Madam Speaker, I appreciate the round of applause from my Bloc friends very much.
Coming to the House, I have come to the conclusion that one does not have to be crazy, but it helps. It makes me think of the situation where the inmates are in charge of the asylum.
The government came here on a promise of openness. The government came here on a promise that we were going to be able to get into debate, get into a situation where the people of Canada were going to be represented in the Chamber. As opposed to openness, what have we had? Closure.
I refer to a very profound one-minute statement made by my colleague from Calgary Centre yesterday, and I know that Liberals would want to hear it again:
In opposition the Liberals howled at Brian Mulroney with righteous indignation over his government's use of time allocation to ram through legislation. With such sincere compassion for democracy, one would expect this Liberal government's record in the use of time allocation to be squeaky clean compared to Mulroney. Let us compare.
Mulroney used time allocation 35 times to pass 200 bills. That is 17 per cent of his bills. Shame on him. Counting today's time allocation motion, the little guy from Shawinigan has used time allocation an unprecedented 11 times in only 59 bills. That is 19 per cent of his bills passed using time allocation, 2 per cent more than Mulroney.
Congratulations, Liberals. A parliamentary record. Does this mean that this Prime Minister is less democratic and even more arrogant than Brian Mulroney? Is that possible?
It is a very good question. Time allocation is absolutely inexcusable in that the Liberals have on Bill C-76 turned 180 degrees from their red book. There is no mandate on the part of the government to be able to bring forward Bill C-76.
Why would we be into a situation of time allocation? The House might be interested. The list is moderately exhaustive but it is important to get on record how the government has either exhibited poor management and planning or, in the alternative, legislation by stealth.
Poor management and planning would say it is impossible to understand that the following bills in the Commons are awaiting start or completion of second reading, all of which are supposed to be completed by June 23: Bill C-62, an act respecting the achievement of regulatory goals; Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act; Bill C-78, an act to provide for the establishment of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions; Bill C-81, an act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company; Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint; Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act; Bill C-84, an act to provide for the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents; Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade; Bill C-90, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act; Bill C-91, an act to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the name Business Development Bank of Canada; and Bill C-92, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board.
That is not all. The next list is of bills in committee: Bill C-7, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act; Bill C-58, an act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; Bill C-61, an act to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for the enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act; Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity; Bill C-66, an act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act; Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons; Bill C-72, an act to amend the Criminal Code on self-induced intoxication; and Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
I might have something to say about that act in a couple of minutes.
The list continues: Bill C-86, an act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act; Bill C-87, an act to implement the convention on the prohibition of the development, production stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction; and Bill C-89, an act to provide for the continuance of the Canadian National Railway Company under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Then we have bills awaiting or in report stage: Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code on sentencing; Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act; Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services; Bill C-65, an act to recognize and dissolve certain federal agencies; Bill C-70, an act to amend the income tax application rules; Bill C-75, an act to amend the Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-Operatives Loans Act; and Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27.
Just to top it off, bills awaiting start or completion of third reading: Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Act, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
It begs the question of why the backlog is sitting there. Is the government actually in a situation of such poor management and planning that it would be expecting the House to be working exhaustive hours and that it would be expecting to be able to shove this kind of legislative package through in such a short period of time because of poor management and planning? Is that the reason, or is it legislation by stealth?
Legislation by stealth happens when a government decides it will regularly and frequently use time allocation, as pointed out by my colleague from Calgary Centre. One interesting things happens when we get into legislation by stealth. We end up with legislation by exhaustion.
The standing committee that considered Bill C-68 finally rose at 1 a.m. I sat in on a few sessions which were very detailed and thoughtful. I commend the chairman of the committee for listening to all sides of the question, treating the motions by the opposition as serious motions, and allowing time for discussion.
To show the House how we end up with legislation by exhaustion, the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister brought in no less than 79 amendments to the legislation on behalf of the justice minister. Why in the world would a bill be so flawed, so full of holes, so badly drafted that the government would actually have to bring in 79 amendments to its own legislation? That is unheard of.
It is really hilarious that in committees there are a few rogues but as a general rule we find members vote the party line. The parliamentary secretary who sits in the meeting will say: "I really don't think this is good". Guess what? We end up with party members voting the party line. That is the way it happens in the House too.
