House of Commons Hansard #107 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was devco.

Topics

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions which I would like to table. The first petition contains 200 signatures, which will add to the over 12,000 signatures I tabled in the House. The petitioners are calling for a change to our immigration system which would allow us to honour our commitment under the Geneva convention to bring in genuine economic refugees and enable them to make a home as soon as possible.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, the second petition I present on behalf of the British Columbia Automobile Association and it contains 106 signatures. The petitioners ask that the federal government start to invest money in our road infrastructure. They state that the condition of our roads contributes to thousands of lost lives and injuries every year right across this country, and that putting more money into our roads would improve trade opportunities, job creation and tourism.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise to present several petitions. The first petition contains some 50 signatures from residents of Windsor, Ontario and St. John's, Newfoundland. The petitioners pray that the government will appeal its recent amendments to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty which negatively affect social security recipients who are residents of Canada. It is an unfair tax grab on seniors.

I am also pleased to table four petitions with some 800 signatures from Canadians from five provinces. The petitioners call on the federal government to end the discrimination in the tax code against single income families with children and to correct the inequities in the federal tax code so that there is equitable treatment of all families with children.

I would also like to table two petitions, containing some 400 signatures, mainly from Albertans. The petitioners call on the federal government to reduce the tax burden on the Canadian economy and on Canadian families through a tax cut of at least 25% over the next three years.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 28, 2000, be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Madam Speaker, when I was interrupted by question period I was going through the 62 different tax increases which the Liberals have brought in since they formed the government in 1993. I was looking at what type of money the Liberals had brought in with the tax increases and what they were doing with that money.

I talked about the tax increases which were implemented in 1994 and 1995. In 1996 the Liberals increased personal income taxes 11 times and took $260 million out of the pockets of individual taxpayers. They did that through an RRSP contribution limit freeze, which broke an election promise I might add. Then they went to pension plan contribution limits being frozen, once again breaking an election promise. Then they forced seniors to begin early withdrawals from their RRSPs. Then the Liberals forced seniors to begin early withdrawals from their RPPs. It gets better. The Liberals went on to eliminate the deductibility of administration fees for RRSPs. They forced people to pay for the fees, which they had not done before. They then went on to eliminate the deductibility of administration fees for RRIFs. The Liberals took $260 million out of people's pockets.

I previously commented on something else the Liberals did in 1996. They increased taxes on Canadian pensioners abroad. They fleeced seniors for another $10 million. They did not just stop with individual income tax increases. No, the Liberals had more on their agenda. They increased the burden by $10 million on the overseas employment tax credit for people who could not find a job in Canada, probably due to high taxes.

It always raises the question, with $260 million in personal income tax increases and $70 million in three corporate tax increases which the Liberals brought in in 1996, for a total increased tax burden of $330 million, what types of things did the Liberals do with that extra $330 million?

There is a program in Prince Edward Island called “I want to be a millionaire”. It cost $31,000. Six average taxpayers had to pay their full tax bills just so the Liberals could have that program. What they did not tell people was that the government was making a number of people millionaires that year, and they happened to be the cronies and friends of the Prime Minister.

That program was not how to raise money for Jean, or somebody with that first name. It was not about raising money for the Prime Minister, and therefore getting all sorts of lucrative contracts. That was not what that program was about, but that is the reality of it. These Liberals are very good about lining the pockets of those who support them, and lining the pockets of the friends of the Prime Minister. It does not even matter if they are Canadians. They can be overseas for all they care. They make sure that they look after their own.

If someone gives a couple of thousand dollars to the Prime Minister's campaign in Shawinigan, it is a sure bet there will be a sweet deal on a hotel or something else. That is a shame.

What else did the Liberals spend the $330 million on that they took out of taxpayers in 1996? They spent $100,000 to establish an 18-hole golf course in Sudbury. That is pretty serious money for the average person. As a matter of fact, 21 taxpayers had to pay to the government income tax on everything they made. Twenty-one people paid tax to establish the golf course in Sudbury. There are plenty of golf courses which the government has subsidized. Sudbury is but one of a long list.

What business is it of the government to take money from 21 hard-working Canadians, their full tax bills, to subsidize golf courses? How do the Liberals account for that type of spending? Is that the justification they use for $330 million more in the form of tax increases in 1996? They ought to hang their heads in shame.

I will get to the most egregious of all. What did the Liberal Party of Canada receive from the taxpayer? How much did the taxpayers who never voted Liberal contribute to the Liberal Party? Over $2 million in a tax subsidy.

