget. The cuts for 1994 according to the budget speech are going to be $2.1 billion. The new program funding that will be introduced will be $1.7 billion. The net cuts that are realistic are $.6 billion.

Looking at that picture in terms of taxes versus cuts, for every $1.25 of tax increase there is $1 in cuts. This is the opposite of what the government is claiming in terms of a $5 cut for $1 increase in taxes.

The second thing that concerns me with regard to taxes is that this budget depends on revenue growth; that is, more tax revenue to deal with its responsibility. The expenditure levels are somewhat consistent at $122 billion. However to deal with the deficit and bring it down the government is placing all of its hope on revenue growth. That is all right on one hand but on the other we have to look at the expenditure side.

Looking back in history to the 10 years of government under the Tories and what they did in their plan, they never came to grips with expenditures. They never dealt with priorities and kept on spending. One of the major criticisms that can be made of the present budget is it seems that the tax and spend days of the Tories are not too far away from us. That is unfortunate because we expected this government to do better.

Why should we have some concerns about high taxes and increased taxes? First of all, as was said by the finance critic of the Bloc Quebecois, internationally Canada has the highest tax burden of the G-7 nations, except Germany. When we look at that we wonder about our underground economy. We need to lower the taxes.

The second thing I would like to bring to the attention of government is the provinces. They are concerned about this continuous increase in taxes.

Not too long ago Quebec Premier Johnson said in an article that we have to do everything possible to avoid higher taxes. In that same article his finance minister made some similar comments that we have to work on the expenditure side, cut on the expenditure side, not increase tax revenues. They called on Ottawa to keep the tax levels down.

In Alberta a very comprehensive program of deficit reduction is going on. The premier intends to balance the budget within at least three or four years and get rid of the deficit. That is a very noble plan.

However if Ottawa continues to increase taxes and impose costs on the provinces it makes their job very difficult. We have to deal responsibly with this budget at the federal level.

Another item which concerns me is noted in a document dated February 1994 from the Dominion Bond Rating Service. It comments on the weaknesses of the Canadian government sector. In trying to rate the credit for the federal government, two things are said: "Revenue, the new problem: (a) The economy has a lower tax generation capacity than in the past; (b) Tax rates are high relative to the U.S. in almost every category". I do not think that speaks well for the Canadian scene. We should recognize that and deal with the problem before us.

I would like to comment on the deficit reduction plan of the government. As I said earlier the proposed cuts are offset by spending in 18 new program areas. In this budget there are 15 program reviews. My experience has been that every time a committee or group is put together to conduct a review most of the recommendations are expensive and call for increased expenditures. I certainly hope that does not happen here. However, that is usually the pattern.

The third point I would like to make is that total budgetary spending is to increase over the next two years. It is not going to decrease. There is a slight increase built into it. Under the current conditions that is a rather scandalous circumstance.

One item I raised in the House today was with regard to the Spending Control Act. I feel that is an act that had at least the possibility to set some benchmarks so that when people wanted to examine whether the government is in a positive trend or in a progressive way dealing with the deficit, reducing expenditures, through that act, there would be a benchmark. The government has felt that it can do it on its own. It takes the ceiling off and is going to be responsible. It has not proved that yet and the question is still out. Why not leave it there? Is the government afraid of targets?

Another point I would like to make is that this two-stage budget is not meeting the needs. Stage one is doing almost nothing. Stage two is measures after lengthy and costly studies. That is not good enough. Where and when can we meet these lofty goals?

The 3 per cent plan of the government to deal with the deficit and to reach $25 billion in the year 1995-96 is not good enough either. Canadians need something more concrete. There are a number of reasons why that 3 per cent target is not adequate. The Maastricht treaty that was set up required that as an entrance requirement. Any country that was involved in that economic union was asked to deal with its deficit and balance its budget. That was part of it.

The priorities of the Reform Party are to reduce and eliminate debt. During the period we are here we want to be the conscience of this Parliament and call for very responsible spending.

I would like to move an amendment very quickly:

That the amendment be amended by removing all the words after "government" and by adding thereafter the following words:

and regret that the necessary measures were not taken to balance the budget by the end of the 35th Parliament.

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, certainly I will try to-

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity of addressing this assembly. I would first of all congratulate the minister for presenting us with his first budget. I encourage him today to do better. That will be my objective.

In summary, what I would like to say to the assembly are basically three things: First, look at some of the positive aspects of this budget; second, examine taxation, the deficit budget proposal; and, third, make some proposals on behalf of the Reform Party to this assembly and as well to the Liberal government in terms of the priorities and some of the things it can do to bring the spending of this country in line and deal in a more responsible way with our fiscal budget.

