Debates of Dec. 11th, 1997

Committees Of The House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question. It was incredible to go across the country to listen to the people in Saint John talk about living on $89 a month of welfare.

I agree with the member that poverty is too high. I agree with her that student debt is a huge issue. There has been a human cost which we heard about in spades when we travelled across the country. However, I would also underscore that if we had not made these difficult decisions and we had not achieved this balance we could not then redress these issues.

We are now in a position where we can make meaningful decisions about reinvesting.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend who detailed very accurately that the finance committee travelled extensively. It met with many Canadians.

After reading the report carefully I wonder whether or not the committee listened to the people with whom it met. Much of what I heard people from coast to coast to coast say is not reflected very accurately in the report. I would not say it is not reflected at all. That would be silly. I think it is called keeping the balance.

We heard that the country was not in balance, that it was out of kilter, and that the weights were a bit lopsided. For some Canadians things are going incredibly well. I know my hon. friend is very serious in her work and would agree that for many Canadians life has actually never been better.

For bankers and those holding bank stock today, man alive, this is as good as it gets. The stock market is skyrocketing. A lot of people are saying that exports are up and they have never done better. It is actually true that many Canadians will have a fantastic holiday. There will be champagne corks on Bay Street and on main streets of the country, wherever there are financial institutions.

The chartered banks are booming with historically high profits. Another set of banks are doing a booming business, the nearly 1,000 food banks across the country. We should be embarrassed this afternoon, speaking in the House of Commons and knowing that there are nearly 1,000 food banks. In fact they have serious problems because there is not enough food for hungry people.

There are 1.4 million children living in poverty. Only one industrialized nation has a worse record than Canada's and that is the United States. We are second from the bottom in terms of accepting the reality that there are poor children in this country.

[An hon. member]

We are behind Albania.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

My friend says “We are behind Albania”. I do not think we should compare ourselves with Albania. Of the western industrialized nations we are second from the bottom. We have been there for many years.

What is the government doing about it? Have things improved in the last year? Have things improved in the last two or three years? They have worsened over that time. Since 1989 more than half a million children have been added to the rolls of children living in poverty. This is bordering on immorality. This is simply unacceptable.

I suspect some of my friends will say that this is inevitable when we are trying to get the fundamentals in order. We hear that regularly. This is one fundamental that we do not have in order. When there are 1.4 million children living in poverty this afternoon, and the number will have grown by the time the weekend is over, that is not a country with its fundamentals in order.

I know the government will say that it has balanced the books. We will know the books have been balanced properly when all Canadians can balance their own books, and that is not the case today.

We should not rest easy because to accept this number of young people living in poverty is wrong. It is not to say that this is necessary. In some countries there are no poor children. In some western industrialized nations a poor child cannot be found. The reason a poor child cannot be found is that there are no poor parents.

[An hon. member]

Where is that?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Norway and Denmark. No poor children are living in the country of Denmark today, not a one.

[An hon. member]

You are wrong.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

I challenge the Liberal member who is challenging me. Let the record show that my Liberal friend is saying that I am wrong, that there are poor children living in the country of Denmark. There are not.

My friends opposite do not even know the facts. They do not know the reality. They are saying that all countries have poor children. Not all countries have poor children.

I remember when we kicked off our hearings with my hon. friends. They are honourable friends; they take their work seriously. They worked hard and they met with all sorts of people. I wonder if they listened, however. The Minister of Finance kicked off the hearings by saying that we have now cut up our credit card.

It is easy to resolve the deficit crisis if it is simply passed on to everybody else, if it is passed on to students. The average student debt is more than $25,000. It is easy to get rid of a deficit problem by asking everybody else to take out four or five extra credit cards.

The government passes it along to the provinces with major cuts in health care, major cuts in education, major cuts in social programs, and major cuts in the granting agencies for research facilities across the country. It puts the provinces in more debt to resolve its debt load.

There is something even more cynical. One reason we do not have a deficit today is that the government has been dipping into the EI fund. The government is letting all working people and employers contribute through payments to the EI fund. It will dip into that to pay down the deficit on the backs of working people. It is easy to do, but does it really solving the deficit and debt crisis?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

My friend says “Yes”. They are simply fobbing it off on other people, hard pressed provincial governments and citizens.

