Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 1996 budget is about the future, the secure prosperous future all Canadians desire. If any group represents Canada's future it is our young people. That is why the Liberal government's commitment to fair, sustainable and secure social programs would be incomplete if we did not include action to assist children who are the most vulnerable and in the greatest need. At long last this budget introduces a new strategy to strengthen protection for children buffeted by divorce and separation.
As the Minister of Finance told Parliament on March 26, and as many Canadians have known for some time, the current child support system has added to the uncertainty and anxiety many Canadians feel. The minister clearly outlined that in our view children should be the first in line. Child support is the first obligation of parents; it is not discretionary.
The budget acted on that principle. It announced the child support reforms which take wide ranging action to ensure the child support system is based on what is best for children. To start with, the government is changing the way child support payments are taxed. Until now child support payments have been tax deductible for the paying parent and taxable as income for the parent receiving the payments.
The budget proposes that we move to a system known as no deduction, no inclusion. What does that mean? Custodial parents will no longer be required to include child support payments in their taxable income and support paying parents would not deduct these payments from their taxable income. These new tax rules will apply to court orders or agreements made on or after May 1, 1997.
Child support paid under a court order made before May 1, 1997 would continue to be deductible by the parent and included as taxable income by the recipient until the support payment is changed by a court ruling or the parties add a clause to their agreement providing that the new tax rules will apply, or the payer and recipient file a joint election with Revenue Canada.
Coupled with this important tax change is a second major component of the child support reform. The government is introducing child support guidelines to make support awards fair and more consistent and to reduce the degree of conflict between separating parents.
(1105 )
These guidelines will be used across Canada by the courts, lawyers and parents to establish appropriate support payments. They include a payment schedule, a set of tables showing the basic amount of support to be paid according to the number of children and the income of the support paying payment.
The second part of that is that scheduled amounts can be adjusted to recognize individual family circumstances. Special expenses for child care, health care, education or extracurricular activities can be added to the scheduled amount provided that these expenses are reasonable and necessary in light of the needs of the children and the means of the parents.
The guidelines allow a court to alter the award in exceptional circumstances where it would cause undue hardship to either parent or to the child.
The third component of the child support reform strategy will be the enhancement of the federal-provincial enforcement measures. Children benefit from fair support awards only if they are paid in full and on time. The numbers are appalling. Far too many children in Canada are left without adequate financial means because one of their parents is willfully ignoring their responsibility to their children. Some one in four children's parents are fully paid up in their child support awards. This is an appalling situation.
As a federal government we must remember that child support is mainly a provincial and territorial responsibility, and so the
measures we are proposing compliment the enforcement efforts and strategies at that level.
It should be emphasized that we are targeting parents who are persistent defaulters on their support payments. How are we to do that? We will start a national public awareness campaign that will aim at changing public attitudes about child support. It is not discretionary; it is the first responsibility of parents.
We will provide provincial enforcement programs with a new enforcement mechanism. Legislation will be enacted that will authorize the suspension of federal licences, privileges and certificates such as passports when someone has demonstrated persistent wilful default.
The federal government will provide up to $13.7 million over five years to help the provinces expand the use of more aggressive enforcement measures and streamline the collection of out of province orders.
Improvements to the federal tracing service will allow the release of certain information from designated federal information banks to help locate defaulting debtors. This will include Revenue Canada to the list of departments whose data bases can be searched at the request of provincial enforcement agencies.
We will also improve federal pension diversions to ensure this measure can be applied to persistent defaulters. This can be done even if the defaulter refuses to apply for pension benefits to ensure the maximum amount of benefits goes to child support.
Improvements to computers systems will allow for on line computer access between federal, provincial and territorial enforcement services. This will enhance the efficiency of the garnishment and tracing service and greatly facilitate the exchange of information.
This is concrete and substantial action, but I am glad to say the 1996 budget plan does not limit new assistance to children whose parents are separated or divorced. There is another very important measure. The budget announces we will be doubling the working income supplement under the child tax benefit in two steps.
This will ensure and encourage employment and self-reliance by helping low income parents meet some of the expenses resulting from membership in the paid workforce, expenses like child care and transportation. It also helps make up for the benefits lost by parents who leave social assistance to re-enter the workforce.
Beginning in July 1997 we will go from the current maximum of $500 to $750, and in July 1998 it will be increased to a maximum of $1,000. When fully phased in this will result in an additional $250 million in support annually to approximately 700,000 low income working families, one-third of which are single parent households.
I am proud to be part of a government that puts children first, that thinks about the cost of not taking care of our children and that makes sure parents understand the responsibility to their children.
(1110 )
I am sharing my time with my colleague from Hillsborough who will take the remaining time.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for a very fine budget address.
I start my budget address, as I know all members do, by congratulating the Minister of Finance for yet another successful budget. Like the two previous budgets, the needs and wants of Canadians have been addressed. It will result in the creation of jobs and promote economic growth by further reducing the deficit. To the minister I say a good job, well done.
The government is continuing the processes that began with the 1994-95 budget. The comprehensive strategy for federal finances determined is measured and responsible. The government is determined because we are not letting up our fight to reduce the deficit. The books will be balanced. The debt to GDP ratio will be on a constant downward track year after year.
It is measured because our fiscal action is not indiscriminate and mindless but is structured to a pace conducive to efficient adaptation. It is designed not as a quick fix but to achieve long term, permanent progress.
There are those in the House who would want us to believe that a quick trashing of the government books would be the cure all of the national debt. The government knows that deficit reduction must be measured in order for it to be sustainable.
Our approach is responsible because it is a strategy that involves carefully weighing the needs of our economy and our society and equally carefully designing the policy options to meet those needs. Just as important, we are striking the balance necessary to keep Canadians on side for our deficit reduction efforts.
Again, referring to the slash and burn tactics of some people in the House, their approach would result in a revolt so massive it would make the Ontario strike look like a walk in the park.
We all know the reasons behind reducing the deficit but I feel they must be reiterated. The lethal combination of high interest rates and deficit borrowing also means a growing share of government resources must go to interest payments on a growing debt.
That is why we have acted, not because tackling Canada's fiscal problem is not a goal in and of itself but because it is a fundamental component for our natural growth, new jobs and economic security.
We have maintained our focus on reducing program spending because the debt is a problem created by government and the
solution should focus on cutting in our own back yard. Therefore there are no tax increases in the 1996 budget; no personal taxes, no corporate taxes, no excise taxes. This is good news to people in my riding and to all Canadians.
The federal government has fought quite hard to reduce the deficit since taking office. However, what is equally important is that the provinces and territories are doing the same. The provincial and territorial governments are well on their way to balancing their budgets. The combined provincial-territorial deficit has been cut to $12.6 billion in 1995-96 from its peak of $25 billion in 1992-93. This is a drop of 3.6 per cent of GDP to 1.6 per cent.
I am pleased to say the P.E.I. provincial government had a balanced budget in 1995 and it did so without major tax increases. Even more impressive is the $3.4 million surplus for the 1996-97 fiscal year presented last week in the provincial legislature by the provincial treasurer, the hon. Wayne Cheverie.
As a result, Canada's total government sector deficit is projected to improve sharply relative to other G-7 countries. This is very important for an open country like Canada.
(1115 )
Since over 30 per cent of our national income is generated by our exports, it is important that we remain competitive. All levels of government are helping to do that by getting their fiscal houses in order. For its part, the federal government is reforming the way it conducts its affairs. This and the past two budgets are reducing waste and inefficiency and redefining the government's programs and activities. These actions will ensure that program spending continues to fall through 1998-99 delivering major fiscal savings into the future.
The federal government will further clarify its core program responsibilities in the economy. The government will make these programs more efficient and effective in order to deliver better quality services at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
The program review which was initiated in the 1994 budget is continuing. We are still exploring new ways to improve the delivery of service and reduce costs. The essence of these changes is to give service delivery organizations greater autonomy to provide their services in ways that are more responsive to the needs of their clients and more cost effective.
This will reduce overlap and duplication. Through co-operation and partnerships with the provinces and territories, these goals can easily be achieved. We are working with the provinces on a continuous basis to improve services to Canadians.
I have spoken long enough on our deficit reduction agenda. For the benefit of hon. members on the other side of the House I would now like to talk about some of the benefits of our efforts.
Last year the Minister of Finance and cabinet announced the implementation of the Canada health and social transfer. As a result of the efforts, this transfer will be stabilized and will even begin to grow. That is right, it will grow. The CHST will be stabilized at $25.1 billion from 1997-98 to the turn of the century. After that this transfer will actually grow according to a formula tied to economic growth.
To the residents of my province of Prince Edward Island this means that the 1997-98 CHST will amount to $114 million and by the year 2003 it will be up to $122 million. That is good news for our provincial government and for Islanders as a whole.
Further good news is the guarantee of the cash portion of the transfer. The cash floor within the transfer will be guaranteed by legislation. This is quite different from the old direction of the transfer that would see the cash portion totally disappear within a decade. The stability of this transfer is very important to the provinces. This will provide greater clarity for their own budget forecasts.
The groundwork of our deficit reduction was laid out in the first half of our mandate. The savings accrued from those hard decisions now allow us to turn our attention to other items of concern to Canadians. It is through our efforts that our social programs will be saved.
I for one am glad that when I go back to my riding on the weekends I can tell my constituents that the Prime Minister's promise to seniors has been kept. The changes announced in this year's budget do not affect today's seniors. The pension of every Canadian who is 60 and over as of December 31, 1995, and their spouses regardless of age, will be fully protected.
When the new seniors benefit is implemented in 2001 these seniors may choose whichever system is more advantageous, either moving to the new system or maintaining their OAS/GIS payments. It should be emphasized that savings will come from slowing the rate of growth in program costs, not at the expense of those in need. While the savings at first will be small, they will build year by year to about 11 per cent of program costs by the year 2030.
Legislation will be tabled later this year and we will be inviting public submissions on the proposal to be followed by consultations through parliamentary committee hearings. The response should be positive because the seniors benefit meets these key public goals: reducing the long term costs will make the public pension system more sustainable; targeting help to those who need it most is the fairest way to reduce costs; and with the new seniors benefit all Canadians, particularly the young, can be assured the public pension system will be there for them now and in the future.
Another item of concern to Canadians that has been addressed by this budget is reform of child support as was mentioned by my colleague a few moments ago. A more equitable treatment of support payments will be implemented. As of May 1, 1997 the
system will move to a no deduction, no inclusion format. The payers of the support payments will no longer deduct them from their taxable income and the custodial parents will not include them in their taxable income.
(1120)
There will also be guidelines for the payment of child support and greater measures for the enforcement of those payments. The approach will address the first priority: our children. These children are our future. We must provide for them as much as we can.
That brings me to our next point: investing in our future. The government is taking durable, meaningful steps forward rather than relying on short term direct spending programs which only result in a step back when we look at the long term effect. It emphasizes collaboration with partners and strategic investments to steer the forces of the economic change toward greater employment, employment that is sustainable.
But first things first. For the sustained economic growth needed to deliver new jobs, we must start by securing Canada's economic fundamentals which as I have said earlier means getting the deficit down and keeping it down. High persisting deficits go hand in hand with high interest rates. High interest rates as we all know discourage investment, borrowing and consumer spending. Ultimately they discriminate against jobs.
We have a plan. We will focus on getting our youth on the job. The first job is very important. Giving our youth a better chance at their first job will improve their confidence and ability to get the equally important second job. Our youth programs will accomplish this task. Coupled with our learning package these measures will provide the means for young Canadians to get the education and experience to obtain the challenging and rewarding career for which they strive.
However, government cannot do it alone and more important, as has been said, it is not supposed to. The role of government is to create the economic environment which will allow the private sector to create the jobs that are needed to get Canadians back to work.
It is through partnerships with the private sector that our role can be fulfilled. One way the government can do this is to target its investment in the key areas of our economy.