In this instance I am happy to report that under legislation by exhaustion, as is being practised by the government, 2 of the 79 amendments brought forward by the parliamentary secretary were rejected by members of his own caucus. That is how disorganized the Liberals are. That is what happens when we end up with legislation by stealth and hence legislation by exhaustion.
It permits rushing bills through the House such as Bill C-76. The government has no mandate to bring it to the House. It allows the government to push it through under time allocation. It will also be able to push through Bill C-68 and Bill C-41, two of the more contentious bills, under the whole ruse of time allocation and pressure because there is so much legislation. It could have and should have been properly planned so the people of Canada and their points of view would be properly represented.
In a couple of minutes I will talk about the relationship of high taxation to Bill C-76 and the lack of understanding on the part of the Liberals with respect to high taxation. Before doing so, I quote the from an article in the Calgary Sun on the weekend entitled ``Tax cheats grow'' about the frustrations of Canadians:
COMPAS' survey of 820 adult Canadians last month showed respondents frustrated by corrupt politicians, government waste, overpaid officials and high taxes, in that order.
It's a common sense moral view that says if our leaders cheat I'm going to cheat.
I want to make it very clear that I am not suggesting for one minute anyone in the House is cheating.
However I am talking about the perception of many Canadians in casual situations around the kitchen table or in a coffee shop. Common sense says that they do not understand what politicians are doing and think they are out of control. That is why I find legislation by subterfuge, legislation by pressure, to be completely unacceptable particularly when it comes to the issue of MPs pensions.
MPs pensions are a focal point or a pressure point the government chooses to completely misunderstand. Just because a few high paid people are at the front end who are in for the millions of dollars, the majority of backbenchers are prepared to go along with it. It is absolutely outstanding. In this case we have pressure on parliamentarians to bring the matter forward. I predict the MPs pension plan will be slid into the House and out of the House just as quickly as possible. Therein lies the frustration of people with coffee shop common sense.
I will deal with the bill specifically. Clause 38 of Bill C-76 gives cabinet far too much arbitrary power and discretion to decide how much to withhold and when and why transfers to provinces should be withheld. More significant, it allows cabinet to withhold any federal transfers, not just transfers under the CHST.
Clause 48 is probably the single most troubling clause. In the departmental briefing our researchers attended, officials told them their legal interpretation of section 13(3) was that it would be possible for the federal government to unilaterally impose national standards. If the government cannot provide us with a guarantee that any national standard must be arrived at with unanimous provincial consent, we could not possibly support the clause.
We have a tremendous amount of difficulty with clause 50 and clause 51. They deal with the whole Liberal mindset of giving the government executive power, giving the government power that actually puts it in a position where it no longer has to refer to the House.
I think back to last June when we were in the pressure cooker. The government jammed through legislation on the Yukon Indian land claim settlements and Yukon self-government. It was jammed through the House. The difficulty is that although there were 14 land claims settled, only 4 were covered by the legislation. It means that kind of thing can come back to Ottawa and never see the House. There can be further settlements on behalf of the people of Canada by a closed group of people in the executive of government. It will never have the transparency that it must have in a democracy. It is just absolutely unacceptable.
We really have a lot of difficulty with clauses 50 and 51 in Bill C-76. Basically they give cabinet too much authority with respect to determining what is or what is not a violation of the CHST. They allow the government to withhold any federal transfer, not just the CHST transfer, if it concludes there has been a violation.
This raises the question of why they would do it. Why would they have this executive power? Why would they put this clout in the hands of the federal government? One of the main reasons is that it is a confused attempt to control social expenditures.
The government is famous for saying that it will be preserving health care. What an empty threat. As it keeps on diminishing the amount of money that is transferred to the provinces to administer the program, how in the world will they have any clout to preserve health care? The difficulty I have is the basic question that if the government is talking about preserving health care and if the government is doing away the ability to transfer funds to the people, how will it do it? It will do it by having the legislation and being able to point to the legislation. It is basically like saying we know we will not be transferring any money but if we could, we would not. It is an absolute joke.
It also gives rise to concern about what is happening in Ontario where Lyn McLeod with her Liberal red book has absolutely laid an egg. The provincial red book being brother of big red book is seen for what it is, basically empty promises.
