Art Hanger

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

This of course is unsettling to bureaucrats and to politicians who want to retain control over all aspects of the government. It is control that this government really would like to maintain.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

There are no Conservatives in Alberta. I obviously appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue.

To say the least, I cannot begin to stress how disappointed I have been with the treatment of our Canadian forces and how this government has impacted on their well-being and their effectiveness.

Again my surprise is that the motion comes from one of the two parties that really contributed to the problems we see in our military today. It was the Tories who continued to gut the forces during their disastrous tenure in government. I do not think they have a whole lot to offer in this debate apart from the fact of making it a debate. I certainly agree with them on that issue.

Our military exists fundamentally to protect the freedoms of our country. It is a proud institution which has distinguished itself in two world wars, the Korean war, the gulf war and a myriad of other international conflicts. Our peacekeepers have set the international standard for competence, professionalism and humanitarianism.

Unfortunately the past 30 or so years have seen an increasing tendency by the federal government to neglect its responsibilities to the Canadian forces. Decreased funding, increased bureaucratization, failing equipment and a decreasing standard of living have taken an enormous toll on the morale of the forces. I am going to throw in one other item because I believe that military justice is a key aspect to morale.

If we see a two tier system as is present with only some tinkering done with Bill C-25 which the government is introducing we are not going to see morale improve a whole lot. I find that rather unsettling. The government has had years to make corrections to the military justice system and to the defence act and has failed to do so until now. And when it does so, it is superficial to say the least.

When I talk about decreased funding, increased bureaucratization, failing equipment and a decreased standard of living having taken its toll on morale there is no question that these evils are also cutting into the forces' operational capabilities. Members of the forces are now in the uncomfortable and often unrealistic position of being asked to perform duties with outdated equipment and with insufficient financial support for themselves and for their families.

The auditor general's report released about two or three weeks ago clearly puts the military at a disadvantage when it comes to their equipment and the way they are being administered.

Touching briefly on those points, first is decreased funding. For too many years successive governments, and the very government which ran up higher and higher deficits, cut mercilessly into the heart of DND, into the military. It seemed that DND served as the sacrificial lamb whenever governments wanted to take an overt demonstration of cutbacks. It is easy to whack somebody who cannot defend themselves.

The inefficiencies of the operation continued behind the scenes. When it came to showing the public how the government was balancing the budget, it was balanced on the backs of those who cannot defend themselves. There are no advocates for the military on that side of the House. None. When the government wanted to make this demonstration these cutbacks were always deemed as belt tightening. Unfortunately at some point belt tightening became limb amputation.

During the 1993 election, Reform proposed that the military's budget should be preserved at approximately $11 billion. We argued that this was already too low for the military to function effectively but we felt that $11 billion was a realistic figure which could be justified when compared to other government obligations. We argued that a strong military is an essential resource and therefore should be protected along with other government necessities. In other words cuts should come from somewhere else.

Since 1993 the DND budget has been cut to just over $9 billion. Now even the auditor general is warning that equipment is getting dangerously outdated.

Let us talk about bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a term that the Liberal side of the House understands to perfection. Perhaps the greatest mistake the Canadian government ever made with respect to the forces was folding it into the government bureaucracy and treating it as though it were just another government department. This had a number of disastrous effects.

First of all it fostered a sense of careerism which had not previously existed. Many military leaders that have the military and the country at heart have made it very clear to this government that this was going to happen. It refused to listen. Suddenly, advancement in bureaucracy replaced advancement in the military chain of command. Kowtowing to bean counting bureaucrats became essential for career development.

The military is not and should never be just another government department. The very nature of the military requires that it exist outside the bureaucracy but is still accountable to parliament, words that are going to be difficult to swallow on that side of the House which really does not appreciate many democratic principles.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today, although I have to say I am somewhat surprised that this motion came forth from the fifth party, the Conservative Party, from parts of the maritimes and from parts of Quebec.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, to address the comments of the minister about debt, and also the Conservative Party, I do not think either one of those parties can claim to be on the high ground in that area. After all there is a $600 billion debt. The Conservatives added $250 billion. The Liberals trashed the taxpayer by adding another $100 billion since they have come into office. Nobody can claim the high ground.

