Scott Brison

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I would not want to accuse the government or any committee member of leaking information. I do not know who is leaking the information from the committees but eight committees have had their reports leaked over the past several months. That is clearly unacceptable.

In answer to this, the government is talking about clamping down on the media. That is so perverse. As hon. members of this House, we pledge a certain code of conduct. For the government to say it will clamp down on the media is absolutely ludicrous.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I will deal with the privacy issue first. Revenue Canada has actually come a long way over the last several years in being a kinder and gentler department. That is not to say that there are not significant abuses periodically and that is not to say that it could not be improved.

My fear is that the progress that has been made could be largely undone if we develop an arm's length agency that will have, whatever way the government cuts it, less accountability than the current agency which is tied directly to parliamentarians in this House as a department and which reports to a minister.

In terms of the basic ways to improve consultation with Canadians, I would suggest that the government set a standard for its committees and actually give committees the ability to pursue public policy in a creative, non-partisan, consultative way. There is no shortage of great ideas. Most of the people with the greatest ideas are not in this House because they are too smart to run politically or they are not masochists.

There are great ideas out there and we need to make our political parties, our committees and this parliament more receptive and welcome to those people who have good ideas.

As I mentioned earlier, Canadians have more access to information now than they ever have before. We as a parliament have a duty to engage Canadians in dialogue on public policy issues, not to tell them what is good for them necessarily, but to engage them in a discussion about what is good for them. Periodically we could actually learn something.

We do not have to reinvent the wheel. We need to go back to the committee structures that have existed and have been productive in channelling public opinion and thought into good public policy.

We also have to be careful that public policy does not simply reflect short term public opinion. That can sometimes be bad as well.

There are some great ideas out there and we need to work with Canadians. If we work with Canadians and listen to some of the expert advice out there we will find that Canadians want and need a fairer, flatter tax code.

As polling indicates Canadians recognize that we have the highest tax of the G-7 countries. Despite what the Minister of Industry has stated, this is an albatross on the productivity of Canadians. It is holding us back as we enter the 21st century. It is part of the secular decline in the Canadian dollar. In the long term that decline can reduce productivity even further. Canadian businesses are denied the opportunity to buy some of the equipment and software they need to compete globally because much of it is imported.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We could go a long way if we were to ensure the committee structure as it exists was actually used by the government and parliament the way it was designed to be used. We should stop muzzling committees and operating them like branch plants of the ministers' offices.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that very important question. He is quite right that the committee structure as it stands now in this Canadian Parliament, under this government, has strayed significantly from what was intended.

It was intended as a means by which independent members, private members, could work together in a non-partisan way to gauge and to receive the views of Canadians and then to discuss those views as well as the expert advice of individuals who have intrinsic knowledge in these areas and then to develop policies.

The difficulty with the current structure is that the committees are being operated, by and large, as branches of the ministers' offices. They were not intended for that purpose.

We spend our time travelling throughout the country, putting on a charade for Canadians and pretending that their views are going to be taken seriously. Then we come back after weeks and weeks of travel, after hearing hundreds of Canadians, and we devote, as we did yesterday, two hours to the discussion on a draft report written by members of the research staff. To their credit, they have been working very hard and they deserve a lot of credit for their hard work in the finance committee.

If we devote weeks and weeks to listen to Canadians, and then devote two hours for a discussion on those recommendations, it is a sham.

We have seen a secular decline in the role of the MP. We have seen an emasculation of MPs since the late 1960s in this House. It is time, as the hon. member suggested, that private members have an opportunity to contribute to the fullest of their abilities and to actually participate in the creation of public policy.

The best vehicle for that is through the committees. They should be allowed to work in the way that they were initially designed and in the way they worked under the previous Conservative government under committee chairs like Don Blenkarn.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to Bill C-43.

The issue of cost savings is the one that has been trumpeted by the government most vociferously, that the government can save $171 million to $285 million in compliance costs and also savings of $97 million to $162 million in administrative costs to the taxpayers with this new Revenue Canada tax agency if all the provinces sign on to it.

That is a very big if, because the fact is the government has not been successful in achieving the agreement or the buy-in of the province to date despite significant lobbying efforts by the federal government. The track record of the government in this area has not been that successful. For instance, only three provinces have signed on to the concept of a blended sales tax, those being in Atlantic Canada, one of which is Nova Scotia which I represent.