We have heard that essentially the deficit war has been won. Let us acknowledge the real heroes of the deficit war. Is it the Minister of Finance?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

As a matter of fact I suspect he is a lot richer than he was five years ago. Is it members of the Liberal cabinet?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Is it the members of the Liberal caucus?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

The real heroes, the real people who made this deficit war work for the Minister of Finance are—

[An hon. member]

The Tories.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Somebody had the audacity to say “The Tories”. Absolutely not. I remember those heady days with interest rates of 20%, deficits going up by the second, debt skyrocketing and so on. No, that is not the answer.

Let us say who are the real heroes of the deficit war. They are the students, thousands of students who leave universities and colleges with massive debt loads. They are the real heroes. Another set of heroes are the men, women and children lined up on waiting lists to get into hospitals for critical surgery. They cannot get in because of the cutbacks in health care. They are the real heroes.

The 1.4 million children living in poverty today, their moms and dads, are the real heroes of the deficit war. The many thousands of people who declare bankruptcy every single month of the year are the real heroes. It is not hundreds, not thousands, but many thousands who declare bankruptcy month after month. Personal bankruptcies have never been so high in Canadian history. Business bankruptcies have never been so high in Canadian history.

I am simply saying these are the people who have sacrificed in order for this government to say the deficit war has been won. If these are the real casualties of the war, if these are the people who fought and won the war, should they not be the people who should receive the benefits now that the war is over? No. Are they going to receive the benefits? No.

The government says across the board tax cuts are out. My friends in the Reform Party say they should be in. It is fair to say to my friends on the finance committee, it was clear that Canadians said that they are out, that across the board tax cuts are simply not what they require or even request at this time. Some selected tax cuts, yes.

The government decided that the people who need to have a tax break are the people who pay the maximum into RRSPs. We can lift the ceiling of an RRSP so that those people who have $13,000 or $14,000 in loose change at the end of the year will be able to put more money in. Is this a priority in our country?

Madam Speaker, how many tax filers actually use the maximum RRSP contribution? One per cent? If you said 2% you would be too high. Less than 2% of Canadians now use the maximum RRSP contribution. But the government said we have to raise that to assist that 1% of tax filers as a priority tax measure. This is maddening and it is sort insane. No wonder people look at this place and ask “Who are those folks? What on earth are they doing? What have they been smoking? Where have they been? Who have they listened to?”

May I suggest a tax break that would help everybody, that would help every single citizen of this country immediately. One that would put money into the hands of every single individual, particularly those who have been hardest hit during these tough economic times. It would help every business person, every consumer, every working person, people dependent on social services. That break would be to begin to phase down the GST immediately.

Why would the government not start to phase down the GST? After all, we all remember when it was said that we need the GST to pay down the deficit. The deficit has been paid down. Therefore it would make sense that we start phasing out the GST. Imagine the kind of signal it would send from this place if the Minister of Finance rose on budget day and said “We have now essentially wrestled this deficit lion to the ground. We said we needed the GST to accomplish this. It has been accomplished and now we are going to repay the people. We are going to start phasing out the GST from 7% to 5% in the first year”.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Nelson for finance minister.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Thank you. This is a proposal. It is not a radical proposal. We have heard it from many people. A number of people during our intervention suggested we do that.

A number of my friends from the finance committee are here. How many people asked us to raise the ceiling on the RRSP maximum? Maybe three or four. How many people asked us for goodness sake to get rid of this GST as soon as possible? Most people. Which ones did we listen to? We met with them all, but which ones did we listen to?

We all acknowledge in this House that the GST is one of the most regressive taxes that has been introduced in many years. It is a regressive tax which the Tories introduced. They were mean spirited at the time. They said, “We are going to get those Canadians”. And the Liberals opposed it. I remember the current Minister of Finance standing in this House pounding his desk and saying that it is regressive because it hits poor people the hardest. Now is the chance to change that.

We heard advice from Canadians and there were some themes that came through very clearly. One was to increase funding for health care. Health care is what distinguishes our country from most others. It distinguishes what Canadians feel strongly about from others. It is almost a Canadian icon. Canadians from coast to coast and at least 80% of the people who appeared before the finance committee said to strengthen our support for health care.

Some said to do it even if it required an increase in taxation. They said, “We feel so strongly about being able to access quality health care no matter where we live in this country and no matter what our incomes, a one tier system, we want you to take that as a priority in terms of your recommendations”.

What they did not say is to keep funding at $12.5 billion. That is what the Liberals on the finance committee said but that is not what people said. That is rock bottom. If there is one thing that is clear from any province and territory is that our health care system is in a crisis.

