Mr. Speaker, if we all thought alike in this House, your task would be much easier, but also less interesting.
What we have here is a good example of a fundamental difference of opinion. Of course, some expenditures could be reviewed; it is a premise and I understand that. But it does not seem to be the real problem. When I speak about reviewing taxation, I am not saying to my hon. colleague we should review personal taxes. I think there is a good enough consensus on this, except maybe in the case of the very rich, because Canada is the only OECD country not to tax wealth. I am sure the hon. member is aware of that.
What I am saying to him is that we will have to strive to find additional revenues because the pressure on social programs will not disappear, because our population is getting older and because there are social evils inherent to the type of society we have in Canada in 1994. And that type of society is one where 50 per cent of the people have part-time jobs. When you hold a part-time job, you have 7 chances out of 10 of becoming poor at one point or another in your lifetime. These jobs are precarious and poorly paid and they offer no security whatsoever. Since this is our reality, since this is what we have to deal with, there is no magic formula, there is no way we can close our eyes and just hope the situation will change.
There are a few possibilities though if we want to find additional revenues. Would my hon. colleague agree with me that, if we look at tax rates in the industrialized countries with which we usually compare ourselves, Canada has not yet tapped every source of revenue it would be entitled to? Would he not agree that there are sectors where, if the government wanted to act, it could put money back into circulation, it could leave more money so that people could take care of themselves and would not have to turn to social services? This would seem to be an interesting approach.