Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday that we were sitting here listening to the finance minister presenting the very first budget of this new government. It brings home the fact that there is precious little time left between now and the next budget.
The motion of this debate is that Parliament take note of the views of Canadians on the fiscal situation in giving advice to the finance minister and to the government of the day in developing the 1995 budget.
I know that many of us are out there consulting with our constituents. For the first time in the history of this country consultations on the budget are taking place not behind closed doors but in open and in public. In every corner of this land we hope to engage Canadians in addressing the fiscal problems we have, in addressing what kind of country they want and how much they are prepared to pay for it. In my view this is the way to do a budget.
I had what would be the first stage of input to the 1995 budget in Ottawa West several weeks ago when we held a consultation on the social programs review. The message that came out of that consultation which was attended by over 150 people was very clearly a budget message. The message was that yes, they are aware of the fiscal problems of the country. Yes, they want a sounder, economic situation for our country, but they want fairness above all and a country that is still committed to those values of sharing, of fairness, of compassion and of shared responsibility for the collective well-being and for the well-being of fellow citizens.
All of us have been receiving much input from our constituents as the media has speculated about measures that might possibly be taken in the budget. Therefore I certainly want to share with this House and with the finance minister what I have heard from my constituents and the specific messages around that fundamental message I am hearing.
People are very much aware of the fiscal situation we are facing. In the Liberal red book we said very explicitly that any responsible government has to have the goal of a zero deficit. We felt it was a responsible target to commit ourselves to reach 3
per cent of GDP, that is, cutting the deficit in half compared with our GDP in the first three years of our mandate, by 1997. That is the goal we set and that is the goal we intend to reach.
I will spend a couple of minutes on why it is important that we do that. For the people I am hearing from in Ottawa West certain things are important to them about this country's programs and values.
The fact is that the debt and deficit restrict our ability to move our nation forward and to build our economic prosperity. Right now close to one-third of every dollar we spend is being spent just to pay interest on the debt. That is money we do not have for other things that are important not only to the Canada of today but to the Canada of our children and grandchildren.
Let me talk a bit more about some specific issues people have been bringing to my attention. They realize that this level of debt and this level of interest payment on our debt restrict the sovereignty of a government. They restrict its ability to make decisions and to make plans for the country and for its people.
The question then to my constituents and to every Canadian is as to how they want us to deal with that, which means a better balance between what we are spending and what we have in revenue. That is what we are asking Canadians. How do they want us to achieve that balance?
We indicated our direction clearly in the last budget where cuts in spending were five times the increases in revenue. Those increases were achieved on the revenue side by getting rid of perceived special treatment for certain groups in society.
I want to express the concern that we not make decisions that look good in the short term but that impact on our ability to be strong economically in the long term. I am very concerned that we not harm our scientific and research base to the point where we may look better in this year's budget and in the budgets for the next few years, but we are starting to undermine our ability to have jobs 10 years from now.
I want to make sure we are not cutting back in areas now that are feeding the economic growth of the small and medium sized businesses. They provide 85 per cent of the new jobs in this country. I want to make sure we are not cutting back on our ability and our contribution to the development of countries around this globe that are our future customers if they can develop their economies and if they can develop their democratic systems of government.
Above all I want to make sure we are not cutting back on the development of our most important resource: the talent of our young men and women, the young boys and girls who will become our young men and women.
Fairness is a strong theme I hear. People want to know that everybody is paying their fair share. They want to know that they are not being targeted for cuts in benefits they now enjoy while others continue to get away with not paying their fair share into the pot from which we all benefit.
Seniors are particularly concerned. A very large proportion of them live in Ottawa West. They want to remind this House that old age security and the Canada pension plan are not charity and are not welfare. I read the debates again from the fifties when the old age security was implemented. It very specifically said that this pension is a right of citizenship and everybody is going to pay on their income tax for that pension. They did that and they continue to do it.
A few years ago it was rolled into the general tax rate, but it is still there, a special payment for old age security. That is a pension people have paid for. They want me to remind this House and our government how much they have sacrificed, the hardships they have put up with, the things they did without, to take responsibility for providing for their own retirement. They want me to remind this House that we owe a debt to them, a debt of gratitude and a debt for the quality of life we have in this country.
I want to talk a bit about the public service as my colleague before me has done. I remind the House that we could cancel the whole public service tomorrow and we would still have a huge deficit and a huge debt. We could cut all government spending on the actual operating of government tomorrow and it would not take care of our deficit and debt problem.
Everybody who works for the public service knows we are going through a tremendous period of change. They know that period of change will certainly mean changes in jobs and a smaller public service. Again we have to be sure that we are not targeting specific segments of our society, including the public service, to bear an unfair portion of the burden that belongs to all of us as Canadians.
We want to continue to reaffirm the value of government services across this country. They are the kind of services that keep our transportation and food supply safe, that keep goods and services moving across this country and without which we would not have an economy.
In the few seconds I have left I also want to say that above all my constituents want to keep reminding us that the best way to solve our debt and deficit problem is to have more Canadians working, more Canadians employed and contributing to the economy instead of requiring the assistance of their communities and their society.
They do not want us to lose sight, as we have not done, that our main target is jobs and economic growth, that fiscal responsibility is part of that but so is social responsibility. We should not solve our fiscal deficit by creating a social deficit. They remind
me and I remind the House that disparity is growing in this country, not decreasing. Those who are well off, those for whom the Reform Party seems to speak are better off than they have ever been. It is below that where everybody is a little worse off. That means our country is worse off.
Like the constituents I have spoken with, and I will be speaking with many more when we hold another consultation on the budget specifically on December 11, I wish the finance minister the best of wisdom in the deliberations he has ahead of him. I wish him above all an open ear to Canadians.