These budget bills are a sham. What the Liberals do not say is that they have hiked taxes 62 times since they took office in 1993. There have been 27 corporate tax increases, 22 personal income tax increases, six bracket creep increases and seven Canada pension plan increases. What was all of this for? It was for sex changes for soldiers, an unelected Senate, a fountain in Shawinigan, the Prime Minister's cronies, dumb blonde joke books, Bubbles Galore , meat dresses, HRDC boondoggles, studies for lawn ornaments, Bombardier, other forms of corporate welfare, as well as $200 million which was wasted in the budgetary estimate of HRDC. Shame on the government for taking that money from taxpayers.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, I think I heard pretty well the hon. member's entire speech and I am not sure whether he mentioned anything about the debt burden that exists today. He spent a lot of time talking about tax increases, where government is misspending its money and those kinds of things. I was very sympathetic to what he had to say.

I kept thinking of our new grandson who just came into the world. I look at that little boy and think about the debt burden he is carrying as a newborn child on the Canadian scene. We are getting nothing for that. We are paying interest charges of something like $40 billion or $42 billion a year. That is roughly half of what we need to pay for our health care expenses on an annual basis in Canada.

Could my colleague say something about the need for a plan to do two things? First, there is a need to balance the budget. Then there is a need to pay down the debt, and not in a happenstance kind of way where if we happen to have a little money left over we will pay down the debt a bit. Should there not be a systematic plan that would reduce the debt so that the burden on young children coming into the world today will be reduced somewhat? Could he comment on that?

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question of my hon. colleague. I would just like to say that I think the problem is even worse than what has been laid out.

We pay about $42 billion a year in debt payments, in interest on the national debt of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberals across the way who helped to drag this country through the muck. It is just the tip of the iceberg. It means that we are looking at about $20,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. The sad fact is that our demographics are such that not everyone will pay that bill.

For my hon. colleague and his grandchildren, the $600 billion that Canada owes right now as a federal debt will be multiplied because of unfunded liabilities with regard to the Canada pension plan, land claims, irresponsible management in the country, and a demographic bubble that will burst in 2017 with regard to the aged and health care expenses.

This government and these Liberals are sleepwalking into a $2 trillion debt in upcoming years. That means that for youngsters out there such as the grandchildren of my colleague it will not be owing a mere $20,000. I want to let the grandchildren of today know that it will be closer to $100,000 which they will pay. That is sitting on them right now even if this government or any other government never charged a dollar more to the debt of the country.

If they get a university education, if they pursue post-secondary education and raise their expectations for their standard of living and their wages, as their high school guidance counsellors tell them to do, it will mean a $200,000 bill. It is as if a house is sitting on their shoulders for which they will have to pay. It is a house they will never own but it is a debt given to them by the Liberals. Shame on them.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour to stand here to say a few words on Bill C-32. Being a finance bill, it gives me a fair amount of flexibility. As it is my first speech in the House, I would like to thank the people of St. John's West who let me come here to represent them in this great institution.

Over the years Newfoundland has been represented by some tremendous politicians in this Chamber. I think of some great cabinet ministers. We had the Hon. Don Jamieson. We had the Hon. John Crosbie. Of course now in cabinet we have the hon. member for Gander—Grand Falls. As the great musical philosopher Meat Loaf would say, “Two out of three ain't bad”.

It is a great pleasure to represent such a great district. It is a province that has great riches but a province that has been treated very poorly.

I am very pleased to be with you all today, to share my vision, my hopes, my dreams and my aspirations for this great country.

However my dream of Canada is one where the provinces and the people are not only treated equally but are also treated fairly. Quite often to treat people equally does not mean that they are being treated fairly. As we look across this great country it is so diverse there is no way that a made in Ottawa or made in central Canada solution is one that works in other parts of the country.

Some people have asked me if being sworn in a few days ago or being able to make my maiden speech today will be my most memorable moment in politics. I have to say no. The one moment in my political life that will always stand out was the moment in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland on the night when we were debating the Meech Lake accord, the night when eight of the ten provinces had agreed to the accord. Out in Manitoba we had our friend waving his feather and holding up debate, yet knowing that the Manitoba legislature would agree to the Meech Lake accord.

In our own house of assembly, despite the fact that many of us fought for the implementation of that great accord so that all of us could come together as a nation, the premier of our province pulled the plug when he saw the support of his own party slipping away. He used the excuse that we were out of time. That was the night that I thought the future of Canada changed. I hope I am wrong but unfortunately I do not think I am.

Sometimes it is not that others are asking too much. It is that sometimes some of us are willing to give too little. I think in that case we lost a tremendous chance to unify this great country. It may be some time before we get another. However, if we treat people fairly rather than just say we are treating them equally, perhaps that chance will come again.