The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers believes there will be no major savings to the government by implementing Bill C-43 to create this new Revenue Canada tax agency.

At a time when we should be focusing on tax reform, on reducing the level of taxation and also in creating a fairer, flatter tax code that actually enables Canadians to compete globally, we are spending an inordinate amount of time focusing on the logistics, on the minutia of tax collection, finding out better ways of plucking the goose.

We have significant difficulties with this piece of legislation. We have the risk of the amount of very personal, private information concentrated in a new arms' length agency that will not have the same direct linkage to parliamentarians that it does today.

We have a difficulty with the fact that this heavy handed approach of the federal government on any number of issues continues to violate the principles of federal-provincial relations. At a time when provincial governments like Ontario are speaking about wanting more access to the levers, the government is looking to create more or larger mega agencies to effectively control the processes of government. At a time when Canadians are looking for greater accountability this agency will provide less accountability.

The biggest risk we have with the creation of this agency is the potential to create an IRS type tax agency that will be less impeded when it goes after Canadians. Currently there are significant concerns that Canadians have right now with Revenue Canada and the collection processes and the enforcement processes that Revenue Canada has utilized over the years.

Those processes have improved over the last several years largely due to political pressure from elected representatives in the House, largely due as well to measures by former minister of national revenue Perrin Beatty with his taxpayer bill of rights which led the way to ensuring Canadians had more enshrined rights in defending themselves against Revenue Canada. Some of those principles are also being promoted by the Reform Party currently in some of its motions and recommendations. We are supporting those motions and recommendations which originated with the Conservative revenue critic and eventually a Conservative minister of revenue.

The government has not articulated in a convincing way the benefits to Canadians of this new agency. There are risks and there is a down side to this agency. We are not convinced of the government's validity and ingenuousness in promoting the benefits or what the benefits are.

The government speaks euphemistically about the importance the human resource factor has in its decision. It speaks about how human resources cannot be maximized under the current civil service. The government is actually talking about unions. It says it is not capable of working with the public service in Canada and the unions.

At a time when government should be a standard bearer in labour relations and at a time when a government should be demonstrating to Canadian companies how to work with labour and how to develop policies that encourage productivity and forward thinking and co-operative effort between management and labour, the government is saying that it is not possible.

Chrysler Canada has as a member of its board a representative of the CAW. In the U.S. automobile industry members of the boards of the big three are from the unions. This government is saying “We cannot work with the public service. We are willing to take all these risks because we are willing to abdicate responsibility for effective labour management and to offload that to an arm's length agency”.

Governments should be setting an example in this area because labour relations is a cornerstone of productivity. Good labour relations can help demonstrate to all Canadian businesses how they can become more productive. We should not be surprised that the government is taking a hands off approach to productivity issues. The Minister of Industry has said high taxes actually encourage productivity. There has never been a statement of economic illiteracy as profound as that. This is a government whose minister responsible for the economic strategy and industrial strategy of the country believes high taxes actually help productivity. It is little wonder the government cannot wrap its mind around the concept of positive labour relations as a cornerstone of productivity.

It is little wonder the government does not accept its role in both the secular decline of the Canadian dollar over the past several years and, more specifically, the 9% decline in the Canadian dollar over the last several months, 30% of which is due to productivity that is lagging in Canada behind our trading partners and behind the other OECD countries.

I will speak about the Canadian dollar and the relationship of the government's decision on Bill C-43 and the idea of government being unable to harness the power over the public service and has seemed to improve productivity in the public service. It is directly related to the Canadian dollar because a large component, and perhaps some would say too large, of the Canadian GDP is government related. If we do not get our minds around creating a more productive and efficient public service as opposed to trying to offload those responsibilities to arm's length agencies and specifically to the private sector, we will continue to wallow behind our trading partners in areas that are very important like productivity.

On the dollar issue, I know the Prime Minister thinks it is probably a good thing. He says it will increase tourism, which actually represents 1% of our GDP. He is spending too much time golfing and not enough time governing.

The fact is that a low dollar does not benefit anybody. In the short term there may be some minute benefits to Canadian exporters. In the long term, however, we cannot devalue our way to prosperity.

