Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-53 at report stage. Once again, unfortunately, the government is using a band-aid solution on something that is exceptionally important to Canadians. It is not getting to the essence of the issue and it is not dealing with the specific and effective solutions that could be implemented today to dramatically improve the health, welfare and economic future possibilities of Canadians.
My colleagues have and will mention the flaws in the bill, that it is a band-aid solution and that it puts on the shoulders of Canadians a $1.5 billion liability. Instead of providing these small funds to businesses what the government should be doing is creating the climate to improve the business community in Canada.
I will now talk about specific, pragmatic and effective solutions the government can do in conjunction with its provincial counterparts to improve the economic situation in Canada.
I will start at the top, with fiscal policy. The government can introduce a process for a 10% reduction in expenditures, not by putting it on the backs of the provinces but by truly reducing the expenditures within the public sector. It can do this in an effective way by making sure that the good people it has working in the bureaucracy are able to do the jobs they are trained and tasked to do. At the end of the day all the hard work they do will result in action as opposed to the situation we have now where most of us in parliament are running around in a circle because of all the work we have to do which does not result in action, as opposed to having a system where meetings, tasking and work actually result in action and outcome.
We could also enact balanced budget legislation. A balanced budget law could be enacted and I am sure the government would find a lot of acceptance on this side of the House.
We have asked for a debt reduction plan for a long time. The government has not set debt reduction targets yet. It can and should do that. By having and setting targets we have goals. If we have goals, we have objectives. If we have objectives we have something to shoot for. Right now there is absolutely nothing.
The next thing it can do is stop providing loan guarantees to businesses. We have created in North America a corporate welfare state where money is being given to the private sector, particularly big businesses, not little ones. This is not necessary.
Why should multimillion or multibillion dollar companies receive money from taxpayers? That is what we saw in the case of Bombardier and other companies. This is completely unnecessary.
The government has continued to fail in improving the taxation policy. I have gone around, as most of us have, and asked and consulted with the private sector, with small businesses. What did they say? They begged and pleaded for a reduction in taxes. They said the government does not need to give them money but it needs to give them the ability to create jobs. They cannot create jobs given the heavy tax burdens they have today.
Since we came here we have said that those tax burdens are killing jobs. If the government does not believe this, let us look at where economies have worked and where they have not. Let us look at economies where they kept high taxation and what they did after the taxation levels were lowered.
England and Ireland had high taxation rates and complicated rules and regulations but have reduced them dramatically. As a result their economies are booming.
Some on the left like to cite the example of northern Europe. We need to look at Sweden. Sweden had a very high tax policy and when it reduced those taxation levels the economy boomed dramatically. That is what is happening.
Governments and countries that pursue a high taxation policy kill their economies. Governments that pursue a low taxation policy and lower regulations improve the economy.
Look at our case. My province of British Columbia is the worst place in North America to do business, bar none. Premier Clark likes to point his fingers to the far east and say it is the Asian flu. Our economy was in trouble long before the Asian flu hit. The statistics are there to prove that all across the resource sector and many others.
Let us look at Alberta and Ontario where they have lowered taxation rates, where they have lowered the rules and regulations. As a result those provinces are improving dramatically in their provincial economies.
Why does British Columbia not do that? More important, why does the federal government not do that? Why do the feds not take it upon themselves to intelligently look at this taxation system, to look at what has worked before and lower the taxation levels that are weighing like a huge rock on the shoulders of Canadians, be it in the public or in the private sector?
We need a 20% reduction in personal income taxes, which can be done. A marrying and harmonizing of the PST and the GST could lower this. Also, why not look at a flat tax or a simplified tax system?
I was having meetings last week in my riding, as most of us were. People asked repeatedly why we cannot simplify the tax system. As individual citizens, many people require a tax specialist to do their taxes. That is absolutely insane.
Why does the Minister of Finance not work with the minister of revenue to put some of their people together to see how to intelligently simplify our tax system to make it fair and applicable?
Our party has repeatedly suggested that we increase the minimum taxes somebody pays, lower the tax rates for everybody. We have proven that those in the lowest socioeconomic groups would improve dramatically. We have to make sure they, most of all, are taken care of.
More important, because taxation rates would be lowered all the way through, including the business sector and the upper levels, they would then have the ability and the tools to create jobs.
The left likes to talk about hitting the rich, hitting the businesses. What happens when taxes are increased for the business sector? They leave.
Comparing our taxation system to that of the United States, our primary competitor, a family of two income earners will earn 44% more in the United States than in Canada. That in part is contributing to the brain drain. We are losing our best and brightest. It is also contributing to the loss of businesses.
Clearly the government can see that and it can act. If the government were to act and consult with other parties, it would find agreement in pursuing this common agenda. Why the government does not do this is beyond me. I think it is beyond many Canadians who see what is going on try to understand why this is happening.
Other things can be done. There are the regulatory policies. We have a great ability to institute regulations. We have to analyze whether those regulations are actually working and if they are not, to remove them. Every government department should look to see whether regulations which have been implemented previously are necessary.
Right now we are piling regulations on top of other regulations rather than trying to determine whether or not a regulation is necessary. There would be widespread approval if this year the government took it upon itself to rapidly develop a task force to look at these regulations, eliminate the ones that truly are not necessary, and then set up an ongoing process to evaluate the necessity of the rules and regulations that we have.
The federal government needs to work with the provinces on labour policy. Many rules and regulations in labour are not very effective. I would like the government to look at the U.S. experience with right to work legislation because where it has been employed there has been a dramatic increase in employment. There has been a dramatic increase in the order of $2,000 to $3,000 per person who is working in a state with right to work legislation.
I strongly encourage the government to work with the provinces on the issue of education. Our education system needs to be revamped radically in order to provide our young people with the opportunities they will require in the future. I could go on at length about the education system. I hope I will have an opportunity later in the day to talk about that.