I will use some of the topics in this bill to illustrate how my province of Newfoundland is being treated extremely unfairly. We have CHST funding. Before 1993 when the present government came into power, health care and post-secondary education were funded based on need. Provinces that needed got. Newfoundland at the time was a province in need, and we received a sufficient amount of funding.

Not long ago the federal and provincial governments shared on a 50:50 basis in funding health care. Today in Newfoundland the federal input to our health care budget is only 15%. We can just imagine what that does to the budget of a small province.

When the funding formula was changed to a per capita basis rather than a needs basis, most of the other provinces at least held what they had, if we factor in the cuts. Many of them received increased funding because of increasing populations. Many provinces have increasing populations because the young people who are leaving Newfoundland and going to places like Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. These are young people of child bearing age who are not only adding themselves to the population but over the years will be adding their offspring to the population. The gain of other provinces is Newfoundland's loss. We are not only left with a rapidly declining population. We are left with an aging population.

When the CHST funding was changed we got a double whammy. We received fewer dollars and we have an aging population which eats up more of the health care dollars. The statistics show that about 60% of our budget is spent on people 65 years of age and over. Consequently we are suffering greatly from the change in funding.

This year we heard about the great one time supplement that was given to provinces. Newfoundland received $42 million over four years. That equates to a little over $10 million per year. Government members opposite will if that is not a tremendous extra addition to its budget. Over the last six years, because of a change in formula, we have lost $750 million in CHST transfers. Is it any wonder that health care is in the state it is in? The poorer the province, the worse off it is becoming.

CHST transfers also include funding for post-secondary education, an area where we have been extremely lax. The greatest resource in our country is our young people. We are forgetting that and we are ignoring them. We are forgetting to invest in their futures.

Because of the great demand on health care funding, much of the money designated to post-secondary education is swallowed up by the health care vacuum. The dollars have to be put into health care. The people who pay the price are those who should be the beneficiaries of post-secondary funding.

In countries such as Ireland and Iceland we see economies that have turned around tremendously. We can talk about the effect of the European common market on Ireland and how well it is treated in relation to holding on to its royalty payments, et cetera. However, if we talk to officials in the Irish government they will tell us that the turnaround started when they started recognizing their primary investment should be in young people.

Today, because of the investment and because of the opportunity that every young man and woman has to become educated without any great costs, and in some cases without any costs, the Irish economy has turned around tremendously. When industry beckoned they had a young, aggressive and educated workforce.

I ask where is our young, aggressive and educated workforce. In the case of Newfoundland, most of them are either moving to other parts of Canada or unfortunately along with our lobster friends in the other provinces are moving south of the border because they will make more money to offset the tremendous debt load upon leaving post-secondary institutions.

That is not the way to grow a country. The way to grow a country is to invest in our young people. It is something that the present government has to think about and then act upon. We are paying a heavy price now but we will pay a much greater price in the future.

Over the past year we have heard about the federal government having to pay the banks millions and millions of dollars because of their input into the student loans program and their inability to collect some of the money owed to them. Let us look at the horrendous service charges being suggested for handling loans for the government. If we add up the amount of money we pay the banks, if we look at the tremendous amount of service charges we pay, and if we look at the money lost that young people cannot pay back, which quite often drives them into bankruptcy, would it not be a lot more sensible if we took the dollars we are throwing away and invested them directly into the education of our young? It does not make any sense.

A few days ago I asked the Minister of Finance a question about CHST transfers. He basically sloughed it off by saying that the provinces were doing very well in equalization payments.

As I mentioned earlier, Newfoundland is a very rich province. It is rich in its resources, its people and its potential. Unfortunately, as it develops its resources every dollar received from royalties for the development of its mines, its offshore oil and other industries, the federal government is there with its greedy hands to claw back anywhere from 75 cents to 90 cents of every dollar.

If we went to work today and made $100 but on our way home someone took $75, $80 or $90 from that $100, how could we advance, progress and improve our lot in life? The answer is that we could not.

Let me use the European experience. As Ireland started to develop, the European common market had the sense to let it hold on to some of its own royalties so that it could invest in itself until it reached a certain plateau where it was equal with everyone else.

If Newfoundland was allowed to keep the money that its people earned, it could be a have province instead of being looked upon by many as the poor cousin in the country. Newfoundland is not the poor cousin. It could be a rich cousin. It could be a major contributor to this nation if this nation treated it fairly, not equally with a blanket rule made in central Canada, but fairly.

Labrador has major power developments. A contract was signed on the Upper Churchill years ago with our friends from Quebec. As we have been told by everyone, including the courts, a contract is a contract and we cannot blame our friends for that. Presently Newfoundland gets about $10 million out of that contract each year in profits. Quebec gets closer to $1 billion. Hopefully, as we negotiate the Lower Churchill and with the help and input of the federal government, the deal will be fairer and all partners will benefit. That is the way it should be in the Confederation of Canada.