The budget also increases investment in technology and innovation through a number of actions over the next three years funded by the reallocation of $270 million from budget savings. For example, Technology Partnerships Canada will be established to encourage risk sharing with the private sector and to leverage investment in the development and commercialization of high technology projects and processes. Funding will grow from about $150 million in 1996-97 to about $250 million by the year 1998-99.
I believe this is important for all Canadians and I believe it is important for my province of Prince Edward Island. We have the capabilities to succeed in the high technology world. All we need is help to tap into it. Islanders welcome the possibilities that come with the focus on high growth sectors of the Canadian economy.
I urge Prince Edward Islanders to take full advantage of this focus. We have little to lose and so much to gain. It is possible to create year round employment on the island and it is up to the private sector to create those jobs.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the comments of the hon. member for Hillsborough were along the lines that the deficit has been reduced year after year by the Liberal government. Certainly that is true, although we have seen the federal debt rise to some $600 billion. It has increased over $100 billion in the time of its mandate.
Given that the debt is rising so dramatically, could the hon. member for Hillsborough tell us what specific target date the government has for reducing the deficit to zero, to have a balanced budget, which will enable it to start paying down the debt? Can he give us a date?
Mr. Proud: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we have worked on deficit reduction. We will continue to do so until the books are balanced. I will certainly not give him a date as to when that might be, but I can tell him that we are much better prepared to do it now than we were over the last number of years. It certainly will take place in the distant future.
(1125 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to both the Liberal speakers.
The best security we can offer the children of Canada are parents with a stable income. The greatest threat to the economic stability of a family is the unrestricted power of government to tax away its wealth.
There is an ever rising demand on the revenue dollar to pay the interest on an ever rising debt. When the Tories replaced the Liberals in 1984 they inherited a $200 billion debt from the Liberals. In nine years they added another $300 billion to it. The first budget presented by this government promised to add another $100 billion to that.
When we talk about the security of families and children, that debt is the greatest threat to their security. It is the greatest threat to good long term, well paying jobs for the parents of those children.
I admonish the members who have spoken and also the government. As the demand on the revenue dollar continues to increase to
pay the ever rising interest on our ever increasing debt, the security of the individual family is weakened. The greatest thing we can do is to get spending under control and reduce the amount of money we need to pay the interest on this huge debt.
The greatest transfer of wealth that is going to occur in 1997 is not to the provinces or to individuals in Canada. It is going to be to those we borrowed the money from, to the tune of approximately $50 billion a year.
Would the hon. member care to address his views on the threat that this picture poses to the economic security of families and children in Canada?
Mr. Proud: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the best thing for security is full time permanent jobs. The debt is astronomical and we all realize that. The government has started to get the deficit under control. It has offered some enhancement for the future. The economy is going well and jobs will be created if the climate is there. I believe the budget has done that. Reports from the media state that this is what people in the business community think. It is not perfect. I will be the first to admit that. It is probably not in total what I would like to see, but it is a lot better than it was when we came here. I can guarantee it will continue to get better.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today as part of the debate on the budget announced on March 6 by the Minister of Finance.
Unlike the hon. member who spoke before me, I have no congratulations whatsoever for either the Minister of Finance or the government for a budget I find deplorable, inequitable, regressive and inhumane in a number of ways. The main victims of this third Liberal budget are the ordinary folk, the workers, the unemployed, the welfare recipients, the elderly, the immigrants, the low income families.
The other main victims are the provinces, all of the provinces, Quebec in particular, which will see their transfer payments reduced.
(1130)
The massive cuts in this Liberal government's three budgets, in particular the last one, are doing great harm to the people of Canada and the people of Quebec, and in particular to the ordinary folk in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North. My riding contains many single parent families, many retired people, many unemployed people and many, very many, immigrants. These cuts do great harm to the 600 people who are on the Montreal North waiting list for low rental housing.
As I have said, this is an inequitable and unjust budget. The unemployment insurance reform and the reduction in transfer payments to the provinces for social assistance, health and post-secondary education have already sent shock waves through the population, and continue to do so. It is my belief that these brutal cuts may well trigger a major social crisis in this country.
There have been many demonstrations everywhere in Canada against the cuts in social programs and against the cuts in unemployment insurance, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. Everywhere in Quebec, including Montreal, Shawinagan in the Prime Minister's riding, Quebec City, the Gaspe, and in Ontario.
I believe that these brutal and inequitable cuts are coming close to the limit Canadian and Quebec society will tolerate. As we can see everywhere, the social situation is becoming increasingly explosive, particularly because people can see that the budget is unfair, that the major companies, like the banks, and the people in the upper income brackets are either not affected at all or only barely so.
Instead of the government talking with workers or organizations representing them, the Minister of Human Resources Development is directing insults and accusations at the union leaders, particularly the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, the union that represents most Canadian workers, with its 2.4 million members.
On top of that, the Minister of Human Resources Development, who should be advocating dialogue among all sectors of society, is refusing to meet with the president of the CLC to discuss the cuts in social programs and the cuts to unemployment insurance.
It is incredible that the government, which is no longer contributing to the unemployment insurance fund, is making improper use of the $5 billion surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, and it is unacceptable. A number of members have said here that Quebec receives more in unemployment insurance than it contributes. I tell you that, in 1995, employers and workers in Quebec paid $4.530 billion dollars into the fund. UI claimants in Quebec received only $4.340; a difference of $195 million, which was not returned to Quebec. This, despite the fact that, for February, the rate of unemployment in Quebec was 11.3 per cent, or 414,000 workers actively seeking employment. There is no mention of those who are leaving unemployment insurance to go on welfare.
(1135)
For Canada, the unemployment rate in February was 9.6 per cent, or 1,539,000 unemployed workers. That is a lot. It is scandalous. What is more, in 1995, the figure was only 1,514,000.
I was a UI referee for eight years in Montreal, and all those I met-the recipients and the lawyers-used to tell me about the need to improve-and not decimate-the UI program, which was set up under pressure from the labour movement and the workers. The Liberals are in the process of destroying this important social benefit.
When the Conservative government was in office in 1990, 87 per cent of unemployed workers were receiving benefits. In January 1996, under the Liberal government, 46 per cent of unemployed workers were receiving benefits. Less than half. That is outra-
geous. That is why the Bloc Quebecois, like the labour movement as a whole, demands that Bill C-12 be immediately withdrawn.
In this budget, we expected the government to submit a plan to revive the economy and create jobs. Yet, there is nothing of the sort in his budget, despite the Liberal Party's famous election promise of ``jobs, jobs, jobs''.
I take this opportunity to salute those attending the summit on the social and economic future opening tonight in Quebec City. This is a Quebec government initiative involving the participation of unions and employers, among others. I hope that the results of this summit will benefit all the people of Quebec and that those taking part will take adequate measures to revive the economy and create jobs.
One of the things that I found most shocking in this budget is that it reduces the tax benefits for labour sponsored venture capital funds. There is nothing to create jobs in this budget, which cuts moneys to the very organizations that seek organizations that seek to create and maintain jobs. These labour sponsored venture capital funds are effective tools to create jobs. Yet, the government is cutting the federal tax credit rate for these funds from 20 to 15 per cent and lowering maximum investment from $5,000 to $3,500.
(1140)
There are 19 workers' funds in operation in Canada. The funds' assets amount to $2.5 billion or $3 billion. They have invested more than $850 million in the Canadian economy since they were established. In Quebec alone, the fund established by the FTQ, or Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, has helped maintain or create about 40,000 jobs. Forty thousands jobs in a single province, that is very significant.
The government claims it wants to get Canadians back to work. But why hit workers so hard, and their funds, which are used mainly to invest in small and medium size businesses? What is terribly unfair in all this is the fact that these cuts affect mostly Quebec, where half the money in these investment funds comes from.
In response to a question by the Bloc Quebecois a few days ago, the Minister of Finance said that this kind of tax incentive would be reduced, since these funds are now very well established. But it certainly is not the case with the CSN's-the Confédération des syndicats nationaux-action fund. This is a new fund, which is not yet very well established and therefore requires government support.
I worked on establishing the Fonds de solidarité de la FTQ when I was a servicing representative, and this fund has helped thousands of FTQ members, people who do not make a lot of money, in allowing them to put money aside toward their retirement. It also helped maintain or create 40,000 jobs, as I mentioned earlier. Why attack this fund? The proposed cutbacks will slow down job creation in Quebec, and particularly in regions where economic growth is sluggish.
A study conducted by the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre shows that the government recoups the tax costs relating to workers' funds within three years or less. This study takes into account benefits such as the following: with these funds, tax revenues increase as a result of investments being made; also, reliance on the UI system is reduced because more people are at work and fewer claim UI benefits.
But the government did not attack the registered retirement savings plans, the RRSPs, in its budget. As we all know, such tax deductions can help create employment, but 20 per cent of this job creation could take place abroad. Twenty per cent of RRSP contributions can be invested abroad.
Why cut in investment funds then? As I said earlier, unemployment is at 11.3 per cent in Quebec, and more than 800,000 Quebecers are on social assistance.
(1145)
The FTQ had the extraordinary idea of setting up this Fonds de solidarité a few months ago. I was there, to help complement this initiative by establishing regional funds. Nine of these regional funds, which will be set up everywhere in Quebec, have already been created. I congratulate the FTQ and the officials of the fund for their extraordinary contribution to promoting job creation. I should point out that the Quebec government and the administrative regions are partners in these regional funds.
What does this budget provide regarding old age pensions? The government creates a new seniors benefit to replace old age security, guaranteed income supplement, age credits, as well as pension income credits. The most dangerous aspect of this budget is that this new seniors benefit puts an end, once and for all, to the universality of benefit programs for seniors. This is very serious and simply unacceptable. The principle of universality applies to all social security programs.
The minister tells us that most of these measures will not affect current retirees, but future generations will be severely hit by these changes. In my riding, in Montreal North, the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées opposes the federal government's decision. It is firmly opposed to any reform that would undermine the benefits program for the elderly.
As for corporate taxation, we, Bloc Quebecois members, and myself in particular as the member for Bourassa, expected the government to review the corporate tax system. There is currently a shortfall of close to $10 billion. We must put an end to tax havens. There is no reform in this budget, only promises and commissions.
There is nothing concrete. Meanwhile, the profits of major banks exceeded $5 billion in 1995.
This explains the tax revolt. Everyone knows that banks do not pay their fair share of taxes. The banks that registered these sky-high profits are the same ones that made massive layoffs. We demand a true corporate tax reform, as well as the establishment of a minimum tax for corporations.
According to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's estimates, expenditures for 1996-97 will reach $621.5 million. The budget for ICSI will be $76.8 million. This is $8.1 million in additional resources for that activity. I do not see the reason for spending more to promote citizenship.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the time allotted to the hon. member for Bourassa has expired.
(1150)
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the remarks of the member for Bourassa, particularly the comments about the 19 labour investment funds that have total assets ranging from $2.5 billion to $3 billion. I know a little bit about them and I take exception to his suggestion that these funds are unfairly attacked in the budget. He seems to be implying that these funds are creating jobs.
They are not creating very many jobs. They are great for investors because of the tax credit but most of their assets are tied up in blue chip stocks and money market vehicles.
Would the member for Bourassa support me in pressing the government for an amendment that would require the labour investment funds to invest at least half their assets in Canadian small businesses so that at least $1.5 billion of it would be used to create jobs?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec this is what is being done. The FTQ's Fonds de solidarité is investing in small and medium size businesses. This fund has already created 40,000 jobs. It is a start. But I think that it must go further. I am in agreement with the general idea of my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth, but until now this initiative has been a complete success. After the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité was created, 15 other such funds were set up in Canada, including in British Columbia and Ontario.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a few questions. I wonder if he would give me his reaction to the comments in the media regarding the government's budget.
Constituents in my riding, for example, are happy to hear that there is no increase in taxes, that there will be additional cuts within government, that funds have been earmarked for the purpose of doubling the amounts spent on creating summer jobs, that there will be this new initiative to create entry level jobs for young people in order to give them experience. They have praised the government because it continues to target the deficit and make progress. Despite the cuts, it will be able to increase transfers to the provinces for health, education, training and social assistance.
