House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.
Government Spending February 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have an additional supplementary question.
The minister is fond of referring to the 3 per cent GDP deficit target of the European Community. He will know that the European Community combines this with a maximum debt target of 60 per cent of GDP. The federal government is already at 70 per cent of GDP. What is the minister's target for the maximum debt GDP ratio in the upcoming period, the period of this Parliament?
Government Spending February 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could make comment on the general budgetary framework and policy of the government without looking at budgetary specifics.
The minister continues to claim that he will reach his goal of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GNP by the 1997 fiscal year. We remember the actions of the former Progressive Conservative government, which pushed its deficit targets further back every year.
Can the minister assure us that he will publish his minimum deficit reduction targets for each year until 1997 in his next budget and will he make a commitment to resign if he fails to reach his minimum targets?
Government Spending February 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Wednesday in the finance committee the minister indicated that the deficit for this year may now not go below $40 billion. This sounds like a return to a familiar pattern.
In the upcoming budget is it the government's intention at least to comply with the spending limits set out in the last budget and under the current spending control act for the fiscal year 1994-95 and subsequent years?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act February 9th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane. If I understood correctly, he was speaking not only about the treatment of Quebec in Canada, but also about the way his region is treated by the province of Quebec. We find that to be a very interesting point.
Does he believe that in the case of federal programs such as the equalization provisions in this bill, if the federal government were to change the formula, the Quebec provincial government would be encouraged to spend some of the equalization funds it receives in the poorer regions of the provinces. I think that is the aim of programs such as this. Does the hon. member believe it is important that the provincial government spend equalization funds in his region, and not only in the large urban centres such as Montreal or Quebec?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act February 9th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoyed the presentation by the hon. member for Kamloops. I noticed that he touched upon a few Reform themes like the issue of double equalization that occurs in some federal programs. He touched upon issues like western alienation, the effect of these programs upon his province and the effect on the inter-relationship of this with the equalization program. I acknowledge these. I do not want to say that he is a good Reformer but I certainly acknowledge these as rays of wisdom breaking through like the sun on the British Columbia flats.
Having said that, I would like to ask him about one particular comment that he made on the relationship between fiscal policy and the present economic growth situation. He was anxious to credit the current government in British Columbia with this, but it is fair to say that we have had a period in Canada over the past generation in which governments, federally and provincially, have grossly mismanaged their finances. One of the areas in which relatively good fiscal performance occurred was in the province of British Columbia. Corresponding to that we have seen rather healthy economic growth in British Columbia at a
time when other provinces are struggling with their deficits and debts at much more significant levels.
I wonder if the hon. member would acknowledge that there is this long-term relationship between deficit, debt and low economic performance and whether he would give credit to British Columbia governments over the years for having avoided to a fair degree that kind of trap.
Specifically in the case of this bill, would he recommend that perhaps in re-examining equalization in the future we look at whether the fiscal performance of these governments should be a factor in the kinds of equalization transfers that go to them?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act February 9th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James for his comments.
The hon. member made a terrible mistake. He discussed hockey in the middle of a political speech. Whenever we do that we run the risk that the conversation will quickly turn away from politics and stay strictly with hockey.
The NHL has a form of equalization. It has the annual draft which has the effect of redirecting players to teams that perform poorly and I should add, redirecting players away from the areas of the NHL to some of the smaller urban centres in Canada that produce a lot of the hockey talent. Arguably there is a form of equalization that is overequalization and quite detrimental in that case to our interests. It is somewhat like what the member for Lethbridge alluded to yesterday when he talked about overequalization in some of our programs here.
I would just like to ask the member for his comments on one question. I am curious about his perspective. Under equalization levels for this year, 1994-95, the per capita top up for the province of Manitoba is $849 and for the province of Saskatchewan $552, his province and the neighbouring province. This is a tremendous difference. I have looked at statistics from Statistics Canada and I see that Saskatchewan residents have a lower personal income per capita than Manitoba. This seems to me to be a bizarre result and one that is in favour of his province.
