Bob Nault

[Manpower Training, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day for Canada and the Government of Quebec.

As my colleague has said, today we have officially announced the historic labour market agreement in principle with Quebec.

We must consider how many years the discussions have been going on. There is a consensus in Quebec on labour market development. The importance of the agreement is considerable in that some $3 billion will be transferred to Quebec over the next five years. It will have immediate benefits for workers in Quebec.

I think we can say this is an historic occasion. We hope the agreement will be completed very soon and the active measures of the employment insurance system will go toward helping employees and employers put people back to work in the province of Quebec.

[Poverty, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member should be aware it is obvious that child poverty is the number one issue on the minds of all Canadians.

Therefore the agreement that we made with the provinces and the new child tax credit are intended to help alleviate the concern of all Canadians. To suggest that somehow any member of Parliament on any side of the House would not see this as a major challenge is quite disgusting, to say the least.

We are trying as governments to deal with child poverty. They are not interested on all sides of the House in having any underclass in our country.

That is the NDP philosophy. That is why people do not vote for the NDP. It tries to split people into interest groups. We try to deal with Canadians overall.

[Transfers To Provinces, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as an Ontario MP I have been hearing a lot of whining from Mike Harris and his chorus line in the Reform Party. They are trying to blame every cut in Ontario on the federal government.

They are tossing out accusations that Ontario's transfers have been cut by over 40 per cent. The fact is, when this government assumed office, total transfers to Ontario, cash and tax points, amounted to $10.3 billion. This year it is $9.1 billion.

The real reduction is 11 per cent, which only represents 2.5 per cent of provincial revenues. The 1996 budget includes a plan to start increasing transfers once again.

How much has Mike Harris cut? More than $6 billion from hospitals, schools, municipalities, social assistance and shelters for battered women. And why has he had to make these cuts? To pay for an irresponsible $5 billion tax cut for his rich friends.

Reformers can say what they like, but my constituents do not buy their sudden belief in medicare. I look forward to pitting our record and commitment to social programs against these right wing relics of the past.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, so far we have noticed that the member has alienated women, also Atlantic Canadians. I am surprised he has not alienated aboriginal people. But we did not give him enough time. Maybe we will give him the next opportunity to talk about his party's aboriginal policy.

I would like to know exactly where he stands on aboriginal policy since I represent 51 First Nations. I would like to know his views on funding to First Nations.

The last thing I would like to ask the member is if he could explain to us why we would be in favour of his particular old age pension plan which is going to increase to individuals some 14.2 per cent, as the Minister of Finance has suggested. Could he tell me if that is true or if Reformers have changed their position again and maybe gone back down to some other number? We would certainly like to know so we would know his position for the next election campaign.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

The point is, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the member that he not use the kind of language in the House which he has just used. That is the reason the situation-

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been a number of accusations in this House in the last number of years since this new party came into being, which was going to-

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, he can go on and bluster all he likes but I just want him to answer a very simple question. If his party's policies were so believable, why is it that he cannot seem to get over the 10 per cent mark in popularity with the rest of Canadians? In Ontario it is 6 per cent and dropping. It does not even go on the Richter scale.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Yes, that is absolutely right, my pension plan. I will get the Canada pension plan just like everybody else when I retire and the children of these members here hopefully will get a Canada pension plan as well.

That is why that particular party is at 11 per cent in the polls and sliding fast.

If what was said here just a few minutes ago was even close to being believable, and I want to ask the member this specific question, why is it that they keeping dropping in the polls? Is it that we are so good at deceiving Canadians that people do not realize that we are not doing a good job?

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if people were students of history they would recall that we have had right wing parties in this House before. I recall reading about the debates that the right wing was talking about when we brought in medicare, that medicare was going to be a total drain on society, that it would hurt the economy and that it would take people out of work.

Now we know that the economy quite frankly is considered by other countries in the world to be one of the best situations because of medicare in that it helps employers with their bottom lines and it helps employees.

Also, when we brought in social assistance or welfare as a national program in this country we had the right wing say the same thing.

Now we have these people across the way who are suggesting that because we have improved and made sure and secured because of the values of the nation our pension plan for future generations-

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the debate on what the individual who has just spoken and represents the third party said.

In the next election there is going to be a significant amount of discussion as to what we do as country in the new millennium. Part of that discussion is factually correct, as the previous speaker from the Reform Party suggested, as to what we do with this major surplus that will be achieved because of the good fiscal management of the government.

In that discussion there are going to be a number of items. One is Reformers in their platform have suggested that they are going to make government smaller. They are suggesting some $15 billion in cuts to the present government apparatus. My understanding in that scenario is the Reform Party will have to cut some 80,000 to 85,000 public service jobs in order to achieve what it perceives as small, efficient government.

We all know and the polls have showed continuously that Canadians feel very strongly about their social programs, feel very strongly about the ability to deliver those programs. I would like to ask the member if he would comment on that particular item, and while he is at it I would like to have him answer this for me.

Does the hon. member believe it is good economics for governments to give across the board tax cuts, like Ontario has, to the tune of so far 15 per cent in personal income tax, going up to 30 per cent of income tax reduction, which is a reduction in revenue of $4.9 billion when they are running a $10 billion deficit? That analysis is pretty easy if we picture the fact that this year they have had to cut $6 billion worth of services in Ontario. That is $6 billion of services that relate to education, relate to health, relate to transfers to municipalities, which of course have turned things upside down in the province of Ontario.

Would the member explain to me the whole issue of tax cuts when we need those revenues and when we still have a major deficit and whether he agrees or disagrees, and with his numbers as they relate to the 80,000 cuts.