Debates of Feb. 14th, 1995

Supply

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt. May I ask the hon. whether you are taking 20 minutes or splitting your time?

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

The former. I intend to take most of the time allotted because it is an issue raised by my good friend from Capilano-Howe Sound, a gentleman who brings great credentials to the House and to the debate. However, he ought to use more of those credentials in formulating his motion but I will come to that a little later because the effort allowing us to debate this issue is applauded. For that I applaud my friend from Capilano-Howe Sound.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate because the motion does have its merits. I am confident that the merits of the motion will be addressed in the budget which is upcoming.

Unfortunately, however, I have to say to him that the motion is also a bit tainted in several areas by a bit of simplistic thinking. I would have expected something different from him. It is tainted by a search for panaceas that if we do this and this, all of our problems will go away. I do not think he believes that.

Let me emphasize that the government knows full well that Canadians believe taxes are already too high. We agree with them on that. We would get a certain impression if we saw some people trying to start a tax revolt or in Mackenzie King's famous statement: "There go my troops. I must rush out to lead them". I am not sure which it is, whether they want to start the revolt, join the revolt or what. It is either naive or treacherous as the case may be but you decide, Madam Speaker.

Our priority objectives as a government are to stimulate economic growth while putting in place some real fiscal discipline. It is this double barrelled thrust that will ultimately allow us to reduce taxes in the years to come.

Let us remember that the tax and deficit relationship is a two way street. Every dollar of deficit borrowing we accept today will lead to higher taxes tomorrow. Every dollar we can trim from the deficit is a step on the road to keeping the tax burden down.

That is why the government's 1994 budget was in many ways a tax reform and a tax reduction budget. It included measures to eliminate loopholes and to increase tax system fairness and equity. It also committed to direct action to bring down unemployment insurance premiums, a payroll tax that acts as a real barrier to new job creation.

It was also a tax reduction budget because of the firm commitment made by the Minister of Finance to cut the deficit to 3 per cent of the economy in three years. Again, let me make this central point. Fiscal discipline is the key to long term tax

reduction in two ways. Obviously the less we have to borrow, the less we have to tax to repay the loan and its interest.

There is another important dimension to this process. Controlling government's appetite for debt is our fundamental tool for getting interest rates back down. Lower interest rates mean lower carrying costs on our $500 billion debt. Again that means fewer tax dollars that we need to spend.

I understand the tax fatigue that so many Canadians feel. I can appreciate that some may be cynical about the possibility of measures that add to tax revenues today in order to let us cut taxes in future.

That is why the 1994 budget undertook a program of net spending reduction over three years that is the most significant of any budget in a decade. Over 80 per cent of the net fiscal improvement delivered by the 1994 budget over three years came from spending cuts.

In other words, there was $5 in spending cuts for every dollar of new revenue increase. Obviously I am not in a position to talk about the measures that will be set out in the forthcoming budget, but the Minister of Finance has already made it clear that he will rely overwhelmingly on spending cuts to achieve his fiscal targets.

Lower taxes are important and this government is committed to working toward that. In the process we cannot ignore the facts. The views expressed by the opposition on the issue of taxation appear to be partly driven by a belief that Canadians bear one of the highest tax burdens in the world, but there is more political grandstanding than truth in that particular perception.

The Canadian tax foundation, a highly respected non-profit, non-partisan research organization, has recently made this clear. Among the 24 members of the OECD, an organization that includes most of the world's advanced industrial economies, Canada ranks 14th in total tax burden. That represents 36.5 per cent of our gross domestic product compared with the OECD average of 38.8 per cent.

I say to my friend from Wild Rose, if he heard the first part of my speech, yes it is a matter of concern. If the hon. member is going to vent his concern based on facts rather than fantasies he should first get at the facts. Among the 24 countries we are 14th in total tax burden.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Who do we compete with? The U.S. is 29 per cent.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, they have to be given an opportunity to vent in a way they never can in caucus. We might as well let them do it here.

I would never dare be smug about Canada's tax burden. It should be clear by now that I am not endorsing high taxes. We have to face reality squarely which I believe supporters of this motion are failing to do.

When they make comparisons of Canada's tax burden it is typically vis-à-vis the United States. As much as I want lower taxes I have to point out that there are some flaws in that particular comparison with the United States. Contrary to what some hon. members would have us believe, lower taxes in the U.S. do not come without a cost, a financial cost and a human cost.

