Ray Speaker

[The Budget, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the frankness and directness of the minister.

I do not want to have the minister disclose anything that will come up in the budget. However, could he indicate and confirm the commitment of the government that there will be no increase in taxes in that budget and that average Canadians will not be adversely affected in any major way?

[The Budget, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister continually indicates to us that he is unable to answer questions with regard to the deficit, the debt and deficit reduction. That bit of procrastination creates not only an uneasiness within this House but also in the marketplace.

When will the budget come down so that we can debate that issue with all the details and facts and get on with the job we have to do in this assembly?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

I want to make the statement I have made very clear to the hon. member who raises the question. The purpose of Bill C-3, and I read this verbatim out of notes from our briefing, "is to enable provincial governments to provide their residents reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonable levels of taxation".

In other words Bill C-3 creates a level playing field across Canada. This bill provides that we will bring the per capita payment up to the standard of $4,800. Now that does not bring it up to 100 per cent but it brings it from 85 per cent to 93 per cent in terms of comparability. A group of factors have been taken into consideration to bring about this standard and to do the best in comparability.

If we have equalized the opportunity for Canadians in whatever community they live, whether it is Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or Alberta or wherever it is, we have equalized it by Bill C-3. That is the starting point. Any programs allocated after that should not require an equalization consideration.

For example, housing through RRAP and if everything is equal, if it is $10 per capita in Newfoundland, then it should be $10 per capita in Alberta and $10 per capita in British Columbia or Saskatchewan or Quebec so that we should not have to consider it as much. However as we observe the distribution of federal funds in a variety of programs, and we even note it in the infrastructure program, we built a factor into that program that said it was still not quite equal in some of the provinces and that we had to consider the unemployment factor so those provinces receive more per capita.

That is really saying that our equity considerations were not working and that we still have to work on them and shore them up. I am saying let us be careful so we do not overdo that in the programs we design from this period of time on and in the programs which will be introduced in the budget which is coming up in February 1994 as well.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate on Bill C-3, an act to amend the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, I want to focus on two things. First, I will make some comments on the bill and equalization and, second, look at equalization in other areas of governments in reference to the formula that we are establishing today.

The bill has two basic purposes. The first purpose is certainly to try to eliminate the disparities that may exist among the provinces. The second is to design a formula for the redistribution of federal taxes to these seven provinces; some $8 billion in the early stages and as we move to 1999 some $10.4 billion.

There are some positive aspects of the bill as I examined it. First, the bill does have the support of the provinces of Canada and that is significant in itself.

Those who have worked at official levels and at ministerial levels have worked it through. They have reached agreement with the provinces and the provinces support the equalization formula that is here and the basic concept. That is important as we as legislators pass this piece of legislation.

The bill is an attempt to reduce fiscal disparities among provinces. As my colleague from Calgary said earlier in the House, basically we as the Reform Party support that objective.

I look back at my own history as a legislator and think back to the 1960s when I entered the legislative assembly of Alberta. This program, as we all recognize, came into effect in 1957. It was in its early stages of maturity and understanding in the mid-1960s. I remember raising the question when I came into the legislature with the premier of the day, the Hon. Ernest Manning. I asked about the resources and the revenue of Alberta being distributed to the other provinces and on what basis we made that decision.

I recall the premier's comments very clearly at that time. He indicated to me that as a have province which has been blessed with natural resources, oil, gas, water and forestry, we have an obligation to help others not blessed with some of the same types of resources. That was the thinking of the fathers of fiscal arrangements with regard to equalization. I see in this bill the same type of thinking.

Another aspect that is positive about this bill is that the formula has a ceiling and a floor to protect the provinces from major revenue reductions and to protect the federal government at the same time from open ended growth in payments. There is also the tax back problem that is dealt with here in this legislation. That is positive in itself.

Still another aspect that is significant is that the payments are unconditional. When we transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial governments, and we expect it to bring about the most amount of equity possible, those dollars cannot have conditions on them. If they are targeted and have conditions on them, what we are going to do is build in another interface that will not allow for flexibility, priority setting and certainly the ability of the provinces to reflect the wishes and the needs of their respective electors.

On the other hand, as I look at this bill there are some concerns and questions I would raise. There are two questions. Can the federal government, under our present fiscal circumstances, afford to continue the current level of equalization transfers to the seven provinces? This House must answer that question.

It is more incumbent upon us than previous houses because we are faced with an upcoming budget. We are faced with a deficit, most likely in this new budget, of at least $38 billion dollars as I understand. In the current budget we are faced with $44 billion to $46 billion of deficit. We have an accumulated deficit of $500 billion and most likely if things continue as they are by the end of this 35th session the accumulated deficit could be $600 billion.

