Werner Schmidt

[Petitions, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce to the House a petition presented by some 500 petitioners that request Parliament to amend the law to require courts not to be biased against fathers when granting custody, to give equal access to both parents and to give access to grandparents.

[The Environment, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this government has a troubling history of ignoring good science. The Liberals in the past have twisted the studies of the fisheries and oceans and health departments to suit their own particular agenda.

The question is not whether we should not deal with the greenhouse problem, the issue is will this minister release publicly to the public the particular studies that formed the basis of the Kyoto position or would she prefer—

[The Environment, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment knows that the science community is divided on the issue of global warming. She knows that there is no consensus as to the extent of the problem, the cause of the problem or the best solution.

My question to the Minister of the Environment is which particular scientists, whose studies has she used to form the basis of Canada's position at the Kyoto Conference?

[Small Business Week, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in this time of technology, science and small business we need to recognize that today about 52% of all Canadians employed in the private sector are in small business with fewer than 100 employees per business.

At least 85% of all new jobs created in Canada are created by small business. Many of these businesses relate to advances in computer and telecommunications technology. They are altering the core products and processes at the heart of the Canadian economy.

With the increasing competitiveness of highly skilled labour forces dedicated to superior product design and performance, small and medium size businesses have the advantage. It is easier to sustain innovation and competitiveness. Indeed several of the most prosperous and competitive economies of the world today are based on small firms.

The government knows that the above is true. Why does it take small business tax dollars to provide grants to big business?

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadian citizens need money to put clothes on their backs, food on their tables and shelter around them. That is not limited to people in eastern Canada. That is not limited to people in western Canada. Every Canadian needs those things.

That is precisely what the Reform Party is all about. It is to create the situation where everybody has an opportunity to apply their initiative, their talents, develop their skills and abilities. That is what we are all about. We want to create the environment so that people will be able to perform.

The accusation that was made, the implication was that somebody in Canada believes somewhere along the line that Atlantic Canadians are somehow lazy. I have never said that. I have never intimated it. I have never even suggested that. The hon. member is grossly mistaken when he suggests that is the kind of thing that the Reform Party believes. That is absolutely false. Mr. Speaker, that ought to be made abundantly clear. He should take it back immediately. Nobody takes that position.

The position is that even people in Atlantic Canada, if he wants to take that position, will spend their money more wisely than a politician here in Ottawa. It has to be made abundantly clear that the people need to recognize that they must apply those skills and abilities that they do so well. Does that not mean that there are some temporary solutions that have to be made on an emergency basis? Absolutely and of course. Where there is a crisis that has to be addressed.

What we are talking about are the long term solutions as well. We need both, not just one. A cut in taxes will create long term solutions and will also allow enough money to deal with the crises that have to be dealt with.

We need a balanced approach. That is what Reform is all about, a common sense approach for the common people of Canada.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

“Isn't it beautiful to cut taxes?” The gentleman is already beginning to recognize that he could turn it into music.

Wouldn't all Canadians wish to sing a new song? They would love to sing the song “I have a job and I have less taxes to pay. I have more money for my children's education. I have more money for entertainment. I have more money to do the things I really want to do”. I am so glad the hon. member opposite recognizes there are countries in the world which know how to do that.

We need to recognize that it is very important for hon. members opposite to recognize what the role of government ought to be. I would like the previous parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry to listen very carefully. The role of government is to maintain a culture which rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research, and ensures a level, competitive and honest marketplace.

How can that be done? It can be done by creating a change in attitude from dependence upon government handouts to one of independence, creativity, the ability to apply one's initiative and an attitude which will give us the incentive to produce, develop and become increasingly efficient.

That happens when taxes are reduced and when people are allowed to spend the money they have so carefully earned instead of the money being spent by a politician or a bureaucrat.

Individual people in Canada are far more capable than any member of the House of spending money in their best interest. They know where it ought to be spent. That ought to be our number one concern.

I sympathize with the NDP when it says that we ought to create employment. Its solution is to give more money to these people through taxes. That would be taking the taxes from one group of people, giving a bit to the bureaucrats and politicians, and giving a bit back to the people. It would create dependent people. It would not solve anything.

The money should be left in the hands of the people. They will spend it wisely. They will develop, produce and provide the kinds of services that will make the country better and make them richer. It would even make NDPers richer.

I want to show precisely how convinced even the Minister of Finance is that payroll taxes actually cut jobs. More than one official in his department has demonstrated clearly that payroll taxes cut jobs. He has ample evidence all around him to show that is the case.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business surveyed over 19,000 small businesses. It found that over half, or 50.8% to be specific, would hire more individuals if payroll taxes were reduced. That is only one kind of tax, payroll tax.

