Monte Solberg

[Taxation, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, he has not raised personal taxes, he has raised taxes on persons. According to the Fraser Institute there has been a $3,000 national pay cut since the government came to power.

Let me provide some areas where the government can cut its spending so that it can indeed introduce lower taxes. How about the $3,600 grant this government gave to the Mary Kay distributor in Midland, Ontario? I know the industry minister will say it was for research and development but frankly I do not buy it. There was $10,000 for the tattoo shop in Vancouver. I am sure that was very vital spending.

Why does the minister squander tax dollars on these boondoggles while families, seniors and low income Canadians desperately need tax relief? And could I have the answer without the waving of the arms and the aneurysm?

[Taxation, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am reading from a finance department document entitled "Revenue Measures". It shows that the finance minister has raised taxes 12 times in 1994, 11 times in 1995 and 7 times this year. This is a $1,500 increase in federal taxes for the average taxpayer and a 19 per cent increase in federal government revenues. It is a far cry from the minister's claim that he has not raised taxes.

Can the finance minister explain why a document produced by his own department shows he has raised taxes 30 times? Will he explain why he refuses to cut government waste and permanently lower taxes as Reform has proposed in its fresh start election platform?

[User Fee Act, November 18th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-349, an act to provide for parliamentary scrutiny and approval of user fees set by federal authority and to require public disclosure of the amount collected as user fees.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, the user fee act. In the last 10 years user fees have doubled in the amount the government collects.

Many people are concerned that in the last several years as the public service has come under increased scrutiny, many government agencies are using their abilities to increase user fees to become profit centres for the government. In doing that they avoid being chopped. This is a big concern of many people and myself.

In the 1993 auditor general's report it is stated: "We are concerned that Parliament cannot readily scrutinize the user fees established by contracts and other non-regulatory means. There does not exist a government-wide summary of the fees being charged, the revenues raised and the authorities under which they are established".

Probably the best example of how user pay without user say has gone awry is the case of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Its budget has gone from $14.2 million in 1994 to $34 million in 1996, chiefly because there has not been parliamentary scrutiny of what is going on in bodies like this.

I would urge my fellow colleagues to read the legislation and if they have questions to contact me and hopefully they will ultimately support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Taxation, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of resentment out there but it comes from all the other provinces that are footing the bill for the billion dollar payoff to Atlantic Canada, especially to the premiers.

The Halifax chamber of commerce is also resentful. So is the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Real Estate Association. They all have grave concerns with this deal. It is complicated, confusing and a killer of jobs.

Even those groups who before were supportive of the harmonization deal now have grave reservations about this particular brand of snake oil. Will the minister scrap it and go back to the drawing board?

[Taxation, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week it was full page newspaper ads. Tomorrow, the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will be in Toronto basically to do an infomercial for the harmonized GST. Stay tuned while they claim that it will slice and dice and leave you with abs of steel and even grow hair. They can spin it any way they want but businesses and consumers in Atlantic Canada have very serious concerns about the harmonized GST.

My question is for the finance minister. Is this infomercial and all this propaganda all that Canadians can expect for their billion dollars?

[Goods And Services Tax, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. The finance officials in Nova Scotia are saying $100 million annually and $200 million in the first year.

While the finance minister is promising jobs, jobs, jobs, the government robs, robs, robs.

Large chains will survive this because they can pass on higher prices to consumers across Canada, but small business will either be forced to lay people off, charge customers more or simply go out of business. Those are not very good options. When Canadians are crying out for jobs, why is the minister setting out to kill jobs?

[Goods And Services Tax, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia finance officials are predicting that the changeover for the GST harmonization deal is going to cost businesses in Nova Scotia about $200 million in the first year alone, and $100 million annually in ongoing costs due to tax and pricing.

How can the minister justify implementing this disastrous plan when it will mean lost jobs and higher prices and hundreds of millions of dollars in higher costs for the people of Atlantic Canada?

[The Economy, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the finance minister, tell that to 1.5 million unemployed Canadians.

Canada Trust's chief economist has said: "Unless we have a real strong sense of job security, interest rates just are not going to entice people into spending".

The finance minister's job creation strategy is in the tank. When will he admit that what Canadians really need is smaller government and more job creating, confidence creating tax relief?

[The Economy, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not fooled by the Liberals' spin on their pathetic record.

Canadian families have suffered a $3,000 national pay cut per year, and since the Liberals came to office 1.5 million real people are still looking for jobs. The Conference Board of Canada is saying that the government's low interest rate policy has failed to inspire consumer confidence. According to Statistics Canada, this "reflects the ongoing dead weight of weak income and labour markets".

When will the finance minister admit that because his policies are not working Canadians are not working?

[Committees Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

The hon. member across the way says that it is not true, but I ask him to check with the Canadian Real Estate Association. Those are not my numbers. They come from the Canadian Real Estate Association, which is very concerned. It will kill hundreds of jobs in Atlantic Canada. It will cost people thousands of dollars. That is the Liberal vision.

Our vision is to give people lower taxes, not different taxes, not higher taxes, lower taxes. Reformers will give more incentives to job creators through lowering the inclusion rate on capital gains. That will bring all kinds of investment into the country. That way people like the finance minister will not have to send his assets outside of the country. We would like to have those assets inside the country. I am sure it would create a lot of jobs if we could have them all here. The Reform Party speaks for ordinary Canadians. It speaks for people who have been beaten up by Liberal and Conservative governments over the last 25 years. Canadians have had a $3,000 national pay cut since the Liberals came to power. People cannot take it any more.

I urge my friends not to be quite so partisan about it and please come on board and sign up with the Reform fresh start program.