Monte Solberg

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise today to speak to Bill C-28. I wish a Happy New Year to you, Mr. Speaker, to all those who are watching and to my colleagues across the way.

Sadly I cannot support Bill C-28. I am disappointed that the government would bring in a tepid housekeeping bill as its first order of business when real action is demanded in the country today. In case my friends across the way have forgotten, we have a debt of $600 billion. We have taxes that are far higher, 56% higher than the taxes of our trading partners around the world.

My friend alluded to another problem just a minute ago. The government has cut so dramatically in areas like hospitals and higher education that many people are suffering today. Instead of cutting into the government operations, as my friend suggested they did, they really took the broad axe to hospital beds and education instead.

I am disappointed this is the first piece of legislation. The government could have made a better effort.

My friends across the way will undoubtedly be just about dislocating their own shoulders from patting themselves on the back because we are now in a position where we have a balanced budget in our country. Reformers are certainly supporters of a balanced budget. That is one of the reasons the Reform Party came into being in the first place 10 years ago. We have been pushing the government hard on this issue, but we disagree completely with how the government achieved it.

I mentioned how the government has cut deeply, how it has cut transfers to the provinces for hospital beds and for higher education by 35%. However when it came to trimming its own spending, the cut was around 13% despite the fact that in 1995 the finance minister told the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City that when he made his cuts they would fall disproportionately on government operations. That is unfortunately not the case.

My friends across the way feel that we can break out the champagne since we have a balanced budget now. However, I want to bring us back to reality by quoting from a couple of articles printed recently in the Ottawa

Citizen

. An article written by Nicholas Patterson on December 6 states:

Our standard of living and prosperity, compared to other countries, has dropped like a stone from third highest in the world to twelfth in less than a decade. So says the World Bank, the leading global economic monitoring agency, using the yardstick of national per capita income, the universally accepted measure of economic success. And, Canada is the only one of 13 major industrial countries to experience an absolute decline in its real standard of living, an event unprecedented for our country since the depression.

He goes on to say:

Worse still, our “true” level of unemployment, at an eye-popping 18%, is almost two and a half times worse than the U.S., when discouraged unemployed workers and involuntary part time workers are included. This is because in a healthy economy like the U.S. with virtually full employment and emerging labour shortages there are relatively few such workers since anyone who wants a job can generally find one. Thus the failure of the Canadian economy is a good deal worse than it first appears.

There is a more recent article and this comes from the government itself, from an internal study done by the industry department. This is from the Ottawa

Citizen

of Friday, January 30:

But an internal study compiled by the industry department raises serious doubts about whether Canada has much to brag about.

Here are some of the findings:

There is a worsening national income gap between Canada and the U.S., with Americans now 25% richer than Canadians.

As the U.S. economy gets richer, it pays workers better. On average, American manufacturing workers get paid $1 per hour more than their Canadian counterparts. The salary gap is particularly pronounced in occupations requiring high skills, with U.S. engineers, computer scientists and architects earning on average nearly $11,000 more than their Canadian counterparts in 1993.

I can speak from personal experience having sat on a plane not too long ago with a bureaucrat from Revenue Canada who was at a job fair in Toronto. He said that they were losing somewhere in the range of 20 to 30 people a month from Revenue Canada in the high tech industry to go not only to the private sector but outside the country for precisely the reasons that are outlined in this article.

Again, taxes and debt are absolutely killing prospects for many bright young Canadians in this country. Unfortunately, my friend across the way did not draw attention to this. The same article goes on to say:

Not so long ago, Canadians were among the world's biggest savers, but now they salt away a smaller share of their incomes and hold more personal debt than do Americans. As of the end of March 1997, Canadians were saving about 2% of their incomes, down from close to 12% in 1989.

What a huge drop. The U.S. savings rate has held steady at around 6%. The article goes on to say that the U.S. economy has grown 5% faster than Canada's during the 1990s. It goes on to say that in the vast services portion of the economy, and even in natural resources and agriculture, American companies are growing faster while Canadian companies are losing ground.

We have a dollar that is now worth what, 68 cents, if we are lucky. And we cannot keep with the Americans when it comes to natural resources. Here is a country that is blessed with unbelievable natural resources, but our industries cannot keep up even with the 68 cent dollar.

My friends opposite want to paint a rosy picture. I do not buy it for a moment. The government's own study goes on to say that in total the Canadian manufacturing industries have been calculated to be only 70% as productive as their U.S. counterparts. It goes on to say that Canadian workers are now one quarter less productive than American workers.

I do not think that is any reason to break out the champagne. I think it is ridiculous that the government somehow thinks it defeated all the economic monsters out there. We have a balanced budget. That is all. We still have a debt of $600 billion.

To help balance the budget, the government raised taxes 37 times, including the massive tax increase that came in on January 1, the CPP tax hike. I am not as excited as my friends across the way about their progress with respect to the economy in this country.

Just a day or two ago I saw an article in the

Globe and Mail

concerning how the country's economy had gone soft in November. We saw a drop in GDP. People are concerned that perhaps the government has put on its rose coloured glasses.