When lagging productivity within the public service is acting as an albatross around productivity levels for all Canadians, this is a time when the government should be embracing the opportunity to take this department, Revenue Canada, which represents about 20% of the public service of Canada, and revolutionize the delivery of service within that department.

This is a time when the government should be setting an example. Instead the government is putting its hands up in the air and saying “We give up. We can't do that. We are willing to risk the downsides of this agency. We are willing to risk the creation of an IRS type of agency that can run rampant over Canadian taxpayers simply because we lack the intestinal fortitude and the creativity to create good labour relations within our own government”.

This is the same government that has referred to a tribunal the pay equity issue and now it is backtracking on its commitment to abide by what the tribunal said. It is no wonder that our pubic service is at an all time low in terms of morale levels.

My cousin was headed for the public administration department at Dalhousie University. We have had discussions over the years about the similarities of public administration programs and business administration programs. Many of the same skill sets are taught in both business administration and public administration schools.

The difference is that there are some people who have a certain public ethic who want to be part of the public service, who want to serve their country and who want to participate in a positive, forward thinking public service that provides the best service to Canadians. It is those people who are being let down by a government that refuses to work co-operatively with the unions.

This is a government that refuses to create a sense of co-operation, proactivity and productivity that can lead the public service and set an example for all private sector entities in Canada that can lead Canadian productivity rates upward as we enter the 21st century.

I must say that I am not only frustrated with this legislation, I am also frustrated with the haste with which this government is pushing this flawed legislation through the House of Commons.

This bill represents legislation which would dismantle 20% of the public service of the country, yet Canadians are hardly aware of it. Canadians have not been consulted about it. There has been some lip service paid to it and the minister has travelled throughout the country and talked to some people. To my knowledge, as recently as a few weeks ago, the minister has yet to sit down to have a face to face meeting with the minister of finance of Ontario. Ontario being the largest province in the country in terms of population, it would certainly make sense for the minister of revenue to sit down with the minister of finance of Ontario to discuss a change in public policy of this magnitude. But in fact the minister has not had a face to face meeting with the minister of finance of Ontario.

There has been no real public consultation on this incredible sweeping change. There has been no discussion. There has been no cross-country consultation by the finance committee or a sub-committee of the finance committee. That is what we have suggested. We suggested that at committee. We suggested that in this House.

That is the kind of consultation Canadians are looking for. Canadians are looking for greater transparency in all of the institutions that represent them, including the institution of parliament and the institution of government.

A systemic abuse of power pervades this government. Its members feel that if they have an idea it is obviously right and that Canadians, whether they like it or not, are going to get it. What this government has not realized is the degree to which Canadians have evolved over the past 30 years, largely due to things such as the Internet and the education system.

Canadians have access to the same information now that we do as parliamentarians. In fact, Canadians who are utilizing the Internet and utilizing the worldwide web have access to more information than many parliamentarians in this House today.

Thirty years ago we may have been judged based on the information that Canadians did not have. I would not have been judged because I was only one year old and it would have been difficult to get elected at that point. However, 30 years ago parliamentarians may have been judged based on the information they had because they had access to more information than Canadians.

Today, in an age where Canadians have access to the same information, we are going to be judged based on the quality of the decisions we make with that information. Canadians, in fact, want input on that decision making process at a rate that is unprecedented. Canadians want in. They want to participate in these types of important decisions.

It is absolutely unconscionable that the government is pushing ahead with legislation that will impact the lives of Canadians as dramatically as this legislation will without actually consulting Canadians and telling them the truth about the gravity of this decision.

I call again on this government to do what is right and to engage the finance committee. It should not treat the finance committee as a branch of the ministry of finance or the ministry of revenue. It should go back to the model used by the previous Conservative government where Don Blenkarn led a finance committee that had autonomy. It actually disagreed with the government periodically. It actually did what committees were supposed to do, and that is to stand up for Canadians.

I call on this government to stop its haste and pressure and bullying opposition members into agreeing with its decisions and to start engaging Canadians and giving Canadians some input to ensure that the decisions we make as parliament, that the decisions we make as individual members of parliament and as caucuses reflect the views and the needs of Canadians.