In speaking about the military, I just came out of committee on Bill C-25. It became evident on how undemocratic our process really is. This bill is coming from the top down. I ask the minister, in producing a bill and pushing it down to committee, why does he not give the committee more power to adjust, make amendments and do what is right for the military through that process?

[National Defence, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a matter of opinion as to whether the minister suffers any ill effects from the vaccine. I think the minister should get a second opinion.

Health Canada granted the department permission to use the anthrax vaccine. Before it was granted that permission, was Health Canada aware that the food and drug administration in the United States forced the production plant to shut down because of these safety concerns?

[National Defence, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House certainly support the use of vaccines and other protective measures against chemical and biological threats to our military personnel. However, we also want to ensure the safety of these vaccines. Since the American manufacturer of the anthrax vaccine was cited for violations by the food and drug administration over a year ago, did the Department of National Defence conduct an independent inspection of the vaccine before it was issued to Canadian troops?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address my serious concerns regarding Bill C-28. Just as a refresher, this bill amends at least 18 separate pieces of legislation, all pertaining to the income tax measures announced in the February 1998 budget.

Specifically, the bill would amend provisions dealing with charitable donations, tax shelters, registered education savings plans, film and video production services, tax credits, the tax status of corporations, treatment of RRIFs, family farm corporations and many, many others.

Let me be very clear. The Reform Party opposes the use of tax concessions as an instrument for manipulating investment behaviour and the industrial structure. These amendments add to the already convoluted, overly complicated and confusing tax code, a tax code which already contradicts our commitment to a fair and visible simple tax system.

In addition, these amendments do nothing to deal with the real problem of excessive spending, high taxes and escalating debt.

This bill is typical of a Liberal-Tory approach to fiscal policy. The Tories are as much to blame as the Liberals because we have experienced tax increases under both of these regimes and there is very little difference in the policies they have adopted over the years. This bill offers no tax relief to cash strapped Canadians.

As the defence critic for my party I noted with interest that the military received a pay increase. It was well documented. A press release issued by the government indicated that the lower ranks would be getting somewhere in the neighbourhood of a 3.2% increase. How does that translate into the dollars and cents that will go into the pockets of those military personnel? There are many who fall within the same earning range in this country.

For instance, the master corporal was so elated to have a $100 pay increase. That is the gross amount. After taxes, after EI premiums, after CPP deductions which will be the biggest hit he will have to accommodate in that increase, this man will end up with $53 clear a month.

The Department of National Defence decided that was not satisfactory. It decided that it would also boost his rent by $30 more a month. Without even taking into consideration whether the master corporal is going to be in another tax bracket and subject to tax bracket creep as an additional hit on his wage, he realizes a net increase of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $23 a month. That is a crying shame.

There is no question that he has moved up from one tax bracket into another given the fact that he had very minor increases the previous year. Here he sits in another tax bracket and he is going to be literally whacked. If he realizes an increase of $20 a month out of that $100 gross, he will be lucky. Many Canadians fall into that same category. They are barely making ends meet.

This bill does nothing to help him, nothing whatsoever. In fact, it gives him a greater burden and certainly not a sense of security. It did not take him long to figure out that he was not much further ahead than he was before. He will not be able to accommodate any emergency that creeps into his home and his life with any form of benefit from the wage increase he received. That is one aspect.

I feel for him. I feel for many other families who are subject to the same heavy tax burden. This government has failed to live up to its responsibility to those people.

I also reflect back to some of the points that Reform has stated it would like to see. Under the Liberal tax bill, that gentleman will obviously fall into a category somewhere around $2,000 to $3,000. If we look at our last election platform, that master corporal and his family would only pay $520 as opposed to $2,189. That is quite a substantial difference. It is almost $1,600 back into his pocket. I am sure he would be able to find ample opportunity to spend that on other areas which would benefit him and his family.

