Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister for her speech. She drew a very interesting and penetrating, albeit alarming, picture of the social situation prevailing in Canada at the present time. However, I am concerned by the fact that when it comes to solutions, she is less than forthcoming, to say the least.
As far as I am concerned, I see three different options and I would like to know what she thinks of them. First, you cut social programs, as some recommend, that is to say that you go after those who are already in a weakened position.
Second, you increase taxes, affecting the middle class who, as we know, is already heavily burdened. Finally, you can, as the member for Davenport suggested with a lot of courage, lucidity and insight, go after the rich who, in Canada as in the rest of the world, are hardly affected by incentives to fill the public purse. It takes a lot of courage for a government to tackle this segment of our society. First of all I would like to know where the Deputy Prime Minister stands on this issue.
Then, I would like to know where she stands, in reference to the remarks made by the member for Davenport, regarding the two main avenues offered to us concerning public expenditures and revenues. In other words, is the government spending too much or is it short of revenues? We know that in the last three years, it has shown that both spending and revenues have been decreasing.
Finally, I would like to know what she thinks of an opinion held by some analysts to the effect that the hidden agenda of this gigantic exercise of co-operation, upgrading and restructuring we have been invited to participate in, is to suppress the middle class in the Western world so that there only remain a few rich and powerful people and a lot of poor ones, just as in the under-developed countries. Is it not what we can expect in Canada and, consequently, in Quebec?