In light of all these problems, I call on my colleagues in the House to join me in making a couple of new year resolutions. We are at the beginning of the parliamentary new year so we can make a couple of new year resolutions. The first one is that we should resolve to give Canadians back control over their own lives. We do that by controlling the size and reach of governments. Let us resolve to give Canadians back some control.

The second resolution I would make, which relates pretty closely to the first one, is to support the family budget by ensuring that we control the size and appetite of the federal budget.

In addressing the first resolution, giving Canadians back control over their lives, I simply point out that Canadians today work six months out of the year simply to pay their taxes; 48 cents of every dollar they earn now goes to pay taxes. Right away Canadians have lost a substantial amount of control over their own lives. Half their income is gone which leaves them with fewer options. They have to do all the things that families want to do with 52 cent dollars. If they want to put their kids through university they have to do it with a 52 cent dollar. If they want to go on vacation it is with a 52 cent dollar unless they go to the United States in which case it is probably a 25 cent dollar.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief because my time is running out.

In the last 10 years user fees have increased by about 100% in Canada. User fees effectively are a tax not only on corporations, businesses and all kinds of organizations that use government services, but it is a tax in many cases on individuals, people who use campgrounds and that kind of thing. There is no question the government has set about to raise extra revenues that way and because these things do not pass through Parliament, it does amount to taxation without representation.

I will say one word on the issue of bracket creep. Recently we got a letter from a lady in Abbotsford, British Columbia who was having trouble making it on $16,000 a year. She pays quite a bit of income tax, even only making $16,000 a year. In fact she had to mortgage her mobile home in order to pay the $800 tax bill she owed the government.

I simply want to make the point to my friends around the House today that tax relief is a viable way to help a lot of Canadians, people at the low end of the income scale. In the spirit of Christmas, I urge people to consider this today and to think that perhaps there are ways to help people other than initiating a new program.

I want to thank my colleagues around the House for agreeing to let me speak today. I also want to wish them a very Merry Christmas and a safe and prosperous New Year. I know we disagree in this place, very often quite vehemently on various things but I think we all agree that we all want to help Canadians. I want to express my best wishes to all my friends in the House today.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever fought this hard before to speak in the House of Commons but it is a pleasure to rise to speak today during the debate on the prebudget report issued recently by the finance committee.

While the finance committee was very successful in hearing from groups like the Business Council on National Issues and in hearing from many social activists across the country, I really believe that where the finance committee failed was in hearing from the 70% or 80% of Canadians who are in the middle of those two groups.

I will make my point by reading from a letter. I do not think we will find the views expressed in that letter reflected anywhere in the finance committee report. This letter was originally sent to the hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin who recognized its importance immediately:

I am writing in regard to the increase in CPP. I am a housewife with two small children.

My husband works 12 hour days, six or seven days a week. Even with all the hours my husband works we are only making ends meet. We cannot afford an increase in CPP. This increase only means my husband has to work even harder. Which means we will see even less of him. How is this good for my two children? How is this good for our marriage?

The government borrows or should I say steals from the CPP fund and then increases it because they can't pay it back. Why do we have to pay for a dishonest government?

They preach about how they want to save our children. They preach about broken marriages. Then they turn around and screw us again. Couples stress about money and it does affect the children. It does affect the marriage. How can afford to put my children in swimming lessons or baseball when any extra money we have the government takes? My oldest son is five and has said to me “Why can't I Mommy? We can't afford it, right?” This is from a 5 year old. All his friends at school get hot lunches on Fridays but he doesn't. How are we supposed to dish out another $100 a month? I can't work because of all the hours my husband works. Why should I have to? I want to raise my children not a daycare.

My husband is 34 and I convinced him to finally vote this year. We had many an argument about it. He said why should he bother voting when nothing ever changes. A lot of people feel this way. I am beginning to think he is right.

I have rent, house insurance, truck insurance, life insurance, hydro, gas, phone, food, truck payments. These are basic bills. As for fun, what's that? Will CPP even be there when my husband retires? I doubt it.

I have a friend who at 28 is having to declare bankruptcy. She has three children. I know that it could be us. Kids are in trouble today more than ever because parents aren't there. They have to work harder and longer so the kids are on their own. The future looks bleaker.

Something has to be done about this CPP. Canada is on its way to ruin the way I see it.

It is signed Margaret Snell of Quesnel, British Columbia.

I want to argue that people like Margaret Snell simply were not represented before the finance committee. People like Margaret Snell did not have their views represented in the government's report on the prebudget hearings. It is not only Margaret Snell. I believe that there are hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of Canadians who feel exactly the same way as Margaret Snell feels.

What should the government do when it hears letters like the one I just read from Margaret Snell or the one which my leader read yesterday from Kim Hicks of Sackville, New Brunswick? If the government had the sense that God gave the goose, the first thing it would do is secure the future of people like Margaret Snell, Kim Hicks and other people who are suffering by first taking the debt situation seriously.

The other day the chairman of the finance committee rose in his place to speak about what the finance committee heard. I know that my hon. friend will acknowledge that we heard representative after representative come before the committee to say that the debt is a real problem and that we should do something about it. In fact, the government report even says that it is a problem.

