Mr. Speaker, I suppose on the other side of the coin I share the member's concern about having to keep one's feelings in a proper perspective in the spirit of debate in this House.
I found it particularly difficult when he was standing and very selectively making comments and extracts from where we were talking about Canadians being able to help themselves. Rather than going through the whole process of points one through five, he chose to stay on only one point. I find that really unfortunate and I do not think it really does anything for the level of debate in this House.
He has a complete lack of understanding of the rage that there is on the part of Canadians at this moment. The reason there is a
demand for a taxpayer protection act is that we currently have a government in Canada whose leader stood before the people of this country and said there would be no tax increases for two years. The election was in October 1993. That is less than two years and this government will bring in tax increases. Canadians want the ability to be able to make politicians accountable.
The Prime Minister, when he was on the stump, said there would be no tax increases except in the case of war. The last time I looked the only war was the war which this government is creating on social programs by its constant overspending.
The hon. member suggested that the Reform Party is doing a disservice, that investors somewhere or people doing research are going to take a look and say there is a member of Parliament who is actually speaking up and saying things that are said in this week's Maclean's magazine which reported:
Nevertheless, even Canada's best run governments and companies are now bracing for the sting of a credit downgrade. The federal government's credit rating is a ceiling that no other Canadian credit can vault. And if Ottawa's rating falls, Moody's has already served notice that it will also slash those of the provinces, including British Columbia, as well as eight triple-A rated municipalities across the country. One of those is London, Ontario, which currently has a debt of $83 million. "A downgrade would have a significant impact on our borrowing costs"-
It is also going to affect Sun Life Assurance, Imperial Oil and the rest.
I do not understand how this member or any of the other members can stand in this House and say that just because the Reform Party is saying it like it is that somehow it is wrong. This is supposed to be a House of truth.
The Financial Post last Friday, quoting from Moody's Investor Service, reported:
"We downgraded Italy in 1993 and it was very controversial", recalled Vincent Truglia, the senior analyst at Moody's Investor Service Inc. responsible for yesterday's review of Canada's debt ratings, which could result in downgrades.
In the case of Italy, Truglia concluded that though the country's economic picture was brightening, given the nature of Italian society it would be very difficult for the government to maintain fiscal austerity in the medium term.
"Everyone disagreed with us at the time and thought we were crazy", said Truglia, but Moody's analysis, "has in fact proven to be the case quite strongly".
These are warnings. I ask the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister why will the government not at least acknowledge these warnings? Even on the front page of the Vancouver Sun last Friday the finance minister said that he was surprised, he was shocked, he was outraged. These are warnings. Should we not be taking these as warnings rather than simply saying it is too bad the Reform Party is bringing up these terrible issues in the House?