Grant McNally

[Immigration Review Board, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to break from the theme of today, but I think we will have to do that.

Today there was a recent IRB appointee, Anna Terrana, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to be asked about her competence and qualifications. When asked about her appointment she said that others had applied for the position who had equal, if not better, qualifications.

Will the minister admit that the factor that tipped the scales in Anna Terrana's favour was the fact that she is—

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned headlines and that we should be reading headlines. The president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said he thinks the focus of the budget is misdirected. The hon. member talks about the opposition hammering the government. It is the government that is hammering the Canadian taxpayer. That is what is happening here.

How is that young people can benefit from a $583 billion debt? He talks about young people's future and it his government and past governments that have created a major problem which is not even addressed in the budget and that is debt repayment and substantial tax reduction. How is that he can claim that the government is going to take care of young people with massive increases in CPP contributions and a huge debt looming with no signs of relief in that area?

[The Economy, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister I have consulted constituents in my own riding about how any budget surplus should be spent, and 87% of the respondents indicated that at least 50% of any surplus should go to debt elimination.

My question is for the Prime Minister. He had a promise for Canadians, not a side margin promise but a promise when he said that 50% of the surplus would go to debt and tax relief.

How could he promise that when he knew all along that he would blow any surplus on new spending?

[Taxation, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister is missing the point here. It is no joke that the finance minister is avoiding his own taxes by registering his ships offshore. By flying the flag of the Bahamas instead of the Canadian flag the finance minister's company saves a lot of tax dollars.

I have a question for the Prime Minister on behalf of my constituents. If they raise the Bahamian or the Liberian flag, can they pay less taxes too?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it appears as though the Prime Minister and the government just do not understand the seriousness of the breach of trust that occurred in the ministry of Indian affairs.

If they really want an independent investigation, that person must report directly to Parliament. What they are telling aboriginal people and Canadians is that independence is not important. It looks simply like damage control.

When will the investigator report to Parliament, not to the minister?

[Immigration, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that this minister does not seem to know what is happening in her own department. The reports of the auditor general and the legislative review committee both recommended an end to patronage appointments to the IRB. In response to these recommendations, the minister appointed defeated Liberal MP Anna Terrana to the IRB.

Did the minister purposely disregard the recommendations of these two reports or did she simply try to sneak in another Liberal through the patronage back door?

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House we debated Bill C-28, on which we have actually just voted. We discussed the ideas of Liberals on tax reform. They propose to tinker here and tinker there, but in the end we get a more complicated tax system with even higher taxes.

Bill C-223, which was moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, proposes a substantial tax break that will not only benefit first time homeowners but the Canadian economy as well.

The purchase of a first home is one of the biggest undertakings in a person's life. It is a stressful time for a young couple. I remember a few short years ago when my wife Wendy and I bought our first home in 1989. I remember how hard it was to save up enough money for a downpayment and after that point going to visit dad to borrow a little extra. We all know what happens when we borrow money from dad. Dad never forgets.

Mortgage rates at that time were quite high at 11.75%. We were a single income family. I was working as a teacher. We were working on a tight budget. It was very difficult. We lived on a tight budget for many years just to be able to afford the house.

Some would say that as a teacher I was making a very good wage. I would not disagree that teachers make a fair wage. But how many more young people are working for less wages? They have a harder time buying a house for the first time, to save enough money for a downpayment to purchase a home.

Young people also have second mortgages before they even begin, that being their share of the $600 billion federal debt which on average is about $77,000.

Large amounts of debt have been racked up. Young people are having to face that as well as all other obligations they are encountering. This means the future of the next several generations will be mortgaged. A percentage of every cent that young people earn will be spent to pay for the irresponsible spending habits of past governments.

I hope we will not squabble about a once in a lifetime tax break for people who are just starting out. They are forming the foundation for the next generation in this great country of Canada.

The homebuyers plan is an option for first time homebuyers. However they have to be able to invest in RRSPs. For many people that is a luxury which is unattainable after they have paid for rent, food, car insurance, heat, hydro and clothing, not to mention that half of their salaries goes to taxes.

The CMHC program helps first time homeowners to pay for their downpayments. That is a big help. However the service costs several thousand dollars. The tax break called for in the bill would help to offset that cost.

In reading some of the opposition to the bill it was quite interesting to note that some people have questioned the motives of the Reform Party for bringing the bill forward. The government indicated the cost of the bill and the loss of tax revenue.

We could argue that the benefits of putting this money back into the pockets of individuals would be an enormous benefit to all Canadians. Young Canadians would have a break when starting out. They would have a tax deduction which would give them more disposable income to put back into their local economy. It is a common sense idea. It makes sense.

Young families that are just starting out would have more money for big ticket items they might not be able to afford now, such as appliances, furniture, electronics, or a new or used car. Tax revenues from these purchases would offset the tax breaks, not to mention the positive impact on the economy.

Many people commented on the bill when my hon. colleague introduced it in the House. The Canadian Manufactured Housing Institute has given it full support as it would generate greater investment in the housing area. It would create spinoffs in industry. It would help to stimulate the economy. It has received favourable response from many others.

