Monte Solberg

[Employment, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the finance minister is still fighting the last election.

Since the government has taken power the average family has lost $3,000 of annual spending power because of tax increases. Under the Reform's tax cut proposals a single income family of four with an income of $30,000 will pay 89 per cent less in federal tax. The Reform plan offers low and middle income Canadians real tax relief.

Will the finance minister stop the attack on Canadian families and announce today that it is time to give Canadians a pay raise after years of Liberal-Tory national pay cuts?

[Employment, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister said not to read his lips but to read his record. That record is pretty dreadful.

There are 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, two to three million who are underemployed, 500,000 who have given up looking for work. One in four Canadians is worried about losing his or her job. There are record bankruptcies, record levels of personal debt, plummeting personal incomes, record taxation levels and a list of broken promises as long as your arm. It is a record to be

ashamed of. The government has not learned the lesson that taxes, taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs.

When is the government going to stop breaking the backs of tax worried Canadians and start shrinking government and lowering taxes? That is what creates jobs.

[Income Taxes, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that explains why the finance minister has trouble balancing the books.

I quote from a recent book: "You have a lawyer and he is paid a lot of money. He has to pay a sizeable chunk in income tax so the lawyer gets the firm to put his wife down as an employee and part of his salary goes to her except that she never works at the firm". That is called income splitting and the lawyer who took advantage of this scheme is now the Prime Minister of Canada.

Why does the finance minister support a tax system that encourages crafty arrangements for clever lawyers and wealthy shipping magnates, yet discriminates against the average single income earner family?

[Income Taxes, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister tried to get Canadians to believe that there is no difference in how single income families are treated compared to dual income families under the tax system. I truly cannot believe that he really thinks that.

The fact is that on a $60,000 income the single income family pays $7,000 more in taxes than the dual income family.

Why is the finance minister and the government maintaining tax policies that force single income families to pay higher taxes?

[Taxation, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, $7,000 may not be a lot of money to the millionaires of this world, but it is a lot of money to regular Canadians.

Can the finance minister explain to Canadians why one form of child care is worthy of a tax credit while the other is not? Can he explain why his government is yet again interfering with the private parenting choices of Canadian families? Why is there discrimination?

[Taxation, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadian families would like to have the option to have one parent stay at home if they so choose, but under the current tax system the typical single earner family with an income of $60,000 a year pays $7,000 more in taxes than does a family with the same income and both parents in the workforce.

Can the finance minister tell the House why he and his government continue to promote discriminatory tax policies that deny families the freedom to make the parenting choices for their children?

[National Family Week, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during National Family Week it is necessary to remind the Liberals that they have failed to give ordinary Canadian families a sense of real hope for their future.

It is a shameful record: unemployment above 9 per cent for almost six years, staggering taxes, record bankruptcies. It is obvious the combination of cabinet salary and a rich MP pension plan has hardened the government to the economic trials that Canadian families face each and every day.

The most shocking data comes from a Fraser Institute study that shows that the average Canadian family's disposable income has plummeted $3,800 in the three years the Liberals have been in power. This is a disaster.

Canadian families need lower taxes and good permanent jobs created by a vibrant private sector. They want the option of caring for their children, buying a home, paying for their children's education and saving for their retirement. They want a smaller government that stays out of their face.

It is time to reform the government-

[Quebec, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to get to is how would they have a say in where we go from there? I am going to push on to another question.

Reformers maintain that Quebecers have the right to decide whether to secede from Canada, but this does not imply the right of the Government of Quebec to unilaterally establish the terms and conditions of secession.

The only way to ensure that Canada's interests will be well represented in the event of secession is to pass contingency legislation laying out the terms and conditions of secession. Is the government willing to consider such legislation or is the Supreme Court reference the sum total of its plan B?

[Quebec, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is sending out some fairly confusing signals. Yesterday and today he suggested that Canadians would have a full voice on any developments surrounding the future of their country in the event of Quebec's secession. However, today he stopped short of saying that Canadians would be involved and have a voice in a referendum campaign in the event of Quebec's secession.

Is it the government's position that a full and meaningful voice would mean that they would have a vote in a referendum campaign?

[The Late Bert Hargrave, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of the passing of a former member of Parliament from Medicine Hat constituency, Mr. Bert Hargrave.

Mr. Hargrave devoted his lifetime to the promotion of agriculture and public service, and often the twain did meet.

A graduate of the University of Saskatchewan, he served as a tank engineer in World War II. A strong supporter of agriculture, he took over the family farm at Walsh, Alberta in 1945. In 1972 he took office as a Conservative member until retiring in 1984, serving for a time as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. His tireless devotion to his life work was recognized when he was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame.

Over the years I met him on several occasions. I was honoured when in his later years he became a member and supporter of my party.

Mr. Hargrave was a typical western gentleman: tough, straightforward and generous. He passed away Tuesday at age 79 and will be laid to rest on Monday beside his wife Amy.

I know the House will join me in extending sympathies to his family. He will be sorely missed. May he rest in peace.