moved that Bill C-245, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Auditor General Act (review of budget speech), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about my Bill C-245 and why I did propose it. I guess it would be no secret to say that I proposed it because of a great lack of confidence in the ability of this government and indeed the Conservative government before it to accurately project revenues.
This bill asks the Auditor General to order one or more people to review the budget speech and then report to the House on the reasonableness of the estimated revenues used in the preparation of that speech. That report would be by another party and would be submitted to the Speaker on or before May 31.
The reason that is necessary is that we do need another independent body assessing the numbers the government is giving us. I will show today why this and other governments have been projecting revenues like this and have been spending that much and their revenues are downloaded and they end up with deficits.
As I started this speech, this country's debt clock was at $532,343,108,949.98. That just sort of rolls off us Reformers now. However I think the people listening and watching should really understand that this money will be on the backs of our children and our children's children. The overindulgence of the last 20 years must really be noted and it must be accepted that it has to stop. The debate we have already heard today on the social programs from the Reform Party's point of view should be well taken, well accepted, and the rhetoric we are getting from the Liberal Party should be suspect at the very least.
How did we ever get into this mess? Besides overspending and overindulging and overloading the taxpayer, government manipulation of the budget numbers is one of the primary problems. How can government overspend, one asks. It is quite easy when you bring forward to the public estimated revenues of a certain amount of money.
It is like a family whose income is $56,000 a year. They turn around and say: "We know we have $56,000 but let us just say it is going to be $86,000 this year and let us spend $86,000". At the end of the year they end up owing $30,000 to the bank. Next year they do the same thing and the following year. Pretty soon that family owes $90,000 or $100,000 and what happens? The bank comes into play and says: "Wait, you cannot pay your bills". Then the tragedy of personal bankruptcy takes place.
With government however the bank does not come into play, the taxpayer does. It is most notable in recent years looking at the rising tax figures how the taxpayer is paying for this burden of assessment of higher valued revenues and spending to that limit.
In 1984 Canadians thought they got rid of the Liberals. They brought in debt and deficits that were concerning people, so we brought in the Conservatives. We thought they were talking about restraint, and talk about sitting at the trough. We put up with these folks for four years.
In 1988 we were at this terrible decision making point. We could not go back to the Liberals because they blow money like yesterday's business. We were not very comfortable with the Conservatives, but maybe they just needed another four years. So we brought in the Conservatives again. Well, it was trough city after that.
The Conservatives knew it. They figured that as they were probably going to go out anyway, just before the 1992 election they would raise the revenues and spend money. Then if the Liberals got in they would be stuck with it because the Conservatives had spent money based on erroneous, highly projected revenues. If the Liberals did get in they would wonder what had happened.
This has been going on for decades. I have to ask why is it we do not elect the government we want. What we really do is throw out the government we do not want. That is why today there are 52 Reformers sitting in this House. I can assure you at the next election we are going to throw out a government we do not want. The people are finally going to have an opportunity to elect the government they do want, notwithstanding all this rhetoric we hear here. We are going to stick with it and keep talking about deficit reduction and we mean it. It is not rhetoric.
Canadians did elect the Liberals as the government thinking they would have a great opportunity to see this tough budget in 1993. Several of us, me included, went into a lockup. We were looking for the savings, the reductions, and all of the changes that would come. The Liberals were going to help the country. What we saw was some increased revenues and they were going to spend the same amount of money. This is the same old story we have been getting. Meanwhile the debt climbs and climbs. Under the auspices of increased revenues we get more spending.
We hear the talk today about social programs. For one whole year we have been studying social programs from this side of the House and yesterday, we received a discussion document, not an action document, a discussion document. That is kind of sick when you think about it. We have had a year to take some action. We are overspending by $40 billion a year and we get a discussion document. What do the people at home think of this House that is supposed to provide leadership, this House that is supposed to take action? The reports already coming into my office ask why some action could not be taken.
We did hear from the press, not from the government, that there is possibly $7.5 billion in savings over five years. That is a mega whopping $1.5 billion a year. We overspend by $40 billion a year so $1.5 billion does not even make a dent, folks. This comes from an accountant. I think I can even add that much.
I can say this. The government is trying to bail out a sinking ship with a thimble. It does not work that way and even buckets will not help now. We need a sump pump to drain this system. Yes it will hurt a little bit, but have the courage. We will show this government how to have some courage. We just have to take it on the chin a little bit, that is all.
If the Liberals really meet their budget plan we are blessed in this country with a deficit of about $26 billion a year. This is the plan to balance the books, $26 billion a year. Over four years we are running over another $100 billion in debt. That is the thimble we are dealing with. It is not sound and it is not reasonable, but it is rhetoric.
If the Liberals do not cut they have to play with the revenues. That is what they are going to do and that is why my bill kicks in place. We want an independent third party to look at these revenues. We want another assessment of these numbers.
