Mr. Speaker, it is with keen interest and deep concern that I rise today in the House to address the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.
Acknowledging the seriousness of our discussions here today is more than just debating how to provide more effective and efficient support to those in need. It is a challenge most fundamental coming to the realization that responsible financial management requires thoughtful planning. Nowhere in this motion do I sense a strategy or any idea for that matter of where that money is going to come from.
Spending in the country continues at an alarming rate. Even as I speak every minute represents $88,410 in additional debt. The jobless, the discouraged, the fearful and the poor are still out there. That is very overwhelming. What are we going to do?
I believe we have to ask ourselves three things when we consider expenditures of any kind, especially in the area of social spending. It takes courage to be objective when reviewing social reforms because our emotions are involved and that is when it is most difficult to make a decision.
My questions are what do we want, how do we get there, and what will it take?
Let us look first at what Canadians want. People are outraged that our government has been in an out of control spending mode for two decades. Our nation is like a Hollywood front, all glitter and glass purchased on borrowed money with nothing of substance holding it up.
It is a stunning picture on the reality of this House that not since the minority Parliament of 1972-74 has Parliament directly acted to cut expenditures. Even in that situation in which the government lacked a controlling majority, the House of Commons achieved two small cuts amounting in total to $20,000.
To give a sense of proportion, since the current procedure for committee review of estimates was initiated in 1969, Parliament has authorized about $2 trillion worth of expenditures. This means that Parliament has made cuts that represent only one millionth of one per cent of total expenditures that it approves.
Here we find the Bloc Quebecois having spoken eloquently on numerous occasions about deficit control and debt reduction, bringing forward a motion to spend money but not explaining within that context how that money will be found.
If we want to reduce the deficit and begin a meaningful effort at getting our economy on track and our social reforms in place, the second question I ask is how will we get there? We begin with the right people. We need people who will stand up and say this is not good enough, we are not willing to solve tough issues
by following the easier path. Throwing money at programs is easy.
I believe the social role of government is determined by clarifying priorities, responding to the give and take as governments attempt to pay for increasingly costly social programs while coping with the ever diminishing economic base.
However, in the motion before us today there is no appearance of a give and take, merely an arbitrary dole, a short sighted, stop gap solution.
Canadian welfare and social programs were designed on a premise of high employment. Therefore, social programs and economic policy are mismatched. Given that the overwhelming need for social support is the direct result of the poor economic health of the country, tinkering with pieces of social policy will not help. However, changing our economic policy will help.
If a room is freezing because of frigid air coming in through a broken window, we do not turn up the heat; we fix the window. So it is with this motion. We are turning up the heat when we need to fix what is broken.
It is the unhealthy fiscal policy of this government and that of previous governments which are causing such a strain on our social programs. As the debt has grown interest payments have consumed an increasing proportion of the government's spending. They now constitute an enormous strain on the treasury. In 1974 they consumed only 11 per cent of the government's spending but today they consume 25 per cent. That is $40 billion from the treasury which go to interest payments on the debt. That, not coincidentally, is about equal to the federal deficit.
The point I am making is one given to us by the Auditor General: "In 1992 in an age of scarce public resources and growing debt, seeking ways to see that things get done by or through others rather than spending money to do them becomes increasingly important". Are we not ever going to hear the wisdom of those words as we apply mental energy ever seeking answers to the pressing social concerns of the day?
I ask the question: What will it take? I know courageous leadership is part of the answer. A government that listens to its people is made stronger and can deal more effectively with tough issues.
However, the Bloc motion puts more emphasis on spending to relieve an overburdened social system. I cannot support that. However I support greater financial sustainability over the long term. This requires a new commitment to sound, long-term financial management.
Another important question now needs to be asked: is it better to help households obtain adequate housing by directly providing the housing or by assisting them to increase their incomes? This means fostering an environment in which people are able to work. It is critical that we maintain federal spending at current levels for high priority functions, including labour force and training and adjustment programs.
It is also necessary that provinces have the freedom to distribute federal funding and manage their own programs. This comes back to my earlier comments about priorities. Maintaining federal transfers to provinces remains key in terms of preserving those programs targeted to those in need. I believe that public money should be regarded by governments as funds held in trust and that governments should practise responsibility, particularly the responsibility to balance expenditures and revenues.
We need to see significant spending cuts that are judiciously planned for the long term. I applaud those moves by the government to withhold funding support for programs for which there is no long range plan or strategy for the expenditure.
In conclusion the choices and decisions we must make have to be so clearly laid out before every Canadian so that all of us understand where we are going and what it is going to take to get there. This is my challenge to this House and to the Bloc Quebecois on its motion.