Although the federal government allows provinces like Alberta to feed its pipelines through other provinces and have access to markets, it is unfortunate that it refuses to let Newfoundland have a power corridor through Quebec so that it can send power to the markets on the eastern seaboard. That is something for another day.

When we talk about fairness and equality let us look at the CBC. Yesterday my colleague from St. John's East and I had the opportunity to attend a rally sponsored by Friends of the CBC in St. John's, Newfoundland. Hundreds of people come out to tell the government that they do not want their evening news programs cut. Newfoundland and Labrador are spread out over a very large geographical area and the news coverage from that area is perhaps the only thing many of the hardworking people in Newfoundland get to see. Everyone looks forward to the evening news because it is local, it is relevant and it is news from all over our great province.

The government is now recapitulating a bit and is telling us that we can have half the program. It is saying that half a loaf is better than none and that we should be glad of it. Half is not good enough if the news program is very successful and very popular. Half or maybe none might be good enough in an area where the evening news programs are not even watched. I have no problem with programs being cut if nobody wants them. However, I do have a problem with programs being cut that are essential to the culture, the history and the people of the province when that program is one of the most popular in the province. Hopefully the government will get some sense.

I am not blaming the board of directors at CBC. They can only do what they can with the money they have. In this case the money comes from here. It is the federal minister's responsibility to ensure that the CBC has enough funding for areas, and there are many across this great country, rural areas in particular, where their needs are best served by local programming, and in many cases that is sponsored by the CBC.

Let us look at the infrastructure. We have a harbour in St. John's, the first harbour to which any boat sailed to the island, if we look at it from the time of the European discovery in 1497. It is the oldest city in the province. It wreaks of sewage simply because this government has failed to come up with its share of the money to clean up the harbour. The municipalities have come to the table. The province has expressed its willingness to come to the table. The hesitancy is from the one-third input of the federal government. If the federal government came to the table, this major problem could be solved.

The adjacent cities of St. John's and Mount Pearl are the first stop basically for most people coming to our great province, a province that has more tourism potential than any other place in the world.

My own district, which surrounds St. John's, the southern shore, St. Mary's and Placentia Bay, are the oldest settled parts in North America. Every few miles there are a variety of attractions. Walking along the shore we can see major icebergs sculptured as only Michelangelo could do. We can watch whales in their natural environment and caribou on the opposite side in their natural environment. There are birds, salmon rivers, historic sites, old fortifications and great archaeological digs of the colony that Baltimore settled in Ferryland. We have some 550 million year old fossils at Mistaken Point and the world renowned bird sanctuary at Cape St. Mary's. I could go on and on. These are all within a few miles of a major capital city, a city that with some help from the federal government could be a clean and beautiful city.

Those are the fair treatments for which we are looking. In transportation, Newfoundland, being an island, is now being held hostage by two monopolies. Marine Atlantic is the only ferry service to our island and over this last couple of years we have had our battles. This year a fast ferry has been serving us when the weather is good. Unfortunately, next year we will revert to a slow ferry.

A survey done during the week showed that everybody thought the service by Air Canada had been downgraded. It is more expensive and much worse than it was. There is a need for fishery research. We are a rich province but we need help, co-operation and we need to be treated fairly.

I hope that, in the days, months and years to come, we will continue to work together for a strong and united Canada and a better one.

If people think we cannot have a better Canada, I refer them to the words of Robert Kennedy when he said “Some people see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?”

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party on the federal side, we do wish to congratulate the newest member from St. John's West on his electoral victory. We welcome him to the House of Commons. He brings a certain dialect and flair to the House of Commons, as only Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can, and I thank him for that.

Although I do disagree with a couple of political statements he has made, I want to thank him for bringing up the issue of tourism and other things with regard to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We in Nova Scotia think we have a pretty good province to visit, too. I will make the hon. member a pledge. I will go to his province and visit if he will come to our province to visit as well.

He mentioned a couple of things about health care and the CBC. This is where I find that the Conservatives, sometimes in a campaign, will campaign from the left and govern from the right.

I believe in the party's 1997 election platform which stated that it would advocate further cuts to the CBC. The CBC cuts did not happen under just the Liberal Party. They happened when the Mulroney Conservatives were in power from 1984 to 1993. They started the cuts and the Liberals continued them. Does the hon. member agree with the 1997 platform of the Conservative Party of further cuts to the CBC?

I admire him and the member for St. John's East who went to the Friends of the CBC rally. I do hope they are able to change the way the Conservative Party thinks and stands up for public broadcasting in this country from coast to coast to coast.

