Doug Peters

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

They are putting their money there too because the interest rates have fallen 3 percentage points. This morning when I looked at the numbers, Canadian short term interest rates were below U.S. short term rates by 11 basis points. That is the key to credibility. That is the result of the credibility of this government. It is the result of doing the right thing in the budget and doing the right thing for social programs.

We have not forgotten social programs. I am going to talk a little bit about social programs because we have had-

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chairman, when we first took office I remember the finance minister and I sitting in the Department of Finance considering just where we sat. We came into a government that was in disrepute. We came in at a time and pondered over what the previous government had done. That previous government had given an estimated deficit of $32 billion.

What was the result we were looking at? The result was $42 billion to $44 billion, close to $45 billion at the first shot. That was a disaster.

The next thing that happened was the finance minister said: "We are going to not only set targets to bring our deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP in the third year of our mandate as we promised, we are going to set those targets and we are going to achieve them". I was at that finance department meeting and he told them: "Do not make any mistake, there is no way those targets can be exceeded. I want targets met in every way every year".

The first year the target was $39.7 billion and the final result was $37.5 billion. When we put that target out what was the press saying, what was the Reform Party saying? They were saying: "You'll never each the target. You'll never make those numbers. Those are impossible targets to make". Now they say that we are too low but they were not saying that then. They were saying that we would never make our targets. The first target was not just $39.7 billion, we got $37.5 billion. It was bettered by more than $2 billion.

Our next year's target was set at $32 billion. Are we going to meet that target? You bet we are going to meet that target. We are going to beat that target and better it this year. The $24.7 billion, the 3 per cent of GDP target for next fiscal year is going to be met and bettered again. We have another target after that of 2 per cent of GDP down to $17 billion.

If the deficits are measured in the same way that the Europeans and the Americans do, that deficit of 2 per cent of GDP would fall to $6 billion or less than 1 per cent of GDP. That is virtually a balanced result and is in the fourth year of the mandate. That is a remarkable set of numbers.

The hon. member also asked me about job creation. I think he answered his own question mind you, but I would be happy to answer it again for him.

In the first year of our mandate there was 4.6 per cent of real growth, or almost 400,000 new jobs, and it continued. The second year was not as good. We did not get nearly as many.

Job growth has revived the last three months. We got 140,000 new jobs and since we took office 600,000 new jobs have been created. They have been created by the private sector. Those are full time jobs. It is because of the positive atmosphere of the government. The financial markets have said that the government is a credible government. This government has credibility.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

I think she is too old to be a senator.

Even Dalton Camp, the arch Conservative, said: "According to Wednesday's media reports almost everybody liked the budget and generally approved of it. They were not offended or threatened by it. The overall editorial tone was laudatory, if not exultant, sounding like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in a rousing finale of its rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic".

Some business economists have sent items about the budget. "We are on a role. There is a momentum building in the economy", said Andrew Pyle of Path International. Sherry Cooper, Nesbitt Burns chief economist said: "Evidence continues to mount that the Canadian economy is finally breaking away from last year's nearly recessionary condition". I could go on.

The export business in this country is not just moving along slowly. It is not just being promoted by the private sector. It is our Prime Minister who has taken hundreds of businessmen on trading trips, signed billions of dollars worth of contracts and has done an absolutely marvellous job.

He realizes the importance of Canada's competitiveness. We have been competitive. We are competitive. We are more competitive right now on the international scale than we have ever been in the last 40 years since they started taking the statistics. As a result of that we will probably reach very soon this year a roughly balanced international current account.

When the government took office there was close to a $30 billion deficit in our current account. That means this country had to borrow internationally $30 billion. As a result of the export promotion the Prime Minister has done, as a result of the economic policies of this government, that has been reduced to a very small figure in the last quarter in the last year.

This year we will probably record a surplus. That is the net result of the sales of goods and services and the purchase of goods and services abroad. That is a remarkable turnaround. Any economist will say that is remarkable.

It is not solely the result of the private sector. It is the result of the climate the government has produced for the private sector to grow in the export market, the efforts of the Minister for International Trade, the foreign affairs minister and especially the Prime Minister.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chair, of course they come from the private sector. They come from the private sector because this government gives the private sector an environment in which jobs are growing. That is the environment this government sets, not the environment the Reform Party would set.

