Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the official opposition to address Bill C-65.
For the benefit of the people who are watching this debate on television, Bill C-65 is an equalization agreement that will transfer somewhere in the range of $50 billion to recipient provinces over the next five years. This is a huge expenditure for the government. The Reform Party, the official opposition, believes very strongly that because it is such a huge expenditure it deserves a tremendous amount of scrutiny, all the scrutiny we can bring to it.
The official opposition attempted to actually bring forward some amendments at report stage. Unfortunately there was a mix-up and we were unable to introduce those amendments. Chief among them was an amendment that called for public consultation between the year 2001 and the year 2003 so that the public would be involved in making decisions about the equalization program which have a profound effect on their lives both as recipients and as people who pay taxes to support the program.
We urge the government to seriously consider the recommendation of the official opposition and allow the public to become involved in the decision making process on a program that is a very large expenditure.
The Reform Party criticizes the equalization program on a couple of counts. First, we believe the formula that is used to determine how much money is paid in and how much money goes out to recipient provinces is simply inaccessible to most people. During the finance committee hearings when Reform members asked finance department officials who in Canada understood how this system worked, the witness representing the finance department looked at his colleagues and said “We do”. I think that is really the case.
A $50 billion expenditure that very few people in Canada really have a handle on lends itself to problems. It lends itself to governments using the formula in ways to manipulate it so that they can get more revenue. We believe that already occurs to some degree.
There needs to be some discussion on ways to make the whole formula more transparent so that we can ensure there is no jiggery-pokery and that everything is on the up and up, something we are not convinced of right now.
The other criticism we level is we are not certain in a country as rich as Canada that we really need to have a system where three provinces support seven. We would argue that it may be time to start looking at ways to change the balance so that it is four or five supporting five or six, depending on how we do it.
Those things need to be debated in the future. We need to find ways to ensure that the public has some input into this issue because it has such a profound impact on people's lives.
This is called the equalization program. As my colleague in government mentioned, it is enshrined in the Constitution. However I do not think it meets most people's definition of what equalization would mean to them. Most people would think of equalization as being equal opportunities. I think that is the way a lot of people would think of equalization if they heard it.
What we need to point out here is that the equalization program provides money for recipient provinces so they can use it to ensure there is better health care in those provinces where they do not have a big tax base and better schooling and that type of thing. That is well and good.
In so many ways this equalization program simply does not meet the standard that a lot of regular folks have which is wanting equal opportunities. They do not just want money going to the provincial governments so they can have better schools. It cannot end there. What people want in Canada is an equal shot. They want an equal opportunity to make a living, make a life, have a job, to raise a family and do the things that people in some of the wealthier provinces maybe take for granted today.
We feel the equalization program simply falls short. It does not go far enough. It is a huge expenditure but it does not go nearly far enough. We are not advocating spending more money. Not at all. In fact the contrary. As members know, the Reform Party advocates keeping the size of government in check. We want a small government. We want lower taxes and a program of debt repayment.
I argue that if we really want to help people in those recipient provinces, we need to take seriously the discussion that is occurring around the world about how we really do improve productivity. I can assert that it is not through huge government intervention. That is not the way we do it. The way to do it is to keep government in check, to lower taxes and to pay down debt.
The Reform Party argues that a dollar left in the hands of an investor, a taxpayer, a business person, a homemaker is far more productive than a dollar in the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician.
We want to encourage the government to open up the debate and let us have the bigger discussion about what will really help people all across this country in the recipient provinces under equalization but also in the paying provinces.
I want to go a little farther afield if I might in discussing this equalization bill. It occurs to me that there are really two ways we can organize a society. We can, and this is the traditional way, organize a society on the basis of voluntary relationships, voluntary exchange. Around the world for thousands of years that is how it has worked. There have been some big exceptions to that but by and large, given their druthers, people choose to associate with each other on a voluntary basis.
If somebody has some wheat to sell and they want some cloves and someone else has cloves they undergo a voluntary transaction and everybody is better off. That is the way civil society has worked for a long time. Relationships are formed with other people on a voluntary basis. That is called civil society and many groups spring up in that kind of milieu that support and enrich civil society. Families are a part of civil society. We need a larger civil society if we are to create the type of prosperity that I and the official opposition in general believe we need in this country.
Another way of organizing society is by coercion whereby the government tells us how to do things. Sadly there are many episodes in history where governments have taken total control of society and have impelled people to do things they do not want to do but nevertheless had to do because the government had the exclusive monopoly on the use of force in some societies.
I am not suggesting for a moment that our government is like that. I do think our government organizes society in Canada far too much on the principle of coercion. This holds back our ability to create the type of prosperity that Canadians want and also the other types of ideals that Canadians believe in strongly. If we believe in compassion, tolerance, security, then the answer is to increase the size of civil society, voluntary relationships, not to make government bigger and compel people to do things. That is how we create a sense of community and real compassion and real tolerance. Ultimately that is how we create the prosperity that gives people security. I think this government is going completely the wrong way.
I want to illustrate what I mean by that and provide some evidence by pointing to the last budget. Over the last several years the government has been in the situation where it has been basically faced with almost bankruptcy. We came very close, I think colleagues in the House would acknowledge, to hitting the debt wall. My friend laughs but I think in 1995 we were pretty close to that. I think there is even some agreement on that on the other side of the House. I believe I have heard colleagues on the other side say exactly that.