We will not be supporting Bill C-43. I would hope that this government would reconsider not just this legislation, but its style and arrogance on any piece of legislation it has been ramming through this House and pushing down the throats of Canadians.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the motions in Group No. 1 respecting Bill C-43.

The issues are quite complex. The government claims that there will be savings of $171 million to $285 million in compliance costs and also savings of $97 million to $162 million in administrative costs due to this new revenue agency. That is assuming that all provinces opt in. That is a very big assumption. The government has not succeeded, for instance, in convincing provinces to sign on to the HST or the blended sales tax, with the exception of a few provinces in eastern Canada.

The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers believes that there will be no major savings from this new agency. The federation is certainly well-versed both in terms of tax policy, tax enforcement and also in terms of pointing out inefficiencies in government. I would suggest that is a very significant criticism of the government's plan to create this revenue agency.

We should be focusing, in a very holistic way, on the simplification of the tax code. We should be working toward a fairer, flatter, less Pavlovian tax code. We should be looking at simplifying both business taxes and personal taxes such that Canadians do not have to hire professional accountants and lawyers to deal with their own government. Instead the government is focusing on the logistics of the administrative aspects of tax enforcement. I believe that this is a misdirected effort at this time.

This revenue agency, the way the government is going about it, is inconsistent with general trends of federal-provincial relations. Provinces want greater autonomy. Quebec, for instance, is not interested, and Ontario is indicating that it may want its own agency. Ontario is looking to gain greater authority over its tax levers and over the enforcement side of it.

It cannot simply be said that the provinces are going to sign onto this. There has not been dramatic indication from the provinces. I would argue that without that commitment in advance this simply should not go ahead.

The government says that it will create this good agency and the provinces will at some point understand what a great agency it is and what a great service it can deliver and they will want to sign on. I am very skeptical, as are members of my party, that that will occur. The provinces certainly have not bought into the government's blended sales tax to the extent they were expected to. Although, we have to commend the government on its flip-flop on the GST. It certainly has come a long way in terms of its support of consumption taxes today as opposed to where it was in 1993. But hypocrisy is only half a mortal sin and I guess we cannot pillory the government too far on that.

I am concerned about the appointment process of the board of directors which will be responsible for this agency. I know that the government is saying there will be federal-provincial co-operation and that, in itself, will eliminate or reduce the potential for patronage. That is the same assurance the government provided, for instance, with respect to the Canada pension plan investment board, and yet, of the 12 members of that board, six are prominent Liberals. In fact, five were significant contributors and one was a former Liberal MP.

The fact is that the process is tainted. The board that is responsible for the appointments has representatives from each province, but that board is chaired by a prominent Liberal, Mr. Phelps. He gave a list of 20 names to the Minister of Finance, and the minister chose 12 people from the 20. I suggest that it is no coincidence that 6 of the 12, 50% of the board responsible for the Canada pension plan investment process, are prominent Liberals.

Members opposite will say there is no patronage. But it is interesting to note that only .2% of Canadians contribute to the federal Liberal Party, and yet 50% of the people on the Canada pension plan investment board are prominent Liberals. So when they say there will be no patronage in the appointments to the board of this arm's length agency, I am very skeptical and for good reasons.

Questions we have to ask are: Why can the benefits being promoted by the government in Bill C-43 not be achieved within the framework of the department of Revenue Canada? It was mentioned earlier that it is the largest government department.

The government indicates that human resources issues are part of the stumbling blocks, including the difficulty in attracting and keeping high quality people, as well as pay issues within the public service. I would say that this would suggest a systemic problem within all of the public service that requires a holistic solution and not the stop-gap, knee-jerk, crisis management kind of approach that this government is taking.

The auditor general speaks to the general government-wide dissatisfaction with human resources management in his report on matters of special interest. The auditor general says that dissatisfaction with existing human resources management is also reflected in the interest among government officials in alternative service delivery mechanisms. One of the driving factors has been that present staffing, classification and compensation systems are too unwieldy and inflexible. The government needs to ensure that the rush to get outside the system does not divert attention from fixing the system.