I and every person in Canada with the exception of members on the other side have seen from the time that Lyn McLeod introduced the red book her popularity started to slide. It is because people said they will not be taken in again.
With the will of the people of Ontario talking about workfare and with these clauses that give the ability to the federal government to withhold funds, is the will of the people of Ontario to be thwarted by the people in Ottawa who will say they will not be transferring sufficient funds for a workfare program? It has to be considered.
I talked earlier about tax increase. One of the wildest ones was the roll back of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. Capital is capital, money is money; whether public or private, money is money and should be treated exactly the same way.
This was a direct slap to the people of Alberta. I am absolutely astounded the Minister of Natural Resources of all people did not have the fortitude to stand up to this onslaught on people and industries in Alberta. It is really shameful she backed off and was not there to be counted.
Perhaps I should explain my understanding of what the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act is. Crown corporations such as B.C. Hydro and Ontario Hydro are not subject to certain tax provisions from the federal government, whereas private corporations that might be in the same utility business such as Trans Alta and other corporations like that are.
The purpose of the PUITTA was to give a credit. In other words, the public utility privately owned would then end up paying the taxes and receive a credit back from the federal government. By rolling it back the government under a different guise and under a different name basically gave a tax increase to the people who rely on the utilities in Alberta. It was not only Alberta, it was Nova Scotia and Labrador, two areas that can least afford that kind of subterfuge in terms of a tax increase.
In the case of Nova Scotia, one of the most interesting things is that there was an attempt on the part of the provincial government to turn around and get out of the hydro business. I suggest it is something that might be considered by Ontario Hydro, B.C. Hydro and the rest of the public utilities. There is a place for government and there is a place for private enterprise and the efficiencies that come with private enterprise.
Now if it does we can count on the fact that the federal government will have its hands in the wallets of the people of any other jurisdiction who choose to make what could be a very sound judgment otherwise.
I see two fundamental problems. I combine the issues of integrity and leadership. From the Financial Post : High taxes turn Canadians into cheats''. I will quickly address the question of integrity and leadership. From a June 3 article concerning a poll done recently for the <em>Financial Post</em> :
They cheated because they were disgusted with governments, politicians, regulations, the welfare system, bureaucrats and excessive taxation. Excessive pay to officials and politicians, government waste and especially political corruption are the main drivers of citizens' desires to tax cheat. The message for politicians is they should focus on their own personal conduct if they do not want citizens to destroy the welfare state through the silent rebellion of tax cheating.
"Besides documenting the degree of outrage and dissatisfaction with the government in this country this poll reveals that Canada's current levels of taxation are simply not collectable from a large segment of the population. Put another way, it means that most Canadians are unwilling to support the current level of government spending".
That is instructive because in the Reform Party's taxpayers budget we recognize that. We balance the budget. We stop the overspending within three years without one dime of a tax increase. This survey absolutely underscores that. I repeat: "Put another way, it means that most Canadians are unwilling to support the current level of government spending". There is absolutely nothing to give me any cause for comfort that the government has that message yet.
What happens when the government does not listen? What happens to taxes and tax cheats? Here are a few of the points discovered by this survey. Two out of five or 42 per cent admitted paying cash for goods or services in order to avoid taxes, GST or provincial sales taxes. One out of five or 20 per cent admitted they have hidden income in order to evade income tax.
Another 14 per cent said they have either smuggled or bought smuggled cigarettes or alcohol to avoid paying taxes on these commodities; 72 per cent said they would pay cash to avoid taxes if given the opportunity; 56 per cent said they would hide income if they could; 34 per cent said they would buy smuggled cigarettes or alcohol or smuggle them into Canada if they had the opportunity; 13 per cent admit they cheated whenever possible by paying cash; 5 per cent hid income whenever possible; 3 per cent bought contraband goods or smuggled goods whenever possible.
Further on in the survey it was pointed out that 15 per cent of Canadians said they will definitely tax cheat in the future by paying cash under the table; 8 per cent said they would hide income; 5 per cent would buy contraband or smuggle goods. Of all surveyed, 53 per cent said they personally know people who pay cash under the table; 37 per cent said they know cigarette or alcohol smugglers or buyers of contraband; 36 per cent said they had knowledge of people cheating by hiding their income.
