Leon Benoit

[Petitions, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, the petitioners pray and request Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality. This includes not amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds for discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Petitions, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners request Parliament to oppose any legislation that would directly or indirectly redefine the family, including the provision of marriage and family benefits to those who are not family with family being defined as those individuals related by ties of blood, marriage or adoption, where marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman.

[Petitions, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour on behalf of constituents of Vegreville to table three petitions in the House today.

In the first petition the petitioners request Parliament to support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime. They also request Parliament to support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms. They request Parliament to support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.

I present this petition on behalf of my constituent, Stan Chevraux, and the people who signed the petition.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a couple of comments and then ask a couple of quick questions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister.

First of all, I want to touch on his reference to New Zealand. The parliamentary secretary in referring to New Zealand said this was an example of what tough deficit reduction can do and has done. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister should know that in fact New Zealand chose not to take tough deficit reduction action, and as a result its economy collapsed. Exactly the same thing happened there as Canada is facing right now.

One day there was no one willing to buy the bonds that New Zealand floated, and Canada is very close to that. That is what Moody's and the others are warning about. The parliamentary secretary had better do a little bit of reading on what happened in New Zealand so he can speak factually about what did happen. I thought I would correct him on that.

I would like to also talk about the target of 3 per cent of GDP in three years that he refers to as the target set in the Maastricht treaty. It was a deficit target but it was based on all government debt, not just federal government debt, whereas this Liberal target is on federal government debt only. The target the Liberals have set is nothing like the target set under the Maastricht treaty.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is a list in our budget document that explains in detail our proposed cuts and the background supporting information on why it is necessary to make cuts in those areas. As we go through our debate today these numbers will be presented. They are here to read. Surely Liberal members can read as well; I believe they can.

The hon. member for Malpeque talked about Reform draconianism. I want to talk about that. The reality is that if we continue down the path we are taking now with government overspending to the tune of $38 billion this year and a debt of $550 billion, we will lose the bulk of social programs.

Which is more draconian: losing the bulk of social programs or reducing spending on social programs by $15 billion out of total government spending of about $155 billion in that area, that is reducing federal and provincial spending together to about $140 billion? Which is more draconian: saving social programs and targeting them to the people in need or losing them?

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary commented on copies of our budget not being available. Of course they were. We announced that our budget would be unveiled in West Block, Room 200, at nine o'clock this morning. Liberal members of Parliament were more than welcome. I was pleased to see that one attended the unveiling. Copies have been readily available. They are certainly available in the lobbies now, as the member knows.

The parliamentary secretary of all people should know that when debate is on a certain topic we should try to stick to the debate as much as possible. The debate today is on the Liberal government's very weak deficit reduction target of 3 per cent of GDP in three years.

We will talk about our budget as we have been today. We have presented some important information regarding the budget. However we have to make sure it fits in with the topic for discussion today, the motion that has been presented rejecting the 3 per cent of GDP in three years as a target.

In terms of specifics, if the hon. member has read this document which is available and which he acknowledges he now has, he would know that we presented a lot of specifics. We presented detailed numbers in terms of reductions in the social program spending area and in areas outside social programs.

We cannot only look at spending when we talk about this budget. We also have to look at the empowerment measures that Reform has presented along with the numbers. The numbers are important in the budget but they are there for anyone to see. It is important to balance that. If we are talking about spending cuts in the area of social programs and other areas, it is really important to show the empowering measures to help people deal with the coming cuts.

This approach is far more valid than the Liberal approach of pretending that we do not have a serious problem and therefore not bring forward a budget to deal with the serious problem we in fact have.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand here with a great deal of pride in being a Reform member of Parliament who was a part of the Reform team that put together the taxpayers' budget that was presented across Canada. I am proud of that, but what we are talking about today goes far beyond partisan politics.

It goes to a problem that truly threatens the country. It deals with a problem which has come from successive flawed assumptions under which governments have been operating for some time. I will talk about those flawed assumptions later.

I would first like to talk about the warnings that have come from various sources which the government must not ignore. These warnings come from various groups and individuals across the country and from around the world. They are telling the government that its target of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in three years simply is not good enough.

These warnings have come, as I have said, from a variety sources. Most recently they came from Moody's Bond Rating Agency. They have come over the past from the C.D. Howe Institute, and from the Fraser Institute at various times. The warnings that this target is not good enough came from the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post just a few weeks ago.

I attended a conference in Toronto in November entitled "Hitting the Wall" at which the warning came from a wide range of speakers from various backgrounds who had been involved in governments which had gone through economic collapse and had been part of government and opposition parties who were involved in the clean up after the economic collapse. Their warning was very clear. It was that the scenario we are living right now is so similar to what they lived through in their countries that Canada should heed the warning.

The warning came at this conference from a Japanese bond buying agency that said that already Canada is paying unnecessarily high risk premiums on money that it borrows from outside the country. The reason I say that the risk premiums are unnecessarily high is that if governments in the past had been more serious about setting targets far stronger than the 3 per cent of GDP in three years, we would not be paying interest rates nearly as high as we are paying now. The warnings came from a public sector actuary who talked about the fact that the Canada pension plan is non-sustainable. It is not actuarially sound and it cannot be sustained under the present set of rules.

The warnings came from others, but there were several consistent messages that came from each and every one of the speakers at the conference. I know the government has heard these messages before but it should hear them again. The messages are as follows.

First, Canada has a serious overspending problem. It is a very simple and direct message and the government must hear it.