This bill does nothing to address the enormous public debt which the government and the Tory government before it are responsible for. Some of these social costs are nothing but staggering. The total interest-bearing debt sits at around $600 billion. Of that, $120 billion is held by foreign entities, non-residents. One-third of that 25% is American held. The remainder is divided between Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Undoubtedly it will have some effect if the markets are as uneasy as they are in Asia. That matter is far from settled. It could definitely have an effect here.

Are we prepared with the massive debt and the interest payments? We still have to go outside this country. There is not enough money to pay and hold that debt by investors in this country. We have to go outside to borrow the money. Why should we as an industrialized country be in that position? It would be nice to be independent but unfortunately that is not the case.

That is one point dealing with the debt. The government also owes $3.7 billion to the Canada pension plan and $114 billion to the public sector pension plans. Again this further complicates our debt picture and the burden on Canadian taxpayers.

Debt interest is $45 billion. What would it be equal to if we had the capability of spending that $45 billion on things other than the interest on the debt?

It would be two full years of Canada pension or Quebec pension plan benefits. It would amount to two and a half years of GST revenues. It would amount to 71% of all PIT revenues.

It would amount to the entire annual budgets of the four western provinces, which is a substantial amount of money. It would amount to the entire annual budgets of Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. It would amount to the entire net debts of all of the provinces combined, excluding B.C., Ontario and Quebec.

This probably more than anything would be of greater impact: it would be enough to pay for all Canadian hospitals, physicians and drug costs for an entire year. Our health care problem could easily be resolved if it was not for the interest that we are paying on our massive debt.

It would be enough to cut taxes an average of $3,200 a year for the average taxpayer. Just think of what they could do with that money if it were in their pockets. In 1997 the average Canadian taxpayer paid $3,285 a year in taxes just to pay the interest on that debt. This works out to $275 a month or just over $9 each and every day.

Reform has a much better plan. We will cut personal income taxes by $12 billion or $2,000 per family by the year 2000.

[Communications Security Establishment, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what a canned performance, a softball question from a Liberal backbencher and a corked answer from a parliamentary secretary. Give us a break.

The Communications Security Establishment intercepts and monitors communications between drug dealers, gang members and other dangerous criminals. It has a direct impact on the security of Canada.

Why does the defence minister refuse to allow me and the Reform Party a briefing on the Communications Security Establishment?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity again to stand today to support the official opposition's proposed amendment.

I bring the amendment to everyone's attention again by reading it because I think it is quite appropriate in the way this debate has been shaped and in the way the Minister of Finance has structured his budget in an effort to hide the truth and in effect impact negatively on the taxpayer who actually funds this hidden contingency fund that the minister has so carefully deferred to the future.

This is the proposed amendment by the official opposition:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, since the principle of the bill, while charging the consolidated revenue fund to establish and fund the Canada millennium scholarship foundation, fails to guarantee that appropriate and objective accounting standards will be followed as advocated by the auditor general.

There is no question that the auditor general has warned this government time and time again about its actions. Even when it comes to some of the chief proposals, it seems like his warnings continually fall on deaf ears. This is not a very good example for the people in this country who are footing the bill and paying hard earned tax dollars to see it squandered by the Liberal government in such ways that are inappropriate and despicable for the most part.

It is another example of government manipulating the system in a cynical attempt to fool the taxpayer into thinking the government is being productive. In this case we are talking about the $2.5 billion that would have gone to debt reduction and tax relief. We owe tax relief to the taxpayer. This is what should have happened with the $2.5 billion.

What is the government doing? It is just playing a shell game with the books and are becoming experts at it. It should be held accountable for it. Instead of translating a surplus into lower taxes for Canadians, the government is pretending that the surplus does not exist. Instead of reducing the massive national debt standing at close to $600 billion, the government buries its head in the sand and pretends that there is no problem and tells taxpayers there is no problem.