Take the example of medicare. Medical insurance represents a very substantial cost for millions of Americans and their employers. For the tens of millions without insurance a serious illness can spell personal and financial ruin. If members want to make the comparison between Canadians and Americans, what they ought to do in fairness is either when they are making comparisons deduct the taxes in respect of which we pay for medicare or alternately when they look at the American tax total add in the medical care costs which are hidden in the sense that they are not tax dollars, they are funded elsewhere but represent a cost on the pocket nevertheless.

They are comparing apples and oranges. Either compare the American and Canadian system with medicare written in or with medicare written out. They will find that they do not have such a tax holiday as my good friend would like to suggest.

The point I am making is twofold. First, we have to avoid making comparisons that are simplistic and specious and I would go so far as to say dishonest because they compare apples and oranges. Second, we have to realize that while the opposition's position on taxes sounds a lot like a call for motherhood, it is about a lot more than taxes. It is about the kind of government, the kind of society that we want in Canada.

I can tell the House how to reduce taxes, bring them way down. Sock it to all the poor people, sock it to all the disadvantaged, do away with our medicare system and so on. There is a way to get ever lower taxes. Low taxation, small government versus big government are not objectives in themselves. None of these is an objective in itself. What they do for society ought to be the objective, what they accomplish.

If we are going to go to the extreme of having small government for the sake of small government, I can tell the House how we can make it really small. Let us have no government at all, none.

I take it you have all written in to forfeit your pensions.

The Minister of Finance has said very clearly that government cannot and should not do everything. We too want-

[An hon. member]

He does not do anything.

[An hon. member]

They do nothing except spend money.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Can I get that in writing? He says the government does not do anything. He could have fooled me when I heard his leader yesterday in the House of Commons. I thought he was saying we are doing all kinds of terrible things. Get together, guys. I do not want a fight, especially on Valentine's Day. Let us not have a fight among the kissing cousins in the same caucus. He says we do nothing and the other member says we do a lot. Which is it?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

A lot of nothing.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

The hon. member needs a new writer.

The government was elected to bring the people of Canada leaner, smarter and more efficient government. Even my friend from Elk Island believes that. We were not mandated to wholly eviscerate government.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

What does that mean?

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

As soon as I find out, I will let the member know.

We were not elected to eviscerate, to cut out the you know what of government without regard to the important job it must and can fulfil both today and in the longer term.

The difficulty if we operate from the premise that we do not need a government, as this crowd obviously does, is we have difficulty seeing the wisdom in anything the government does. I happen to believe we need some government.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Some.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Yes, some government and some good government. I say to my friend that we not only have some government, we have good government. The program review we are undertaking is one of the ways in which the government is bringing about smaller, efficient, effective government.

In the last budget the government launched a review of each and every program. Departments were asked to justify programs and activities on the basis of several tests.

[The Speaker]

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Toughlove

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today in my riding of Halifax West many volunteers are out doing fundraising efforts for TOUGHLOVE Canada, a non-profit organization that counsels families in the use of non-violent discipline to resolve behavioural problems with troubled teenagers.

Many doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, parents, teachers and police in my riding have attested to the success of this program in dealing with these troubled teenagers. They have used these methods to change the behaviour of these troubled teenagers and create happier, healthier families.

Halifax West is the home of the national headquarters of TOUGHLOVE Canada. I want to wish these volunteers well in their worthwhile efforts.

Member For Saint-Henri-Westmount

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

"What a victory", Mr. Speaker. "What a victory!" These were the words of Lucienne Robillard, a former minister in the Bourassa government, on being elected as member for Saint-Henri-Westmount in a by-election in which only 30 per cent of registered voters turned out. What a victory indeed.

It reflects little glory on Mrs. Robillard, who systematically refused to take part in any debate during the campaign. For her, the by-election was a mere formality, somewhat like being appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister. Let us hope she knows which door is which when she comes to Ottawa.

She will have to explain statements she made earlier as the Quebec minister for health and education, when she fought against federal interference in these sectors. Does she no longer stand by these statements, which are at odds with the present federal government's approach to social program reform?

Deposit Insurance

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I monitored the work of the Senate committee which studied deposit insurance in the collapse of Confederation Life.

In commenting on the white paper tabled on February 9 by the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, I

believe the secretary of state missed a great opportunity by not recommending some minor form of co-insurance in relation to deposit insurance.

It is vital that discipline be brought to Canada's financial institutions, but discipline must start with the consumer. If the minister had seized this opportunity, then discipline would begin with the consumer and flow through to the institution itself.

