Mr. Speaker, we just had a classic lesson in Liberal voodoo economics that totally ignores the realities of this country. The member talks about the debt and the deficit. Let us look at how we got into this situation of a debt and a deficit.
There are three major causes. The first cause, of course, is devastatingly high levels of unemployment. If folks are not working, that increases the bill for unemployment insurance and other social programs.
The second is interest rates. Historically, interest rates have been far too high. It is only recently that finally the Bank of Canada has lowered those interest rates under tremendous pressure. Now Gordon Thiessen, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, is suggesting that we have to go back up which would be enormously destructive.
The final major cause is a tax system which has been historically completely skewed and unfair. That is the basic reason for the high levels of the debt and the deficit.
What do the Liberals have to say? They should heed the very thoughtful terms of this motion. Is this really revolutionary? If we can set targets for the deficit, if we can set targets for inflation rates, surely we owe it to the people of this country, particularly that 20% of young people who are desperately trying to find jobs and who are losing hope, to set targets. We must set some goals and objectives to reduce the obscene levels of unemployment. That is what this motion says.
The Liberal member says they have wrestled the deficit to the ground. The finance minister goes out and triumphantly says that the deficit is gone. Let us look at how we have arrived at this point.
Has it been through equal sacrifice? Has it been through a sharing of the burden? Absolutely not. We have arrived at this point today because the poor, the powerless in this country have paid a disproportionate amount to reduce the deficit.
Let us look at the casualties in the war against the deficit. They include the unemployed. A few years ago 90% of unemployed Canadians were eligible for employment insurance. Today approximately 40% are eligible.
What has happened to the other Canadians, desperate people looking for work? If employment insurance runs out those people are forced to turn to social assistance. What has happened to social assistance? The Liberal government has abolished the Canada assistance plan. It was the one national program which provided leadership in the fight against poverty. National standards are gone entirely.
Once again, poor people are casualties. Co-op and non-profit housing are gone under the Liberal government.
Foreign aid has been shamefully cut. Canada is now at number 11 instead of number 5 a few years ago.
With respect to child care, the government has abandoned any commitment whatsoever to our children.
Aboriginal programs have also been casualties. My colleague from Churchill spoke very eloquently earlier today on the price the aboriginal people are paying in the war against the deficit.
Students have been casualties. Sure, the deficit has been reduced, and at some point we may even start to reduce the debt, but we have transferred that debt burden to students. An average graduating student carries a burden of something like $25,000.
Research granting councils have been cut. Cultural programs have been devastated, the CBC, the Canada Council, the National Film Board. Environmental programs have been cut savagely.
How can the Liberal member stand in his place and suggest that it is programs which should be cut? Those programs have helped to at least minimize the devastating impact of the gap between rich and poor. He should accept the recommendation of our party which calls on us to set those targets. Is he seriously opposed to setting targets for reducing unemployment in the same way as we have set targets to reduce inflation and the deficit?
Why can he not demonstrate some humanity, some return to those old Liberal values and recognize that we should be setting those targets and making this the number one economic priority for the people of Canada?