I therefore wonder if he has any comments to make. I find it surprising that the comments he is reporting from his riding seem to be very different from those I have been hearing in mine.
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, true, there are no new taxes. But everybody knows Canadians have been taxed to the hilt, especially under the Conservative government. We are told there are no additional cuts in this budget, but it is not so. There are several cuts, especially to transfer payments to the provinces. These cuts are huge. Most cuts announced in the last budget are coming into force this year.
He points to the job creation initiative for young people. I have seen how it has been welcomed by young people. They are not very pleased with this kind of job creation. This is not what they wanted. This is not significant. The government should have tried a bit harder in this area.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the discussion of labour sponsored venture capital funds. The hon. member is correct in pointing out that they have been very successful, particularly in the province of Quebec. However, the government must at all times look at the total picture and weigh the effectiveness of incentives provided against other measures presented in the budget.
As the budget papers point out, those venture capital funds have approximately a two-year supply of capital based on the level and the rate of investment that has been engaged in by those funds. It seemed to be an appropriate and reasonable measure to scale back, to temper the incentive a little bit.
(1155 )
I wonder if the hon. member thinks that government should never re-examine and balance the incentives that it provides and just keep on benefiting one sector on and on.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, such investment funds are revolutionary. When they were first created, not too many people believed they would work. Small investors, workers whose salary might be
barely above the minimum wage, are encouraged to invest in these funds, which will provide for their retirement.
The goal of these funds is not purely economic. They also have a social goal. For instance, the businesses in which the FTQ fund has been investing offer economic training to their workers; they learn how to take part in managing the firm. The fund is doing a great job.
Why not tackle some other problem areas? Why not go after tax havens instead of workers' funds, and why not levy a minimum corporate tax, as is done in the U.S.? There are many areas other than workers' investment funds where the government could have found more money.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I shall be sharing my time with the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women.
I am most pleased today to be able to take the floor in this noble institution to speak on the 1996 budget. This is the third one we are presenting, aimed at guaranteeing Canadians budget stability and an economy that is vigorous, dynamic and competitive, in today's harsh economic context.
Along with the 1994 and 1995 budgets, this one maintains a broad strategy that is deliberate, measured and responsible and is aimed at putting federal public finances on a sounder footing. It is deliberate, because our efforts are continuing unrelenting. As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, in our implacable fight against the deficit there is no going back. We are going to balance our books. We shall also put the debt-GDP ratio onto a permanently descending curve, dropping lower every year.
It is measured, because our action plan is not being applied in a blind and reckless manner; it is well structured and proceeding at a rate that will allow efficient adaptation. What we are aiming at is not a quick fix but permanent progress over the long term.
It is responsible, because this is a strategy which requires us to take the needs of the economy and of society into account, and to use particular care in designing the strategic options which will equip us to meet those needs.
What is more, we are seeking the necessary balance to allow Canadians to join us in our efforts to reduce the deficit.
[English]
There remains no question about the need for dramatic and disciplined action. High public sector deficits and debt have sapped confidence, soaked up domestic savings and led to a sharp increase in the country's net international indebtedness. Canadians were paying a painful high price through the punishing pressure that high deficits place on interest rates. This takes away consumer and business investments and drives down job creation.
The lethal combination of high interest rates and deficit borrowing also meant that a growing share of government resources must go to interest payments on a growing debt. This year those charges will cost the federal government $47 billion, money that cannot go to lowering taxes, aiding those in need and helping our economy create new jobs.
(1200)
[Translation]
These, Mr. Speaker, are our reasons for doing what we did. It is not because solving Canada's budget problems constitutes an objective in itself, but because it constitutes a fundamental component of our national growth, of job creation, and of economic security.
In the first two budgets, we began a process of improving our public finances and of restoring the state's budgetary credibility, after years of failing to control the deficit.
By setting credible rolling two-year targets, by basing budget planning on cautious economic assumptions and by creating substantial reserves for contingencies, we are making public finances once again credible.
The first two budgets provided for unprecedented cuts to program expenditures. These structural cuts focussed on the medium term. Thanks to them, the 1995-96 and 1996-97 objectives of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP will be met, despite the fact that the growth of the GDP is slower than expected.
This progress is due in part to the fact that interest rates are also much lower than expected, and this in turn offsets the negative effect of the slower GDP growth.
The measures announced in the 1996 budget strengthen and extend those of our initial budgets and provide an added push toward the achievement of our economic and financial goals.
We set our sights on the reduction of program expenditures, because the debt problem was the creation of the governments. They must therefore resolve it by putting their own affairs in order.
Therefore, the 1996 budget provides for no increase in taxes. There is no increase in income taxes for individuals or corporations, and there is no increase in the excise tax.
[English]
Expenditure cuts in the 1996 budget will amount to $1.9 billion in 1998-99 and will build on the reductions of the two previous budgets to keep program spending on a downward track.
Here is a point that must be emphasized: a full 87 per cent of the cumulative fiscal actions taken from 1994-95 to 1998-99 will have been expenditure savings.
Together the three budgets will contribute $26.1 billion in savings for 1997-98. This action, together with the reform of the employment insurance program, will ensure that we hit the new deficit target, to bring the deficit down to 2 per cent of GDP.
[Translation]
Thanks to the measures announced in the budget, we will manage to save an additional $28.9 billion in 1998-99, which means that the deficit will continue to shrink.
There is no doubt we have taken a historical step. The program expenditures, that is, all expenditures less interest payments, could shrink for six consecutive years, until 1998-99. These are actual cuts in real dollars. Expenditures would shrink from $120 billion in 1993-94 to $105.5 billion in 1998-99, that is, a reduction of 12 per cent in the amounts spent.
In real terms, the level of program expenditures, adjusted to reflect inflation, will in fact be below that for 1984-85.
(1205)
Program spending, as compared to the size of the economy, will be at its lowest level since 1949-50. The debt to GDP ratio, or what we owe as compared to what we produce, will drop by 1.1 per cent to reach 73.7 per cent in 1997-98. This will be the first significant drop since 1974-75.
Another fiscal element is worthy of mention. Calculated the same way a number of countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, measure their deficit, our financial needs reached $30 billion in 1993-94. In 1997-98, they will have dropped to only $6 billion. As compared to the size of the economy, this is the lowest they have been in nearly 30 years. At this rate, we will likely have the lowest shortfall of all G-7 central governments.
Two additional points are worthy of mention. First, the economic assumptions included in the budget plan are once again more conservative than the private sector's. For instance, our projections for 1997 are based on interest rates nearly 1 per cent higher, or 80 base points, than the private sector's forecasts.
If economic forecasts reach or surpass the planned levels, the deficit could be lower than our 2 per cent deficit target for 1997-98. Any unused portion of the contingency reserves will be used directly to reduce the deficit even further.
Second, the federal government's fiscal health is not the only one to improve; that of the provinces and territories is also improving markedly. The combined deficit of the provinces and territories dropped from a record $25 billion in 1992-93 to $12.6 billion in 1995-96, from 3.6 per cent to 1.6 per cent of GDP. Consequently, in Canada, the total government deficit should improve significantly as compared to the other G-7 countries.
[English]
In 1992 the combined government deficits in Canada stood at 7.4 per cent of GDP. That was double the G-7 average of 3.7 per cent and the second highest behind Italy. This year Canada's total government deficit will have fallen below the G-7 average to rank second lowest among the the G-7 countries, just behind the United States. By 1997 our country's total government deficit should be the lowest of the G-7 based on the each country's current plans.
[Translation]
Obviously, we are making sustained progress, as are all major public administrations. The biggest winners will be Canadians. We are taking the necessary steps to lower interest rates, increase competitiveness, promote job creation, and improve economic security. You can be sure we will stay the course.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct something that my distinguished colleague from Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle said. Our distinguished colleague who represents a part rural, part urban riding in this House is sticking his chest out and boasting about what a responsible budget this is, stating that it was not raising taxes for individual taxpayers or the big companies, in a word, it is not hitting anybody. There are a few points however in his speech that sound dishonest to me in that not all the truth is being said in some instances.
(1210)
It is true that it did not raise taxes on fuel, tobacco and alcohol, but will he recognize however that, by going after milk subsidies in its budget, the government will be contributing to making the price of butter go up 28 cents a pound and the price of cheese 50 cents a kilo?
In fact, by eliminating over a period of five years the $4.62 per hectolitre milk subsidy, this government is directly attacking industrial milk producers and indirectly attacking all Canadian consumers, who will see their taxes go up not on alcohol, tobacco and fuel, but on their food baskets, and on butter and cheese in particular. Is that what he calls a responsible budget?
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend opposite for his question. As you probably know, since our government came to office in Ottawa, some 500,000 or 600,000 jobs have been created. Obviously, in certain areas, it will be a little more difficult to create jobs, but on the whole, the number of jobs created for the long term will certainly outweigh the incidental aspects, so to speak, of the finance minister's budget.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech and was quite impressed at how good things are in Canada.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment on some questions Environics polled from December 12, 1995 to January 11, 1996. The first question asked was: Generally speaking, do you approve or disapprove of the way the government is handling the economy? Approve, 26 per cent; disapprove, 68 per cent.
The second question asked was: Generally speaking, do you approve or disapprove of the way the current federal government is handling the deficit reduction? Approve, 24 per cent; disapprove, 67 per cent.
It gets even gloomier. What about taxes? Generally speaking, do you approve or disapprove of the way the current government is handling taxation? Approve, 19 per cent; disapprove, 77 per cent.
Where is the rosy picture we were just hearing about?
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, since taking office, the deficit percentage has gone down from 5.9 per cent to 3 per cent. The government is meeting its targets. Next year it will be hitting 2 per cent.
I am surprised that the member from the third party likes polls so much considering that his party is staying at 10 per cent and has not moved for a long time.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of the recent budget brought down by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
This is a good budget. It is a balanced budget and a Liberal budget. It continues to support the government's commitment to prudent fiscal planning and to a deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP while creating opportunity highlighted in the red book for youth, women, children and seniors. It continues to secure the future of social programs for all Canadians regardless of region. In fact, it sets firmly the infrastructure essential to the building of a nation as it embarks on the new millennium, a strong, economic and social union. It was a pleasant coincidence that the budget was tabled during International Women's Week because the budget has many initiatives that will advance the economic independence of women, albeit in a time of economic restraint.
(1215)
There were creative new policies that showed how equality can be served when there is a strong political will to do so. The budget serves women in all stages of their lives; as students, as youth, as mothers, as entrepreneurs, as seniors. It does so by using a variety measures from enhancing access to education and training, to investment of actual dollars toward low income families, many being single mothers.
Let me point out some of the creative measures in the budget that show how the government understands the reality of women's lives. The initiative that received the most media attention has been the child support package. The object of this reform is to place the well-being of the child first. It is based on the clear principle that support of one's child is not discretionary but is a duty.
It makes four specific changes. The first is a non-inclusion, non-deduction tax policy that not only puts more money in the way of the child but levels the playing field between divorced parents and those families that stay together.
Second are specific guidelines that will set payment levels based on the gross annual income of the non-custodial spouse with room for relief if there is hardship to that parent.
Third are enforcement measures that would ensure the compliance of a non-custodial parent who wilfully reneges on payments by denying access to passports or other federal licences. The data base of Revenue Canada will be utilized to track these parents who try to evade provincial jurisdiction.
Fourth and most important, the moneys realized by Revenue Canada from this change in tax policy will be used to double the working income supplement to 700,000 low income parents, one-third of whom are single parents.
The Prime Minister spoke in his reply to the throne speech of creating security for older Canadians. The budget made good on that promise. The new senior's benefit which will combine OAS, GIS, the tax and pension benefits into a single tax free payment will benefit nine of out ten single women. Almost 60 per cent of seniors are women, many of whom live in low income situations. In fact, 80 per cent of seniors, single or couples have low incomes of under $45,000 and they will get the same or more money under this new plan. Also, this new seniors benefit is fully indexed.