In the last several years the government has restrained its spending somewhat. That is laudable even though we believe that it restrained it in completely the wrong areas. It restrained it in areas that were the highest priority to Canadians instead of cutting bureaucracies and cutting the size of the machinery of government. Having said that, it did shrink the size of government somewhat.
Now we see the government, the moment it has some kind of surplus, embarking again on expanding the size of government. Bureaucracies are starting to get bigger again. We are seeing the government expend money on things that simply are not priorities for Canadians.
I do not think if my friends across the way were pushed on this could argue that some of the new expenditures are priorities. I think they would have to agree. My friend says name one. I would be happy to do that. I think it is a waste of money in a time when people are really hurting to start spending money on television production funds. I think that is a good example of how the government is spending money in a wasteful way.
As it increases the size of government, and remember it was supposed to spend $104.5 billion this year, according to its numbers the government is already $7.6 billion over budget. The government has gone away over budget. If the head of a corporation went that far over budget of course they would be fired for doing that.
This government did that. In doing that, not only does it start spending away the surplus and people's tax relief, the money they so desperately need right now, it also gets its fingers into all aspects of people's lives where it simply does not belong.
Again, we have the government coming into people's lives saying you will do things this way and if you do not, you will not get the reward. I want to give my friend across the way an example. Probably the best example is what is going on in the House these days with respect to family taxation. The government has decreed and actually made it worse in this last budget that if a person chooses to send their children to professional day care, they will get a tax break for that. That is fine. That is laudable. What the government refuses to do is give all Canadians a tax break irrespective of how they look after the children.
The government uses coercion. It says the only way you can keep your money is to do it our way. The only way of doing it is to send your children to institutional day care. If you choose to look after your children yourself, we do not recognize that. We do not see that as being valuable. That is essentially what the government is saying.
We argue that is completely the wrong way to organize society. Let Canadians have those choices. Canadian taxpayers do extraordinarily complicated and sophisticated things every day. They run their households, they run their businesses, they raise their families. Let them have the choice.
Hon. members across the way are clapping. I am thrilled to see that. I see we are getting some support from government members for our message. It is about time that they are waking up to that. We will give them the chance to actually put their money where their mouth is tonight when the whole issue of family taxation comes to a vote in the House of Commons. We certainly hope they will stand up for families, for single income families, all families struggling so much today with the high tax burdens we face in Canada.
I want to continue down the track I started on where we were talking about how this government uses coercion so often to get people to do things that it thinks are right but which ordinary Canadians do not necessarily agree with.
My friend says regulation. It is not regulation. Let me give my friend an example. In western Canada today if people grow wheat they have to sell their wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board. They do not have a choice. I think my friend across the way would acknowledge that. My friend in the NDP thinks that is a good thing. My friends on the other side of the House do not understand that farmers do very complicated and sophisticated things every day. They market all kinds of other commodities. They simply want the choice. They do not need that nanny state telling them what they have to do.
Let me give members another example. I am a broadcaster by trade. I used to run a radio station. If someone wants a license to run a radio station in Canada today they have to agree to a certain things. They used to have to play 30% Canadian music. That is now going up and up. A listener's choice is to either turn the radio off or pick up a signal from somewhere else, maybe over the Internet or from a radio station south of the border. That is absolutely ridiculous. Let people make those decisions themselves.
Yesterday we saw Alice Munro, a great Canadian writer, who received an award in New York, recognized as a great writer. She did not regulation to be recognized as a great writer. My friends in the NDP and the Liberals seem to think that is necessary to help Canadians along. I argue that very often what happens is that these regulations hold people back.
If we want to talk about recording artists, there are many Canadian artists who have gone south of the border. They have completely forgone spending any time in Canada. They have gone to the U.S. and made huge careers down there. They obviously saw the opportunity there. They did not need the 30% content regulations.
Terri Clark comes from my riding of Medicine Hat. We are very proud of her. She has become a huge superstar in country music. Shania Twain is another example. These people went directly to where the music industry was and became huge superstars. They are Canadian and I am very proud of them. They did not need the nanny state to baby them along. They do not need that because they have talent. Every time this government gets a chance to impose more restrictions on people and to coerce people it does it.
Look at Bill C-55. This is a good example. If an advertiser in Canada wants to advertise in Sports Illustrated they cannot do it unless they go to the United States and buy an ad that they will have to pay for to go all around the world. If they are advertising from my home town of Brooks, Alberta they probably cannot use all those people around the world. They probably do not need to reach them. The government has said that under Bill C-55 the only way they can advertise in Sports Illustrated is by buying that huge circulation which they can never use. Essentially it is telling people again how to run their lives. I think people get a little sick of this. They are grown up. They know how to run their lives.
We are saying get government out of their face. Let us shrink the size of political society, the coercive state, and enlarge the size of civil society where people exchange goods on a voluntary basis, where they form relationships on a voluntary basis, where they are allowed to be free to do what they want as long as they do not harm one another. I think that is the way most people would like to see society run. Sadly at every opportunity this government expands the reach of government. It is completely wrong.
It is fine to talk about what the government does wrong. As the official opposition we have a duty and obligation to say how we would do it, how we would ensure prosperity for people across the country.
I guess we should be addressing the equalization issue because that is the bill we are debating. Let me first talk about how we can improve things for the provinces that currently receive equalization payments, for the people who pay into equalization through their taxes and for the three provinces that kick in.
I should point out that many of the people in those provinces which pay are themselves not well off, but they have to pay taxes for equalization.