House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.
National Defence March 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, over a month ago the Minister of National Defence claimed to have been ill-informed by the military chain of command specifically concerning information regarding the airborne videos.
Has the minister satisfied himself that these concerns with information from the chain of command have been addressed? What specifically has he done about them?
The Budget March 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the government knows the cuts are inadequate. Yesterday in Toronto when the Minister of Finance was asked about additional cuts to the CBC, he joked: "Is this being televised? Because if it is, it is a very different answer".
What additional cuts are being planned to deal with the failure of the budget? Cuts to the CBC, cuts to old age security, cuts to unemployment insurance, cuts to health care. Why will the government not tell Canadians about these cuts in public and on camera?
The Budget March 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and other financial firms continue to provide warnings about the financial situation of the Government of Canada. They continue to evaluate our securities.
Yesterday, Standard and Poor's lowered its outlook on our foreign currency debt from negative to stable, saying that it reflects the possibility of a downgrade should the slow pace of deficit reduction fail to ease the government's debt and interest rate burdens over the next few years. The budget does not get the job done.
Will the minister admit that the cuts in the budget are inadequate to control the growth in debt and interest payments?
The Budget March 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the spin doctors and all the puff pieces, there is growing evidence that the financial markets have not been fooled by the budget. This week the Canadian dollar has fallen steadily and dramatically. Interest rates have risen on all forms of Canadian government securities.
Today the Globe and Mail says that the finance minister calls the cuts good politics. Will the minister tell us why the government has chosen good politics when the situation requires good economics?
The Budget March 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the budget proposals that the Reform Party prepared last week and tabled were done publicly and in a manner that is open and available, unlike the plans being made by the government. Any Reform member's office can be contacted by any Canadian and the information will be provided.
There were $15 billion in cuts to social programs, leaving a social program envelope of $65 billion. That $65 billion will not be available when we learn how the government is really going to eliminate a deficit of $25 billion.
The Budget March 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the member raises the issue of cuts to the civil service, asking how I can condemn a program that reduces the civil service and tries to do so in a compassionate manner.
Reformers would not try and do that. In fact, Reformers told the civil servants in this city in the last election that these kinds of cuts would be necessary. We told them we would try to do it in a compassionate manner and we lost that election.
The Liberal Party candidates who won told civil servants precisely the opposite. They guaranteed collective agreements they are now breaking. They guaranteed jobs they are now removing. They guaranteed wages they are now taking away.
Now Liberals tell us that will not cut social programs by $15 billion. By the time the Liberal government is done, the cuts proposed by the Reform Party in last week's alternative budget will look very minor and the programs we proposed will look very good.
I am not surprised at anything that comes from people who will run on one thing and a year and a half later say the opposite on every single area of public policy.
The Budget March 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, Reform members will be splitting their time today.
I cannot say I am honoured but I feel responsible to join in this budget debate and to speak against both the budget and the amendment on the floor. I remind the House that it was only one year ago that we in the Reform caucus were saying several things about a budget which had just been tabled.
Those things were that the targets contained in the budget-the target of a 3 per cent deficit to GDP-were not good enough. Even if those targets were to be achieved they would add billions of dollars in cuts to deal with the accumulated interest payments that would be realized as a consequence of adding to our national debt. In so doing, we were assured time and time again that the targets and the measures laid out in that budget were good enough and that they could be achieved with no additional budgetary action whatsoever.
What we have this week is a budget with spending cuts of $12 billion and tax increases of $1.5 billion, all in a period of exceptional economic growth, even above what was foreseen in the previous budget.
It is in order to achieve the very targets that we started out with, the very targets that are inadequate and that we were supposedly going to be able to achieve with no cuts whatsoever. Why? Because on this particular budget path we have added interest payments of $12 billion.
The interest costs on the government's debt will rise in this same period from $38 billion to $50 billion. We are cutting $12 billion in spending now to achieve what? It is to achieve a stable debt-GDP ratio at the top of an economic cycle, so that it will do nothing but rise when we face the inevitable downturn. It is called an achievement. It is the government's belief that this is its ticket for re-election.