This innovative move which targets low and modest income seniors is the only way we can ensure the future sustainability of the old age security which today represents one-fifth of federal government spending. The government continues to show its commitment to fairness. While securing the future of low and income seniors we have also given assistance to those future seniors who will depend mostly on private incomes by removing the limits on RRSP carry forwards.
The child care expense deduction has been expanded so that it applies more widely to parents pursuing full time studies while raising their families. This will help women get an education or training, to enter the workforce and secure their economic independence.
Single parents will now be allowed the same deductions available for couples pursuing full time studies, and the age limit for day care has been increased from 14 to 16. These simple initiatives
have recognized the reality of women's lives and that of their children and has levelled the playing field so that women's access to education and training can be expanded.
The budget is not only about women, it is about the government's continued recognition of the importance of small and medium size business and how they play a role in job creation.
Concerning the new world of technology the 21st century Canadian must face and master about the globalization of putting in place policy initiatives that would improve the access of small business to global markets, policies that would increase access to the Internet, that would enhance research into environmental and biotechnologies, in every way the budget has moved Canada into the competitive starting line for the new millennium. I am gratified to see that my province of British Columbia, the leader in environmental and biotechnology, will benefit from these policies.
Women, seniors and entrepreneurs represent today's world. How do we build a tomorrow? How do we ensure our productivity increases and that we can ensure our continued evolution as a world competitor? The answer lies in our youth, and by making youth a priority the budget has again shown itself to be forward looking and progressive.
I can go on about partnerships with the private sector to give youth their first jobs and to get them out of the catch-22 situation of no job without experience, no experience without a job. I can talk about the doubling of summer jobs, the increased Youth Service Canada initiatives for community work or I can speak to the increase in RESPs or the increase in the tax credits for education, but there is not enough time.
(1220)
Liberal governments throughout Canada's history have put into place the social infrastructure we have come to take for granted: medicare, social security, post-secondary education subsidies, student loan programs.
It is appropriate that a Liberal government spearhead the evolution of these programs so that they are relevant to the needs of the 21st century Canadian and to the new federal-provincial partnership.
When the CHST was brought in as a positive alternative to the established programs financing and CAP in the last budget, I saw it as a positive step in a new decentralization of management.
Stabilizing the cash component in the budget at $11 billion and setting in a five-year plan that would see an increase in the transfer of payments in the last three years are other moves in securing a future for Canadians which will ensure Canada continues to have a strong social and economic union as we move into the next millennium.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the government has just stated that this is an excellent budget. I, on the other hand, could say that this budget is hypocritical toward women and young people. Although it refers to subsidies to provide our young people with summer jobs, we know full well that the government had already cut $25 million in the previous budget. So this is the lesser of two evils. The budget tries to make some adjustments, but the last budget still contained cuts to community group programs for women.
These groups have seen their funds reduced by 31 per cent over six years. The last budget cut funding for women's organizations by 6 per cent. I am not so complimentary or positive about this budget. Look at what is happening today. People are still demonstrating. I was watching the news earlier and everywhere in Quebec and Ontario people are demonstrating. The federal government has cut transfers to the provinces.
People are indicating that they are not happy with this budget. Do they seem happy? Not at all. They are warning us that our social programs are in danger because of the government's pervasive cuts. There was an attempt to please young people and women, but women also want jobs. I feel that neither this budget nor the last one created jobs for women, or that real, concrete measures were taken.
The federal government has not invested a red cent in the UI fund, and yet it wants to centralize. The UI fund is even running a surplus, which the government plans to use to reduce its deficit.
I, for one, do not think this is a good budget for women. It is not what women are telling us. The last budget came under severe criticism, and I do not think that this budget will improve women's lot. Giving them the right to receive UI benefits and the income supplement will not create jobs, but simply ease the economic situation. However, for young women, for women returning to the labour force, there are no job creation initiatives.
My colleague also talked about nation building. I would like to ask her this: Is she aware that, within the nation they want to build, there are founding peoples, including Quebec francophones and natives?
I am very pessimistic about this budget. I would call it a hypocritical budget. It does not show any desire on the government's part to decentralize. There is some duplication. I think that, with all the commissions-on revenue, on health-it promises to set up, the federal government is once again trying to create jobs for its own people at the expense of the provinces.
(1225 )
[English]
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to my hon. colleague's questions. My colleague has forgotten some things and probably has not read the full budget.
How can my colleague say that in the budget we have not put into place anything for women? The obvious concern of everyone is that putting money into programs is the only answer. We have made some fairly creative and innovative changes in the budget. We have changed tax structures. We have increased the ability for many more women, especially single women, to have access to day care, including single women who are parents attending high school. This a very innovative budget.
I was at the United Nations last week. When we talked about some of these tax initiatives, countries in which fiscal restraint is the order of the day were extremely excited to see some of the ways we were able to give women economic independence and ensure their equality in times that are tight.
The hon. member maybe should stop looking at the old ways and start looking at some creative, innovative ways to go about changing things.
The hon. member speaks of summer jobs as if the program is something which is not worthwhile. Imitation is the best form of flattery. British Columbia has just embarked on a summer job program that echoes ours exactly. Therefore it tells us we are on the right track to helping youth.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Southwest.
As I speak to the budget today, I cannot help but think it is almost a waste of my time. Through a series of unforeseen circumstances we are here on the second day of debate on the budget, almost two weeks after it was introduced in the House. Already the budget is of little if any concern to the Canadian people. It was insignificant 12 days ago when the finance minister gave the budget speech and it is of even less significance today.
The budget the government members are so proud of is a budget that does nothing. Actually it seems to be the rallying cry of the Liberal government, the party that does nothing and is proud of it.
I know I am being a little facetious here. After all, the government has done something. After three years in power the government will have added $100 billion to the national debt. For some unknown reason members opposite seem to think this is a great thing to have done. I would like to put their record into some statistical perspective.
The Liberal government has been in power for less than 2.5 per cent of the 129 years Canada has existed as a country. During this short period it is responsible for 17 per cent of the entire debt. There is a record these Liberals can be proud of. They have been able to run up the debt at a faster rate than any other government in the history of Canada.
I can see the Liberals in their caucus meeting chanting ``we are number one, we are number one''. Unfortunately the members of the government have actually bought the premise that having a deficit of 3 per cent of GDP is some magic elixir. Three per cent of GDP is irrelevant when the national debt is 75 per cent of GDP.
This massive debt load we carry is the biggest threat to our social programs and the greatest hindrance to increased employment. The government is following in the same footsteps as the Tories when they came to power in the mid-1980s. It is not doing things differently. It is not being creative.
The Tories also took modest steps to improve on the disasters the previous Liberal government had created, and then congratulated themselves for their meagre accomplishment. The Tories failed to take advantage of a booming economy to get their finances in order. When the recession hit, they were in dire straits.
(1230 )
Unfortunately the Liberals do not seem to have learned from the mistakes of the Tories. Here we are with some of the lowest interest rates in the last 30 years, a booming economy in the United States, low inflation, yet our economy is stifled by sluggish growth and we still have far too many people unemployed. What is the problem? In case government members have not noticed, it is the debt.
The debt costs Canadians $50 billion a year in interest payments. It astounds me when I hear members of the government and the socialists complain about our banks earning billion dollar profits. Do they not realize that much of the profit the banks earn is from interest payments on money they lend to the federal government? It is not just Canadian banks. Each year our government sends almost $20 billion of taxpayers' money to foreign banks and financial institutions.
Has the government not realized that with almost 33 cents on every dollar the government spends going to service the debt that it is extremely limited in what it can accomplish?
The Reform Party knows the problem is the debt. The IMF knows the problem is the debt. Even the CIA knows the problem is the debt. That is right, the CIA.
While surfing the net last week, my office came across the CIA's home page. While it does not list all its secrets on the Internet, it does list its analyses on all the countries around the world. It has a very thorough eight page listing on Canada. Of particular interest was its information on our economy. In summary, the CIA states:
``With its great natural resources, skilled labour force and modern capital plant, Canada has excellent economic prospects, although the country still faces high unemployment and a growing debt''.
If everyone else recognizes the problem, why has not the government? Instead it brags about a deficit of around $30 billion this year and $20 billion and some next year.
What is particularly troubling is how the government is reducing the debt. Much of its cost cutting has involved a reduction in transfers to the provinces. That means the federal government is not seen cutting any of its programs; rather the provinces have to cut theirs. It looks good for the feds, but the real losers are the taxpayers.
The other major sleight of hand is how the government is now using unemployment insurance premiums to subsidize other government spending. It is true that two years ago the unemployment insurance fund was in a deficit situation, but that deficit has been eliminated. By the end of this year there will be a $5 billion surplus. By next year there will be close to a $10 billion surplus.
Is the money being saved in a special unemployment fund which can be used the next time there are more expenditures than revenue? Of course not. It is put right into the consolidated revenue fund. Is there any chance that the government will reduce the premiums so that employers and employees will have more money in their pockets to stimulate the economy? Of course not. The government is keeping the money in its pocket so it looks like it is doing something about the deficit.
The government should be spending less time on optics and more time on doing the right thing. What is the right thing? To figure that out I think the best minds in the Liberal Party scour through the Reform Party's policies to see what idea they can steal next. If the government continues to steal the Reform Party's policies and platforms, it will eventually get around to addressing the debt. After all, it has already adopted our policies on seniors.
In my constituency there is a large senior population. Amendments to the old age security program will be viewed with particular interest. In the last election campaign the Reform Party suggested two changes to OAS: calculating income on a family basis and eliminating payments to high income earners. I recall the Liberals condemning us for these suggestions. ``How unfair to use family income to calculate benefits'', they said. ``It is heresy'', they stated, ``for Reform to suggest that we eliminate payments to high income earners, as that would mean the death of universality''.
What do we see in this budget? The end of universality and the family based income calculation. It is so typical of this government to say one thing to get elected and then do the opposite when in government.
(1235)
If this government had just adopted our position on the debt and deficit, it could have saved Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars in interest payments. It could have prevented billions of dollars from being sent out of the country to foreign financial institutions. Maybe it could have let Canadians enjoy some of that excellent economic potential that we would have if it were not for our debt. Hey, if you do not believe us, go ask the CIA.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the hon. member complain about all the things the government is doing wrong, while at the same time telling us that the UI deficit has gone, that it is now in surplus. Today we have the lowest interest rates in 30 years and a low inflation rate. I cannot figure out what the hon. member has to complain about. She just told Canadians that this government has done a very good job of attacking those things.
The hon. member mentioned at the beginning of her speech something about how we are cutting the social programs. I am wondering what she would do for single parents who are having a hard time in their day to day living or for the aboriginal people who are at the bottom end of the economic scale, and which we are doing something about to address, such as the Nisga'a case. We are trying to right the wrongs that have been done over the years. The Reform Party does not support the negotiated agreements we have made with the Nisga'a or any other land claims. Reformers think we are giving away the land and the money to aboriginal people.
What does the hon. member think the government should be doing to address the wrongs that have been done to the aboriginal people over the issue of lands and other rights, as well as the disabled and all the other social issues?
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that a member from the Liberal government asks what we are going to do. I will tell him what we would do.
We would not be taking the money from the workers in higher unemployment insurance premiums so that the government can say it is looking after the deficit. We would be reducing the premiums so that the workers would have more money in their pockets and the employers would have more money in their pockets so they could create more jobs.
This is interesting coming from a member on the government side which has taken $6.3 billion out of provincial transfers. The Reform Party would support education, health and social services for the single parents and for those who need help. The Liberal government has taken $6.3 billion away from those transfer payments. The Reform Party on the other hand, in our budget that at least balanced the books instead of having 3 per cent of GDP, only took away $3.3 billion. It is incredible that we have members
on the government side who are taking money away from the most needy in this country far more than the Reform Party ever talked about doing. I am offended.