In relation to the changes suggested for life insurance companies I hope those who comment on this paper will ask this fundamental question: If the changes suggested were in place in 1990 would Confederation Life have gone bankrupt? It is against this question that the success or failure of these recommendations must be measured.

Canadian Flag

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, February 15, represents the 30th anniversary of Canada's national flag. It is with a great sense of pride that I rise to pay tribute to this momentous day.

Since its inception in 1965 the red maple leaf has become a familiar sight both here and around the world. Whether emblazoned on the shoulders of our peacekeepers, proudly represented by our athletes, or worn by our children, Canada's flag is the defining symbol for the spirit of our people. It has come to represent a united, proud and confident nation. For people all over the world the maple leaf is regarded as a symbol of peace and compassion. It represents tolerance and hope.

On this special anniversary I urge all members of Parliament and in particular our friends in the Bloc Quebecois to reflect on what it means to be a Canadian.

The Economy

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, salaries as high as $250,000 for a university professor or $400,000 for a hospital president are reported in an article in the Sunday Toronto Star .

Taxpayers are also footing the bill for subsidized housing, company cars and undisclosed travel and expense accounts, all without the scrutiny of public accounting.

This situation must change. As the federal government provides a large proportion of funds to the provinces for secondary education and health care, we must ensure that accountability is made a matter of public knowledge.

Youth

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Jim Coombs, who is a member of my riding of Don Valley North, and the board of directors of Eva's Place, North York's first emergency shelter for youth.

It is most encouraging that Canadians understand and appreciate the role which young people play in our society.

The government has been addressing the needs of young Canadians, those often referred to as generation x . In September 1993 there were about 420,000 unemployed young people in Canada. Since the government took office the number of unemployed youth has been reduced by 60,000. The government is committed to creating more jobs for youth and bringing more youth back into the economy.

We must ensure that our young people have the best possible opportunities to lead productive and self-sufficient lives because they are the future of our country.

Eva's Place is a positive step toward addressing the needs and concerns of homeless, abused and often alienated youth. Once again I applaud the board of directors and urge the government to take notice of their achievements.

Riding Of Brome-Missisquoi

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the voters of Brome-Missisquoi exercised their democratic right. For Bloc Quebecois militants, the result is much less disappointing than our political adversaries would like to think. Let it not be forgotten that in the vote on the Charlottetown accord, Brome-Missisquoi was one of the few ridings to vote in favour.

Yesterday the Bloc took 44.5 per cent of the vote, an increase of almost 4 per cent since the general election in October 1993.

The Bloc and its sovereignist option have gained in popularity. In the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, the real loser was the leader of the Conservative Party, with only 3 per cent of the vote.

Petro-Canada

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want Canadians to know that Petro-Canada has altered the lives

of seven-year old Laura Curtis and her parents forever, through an environmental disaster in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

I want Canadians to know that Petro-Canada has wrongly altered the lives of Roger and Marlene Chapates forever through a similar environmental disaster in Jedore, Nova Scotia.

I want Canadians to know that Petro-Canada is abusing its power with many dealers, including Tom Daly of Saint John, New Brunswick and Barry Deacon of Kamloops, British Columbia.

I want Canadians to know that the Liberals are aware of these very serious problems but do nothing.

Most importantly, I want Petro-Canada to know that we want a judicial inquiry into its operations. After the next election our government will hold no shares in this company which states it is committed to Canadians.

Land Claims Agreement

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on February 14, 1973, the late Elijah Harper came to Ottawa to present the first Yukon land claims agreement.

I am pleased that 22 years later, through the efforts of many aboriginal people from the Yukon, from successive governments of different political parties, today we see the proclamation of the Yukon land claims self-government and surface rights legislation.

This is an historic day for all Yukoners. They will benefit from the stability that it gives to our territory and from the respect and dignity it gives First Nations within our territory. Also it has implications for the rest of Canada and for the unity debate that we are once again entering into.

With the Yukon land claims proclamation we see that we can respect other cultures, languages, historical traditions and governments and do it under the flag of Canada.

Anniversary Of The Canadian Flag

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag, a flag which commands respect around the world for what it represents: a wealthy and tolerant country that is open to others.

By celebrating the 30th anniversary we acknowledge the richness of our country and of its people. We recognize what we have been as a country, what we are today as a nation and what we can become by working together to improve the quality of life of all citizens, particularly those who have less.

Tomorrow Canadians everywhere from coast to coast to coast will raise their flag with immense pride.