What was the recommendation? The recommendation was to continue with the promise made during the election campaign, which is to allocate 50% of the surplus for more spending. It is absolutely incredible.

We know that when major polls are conducted across the country Canadians say that debt is an incredible problem. We have to deal with the debt. As my leader pointed out yesterday, when people have a little tax relief, what do they do with it? They pay down their personal debt. Of course they do. It is common sense.

What does the government do? It has a huge agenda to start spending again, but does it have any plan on what to do with the debt?

The government suggests that maybe it will reduce the debt to 50% or 60% of GDP by some point in the future. What exactly does that mean? It did not commit to putting a single dollar toward the debt in absolute terms. The government suggests that maybe if the economy grows fast enough the debt will look smaller as a percentage of our economy.

The very first thing the government should do is borne out by polls, letters and telephone calls which we received. The very first thing the government should do is secure the future of people like Margaret Snell, Kim Hicks and hundreds of thousands of other people by starting to pay down the debt. The government should have a serious plan to pay down the debt.

The second point I want to make is that the government should find a way to secure the future prosperity of Canadians. The way to do that is very obvious. After having read Margaret Snell's letter and after having heard Kim Hicks' letter, it should be obvious to the government as well. It needs to start reducing taxes.

We have a tax burden in this country which is absolutely staggering. In the last four years, since the government came to power, Canadians have seen their disposable incomes drop like a stone. We know that since the government came to power disposable income for the average family in this country has fallen by over $3,000.

Why it that? It is because taxes continue to mount.

My friends across the way stand every day and say they have cut taxes. If people across the country really believe that the government has cut taxes, I have a bridge that I would like to sell them.

People do not believe that. I do not believe that. We know that government revenues have gone up $25 billion in the last few years. We also know that the government has introduced 37 tax increases. We know that because income tax is not indexed for inflation, effectively there is an inflation tax in place which brings in just under a billion dollars in new revenues every year because people are pushed up into a higher tax bracket. We know all of those things. So how in the world can the government find the courage to say that somehow it has reduced taxes? Frankly, I do not think anybody believes it.

We know that in Canada today we have personal income taxes that compared to our G-7 trading partners are 54% higher. I do not believe for a moment that the government members across the way in their heart of hearts feel and can even persuasively argue that the government really has reduced taxes. I do not think Canadians are buying that at all.

I want to go over a couple of things which were said by my leader yesterday when he said we provided some tax relief for a family in New Brunswick. When that family in New Brunswick had a chance to spend that money, what did they spend it on? They paid off some personal debt. They set aside about a third of the money. Then they spent some on essentials like medical needs and groceries.

Canadians know better than this government what their priorities are. They should have the chance to direct where that money goes, to keep it in their pockets in the first place. That is why the Reform Party has been at the forefront of advocating lower taxes for all Canadians so that we can start to give Canadians the real hope that they need, the real hope that they have been deprived of over the last 10 years under successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 24(2) or any other usual practice, the time provided for Government Orders be extended by 15 minutes, therefore expiring at 5.50 p.m., provided that no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the House after the hour of 5.35 p.m.

(Motion agreed to)

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding Standing Order 24(2) or any other usual practice, the time provided for Government Orders be extended by 15 minutes, therefore expiring at 5.45 p.m., provided that no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the House after the hour of 5.30 p.m.

[Taxation, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the finance minister is awfully confused about where the Reform Party stands with Canadians and about putting debt as the first priority. We want to pay down more debt.

Canadians of both official languages, federalists and separatists, want to deal with the tax problem. That is the point the finance minister is missing. Canadians have mortgages to pay. They have to pay for groceries. They want more tax dollars left in their pockets.

Why does the finance minister think he can spend Canadians' money better than they can?

[Taxation, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebec's separatist premier asked that 75% of the surplus be devoted to lowering federal income taxes.

Finally, we have found something that can unite Canadians from coast to coast.

We know reducing taxes is the fair and humane thing to do. We know it will help unite the country. Why is the finance minister opposed to helping Canadians by lowering taxes? Why not do it?

[Taxation, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister knows full well the Reform Party would reduce taxes by $2,000 for the average family of four. That is the Reform Party platform. We do not know what the government wants to do.

Low income people in Canada are taxed at a higher rate than in any other country in the G-7. Low income people. That is the government's version of compassion.

I want to know again, and this is for Alice Straeleff who is watching today, where is the balance in forcing someone like Alice to pay $800 and mortgage her mobile home to pay his taxman?

[Taxation, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I received a letter from Alice Straeleff of Abbotsford, B.C. Alice makes a little over $16,000 a year. Despite taking out a small RRSP, she had to mortgage her mobile home to pay her $800 income tax bill to the finance minister.

The minister likes to talk a lot about balance. I want to know where is the balance in forcing someone like Alice Straeleff to mortgage her mobile home to pay the taxman?

[Kyoto, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadian jobs are at stake. The Liberals say that the economic cost of not implementing the Kyoto deal will be higher than not going ahead with it.

If they do not know how much the Kyoto deal will cost in the first place, how can they say it is less expensive than not implementing the Kyoto deal?