What would I do with the aboriginal people? What is missing in all of these treaty agreements is any talk about how the moneys will be used to create employment, to create economic opportunities for the Nisga'a people. It does not talk about how the Nisga'a people are going to take on the responsibilities of self-government and control the development of their communities.
(1240)
Those are the things that are missing from the agreement. The only thing these agreements deal with is how the money will be transferred from the federal government to the aboriginal people without any notion of how they are going to use that money to remove themselves from dependency on the government. Those are the things that need to be talked about.
How are we going to give aboriginal people the ability to walk away with their heads held high without having to continually go back to government for more financial assistance? That is what the native people are asking for. They want the ability to be the same as every other Canadian and the government is not doing that for them.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Don Valley North on a question or comment. Please be very brief, about 30 or 40 seconds.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker I refer the hon. member to the Financial Post column View from the West. The headline reads: ``Reform Party soon won't have a platform to stand on''. The Reform Party soon will not have a leg to stand on, or perhaps the Reform Party soon will not have a chair to sit on. Michael Walker, the boss of the Fraser Institute says-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry the time has expired. The hon. member may reply very briefly as well.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, There is no way a member from the province of Ontario can tell people from the west what we are thinking. People in the west have made it very clear by electing Reformers to represent them in the House of Commons that the Liberal Party is not in a position to speak on behalf of western Canadians.
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, immediately after the completion of the divisions scheduled for this day, the House shall take up proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38, but, at the conclusion of the said proceedings, the House shall not adjourn, but shall continue to sit to consider the second reading stage of Bill C-10, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1996;
That, during this portion of the sitting, the Chair shall not receive any dilatory motions or quorum calls;
That, when no Member rises to speak, but, in any case, no later than 10 p.m., the debate shall be adjourned and the House shall be adjourned; and
That, no later than 15 minutes before the expiry of the time allotted for consideration of Government Orders on March 21, 1996, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on the budget debate I would beg the indulgence of the House. I would like to put on record a clarification and a correction to some comments I made in the throne speech debate in which I referred to events or the notion of a distinct society in Quebec as being inherently racist and tribalist in nature.
On reflection and seeing those comments in print I was most uncomfortable because I felt the linking of the term racist was inappropriate; it was wrong. By any inference I would not want Hansard, the official record, to show in any way that I would suggest separatists are racists and that Quebec society is racist in nature. In my experience it is not.
I reiterate Quebec society is very tribal. There is tribalism and a sense of the necessity to circle around a group. I think tribalism is a very accurate description of what is going on with the separatists in Quebec. Again, I would beg the indulgence of the House to allow me to correct the record.
(1245 )
The Deputy Speaker: I do not believe Hansard can be changed two weeks after the fact. However, the member has clarified the matter and what he said will appear in today's Hansard.
Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All I wanted was to have it on the record.
It is really puzzling that the country can be in the state it is in today and yet the people are not out in the streets rioting. They do not seem to be particularly upset. One has to ask what it is about the human nature and the body politic in Canada which does not hold the Liberal government accountable for 30 or 40 years of mismanagement of the economy. It got us into this mess in the first place.
If you are looking for ground zero on what screwed up our economy, we are looking across at it right now, the descendants of this paternalistic liberalized state. Why are the people not enraged, particularly the young people in our society who are in university or high school and are looking at their futures? Why do they not feel some sense of passion at the fact that their generation is going to be paying the bills and will have a substantially diminished lifestyle because my generation and the generation that preceded me lived beyond its means?
What it is about human nature and about being Canadian that allows us to accept this? I know we got into this mess gradually. We all know the story about the incipient nature of gradualism and why, we got up this morning and noticed that we had a debt and we were paying almost 40 per cent of every dollar that goes into the federal coffers to pay interest on money we have already spent. Nobody would have envisioned that 30 years ago. Even the Liberals would say it was irresponsible to do that. It was a gradual thing. We gradually grew into it so that we did not have that shock to our system.
Everyone sees what is going on now in the country and where it is our responsibility to pay. As a society we have elevated certain demands. As individuals citizens we expect certain things from government that we used to expect from ourselves. Once we expected to be personally responsible but over the last 30 years or so we have come to count on the federal government to be responsible for our welfare and how we get along in life.
I give this government and the present finance minister full marks for taking the first tentative steps to do what has to be done. Perhaps that is the difference between this government over others. Could you envision the Liberal government opposite, even taking the tentative steps it has in the right direction, if it was facing the kind of opposition that the Conservative government in 1984 was facing? The body politic in Canada has shifted so much that the Liberal members are now looking across at us and we are telling them what to do but to do it with more vigour and more fire in their belly. We are saying that the sooner and faster we do it the better our children and grandchildren will be.
The Liberal members look across to us and we are telling them to get on with the job. However, the Conservative members in 1984 were looking across at a Liberal opposition that cried bloody murder every time the Conservatives made a tentative step in the right direction. That is why the Conservatives lost the will of the people. They did not have the courage to stay the course. They were elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility. They did not do it and now the Conservative Party is dead across the country.
(1250 )
Today the Liberals are tentatively taking the first steps in the right direction, urged on by the Reform Party. The Bloc really does not have a philosophy. Every once in a while its members will say ``do not do this'' and ``do not do that'', but they really do not understand or do not have a sense of passion other than getting Quebec out of Canada.
The Reform Party is making it possible for the Liberals to do what the Conservatives should have done. The Liberals know in their hearts what must be done because they got us started on this terrible path 30 years ago. That is the reality of the situation. However we have to continue to ask, how did we find ourselves in this situation? How did we allow this to happen?
The federal government right now is passing off to the provinces responsibility for social programs, for the infrastructure of our way of life that had previously been paid for by the federal government but is now paid for by provincial governments. It is not sending money along to pay the bills. Therefore it is the provincial governments that have to pay the piper. The federal government is calling the tune, the provincial governments are paying the piper.
We see even now the strangest of all things. Miracles can happen. The ex-leader of the official opposition, Mr. Bouchard, is now the premier of Quebec. All of a sudden there is a revelation. He finds that there is another priority. If Quebec does not get its financial house in order what difference does it make if you are bankrupt and broke in French or English? Perhaps he is starting to get his priorities together.
The problem with this budget is not its general direction. The problem is that it is not honest. Over the years the federal government has set up an expectation of delivery of services across the country. It cannot afford to do it but it does not have the courage to say: ``My friends, we have been living beyond our means. It is time to tighten our belts. We must do it without sloughing off the responsibility to other orders of government. We must take the heat ourselves''.
That is the great tragedy of this budget and in my opinion the great tragedy of the Liberal government as a whole. It has the ability right now to do what it knows must be done and to do it with vigour instead of backing into it and being embarrassed about it. It has to be done with vigour and it has to be done with dispatch because the longer it drifts, the more pussyfooting around that it
does, more of the problems of our grandparents are going to be put into the hands of our grandchildren.
As parliamentarians our responsibility is not to our grandparents. It is to our grandchildren. Everything that we do should be done with an eye to the future.
I expect I will receive a few questions from those opposite. I see some of the members are busy scribbling some information down and I know that soon they will be rising from their chairs, hopefully to take me to task and to ask me to defend my thesis that they started it and that they do not have the courage to take it as fast and as far as they should to solve the problem. I would use as a foundation for that statement the fact that the Prime Minister in his budget address passed off responsibility to the private sector for job creation.
The Liberal government campaigned on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs, getting rid of the GST, saying and doing whatever it took to get the maiden out. The Liberals were doing whatever it took to get the votes in order to get here.
The Reform Party philosophically differs from the Liberal Party in a number of areas. One major area is that we understand very clearly it is the role and the correct area of our economy for the private sector to create and deliver jobs. Job growth in the future will come from investment in the private sector by the private sector. It will not come from the public sector.
(1255)
The government challenges the private sector to help. There are some good things about it, such as the challenge to hire students during the summer. That is a good challenge. The private sector can take it up and hire students. It can create work so that the flowers of our future will have a sense of self-worth. We all must buy into that.
I do not think it is necessarily bad to say: ``We have to come together. We have to do it''. However, the responsibility of the federal government is to create a climate which will allow the private sector to do what the private sector must do: be efficient and innovative. To do that a climate must be created which will allow the private sector to retain earnings; to retain wealth. It is the reinvestment of private wealth that creates jobs. If entrepreneurs decide that they are going to risk everything in order to create a business they must know that they will be able to retain some of the fruits of their labour.
The job of the federal government is to create the lowest possible tax environment, with a good infrastructure, that will allow the private sector to compete in the global marketplace.
I would like to mention some of the budget considerations with respect to divorce, child support and so on. I have a great deal of experience in making maintenance payments. I believe that the government is moving in the right direction. When people bring children into the world, it is the responsibility of the parents, whether or not they are divorced, to raise, nurture and care for their children. The government is taking the first steps in the right direction.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now I can complete the question which I tried to ask earlier when I was cut off because of time constraints.
On page 29 of today's Quorum there is an article entitled ``View from the West'' which states that Michael Walker, boss of the Fraser Institute and the chief guru of the Conservative movement on economic matters says that he was frankly impressed and reassured by the finance minister's budget. ``Far from being a do-nothing budget, it is probably the most significant budget produced by the federal government in the late 20th century''.
Among other things he said that it showed the government is on track to reduce the deficit to zero by the end of the decade. It showed that federal spending cuts were actually more severe than those of the Klein government in Alberta. It showed that Canada was borrowing less than any other G-7 country.
That third point is very important. I hope the hon. member will compare his notes with this article and tell us where he stands on the issue.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite most graciously for giving me the opportunity to rise once more to address that article.
Visitors to Washington know the famous Lincoln memorial which is dedicated to Abraham Lincoln, who was considered to be the number one reformer of the Americas. It was the Reform Republican Party that Abraham Lincoln started. He, as everyone here knows, is regarded as one of the most pre-eminent politicians in modern history. He said: ``If you do not care who gets the credit, there is no end to what may be accomplished''.
We have raised the issues of fiscal responsibility in the House of Commons. We have made it politically correct to be fiscally responsible. If not for the Reform Party day in and day out holding the Liberal's feet to the fire, telling them to pay attention and change what the Liberal Party has been doing for the last 30 years, pay attention to fiscal concerns and make sure we do not leave our grandchildren a legacy of debt, if not for Reform Party singularly pushing this issue year after year, time after time, the Liberals would not have had the courage or the fortitude to do what in their hearts they knew they must.
(1300)
We can thank Abraham Lincoln and thank the Reform Party. Remember these words: ``If you do not care who gets the credit, there is no end to what may be accomplished''.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after hearing the speech by the member for Edmonton Southwest I cannot help believe I have heard those words before. It appears he simply paraphrased the budget speech of the hon. Minister of Finance.
He also talked about creating at atmosphere for business. There was a major announcement by the Minister of Industry last week dealing with science and technology. He indicated there is a need to create at atmosphere for private business. Friday's Calgary Herald said: ``The Liberals have moved on settling the economic table for private business''.
I ask the hon. member whether he approves of the budget, of the atmosphere being created by the Minister of Finance. In effect is he putting his stamp of approval on the budget speech?
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, anywhere strong hand and courage are seen, they should be appreciated and respected. I can imagine the Minister of Finance in his caucus has had some the most egregiously difficult times in changing the direction of the Liberal government of 30 years, making members look carefully in a mirror and asking: ``Oh my God, what have we done to our country, to the future of our country? What have we done to our grandchildren?''
For the minister to have the strength to go into his caucus and pull half the caucus along grudgingly, that must be respected. While I do not agree the budget is fast enough or strong enough, the last Liberal budget is a light year ahead of the last 30 years of Liberal budgets.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest because probably unknowingly in his speech he gave credit to 40 Liberal MPs who sat in the House between 1984 and 1988 for scaring the blazes out of 212 Tories in the House. Then he gave credit to some 80 Liberal members who sat here between 1988 and 1993 for polishing them off and putting the government in place to run the country.
No matter when budgets are delivered in a parliamentary session and regardless of the fiscal issues surrounding a budget, each budget in turn has its impact on various segments of society.
