Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-76 and the budget.
A saying that comes to mind is that great parties must be ready not only to take advantage of opportunities but to make them. In the case of the Liberal government, we have in dealing with the budget a party that is taking advantage of an opportunity where it can. The advantage it is taking is that for so long, taxpayers have been crying out for governments to balance their books. They knew full well that had to be done. This is not some kind of brilliant idea the Liberals have to balance the budget or to cut costs. It is actually something that has been forced on them.
How did they take advantage of the opportunities that have been presented to them? How did they make opportunity? For instance, I did not see some form of taxpayer protection act, as the Reform Party put forward. I did not see an indication in the budget for legislation that would guarantee balanced budgets. Those are what one makes out of a budget exercise. Those are the opportunities one makes. All they did was react to some extent to public opinion. That is unfortunate because they did not act far enough.
Some of the comments made here today were: "We did what is best. We reflect what Canadians want. We clearly have the majority of support from Canadians". I often wonder where those general sweeping statements come from because in my riding that is just not the case. By and large, the people I talk to-I try to talk to as many as I can-are basically saying the Liberals wimped out in the end.
They went for 3 per cent of gross domestic product. In three years they will overspend by approximately $25 billion a year. Over the life of this Parliament they will accumulate debt in the
amount of one hundred thousand million dollars or better. I hardly think that is anything about which to be standing up in the House claiming to have come up with some wonderful ideas.
Nowhere have I heard of the impact on the young people that are depending on us to balance the books. We keep getting this rhetoric: "Look what we have done. Look how tough we have been". That is not the case.
I work very closely with what we call an advisory group in my community. The 11 people in that group are geographically selected. I sit with them on Saturdays once a month. They provide input from their selective geographic area as well from people they deal with on a business basis. We went through the budget. Not surprisingly, it came out quite similar to many things being said about some things that should be cut.
I want to give the House an idea of what the people in the advisory group had been talking about. They said there should be selective cuts to old age security. Some of these people are seniors themselves. They suggested there should be selective cuts to unemployment insurance, no cuts to veterans' allowances and pensions. There should be selective cuts to universities and colleges, major cuts to CAP-the transfers for welfare payments-major cuts to health and reductions in transfers to have-not provinces.
This is not a group of Reformers but people trying to balance the budget as best they can. Recognizing that the social system has to stay in place, what better way than by balancing the budget first? After all, the larger the debt gets, the more interest payments we have to make and the less operating funds we have to pay toward programs. That makes so much common sense.
Every time we make a speech we should not have to repeat and repeat it. The government knows what it has to do. What it is trying to do is put enough rhetoric forward with the hope the Canadian people are going to buy what it is saying. Just wait until Moody's has a really good look at what is going on and our bond rating starts going downward. It will be asking about the taxpayers' budget the Reform Party put forward. It is only a matter of time.
When I talked to the advisory group in my community its members gave me some suggestions to bring to the House. I want to express them today. These are some of the comments from these folks. "It hurts less to cut with a sharp knife than a dull one". These comments are unsolicited. They are telling the government to get it over with. Balance the budget and get on with the economic and social life that we have planned for our young people and our seniors. We cannot keep going ahead with this umbrella of debt sitting over us in deficits and unbalanced budgets.
They also suggest that we should run government like a business and not a charity. Can anyone imagine talking to the Liberal government about running government like a business and not a charity? That is a strange kind of terminology in 1995, for the Liberals that is.
It was suggested that we run Canada like a household. They have to live within their means. They just cannot go to the bank and borrow and borrow past the ability to pay out of the incomes that are brought into that household. They do not understand how the government can say: "We are doing such a good job because in three years we are only going to overspend by $25 billion". They do not understand that.
To stand here today and say the budget reflects what Canadians want is hogwash. Because the government was elected as a majority government, Liberals should not misunderstand the fact that Canadians wanted to throw out the Conservatives, not necessarily elect the Liberals. Everything the government does here should not be construed by government members as being politically and morally right on behalf of the majority of Canadians. If the government makes that assumption, it will be joining the other party from Jurassic Park.
Canadians have been making more comments. "Continued deficits do not resolve the problem. There is $150 million going to countries heavily in debt. What is Canada?" They do not understand why that is being done. If we seriously look at all the cuts and reductions in expenditures, how come that is still there? They do not understand that if a budget is so tough and strong, why was an increase given to the department of Indian affairs? Why is there such a pot of dollars that nobody is sure where the money is going? All they are asking for is a little accountability. Rather than accounting for the money in that department's budget, more is added to it. One only has to look at the Auditor General's report to see that there is something desperately wrong in that department.
I remember the first several months we sat in the House the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said: "We are going to do away with the department". What happens in 1995? Money is added to it. Someone can stand in the House and say: "We are only reflecting what Canadians want". Go across the country and ask Canadians if they want more money put into the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. You will get an answer.
Some other comments were made by these folks: "Let people look after themselves and not government". We only have to look as far as the regional development programs to see what they are talking about. It does not take much to see what is wrong with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It has been giving grants, both by Liberals and Conservatives, to virtually everybody to buy votes.
We convinced the minister in charge of ACOA to drop the granting process within ACOA. What does he do? He said: "We are going to give loans and ask that they be paid back". Last year alone the government wrote off $50 million in loans. What is the difference between $50 million on loans that are written off and a grant?