As well at this moment I would like to offer my appreciation to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. The hon. member has been very eloquent today and has laid out a number of proposals. I do not agree with a number of the specifics that were presented to us here today, but I hope when I am able to speak en français that I am as fluent and as facile as the hon. member was here this afternoon.

This budget gives us as Canadians, and certainly members of this House, the first opportunity to judge the government on its promises. Canadians over the last few years have faced a number of difficult things: inflation, large tax increases, GST, and certainly recession.

Canadians are now asking the government a most important question. Will this new budget offer them hope, tax relief, and an end to the chronic deficits that this country has had in the last 10 years, deficits that have smothered us and created difficulties for employment opportunity, business growth and economic growth? They are asking that question and this government must answer it.

To be fair, and this is the Reform way, I want to talk about some of the positive aspects of this budget. First, I want to acknowledge what the government has done in terms of social programs, that it has started to target them toward those most in need. In these sad economic times we as Reformers believe that is a basic principle to be adhered to. In light of that principle, we

recognize the changes to the UIC and the elimination of the age credit as well for wealthy seniors.

Second, I recognize that this budget does bring about restraint, not excessive restraint or the type of restraint we would like to see, but modest restraint. If that is a slight flavour of what we are going to see in the future, then it is a good beginning. If it is not, then it is a very unacceptable start.

What we do not see along with that restraint is a real spending plan and that concerns us. We see this restraint in the military reductions. I know the hon. minister will address this today and will go into detail on some of those reductions which we hope will have fairness across Canada.

Our first review and examination of the reductions taking place regionally seem to be fair and spread across Canada as such. We appreciate the way that was handled. We were concerned prior to the budget that the cuts might be all in one province or in one region which certainly would have been very unfair.

The other area of modest restraint we see is in terms of decreases to business and regional subsidies. The red book had indicated $225 million to $250 million. They are around $150 million less but there is restraint.

The third item is the modest reduction in some of the government operations. We certainly salute that and encourage the government to pursue that direction.

When I examined the budget, and listened in the lock-up and listened to the speech by the hon. Minister of Finance, my attention was drawn to some of the comments on pages 1, 3 and 15 of the budget speech. I would like to read those comments into the record to set the tone for what I have to say later.

This is what the Minister of Finance said they want as a government:

A Canada where our public finances are in order, not ruin.

The days of government simply nibbling at the edges are over.

We need a new architecture, for government and for the economy.

On page 3 we can read this quote:

The era of tax and spend government is gone.

People told us we should freeze spending. We agree.

On page 15 is the support for what I have already quoted: "One of the reasons for the growth of the underground economy is that Canadians believe that taxes are too high. We agree". He said that; I say that. He went on to say:

We want Canadians to rejoin the legitimate economy, not leave it. Our objective is to get growth up and get the deficit down so that in the years ahead, taxes can be reduced. Ultimately, the pay-off for getting the deficit down will be lower taxes.

Those are excellent statements. When I heard them I felt as if I were flying like an eagle over the prairies of Alberta. I felt dominion over all. But all of a sudden, as I read other parts of the budget I felt as if I had crashed like a duck on the ice of Lost Lake in southern Alberta. What a change and what a let down.

When we examined the budget speech we came to the conclusion that the government was not coming to grips with some of the problems. We have renamed it the child of the red book and the budget speech is the red ink book. I am going to talk about that for a few moments today.

First, let us look at why the red ink. Canadians told all members of this House of Commons that they were overtaxed. However, if we look at the red ink book-

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider bringing in a tougher Spending Control Act? Would the minister commit the government to rethink current expenditure projections and introduce this fall a minibudget outlining expenditure reduction targets for the next three fiscal years?

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. On page 58 of the budget plan the minister indicated that the Spending Control Act would not exist after 1995-96.

Would the minister consider extending that act just on the basis it could be a benchmark or a target for the government that would recognize the goodwill of the government in keeping the deficit or the expenditure pattern below the level expected here?

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the government is to make changes in terms of the killer cards and in terms of the Young Offenders Act. However, often legislation is brought in and it is senior levels of government, the consultants, the minister and the caucus of the respective minister that put the ideas together. Then they are presented on the floor of the House. Often there are major weaknesses in the legislation presented here.

My hon. colleague from Wild Rose last week made a tremendous speech with respect to the deficiencies in one piece of criminal justice legislation. A petition to the House could have added to that legislation. I think we are missing an opportunity.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe has made a very emotional plea for her constituents in terms of making presentations to the House. There is no way that the Reform Party is going to interfere with the presentation of petitions in the format in which they are now presented. We can still received 1,000 to 1,500 petitions and her constituents can be heard in this assembly.