The last two budgets have been aimed at getting federal finances in order. This budget is no exception to recent fiscal policies because there are benefactors and then there are others who get hit negatively.
The Minister of Finance does not have an easy role. Unlike his predecessors in the Tory days, when he sets a target he has every intention of meeting it. With all this scenario, it behoves us not to lose sight of those things in our economic structure that have served us well in the past and which will build a good future in the days ahead.
Sometimes there is a very thin line between cost cutting to save money and cost cutting which in the long run does not serve as well as hoped.
These are the challenges that face the Minister of Finance and the government today. There are a host of positive things in this budget and there are other items that lay the groundwork for difficulties to come.
(1305)
We are ensuring a secure, stable and growing system of federal support for medicare, post-secondary education and social assistance through the Canada health and social transfer to the provinces. There will be no further cuts in the transfer to the provinces. We have announced a firm funding commitment for a five-year period beginning in 1998-99.
For the first two years the Canada health and social transfer will remain constant at $25.1 billion and for the next three years it will increase each year. For the first time the federal government has set a cash floor for transfers. The cash component of the Canada health and social transfer will never be lower than $11 billion a year during this period.
We are acting to restore confidence in the old age security system by creating a new seniors benefit to take effect in 2001 designed to help those who need help the most. That is the way it was when I first came into the House.
As promised, current seniors will continue to receive the benefits they receive now. The changes will ensure the sustainability of the system for years to come. Canada's future depends on our ability to show innovative technology leadership, and the government's commitment to jobs and growth was reinforced in both the speech from the throne and the budget.
The budget outlined priorities for investing in our future in three strategic areas: creating better ways to get young Canadians into the job market, expanding our efforts to increase international trade, and accelerating the development and use of technology. Technology is a priority because it is fundamental to increased economic growth in this country or any other modern day country.
In his budget speech the finance minister spoke about investing in the future, about providing hope for jobs and for growth. He
said: ``If our future is to be brighter, we must invest in it''. Clearly this is good business and it is also good government.
Although not specifically mentioned in the budget speech, one outcome of the prebudget program review has been a 42 per cent cut in the annual allocation to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. The cut, to be administered over two years, was apparently the result of a purely business assessment, by government and by a firm brought in, of the short term needs of that crown corporation. It was based on bottom line logic from a consulting firm, not the vision for the future.
The government, through the Minister of Natural Resources, is attempting to find a new home for this one-half century of proven basic research that was started at Chalk River, Ontario about 50 years ago. What has only now become clear is that this 42 per cent cut in the business support spread out over two years has been transformed by AECL into the complete removal of all its basic research activities, some immediately and the rest within a year. It is cashing in on the very investment on which the future depends.
Basic or fundamental research is the search for scientific knowledge without a specific application in mind. This generalized search for knowledge is essential if real innovation is ever to occur because tomorrow's application of today's research usually cannot even be imagined today; we cannot command what we do not know.
A good example is about 170 years ago an accomplished British scientist was asked by the Royal Society to improve optical glass, a task which he felt he could not refuse. After 10 years of fruitless labour he wrote in 1831 to ask permission, ``to set aside the glass work for a while that I may enjoy the pleasure of working out my own thoughts on other subjects''. In other words, he wanted to do some pure research.
(1310)
Within two months Michael Faraday had discovered electromagnetic induction and built the first prototype dynamo in world history. From those two months of basic research have come today's mammoth electricity generators that supply our industry and give us lights in the House.
There are two important questions that arise from this story. First, would the world today have been a better place if the Royal Society had insisted that Michael Faraday continue his efforts on the more practical application of glass? Second, is it likely that any government committee or task force in 1831 would have arrived at electromagnetic induction as a strategic technology worthy of public support?
The answer to both these questions is a resounding no. This historical observation is not lost on the G-7 countries today. For example, a document entitled ``Science in the National Interest'', issued and signed by President Clinton in late 1994, states: ``We understand that the fruit of fundamental research initiatives may not ripen for some time. The time scale can be long and success may hinge on facilities and interdisciplinary research teams that take years to assemble. Even in the face of current budgetary pressures, considerations about fundamental science must remain integral to the agency planning activities. We cannot allow a short term mission focus to compromise the development of the intellectual capital vital to our nation's future''.
Even more emphatic is the example of Japan. Its response to the recent downturn in its economy has been to double its spending on basic research.
In light of these facts, it is astonishing that we are now threatened in Canada with the dismantling of one of the best examples we have of a marriage of basic research and economically successful applications.
Basic research in nuclear science has been an essential part of the country's nuclear program since the mid-1940s when it was started under the National Research Council. It has supplied the fundamental knowledge required by the industry, provided many of its leaders and given lustre to the national effort by its international reputation for excellence.
As a result AECL and its partners have produced the best performing and most versatile reactor system in the world. They have done so at a fraction of the research and development cost of any of their competitors. The industry now employs 30,000 Canadians, contributes more than $3 billion per year to the gross domestic product and generates over $500 million in federal tax revenue.
In addition to its role in launching and sustaining this industry, the basic research components of AECL are also serving as national laboratories for university researchers and Canada around the world. They foster research in nuclear science and other related fields throughout the country. They offer facilities no one university could operate and maintain on its own. They give many university professors access to the frontiers of world science they could not otherwise find without going abroad. They train students who form the next generation of Canadian researchers.
These labs at Chalk River perfected the O ring for the U.S. shuttle when the previous shuttle had blown up. They manufactured and developed radio isotopes which are used in hospitals around the world today. I emphasize that at Chalk River our scientists and researchers handle radioactive wastes from hospitals across the country.
These national laboratories for basic research at Chalk River have been centres of excellence for decades. They have been examples of a partnership among government, industry and the universities. In short, they are exactly what the Canadian government seeks to create as we prepare for the next century.
(1315 )
I am hoping, and so are many others, that the Minister of Natural Resources will find a new home for such physics organizations as TASCC and Neutron Scattering and that environmental research will not be scaled back at Chalk River at this time.
These are the 260 letters that have been received from top scientists from across Canada and from approximately 30 countries around the world who respect the basic research that is going on in Canada today. I lay this before the House today because it is an important matter for the future of Canada.
The stress testing of aircraft parts of the aircraft we fly in has been done in these labs. The aerospace industry has benefited greatly. Bertram Brockhouse, our 1994 Nobel laureate, worked in the physics labs at Chalk River. His award was granted because of the work he did in the 1950s and 1960s.
My message today is: Let us find a new home for these facilities so that they are not lost, so that Canada's science community does not have a brain drain and that we continue to lay the excellent groundwork for years to come for basic research and development in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech made by the most senior member of this House. The hon. member sometimes referred to the budget, sometimes to the speech from the throne, and sometimes to more or less concise interpretations regarding the budget.
I want to remind our most senior member that everything that goes up must come down. While it is true that the Liberal Party ousted the Conservative Party from this House, it is also true that, in 1984, the Liberal Party was severely decimated. What is there about job creation in the recent budget tabled by the Minister of Finance? Nothing, absolutely nothing, except that the government will double the very minimal amount allocated for summer jobs for students.
I am talking about job creation, because in 1993, in its red book, the Liberal government boasted about creating jobs, jobs, jobs. The fact is that when 20 jobs are created in one region of the country, 19 are lost in another region. So, when the government says that 560,000 jobs were created last year, let us not forget that there were massive layoffs almost equivalent in size. Consequently, the unemployment rate remains essentially the same, while at the provincial level, the numbers on the welfare rolls have increased drastically.
I wonder why the Minister of Finance, who is said to have consulted the majority of his colleagues, did not focus on job creation, instead of constantly talking about the deficit. After all, jobs are what people want. This government is no better than its predecessor; in fact, it is worse than the previous Conservative government.
[English]
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I do not go along with the scenario the hon. member just outlined. Everyone in this House who can add, subtract and divide knows full well that if we allow things to continue to escalate and get out of control, then interest rates will rise and there will be greater unemployment. The Minister of Finance is trying under very difficult circumstances to put a solid base on the financial structure of the country so that we will not have higher unemployment or high interest rates. Interest rates now are the lowest they have been in three decades. This alone will help businesses to grow. It is up to government to lay some firm foundations on which private enterprise can grow, bloom and hire people. Over the years governments have done this.
(1320)
In the early 1980s the Liberal government, and I sat here with it, brought in deficit budgets. However I point out to the hon. member that unemployment was extremely high. Canadians across the country were having a very difficult time. World inflation was sky high. People said that never again would we see one digit interest rates in this country. That was in the early eighties and look where we are now. Interest rates are the lowest they have been in three decades. We have a solid financial plan.
The Minister of Finance is not delivering a powerful speech and then running away to hide and then give in to everything like the Tories did. As a result, the debt continued to grow under the Tories because there was no will in the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet to back up their own finance minister. That is why the Tories are not in the House today. Canadians know the difference.
I remember when we sat across the way and criticized the Tory government on its many weaknesses. God knows, we did not have to look very far for those. I say to the hon. member that I too know how easy it is to get up and deliver a speech from that side of the House and try to attack the solid foundation which is being built for the financial structure of the country on this side of the House.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise in this place today in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and participate in the response to the budget.
Before I begin, permit me to make a short message. I want to recognize the excellent work done by the first round of parliamentary secretaries, particularly my predecessor and friend, the hon. member for London East. Along with my 24 recently sworn in colleagues, I acknowledge the significant role played by our
predecessors in bringing about the many accomplishments of the government during the first half of its mandate. My fellow parliamentary secretaries and I look forward to upholding that high standard set by them.
I also extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria. Those of us who have had the pleasure of working with her appreciate her sincerity and dedication to her parliamentary duties. I am confident she will do a solid job in her new role as Deputy Chair of the committee of the Whole.
With regard to the budget, I have listened intently to the members opposite. We all realize it is easier to criticize good government than it is to provide it. Although constructive criticism is a valuable tool of democracy, the key difference between those who provide good government and those who merely criticize is courage. Good government is driven by courage and concern for the well-being of one's nation. Unfortunately in most cases, the destructive criticism offered by members opposite is driven by political opportunism, posturing and underwhelming tactics.
I am proud to say that on this side of the House the principles and practices of good government have been enhanced by the courage and constructive criticism within our own caucus. In recent days there has been a great deal of gloom and doom espoused throughout the country by those who seem to have overlooked our nation's great potential. The recent speech from the throne focused on ensuring opportunity for Canadians by means of a strong economy, providing security for all Canadians and bolstering a modern and united country. The budget secures our financial future. Our deficit reduction plan remains on track.
(1325)
It has been said that the primary role of a good government is to make things better for the governed. This government is offering hope and opportunity for all Canadians who are willing to show courage, resolve and faith in our great nation.
We are providing hope and opportunity by challenging the private sector to create jobs for young people in our country. We will also double the number of federal student jobs available this summer. This initiative will help to reduce the unemployment rate among young people and provide them with valuable work experience and decent wages.
Canada has a competitive advantage in the world with respect to aerospace and environmental technology. In fact there is some excellent science and technology research work being conducted at McMaster University in my riding of Hamilton West. In order to bolster our national and international strength in this area, the government has committed itself to the development of a Canadian technology network.
Since the Canadian economy is so heavily dependent on exports, the government will make every attempt to continue tapping into emerging markets abroad in order to further enhance our share of the international demand for Canadian goods and services.
With regard to security, we have to ensure that all Canadians are provided with an adequate social safety net. That means protecting vital social programs like medicare and making sure that Canadians in need of health care services have universal access to them. We must provide pension security for our seniors, as well as for future generations to come. A secure social safety net is too important to ignore. In fact Canadian core values are reflected by our social safety net and our willingness to preserve it.
With regard to employment, although Hamilton has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the entire country, there are still many people in my hometown and in other cities across Canada who are looking for work. To address this, the government remains committed to implementing a new employment insurance system this summer in order to help Canadians find jobs and keep them.
Canada is blessed with a highly employable workforce. Our job is to create a climate that is conducive to increased levels of personnel recruitment in the private sector and stable employment. With the help of the provinces and the private sector, we will achieve our goal of generating jobs and stimulating economic growth in Canada.
