Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the committee responsible for reviewing the social program reform action plan of the Minister of Human Resources Development and, unlike the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I think that the vision of Mr. Chris Axworthy, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, is much broader than that of his namesake, the Minister of Human Resources Development.
His motion, in favour of which I will speak, has only one flaw in our eyes: it should be more proactive since the hon. member says that "the government should consider the advisability of ensuring that the reform of the tax system is harmonized."
I myself think that the government must ensure that the reform of the tax system is harmonized, and I think it is important to make that clear because the current approach used by the Minister of Human Resources Development in this area is no guarantee of future success and because he announces changes, to the Unemployment Insurance Program in particular, even before his reform initiative is in place, and it is clear that there is no harmony between the budget and the objectives, and the way social program reform is being conducted.
So we obviously support the proposal of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, since the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for tax reform since the election. This issue was part of our election platform and we think it is important to harmonize the two elements, namely the tax system and social security programs, regardless of our opinion on how to approach social program reform in the future. Be it the Reform Party or the Liberals, I think that, in this respect, everybody will admit that we need a little more harmony. I believe that, at the present time, there is a serious lack of co-ordination on the part of the government, and a warning such as the one the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing is proposing is in order.
It seems to us that the planned social program reform might create more inconsistencies if it does not take the tax system into account. We will end up with the same counterproductive situations we saw in the past, where we gave people incentives to increase their income but these same incentives discouraged them from working and being productive members of society. Harmonization is a must.
We must harmonize because the present government does not seem in any hurry to deal with some elements of the tax system which impact on the reform of social programs. I am referring to family trusts, for instance. We can reform all the social programs in the world, but if we do not take care of the revenue
side of things, making sure that everybody pays their fair share, we are not doing our job as a government, as a Parliament.
In 1969, there were $18 billion in family trusts. In 1982, there were $80 billion. The potential growth of those trusts should encourage us to check to see what today, in 1994, the exact amounts involved are, to determine why these people pay no taxes and to find ways of obtaining a reasonable amount of tax revenues from those trusts. After all, they belong to a few very rich families, as Mr. Claude Piché said in La Presse on January 19, 1994, when he explained that the creation of a trust is a very complex and costly process which is not really worthwhile unless you have a real fortune.
Therefore, on the question of family trusts, it would be interesting to know exactly what is going on as soon as possible because since 1983-84, we have not been able to find out what funds are in there. In my view, the government should take a close look at its own actions on that issue and publish the exact figures as soon as possible.
Tax reform also seems very important because the tax structure must be fair for everybody. We should make our tax tables much less regressive because right now taxes do not serve justice and equity in our society and there is a lot to be done in that area. The present government is saying nothing and does not seem to be really willing to make the necessary changes; it is burying its head in the sand.
There is also the issue of tax shelters that need to be abolished. There would be a lot of work to be done just to determine which shelters should be maintained and which should be abolished. In that sense, the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing is very interesting and it is a needed reminder for the government which seems to forget that what it does on the one hand does not necessarily agree with what it does on the other.
The other important element is that the fiscal structure must be harmonized to take income security into consideration. There are examples from the past which demonstrate that income tax tables can be used to help low-income earners. In Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, when he was Minister of Finance, made sure that low-income families would pay no income tax. That kind of initiative should be taken by the current government, which seems to be forgetting its electoral promises to the neediest and more inclined to protect those who financed its electoral campaign.
We therefore consider it important to support the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. There are also a few other things that I would like the government to take into consideration when harmonizing, and one is a minimum corporate tax. There is no doubt that Canadian tax policy is very favourable to business. Naturally, businesses should be allowed to develop, but at the same time we have to avoid an imbalance between the share individual taxpayers must bear and that of business. In that area, I thing we have a long way to go.
Another thing I would like to mention are the changes to fiscal arrangements that apply to foreign corporations. For example, in 1990, taxpayers with incomes of over $80,000 accounted for more than 70 per cent of all taxable capital gains, and 66 per cent of those were investors. We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that the financial position of the government requires a larger contribution of high income taxpayers, and in the spirit of this motion we could, at the very least, undertake a thorough study of this aspect, to make sure that in the future, the tax policy and the forthcoming reform of social programs guarantee some harmonization between the two and that, in effect, we do not create situations that are even more absurd than the ones we now have.
I would like to add that when the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell quoted from the red book, it reminded me of a saying my grandfather was fond of. Do not judge people by what they say but by what they do. It is particularly true with the Liberals' election platform. During the campaign, all they promised were jobs, jobs, jobs, but they have yet to deliver. The Liberals made a lot of commitments concerning social equity in the red book, but they have not achieved much. And worst of all, they do not seem to have the will to forge ahead in this area.
To conclude, I would like to say that, unlike the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I do not see how you can compare the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing with the position taken by the Minister of Human Resources Development. There is a fundamental difference between the two in that the minister tends to act a bit like a bulldozer these days. However, he may be realizing that provinces have some rights in this area and will expect the government to respect them.
The public also want things to be done legally and has shown in the past that if governments are divorced from the realities of their constituents, voters can remind them of the harsh realities come election time. I think that a motion like the one before the House today should prompt the government to review the need for more harmonization at the Cabinet level, which would allow people to share their ideas and dovetail their programs.