I would hope we could lay aside any partisanship to take a look at this idea as being a common sense way to give young Canadians who will form the future generations of the country an opportunity to establish a home, a place, an environment where they can raise their families. As we know, this provides the social fabric of society.

We should look at the idea contained in the bill as an opportunity to have government policy reflect the values that Canadians hold. Let our actions speak louder than our words.

I conclude by urging all members to give the bill serious consideration. It is an opportunity to build Canada and to give the young people across the nation an opportunity to get a good start and to create a good foundation for future generations of our great country.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to the debate on the tax amendments contained in Bill C-28. I have listened to government members heap praise upon themselves for all their great accomplishments. I will focus my comments on the reality and the truth of the matter regarding the government's direction.

A member from the other side earlier mentioned three great pillars of Canada: health, education and social services. There is no disagreement from members on this side, but the truth of the matter and the facts are that the government cut funding to all three of these areas. It cut transfers from $18 billion to $11.5 billion per year and is now about to raise it and pat itself on the back.

Members opposite keep talking about a stable floor of funding. It is obviously doublespeak. They have cut drastically and now they are adding a bit more funding which is significantly lower than the amount of funding in existence before they took power. The reality and the truth is that the government continues to extract more money from hardworking Canadians. Its guiding principle seems to be take a dollar and give a nickel.

Another member from the other side seemed to lack the understanding that taxes can be reduced by making government smaller and reinvesting money back into the priority areas of health, education and social programs. She thinks the two are mutually exclusive. Liberals cannot envision ever decreasing their hold on Canadian tax dollars without taking from some other area.

Let us talk about the $47 billion interest payment that Canadians pay to service the $600 billion debt. That is eating the heart out of social programs. The Liberals are directly responsible for this situation. Let us make no mistake about that.

The fact is that we have high debt and high taxes. Interest rates are also on the increase. Foreign investors are concerned about our economic climate. The Liberals fail to mention the number of businesses and young professionals who are being driven south by high taxes. The fact is all is not well with the economy. The Liberals continue to spend more than they take in, which is in many ways unbelievable given the amount of taxes paid by hardworking Canadians.

We hear about numbers and statistics. The reality for Canadians is that they are working harder and harder to see less and less take home pay to care for their own families. There is less money for mortgage payments and rent, less money for clothes for their kids, less money to put food on the table, less money for them to spend wisely in the areas they deem most important for themselves and the well-being of their families.

I would like to focus on the situation of one family in particular, on one individual who decided to go public with her struggles. Kim Hicks' life became a bit of a case study of Reform's tax reduction plan. Her case was first mentioned in a speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition in this House in the prebudget debate. I will take a brief moment to summarize his story.

Kim Hicks is a mother from New Brunswick who wrote to the leaders of all parties seeking a bright light of encouragement regarding her life, her situation. She and her husband worked extremely hard to make ends meet and to provide for their children. There was always more month left at the end of the money. This letter struck a chord with the Leader of the Opposition. He undertook a project and hired Mrs. Hicks and her family to be a case study to implement Reform's economic plan.

Mrs. Hicks was paid the same amount of money she would save in taxes under the Reform plan. She was to report what she would do with the money for her family. Did she squander the money? No. She paid off debts, first priority. She paid for medical procedures her children needed. She put a portion of the money in a savings account. The remainder was used on a modest outing for some family entertainment.

There are thousands of families across Canada suffering under this Liberal government. This exercise is one of the most valuable case studies on Canadian taxation because it was run by real Canadians making real life decisions. StatsCanada and the finance department can run all the scenarios they want. However, they cannot recreate the real human story that Kim Hicks provided.

One would think that the finance minister would have taken a keen interest in such a study. Then again, what does the finance minister know about paying taxes? Instead of emphasizing with the plight of average Canadians, the finance minister dismissed this exercise as a publicity stunt. I would like to tell the Hicks family, whose lives were made that much more bearable, that their happiness is not a media stunt.

What we are opposed to, the underlying principles of this bill, is that there are more and more complicated, convoluted and confusing tax amendments being made which fly in the face of commitment to a fair, simple and visible form of taxation, something we have long called for on behalf of Canadians across this country. It is high time that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the rest of the Liberal caucus leave cloud nine and take a hard look at the financial state of Canadian families. Our we the best country in the world in which to live because of this government or in spite of it? It is definitely the later.

Canadian families want to see a reduction in their taxes. That is what they are calling on from this government.

[Apec Summit, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, at the APEC summit in Vancouver university student Craig Jones stood on his dormitory lawn and quietly held up a sign that read “Free Speech”. For this he was wrestled to the ground by police and held for 14 hours.

We all know this is of no concern to Sergeant Pepper's crew over there, but I have a question for the government. What involvement did the prime minister's office have in directing the RCMP security operations at the APEC summit?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing that out. I guess I did not make myself very clear on that point.

My point was much larger. It was that the opportunity which I had shaped my world view, the way that I interact with individuals and the frame through which I see life in general. I am basically saying that there would be a difference in the religion courses offered in Newfoundland versus a holistic or religious perspective which would incorporate all aspects of a child's education.