Madam Speaker, they have to be given an opportunity to vent in a way they never can in caucus. We might as well let them do it here.
I would never dare be smug about Canada's tax burden. It should be clear by now that I am not endorsing high taxes. We have to face reality squarely which I believe supporters of this motion are failing to do.
When they make comparisons of Canada's tax burden it is typically vis-à-vis the United States. As much as I want lower taxes I have to point out that there are some flaws in that particular comparison with the United States. Contrary to what some hon. members would have us believe, lower taxes in the U.S. do not come without a cost, a financial cost and a human cost.
Take the example of medicare. Medical insurance represents a very substantial cost for millions of Americans and their employers. For the tens of millions without insurance a serious illness can spell personal and financial ruin. If members want to make the comparison between Canadians and Americans, what they ought to do in fairness is either when they are making comparisons deduct the taxes in respect of which we pay for medicare or alternately when they look at the American tax total add in the medical care costs which are hidden in the sense that they are not tax dollars, they are funded elsewhere but represent a cost on the pocket nevertheless.
They are comparing apples and oranges. Either compare the American and Canadian system with medicare written in or with medicare written out. They will find that they do not have such a tax holiday as my good friend would like to suggest.
The point I am making is twofold. First, we have to avoid making comparisons that are simplistic and specious and I would go so far as to say dishonest because they compare apples and oranges. Second, we have to realize that while the opposition's position on taxes sounds a lot like a call for motherhood, it is about a lot more than taxes. It is about the kind of government, the kind of society that we want in Canada.
I can tell the House how to reduce taxes, bring them way down. Sock it to all the poor people, sock it to all the disadvantaged, do away with our medicare system and so on. There is a way to get ever lower taxes. Low taxation, small government versus big government are not objectives in themselves. None of these is an objective in itself. What they do for society ought to be the objective, what they accomplish.
If we are going to go to the extreme of having small government for the sake of small government, I can tell the House how we can make it really small. Let us have no government at all, none.
I take it you have all written in to forfeit your pensions.
The Minister of Finance has said very clearly that government cannot and should not do everything. We too want-