Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion by the Progressive Conservative Party.
I will say right at the outset that the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting this motion, because we agree with its analysis.
We feel that present student debt levels are horrendous, and that a solution must be found that respects the fact that education and assistance to students is a provincial jurisdiction.
I will leave it to my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, to speak to this issue and, in the nine minutes remaining, I will focus on two other concerns addressed in the motion: Canada's high rate of taxation compared to that of the United States, and the issue of unemployment.
The tax burden of Quebeckers and Canadians has always been a great concern of the Bloc Quebecois. Since our arrival in 1993, we have called on the government to take another look at individual and corporate taxation, which has not been reviewed since the late 1960s.
It must be made fairer and the tax burden on low and middle income members of the public reduced. Corporate taxation must be amended so that tax resources now available in the form of unwarranted benefits, particularly for very large companies, are shifted towards SMBs, which are the real source of new jobs, so as to lighten their tax burden and stimulate employment.
Two years ago, we released a 300-page detailed analysis of Canadian taxation, the first since the late 1960s, as I was saying. This analysis says essentially the following: we have the means, if we dust off the Canadian tax system, to reduce the tax burden on low and medium income taxpayers by $3 billion, each year. We are talking about a $3 billion reduction in taxes on the incomes of low and medium income households.
We also concluded from this in depth analysis that we could move $4 billion of the current tax burden, of taxes not paid by the major corporations. We could take these savings and move them over to the SMBs. We are talking about $4 billion, and there would $2 billion left over, which could go to really reducing taxes on small and medium businesses and on the very small businesses, known as the VSBs.
Two weeks ago as well, we released a statement on what we expected in the upcoming budget of the Minister of Finance. On the subject of reducing the tax burden, we asked the Minister of Finance, as we did last June in the election, to reduce it for individuals by fully indexing tax tables.
Indexing has not been used since 1985 and brought in nearly an extra half billion dollars to the government the first year the practice was stopped. Since then, with inflation every year, billions of dollars are at stake.
If tax tables were indexed again, taxpayers would have an additional $2 billion in their pockets as tax refunds in the first year. Two billion dollars is not trifling matter. Only with a return to indexing, which should be standard practice, since otherwise it is a disguised tax, can we avoid making middle income earners pay more income tax than their fair share.
We also sought a targeted reduction in the tax burden in order to lower it from its very high level for businesses in Quebec and Canada. The best target at the moment, which could enable us to give a boost to job creation, is the level of contributions to the employment insurance fund. These levels are far too high for employers and employees and are seen as hindering job creation.
If the forecasts of the Minister of Finance are right, this year, there will be a $7 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, which will not go to job creation and to increasing benefits to those hit by the scourge of unemployment.
In the coming years, the federal government will have the means to make targeted reductions to the tax burdens of Quebeckers and Canadians.
Why? If the Minister of Finance gives us the real numbers—over the past four years, let us say that his forecasts have been far too pessimistic—gives us figures that are a little more realistic, we will see that, starting this year, or in other words the fiscal year ending next March 31, there will be a recorded surplus of about $2.3 billion.
Starting next year, that is to say the fiscal year starting April 1, 1998 and ending March 31, 1999, there will be an accumulated surplus of $9.5 billion. In 2001-2002, if we make it till then, the surplus will be over $30 billion.
These are not forecasts pulled out of thin air, as the Finance Minister has often accused us of doing, then confirming our figures himself within a few months. These are forecasts based on very conservative hypotheses, conservative in the non-political sense, on the rate of economic growth, the inflation rate, the input of new receipts compared to the average for the last four years. As I have said, that puts us at a surplus of $30 billion for the year 2001-2002.
The Minister of Finance has an excellent opportunity to reduce the tax burden and, if he cleans up the taxation system as well, he will be able to free up still other surpluses to be applied to reducing taxpayers' burden and to job creation.
The Minister of Finance will be in an even better position to reduce this tax burden if he does not implement new initiatives in areas that are already under provincial jurisdiction, which would only increase inefficiency. I am thinking of initiatives in areas like education, health and so on, in which the minister has no business interfering. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over education or health, and ought not to be implementing new initiatives such as those announced during the election campaign and in the throne speech.
We are going to fight against the inefficiency of new initiatives by the federal government in areas already covered by the provinces. And, while we are on the topic of such initiatives, it could, as requested by Canada's premiers at the last first ministers' conference, give back to the provinces what it has taken away from them over the past four years, and what it is getting ready to take away between now and 2003.
Let us not forget—and I hope that people who are listening today and who tune in for next week's budget will remember—that, in 1994, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget, he unveiled a plan to cut federal transfers to the provinces in the areas of social assistance, post-secondary eduction and health.
These cuts will take place every year until 2003. He mentioned it only once in 1994, but these cuts will be going on until 2003. Between now and then, the federal government will cut $42 billion in provincial transfer payments in these three sectors. Now, he has just announced that it will no longer be $48 billion in cuts by 2003, but only $42 billion. But that is another story.
We therefore support the Progressive Conservative Party's motion, because it looks at three major concerns. First, student debt levels, which are shocking, given that education is said to be the cornerstone of nations; second, we will be fighting for a reduction in the tax burden; and, third, we will be supporting the Conservatives' motion because it addresses the horrendous problem of job creation.