If over half of them would do that it would increase the number of jobs rather dramatically. Only 10% of the businesses surveyed believed the government's infrastructure program—and I wish the hon. member who was just talking about the infrastructure program were here to listen—would encourage more hiring. Over half of them believed that if payroll taxes were reduced they would hire more people.

I have anecdotal evidence of my own. I know full well that as the payroll taxes go up the number of new hires goes down. If we want to get serious about creating jobs we will not increase payroll taxes; we will reduce them. That is what we will do.

A recent paper was delivered by Canadian economists Livio Di Matteo and Michael Shannon. They found that each percentage point increase in payroll taxes reduced employment by .32%. Based on current levels of employment, a one percentage point increase in payroll taxes will kill 44,000 jobs.

I want to put this into perspective. Just recently the Minister of Finance announced in the House and to all Canadians that CPP would be increased by more than 4%. That means four times 44,000 fewer people in the workforce. That is significant.

Are we to sit here and they to sit there saying that this is good for Canada? It is not good for Canada. Payroll taxes ought to be cut. That would be a solution to the unemployment problem.

If we really want to create a better environment for our children and our grandchildren we would cut taxes and let the people spend the money.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is something in the NDP motion that I very much support. The motion demonstrates a deep concern about the shortcomings of the government.

Unemployment is at an unreasonably high level and it has been sustained. It is about the only thing that has been sustained by the Liberal government. Unemployment remains consistently high and the debt has consistently increased.

The unfortunate part of the motion is that it mixes up causes and effects. I will not defend the Liberal government in any way, shape or form but I will support the intent of the motion.

Its intent is to call to the attention of Canadians that the government has failed to create jobs, to make adequate investments in health and in education, and has not done what it should have done with the fiscal management of the affairs of Canadians.

The government has failed to recognize that people care about the unity of Canada, about the fiscal management of their affairs and want to have a standard of living of which they can be proud of and can pass on to their children. Hopefully their children will have a better standard of living than what they enjoy.

Under the current regime that is not likely to take place. The average family of four has $3,000 less to spend today because of the increase in taxes. Thirty-eight tax increases have now taken place.

We need to recognize that it is the skills and abilities of people that create the strength of a nation. It is not primarily the natural resources although they help. The use and the application of natural resources comes through the skill, abilities and hard work of people.

What is it then that the government ought to be concerned about? It ought to be concerned about creating jobs. There is ample evidence that by increasing taxes the government is doing the exact opposite. Increasing taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, income taxes, surtaxes or excise taxes, has the impact of decreasing jobs and not increasing them.

Let me refer to a particular incident in the United States. There have been several instances of tax decreases but I want to pay particular attention to the Michigan experience. In 1991 John Engler took power in the state of Michigan. Since that time total employment has grown to 4.6 million people, a record high in just six years.

Over the same period the state unemployment rate was cut in half from a high of nearly 10%, which by the way is just about where it is in Canada, to a low of 4% in May of this year. That is something the government could be proud of.

How did he achieve that? Governor Engler states “Our strategy of cutting taxes, reducing regulations and balancing budgets is paying off in more jobs, higher pay and healthy growth”.

I would like the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions to pay particular attention to what I am about to say. Since 1991 Engler has instituted 21 tax cuts. That is the exact opposite to what has happened in Canada. We have had 38 tax increases.

If the government really wants to increase job opportunities it should cut taxes, not increase them. There is ample evidence for that. This is only one example. There are many examples which I could cite at this time.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I found the address just delivered rather exciting and interesting. The vision of Canada the gentleman portrayed is a very good one.

I wondered for a moment whether he was president of the chamber of commerce and not a parliamentarian. I think he missed a couple of things through his discourse.

I would like to ask him a couple of questions having to do with a particular letter sent by the Minister of Transport. I am sure he knows the minister very well and supports him.

Would he explain exactly what the minister had in mind when he referred in a letter to the dedication of a certain percentage of the fuel taxes toward the infrastructure program, in particular the Trans-Canada Highway? I think we all agree that the infrastructure program is a very critical part of the economy and the Trans-Canada highway is one of the major components of that infrastructure program.

In this particular letter, the hon. Minister of Transport goes on to say that the 20% fuel tax fails to do a number of things. He makes quite a list here. He says, “I should note that the federal government collects the road fuel tax as part of the consolidated revenue fund and uses the proceeds to fund such areas as health, welfare, education, defence and transport.” Now comes the phrase that I would like the hon. member to pay particular attention to “as well as to help reduce the federal debt”.