Many of the human resources issues need to be addressed throughout the public service. This is a prime example of an opportunity for the government to address them, starting with the largest government department, Revenue Canada, which represents one-quarter of the public service, 40,000 to 46,000 employees, depending on the time of year. We should start actively developing a meaningful, holistic, long term approach to the entire public service.

The public service has unprecedented low levels of morale. We are dealing with a public service that is absolutely devastated by the fact that the government has yet to agree to the human rights tribunal ruling on pay equity.

Government members speak in code, but sometimes when they are talking about the public service they refer to the unions as being part of the problem, although they may not say that directly. However, union issues are dealt with in the private sector. There are many proponents of the free market system which recognize that unions play a very important role in that free market system. Without unions representing workers there would probably be a need for a large government department to look after those issues. Ultimately, that would be far less effective and unwieldy.

If companies like Chrysler Canada and General Motors can work with unions and achieve efficiency, productivity and advances, why cannot the Government of Canada? Why can the Government of Canada not lead the way in terms of human resources development, as opposed to leading the way in ignoring issues within its own human resources? Why is it seeking alternative service delivery instead of fixing the problems in its own departments?

If we created incentives within all of our public agencies and departments, incentives that recognize and reward excellence as opposed to encouraging mediocrity and punishing excellence, and if we introduced market incentives within the existing agencies, we could achieve economies without necessarily creating new agencies.

One of the tragedies in recent years with the government's policies toward the public service and with politicians making gratuitous attacks on it is that we have a public service that is extraordinarily demoralized.

There are people who study public administration and learn many of the same types of skills required for a business administration degree, but they study public administration because they want to be a public servant. They have a public ethic. They want to work for the betterment of society and for the people. We have to recognize that and ensure that we have a system which encourages excellence, both in terms of attracting the best and the brightest, and also keeping them.

My colleague from the Reform Party referred to the potential of this agency becoming an IRS type of agency and I concur with that risk.

The issues raised by the member from the New Democratic Party are relative to the agency and the risks to workers and their job security. Keep in mind 25% of the public service is in this. These are significant issues. I am not convinced that the government has made a good case for why we should support this agency.

If the government cannot address these human resources issues, for instance, or if it cannot address why the advantages of this agency cannot be achieved within the existing structure of Revenue Canada, then I suggest the government has a significant deficiency in its human resource management.

We need more consultation with Canadians. I suggest the finance committee or a subcommittee travel throughout the country and consult with Canadians and discuss any matter of the gravity and importance of the new Revenue Canada agency proposed by the government.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I submit to the House a petition signed by many of my constituents. My constituents are asking that the government immediately comply with the orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the matter of pay equity.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Fundy—Royal for his words this evening.

I represent the riding of Kings—Hants. In that riding is the Annapolis Valley, an area known for its agriculture nationally and internationally. Nova Scotia has had two consecutive years of the worst droughts in over 50 years. Annapolis Valley has suffered dramatically based on weather conditions.

This is one issue that has affected our industry in our province dramatically. Currently there is federal-provincial finger pointing on this issue. At a time when it requires decisive action, at a time when we should be helping farmers, there is finger pointing between the feds and the provinces on the issue. The province of Nova Scotia is blaming the federal government. The federal Liberals are blaming the Liberals in Nova Scotia. It is not a very effective situation.

When we look on a national level, net farm income is down 55%. In 1998 cash receipts for instance in western Canada are down terribly. My hon. colleague from Fundy—Royal spoke of the pork industry. In Nova Scotia the pork industry is a $110 million industry currently with 1,500 jobs. If we allow our pork industry to disappear, it will be a significant loss to the province of Nova Scotia.

That is where we are at. It is not an issue of whether we can wait or whether the farm community on a national level can wait for assistance. Farmers need assistance now. This situation is not a time for dilly-dallying with the federal government. I commend the government that we are at the point now where there is a package being discussed at cabinet. We urge it to move quickly on that package.

It was interesting earlier hearing the Liberals, the patron saints of hypocrisy, who have backtracked on every major initiative in the red book from their opposition to the GST, their opposition to free trade, their opposition to deregulation and privatization. How dare they ever accuse any other party of betraying an election platform? They invented the notion. We see the Reform Party in an ideological box talking tax cuts for farmers at a time when farmers are facing bankruptcy. It is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man. Reformers say let us twist the arms of the Americans or the EU nations to get them to reduce their subsidies.

