Mr. Speaker, I would like to make several comments. I will start with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said in his critique of my bill.
He said it was not necessary, that transparency and clear objectives were far more important. He used the exact same words the Minister of Finance did on February 10, 1998 when the Bloc Quebecois members started to speak of a balanced budget act. He has said exactly the same thing, the Minister of Finance. He said that greater transparency and clear objectives were far more important. The parliamentary secretary has learned his lesson well, but he has contributed nothing to the debate.
What I have heard from the other side of the House is propaganda about the government's achievements, transparency and caution. However, the importance of a bill on a balanced budget transcends not only the performance of a government but also the present. We must think of the future. Anything can happen in the future.
The same mistake can be repeated. The error that led us to an accumulated debt of $550 billion, that is endless deficits over 25 years, can recur in the future. At the moment, it is perhaps less obvious on the government side, but we must think of future generations. My Conservative Party colleague rightly referred to the pages, who will be laden with a real tax burden in the future.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that they are cautious. This is no longer about caution. When the figures presented are 100% at variance, between 62% and 100%, six months apart or at the most nine months apart, this is no longer a forecasting error. This is no longer a matter of caution. It is a lie. It is totally undemocratic.
The money we have handed over to the government is taxpayers' money. It does not belong to the Minister of Finance. What if you had an account with a bank or a credit union. You deposit your money, and the banker refuses to tell you exactly how much is in the account. What are you going to do? This is a terrible anachronism. And yet this is exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing. He does not give a true picture of the state of public finances. His forecasts do not make any sense. This is ridiculous and it does not help the legislator to make sound management decisions.
In addition to providing for some control over public finances, the bill on a balanced budget makes the Minister of Finance responsible and accountable to Parliament.
This being said, I am very favourable to the suggestions made by the opposition parties. The speeches made by members from the Reform Party, the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party were constructive. Some interesting ideas were put forward and would deserve to be included in a new bill.
I will not stop with this attempt. I intend to table another bill which will take into account the suggestions made by the Reform Party, the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party. I hope it will be a votable item, because this is an important issue.
I agree with the Reform member who said that, to achieve a balanced budget, the government can either reduce spending or increase revenues. I agree with him that some provisions should be included to control excessive spending, and particularly to deal with the fact that the government can impose any tax increase, year after year, as the Minister of Finance has been doing for the past four years, taking $37 billion from Canadian taxpayers.
I also listened to the suggestions of the NDP member with regard to his social concerns. I felt I had implicitly provided for these in my bill when I said there could be deficits if there were exceptional circumstances and a significant deterioration in economic conditions. As I see it, a deterioration in economic conditions would imply social deterioration, but I note his suggestions.
As for the suggestions of the Progressive Conservative Party, I will probably discuss them with my Progressive Conservative colleague privately because I was not very clear on the reasons for his reluctance to support the bill. He mentioned the role of parliamentarians.
The role of parliamentarians is strengthened by a bill of this sort because the Minister of Finance is forced to be accountable to parliament, and to us, for any budgetary overrun, deficit and accounting change that could alter the picture of public finances.
Monetary policy has nothing to do with it. An anti-deficit bill can apply to a federal government, just as it can apply anywhere in the world, and monetary policy makes no difference. The fact that the federal government must intervene with respect to monetary policy has nothing to do with its fiscal management.
So I will have a talk with him. I am sure my arguments will convince the Progressive Conservative Party to support this bill or another amended one in the near future.