This reminds me so much of what the Progressive Conservatives did in 1988. They reached exactly the same point, except at a much lower level of debt and then said all was well.
What do we say now? We say that this is not adequate. We say that this path will continue to add interest charges that will come out of program spending. What are we told? We are told that
there will be no more cuts to achieve our targets, especially not in the area of social programs. We will achieve these targets nevertheless.
The finance minister knows this is not true. There is such a gap between what the Liberal government says and what it does that it is just astounding. It explains why the finance minister must on a daily basis so grossly exaggerate Reform policy in order to cover his real agenda.
In fact my Bloc colleagues in question period today were calling his statements demagoguery. That is the only way to describe his desperate defence of the course he is leading us down.
Some of the cuts in the budget should have been made a long time ago and I agree with them. However it is interesting and necessary to compare them against what the Liberal government said versus what it meant. I am not talking historically but just in recent memory.
As recently as a year and a half ago the Liberal Party said it was against free trade and it would pull out of the free trade agreement. What it meant was it would strengthen free trade, continue those agreements and expand them on a scale that was not foreseen before.
When the Liberal Party said it was committed to keeping Petro-Canada and would not privatize it, what it really meant was it would finish the job of privatization.
When the Liberal Party said it would guarantee funding for the CBC what it meant was it would guarantee that its funding would be continually cut.
The Liberal Party said a Liberal government would never cut the civil service, but what have we got here? Not only do we have retro-cuts, but what the Liberal government really meant was that it would cut the civil service at record levels and do it retroactively by reopening collective agreements.
The Liberal Party said a Liberal government would never cut transfer payments to the provinces. What it will not transfer to the provinces is additional authority or additional tax points, but it will cut the transfer payments to the provinces at a record level.
The Liberal government said it would never raise the tax burden on the middle class. That apparently did not include gas taxes which are paid by ordinary citizens of every class. It did not include limiting RRSP contributions which hit certainly at members of the upper middle class which I would distinguish from the rich. It would raise utility taxes on ordinary consumers, providing they live in Alberta and a few other select areas of the country. It is now prepared to raise tobacco taxes which fall generally on those with lower than average incomes. The Liberal Party said it would never raise taxes on the middle class but what it really meant was most of the tax increases will be on the middle class.
The Prime Minister said he would never allow a society where we see beggars in the streets. What he really meant was he would never walk to work but instead drive by in his limousine so he never sees the beggars that we all meet every single day that we come here.
The Liberal Party now says that it will never cut health care, unemployment insurance, old age security, the Canada pension plan, child care or any of those plans. It says it will never cut them like the Reform Party intends to cut them. What the Liberal government really means is that it is not going to tell Canadians what those cuts are until they come. It is not going to bring them in them until the debt and the interest has drained off every red cent necessary to have a program of any kind.
What the Liberal government also said was that generally it will never cut the social security of Canadians. What do the Liberals really mean when they say all these things about compassion and sacrifice? They mean they will never take MPs off their gold-plated pension plan and you will never see MPs begging in the streets.
The leader of the Reform Party proposed last week a plan for a balanced budget with social programs that are clearly smaller and more decentralized than we have today. These are not popular measures and we know that. Those programs are based on clear objectives and values with dollars that are available today.
As bad as the Minister of Finance will paint this, these programs are going to look very good by the time we find out what the government really plans to do with social programs.
The choice is very simple. Canadians will have accept the tough medicine necessary to get us back to fiscal to health. The alternative is to buy the same snake oil from the same snake oil salesman at a price that is going to go up and up and up.
Points Of Order March 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the Chair's enlightenment that in this case the question was put to the Minister of Natural Resources. This matter is a natural resource matter, broadly speaking.
Members Of Parliament Pensions February 24th, 1995
What is the number?
Members Of Parliament Pensions February 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Reformers will be taking a cut in their disposable income because Reformers and those Liberals who follow our lead will be taking care of their own retirement instead of having it paid for by the Government of Canada.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. How can the minister ask Canadians to make sacrifices when the Liberal government gets a handsome pension at least three times more generous than private sector pensions? How can he justify this?