Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill C-213.
The hon. member's proposals at best reflect, as he admitted, a fundamental mistrust of the parliamentary system and the Canadian public, doubts I do not share. At worst, they amount to fiscal foolishness.
This bill is really the Reform Party's zero in three budget in disguise.
On February 21, 1995, the leader of the Reform Party presented what was called the taxpayers' budget, the Reform Party's strategy to eliminate the federal deficit in three years.
The public did not accept it. In fact, the Reform Party has stopped making proposals in view of the response they have received.
So, here we are today before a desperate attempt to revive this failed budget in the form of a private member's bill.
The Reform Party's slash and burn taxpayers' budget paid no regard to the consequences of the actions it proposed. If one is willing to institute mindless cuts, a favourite Reform strategy, indeed one can achieve short term savings and a balanced budget, but only if one believes in substituting decisiveness for thoughtfulness and fairness.
The hon. member's proposed bill would surely result in substantial long term costs. The proposed fiscal straitjacket could mean gutting social programs, leaving the vulnerable in society to fend for themselves.
It could mean cutting assistance programs without giving Canadians the tools to help them get back to work. It could mean eliminating tax preferences for small businesses which over the long run would result in less innovation, fewer companies and less employment. When one's only tool is a hammer, everything one sees looks like a nail. That would be the effect of this bill.
In short, the member's strategy would be more hardship, a weaker economy and much greater spending pressures in the end, sabotaging the very goal of his legislation.
The proposed private member's bill would put the government and the economy into a straitjacket. To meet its balanced budget goal would require that taxes be raised and spending be cut during a recession, rather than allowing the automatic stabilizers built into the tax system to work. The legislation would force government to make any recession worse because it would not be allowed to take action to assist Canadians.
The Reform Party, the hon. member, and the government have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government. Canadians want a government that has the flexibility to act and to tailor its actions to meet the circumstances of the day. Canadians will not be fooled. The Reform Party goal, reflected in the hon. member's bill remains what always has been, to emasculate government as an end in itself. Canadians do not want a government that stands aside. Canadians want a government ready and able to stand alongside them.
This legislation would put controls on total government expenditures without any regard to whether these spending pressures came from national or international developments, from developments over which the government has little or no control.
Does the hon. member believe Canadians want to see their government respond, for instance, to interest rate swings by immediately slashing elderly benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, transfers to the provinces for medicare and social assistance? That is not what Canadians want and that is not the policy actions of a responsible government.
Perhaps the hon. member is under the mistaken impression that because the United States has balanced budget legislation, Canada too should have the same. There is a bit of faddishness to what is going on here. Let me remind the hon. member that our systems of government, as he well knows, are quite different.
In the United States, the executive branch, the president and cabinet, is separate from congress. Both prepare budget plans on which consensus must ultimately be achieved. That consensus is difficult to arrive at. Balanced budget legislation proposals came about in the United States because of a lack of consensus among legislators and the executive.
In Canada, there is no similar distinction between the branches of government. Parliament is ultimately responsible and accountable.
In 1991, the sponsor of this bill claimed, in a document entitled constitutional limits on public spending and Canada's deficit, that in practice deficits could not be prohibited, quite simply. It was also not desirable to do so for reasons of economic efficiency.
I suppose if it were true then, it is still true now. We have no need for this type of legislation. The ultimate aim of this government is a balanced budget. We have come up with a balanced and fair strategy to achieve this end.
The hon. member and his colleagues have a fundamental mistrust of government. But we are proving every day that a govern-
ment can be fiscally responsible and do it in a way that does not gut the country in the process.
It has set two-year rolling deficit targets and it is committed to achieving them. It is accountable to the Canadian people year after year in meeting those targets and at every election we are ready to be judged.
To date, the government has bettered the targets it has set and it will continue to meet its future targets for a number of reasons. First, for budget making purposes it is using economic assumptions that are more prudent than the private sector average.
Second, it has built into its fiscal targets a contingency reserve which provides an extra measure of back-up against errors and economic planning assumptions. The proposed bill calls for a contingency reserve to be put in the legislation. There is no need to. It is already included in the fiscal plan.
Finally, the government is undertaking fundamental reforms to provide for a stronger economy which in turn will lead to lower deficits.
In closing, I would like only to say that there is no need for this proposed bill. The member's proposal would amount to a triumph of dogma over good sense. The government's finances are on track. It is pursuing a deficit reduction strategy that is measured, deliberate and responsible. I urge members of the House to reject Bill C-213.