Second, the problem must be dealt with quickly. Again, this message has been given by people from across the country and around the world but it does not appear to have been heard.

The third message is that the Minister of Finance's budget is a last chance budget. The speakers at this conference, "Hitting the Wall", to a person said that this is the last chance. If the government does not get serious beyond the target of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in three years there is a very real possibility of economic collapse.

This is a last chance budget because it will be much more difficult for government to deal with the problem next year than it is this year. It will not happen. The political will just will not be there to make the extremely tough cuts and to take the tough measures that will be necessary a year from now.

Compounding interest, rapidly increasing debt, ever-increasing proportions of government spending going to interest payments on the debt would all make it much more difficult next year. These speakers said that there is no precedent in the world where a government has taken the tough measures necessary without going through economic collapse.

The warnings are there. The Liberals should consider this Reform budget as another warning. There are a lot of measures in it that I have heard expressed as recommendations by people in my constituency and in other places across the country who I have spoken with over the past several months and years. These are not just measures which were dreamed up by a group of Reform MPs. These are measures that have been proposed by Canadians.

I would like to go through something that is presented in our budget material and talk about the flawed assumptions which have led to the mess we are in now, the flawed assumptions which this Liberal government will continue to operate under. Then I would like to go through the positive results that would arise from the new set of assumptions which the Reform Party has presented. I will begin by reading the motion which we are debating today. The motion reads:

That this House reject this government's totally inadequate target which reduces the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP within 2 years and will leave Canada, at the end of the period with a federal deficit of about $25 billion, a federal debt of over $600 billion, $50 billion in annual interest payments and higher taxes.

That is the motion we are debating today. This motion stems from one of the flawed assumptions under which this Liberal government has been operating since it came into power a year

and a half ago. I will go through these and talk briefly about the consequences which arise from them.

The first assumption is with respect to jobs. The assumption is that government can solve the unemployment problem through public spending. That is the flawed assumption we have laid out in our budget today. In fact, that assumption was presented an hour or so ago by a member from the Liberal Party when he was talking about all of the things which his government had done. One of the wonderful things that member said was that his government had created jobs. I believe he said that his government created 40,000 jobs.

When Reformers reminded the member across the floor that it probably was not his government that created those jobs, that it was probably the private sector, the member backed off on that statement. He realized the error of his ways, at least for the moment. The error was that government does not create jobs; private business does.

The consequences of this flawed assumption and operating under this flawed assumption are that government spending is now at an all time high and there are over a million unemployed people in the country. If government spending would create jobs I would suggest that all Canadians would have more than one and more than they need.

Governments have been overspending to a point where we have an accumulated debt today of over $550 billion. Governments have been overspending for 30 years. Has that helped to deal with the problem of unemployment? The answer is no, we have over a million unemployed Canadians today and that is an unacceptable level of unemployment.

The second flawed assumption is in the area of social security. The assumption is that government is the best provider of social security through publicly financed universal programs. I think I can fairly say that is the assumption the Liberal government and past governments have been operating under.

The consequence of operating under this flawed assumption is that despite big government programs, the social fabric of Canada is unravelling. Health care, pensions and other programs are in financial trouble. Programs like UI and welfare create a disincentive to employment.

The third flawed assumption is that government spending, deficits and debts are okay if they are incurred in the name of jobs and social security. The consequence is that government spending and overspending are the biggest threats facing Canadians with regard to social programs today.

I invite members opposite to read our budget with an open mind and to consider its contents seriously in the final preparations of the budget to be presented next week. I certainly welcome their questions.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I say again, if the hon. member is going to criticize, which is good, then he should offer a positive alternative as we have done with this budget. I ask the hon. member for some specifics on what the Bloc party and what he would offer as an alternative.

In particular, I am really surprised that the member from the Bloc pointed out a concern with what we have mentioned and with what we have presented in this budget in terms of transfer payments. In fact, we have proposed to give more control to the provinces. I thought this was something that Quebecers wanted.

I will read a little bit from our budget on the principle of decentralization that the member referred to. "As a general principle, government services shall be delivered by levels of government closest to the people. The federal government should respect in practice as well as in law, provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and the delivery of social programs".

The hon. member has criticized us for this. This actually means giving a lot more power to Quebec and all other provinces. I want to hear specifically why the member has a concern with this area. I ask for his suggestions, other than separation which appears to be an option that Quebecers are not going to accept.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of criticism of our budget from the hon. Bloc member, but I would like to ask him where the Bloc's numbers are. If you are going to criticize a solid plan like we presented here today, then you had better have something to offer in-

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments and then a question for the hon. member who has just spoken.

The hon. member gave a very good history of government incompetence in the terms of fiscal mismanagement over the past 25 years. He has proven to be very accurate in that regard. Certainly some members of the cabinet from the governing party have played an important role over this time period including the Prime Minister who was finance minister in a former Liberal government.

The member also said that it is this fiscal mismanagement and the financial condition of Canada that would drive Quebec out of this country and is leading Quebec out of this country if the referendum is successful.

The hon. member said that under these conditions of financial mismanagement the federal system in Canada does not work as it is now. I absolutely agree with that. The federal system in Canada does not work as it is now. I would like to ask the member a question. I am going to put some "ifs" into the question.

If governments over the past 30 years had been more fiscally responsible, if the federal government had left the powers that rightly belong to the provinces under the Canadian Constitution in the hands of the provinces, and if each province were given control over language and culture, would this member be sitting as a separatist in this Parliament? If those conditions had happened, would he be sitting in this government trying to lead Quebec to become a separate country? I am asking the member to look back.