In the process of strengthening our nation and making things better for the governed, the Government of Canada has made significant progress in several areas.
In the transportation sector, with which I am most familiar, the government has taken steps to ensure that Canada has a safe, efficient, affordable, globally competitive and environmentally sound national transportation system.
In aviation the government has reached an agreement in principle with a not for profit corporation called Nav Canada to commercialize Transport Canada's air navigation system. This move will save taxpayers $1.5 billion and will eliminate a $200 million a year subsidy. A year after signing a historic open skies agreement with the U.S., Canada is reaping the benefits of increased air services to various Canadian and American destinations.
Transport Canada is also proceeding with the transfer of select Canadian airport facilities, such as Hamilton Airport, to municipal and local area interests. The transfer of various Canadian airports combined with the creation of a national airport system will strengthen Canada's air transportation system and make it more responsive to regional and community based needs and economic objectives.
In the rail sector, the recent commercialization of CN represented the largest and most successful initial public offering of shares in Canadian history. The government remains committed to implementing legislation which will make it easier for Canadian companies to move people and goods safely, efficiently and affordably across Canada by rail.
In the marine sector, under Canada's new marine policy, ports will be commercialized. A national ports system will be created consisting of those ports that are important to domestic and international trade.
These are just a few examples of the progress that is being made by this government in the transportation sector.
It is worth noting that over the past 28 months we have followed through on almost 75 per cent of our red book commitments. At the same time we have managed to reduce the federal budget deficit to its lowest level in two decades.
(1330)
It is also worth noting that the budget contained no tax increases. The budget provides Canada with a framework for growth and security. Furthermore, deficit targets have been and will continue to be met. This should be comforting for all Canadians.
The government is following through with a new tax free seniors benefit which will be incorporated into the OAS/GIS pension income credit and the age credit; tax relief for recipients of child support payments; a $50 million allocation to the Business Development Bank which will allow for the extension of up to $350 million in loans to small and medium size businesses; over the next three years $315 million for youth job opportunities which includes doubling youth summer employment program funds from $60 million to $120 million.
One hundred and sixty five-million dollars over three years will be for education and skills development for young people; $270 million for technology and innovation initiatives; 25 per cent per month increase in the education tax credit; $170 increase in the tuition education credit; $500 increase in the registered education savings plan; $10,500 increase in the lifetime education contribution limit.
It was stated by the Canadian press news agency that the federal budget represents: ``Deficit reduction without tears or taxes. The Minister of Finance delivered a good news budget on March 6 that adds muscle to his deficit fighting strategy with minimal sting for ordinary Canadians''.
As we approach the second half of our mandate with the support and constructive input of concerned citizens throughout Canada, as stated earlier the government will continue to make decisions designed to make life better for the governed.
I am proud of our accomplishments and I am optimistic about the future of our great nation and the collective future of my fellow citizens. I consider it a great honour and privilege to serve my constituents and my country. I believe in good government. I believe the people of Canada deserve nothing less.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I always like the positive rhetoric I hear from the other side, especially when it comes from the member for Hamilton West.
Looking at the Environics poll, if things are so positive how come only 14 per cent of the people think the recession is over and 86 per cent believe we have a recession? Statistics Canada said that in 1995 we had a record number of bankruptcies at 78,000.
That does not sound quite as positive to me and maybe I could be filled in on some of those things which I have not taken in from the hon. member's speech.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member could tell me the date that poll was taken and the number of people in the poll.
Mr. Hoeppner: January 11, 1996.
Mr. Keyes: The budget came out on March 6. The budget was so popular among Canadians that I can almost bet the honourable member opposite that when the next poll is taken, which I hope is after Canadians have had time to absorb all the fantastic news contained in the budget, the honourable member opposite will be eating humble pie.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport about that aspect of the budget which a number of his colleagues have touched on, the rewriting of the Tax Act with respect to custodial payments or payments for child support.
How does he rationalize the change in the Income Tax Act which to me, if he will listen to his logic, appears to be a tax grab because payment now for child support is no longer deductible?
It is acknowledged by the finance minister that there will be extra revenues to the government. It makes it sound like it will really do something with that money in the budget. It will increase the child tax credit.
If in the current system before it made this change the agreement between the couple was taxable, deductible, all that money was within the family.
(1335 )
Now the government has taken this issue and said: ``Not all the money that will be shared between the two of you will be within your family. We will make it non-deductible, keep some of it ourselves and help a whole bunch of other people''.
I have been trying to speak slowly to clarify my logic. Does that not mean that some of the money that would have been available for the children within that family will now be redistributed to other families?
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his serious question. I believe rationalization comes in the knowledge that children will be better served. The spouse who looks after the children in most cases is the woman. The estranged husband will no longer be able to take advantage of the tax system; instead it will be the woman looking after the children. It is the children we are looking out for and the supporting parent will not have to declare that as income.
I think that is a bold step forward by the government, a progressive step forward by the government, one which will again serve the children of this country.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how does the member reconcile his statement that the budget has brought no tax increase with the reality that as a direct result of the budget over $700 million more in tax will be paid? It sounds like double talk. How can the member reconcile his statement with the reality of the budget?
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the member forgets the government is on the positive side of the ledger, seeing the glass half full. As a direct result of the budget brought forward by the Minister of Finance the Canadian economy will take off, jobs will be created, people will be buying products made in Canada by those who will work in Canada in jobs to provide those products. That will provide the government with the income the member is wondering about.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my remarks today is to offer some few clarifications concerning the 1996 federal budget tabled on March 6 by the Minister of Finance.
We must admit that, overall, this year's budget was perceived in a very positive light by the people of Quebec and of Canada. Their general impression of it was there there will be no new direct tax increases for individuals this year.
This is a budget that did not make any serious waves, and left everyone feeling that they had been let off the hook, but appearances are deceiving. The Minister of Finance pulled it off very well, we must admit. He pulled off a really good one this time.
This year, the deficit will be a mere $32.7 billion, which shocked few people. According to most of the experts, the Minister of Finance has presented a good budget, because the taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada were expecting the worst.
I would like to point out, too, that the Minister of Finance has managed to have a lesser deficit than his predecessors, which seems to be a great accomplishment. It was managed in two main ways. First, by passing the buck. The buck was passed on to the provinces by reducing transfer payments for education, health and social programs by $7 billion over two years, which means $1.2 billion in additional cuts for Quebec alone, or possibly more. Second, by dipping his hand into the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, to the tune of over $5 million.
In concrete terms, this means no tax reform, no public debate on social programs, no intention to review the question of tax havens for those who are not paying taxes.
(1340)
Furthermore, this budget provides absolutely no measures to revive the labour market. Nothing new to create jobs. Already they have run out of ideas; the Liberal government is already worn out.
The government continues to hold out for a long-overdue economic recovery to carry it along. Why are the Liberals in Ottawa not delivering the promised jobs? Page 89 of the Budget Plan tabled in the House of Commons provides, and I quote: ``-the average level of output in 1996 is forecast to be 1.9 per cent higher than in 1995-'' This means that the federal government expects a moderate growth of 2.5 per cent for 1996. Reality, however, is quite different from the budget plan the government drew up for itself in order to create the jobs that never materialized in 1995, but were the watchword of the red book of the 1993 election. Unfortunately, in 1995, growth was no more than 0.6 per cent. However, in the 1995 budget, the government forecast a significantly higher level of growth, a level of real growth of 3.75 per cent, which is six times less than forecast. What a minister.
The fact of the matter is that, since the Liberals came to power at the end of 1993, the economy has not stopped collapsing, and the deficit has not stopped growing exponentially, despite appearances of sound management of public funds and reforms that have not stopped expanding the gap between rich and poor. It is a very sad state of affairs.
The cost of the public debt of the federal government is the prime component of federal spending, representing 29 per cent of all expenditures in 1995-96. In 1996-97, debt charges will represent over 30 per cent of the federal budget. I should also point out that 36 cents out of every dollar of tax revenue collected in 1995-96 currently goes to paying interest on the federal debt. It is written in black and white on page 121 of the Budget Plan. At this rate, less than two years from now, debt charges will be the federal government's single largest item of expenditure.
In 1993-94, the first year the Liberals were in power in Ottawa, the deficit was $42 billion. The second year, it was $37.5 billion. And the third year, $32.7 billion. After three years of Liberal
government, we have accumulated $112.2 billion in debt. That is a large sum of money. What the government is doing is playing the financiers' game. Lenders are getting rich at our expense.
Just to service the debt in 1993-94, Canada has paid its creditors $38 billion. In 1994-95, creditors were paid $42 billion and, in 1995-96, we paid $47 billion to service the debt. Since the last election, in 1993, the government in Ottawa has added $112.2 billion to the deficit; as a result, the people of Quebec and Canada have paid more than $127 billion to our happy creditors. And they would have us believe that the deficit is being reduced. On the contrary.
Debt charges will be increasing faster, even if the annual government deficit is getting lower. Interests are making the deficit increase at an alarming rate. The total federal debt for the past fiscal year was $578.4 billion. This means that, next year, debt charges should be about $47.8 billion, or an $800 million increase over last year, in spite of cutbacks.
For 1997-98, according to government forecast, debt charges should be $49 billion, or a $1.2 billion increase in just one year.
(1345)
At this rate, the federal government's debt will climb to $603 billion by this time next year. This is the unfortunate reality of Canada's public finances. Where does all this money go? Who benefits? Who pays the bill at the end of the day? It is taxpayers like you and me, more specifically the middle class. These people are getting sick and tired of being squeezed like lemons. Taxpayers are fed up with random reforms that do nothing to address the problem so that, at the end of the day, it is still the same people, and especially the middle class, who get stuck with the bill.
This year, individual Canadians will pay a total of $60.5 billion in income tax. Workers and employers will contribute $18.5 billion to the UI fund. Taxpayers will shell out over $17.2 billion for the GST. In 1995-96, taxpayers in Quebec and Canada will pay a total in excess of $130.6 billion into the federal government's coffers.
Does the government realize what it is asking taxpayers, and more specifically the poorest in our society?
Here are some realistic suggestions to help the government reduce its deficit and thus restore confidence. First of all, this year, the Governor General of Canada will cost taxpayers over $9.8 million and the Senate, $40.7 million. How much longer can we afford such luxury?
Do we still need a budget of more than $10.5 billion for national defence? There is still $6.4 billion in unpaid taxes this year. What is the federal government doing to collect these unpaid taxes? How long must we wait for the federal government to close the numerous tax loopholes, including family trusts that shelter billions of dollars.
In conclusion, why should the federal government not cut Canadians' tax rate? Is this an unrealistic or silly idea? Not at all. Reducing the tax rate would help stimulate the economy by increasing consumption, thus creating jobs while raising government revenue.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you will understand that, having listened to such ridiculous remarks, remarks that have nothing to do with the reality and are in fact an insult to the intelligence of Canadians, I just had to respond.
The subject of transfer payments was raised earlier; I will just touch on it because I know that we are short on time. In discussing this issue of federal transfers to the provinces, the people opposite fail to mention that the Quebec finance minister had made forecasts regarding transfer payments and that those announced in the budget speech are $600 million higher than anticipated by the Quebec government.
They fail to mention that, for the very first time, a Canadian government has had the courage to develop a five-year plan to ensure stable, and not just stable, but progressively higher transfer payments by establishing a cash transfer threshold.
They also fail to mention, which is unfortunate, that equalization payments keep growing from year to year and that the province of Quebec greatly benefits from these payments. The subject of employment was also raised, to complain about the lack of employment measures.
You will understand how staggering it is for me to hear such a thing, given the fact that the federal government's role is to form partnerships and create a climate conducive to good investment. Deficit reduction fosters job creation. Technology Partnerships Canada, the program announced by my colleague from Industry Canada, is much appreciated by Canadian industry and small business. And so is the program geared toward young people; $315 million are allocated to this program. There is also the export financing program involving the Export Development Corporation.
