Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the budgetary policy of the government as contained in the budget presented to the House yesterday. In doing so I wish to approach the budget not so much from the perspective of an opposition party, but more from the perspective of the people whose personal and collective interests are affected by the budget.
On behalf of Canadians, Reformers will be subjecting the budget to four major tests. The first is the employment test. Does the budget address the needs of the unemployed or underemployed in the country? The second is the social security test. Does the budget address the needs of the recipients of government services, in particular, social services? The third is the fiscal test. Does the budget meet the fiscal expectations of those putting up the money, the lenders that are being asked to put up over $30 billion to cover the government's overdraft and the long-suffering taxpayers who are asked to put up almost $120 billion a year? Finally there is a character test. Does the budget demonstrate the qualities of honesty, courage, fairness, leadership and integrity which Canadians have a right to expect from their government?
My colleagues will be applying these tests to the budget in greater detail than I, but let me give a summary of the results.
The finance minister says the budget meets the partisan goals of the Liberal red book and its timid fiscal target of getting the deficit down toward $25 billion by the year 1997. While a few observers and commentators may be gullible enough to accept the red book and the 3 per cent goal as acceptable measuring sticks, at the end of the day the vast majority of Canadians will not.
If this budget is measured against the interests of the unemployed and underemployed Canadians who want real jobs, it betrays those interests because it contains no real long term stimulus to private sector job creation.
If this budget is measured against the interests of the recipients of government services who desire real social security, it betrays those interests because it does nothing to halt the diversion of funds away from social programs into massive interest payments on a growing federal debt.
If this budget is measured against the interests of Canadians who want a solid plan for deficit elimination, it betrays those interests because it only plans to get the deficit to $24 billion by the year 1997.
If this budget is measured against the interests of the long-suffering taxpayer who wants no tax increases and spending reductions which lead to tax relief, it betrays those interests because it takes over $1 billion more per year out of the pockets of taxpayers and lays the foundations for future tax increases.
In short, when this budget is measured against the public's interests; the interests of workers, the interests of those who depend on social services, the interests of investors, lenders and taxpayers, it betrays those interests at every turn. It is a betrayal of trust of the same order as the Mulroney and Wilson budgets of 1984-85 which missed the narrow window of opportunity to balance the budget, which comes only once to a new government, never to return again.
In delivering this sad commentary, I do not wish to be unfair to the Minister of Finance, nor overly disparage his efforts to bring in a better and more honest budget. If the Minister of Finance and his department had been given more freedom and support by the Prime Minister, they might have come clean with Canadians on what deficit spending is doing to destroy social programs. They would have made the target of the budget deficit elimination, not merely deficit reduction. However, the Prime Minister discouraged such frankness and directness and the minister acquiesced.
I believe that if the Minister of Human Resources Development had not utterly failed to provide a blueprint for reforming social spending, the finance minister might have presented the
combination of real social reforms and spending reductions. The Minister of Human Resources Development both undermined and failed the Minister of Finance.
I believe that if the Liberal caucus did not contain so many members that cling to obsolete notions, such as the idea that government spending is stimulative, such as the idea that Canada has a revenue problem, not a spending problem; if the finance minister did not have these living millstones around his neck he might have done better.
To be fair we do not lay the blame for this budgetary betrayal of the public interest entirely on the Minister of Finance. We believe the blame should rest even more heavily on the Minister of Human Resources Development, on the soft-headed wing of the Liberal caucus and on the Prime Minister.
As a constructive contribution to this debate, my colleagues will be applying the other tests of the budget which I have already mentioned. For example, they will apply an employment test to the budget to show how it hurts, not helps, one million unemployed and over two million underemployed in the country. As a constructive alternative they will also offer Reform's 5-R jobs program which relies on deficit elimination and tax relief to stimulate long term private sector job creation.
The 5-R jobs program is based on the premise that a dollar left in the hands of a taxpayer or a consumer or an investor or a business person creates more jobs than that dollar in the hands of a bureaucrat, a lobbyist or a politician.
My colleagues will apply a social security test to the budget to show the damage it does, especially in the long run, to those dependent on the big federal social security programs: OAS, UI, established programs funding and the Canada assistance plan. As a constructive alternative we will offer Reform's vision of a more secure society through the empowerment of individuals and communities and the decentralization of social program delivery to the levels of government closest to the people.
My colleagues will show how by applying these principles we can get more social security for more Canadians out of $140 billion in combined federal and provincial social spending than the current government is going to get out of $155 billion in combined social spending. The Reform alternative to the welfare state is based on the premise that a dollar left in the hands of a mother, a father, a family, a student, a senior, a front line care worker is more productive, more conducive to social security than that dollar in the hands of a distant federal government.
Finally, my colleagues will apply fiscal tests to the budget to show how it undermines the confidence of taxpayers and lenders. As a constructive alternative they will put forward the premises and calculations of our taxpayers' budget presented on February 21 which achieves deficit elimination in three years through spending cuts alone without tax increases.
While we are extremely critical of both the character and content of the budget, in the name of workers, recipients of services, taxpayers and citizens, unlike the Bloc and others, we have a constructive alternative to offer. All of those are contained in the taxpayers' budget which we invite the media, the public and members of the House to compare and contrast with the Liberal budget.