The member's own party leader said that he supported Ralph Klein's bill 11 and that he also supported advocates of two tier health care in this country. We know that in Newfoundland and Labrador the majority of people when polled were dead against a two tiered health care system. Being a long term parliamentarian in his own provincial legislature, the member for St. John's West should know very clearly what a two tier health care system would do to the people of the outports whom he so eloquently defended right here in the House.

Does the member advocate further cuts to the CBC as his party's platform did in 1997? Does he support his party leader's approach to a two tier health care system in this country?

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Madam Speaker, first, let me say to my hon. colleague that I visit his province fairly often. My son attends Dalhousie University, which is in Nova Scotia, and I visit him about three times a year. I would ask him to reciprocate by making that many trips to my province.

In relation to the hon. member's two questions, he was not listening very carefully when I spoke. When I talked about the CBC, I said that if there are areas in the country where cuts are necessary, if people are no longer watching and the CBC wants to cut programs, then it is up to the people. However, in areas such as rural Newfoundland, and Newfoundland generally, the evening news is an extremely popular program. Therefore I certainly do not support cuts in the areas where the market is there, nor should anybody else. I see that the hon. member agrees.

In relation to the two tier health care system, again if he had listened carefully to what our leader said at the time of the fiasco in Alberta—and perhaps it is the Premier of Alberta taking out a membership in the Alliance that has coloured his thinking—our leader said that he could not blame the local provinces for looking at ways to help their people because of the cuts imposed by the government. However, our party stands firmly against any two tier system in health care.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the speech by our new member in the House, and at one point he spoke of the agreement Quebec concluded with Newfoundland on the development of Churchill Falls.

He deplored the fact that, in this agreement, few benefits remained for Newfoundland. Perhaps I misunderstood and he could enlighten me, but he seemed to be blaming Quebec for being greedy in signing this contract.

I would like to point out that no one wanted to support Newfoundland in its efforts to build the dam and develop hydro-electric power: neither New York—the Americans—nor the Canadians, nor Ottawa. Only Quebec supported Newfoundland at the time. Although Quebec set rigorous conditions for Newfoundland, no one else would have been satisfied with them, they would have demanded more.

So, we have to go back. It was many years ago. Quebec helped Newfoundland at that time and is prepared to do so again with the development of hydroelectric power at the border between Labrador and Quebec.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member did not hear me or he did not understand me clearly when I spoke about the old upper Churchill contract which was signed many years ago before my involvement in politics. I said quite clearly that a contract is a contract.

I think Hansard will show that I do not blame my friends from Quebec. They signed a binding contract. It is not their fault. It is to their advantage that power rates increased. We had settled for a flat rate. I have never, nor have we ever, blamed the people of Quebec for this. In fact, the future developments in our country especially as they relate to hydro power will be successful if there is a good friendly partnership between Newfoundland and Quebec.

Going back to my comments on Meech Lake, again I say to him that a lot of people in our province would love to see Quebec play a much more important partnership role within this great country of Canada.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-32. It is an honour to represent the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and British Columbia. This bill is the budget implementation act which gives us a lot of latitude on what we speak about today.

It is important that we lead from the front. Quite often in this Chamber we do not put forward what Canadians, especially the younger generation, really want to see, how we will provide them with alternatives, how we will allow them to fulfil their dreams and aspirations and how they can become excited about this great country.

A number of my colleagues spoke about the endless tax increases, particularly the employment tax increases that have occurred since the Liberals took power in 1993. I am very enthusiastic about what the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, has to offer the Canadian people. A lot of work has gone into it and it is being reflected in the polls. We are seeing dramatic increases daily. There is a lot of encouragement that Canadians are ready for a change.

The first and foremost change that will come is a single tax rate. We call it solution 17. Our opponents, from the Progressive Conservatives to their friends in the NDP, are criticizing us for this. They have said that we will cut taxes only for the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will go into a few of the specific details about solution 17, the single rate tax.

It is important to understand that Canada has three marginal tax rates: 17%, 26% and 29%. We propose to bring those down to a single federal marginal tax rate of 17% which would provide tax savings for every single taxpayer in the country. Most important, it is going to provide the greatest tax relief for the poorest taxpayers, those with the lowest incomes.

It is important not only to emphasize the 17%, but we also propose to increase the basic spousal exemption from $6,000 to $10,000 each for adults who stay at home. That gives two adults $20,000 without any of the other numerous deductions which they can apply, such as their RRSP deductions, before they pay a dime in federal tax. What is the net effect of that? That is going to take 1.9 million, almost two million of our poorest off the tax rolls.

My riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands has many people in retirement. They go there because of the mild winters. It is on the south end of Vancouver Island. There are many seniors in the income range of $20,000 to $30,000 who are struggling and they are paying federal income tax. The Canadian Alliance believes that is wrong and that these people should not be paying it.

