Madam Speaker, this is my first speech of 1999. I will begin by wishing my colleagues and all of the constituents of Calgary East a happy new year.
As we approach the new millennium Canadians are looking to their elected representatives, and especially the government, for visionary and bold leadership. The role of the official opposition is to point out to Canadians when their government does not meet these expectations. With this in mind, I rise today to voice my concern over Bill C-65. I do so because I am convinced that this piece of legislation does not address the economic inequalities which exist among the provinces in our federation.
The concept and the intent of provincial equalization payments in order to guarantee all Canadians comparable services and standards of living is indeed a noble goal. My party supports this concept.
Reform members who have spoken today have made the point very clear that we support the concept of equalization and of Canadians having a guarantee of comparable services and standards across the country.
The role of every government, including the federal government, is to ensure that the equality of all Canadians is guaranteed. That is the cornerstone of my party's policy. Therefore, why are we opposed to this legislation? This legislation falls short of achieving this goal.
What amazes me is that after so many years of experience—and we have had this program for close to 40 years—one would think that this government would have learned to use our financial resources more effectively. However, what we have before us today is a status quo piece of legislation which is flawed and does nothing but pour more money into this program.
Why do that? Every program this government introduces costs more and more, while Canadians are burdened with oppressive tax rates and coping with the crisis in our health care system. Can the government not use taxpayers' money more prudently? Apparently not.
I am also amazed to learn that in a country rated as one of the best and richest in the world we have seven have not provinces and three have provinces. Why is 70% of the country made up of have not provinces? It is difficult to understand. One can readily understand a province needing assistance when an important sector of an economic activity collapses.
The current fisheries crises on the east and west coasts require attention and the injection of resources. The federal government should intervene to ensure that Canadians living in these regions do not suffer undue hardship.
However, that being said, the systemic equalization program that we are discussing today is inefficient, a waste of resources and fails to address the underlying problem of regional economic disparities.
This morning the Leader of the Official Opposition and my colleagues outlined some of the major problems and flaws in this program. Let me highlight some of them again.
The formula for determining the distribution of funds is overly complex and convoluted. It is based almost entirely on assumptions and not on hard facts or statistics. The current program ends up pitting province against province and results in resentment and conflict, the haves versus the have nots.
There is no accountability, leaving the entire process open to political manipulation and bureaucratic interference. It penalizes provinces which display industriousness and innovation.
I would like to elaborate on my last point. In my home province of Alberta the cornerstone of our prosperity has been the oil and natural gas sectors. We are and always have been proud to share these resources with our fellow Canadians despite the introduction of the unfair and discriminatory national energy program during the early 1980s.
Today oil prices are quite low. This has led to hard times and layoffs in the oil patch. However, due to the resilience of Albertans and their government, Alberta is not facing an economic crisis. This is because Alberta has diversified its economy to avoid such situations.
The federal government could learn much from the Government of Alberta. It could also take some pointers from the Government of Ontario. The Ontario economy is booming through low levels of taxation and job growth.
The question still remains: What are we to do with this inherently flawed equalization program? The official opposition suggests a new approach. For starters, let us discuss a new approach to equalization through open and honest debate in parliament.
We are supposed to be the custodians of the public purse. It is up to us to find cost effective ways to ensure that all Canadians have comparable services. We must also eliminate the arbitrariness of the current program and eliminate bureaucratic interference. We must create a transparent and accountable manner of addressing regional inequalities. This could be achieved through a simpler formula.
The official opposition's new Canada act proposes two basic reforms which have been outlined by speakers from the official opposition. I am going to repeat them so that members opposite will understand what we are trying to say. They are: the equal treatment of all Canadian citizens with per capita grants to provinces for shared cost programs, and a single equalization grant based on a macro indicator of per capita provincial GDP compared to per capita national GDP.
Canadians are respected around the world for their generosity and desire to help others. The citizens of our country are compassionate people who will go to great lengths and sacrifices to ensure that their neighbours are well taken care of.
However, this government should not take this goodwill and generosity for granted. I am sorry to report that our current method of equalization takes advantage of the compassion inherent in Canadians.
I will conclude by stating that what is needed is a frank and open discussion in parliament over the nature of equalization payments in our confederation. I humbly submit that the Reform Party's new Canada act proposals merit serious consideration in the debate over the equalization program in our country.