We must show respect for that. Our concern, as pointed out well by my colleague, is that we feel this is one of the areas where we should have reduced the cost of government and we called for a 10 per cent cut. That is a question that I raise in the House. The rest of the members should raise the very same one as we raise in the Reform Party.

The second question I want to raise is equally significant. Is there equality in the federal transfer payments to provinces beyond Bill C-3 which we are facing today? Is there equity built into other programs beyond Bill C-3?

I would again like to remind hon. members of the objectives of Bill C-3. The first objective is to transfer federal funds to the seven provinces to raise their per capita income to a representative sample of $4,800 on a per capita basis. The second objective, and this is from the material given to us in our briefing, set out by the government, is to enable provincial governments to provide their residents reasonable, comparable levels of public services at reasonable levels of taxation.

In other words, Bill C-3 is to create a level playing field across Canada. Every province has a somewhat equal opportunity to serve its electors with services that they need in terms of health, education and social services, supporting their highway structures, their infrastructures and so on.

It is to build in that level playing field. That is what we are doing with Bill C-3. I want to raise a point to put the government on notice, that when it moves into new program areas it keeps that understanding in mind. It is very important.

Government often forgets. I can give some personal experiences which I will in my remarks. We must think of the infrastructure program that we just announced to Canadians. We said in that infrastructure program that we would have a factor in there in terms of employment or unemployment that would allow some provinces to get more of the infrastructure dollars than others.

If we create equalization by Bill C-3, why then do we build that into the infrastructure program if it is not already there? We could look at retraining programs. One will find the very same thing.

I would like to look at a document that I received from the Privy Council just a few days ago. It is a good reference when I examine the question that I raised in this Parliament. This document is called "Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities: A Descriptive Inventory 1992-93". The Privy Council put it out as of November 1993. It is an up to date, current document that should be referenced.

How does one recommend it to all the members of Parliament? It is a document that I used many times as a leader of the opposition in the Alberta legislature to raise the question with the government at that time. I asked if it were receiving a fair share as Albertans from various federal programs. If one looks through the document one will find the answer to that question.

I would like to raise a couple of points. First there is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I was one of the ministers from Alberta who negotiated Alberta's share of the moneys available through that program for housing in Alberta.

I remember sitting around the table and walking through those negotiations. I remember my attitude and it reflects on the question I raise here. My attitude at that time was that if some of the other provinces, the maritime provinces, Saskatchewan, or the Northwest Territories, required more funding to meet some of its social housing needs, I was prepared to be flexible, move on that and to give a portion of Alberta's moneys to them.

In other words I was saying because Alberta should have x per cent or whatever it is, 10 per cent or 11 per cent of the federal funding relative to our population, I was willing to give on that. I saw that there may be a need out there that needed to be met. There were less fortunate in terms of revenue than we were in the province of Alberta. I was willing to give.

As I look at this today relative to Bill C-3 and equalization, as a minister at that time I could have sat at the table and said equalization has occurred. We had a formula in place. Today we are putting through Bill C-3 hopefully to become legislation. We are going to put that in place.

Perhaps Alberta at that point in time should have received a percentage of the grant relative to its percentage of the Canadian population. Looking at the structure it does not quite work that way.

For example under the RRAP Newfoundland received $12 per capita, Alberta received $2.10 per capita, and Ontario received $1.85 per capita. The question is: After equity, should there have

been a $10 differential between Alberta and Newfoundland? Should the numbers have been skewed in that direction?

A second example is under transportation looking through the report I mentioned a few moments ago. Even under transportation there is disparity. For instance as noted in this report New Brunswick received $131.3 million under a program negotiated between 1987 to 1996 to do highway and transportation work. Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Newfoundland received millions of dollars to improve their highways. Yet when we look at Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario on the list there are no dollars for those respective programs.

The question is: Did we create equity by the formula to begin with or not? If we did, should we be allocating special funding over and above? Should not all provinces and all residents of Canada be able to receive the same type of treatment if equalization is real and that we do not have to keep shoring it up by giving political funds or other kinds of funds at a later date?

Another example cited in the document is that some provinces receive additional money for health and education. Special dollars are allocated. Around $1 billion is provided for what are called the seven less prosperous provinces, the same seven provinces that are receiving moneys through equalization.

As legislators and as people who want to create fairness, we want fairness. When Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia say that the formula is fine and that they are receiving no benefits, they should raise the question: Are the benefits after that of other government programs allocated fairly across this nation? We should ask that question.