I am not disagreeing with the Reform Party that in the long term these steps have to be taken, but the fact is this has lasted for decades. The EU nations and the Americans are subsidizing significantly. It will take work but that will not help the farmers who are in crisis now.

They say they are opposed to bailouts. They probably would have opposed Roosevelt on the new deal. The fact is farmers need help now. While the Liberals dilly-dally and the Reformers pontificate about Adam Smith, farmers need help.

A nation's ability to produce food is fundamental. Frankly, current income support programs simply do not cut it. We need to act decisively. There is no time for this ideological warfare. Farmers need assistance.

The hon. member for Fundy Royal was speaking about the GRIP program which was gutted by the Liberals. On a national level if we look at some of the programs from the past, ultimately if we do not have sustainable long term programs that ensure there are funds and programs available for farmers in crisis we will always be back to this type of situation where we are trying to deal with a crisis on an ongoing basis.

This is an unprecedented crisis in recent history. We recognize that. We urge the Liberals to move quickly. This is not an issue for ideological wrangling. It is a time for us to do what is right and to help farmers.

In the Annapolis Valley we are seeing farmers go bankrupt at an unprecedented level. It happens every week that we are getting calls to our constituency offices and hearing stories of absolute heartache and devastation from family farms, farms that have been in these families for generations. There are seven or eight generation dairy farms that are facing devastation based on the current situation.

The pork industry is going downhill. The apple industry in the Annapolis Valley is facing significant challenges. We need a holistic program. We need to work in terms of foreign policy to address the subsidies issue globally. We need to address our tax policies in Canada and ensure that farmers and all business people are not impeding by an egregiously heavy tax burden. But in the short term we must do what is right. We must do what is important, help farmers who face a crisis right now.

[Ontario, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the PC government in Ontario has led the nation in economic growth and job creation. Ontario's economy will grow by 4% this year because Ontario knows and Premier Harris knows that if taxes are cut the jobs will grow.

When will this government and when will this finance minister give the same type of economic growth to the rest of Canada by cutting taxes, as Ontario has done, to ensure that all Canadians have the economic opportunities that the Government of Ontario has provided to the people of Ontario?

[Balanced Budget Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-375 today, brought forward by my colleague from the Bloc. The effect of Bill C-375, if passed, would prevent governments from engaging in the types of fiscal profligacies that governments have participated in in the past. It would prevent governments from incurring deficits except under extraordinary circumstances. The Minister of Finance would be more accountable to parliament for his monetary management.

In the 1997 election the PC platform called for making a law that politicians would have to balance the budget on an annual basis, legislation that would force governments to meet their budgets except in cases of wartime or economic crisis, and called for legislation that would cut the pay of the prime minister and cabinet ministers if they were to break that ban.

In our current platform and rooted in principles that we espoused during the time of the election, we are calling for lowering the debt to GDP ratio from 73% to 50%; a continuing low interest rate policy; cutting $12 billion in identified unnecessary expenditures; and balancing the books but not necessarily at the expense of health care or by raising taxes, which has been the way the government has achieved some of its dubious successes in recent years.

While the legislation deserves support from members of the House, it does not recognize the fundamental problem that deficits can be reduced and eliminated sometimes by making the wrong choices. The Liberal government has made many wrong choices in reaching a point at which we have a balanced budget.

By slashing health care, as the member from the New Democrat Party referred to; by maintaining unnecessarily and damaging rates of taxation which pummel small businesses and individuals and destroy initiative across Canada; and by maintaining the highest taxes of any of the G-7 countries that put our Canadian businesses at a competitive disadvantage to their counterparts in others countries, the wrong choices are being made.

Members opposite in the Liberal government certainly have some experience with deficits. It was under Liberal leadership that deficits grew from zero to $38 billion. My party cannot claim such a stellar record in building deficits. We only took one from $38 billion to $42 billion, which does not seem like quite the level of accomplishment the Liberals were able to achieve under their period of unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility.