We also recognize the importance of raising children and that there is a significant cost to it. We would like to recognize that by bringing in for the first time a child tax deduction of $3,000 per child. Let us look at a family of four with an income of somewhere between $26,000 and $30,000. They are still eligible for the deductions but their basic exemption would be $10,000 for each adult plus $3,000 for each child. They would be able to earn up to $30,000 before one cent in federal income tax was paid.

I do not know how anyone could say that is providing tax relief for the rich. The biggest beneficiaries of our solution 17 will be the taxpayers with the lowest income. We will take them right off the tax rolls.

We recognize that there is another thing taxpayers want, especially the younger generation. I got into politics and ran in 1997 because the dreams and the aspirations of our younger generation had been shattered. They are frustrated. Our best and brightest are flocking to the south. People will come up with numbers and say that there is not that big of a brain drain, but the very best are going, the brightest ones. That is what concerns me.

The economic engine of our country 10 to 15 years from now, the future CEOs, the future entrepreneurs who will create the jobs are the ones who are leaving. In my own family, of my siblings and my wife's siblings, there is one who works in the United States now and there are two others. Almost half of them are in the process or have at least applied for positions in the United States.

With the right government and the right policies in place we can attract investment and Canada can be number one. We could make those younger people in the United States want to come to Canada. We could have the younger generation of Americans say, “Would I ever like to live in Canada”.

That is what we are putting forward. That is why there is so much encouragement within the Canadian Alliance. That encouragement is solely because of our policies and leadership and what we are able to provide.

I can hear some of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party laughing. I encourage them to come to British Columbia. I will take them out there myself. They can talk to British Columbians about the leadership the New Democratic Party has provided in British Columbia. I say that in all seriousness. It has been an unmitigated disaster. In any event, I am not here to talk about that.

I want to read a paragraph from WEFA. The Canadian Alliance put its plan out very early, well in advance of an election, because we wanted our hon. friends from all parties to scrutinize it. We also gave our solution 17 to WEFA which is one of the leading economic forecasting agencies in the country. In fact Mr. Orr does the economic forecasting for the Minister of Finance.

This group is well respected within the financial community. I am going to read the conclusion. It did an in-depth analysis. Anyone watching who would like to learn more about this should contact the office of the member for Medicine Hat for details. He was instrumental in developing solution 17. I am going to read the conclusion in its entirety:

The tax reduction proposals...are well focused on the needs of Canadians today. They expand the economy, and most powerfully: personal disposable income, consumption and our standard of living. They create jobs. By lowering the marginal tax rates they are particularly effective in stimulating work effort, and stemming the brain drain and other productivity enhancing features. By powerfully reducing the level of personal income tax, particularly for Canadians of average and above average income, they are well directed at providing a more competitive tax environment in Canada relative to the U.S. They focus precisely and effectively on “bracket creep”, raising the Basic Personal Exemption, particularly affecting the lowest income taxpayers, by much more than the rate of inflation: by eliminating the current 26% and 29% marginal tax rates, any bracket creep relating to these rates is eliminated. The issue of fairness is addressed, not only by the elimination of bracket creep, but by honouring the original policy intentions of the 5% “deficit reduction” surtax and reducing EI premiums to be consistent with EI policy...the tax reduction proposals of the Reform Party are affordable. If all of the tax reduction proposals are introduced as a combined package, over the 2000-01 to 2004-05 period, there would still be a fiscal surplus in each and every year.

This was done by Dale Orr and Bob Dugan from WEFA. It speaks volumes. WEFA is an independent forecasting agency.

We have put in some other features in our solution 17 which I am very proud of. We are the first party to actually have a plan for debt reduction as a line item in our budget. We have put a line item in the budget because we believe there has to be a plan, just like the plan we all have to pay down our mortgages. We cannot go on year after year saying, as the current government does, that if there is any money left over, we may consider putting it on the debt.

When the economy is strong, we need to pay down the debt. We have made a commitment to pay down $35 billion on the debt. We have made a commitment to narrow the surplus down to $3 billion a year. That is something the government has not done.

I call it leading from the front. It is very important that we put these proposals out there. Obviously Canadians are equally pleased, as the Canadian Alliance's popularity is rising every day in the polls while the Liberal government's popularity drops. Canadians want a change. They want to fulfil their dreams. I know we will be able to deliver and provide what they are looking for.

We need to look at other areas. Taxation alone is not going to solve the problems.

I know we are debating the budget implementation act, but if we are going to solve future budget issues in the country we have to have a much more open and democratic process in the House. There are 301 members here. We have to bring in the ideas of all members so that when we debate the budget they can have meaningful participation instead of only a handful of people who surround the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance.