Looking back at my own political experience provincially I raised this once in a while but not in the same context. I often look at provincial treasurers and those who negotiate at the table as to whether they ask the same question. If we created equality with Bill C-3, why are the other funds not allocated from the Government of Canada done equally for all Canadians no matter where they live?

We should think about that in this assembly as we proceed to the budget in the third week of February and look at the new programs and raise the question: Are all Canadians no matter where they live going to receive equal treatment, have equal access? Will each province have some equality in the distribution of the funds of that budget? If that is so, then we have improved the circumstances and we have made a contribution.

I am not always sure going back in history whether parliamentarians or governments look at it on that basis. It was often allocated for political reasons. Often there was this misconception that equalization had not occurred so some more would be added to some of the provinces that are called the have not provinces of Canada.

With those remarks, we in the Reform Party in general support the concept of equalization. We are concerned about the dollar amount of $8 billion and that there was not some kind of reduction. Because of that we are not going to be voting for the bill. The other concern I have is the one I raised about continued equalization and fairness in other moneys that become available for us to distribute as parliamentarians.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Often one of the reasons that one has very brash reactions from the general public is that it does not seem to be able to vent that feeling somewhere.

This matter concerns both federal and provincial taxation. It could be open to a citizen's initiative. Potentially we could even have a referendum on it but it takes a bit of time to do that type of thing. I know we are sort of in the hot box and have to make a decision on this one right away. That often will occur. If we had the procedure in place then we could make a rational adjustment to use it. I would like to see that very much.

We are having a public discussion with regard to cigarette smuggling. I believe the public has an answer to it somewhere. The government will look at it from a certain perspective but I am not sure it would reflect public opinion at the present time.

In a quick answer to the question, opening the public process would bring about a more satisfactory answer than one we would make here believing what the public servants have fed us.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very great day and one we should mark high on the marquee as being very important for the House, for Parliament and for the people of Canada.

First I want to thank the government on behalf of the Reform Party for putting such a broad agenda before us. Its willingness to look at changes to the committee structure and then presenting those changes will bring about certain expediencies and as well make those committees more effective. The second matter we appreciate very much is that the agenda to be set before the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs will be broad enough to look at a number of items we think are very important to the process and the way we act as parliamentarians.

We must recognize as parliamentarians that the attitude of the public has changed and that we must adapt to the changed attitude and expectations. The public we have spent millions of dollars on for years and years ought to be able to be more involved in the process. I believe we have arrived at a point at which it said to us: "We have arrived; we want to be involved so you as legislators make sure you have a process by which we can intervene and present our points of view and direct government during a session of Parliament, specifically during this 35th Parliament".

All of us have heard that this is not just a Canadian phenomenon. It is a phenomenon of the United States. Over the weekend some members of Parliament had the opportunity of hearing a presentation on Congress reform so that Congress would be able to hear what the public wanted. The fellow who presented it talked about the attitude of Americans and how they wanted to be involved. It is very consistent with what we are hearing. It was a good message.

Japan, Europe and other parts of the world have gone through the same populous phenomenon, the same people involvement phenomenon. We must pay attention to it as it is significant.

This attitude came into focus during the debate on the referendum. At that time the old traditional approach, the elitism, or the hierarchal approach to politics was defeated by a broad base of populism. People on the no side had very few dollars to spend. People on the yes side had millions of dollars and they spent it through a variety of mediums trying to convince the population that they should vote yes on the referendum. The people said no, that they would decide and they did.

We have to recognize other characteristics in the process. They should be a lesson and an influence on what we determine after we have hearings and the committee comes back with its report. Voters want more input and more say in the decisions we make not only at election time but between elections. They want equality of input. Everyone no matter their social standard or what economic position they are in-the poor, the middle income, the rich-wants to have something to say about the process and we must open the doors for them.

Something very important to me which I have seen happen in our political system is that certain vested interest groups and certain people within our society are able to succeed because of who they knew and who they were able to influence in government. People are saying to us that is not the current rule and is not the way it should be. It should be taken out of the political process. It should now be what one knows, what one's attitude is and what one can place into debate to determine the actions of government. It should be this way not only in the House but also within the rooms of the public service and of the ministers with whatever actions the minister takes in his or her public responsibilities. That is a very impressive major change to me as a parliamentarian.

What challenge is offered? How do we respond to our leaders who now are the electors? The electors are finally getting through to us and saying something. How do we respond? First we must respond by adding opportunity to the process. In the agenda before the standing committee are some very important matters: citizens' initiatives, referendums and direct representa-

tion to the standing committees so that the members of Parliament can be more involved and more aware of attitudes.

Some people say we are going to a referendum on everything. That is not the intent of a referendum nor do people want that type of government. They do not want daily referenda. They want to know that if they want utilize referenda it is there so they can get involved. It is very important that we add it to our process.

