Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak Bill C-36, the Budget Implementation Act.
I will not go over the litany of problems we have historically had in our country. I will not go over the 30 years of mismanagement of our finances by previous Liberal and Conservative governments. My colleagues have outlined that specifically and very eloquently.
I look forward to constructive solutions that the government could have employed but has not. It can employ them in the future if we are to create a stronger more stable country, a stronger more vibrant economy, and save our social programs, that social net which protects many underprivileged people in our country.
It is instructive for us to look at real world experiences. We should look at other countries, other provinces and other states that have employed very specific solutions to problems that have affected them and are affecting us. Let us look at our own country, at Ontario and Saskatchewan.
I lived in Ontario for 18 years. It was very sad to see the economic devastation that took place with respect to the huge debt load the NDP government foisted upon the people of Ontario at that time, the high tax rates that crushed the life out of the economy, and the egregious rules and regulations that prevented the Ontario economy from being the lion it could be.
The current government took the bull by the horns. It substantially cut taxes. It streamlined and eliminated government spending, not by doing fancy accounting or changing accounting practices but by cutting the fat off the government beef. It also eliminated rules and regulations that tended to constrict and restrict the private sector. What has happened? Ontario is engaging in a boom. Ontario has had more money coming into its coffers. This is very interesting.
Those who slandered the Ontario government for engaging in its policy of fiscal conservatism, tax cuts and diminished government spending said that it would gut social programs. What has happened to health care? In spite of a $2.7 billion cut in health care transfer payments to Ontario, the Ontario government has had an extra $1 billion to spend on health care. That is very instructive because it dispels the myth that some would put forth that if taxes are cut social programs are gutted. That is not true at all. If taxes are decreased what happens? It causes investment to go into the province. It causes a revamping and a resurgence of the private sector. By doing so the amount of money in the public coffers is actually increased.
Mr. Mulroney did it in 1992. He lowered taxes. What happened? More money went into the public purse. As a result he could have spent more money on public social programs but instead he increased taxes.
We have been pushing forward a very constructive plan. We have given it to the government. To some extent the government has pursued it and should be congratulated for balancing the budget. We have been telling the government to do this for many years.
It is also instructive to look at Saskatchewan. An NDP government in Saskatchewan woke up and said that it should look at what works, at the reality of the late 20th century economies of the world and becoming competitive. The NDP government took a very balanced approach. It listened to the Reform Party and said that it would cut taxes and balance the budget. It wanted to give people more money in their pockets, to have a balanced budget, to cut taxes and to spend intelligently doing what governments do best.
That government invested in infrastructure, invested in education and put money where governments should put money to give people the tools to take care of themselves.
Historically there has been a rule among Liberal thinkers that government can take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves. We obviously do not adhere to that rule. We believe the government's role is to give people the tools, the power and the ability to take care of themselves. Governments should also take care of those people who cannot take care of themselves. Those two can actually work together. Those two are actually two halves of the same whole.
If we are fiscally irresponsible we are socially irresponsible. By being fiscally irresponsible and spending more than we take in, we compromise the social programs we profess to help by spending more on those programs than we take in. By elevating debt and interest payments we diminish the amount of money available to spend on those programs. We do not compromise the rich because they can go wherever they want. We compromise the poor.
As my colleagues in the Reform Party have mentioned, the government is saying that it will take care of people instead of people taking care of themselves. That is why the government has increased CPP payments made by individuals by a whopping 75% for every working man and woman in the country. What does that do? It takes money out of people's pockets and prevents people from taking care of themselves. It does not work.
If we look at New Zealand we see very clearly that approach does not work. In every country that has tried to do this it has resulted in abysmal failure.
Great Britain and Chile have taken a long pragmatic look at their pension plans and social programs and have put them on firm financial ground. They have managed to privatize them while still ensuring that all individuals will be taken care of. No one will go without. Those most socially deprived in those countries will be taken care of. If they did not do that those in the lowest socio-economic areas would be compromised the most.
We do not try to devise grandiose new plans for the problems that affect us. The problems that affect us in Canada affect other developed nations all over the world. If we were to take those solutions and employ them in Canada we would see a national growth rate that could rival the provincial growth rates we have seen in Ontario and Saskatchewan.
If one wants to look at the other side of the coin one need only look at my province of British Columbia to see what high tax rates, high debt loads, egregious rules and regulations and labour laws that constrict and restrict the private sector do to an economy.
British Columbia, arguably the richest province within the country, has an enormous amount of natural resources and a well trained and educated workforce. It is actually 10th in the nation in terms of development. Who would have thought that British Columbia would be 10th, the bottom of the barrel, in economic growth for two years running?
The reasons for it are very simple. I implore the government to take a look at what we have been trying to convince it to do for years. The member for Medicine Hat, our finance critic, has been very eloquent in suggesting this to the finance minister. Why not adopt most of these solutions when they have been proven to work all over the world?
We can take a look at the United States, for example the state of New Jersey which has employed constructive solutions to its problems. It has right to work legislation. It has used tax havens. It has decreased taxes and eliminated egregious rules and regulations.
What happened to the individual worker there? What happened to the person who works day in and day out slogging on the streets? Their incomes were increased by over $2,200 per person. This meant more money in their pockets and better health and welfare for every individual in those communities.
I implore the government to adopt the policies put forward by the Reform Party. They have been used in New Zealand, the United States, in Ontario and Saskatchewan. Decrease taxes. Decrease debt load. And for heaven's sake remove the egregious rules and regulations that constrict the private sector. In doing so we would provide for better socioeconomic circumstances for all and we would save our social programs.