The circle of influence is so small. I have often said that we live in a democracy. What is that? We get to go to the polls once every four years to democratically elect a dictator. That is not right. That is wrong. We need to change that. We need to extrapolate on the great ideas of members of the House and allow them to have meaningful participation in the debate. We are committed to making those changes to allow a more democratic process.

After being in Ottawa for three years I believe one of the problems is that the bureaucracy feeds on itself through no fault of is own. It is the fault of the government. It grows and grows and grows. The government has a system that encourages it to grow. It is wildly out of control as is witnessed by the $1 billion boondoggle. We hear those stories daily. I know members on the other side will say no, but the fact is that $1 billion can go out without even being accounted for. We are told that the government did not even have applications for 35% of that $1 billion.

It is not just the department of HRDC. It is rampant throughout ministries within the government. We heard an earlier reference to a grant from the Department of Canadian Heritage to write a book on dumb blonde jokes. I believe there was a grant to the Canada Arts Council from the government to hang dead rabbits on trees because it was considered art. The list goes on and on and on.

Canadians are in absolute disbelief about this kind of spending. I appreciate it was not the ministers who actually read these applications and said they would be great expenditures of taxpayer money. However they are accountable for this money. Bureaucracy has been blown completely out of control and needs to be brought back in line so that there is accountability.

Another way that we can allow Canadians to fulfil their dreams and achieve their aspirations is economic growth. We have talked about our tax policy at length, solution 17, but there are other things that are absolutely curtailing economic growth and frustrating people such as employment taxes. Employment taxes have increased. I know government members would say they recently decreased the EI contribution rates, and I say only minimally, but they have not told us that they have increased Canada pension plan premiums even more than that.

I find it ironic. We are speaking to Bill C-32, the Budget Implementation Act. The Minister of Finance claims $58 billion in tax relief. If we look at some of the numbers, they are consistent with what the government has done in the past. How does it make up that $58 billion in tax relief? This is mind boggling for me. It is bringing in the $29.5 billion increased Canada pension plan premiums. If we factor those into the additional taxes we are paying, it cuts that amount in half. It did not bring that into the picture. It cherry picked what it put into the $58 billion. It does not tell us the whole story.

Even worse, the government cancelled planned tax increases in the years ahead, tax increases that have not yet happened. Tax increases that were slated for years to come have been cancelled. That is part of its $58 billion tax relief package. Can we imagine? Last year the government said that it would raise taxes by 5%, 10% and then 15% and then cancelled those tax increases and called it tax relief? It is completely unacceptable.

It is time that we had change. We seem to be going in election mode. The government goodie bag is revving up its engines and starting to make announcements of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Liberals believe they can fool the Canadian people and buy their way back into power.

We are in a new millennium and Canadian people will not accept that any longer. They want people to lead from the front. If we want to have the social programs that are so dear to us such as our national health care system, the only way we will be able to afford a sustainable health care system in the decades to come is through wealth created by the private sector. The government can have a strong tax base and the only way that will happen is if it provides the right environment for the private sector to flourish.

The Canadian Alliance has those opportunities. I am very proud to be part of this new energy in the Canadian political landscape. We are seeing it in spades across the country as my colleagues and I have travelled and worked on the leadership race within the Canadian Alliance. It is very exciting for us. It will be most exciting for Canadians who will be the largest beneficiaries. It is time we brought back respect to this institution.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, the current member for Saanich—Gulf Islands spoke about British Columbia. I grew up in British Columbia. It was a beautiful province then. It is still a beautiful province. I noticed that many people in his riding seem to do very well living in British Columbia so the government cannot be all bad.

I could also not help noticing that every time members of the Reform get up they talk about the best and brightest leaving the country. I see the member for Sydney—Victoria, the member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for Dartmouth, myself, even my good friend from Lethbridge in his own party, the other member from Calgary and the member from Surrey are still here. All the best and brightest have not left, as he stated

In all seriousness, his party is right when we talk about taxes, tax reform and what to do about taxes in the new millennium. Every time Canadian Alliance members talk about what they have done, what they will do and how it will be, I cannot help but think of their promise with regard to Stornoway. Their leader said he would turn it into a bingo hall, and quickly that promise was broken. I shudder to think how many other promises would be broken if they ever formed government.

I respect the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands as a former fisheries committee member. He never once mentioned the dreaded GST which all Canadians hate. Would he not join us in the New Democratic Party, not physically but in terms of policy, in reducing the GST? A break on the GST would be the fairest tax break for every Canadian from coast to coast to coast regardless of income.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I will respond to a number of the member's points. He stated that the NDP could not be all that bad in British Columbia. We will let the voters of British Columbia judge that within the next 12 months and we will see the results.

