Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I will adhere to that directive from the Chair.
The red ink budget presented to us told Canadians that there was going to be an increase in taxation levels and that the government would be relying on increased revenues for a large portion of its deficit reduction program. That was unacceptable.
Canadians have said in the last few months that we must stop overspending and get rid of the deficit now. What did that red ink book say to Canadians? What did the government say yesterday and today?
The budget will contain a $40 billion deficit and there will be minor expenditure reductions to reduce the deficit, a little today but mostly later. Mostly later, not today. If we examine the budget further we find that most of those reductions were taken by other expenditures, new expenditures of government, so we did not get ahead. We are $40 billion in debt.
Canadians wanted a long term plan, a plan for at least the 35th Parliament. Did we get it out of the red book? We got a two phase plan but it did not meet the request of Canadians. It is totally silent on a formal plan to deal with Canada's economy.
Another thing Canadians wanted was jobs, jobs and jobs and this was on the marquee of the Liberal Party during the election. When we read through all of these documents presented to us, the budget speech, the budget plan, the supporting documents, and the hearings we attended, there was no mention of numbers in the goals for jobs, either through job creation or job opportunities created by small and medium sized businesses across
Canada. The numbers there are minor to the real need of Canadians. There is nothing comprehensive in a plan that speaks to Canadians as to what this government intends to accomplish.
To sum up why I call it the red ink book plan it is because this government has not heard what Canadians have said on taxes, on the deficit, on the plan. Most important the government has not dealt with the question of jobs.
The minister claims he is going to do that. He presented the budget in a pair of what I call farm work boots. I want to say this very clearly. If someone came to my farm one morning, I hope ready to work, and at noon those boots were still clean and nothing really had been done, I would not keep that person around very long.
It is time for the Minister of Finance to get to work and get those boots dirty. It is time that the minister, the Prime Minister and other ministers of this government take on the tough job they face in terms of the economy. They have to show the will to deal with the difficult circumstances, the overexpenditure, the high taxation which is suppressing businesses across Canada, the high taxation which is creating doubt and a lack of confidence for investment that would create job opportunities for all Canadians.
I want to make some remarks about taxes and the attitude of the Liberal government on taxes which is highlighted in the budget. The minister was so proud when he presented it. He said: "For every $5 of cuts we only are raising taxes $1 over the next three years on a three year average".
Looking at some of the projections on the cuts, they are questionable in terms of whether the government will achieve them with the present policies which are in place. That is number one. However the other indicator that may be more realistic is the 1994-95 budget. The cuts for 1994 according to the budget speech are going to be $2.1 billion. The new program funding that will be introduced will be $1.7 billion. The net cuts that are realistic are $.6 billion.
Looking at that picture in terms of taxes versus cuts, for every $1.25 of tax increase there is $1 in cuts. This is the opposite of what the government is claiming in terms of a $5 cut for $1 increase in taxes.
The second thing that concerns me with regard to taxes is that this budget depends on revenue growth; that is, more tax revenue to deal with its responsibility. The expenditure levels are somewhat consistent at $122 billion. However to deal with the deficit and bring it down the government is placing all of its hope on revenue growth. That is all right on one hand but on the other we have to look at the expenditure side.
Looking back in history to the 10 years of government under the Tories and what they did in their plan, they never came to grips with expenditures. They never dealt with priorities and kept on spending. One of the major criticisms that can be made of the present budget is it seems that the tax and spend days of the Tories are not too far away from us. That is unfortunate because we expected this government to do better.
Why should we have some concerns about high taxes and increased taxes? First of all, as was said by the finance critic of the Bloc Quebecois, internationally Canada has the highest tax burden of the G-7 nations, except Germany. When we look at that we wonder about our underground economy. We need to lower the taxes.
The second thing I would like to bring to the attention of government is the provinces. They are concerned about this continuous increase in taxes.
Not too long ago Quebec Premier Johnson said in an article that we have to do everything possible to avoid higher taxes. In that same article his finance minister made some similar comments that we have to work on the expenditure side, cut on the expenditure side, not increase tax revenues. They called on Ottawa to keep the tax levels down.
In Alberta a very comprehensive program of deficit reduction is going on. The premier intends to balance the budget within at least three or four years and get rid of the deficit. That is a very noble plan.
However if Ottawa continues to increase taxes and impose costs on the provinces it makes their job very difficult. We have to deal responsibly with this budget at the federal level.
Another item which concerns me is noted in a document dated February 1994 from the Dominion Bond Rating Service. It comments on the weaknesses of the Canadian government sector. In trying to rate the credit for the federal government, two things are said: "Revenue, the new problem: (a) The economy has a lower tax generation capacity than in the past; (b) Tax rates are high relative to the U.S. in almost every category". I do not think that speaks well for the Canadian scene. We should recognize that and deal with the problem before us.
I would like to comment on the deficit reduction plan of the government. As I said earlier the proposed cuts are offset by spending in 18 new program areas. In this budget there are 15 program reviews. My experience has been that every time a committee or group is put together to conduct a review most of the recommendations are expensive and call for increased expenditures. I certainly hope that does not happen here. However, that is usually the pattern.
The third point I would like to make is that total budgetary spending is to increase over the next two years. It is not going to decrease. There is a slight increase built into it. Under the current conditions that is a rather scandalous circumstance.
One item I raised in the House today was with regard to the Spending Control Act. I feel that is an act that had at least the possibility to set some benchmarks so that when people wanted to examine whether the government is in a positive trend or in a progressive way dealing with the deficit, reducing expenditures, through that act, there would be a benchmark. The government has felt that it can do it on its own. It takes the ceiling off and is going to be responsible. It has not proved that yet and the question is still out. Why not leave it there? Is the government afraid of targets?
Another point I would like to make is that this two-stage budget is not meeting the needs. Stage one is doing almost nothing. Stage two is measures after lengthy and costly studies. That is not good enough. Where and when can we meet these lofty goals?
The 3 per cent plan of the government to deal with the deficit and to reach $25 billion in the year 1995-96 is not good enough either. Canadians need something more concrete. There are a number of reasons why that 3 per cent target is not adequate. The Maastricht treaty that was set up required that as an entrance requirement. Any country that was involved in that economic union was asked to deal with its deficit and balance its budget. That was part of it.
The priorities of the Reform Party are to reduce and eliminate debt. During the period we are here we want to be the conscience of this Parliament and call for very responsible spending.
I would like to move an amendment very quickly:
That the amendment be amended by removing all the words after "government" and by adding thereafter the following words:
and regret that the necessary measures were not taken to balance the budget by the end of the 35th Parliament.