This is not the first time this government has tried to pull a fast one with the books. As the previous speaker pointed out, last year the government was criticized for allocating the cost of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation of $800 million a year before the foundation was created. It was all deferred.

In 1996 the government gave a $1 billion payout to the Atlantic provinces as an incentive to harmonize the GST in that region. Once again, this happened a year in advance of the payout.

I was looking through other portions of that act and at the proposed changes by the government to Bill C-36. It sure likes to defer things to the future. I think the small business community, the engine of our economy, should be paying particular attention to something in the bill which deals with employment insurance and premium holidays.

In the years 1999 and 2000, employers who hire young people between the ages of 18 and 24 will pay no EI premiums on their wages. If EI premiums remain stable this will save employers up to $3.78 per $100 in earnings, a measure that will cost about $100 billion.

What is this? They are deferring it to the year 1999, another deferred promise that will not take effect until the next year. It gives the view that the Liberals are doing a great big favour to employers by bringing this change into the act. What is so great about it? Right now there is about a $13.5 billion surplus in the EI account. By March of next year that will have grown to $19.6 billion. Whose money is that sitting there? It is the taxpayers' money.

If the government were truly interested in helping employers, in pushing this economy along even more, it would give that tax relief directly to the employers, it would place it back into the hands of the employers and employees by an across the board EI reduction in premiums. Then it would benefit someone. Right now who is it benefiting? It is sitting in an account. It is the taxpayers' dollars. All could be part of a relief plan or a benefit to the employer in expanding his business. Anything is better than being in the hands of this government or a bureaucrat.

The auditor general has complained about each of these cases. What is the government's response to the auditor general's complaints? It had the gall to threaten him. The deputy finance minister fired off a letter to the auditor general telling him to mind his own business. If that is not a shameful act, I do know what us. The auditor general is hired to do a job and what happens? The government threatens him for doing it. In reply to the auditor general the government said that it could change the rules if it liked.

The auditor general pointed out that if the government gets away with this it will open the door to future governments simply allocating expenditures from year to year regardless of when the expenses occur. In other words, Liberal habits have become almost institutionalized. Taxpayers spend an awful lot of their hard earned money on the federal government. They deserve to be able to look at the books knowing that the government is being above board in return. There is something unethical about it.

We all know the real reason for the finance minister to continue the Liberal tradition of bending the accounting rules. He wants to be able to keep a tight control on the fiscal reins so that he can better position himself to become the Liberal leader. I guess that is the ultimate agenda. He wants to become the leader. After all, what better way of winning support than giving taxpayers a tax break just before a leadership bid. Is that the plan of the finance minister and the Liberal government? There are personal agendas here. I do not think they are acceptable to most Canadians.

I would like to give the finance minister a bit of strategic advice for free. If he did the responsible thing now, pay down the debt and deliver tax relief today, he would find that his popularity would increase immediately. Probably his chances for leadership would be better. Everyone would rally behind him in much more substantive way and with good reason. Is that not good advice? The members across the way do not agree with that. They want to see more of the same. Best of all, his popularity would be earned legitimately. Imagine that, a Liberal finance minister who became popular by being straightforward and honest with Canadians about their tax dollars.

In this case I urge all members of this House to seize the opportunity to show Canadians transparency, honesty and integrity in this government, support the official opposition's amendment and bring transparency to the government's bookkeeping.

[National Defence Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Liberal viewpoint on the military and to see how quickly they point the finger elsewhere, blaming others for the problems they have created.

From the very beginning the Liberals have hated the military, all the way back to the Trudeau era, and have cut it apart. Under Hellyer, Trudeau wanted to unify the military, which was the most destructive force that ever could have happened to destroy the military. It was done under Trudeau and it continues to this day. They then turn around and say they are going to fix the problems.

The member talks a lot about morale. The morale problem is the result of Liberal action and inaction. Morale is a major issue. It is equated to pay, to equipment, to purpose and to honour and courage in their leadership. That is what morale deals with. I would like the member to talk about honour and courage in the leadership and in the ministry of defence.