The member complains about our social programs. Referring to the old age program, Solange Denis who shouted "goodbye, Charlie Brown" to Brian Mulroney but this is what she said about our budget: "No, I do not think it was used to attract people. I fully

approve of the finance minister's plan. I have always supported the Liberals anyway".

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chair, not only does a 3 per cent drop in interest rates mean jobs, it means there is more than that in the budget. Meeting our fiscal targets means the interest rates drop but there is more than that. There were jobs for young people. A technology fund will be set up. All of these things bring our budget to a modern economy in which there are not just jobs but useful, productive and interesting work for our young people and for all people in the country.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chairman, I know it is very difficult for the Reform Party when we are running at a 58 per cent approval rating and the Reform Party is running at 12 per cent.

I know how disturbed the Canadian people are with this government. They do not listen to the rhetoric of the Reform Party. They are not listening to the rhetoric of the Reform Party about all of the perceived items rather than real items.

The real truth is that this party has delivered good government and good, solid results, results the Reform Party would not have dealt with. We have handled our social programs with justice and fairness. We have made adjustments in those programs the Reform Party would not have even thought of. We have done this with care and kindness and with the fiscal result that we have met our targets again and again.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chairman, first of all I would like to remind the hon. member that we are discussing a bill on borrowing requirements.

The reason I say that is that the number of $6 billion which I mentioned earlier, not this year's borrowing requirement but next year's borrowing requirement, is actually a borrowing requirement number. That is why I thought it pertinent to remind the hon. member that this was a borrowing requirement bill and not a budget. He will have ample opportunity under the budget legislation in committee to discuss all the matters he brought out today.

I would add that universality has been gone for some time with the income testing for the GIS. I think that was in 1988 or earlier.

It is very difficult for me to listen to the Reform Party say there is a need for universality and much more government spending, that a higher level of spending is necessary for social programs, when a little over a year ago that party suggested a slash and burn budget that would have affected these programs. The Reform Party would have taken money from medicare and social programs. The Reform Party would have ruined the social system. I find it very difficult to listen to the comments from the Reform Party.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Employment. I read through the budget speech. I read through the budget papers. I could hardly turn a page without finding something that mentioned jobs. Jobs for the young people. Growth and jobs. It was all through the budget papers.

We promised jobs. It has not been an easy time. This country has only got about 600,000 new jobs since January 1994. Not bad, 600,000 jobs. There were only 140,000 in the last three months. It is not as many as we would like to have. We would like to have more than that and we intend to have more than that. I suggest that the hon. member just wait and see how this budget does have that impact.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chairman, I have always had a high regard for Yale University. I thought it might have had a course in accounting that the hon. member might have taken at some point.

Let me remind him of a few numbers. He talked about a $17 billion deficit that would balloon to $22 billion. Let us look at that deficit the way those at Yale would look at it when looking at the U.S. deficit. If we look at the deficit in the same way as the hon. member did at Yale, the deficit would be $6 billion. It would be $6 billion if we did it the same way the Americans do their numbers. That is the difference.

That is so very close to a balanced budget that even the hon. member should stand up and cheer when he sees that number. All he has to do is go back to Yale and ask how the fiscal deficit is calculated down there. If he asked that question he would get the answer. If we did it the same way as it is done in the U.S., it would be $6 billion and not an imaginary $22 billion. That is the remarkable result of this government's efforts at deficit reduction.

The question was so long I have forgotten what the rest of it was.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chair, if the hon. member does not believe there are any responses, I guess I do not need to reply.

However, I think it is a very interesting speech on revisionist history which would give credit to some governments of the 1950s.

The unemployment insurance was agreed to by all provinces, unlike what the hon. member said, I believe in the 1930s, before the second world war.

He spoke about overlap and duplication. There has been a clear offer from the minister of human resources on the table for some while. Has Quebec responded? Not yet. The minister of human resources was quite clear this afternoon in question period about those questions. It was quite clear that the areas of provincial jurisdiction were being respected by the government and have continued to be respected.

Other matters the hon. member discussed have little if anything to do with the bill on borrowing authority. However, that we have a national employment insurance scheme is and has been of substantial benefit to Quebecers over the last years and the member should recognize that.