The second matter they want to challenge us with, and this may be said of myself being around for some time or some of the members of government who have been around Parliament for a period of time, is that we must be prepared to change our thinking. As a new member of the House we should also take that advice.

Today I would like to call on the Prime Minister and the government House leader, who made a very eloquent and elaborate presentation today, to think in a more open manner. We must reconsider some of the traditional approaches on how we act and how we behave. It is often easy to say we tried that before and it does not work, we should not have that on our agenda. I have gone through the process a number of times. About 10 years ago I had a certain experience in my legislative responsibility. At that time it may have been out of step, but today it is more acceptable. Some of these public processes are just good examples of that.

For example, I would like the government to reconsider its thinking regarding free votes. In the early stages we do not have to have a free vote on everything. Possibly there is an area where we can test the free vote without the confidence convention. Maybe there are some areas where new programs of expenditure will be initiated by government. It could be in the budget process. The Prime Minister, by announcement, could say this item is open to a free vote; the convention is not there. That would be acceptable to the House. It could possibly be done on some of the bills that reference expenditures where it is a new policy, one that has not gone through the electoral process.

As I listened to the House leader's remarks today I felt that was part of his concern, that if the political party has made a commitment out on the hustings it should follow it through. I would, in a sense, agree with that. It has been given a mandate to follow through so it should. The House of Commons may have a limited amount of authority, but there should be some areas where we can test this concept without just rejecting it in whole. I call on the House leader to think about it. I also call on the committee of House affairs to examine it further.

I have one minute left and would like to cover two other topics. I support the changes in the committee structure as it concerns my involvement with the finance committee. It is excellent the government is giving us more opportunity and flexibility to be able to determine the direction of government. I appreciate that very much as an opposition member.

The proof is certainly going to be in the follow through. The note that I wanted to highlight in this last minute of my remarks is that historically-I read some of the reports of committee work-the concern was that ministers and senior government officials did not listen to the committees after they did some good work. I know the initial attitude of the government is to change that and try to listen to the committee.

Another suggestion I want to make for the committee today in my brief remarks is that we look at using the technology of the day and the available electronic equipment to do away with some of what I call the paper pile up and waste I find on Parliament Hill.

Two weeks ago I set outside my office a huge pile of paper. I said: "What a waste". I looked through it and there were many things that were not relevant to my responsibilities. There must be some way we can even have Hansard electronically available without sending that major document to our office every day. I would like to add that to the committee's agenda for it to look at. There would be cost savings, more efficiency and an update of the process.

In conclusion elitism is out. Populism is in. If we make these major changes during the 35th Parliament, I will be able to say we have achieved significant relief for the people of Canada.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

In terms of the first question, if that reform means improving things and doing better we certainly agree with that.

In terms of our targeting social programs and the hon. member said social problems, I think we are using semantics more than anything. I believe what the hon. member is saying is that individuals out there are in need and that is who we would target. We would have to categorize for example those that we feel need incentive and encouragement to go back to work, look after themselves as our economy picks up. We should have that kind of flavour in our society. Our Prime Minister said the other day that he wanted to get rid of dependency. We agree with that.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

That is an excellent question from the hon. member. We look at it this way. If we are able to reduce the cost of government, people will have more money in their pockets to pay for some of their services.

There is a direct relationship between the reduction of the cost of government and being able to pay for some of one's own needs. In the four areas I mentioned, in terms of food, clothing, shelter and health care, we would look at the individual having more of a direct relationship between using the service and paying for the service.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

I appreciate very much the courtesy to me and the hon. member as well, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to indicate I appreciate very much that the government has allowed us as members to have input into the reforms of the social security system and to make comments.

The minister has requested that all Canadians throw off the old ideas, put aside vested interests and give some new impetus and some new objective to our social security programs. That is a very honourable objective of the minister.

Many other ministers and many other governments in the past have also set the very same objectives. It seems to be a pattern. When a new government comes to a legislative assembly or the House of Commons the first thing it wants to do is review what has happened and start anew. I certainly hope when we do this review, we maintain some of the good programs and some of the assistance, the safety nets that have worked well across this nation.

Many Canadians in health departments and in social services, social development and welfare departments have worked hard to try and hone the current system this nation has. Over the years I have had the opportunity of being involved in a number of those reviews and studies.

The point that I want to make in my few moments here today is with regard to what I see as the objectives of the Reform Party of Canada and how we want to place ourselves in this review and reform that will happen.