These are measures which prove that the government is headed in a direction leading to the development of a sustainable economic safety net that will foster the creation of steady jobs.
(1350)
To conclude, regarding the employment insurance, the amounts that will be set aside as a result of the proposed reform will be invested in this employment insurance, to maintain stable contributions and build a reserve to sustain this stability even through an economic recession. It should also be pointed out also that this
government is the first government to hit its 3 per cent of GDP deficit reduction target. Those are the real figures.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state tried to be insulting. He tried to promote his doctored budget. He did not pay any attention to my comments.
Mr. Cauchon: Just read the budget.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): I did read the budget, as he suggests. Some facts are undeniable. Regardless of what the secretary of state may say, the debt has gone up $112 billion, and that must be pointed out. That upward trend seems endless. The federal government offloaded its deficit onto the provinces. It took $5 billion from the UI fund. Do you think this is how we will solve the problem in a lasting way and create jobs in Canada? Absolutely not.
Of course, the secretary of state will not agree with the suggestion I made toward the end of my comments, because he is satisfied with small traditional methods that do not work. However, if we managed to lower the rate of taxation, more money would circulate; people would spend and invest more. In the end, there would be a lot more money for the government.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since 1970, Canada showed discipline by setting up a supply management system in the agricultural sector. Over the last 25 years, dairy, poultry and egg producers had to show self-discipline and comply with strict rules under this supply management system.
These producers have quotas which they must reach but not exceed. Everyone benefits: the producers, the processors and the consumers. Producers are guaranteed a stable price for their product, and processors benefit from a reliable, quality and stable supply; As for consumers, they benefit from a very high quality product at a fair and reasonable cost.
But then our good Minister of Finance decided to get involved. In March 1995, one year ago, he announced that subsidies to industrial milk producers would be reduced by 30 per cent over a two-year period. Twelve months later, the same Minister of Finance, a Liberal member representing the urban riding of LaSalle-Émard, once again targets industrial milk producers, and particularly Quebec's 12,000 industrial producers, who provide close to 50 per cent of the country's industrial milk.
To make things worse and even more unfair, in his 1995 budget, the minister not only reduced the subsidy by $560 million, thereby committing an injustice, but he also allocated close to $3 billion to western producers.
(1355)
And in order to save the full amount of the milk subsidy he is abolishing, in order to save $160 million, he comes up with nothing to compensate the milk producers. These folks should not expect to be defended by Liberal members of this House.
I recall the Liberal candidate who won the election in Brome-Missisquoi, who is sitting here. There he is, looking at me obviously. He went around his riding saying: ``I am going to Ottawa to defend you, to represent you'', and this was in a largely rural riding. What does he have to say about these unfair cuts to milk producers? He remains silent. He does not say a word. And again on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, I visited five ridings to meet with milk producers. They asked me: ``Where are our government members in Ottawa?'' Let us face it, MPs from the western provinces and the Maritimes will not be heard defending milk producers here. They hardly have any in their provinces: 50 per cent of milk producers are in Quebec and 30 per cent in Ontario.
But in Ontario, of 99 MPs, only one is a member of the Reform Party. I ask the 98 Liberal MPs from Ontario, what have you said in defence of your industrial milk producers? Nothing. We have not heard a peep out of you.
Last year, you managed to find $3 billion in compensation for western grain producers, but for milk producers in Quebec and Ontario, you came up empty.
So, the only ones you will see speaking out in this House against this unfair situation are the members of the Bloc Quebecois.
I remember very clearly at the time of the last referendum in Quebec hearing the leader of the opposition, a Liberal, say in the riding of Portneuf: ``You cannot vote no, you are getting a subsidy from the government in Ottawa for your industrial milk''. As it happens, I have been to see one of my friends, a producer, who told me about the subsidy he received for the month of January.
Mr. Speaker, would you like me to continue after question period?
The Speaker: Yes, my dear colleague. You may continue after question period. You have approximately four or five minutes remaining. I would remind you that we may not use props in the House of Commons.
We will now proceed to statements by members.
Across Canada learning disability associations and schools perform vital work. The many hours offered by committed volunteers and staff have made a tremendous difference in the lives of those who live with learning disabilities. Their success in generating greater public awareness as well as their preventive efforts to diagnose and assist those with learning disabilities have touched the lives of many people.
I am pleased today to rise and offer my congratulations to the association for its 25 years of service to Canadians. In particular, I would like to recognize the Learning Disability Association of Nova Scotia.
I urge all members of Parliament to join me in pledging our support to Canadians who live with learning disabilities and to all those volunteering in the field.
It is my hope that this week will make Canadians aware of the indispensable role played by Quebec in the French-speaking world and encourage the federal government to correct the problems which are still a daily reality in this country.
(1400)
In that regard, I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage to read again the report released in November by the Commissioner of official languages who said that, while the Criminal Code guarantees official language minorities the right to a trial in their language, French remains underutilized in Canadian courts.
A lot of progress still needs to be made in Canada, and there is no doubt that Quebec, not Canada, plays a role in the French-speaking world.
On January 23, 1996 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recognized an interim band council as the legitimate authority at Lac Barriere. Former Chief Matchewan and his band council continue to subvert the minister's January 23 decree, which has been upheld by the Federal Court.
The real victims are the children who no longer have a school to attend. A group of sympathizers of the former chief and his illegitimate band council have closed the school, wrecked the premises, shut off the town generator and blocked access to the reserve in open defiance of two court injunctions.
I ask the minister to take care and ensure the immediate best interests of the children at Lac Barriere.
Six years later, in 1966, the UN General Assembly proclaimed March 21 International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Today I stand to express my pride in Canada's response to the UN proclamation. Canada was the first country in the world to establish a national education campaign to raise awareness about the destructiveness of racists and racial discrimination.
Because of this initiative and thousands of others undertaken by different levels of government, schools, business and individual Canadians, our country has earned a reputation as a world leader in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. For this reason, we should all be very proud.
The European Parliament has now voted to endorse the Greek position by an overwhelming majority. We commend both parties to peaceful settlement of their dispute, and also welcome Greece's acceptance of the jurisdiction of the World Court for this purpose.
government on its January 17 declaration of a unilateral moratorium on the use and sale of anti-personnel land mines.
As an official observer of the 1994 national elections in Cambodia, I had the opportunity to witness the danger and devastation associated with the use of such weapons. Land mines remain a threat to millions of people in nations around the globe. Canada's recently declared moratorium on the production, export and use of these tools of destruction puts us at the forefront of global de-mining activities.
This action only emphasizes Canada's role as a committed, peaceful nation among global powers. As we continue to counteract the sale and use of such violent technology, we ensure the safety of innocent victims in both the present and the future.
He was given parole despite the fact that even corrections officials knew he would reoffend. This is a situation which we see all too often in Canada: dangerous offenders released into society to commit more crimes.
(1405)
Fortunately, concerned citizens in Prince George, led by Miriam Switzer, posted pictures of Mr. Oatway around the city that warned of his arrival. Their courageous action prevented Mr. Oatway from going to Prince George but unfortunately he has moved on to another city.
The justice system is failing Canadians. It is left to the citizens themselves to protect their communities. It is time to get tough with sexual offenders, including stiffer sentences, no parole and mandatory treatment while they are incarcerated.
Canadians are waiting for safe homes, safe communities and safe playgrounds. What is the Liberal government waiting for?
Canadian chartered banks already enjoy unwarranted privileges in the existing financial system. This is why the government had to see to it that they were not allowed to extend their control. The monopoly situation in which chartered banks operate would only have harmed the Canadian consumer. Allowing chartered banks into the insurance business would have thrown open the door to unwarrranted sales pressure and increased the risk of abusive use of personal information about bank clients. I would therefore like to thank the Minister of Finance for having dealt with the issue with respect at least to the insurance aspect.
Grosse-Île was a quarantine station for tens of thousands of Irish between 1832 and 1937. Next year, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the cholera and typhus epidemic, which claimed over 5,000 victims in 1847, the Irish cemetery on Grosse-Île will be restored and a monument to the medical staff erected.
This is also an opportunity to recall the devotion and hospitality shown by French Canadians towards the Irish, a number of whom were adopted by French Canadian families. Having shared the same land and history as our Irish neighbours for several generations, we have all absorbed their values: courage, tenacity and determination. Long live Grosse-Île and the Irish memorial.
The Minister of Finance has shown that it is possible to manage public finances strictly without increasing the taxpayers' burden in order to secure a better future for all Canadians.
On Friday the Reform finance critic tried to present a new and softer image. He said that the Reform taxpayers' budget would only cut $3 billion from transfers to provinces and $16 billion in total over three years and still balance the budget. The hon. member seems to have trouble with his addition and subtraction. He should watch out or one of his colleagues will cane him.
I checked the three-year budget presented by Reform last year. It clearly calls for cuts of $25 billion, $15 billion of which would come from social programs. Other cuts to eliminate the deficit were not revealed to the public.
Canadian voters are too smart to be fooled by the magic wands offered by the Reform Party. Its performance shows, first, that it cannot add numbers, let alone balance a budget; second, its numbers change from year to year; and, third, votes count not integrity.
(1410 )
No wonder the polls show that an overwhelming majority of Canadians trust the Liberal government to tackle the deficit, maintain social programs and build a strong, united country.
It now appears with the arrest of a suspect that both the victim and his killer are the same age. This terrible shooting is a reminder to all Canadians that violence among our young is not restricted to Canada and it is our youth who are most often the victims of these violent teenagers.
Mark, with a full and promising future ahead of him, has been denied that future by the senseless actions of the accused. His family have been denied the love and affection of a son in the prime of his life. Mark's many school friends share the deep loss and hurt that his family are experiencing.
I am sure I speak for all members of the House when I say to Mark's mother and father as well as sister Jennifer and brother Paul that our hearts and thoughts are with you as you come to terms with this tragic loss of a loved one.
The loss of this energetic, bright and respected young man is a brutal and senseless tragedy that has shaken our community and indeed the nation.
I cannot express clearly enough our hope that the murder of this young man will at the very least result in a greater awareness in the state of Florida of the need to act to stem the tide of violent crime that has swept over this tourist region and taken so many innocent lives. This death need not have occurred and it is more than reason enough to ensure that measures are taken to prevent other meaningless murders in the future.
On behalf of the members of the House of Commons and all Canadians I extend our sympathy to Mark's family. I know we all share his family's shock and grief and we will remember them in our prayers.
I take this opportunity to inform the House that Penetanguishene's francophone community has just signed an agreement with the government, the Île Beausoleil agreement, for the funding of community organizations.
This agreement, which respects the spirit of the Semaine de la francophonie, shows how the francophone culture is thriving not only in Quebec, birth place of Canada's francophonie, but throughout the country.
For the last three years, the Institut de développement Nord-Sud has supported a twinning between two French-speaking intermunicipal entities. The Municipalité régionale de Kamouraska is twinned with the Communauté urbaine de Meknès, in Morocco.
This initiative was the first one in Canada to twin two regions. It encourages cultural exchanges, entails economic spin-offs and
stresses the will of Kamouraska, the birthplace of the French fact in North America, to open itself to the world.
Beyond borders and oceans, French areas are getting together, discussing and acting in French to ensure the mutual well-being of their inhabitants, while respecting and developing their common culture.
The people of my riding of Peace River are proud that their hometown team gave Canada its third junior women's gold medal in a row.
I ask that all members of the House to join me in offering hearty congratulations to Heather Godberson, Carmen Whyte, Kristie Moore, Terelyn Bloor, Rona McGregor and their coach, Brian Moore.
Well done, Canada!
[Translation]
Our government is well aware that young Canadians, probably more than any other segment of our society, are worried about their future.
In response to the very deep concerns of our youth, our government has announced that it would spend an additional $165 million over three years to help young Canadians and their families to pay for their education.
Also, during the next three years, we will inject another $315 million to provide new job opportunities for our young people. These few measures go to prove our commitment to support young Canadians, who will some day take our place in society.