Mr. Speaker, the budget process has been most fascinating. For the first time in the history of Canada the people have become involved in the process. We had a member presently in the House say yesterday that Reformers were trying to create a tax revolt.
I for one-I can speak on behalf of all my colleagues-was invited to these events, as were many Liberal members who chose not to turn up because they were afraid. It is really interesting that in a small city in my constituency, the town of Golden with 2,371 households, four women I would like to name here today in one week got 2,500 signatures from those 2,371 households: Gert Shewchuk, Stephanie Braul, Cheryl Kofluk and Merle McKnight.
These are common, ordinary Canadian women who are concerned about their country. This was the kind of activity that was going on. This was the kind of involvement that Canadians were demonstrating in this process.
However, when we come to the budget where the government in its own cynical way-although over a three-year period-is taking over $3.5 billion out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets without raising individual income tax rates, it would appear as though the hard work of these women and many others who were involved in the tax protest was successful. When I woke up on the morning of the day following the budget I turned on the radio and was confronted with a song that might be familiar to some members in the House. It goes:
Bye, bye Miss American pie Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry and good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye saying this will be the day that I die This will be the day that I die.
That was the way I felt after I had an opportunity to take a look at the budget.
This is a budget of despair. This is a budget that is not straightforward by any form of measurement. This is a budget that is to have public debt charges increase from $38 billion to $51 billion.
Government members have the audacity to say that they are to protect social program when the largest single increase at 17.3 per cent is spending on funding the public debt. How can they say they are to protect social programs when they are increasing the spending on public debt by 17.3 per cent?
I took a look at their documents. They frequently say that they do not know what the facts are. I have the budget speech of the minister and I read on page 32 that personal income tax is to go up from $51.1 billion to $56.8 billion, to $60.4 billion, to $64.5 billion in a four-year period. Corporate tax is to go up from $9.8 billion to $13 billion, to $15.5 billion, to $16.3 billion. As a matter of fact gross budgetary revenues in the same period are to increase from $116 billion to $137.4 billion. These are numbers provided by the finance minister.
We do not have a revenue problem; we have an expenditure problem. It is so obvious it is just absolutely amazing.
Another interesting point on the expenditure side is that my colleague just referred to the fact that 45,000 civil servants are to be laid off over the next three-year period. He very clearly pointed out that the government was not elected to cut 45,000 civil servants. It was elected on the promise that civil servant jobs were to remain. That promise has been broken.
Furthermore business has also taken a hit in the budget. Business grants have dropped from $3.7 billion down to $1.9 billion. While the premiums remain constant, unemployment insurance payouts are to decrease from $17.6 billion to $15.3 billion, to $14.3 billion, to $13.7 billion.
There is more and more of a take because they are not to decrease the amount they are taking from the unemployed. They are to decrease the payouts and put $5 billion into a slush fund for themselves. There we have it: we have expenditure cuts and the inevitable social program cuts.
Why do I say this is a budget of despair? In spite of all the harsh medicine and in spite of the fact it will be reducing the total amount we are going into the hole by $10 billion, the government has permitted annual interest charges in the same period of time to increase by $10 billion.
In other words we are treading water. Rather than swimming and getting somewhere, we are treading water. I think of another verse of the song:
It's been 10 years I've been on my own and moss grows fat on a rolling stone.
It is a song of despair; it is a budget of despair.
We have to ask the following question. If we look at the cuts that have occurred to this point, where else is there to cut except in the social envelope in a responsible manner so that the people at the bottom end of the scale are protected? Where else is there to cut? There is no place else. In that respect the budget is not only a budget of despair. It is a budget of dishonesty.
We are taking a look at the fact that it is hidden within these documents. The downloading is where it is hidden. It is hidden because they are to combine the Canada Health Act with the Canada assistance plan and post-secondary education funding. They are to rename all those things the Canada social transfer and then they are to reduce it by $4.5 billion.
When it is transferred to the provinces and the $4.5 billion is removed we have a choice as Canadians. Either we downgrade health care, post-secondary education and the amount of funding for the Canada assistance plan, or we increase taxes at the provincial level. We cannot have it both ways. It is just that simple.
I asked myself, in listening to the budget debate, what was the problem here. Is there some difficulty in terms of understanding common ordinary English? I asked a question of the parliamentary secretary last night. His response was rather interesting. My question was exactly what I have been developing here. If we are increasing the amount we are spending from $38 billion to $51 billion in our debt service charge, where is the money to come from? That is a very valid question.
When I said that I do not see how the government could possibly do the job of continuing to fund social programs-and it keeps on saying that it is-his response as reported at page 10181 of Hansard was:
The Government of Canada will be able to keep its commitments and pay pensions to seniors.
The difference is that the Reform Party sees everything black; it is the end of the world.
No, it is just a little despair at this point.
The member acknowledged that we have made real cuts. We have a balanced budget in terms of real cuts and it will encourage economic growth.
When the documents say that we are to be overspending $32.7 billion, how in the world could the parliamentary secretary say: "We have a balanced budget?" Obviously he does not understand ordinary English. He said: "The deficit will disappear". By magic? He also said: "The deficit will be reduced by creating jobs". That was a promise in the last election. Obviously it is another promise they believe they can drop.
I close by quoting in despair:
I still remembered how I cried When I read about his widowed bride But something touched me deep inside The day the music died.