Today I again repeat my challenge to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. We want a fair, no holds barred, two on two debate; the government's budget versus the taxpayers' budget. Let us pick a night sometime in the next week or 10 days-to save money let us have it in this Chamber-but let us leave our cheering sections at home, just five people on the floor; the Prime Minister, the finance minister, myself and one of our finance critics and yourself, Mr. Speaker. Let us have only two documents on the table; the Liberal budget and the taxpayers' budget. Let the TV cameras roll and let our members, the media and the public view the exchange. Let us have a real debate and a cross-examination of the fundamental assumptions behind these two budgetary alternatives and the directions in which they lead. The issue to be decided is nothing less than which course of action will get the fiscal affairs of the federal government in order for the 21st century.
As I said at the beginning, one supreme test must be applied to this budget above all others. That is the character test. Does the budget demonstrate the qualities of honesty, courage, fairness, leadership and integrity which Canadians have a right to expect from their government? Again, sad to say this budget fails the character test.
In the red book the government ignored and downplayed the damage that the deficit and the debt are doing to private sector job creation and continued to insist for months that government overspending, such as through the infrastructure program, was the key to job creation. It simply lacked the courage and honesty to tell Canadians that it was high deficit, debt and tax levels which were undermining the private sector's ability to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians.
Now in the budget the government continues down the same path. It ignores, downplays, even attempts to deny and cover up the irreparable damage that government overspending, the debt and the deficit, are doing to social security programs on which so many Canadians depend.
Under the budget plan the government will add over $100 billion to the federal debt. Interest payments on the federal debt
will rise to over $50 billion a year, or almost one-third of the federal budget by the end of this Parliament.
Diverting taxpayers' dollars into paying $50 billion a year in interest diverts billions of dollars directly away from spending on all other government programs, in particular social spending, since social spending is the largest part of the federal spending program.
In other words, the greatest and most real threat to social programs in Canada is not supposed and imaginary attacks by fiscal reformers, it is the chronic, unrelenting, systematic failure of a Liberal government to get the deficit to zero as quickly as possible.
Until I see an addendum to the budget that clearly projects the impact of rising debt and interest costs on social spending, the impact on seniors, on people on social assistance, on people dependent on the federal government for health care, the budget is lacking in honesty and courage. It is a cowardly and dishonest budget that fails the character test at the point where it is most needed.
This brings me to the equally important character traits of fairness and leadership. The finance minister calls for Canadians to make sacrifices in order to reduce overspending and the deficit. The budget signals future cuts, for example, in unemployment benefits, seniors' benefits, and cuts to social transfers to the provinces. He insists that the spending cuts and tax increases he will impose are guided by fairness.
As the minister has said, however, the devil is in the details. Fairness and leadership call for those at the top of the government to make the first and most visible sacrifice. For this Parliament and this government that means relinquishing the gold plated MPs' pension plan which so many Canadians find obscene and which they regard as the cardinal example of excessive spending at the top of government.
What does the government do? A few days before the budget it brings out a slightly modified MP pension plan-we call it trough light-which still offers MPs the most generous pension plan in the country. It contains an opting out clause directed to first time MPs, but it offers millions and millions of dollars in pension benefits to senior ministers and senior backbenchers beyond the wildest dreams of ordinary Canadians. It declares this is pension reform. It declares this is equity and fairness. It declares this is real cost cutting when in fact it is not.
This failure to practice with respect to the MPs' pension plan the principles that the government espouses in the budget points to a flaw in the character of the government.
There is no way in which a government member can vote for the budget with its spending reductions and tax increases and vote for the gold plated MP pension plan at the same time, without undermining the integrity of the government itself. So what will it be?
It is the intention of Reform MPs to opt out of the MP pension plan. We call upon every other member of the House to do likewise. "Opt out or get out" will be the cry in the constituencies. It is a cry which must be respected if fairness and leadership by example and integrity are to be restored to Parliament and any budget it endorses.
In conclusion, some observers of the budget will say that it brings Canada one step closer to hitting the wall, one step closer to a crisis of confidence on the part of lenders that will drive the dollar through the floor, the interest rates through the roof, grind the economic recovery to a halt and begin the complete unravelling of the social safety net.
Some will say that the failure of the government to eliminate the deficit now, when the economy is in relatively good shape, will leave Canadians virtually defenceless in the face of an economic downturn.
Some will say that the cuts necessary to balance the budget, when they inevitably come, will now be much deeper and much more destructive because the government lacked the courage to act now. Only time will tell.
However, on behalf of Canadians everywhere-taxpayers, employers, employees, consumers, recipients of services and citizens-I say to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Finance, to every member of the Liberal cabinet, to every member of the Liberal caucus and to every senior civil servant who had anything to do with the preparation of the budget: If the country hits the wall, if the country's social programs hit the wall because of what the budget failed to do, they will be held personally, professionally and politically accountable for the consequences come hell or high water.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "budget" and adding thereafter the following words:
"for its failure to eliminate the deficit quickly and decisively within the life of this Parliament and by asking future generations to bear the cost of fiscal irresponsibility".