Like many others, I do not believe that providing more money is the answer. It is only part of the answer. Even if we provided a few billion dollars more we would still be far below the cost of health care than we would find in the United States. It would seem to me that should be a priority we ought to follow.

Education is the second thing I want to talk about. When we are indebting our graduates as we are today with huge debt loads, does it indicate that we put a priority on education? Other countries that really value higher education go the ultimate mile and do not put up any hurdles to people and have removed tuition fees. Whether it is in grade 10, grade 12, grade 15 or grade 17, there is no cost to education.

Those countries make the assumption that if they invest in their citizens, it enables them to get the training and education they desire and can accomplish so that they will be contributing citizens then for the rest of their lives. They will repay the country many, many times in terms of the contribution they will make to the country's economy.

This is something we could do if we were bold. Or at least we could go beyond the minor little steps that we have taken and tell people that we must have better ways of easing the debt load and providing better grants to students who are in particular need. But we do not. We might think of something else when we talk about the tax system. We might take a lead from certain countries.

Ireland for example says that it wants to support its cultural industry, the creators, the composers, the writers. A composer or a writer, an artist of that nature in the country of Ireland will not pay any income tax at all. That country values its creators, it values those people in society who are writers and composers. Those individuals will not pay any income tax at all in Ireland. Has this made Ireland bankrupt? No it has not. Has this encouraged Ireland's cultural sector? Yes it has.

These are things that countries do that are bold. They send a clear signal to people that they are serious about encouraging particular investment.

Let us acknowledge a new trend in our country that our tax system does not reflect at all. The vast majority of jobs created in Canada in the last three years have been in the self-employed sector, individuals who are essentially creating their own enterprise. As a matter of fact, 87% of new jobs in the last three years have been created in the self-employed sector. The rest almost exclusively have been created in the small business sector. I am talking three, four or five people in a firm. Does our tax system reflect the needs of these new entrants into the economy? No it does not. Not at all.

I am just saying that in acknowledging the changes that are taking place our tax system needs a major overhaul in order that we reflect the reality of our economy and encourage, support and show our concern for those who are out there creating wealth, jobs and opportunities.

I do want to acknowledge a good point in the report. There are actually a number of good points in the report. It recognizes that without research and development through to production primarily, Canada continues to fall behind in an ever competing economy.

We heard from the granting councils that we need to restore funding in these areas to send a signal to the most creative elements in our economy that yes, we appreciate research and development. We appreciate the scientific research that is being done both in terms of applied and pure research. We have taken a small step in that direction by suggesting to the Minister of Finance that funding in some of these crucial areas be increased. So this is a slight move in the right direction.

I want to emphasize that to say the fundamentals of our economy are in place is simply wrong. The average family income since 1989 has fallen by 5%. Every other industrialized nation has seen theirs increase and ours has actually fallen. There are 530,000 more children living in poverty today than there were in 1989. The number of food banks in Canada has tripled and the proportion of the population relying on them has doubled. The number of Canadians filing for personal bankruptcy is at an historic high. I could go on and on.

When we talk about the economy of Canada, it is appropriate that we talk about at least two economies, one which is working for an ever reduced number of people and the other which reflects a social deficit, an economy where people continue to struggle. More than one million people are out of work. Seventy per cent of the young people in this country are jobless. Many who are working have three or four part time jobs at minimum wage. They are barely surviving. They are entering the ranks of the working poor.

We have much work to do. It is time that the government stopped listening to the bankers of the country and started listening to the ordinary citizens of Canada, in the rural areas, in the small communities, in the suburbs of the cities and see what it is they require.

In closing, I want to wish you, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues in the House of Commons a merry Christmas.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to a seasoned politician speak on any article of business that we deal with in the House, although I have to admit that some of the ideas on which the hon. member was expounding are half-baked.

For the last 24 months our interest rates have been at historic lows. Quite frankly it took about 18 months for the economy to kick in because of the low interest rates.

The member talked about tax breaks. That is something which will cost the government immediately. When tax revenue is taken away, the government has lost revenue. It has to be replaced in some way. On top of that, he talked about extra spending. That is more expenditure.

How much of a deficit would the hon. member like to see the government incur to implement the half-baked ideas on which he has been expounding? How much more would he like to put the country into debt?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, where do I begin?

First, I want to acknowledge that the province of Saskatchewan reduced its provincial sales tax in its last budget. It was the first provincial government to have a balanced budget. It runs the most efficient government in Canada. My friends laugh. I would ask my friend to suggest a province which is more efficient in terms of the number of provincial employees per capita.

