Time is flying, but I was told I had unlimited time. I find that fantastic, although I would not want to exaggerate.
I would like to say a few words on international assistance. We did not talk much about that, and I think we should start. The budget contains a 2 per cent cut in international assistance. That is a $400 million reduction in the budget over the next three years.
The Bloc Quebecois, short of increasing the budget for this item, would have asked the government to keep the level of Canadian development assistance, because we are still quite far from the objective of 0.7 per cent of our GNP for international aid programs. As I could see during my years of employment with a farmers union, poverty in Latin America as well as Africa is not only still there, but it is increasing. The government could have corrected some of the administrative problems in international development that the Auditor General pointed out in his last report. We should, at least, have had the decency of maintaining the level of our international assistance, our commitment to helping the neediest on this planet. It seems to me that it is not much to ask of a country like Canada.
We should not forget that every time we teach people in the developing world to do something, they become wealthier and therefore, they acquire goods and services in Canada. Such a cut is therefore postponing possible growth in the demand for Canadian goods and services. From an economic point of view, the only one that the government ever takes into consideration, this fact should have been remembered. We deplore the $400 million reduction in international development assistance over the next three years, while children in Africa and Latin America continue to die every day.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that this budget is devoid of the measures that the government should have taken. Moreover, its spending reduction targets are ridiculous because as I said at the outset, in nominal terms, expenses will not be reduced over the next three years. In fact, spending levels will remain relatively stable.
This budget does not contain any serious measures which would allow the government to get its finances in order. As many observers have pointed out since yesterday, it is not a visionary budget. It does not contain any job creation incentives to give some hope back to the 1.5 million Canadians and 460,000 Quebecers who are unemployed. The middle class is being taxed to death, while the poor and the disadvantaged will feel the effects of cuts to social programs.
If I may digress for a moment, last week I was rereading René Lévesque's memoirs and a thought came to mind. As you know, in Quebec, Mr. Lévesque left us with a legacy whereby political parties can only accept contributions from individuals. I notice that the federal Liberal Party and the Reform Party have no such system in place. This seems to be the case just about everywhere in Canada. I wonder if the fact that the Liberals do not have such a system explains in part why they did not move in this budget to close the various tax loopholes which benefit large corporations or to do away with family trusts which benefit the wealthiest members of society.
I went and got a copy of the report the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada submitted last year to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, only to discover that among the contributors whose names I will not mention -the report is public domain, anybody can refer to it- there are Canadian manufacturing industries which have contributed up to $68,000 to the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada. Probably the same ones dodging tax in tax havens like Barbados and the likes. I also noticed that the Liberal Party of Canada received from banks and trusts companies amounts ranging from $12,000 and $45,000. They are the ones responsible for administering family trusts.
I wondered if that did not explain in part why the government across the way, the Liberals, did not eliminate this kind of preferential tax treatment for contributing friend of the Liberal Party of Canada. When you accept contributions like that, you have to expect to have your hands tied once you are in office. You must also expect that you will not really be free to make the right, timeliest and fairest decision. I wondered if that was not the reason. If indeed it is, I am outraged. If not, prove it to me. Let our friends opposite put in place a system based on René Lévesque's great legacy, a system similar to the one we, the Bloc Quebecois, have adopted.
Our hands are not tied. We can speak on behalf of middle-income taxpayers and those suffering the most hardship in our society, without the diktat of large corporations and the wealthiest families of Quebec and Canada being imposed upon us.
To conclude, I would ask the Minister of Finance to take off the work boots the Prime Minister has offered him, because I believe he is not worthy of wearing them.
I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substanding the following:
"this House denounce the reversal of the Government's position on the budget which:
(a) tackles the problem of the deficit on the back of a middle class already bled white by the tax increases of recent years:
(b) gives up trying to control spiralling deficit-related expenditures by basing its fiscal analysis on unrealistic revenue projections;
(c) refuses to eliminate tax loopholes for the wealthy and for big business;
(d) abandons the poor to their fate by its readiness to slash funding for social programs; and
(e) continues the destructive policies of preceding governments by demonstrating a flagrant lack of long-term vision and by giving no hope to the jobless."