I say to the hon. member for London-Middlesex who was talking a little earlier about having an inside track on reform, I hope we approach the reform of the social service system on a broader basis so that all Canadians and all sides of this House of Commons have input into the new changes which will come about during the first or second term of the 35th Parliament. Not just the government, not just the Liberal Party, not in a partisan way but on a broader basis.

As the Reform Party we must do two things. First of all, we have a basic philosophic approach to social programs and those programs meeting the needs of Canadians. I am sure all of us have heard that in this assembly. We believe we should help those in need, that no Canadian should suffer from a lack of food, clothing, shelter and health care, that those basic four requirements should be available to every Canadian. We believe it should be there.

However we also say that because of the current circumstances where we are some $500 billion in accumulated debt, that the current track of the Liberal government as is set out in its program whereby the object is to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the GDP, even reaching that target we well recognize that in the first year, if we reach that target in 1994-95, there will still be a $25 billion deficit to accumulate on the debt. If we looked just at that figure over the next four years we would add another $100 billion to the $500 billion.

What does that do in terms of the tax dollar? Right now, 32 cents out of every tax dollar goes to pay interest costs. If we continue to build up the accumulated debt, as some economists and some of those who have researched this very well have indicated, if we continue on that type of a spending pattern, by the end of the century we will end up paying 50 cents of every one of our revenue dollars toward interest costs. The question then is: How much does that leave to meet those basic needs we think are so important, the food, the clothing, the shelter and health care for Canadians?

We cannot run the country on 50-cent dollars. It is impossible to do that kind of thing. We have to come to grips with it.

With respect to the upcoming budget, in the informal discussions that are going on not just in this assembly but in discussions in other committees and in talking informally with government members and those who are trying to examine the budget deficit that is coming up, the forecast is that we most likely will have a deficit in the 1994-95 budget of $38 billion to $39 billion. So we can imagine how that is going to erode and eat away our capability as legislators to meet our social objectives. That has to be part of the discussion when we look at reform.

It will not be the ideal that we come up with. We have to work within the financial constraints we are facing. Certainly I would recommend to the government in this reform that we must then look at the definition of those in need.

There are a couple of examples. During our campaign period we talked about those on old age assistance. At the present time some $14.4 billion are allocated across this country in the current year. In the former fiscal year it was about the same amount of money. Those dollars, $14.4 billion, are allocated to those persons receiving old age assistance.

What we are saying as Reformers is an example of targeting of programs. Those seniors getting a family income of $54,000 or more-we feel that is adequate for the senior to live on-if we were able to on a graduated basis maybe to $70,000 of income, reduce their old age assistance using a formula we could take out of expenditure in that old age assistance program some $3.4 billion. That amount could go toward reducing the deficit. Rather than a $38 billion or $39 billion deficit that adjustment in program may bring it down to $35 billion or $36 billion. That is the kind of thing we have to do.

We have to look at the whole health care program. I know the question of user fees is tossed around by the various provinces. I come from the province of Alberta which is seriously looking at user fees. I know the government has said it will not do that but it is not because it wants to punish someone or take something away, but there is a capability during these difficult economic times for people to be able to pay for part of the service.

It is also believed there may be a deterrent in that those who really do not need the health care service will not visit the doctor as often as they are presently doing. We have to look at the case of user fees as well in this review and this reform.

I could use other examples with regard to targeting of programs. Under the circumstances I believe those terms of reference must be considered in this reform. This is not a period where we have a lot of money, where we can say to Canadians that everybody is going to have a share of the government pie or the revenue. We are not at that period of time in our history as legislators and we have to recognize that. We have a major

responsibility in this assembly to come to grips with targeting social programs and to be very fiscally accountable.

In my last few moments I would like to refer to a report that was done in Alberta in 1967. This report is a white paper on human resource development. It was written by the Hon. Ernest Manning at a time when I was in his cabinet as the Minister of Public Welfare. A major author of this was also his son, now the leader of the Reform Party.

We put this white paper together and I am not referencing it just for the sake of bringing this document here. There are some basic principles in this paper that looked at human resource development. It was the first document put together in Canada on human resource development. We in the province of Alberta introduced that concept. Following that period of time there were other provinces and also the federal government of the day that accepted some of the basic philosophy of the human resource concept.

There were three basic objectives. One was to look at programs of maintenance. There is a group of people in Canada that needs assistance and maintenance. The second one was rehabilitation and the third was preventative programs.

We had leading programs in the area of prevention in Canada and I would like to recommend that to the committee for study.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

I wish to ask the hon. member how he sees the study that is going to take place with regard to human resource development. Does the hon. member see the targeting of programs for those who are need or does he see it in terms of the philosophy of the government approaching the responsibility of human resource development, social services and other related programs on a broader budget basis?