Under Conservative governments the deficits between 1984 and 1993 were reduced from 9% of our GDP to 4.8% of our GDP by the time we left office. That took considerably well planned policy decisions that were courageous and involved the types of structural changes to the Canadian economy which were necessary not only to achieve deficit reduction then but to achieve deficit reduction since. I am talking about policies like free trade, the GST, deregulation of financial services, and deregulation of transportation.

It is through those types of structural changes, those types of forward thinking initiatives, that we were able to contribute to the deficit reduction battle. However, since 1993 those efforts have been combined with the slashing of health care and with the maintenance of unnecessarily high taxes. The government has put itself in the black by putting Canadians at an unprecedented high rate in the red. Canadians have the highest personal debt, the highest rate of personal bankruptcy in the history of the country.

Let us look at what has happened to students. Average student debt has grown from $12,000 back in 1993 to about $25,000 per graduate of undergraduate programs. The pages in the House have some benefits. They are in an enviable position in being able to work in the House and contribute so gallantly, as they do every day, to our proceedings. I am sure they have many friends who will be graduating with egregiously high debt loads. They will be harnessed to those high debt loads and held back as we enter the 21st century.

Fiscal responsibility has shifted. The deficits that used to be incurred by government are now being incurred by students like the peers of these stellar young pages, the stellar young public servants in the House tonight.

There is no valour in reducing the public deficit if it is at the expense of the fiscal health of individuals. We must continue to make the right decisions. I have some concerns about balanced budget legislation because it has the potential to contribute further to the ongoing trend of emasculating political bodies like parliaments. Parliamentarians should be more empowered to make the right decisions and I fear any legislation that reduces that power. Over the past 30 years we have seen a secular decline in the power of parliamentarians.

There are things we could do to increase the role of parliamentarians and to increase the scrutiny of public expenditures by the House. It was once the case that individual members of parliament debated line by line the estimates of various departments. That would increase the role of members of parliament as it would increase the level of scrutiny of expenditures. That would be a good move.

We could have a regulatory budget in the House whereby we could take a look at all regulations that are being proposed on an ongoing basis by bureaucrats within the system without being evaluated for cost. Those costs are very complex. Those costs involve the cost of implementation and the cost of enforcement, both of which are government borne. Perhaps most deleterious to Canadians are the costs of compliance which we never take into account.

Those are some of things we need to consider before we make new regulations. Those are the types of things we can do to increase the role of parliamentarians and at the same time have a greater level of scrutiny of public expenditure.

The balanced budget legislation has been successful in provinces like New Brunswick. Quebec had a deficit elimination bill starting in 1996 as well as Alberta and Saskatchewan. Manitoba passed the balanced budget, debt repayment and taxpayer protection and consequential amendments act in 1995. The cabinet minister who introduced that bill was a recent candidate for the leadership of our party, Brian Pallister. His bill was a very forward piece of legislation. It indicates the type of positive steps many of our provinces have taken to do the right thing.

However, at the federal level fiscal policy is extraordinarily complicated and complex. We are combining fiscal policy but there is also a monetary policy responsibility at the federal level. It is much more difficult for balanced budget legislation to be enforceable or tenable at the federal level. That is one difficulty. The American model goes back to 1985 when the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction act established yearly deficit reduction targets.

All these things are very positive but nothing can replace leadership. Political leadership and political will can achieve far more than legislation that requires balanced budgets. We need to ensure we not only balance budgets in Canada but that we do so by making the right choices and the right decisions. We must ensure that as we enter the 21st century Canadians will not be encumbered by wasteful government but will be prepared to compete globally, to succeed globally and to put Canada at the cutting edge of an increasingly global market based society.

[Transition To Employment, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House an important program in my riding of Kings—Hants. The program is called Transition to Employment.

The goal of the program is to teach computer and literacy programs, financial management and basic life skills development to the aboriginal people in this area. The program is administered by the Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselling Association which is based in Indian Brook at the Eagle's Nest treatment centre. The program requires that all of its members are alcohol and drug free.

The program has been an overwhelming success to date and its program co-ordinator David Paul and instructor Holly McCulloch have played a big part in that success. I congratulate all participants of the Transition to Employment program and I offer my complete support and assistance to their efforts.

I would hope that this program can represent an opportunity for the federal government and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to implement it across Canada to ensure that our native population has an opportunity to participate fully in the type of economic and social opportunities that Canadians deserve.