While the federal government was cutting back drastically on social programs to fight the war on the deficit, and while other provincial governments were doing the same, one province was not. One province decided not to cut social programs and actually added to the amount of money expended for hospital programs and health care. That province was the first to balance its budget.

There is a very clear alternative to look at in this country compared to all of the other provincial governments combined.

My friend's question is legitimate. When we advocate a particular proposal, we ought to have a way to fund it. Let me answer by way of example.

We have suggested that the tobacco companies get out of the funding of cultural and sports programs. The cultural and sports program says that if they do that, they will then not get the appropriate funding and will be unable to continue.

By adding less than 1¢ to a package of cigarettes in tax, they will provide more money than is expended in all those areas right now. That is for one penny a cigarette pack.

I would say that if we cannot eliminate tobacco advertising from all sporting and cultural events and the cost will be to impose a 1¢ increase on the taxation on a package of cigarettes, that is where we would get the money. It is easy for my hon. friend to say where will they get the money. I should tell him one more thing. I do not think he is aware of it.

That is, during our hearings—I know some of my hon. friends on the finance committee will acknowledge this—when Dr. Jim Stanford came before the committee, he showed that if the government had merely frozen spending at the 1995 levels and waited for economic growth and lower interest rates, the finance minister would have beaten his own timetable and still have reduced Canada's deficit to the lowest level in the G-7.

Put simply, the cuts that took place were not necessary to achieve the deficit reduction targets of the Minister of Finance. I think this is very important to point out. I might just add to my friend's question that if they are putting on targets to reduce the debt now, which I think is appropriate, we should also be putting targets on to reduce the level of unemployment in the country.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey made a comment that I have to say was only half true. He said that the ideas of the hon. member for Kamloops were half baked. I think they are fully baked.

Unless I misunderstood him, he suggested that artists should be tax exempt, that they should not have to pay taxes. All I can say to that is if this is the kind of logic which has been advanced in the House of Commons, it is no wonder our country is $600 billion in debt and the Canada pension plan has an unfunded liability of $560 billion. This is why Canadians are taxed to death.

Is that the kind of logic that has been advanced in this House for the past 20 or 30 years? Is that how we got here? That is my question. I would like anyone who has been here for maybe a term or two to answer that. Is that what has been going on here? I am really curious.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not used to that category of question, the scintillating intellectual depth of such a question. However, I will do my best to respond to my hon. friend.

He has identified a rather crucial point. That is, over the last number of years governments on this side, regardless of whether they were Conservatives or Liberals, have seen fit to have a tax system that enabled year after year after year tens of thousands of profitable corporations to pay no income tax at all.

I have been listening now for almost five years to my friends in the Reform Party and I have never heard a single Reform member ever once suggest that we should change that part of the tax system.

Perhaps my friend is extraordinary. He is in many respects, I suggest, and maybe he holds this progressive view. I have yet to hear a single Reform member criticize the fact that our tax system presently allows, in the last analysis, 62,000 profitable corporations to not pay a single penny in income tax.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me say that I always enjoy my friend from Kamloops when he gets up in this House. Of course, he has decades of experience to tell us about the issues of the day and the issues of the past number of decades.

The fact of the matter is that when the New Democrats are in opposition as they were in British Columbia, and even when they were in government in British Columbia, they said that they balanced the budget.

Of course, after the election the balanced budget was not there. It was an aberration. There are some lawsuits that are going on regarding, I believe, some recalls.

When we had the New Democrats in the province of Ontario run in the election, they made all sorts of claims. They had a platform called “Agenda for People” that they tried to burn after the election in case anybody took them seriously. Of course, after one term they were relegated back to their traditional place.

My hon. friend has the best suntan on that side of the House, and I applaud him for it. That might explain why it may be half-baked, fully-baked. Let us just settle on the best suntan on that side of the House.

Further, let me suggest that when he uses some of his rhetoric, I sit on this side in my second term, thinking to myself that if we could get the time of their speeches cut in half, as a country that would make a significant contribution to global warming.

I have a question for the member. He tells the House that there are no poor people in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I do not totally accept that. I certainly hope that he can somehow prove to the House that is the case.

The member talked about intellectual honesty and consistency. Then he said that we have to give more money for health care because the Americans spend more money on health care. If he is going to introduce those countries as a model, he should stand in the House and say that those countries spend 2% to 3% less on health care.

I would like the hon. member to reconcile those two points.