Just last week the Minister of Finance indicated that there was an $8.9 billion deficit coming forward for the next fiscal year. I wonder if the hon. member could tell us and convince us somehow that an $8.9 billion deficit is in fact not an increase in the debt of Canada rather than a decrease. If over the years this 20% fuel tax has been collected to reduce the federal debt, then I would like to know where it was that this money was applied to the federal debt? As I look at the government's balance sheets I notice that each year the debt is climbing. Yet for some reason or another, the Minister of Transport says that part of the 20% fuel tax has gone to reduce the federal debt.

I would like the hon. member to please address that question.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House makes me almost sad because of what it seems to imply. It seems to imply a strategy on the part of the government to confuse the people of Canada.

The issue is very significant. Very often what happens when a change is made in one aspect of legislation, especially one that affects such wide ranging provisions as senior citizens' benefits such as pension plans, taxation structures whether income taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes or whatever, is that it affects other pieces of legislation.

The government can go to the public through its representatives, the parliamentarians, and say “We have consulted widely. We have consulted in depth. We have heard what the people have said” but they have asked them only one question. The one question was would they like the Government of Canada to change the convention that would allow the Government of the United States to collect or withhold certain social security taxes rather than collecting them at home when our provisions apply.

What the Liberals did not ask is what are the implications for those who are in a higher income tax bracket? What are the implications for those who are in a medium income tax bracket? What are the implications for other pension plans, the Canada pension plan, the old age security benefit? What are the further ranging implications? They did not ask that question.

The government provided us with legislation on the Canada pension plan. It wanted to change this legislation. It did not indicate either what the implications would be to RRSPs.

Did it tell us about the clawback provisions when it came to the old age security benefits currently existing to those that will take effect on January 1, 1998? Unless the government tells the whole story, it could be confusing to people.

In fact, if the Liberals tell only part of the story without telling the whole story with the view to changing the attitude of the people and their direction, they could be charged with deliberately leading the people in a direction in which they would not go if they understood the whole story.

That is the danger behind this legislation before us today. Then they are forcing the issue so that we cannot tell the people of Canada what is involved. This misleads them and creates a situation that is false from the beginning. It creates a foundation that is wrong and creates doubt in the minds of the people. What is this government really all about?

Canadians will find out. The day is coming when they will pay their taxes and recognize “What in the world happens now? I have to pay this tax. I have to pay that tax. I have to pay another tax and what I thought I was going to get, I don't get. What's going on here?”

They call it an income tax. They call it a surtax. They call it a clawback. They call it a reduction in benefits. They call it a shift in emphasis. All of them lead to one thing, more money in the general treasury of the Parliament of Canada. It is wrong.

It confuses the people. It distracts their attention and makes it impossible for them to make well-informed and solid choices.

I cannot help but hearken back to a letter the Minister of Finance wrote not too long ago. In fact it was written last spring. In the letter he referred to the excise tax for gasoline. Guess what he said? He said that excise taxes go into the consolidated revenue fund of the Government of Canada and were necessary to reduce the debt.

The government has been in office since 1993. It has not reduced the debt one cent. In fact, $100 billion were added.

What did the Minister of Finance say in Vancouver just last week? He said that the deficit would only be $8.9 billion. Only $8.9 billion more will be added to the debt of Canada. He should have said that our debt had increased by $8.9 billion in the last year. That is what the government is giving Canadians and it does not help.

The difficulty is that again the Minister of Finance is confusing the people. There is confusion on taxes. There is confusion on seniors benefits. There is confusion in the way in which the government rams things through the House. There is confusion because people thought their representatives would be able to represent their point of view accurately, concisely, honestly and in a truthful way. What did they discover? We have to shut up. That is wrong.

We need to get to the point where the government tells the whole story when it presents a program or legislation. It should tell the whole story. That is the truth. It should not tell part of the story or lead in a particular direction and actually end up saying something, presenting something or creating a perception that is false. That is going on here.

I decry that kind of thing. It should not happen. Are there certain provisions in the proposed legislation that could be supported? Absolutely there are. There really are.

One of my major concerns is that the legislation does not treat all people equitably. It does not treat them fairly. As a consequence we have to vote against the bill.

Does it mean we object to everything in the bill? No, it does not mean that. It means the bill ought to tell the whole story and it does not.

The time has come for every parliamentarian to examine every piece of legislation on the basis of three things. Is it the truth? Does it treat people fairly? Does it create the kind of perception that will give wisdom and courage to the people so they can go to their children and grandchildren and tell them what they have done for them and what benefits they have been given. Liberal member and opposition members need to develop that kind of orientation in parliament.

Legislation like this bill and the way it is being presented proposes an arbitrary manipulation of the rules of the House to get a particular point of view across. It confuses and misleads the people of Canada. It creates cynicism on the part of people who ask what parliamentarians are up to anyway. The time has come for them to be able to say that parliamentarians represent what they want honestly, fairly and completely. That is missing this afternoon.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997, October 20th, 1997]

We have not voted yet.