Mr. Speaker, the question that the Reform Party asked about the federal government's deficit and debt will obviously get a lot of press because they are very serious issues. We all know it.
I think that the cuts that the Reform Party will propose will not fix the monstrous problem facing Canada. The Reformers will table their budget, a bogus budget containing $15 billion in cuts to social programs.
This is nothing new, since their policies centre on eliminating social programs, even though they have contributed the most to Canada's success up to now.
They propose another $10 billion in cuts to government operations, for a total of $25 billion, and they think that these cuts will stimulate an economic recovery and that the economy will create jobs all by itself.
I must concede that the Reform Party had the best intentions when it made this recommendation-the deficit and debt are very serious problems-and I must agree that when we look at these problems from a critical distance, they are very disquieting. Moody's already issued a warning to Canada last week regarding the budget. Several foreign investors are also worried, all the more because, according to the federal government's own calculations, it is projected that Canada's debt will reach $800 billion by the year 2000.
In other words, they project that it will climb by around $50 billion per year in the next six years. It is as if the federal government were stuck in a vicious circle of debt increases, and of deficit increases even, because I have yet to see tangible proof of the government's intention to reduce the deficit and to get the debt under control. We can only hope that they deliver something concrete in the next budget.
Up to this moment, we have been grappling with a debt and a deficit that are out of control. We have a federal system that, for all intents and purposes, is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, like a ship that is slowly sinking to a watery grave. That is the situation in which the federal government currently finds itself, a serious one indeed.
I would even go so far as to say that the problem goes beyond simple economic calculations. It is also a historical issue. This debt and deficit were not created yesterday, they are not the result of poor management. A country, like a political system, is not a business like any other. There are needs and policies. We invest in programs which are not cost effective, unlike other businesses. This may be one reason among many why the current Canadian federal system is creating a debt, as well as a deficit, and is poorly managed.
There is a problem within the federal system. Right within the Canadian federal system, there is a mechanism which allows money to be wasted, to be spent in certain ways while the debt merely increases. I would like to give you a few examples. Let us consider some of the history of the federal system.
One must recognize first of all that Canada was founded on concepts which are no longer valid today. It was founded on the concept of uniting east and west. This is the great Canadian dream. This country, as we know, was shaped by an ideology which may have had validity at the time, but is now completely outmoded. We know that true, concrete and cost-effective economic trends involve a north-south dynamic, whereas for years and even a century the federal system has attempted to implement an unnatural system, basically between the east and the west, going against the natural north-south dynamic.
To achieve this goal, the federal government had to introduce several very costly policies. This attempt to keep east and west unified was of course no easy matter. It was very expensive; it has been very expensive. Considerable investments were necessary to maintain a system which was, shall we say, artificial.
In cultural matters, for example, think of the billions of dollars invested to create a Canadian culture, while most English Canadians now wonder what that culture is. But if we consider the billions of dollars spent on creating this culture, the image of a unified country, we would have to say it has been a waste of money. In the area of culture alone, we can think of cultural industries that were set up after the second world war, after the Massey commission, which set up the Canada Council and the National Film Board, and which made all sorts of demands on the CBC.
They set up, so to speak, with great panache and a lot of money, an industry to try to create an image of Canadian cultural unity. It did not work. It cost a lot, however, but it did not work. So, today, we are left with all the debts from this unfortunate undertaking, this unfortunate policy. Now we are paying these debts off and we are paying dearly. Those of us in this House are not overly concerned, because we will not be the ones to pay, really. It will be future generations, for sure. We can see from the policies of the federal government how the young people in particular will be paying.
I would like to give you another example. I could give quite a number of examples of mistaken policies by the federal system, which established these grand policies in an attempt to ensure its own survival as a system. The federal system established these policies in order to survive as a system. Not to protect the interests of the public, not to protect the interests of the regions or of communities, but to protect its own priorities here in Ottawa. It is as if the federal system in Ottawa had a life of its own. The policy of bilingualism, for example, established by Pierre Trudeau, which cost a lot, was not necessarily what was recommended by Quebec, the major stakeholder in this issue.
Of course, bilingualism cost billions of dollars and we know very well that, if we look at it analytically, that investment achieved nothing at all. There was no positive spin-off whatsoever following the investment of billions of dollars in that policy. We all know very well that anyone who knows anything about francophones outside of Quebec knows that those billions of dollars were spent with the best of intentions but they were attempts at artificially resuscitating communities gasping for their last breath. This was another unsucessful policy.
We can say the same for several other areas, including health. Just look at how the federal government has imposed itself on the provinces since the 1940s in areas falling exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, like health and education. The federal government did this in order to survive as a system. Once again, today, we find ourselves in a situation where our system is on the brink of bankruptcy, is insolvent, and is unable to continue to apply its policies because they were senseless from the start and are still senseless today.
I would like to say to you that one of the reasons Quebecers want sovereignty is to get out of this absurd system. It is not only weakened by a monstrous debt, but, considering all of the policies the government is trying to enforce across Canada, it is absurd.
