Peter Milliken

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 26th, 1995]

It shows in the polls, as my friend from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has indicated. It shows in the polls and it shows in the hearts of Canadians. They realize the government had to take tough measures. The govern-

ment took tough measures and Canadians support their government in the tough measures.

The hon. member for Simcoe Centre wags his head and says that somehow they are not tough enough. The hon. member for Bellechasse wags his head and says that they are too strong. I will not choose between the two extremes. We have chosen a reasonable path, a tough path but a fair path. That is what the Minister of Finance did in his budget.

It is important, in looking at what he did, to bear in mind the fact that he was trying to achieve equity, fairness and a balanced budget. That was important.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 26th, 1995]

There we have it. We hear it from the hon. member for Simcoe Centre. He says that they are right and the Bloc is wrong. The thing is they are both wrong. It is the government that has it right.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 26th, 1995]

It is a reasonable and fair use of the rule. The hon. member from the New Democratic Party is yelling shame, but he is smiling at the same time. In fact he knows we are letting the opposition off the hook by using this because they were running out of people who could make any intelligent remarks on this bill. Virtually everyone had spoken. The well was running dry. By using time allocation today we are in fact helping the opposition.

Let us turn to their criticisms of the budget. We are getting it on both sides. It is worth the opposition parties hearing this. We have the Bloc Quebecois on the one hand saying our cuts are too draconian, and we have the Reform Party on the other hand saying the cuts do not go far enough.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 26th, 1995]

I will leave her out of it for the time being.

I want to point out that we have moved time allocation in respect of the bill because we have had 15 hours and 40 minutes of debate before today. We will have the rest of today on the bill, all of the time allotted for Government Orders.

I am sorry we could not get any arrangement to extend the time beyond that. Had we been able to get agreement pursuant to the rules to limit debate to a certain time, the government House leader in his beneficence would have given the time. We were prepared to do that. However there was no willingness on the part of the opposition to indicate when they would terminate debate so the government has taken the step of bringing in time allocation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 26th, 1995]

Except that her leader has told her she cannot, so she is stuck.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 26th, 1995]

Oh, yes, the Leader of the Opposition. He helped to bring in these budgets. I forgot about that. I am glad the chief government whip reminded me of it.

In any event, in 1992 and 1993 when we were debating Bill C-93, time allocation was used after eight hours and nineteen minutes of debate. We have already had almost double the debate before time allocation was used on this bill.

I know the hon. member for Beaver River was here and I suspect she may have even spoken. Let me just check the list. No, I do not see her name. She did not get to speak on that occasion. I am sorry she did not because I am sure she would have denounced the Conservative budget too.

She should be praising this one because it is doing all the things she used to say the Tories did wrong. We have corrected the Tory errors. We are trying to make up for their blunders. She used to denounce them for failing to do things that we are now doing. I am sure that in her heart of hearts she supports this budget and would like to be able to vote for it today.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 26th, 1995]

I do not think anyone except the hon. member for Beaver River from the other side and some of the New Democrats will remember that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to participate in the debate today, in part

because of the importance of the bill. I want to put some views in respect of the bill on the record.

Also I want to anticipate what I know members opposite are going to say in the course of their remarks. I expect that you, Madam Speaker, and members of the House will be treated to a lot of bleating and whining and shrieking this afternoon about the evils of time allocation.

I want to speak briefly about the virtues of time allocation, at least in respect to the bill today. I certainly have had cause to criticize its use in the past. I want to point out today some relevant facts about the use of time allocation in the debate on this bill.

We have been debating this bill for four days. We debated it on March 30, March 31, April 3 and April 6. And there had been almost 16 hours of debate until today.

I turn to the experience we endured in respect of Bill C-93 during the debates in 1992 and 1993. That was another budget implementation bill. It implemented a budget much worse than the one to which Canadians have been subjected by the Minister of Finance. He has had to take very difficult steps in the budget, in part because of the dreadful budgets we endured during the Tory years. Members on this side of the House will remember.

[Motion For Papers, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that the notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.