The point we are trying to make is that some petitions need special consideration. All we are saying is let us set up a mechanism by which two, three, four, five or even ten out of 1,000 to 1,500 could find their place in major debate in the House.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us concerns debating petitions before this House.

We should recognize first it is a very basic principle in this institution that any means by which the ideas and the influence of the general public can enter this assembly should be welcomed. We should not try to deter it or stop it in any way, but our job as legislators or people who set the rules by which this House operates is to make sure those rules are as open and functional as possible. I say that in opening to set out a principle by which I would like to design the rest of my remarks.

Since coming to this House I have noted some very good differences from the Alberta legislative assembly in which I served.

The first is members' statements. This event does not exist in that assembly. The 15 minutes just prior to question period is the most informative part of this assembly. I hear ideas from all across this nation, from the maritimes, Ontario, Quebec, the prairies, British Columbia. They are presented in a minute and I am able to grasp very quickly a concern or a problem or an attitude in a particular region. That is significant and is a good change. I certainly commend those who were sitting in this assembly when that change to the House rules was made.

There is a second difference that I recognize as important. The moment after a person has made a presentation in debate we are allowed a period of time, either five minutes or ten minutes, during which we can question the speaker on a subject. We can ferret out more material, more attitude or more information with

1643

regard to the respective person's presentation. It is an excellent innovation.

That was not an innovation in the legislative assembly of Alberta. I mention those two items because I have been impressed by them. There are others in this assembly I have noted that have opened the door so the democratic process can work.

We can look at the concept of petitions and their presentation. I want to say the following about petitions. In my many years in the legislative assembly of Alberta numerous petitions came to the floor and were tabled. Often a member was committed to the petition and believed that something should happen or the petition was an added piece of information that could influence the legislative assembly. That very same thing happens in the House of Commons.

Another thing I noted, though, was that many petitions presented by members were often presented without commitment, without the objective of bringing about change or representing a group of people. They were often brought to the assembly with political expediency. They were laid upon the table. They would table them but they would run away from them. They really said to the group: "I have tabled your petition" and the people felt that maybe members represented them or maybe not. There was an expediency about it. There was not sincerity at all.

The hon. member for Burin-St. George's referenced somewhat in his remarks this afternoon that anybody would sign a petition. We could go up and down the street and anybody would sign it, no matter. We could take it to the pro side or the con side and anybody would sign it. The inference was that the petition did not have credibility.

Why is there no real credibility in petitions? Why do we look at them as documents that do not have the credibility they should have? Maybe one of the reasons, and it is not the only reason, is that we as legislators or parliamentarians have not given them the credibility they should have. People often sign a petition thinking they will just present it and nothing will happen; that it will just gather dust somewhere in the back rooms of the parliamentary system; that it will just be there and nothing will really happen; that it does not matter, nobody will ever look at the names on it anyhow.

If we were to give petitions some credibility in the House, if there were an item on the agenda so that when they were presented and, as the Reform Party is suggesting, were debated then they would have some credibility. Certainly they should have some substance so that they create a certain action or reaction as such. What about a petition, if we were to debate it or it some special status on our orders of the day or on our agenda before us? What should it have? What are some of those criteria?

A petition would be debated. As I see it a member must be committed to or responsible for the petition. We could look at it or examine it. Maybe a certain number of members could indicate by signing some form that they are prepared to bring the petition to the floor of the House. That could be one of the criteria. It could not be a petition that is a loose cannon on the floor for which nobody is really taking responsibility.

The group that initiates the petition should have the responsibility of convincing some members of either side of the Parliament of Canada that it is a good petition and that it should be debated. They should be able to give the reasons and in turn get those respective members of Parliament to take it forward for them. That would be the first criterion.

Second would be the numbers and the regional representation of the petition. If it were a petition to keep open the post office in a little town in my constituency, it would be a very personal kind of petition. The issue to be debated should be of some concern to the majority of constituencies across the nation, not just one constituency as such.

Those are a couple of criteria we could look at in order to bring it up on the agenda. Possibly there are others that we could design.

We have referred to other requests for parliamentary reform to come about and to be brought before this assembly. This is another item that could be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee for consideration as an innovation. It would indicate to the people of the nation that we are not just following the old rules and saying that is the way it has to be done.

We are willing to change as we have done in some excellent ways so far. We want to look at and try new things. This idea would certainly be new. I do not know of any other house that would treat petitions in the way we are suggesting here as the Reform Party. It would be very different as such.

