Yes, Mr. Speaker, but as a lead off questioner I thought I would get just a tiny bit more.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1993, with 42% of the vote.
The Deficit December 7th, 1995
Yes, Mr. Speaker, but as a lead off questioner I thought I would get just a tiny bit more.
The Deficit December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the people who came to the finance committee complained about the terrible consequences of the $4 billion cuts that took place last year.
What the minister does not want to admit is that because he cut so little all those cuts were for naught. All $4 billion was eaten up by increased interest costs. That is the issue.
Furthermore, the finance minister's logic needs some help. The first premise he presented yesterday: deficit reduction leads to lower interest rates, more jobs, economic growth and tax cuts. Premise two, which is implicit in the free-
The Deficit December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the many economists and business leaders who testified in front of the finance committee will know they are stupid and do not know what they are talking about.
I am somewhat surprised that the minister did not bring up this strawman comment that to do more would mean slash and burn. I am shocked that on other occasions the minister has attempted to portray all deficit cutting as slash and burn.
We know of the minister's love for hyperbole and the risk it brings, but the minister knows he is knocking a strawman. The IMF, his own advisers and Reform have offered plans that would eliminate the deficit by cutting fat and unaffordable transfer programs. Frank McKenna, Clyde Wells and other Liberal friends of his have shown how to do it.
Why does the minister not follow the consensus advice and examples available to him and make the cuts needed to preserve Canada's social safety net and enable Canadians to get back to work?
The Deficit December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, innumerable ordinary Canadians, business leaders, think tanks, economists and the IMF insist that setting interim targets for the deficit is not enough. They have urged the Minister of Finance to set targets for the complete elimination of the deficit within this government's mandate. I am baffled that the finance minister blinked and missed the easy opportunity to do so.
Only relatively small additional cuts are needed to satisfy these Canadians. The interim targets he chose increase the uncertainty about the government's resolve and prevent getting into the virtual cycle of more growth, even faster deficit elimination and lower interest rates.
Why has the minister chosen to subject Canadians to essential surgery but not enough to get rid of the malignant tumour?
Supply December 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, studies have shown that the utilization of unemployment insurance benefits is very hard to forecast. The reason is that institutions tend to exploit the opportunities. For example, we know institutions developed in Atlantic Canada that allowed workers to work for exactly 12 weeks in order to qualify for benefits and then the next batch came in to work for 12 weeks. This is how the cost increased.
I wonder whether the Department of Human Resources Development has looked at the possibility of similar institutional developments coming forward in the context of now making part-time workers eligible.
Unemployment Insurance December 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, that is clearly on some of those who get rebates, not the others. It is inconsistent.
Last month Canada lost 64,000 full time jobs. There are reports of a coming recession with threats of still further job losses. The red book reference to jobs, jobs, jobs appears to have been about job losses, not jobs gained.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since he proudly claimed credit for jobs created in previous months, will he now take responsibility for these job losses and tell us how he plans for Canadians to get back to work?
Unemployment Insurance December 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a general question about job losses, but I am upset about the logical inconsistency of the minister. He should have been coached by somebody who understands this.
On the one side, the minister claims that reduction in legislatively mandated premiums on unemployment insurance creates jobs. Then the minister turns around and says now we will legislate increased premiums for part time workers. He claims that one will gain jobs and the other one does not lose jobs. Could he clear up this inconsistency for me?
The Economy December 4th, 1995
Arise, young people of Canada. You have nothing to lose but poverty. This generation is ruining you. It leaves you with horrendous mortgages. You have heard of the visible mortgage.
The federal and provincial debt is about $800 billion and grows at well over $100 million a day. When you are raising your family almost certainly about one-half of every dollar you pay in taxes will go to pay interest on the mortgage this generation leaves you. Sadly this is only half the story.
There is another little known and largely invisible mortgage. Actuaries estimate the cost of benefits promised to pensioners through the CPP, OAS and medicare programs will double from about $50 billion to $100 billion per year. Your income taxes will be 50 per cent higher just to cover these costs.
Young Canadians, arise and join the-
Government Policies November 8th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, last week in Vancouver the Deputy Prime Minister attacked my suggestion that the prompt and unconditional devolution of some government functions to provincial governments would meet the aspirations of Quebec and other provinces and therefore would keep the country together.
My constituents have been irate over this attack. They feel the minister's objections reflect her party's elitist attitudes and callous disregard for the wisdom of ordinary Canadians, which have led to a near break-up of the country.
What exactly does the federal government know that the provincial governments do not know better about manpower training, cultural, medical, language and other policies for the benefit of their citizens who hold them accountable at every election?
My constituents are happy to be Canadian and have Ottawa remain responsible for the policies it can carry out best, but they are tired of having distant politicians and bureaucrats run their affairs. Pay attention, Liberals, before it is too late.
National Housing Act November 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, this is debate. This is not question period. We are debating the bill and I am giving an opposite view. I want to conclude with one last point.
If the government takes money that it does not have and gives it to an industry to expand, the industry will employ people and there will be an increase in output. However we have found people as a whole look at the increase in the debt. They begin to realize that their future tax obligations will go up to service the debt. They are worried about their children and grandchildren. This is why we find the spending of those who have to pay the bills in the future is down. That reduces demand, output and employment the same amount by which deficit spending increased on the other side.
That is a very well accepted proposition in economics.