Does he think there are problems in the formula? Maybe some time down the road we should study the formula and come up with a more fair one that is easier for people to understand and a little more clear in the kinds of results it produces. I would be interested in his views on some of the particulars of the equalization program.
Petitions February 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions with a total of 1,286 signatures mainly from the city of Calgary.
The petitioners request the government to bring in legislation to toughen the Young Offenders Act along the lines of the principles of the former juvenile delinquents act. The petitions are signed in memory of Ryan Garrioch, a young boy in my riding who was murdered in a school yard.
I would urge the government to consider carefully these kinds of recommendations.
Points Of Order February 8th, 1994
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a new member who perhaps is not clear on the rules, I would like to ask your judgment or guidance on a matter originating from Question Period.
We had today and we have had in the past situations where I have noticed ministers reading lengthy statements on government policy in reply to what I do not want to describe as leading questions from Liberal members but perhaps not the same kind
of probing questions that sometimes come from this side of the House.
In that we have provision in our rules, in our standing orders, for statements by ministers I am wondering whether that kind of matter would be best handled in that forum.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act February 8th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Burin-St. George's for his remarks. I know him by name. I have known him for a number of years but I can never remember the riding, which is why I am not Speaker, and unlike the hon. member was not even qualified to run for the post. We all know about the hon. member's legendary memory for the ridings and details of the ridings of every single member in this House.
I want to ask a question of the member, maybe a little off the topic of his remarks, but I think would nevertheless be interesting for the House. He spoke about some of the economic problems that Newfoundland experienced after Confederation, some of the unfavourable restructuring of the Newfoundland economy that occurred, in his view, because of Confederation.
He has talked about some of the benefits of Confederation, obviously this particular program which I reiterate we support the principle of, equalization and the benefits of transfers. He talked about the benefits of the mobility of the Newfoundland work force leaving the province.
I think he would agree that if we look at the sum of that it is not a pretty picture, the loss of economic capacity in exchange for out-migration and transfer payments.
I wonder if that is really how he would characterize Newfoundland's experience in Confederation. Whether he would or would not characterize it that way, would he share with us some of the options he sees for Newfoundland in terms of a greater economic participation in Confederation and what alternatives there are to long run dependence on programs like equalization or on developments like out-migration of population.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act February 8th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question.
The point I was trying to make was not that other provinces do not receive payments. I was not even suggesting that Quebec receives too much. I was merely suggesting that an $8.4 billion program, of which $3.7 billion is going to the province of Quebec, is not something to sneeze at. It is not a drop in the bucket. It is not something to deny the importance of. The thrust of the member's remarks, as I heard it, was to dispute the workings of the ceiling that has been in effect more or less since 1982 and about how much had been lost through the ceiling.
It was the intention of the member to give to members of the House, other Canadians and Quebecers who may be watching the impression that they are not getting anything out of this program or that they are experiencing tremendous losses from this program, none of which is the case.
Our party is suggesting that we make major reductions in spending and is willing to look at all these categories and at the impact on our region as well as Quebec and Ontario. This is an important exercise and is why I suggest we have this open debate.
However, it is important because the time is going to come when these things have to be looked at realistically. We have studied with some comprehensiveness the overall workings of the federal finances for various provinces over the period of the last generation, and we know the kind of negative effect it has had on our particular province.
Let me just mention equalization, for example. Alberta received no equalization at the height of its recession in the early 1980s, a recession brought about largely by federal government policy. Albertans have never quarrelled with the concept of sharing and contributing to the pot. These things have to be addressed realistically.
It is my view and the view of many Canadians and many Quebecers that Quebec does experience some significant economic gain from its participation in Confederation. There are some problems, but there are significant economic gains in being tied to the stronger economic units of Ontario and the west.
In my view that is not the reason or the only reason to stay in Confederation, but it is a reason Quebecers are going to have to consider and the Bloc Quebecois is going to have to address realistically at some point.