A staggering 77 per cent of those polled said they have become more determined to avoid taxes than before. Of this percentage, 42 per cent said they are much more determined to avoid taxes; 35 per cent said somewhat more determined. Only 16 per cent are less or somewhat less determined to avoid paying taxes in the future.
This comes about in my judgment through the lack of a clear exhibition of integrity and leadership on the part of politicians. We have a core problem, integrity.
I have come to know some of the government members and I appreciate them, their friendship and their integrity. In the last election under the red book and under the promises and under the whole political process, were they ignorant that they could not fulfil the promises or did they get into government by stealth?
There is one person in my mind in the House who stands out as being a person of quite exceptional integrity. This person was joined by the member for Halifax and the member for Beaches-Woodbine in a press conference clearly setting out his objections to Bill C-76. All three of them were absolutely decrying Bill C-76, how it could not work, how it should not work, how it was turning its back on the principles under which the government was elected. All three did it and only one of them still stands to this day, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
Let me make my position really clear. There are very few things which the member and I would find in common. I totally disagree with his position on gun control. I completely disagree with his position on criminal sentencing and the rest of those provisions, and I absolutely reject his position on Bill C-76. He came to the House, elected by the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce to represent them as their member of Parliament. He said he would stand up for what he knows to be right.
In a quote from the Ottawa Citizen today, under the member's name who will vote against the budget:
Accusing the Liberals of betraying their principles and reneging on campaign promises to protect social programs, the veteran member is planning to vote against his government's budget today.
"I cannot contribute to tearing down a system which I for 29 years in the House helped build up with the Liberal Party", (he) told the Commons during final debate Monday on a bill to implement last February's budget.
The bill contains provisions to cut $7 billion from federal transfers to the provinces for welfare, post-secondary education and health care and role those transfers into one block fund.
(He) predicted the social program cuts will hit those in need the hardest, "widen the gap between the rich and poor" and lead to "social unrest and increased crime". And he said they could "quick start or aggravate a recession that might be coming on".
I want to reiterate I do not agree with the member's point of view. I would find it impossible to stand with him when he votes against this bill on the same matter of principle. I think he is completely wrong. It even borders on being immoral when the government of the day turns around and says to members on the gun control bill: "You did not vote our way, you are out".
This member has been an outstanding chair of the justice committee. What will happen? Is the Prime Minister to oust him as well? What happens when he does? What he does then is undermine the whole issue of integrity and leadership on the part of politicians.
In 1994 the government had a unique opportunity. It is true that its members came to Ottawa either in ignorance or stealth, misunderstanding the reality of what was involved with the economics of the day, totally missing the mark, decrying the fact that the Reform Party had the audacity to tell people the biggest single problem was the debt and the way it was eroding social programs.
In 1994 they missed the opportunity. They arrived here with unrealistic expectations, and clearly the budget of 1994 showed that. In Bill C-76 and under the budget of the finance minister for the first time in 25 years we saw a real cut in spending of a net reduction of approximately $10 billion. Unfortunately because the government arrived here with unrealistic expectations, in the intervening period from October 1993 until February 1995 guess what? Interest charges had increased $10 billion. Here we have this government taking $7 billion out of social spending, a total reduction in expenses of $10 billion, which will impact everyone in Canada, only to pay the extra interest on the money that they have had to borrow in the same period of time. It is called treading water.
At the moment under the government we are giving away our sovereignty. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Right now we are turning that tune over to foreign investors who are coming in and in their own wisdom are continuing to fund the expenditure binge of the government.
The government is taking Canadians $110 million further into debt every single day. That is $1,800 per second. We are further and further into debt. We are destroying our ability to sustain health care and pensions.
I decry the government's lack of leadership and its offloading on to provinces. It fails to realize that there really is only one taxpayer.
I also draw to the attention of the House and to Canadians the fact that it is bringing pressure and through that pressure are bringing interesting ways to be able to push legislation through the House.
I call on Canadians to make the government accountable. Do not give it the free ride it is getting at the moment. Make it accountable in its constituencies by phone.
Finally, in bringing forward Bill C-76 the government shows a lack of integrity, because there is no mandate for it to bring forward Bill C-76. As a consequence, I will be voting against Bill C-76.