This is where I was going to note some of my sources. The member for Kingston and the Islands informed me informally that the House received anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 petitions each session. There is no way we are saying as the Reform Party that we should discuss all those petitions. Of course not. Most likely there are some of major significance that meet some criteria we could establish. They could be brought before us under an agenda item called petitions for debate and dealt with in that manner. I am sure that would involve more people in trying to change the laws for the betterment of our citizens.

1644

There was some reference made in earlier comments that we could use the format of a private member's bill or of a resolution in the House. That is most likely true. That would be another way by which we as private members could get the issue on the table and debated before this assembly. I am sure we will use that format in the Parliament of Canada.

Those are two items on the agenda. What would it hurt to give some prominence on the agenda to petitions? Maybe the consequence of that would be to add a little more credibility to the concept of a petition. Before they were brought to the House they would be signed by people, knowing that they would be debated, that their names would be raised in this assembly and that change could take place. They would think ahead a little more about their responsibility before they signed the petition.

[Customs Tariff, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be involved in this debate. First, I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for the extensive outline of not only the benefits but the concerns with regard to Bill C-5.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Finance for the co-operation of his staff in providing information to us as a caucus, not only on this bill but on other bills as well. The staff responded very quickly and briefed us well in an open manner and presented us with a very good case for and against the bill and we were able to make a judgment as a caucus.

As we well recognize, the purpose of Bill C-5 is to extend Canada's general preferential tariffs for developing countries from June 30, 1994 to June 30, 2004. That is a major commitment we are making as Canadians to the needs of other countries in terms of industrial and social development, in our attempt to bring their economic base closer to what we enjoy as Canadians. In terms of a world responsibility as Canadians we are to be well commended for taking that approach.

The Reform Party, after examining this bill and going over the presentations that were made to us, supports the bill. We feel that it is right in principle and that it is an obligation we should take on as Canadians.

There were some very positive qualities of the general preferential tariff that we felt should be noted at this time in our presentation to the House. First, it will lower import barriers, a concept we support as the Reform Party. Second, the lower tariffs will stimulate economic growth in developing countries. Third, it is very wide ranging in terms of its unconditional nature as to how it can assist these countries. More than 180 developing countries and territories qualify for lower Canadian tariffs. That is certainly a benefit.

Another reason for our support is that while in a sense Canada loses in terms of bookkeeping some $156 million because of the lower tariffs, we recognize as Canadians that we benefit because the general preferential tariff will also enable us to have lower prices in terms of goods as consumers in this country. That certainly is a direct benefit in that sense. However, we do have some concerns.

First, while businesses in our country can benefit from lower input costs under this system, there are some questions with regard to savings that may actually be passed on to consumers.

We would be remiss in our responsibilities if we moved into the marketplace and said that we should implement some type of legislation to prevent that. I think more supervision by government, more public servants to do that which would cost us as taxpayers more money, or more interventionist actions are certainly not the way.

We must have confidence that the forces of the marketplace will take care of that concern. It may not in all cases but I think if we let the marketplace work properly, it certainly will.

Second, while this system will help developing countries, I believe we should go one step further by using this opportunity to encourage a responsible government in those nations. We certainly want to give disadvantaged nations a chance to grow economically.

However, we want to ensure, and I am sure we all feel this as parliamentarians, that these countries uphold a major standard of human rights such as we enjoy here in Canada. It is part of the obligation and part of the message that I think we want to send indirectly through this bill to those nations that are benefiting from our compassion here as Canadians.

Third, we should ensure that rebates to developing countries are not part of the deal. The government should ensure that countries only benefit from the reduced tariffs. I am sure the government will keep a watchful eye in that area.

Fourth, we as a government must prevent any kind of dumping of cheap imports into other countries as that may strain relations with our trading partners. For example, a commodity should not be imported into Canada at a reduced tariff and then dumped into the United States to cause a distortion in the American marketplace.

In summary, as I said before, we support the bill and encourage the government to move quickly in this direction. It was explained in our briefing sessions that if changes need to be made quickly, regulations can be changed and are in place and they can be amended to protect any industry that may be adversely affected by these tariffs.

Those industries have the right to appeal and to make presentations. If the government in its wisdom following those presentations sees that there is a negative effect which affects our industries or our businesses, it can act very quickly by changing those respective regulations. I think that is a good addendum to this bill.

If we take these points into consideration I believe we will be upholding Canada's trading interests, a goal that we certainly want to strive for. I encourage Parliament to support the bill and proceed with it as quickly as possible.