When they are looking at revenues do not discount the cash cow of RRSPs. Although their budget numbers will vary widely on how much revenue they can get from that, you may be sure there is a cash cow there and they do have a focus on those savings. In fact our leader and others in our party have asked in the House of Commons several times in Question Period: "What are you doing with RRSPs?" The answer is always: "Well, we can't say right now". The fact is they are going to dip into it.
Let me tell the House what some people think about that. I hope this government does not think that people are not concerned about it already. This is an unsolicited letter to me from a chartered accountant. Her name is Ruth Gillies. She wrote:
This letter is to express my strong concern over recent sabre rattling by Revenue Canada to tax retirement savings. I feel that threatening those people who are attempting to deal responsibly with their future needs, rather than relying on the system to provide help as and when needed, provides a strong disincentive for people to act responsibly.
Disincentive to act responsibly. We are hearing that not just about RRSPs but also about the social system changes we are looking at.
It also occurs to me that threatening to tax retirement savings, which is obviously offensive, might be viewed as an effective psychological weapon so the Canadian populace will be thrilled when the proposed charge of first degree murder is subsequently reduced to manslaughter.
I understand the government's need to deal with the deficit issue.
I think Ruth probably understands that need a little more than this government; she is a CA. She goes on to say:
I feel more like a victim or prey rather than the cause of the problem. I feel more like I am being done to rather than being done for.
Do you understand what she is saying here?
In my opinion we need responsibility accounting and good value for our money that government spends.
Now understand this:
A deficit arises when spending exceeds revenue.
I have to say that again. Deficit arises when spending exceeds revenue. This is the new axiom for the Liberal Party.
I do not feel that cost control and expenditure reduction measures have been fully explored or exhausted by our fiscal managers.
We and millions of other people in this country do not feel that way either. The letter goes on to say:
I already feel I am paying my fair share and sometimes, to be honest, a little more than my fair share. I am very disturbed by being constantly asked to pay more. Before I make any more payments I want to know where, why, when and how the debt arose for which I am presumed to be liable.
Is that common sense or what? She is a chartered accountant. It is not somebody with no knowledge of the finances of this country. In the event that this government believes I drew this letter up from Ruth Gillies, I just received another one today that puts it even more basically. I do not think Scott Leaf is an accountant but here is what he has to say:
I am writing you to demand that you oppose any tax grab on money within registered retirement savings plans.
I am 28 years old and have been putting away the maximum RRSP contribution that I am allowed for 3 years. I am not wealthy. I make approximately $30,000 a year.
My wife and I survive on one income at present, while I support her in university. We forgo trips, and most of the things that others our age do not, in order to plan for our future. I would love to go on a cruise or buy a house but we have followed all the advice from both government and the private sector and have saved.
If the government taxes our money within our RRSP it is a slap in the face to us. I am thoroughly disgusted with even the thought of taxing money within RRSPs. I already know that I cannot count on a government pension in the future or even a company pension. Therefore I demand that you condemn any change that will start the process where people will not be able to count on their own retirement savings either.
Why am I interested in this revenue part? The Reform Party has been talking cut, cut, cut expenditure, wise decision making, good sound fiscal management in expenditures. We have looked at the revenues, but we need that independent third party to look at it because we cannot trust what is coming from the crew over there.
Ruth Gillies had actually talked about some stupid spending. I was talking to a fellow today and he says: "Talk about stupid spending. They spent $661,463 to solicit public comment and preach restraint at a series of conferences leading up to last February's budget". Folks, I do not think they got $661,000 worth because they did not listen. Of that total, $37,800 was spent on travel expenses. There was $10,850 spent for a consultant to recruit members of the public to attend meetings. This is very wise spending on behalf of the Liberals because they cannot get people to attend meetings. There was of course $6,050 for a writer to craft four speeches delivered by the finance minister. I suppose he does not have enough staff to do that. We have to forgive him for that.
I want to mention excuses made about revenues. In 1984 the Liberal government brought in a budget, Marc Lalonde's budget. Among the comments made in the revenue portion of it was: "It is planned for stable inflation. We have a job creation program". That was 1984. Ten years later the Liberals are still planning for job creation programs. They had a medium term strategy for deficit reduction. I guess that one did not work either.
They had a planned unemployment decline from 11.9 per cent to 7.7 per cent. This is in justification of increasing revenues so they could spend more money. None of these things came true. Growth in personal income and revenues were expected to grow more rapidly than GNP from 15 per cent in 1983-84 to 15.9 per cent.
What happened? In 1985 Michael Wilson said: "We missed the target somewhere along the line. We don't know what happened but there was a sharp slowdown in growth of budgetary revenues in 1983-84", but it was due to the 1981-82 recession. I have to ask: Why did Mr. Lalonde's budget not pick that idea up? It was two years before that.
The fact is that the Liberals already knew it was going to affect revenues but they kept it high so they could spend more money. That kind of forecasting in the circles I have worked in as a certified management accountant is just unbelievable. That kind of forecasting is actually unacceptable.
At the very least the government should take its revenue projections and discount them. I would suggest that the government should take a very hard and direct look at this bill. It does not have the wisdom to make the decisions. They need a second opinion.