Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Canadians know very well that we have inherited an economic mess from the Conservatives and that steps must be taken to reduce the deficit and the debt. On that we all agree.
The major preoccupation of this budget is to appease the marketplace, in particular rating agencies. Having done so this year one may expect Wall Street to demand more measures of the same kind in future budgets.
To deal with this the Prime Minister is taking the issue of currency speculators and their impact on national economies to the next meeting in June of the G-7 nations, a very timely initiative for which he is to be congratulated.
There are a few positive measures in the budget for which the Minister of Finance is to be congratulated. For instance, from the perspective of sustainable development one could highlight his decision to remove the 20 per cent limit of a donor's income when donations qualify as ecologically sensitive land. There is a commitment in the budget to study barriers or disincentives in the use of recycled materials over virgin materials.
There is a promise to examine the tax system in search of disincentives to energy efficiency and renewable forms of energy. Subsidies were cut in the energy sector that encouraged uneconomic and unsustainable supply development. Much more needs to be done if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This brings me to the end of the list of good news and back to the question of how to reduce the national debt and the deficit. It is a necessity on which we all agree.
In the weeks and months preceding the budget several presentations were made repeatedly that social spending is not the cause of our economic ills and that our deficit problem, rather than through cuts in expenditures, ought to be resolved through increases in revenue by way of closing tax loopholes. Billions of dollars a year are forgone in revenue because of existing tax loopholes, including items such as lottery winnings, business meals and entertainment expenses and other existing items well
identified in a report by the Department of Finance dated January 1994.
To his credit, the Minister of Finance closed a couple of loopholes but the tax system remains unprogressive as a result of nine years of Conservative government, Conservative budget making.
It is time for a thorough review of our tax system as it stands now. This review is made even more urgent and necessary and relevant by the fact that the social envelope as announced in the budget is being reduced by $7 billion. Had more tax loopholes been closed, had the tax system been put under the microscope to the same extent that the social security system has been, it would have not been necessary to reduce the social envelope. We would have funds available to diminish the necessity of cutting expenditures. We would have funds for the creation of employment programs for youth desperately waiting for job opportunities which are now not materializing despite our vigorous economic growth.
In other words, closing tax loopholes would provide the government with badly needed revenues to combat unemployment and to apply less severe cuts. Time does not permit to comment on the many cuts and I will therefore comment only on a couple which are particularly painful.
One reduces the social housing budget by $270 million at a time when in Toronto alone an applicant has to wait over four years.
Why reduce the protection of our natural resources by one third, the estimates of the environment department, and allocate to the department of defence almost 20 times as much, $9 billion? What is more important?
Why reduce international aid at a time when health and development projects are so badly needed for the stability of nations most in need?
How can we implement our red book commitment to sustainable development with a 70 per cent cut in the federal allocation to the Canadian environment industry, while leaving the nuclear industry unscathed from any budget cuts?
How can we maintain and strengthen the Canadian identity when the budget of the Canada Council is cut in half? How can we promote and sustain artistic talents without the support of the federal government?
In a way it is too late to talk about the budget, but not too soon to talk about the next one. For 1996 we will keep on working so the budget will have a different orientation, an orientation to the promises made in the red book, an orientation to deal with unemployment, the protection of the weaker in society and the social needs of Canadians.
Over the years Canadians have turned to the Liberals at election time because they trust us as the party that knows how to strengthen and intertwine social and economic policies. This principle is as valid today as it will be 20, 40 or 60 years from now. Hopefully the budget will have the desired effect and we Liberals will be able to turn our attention to the other half of the equation, developing strong social and job creation initiatives and policies in the second half of our mandate for the benefit of the total Canadian society.