He talked about the best and brightest and referred to himself and a number of his colleagues and even some members in my party. We are here representing our constituents. There are many good Canadians who are very frustrated and do not want to leave the country but are forced to do so to seek other opportunities. I have had parents of children who graduated from university come into my office after taking their children to the airport in Victoria because they had accepted jobs in the United States.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I ask the member in the NDP to give me a few minutes and show the same courtesy I showed him. These parents are very upset that their children are going to the United States where they will probably end up being involved in relationships and having children there. They want their grandchildren in Canada. We can change that. We can be the best.

The member asked specifically about the GST. Let me get to that. Had we been the government of the day, I am sure that is not something we would have done. It is there now and I have to be very honest that we in the Canadian Alliance cannot promise to eliminate the GST. We will not make promises that we cannot keep. We will give sound numbers. There is one thing the Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, has done that has not been done before by any government. He did what he said he would do.

We will not make a bunch of empty promises. As much as we do not like the GST we cannot eliminate it, but we are prepared to look at it. We have provided solution 17 which we believe is the best opportunity to get the economy going. It would allow Canadians to achieve their dreams and not punish them for doing well.

There is a mentality in the government that wants to punish people who are successful. As the economy gets going and as we are in our second, third and fourth terms of government we will be looking at everything. It is very fluid. I emphasize that we will not make promises we cannot keep. We will deliver on everything we say we can do, unlike previous governments that have sat on that side of the House.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Once again the Canadian Alliance Party is back on its kick of a flat tax. Everyone in the Canadian Alliance dream world believes that everyone will get a tax break: from the poorest to the richest everyone will benefit from a flat tax. Most of us know this is not possible. I do not think we can fool the Canadian people.

When we start looking at the concept of a flat tax, the reality is that any of the so-called people who support that philosophy must find other ways of reducing revenue to make it work. Most of us would understand that if we are collecting x numbers of dollars in revenue and personal income taxes today, in order to impose a flat tax there has to be a shift between taxpayers from poor people to the wealthy. In other words, wealthier people would be paying significantly less tax and poor people would be paying more. That is the way it has to happen. There is no other way for it to be effective.

Canadian Alliance members would have us not understand that they would also gut a lot of other programs. We heard the member allude to private health care, the CBC and other things they would simply gut. That is how it works. They would gut government programs that people are now receiving. Undoubtedly some the people in the low tax range who would benefit in his wonderful dream world are the people who would miss the services.

Why do members of the Canadian Alliance not just come clean with people and tell the truth? A flat tax will be a shift in taxes away from the wealthy to the middle income earners. The only way to give everyone a tax break in a magical world is to gut government programs. Why does the member not just admit that?

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, let me tell the House what we would gut. We would not spend $500,000 building a fountain in the Prime Minister's riding. We would not spend $1 billion on unaccountable grants from political slush funds to the government's friends and cronies. That is what we would gut. That is what we would stop. We would stop unaccountable spending. That is number one.

I will deal with number two. The numbers of the Minister of Finance show a $95 billion to $100 billion surplus over five years. That is taxpayer money. We would not rip off taxpayers. We would not take the money from them. We would respect taxpayers and the money we take in. We would make sure they get value for their dollars. There is lots we can do. Our numbers are sound and there would be surpluses each and every year.

We would increase the money going to health care. We would not have people dying on waiting lists as there are with the government. That is what is wrong. There are numerous departments with zero accountability. There is unaccountability in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Something like $23,000 tax free was given to every native person in Canada, man, woman and child. Yet they still live in abhorrent conditions because there is no accountability. Those systems need to be changed.

The government uses money to buy votes and provide slush funds. One-third of all grants went to people in the Prime Minister's riding and those people gave money back to the Liberal Party of Canada.

It is criminal. It is corrupt. It is time for change. We throw out premiers in British Columbia for much less than that. It is absolutely wrong. We will let the voters judge this in the next federal election.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made some very compelling arguments about the need for lower taxes. It was a very good presentation and I appreciated it very much.

However, he did not mention the need to start paying down the debt which previous governments over the last 20 years have incurred on behalf of all Canadians. It is close to $600 billion. One-third of every tax dollar we send to Ottawa goes to interest, which does nothing for anyone. With the threat of rising interest rates we have a ticking time bomb.

Would the member be so good as to articulate a plan which would address and start to pay down the debt, as opposed to the increased spending that we see from the other side?

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, quite clearly, in solution 17 a line item for debt reduction would amount to $35 billion over five years. We would not leave the youngest children of the country with a $600 billion debt like the Liberal government has. Canadians would see a change.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000Government Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is the House ready for the question?