Ted White

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today to the motion which addresses some of the problems of the recently announced budget.

Last Monday when I spoke to Bill C-14, the authority to borrow up to $37 billion more on the backs of the young people of Canada, I said I wished that government members would vote against the bill in order to avoid mortgaging the futures of their children and grandchildren.

Unfortunately my pleas were not heard or they were not understood or they were not convincing enough. For whatever reason absolutely not one government member voted against adding another $1,450 in mortgaged future to every man, woman and child in the country. Government members refused to acknowledge or are incapable of understanding the seriousness of the problem and they voted for Bill C-14.

As one person put it, because of the budget the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned out until further notice. No light at the end of the tunnel usually means there is a wall at the end of the tunnel. We do not have to keep speeding into a dark tunnel on this train of out of control debt. There is a chance for government members to help stop the train.

What is needed, among other things, is for them to support the motion before us today, a motion that would foster co-operation, to place caps on spending and to develop a spending contingency plan that will stop piling debt on to our children and grandchildren.

Of course government members are always worried that our real plan is to overthrow the government so that we can have another election. I would just like to say to them that this is simply not true. We believe in stability in government and we will support any government at this critical time that is prepared to address seriously the issues of deficit and debt.

Government members should be placing partisan politics in second place and start admitting that Reform MPs are telling the truth about the seriousness of the problem. If they do not believe there is a problem they should think about what has happened in Ontario. They should ask themselves: If government spending was the answer to the problems, how come the premier of the province of Ontario has had to abandon his program of $13 billion deficits? If it did not work for Ontario, how can it work for Canada?

The fact is that government deficits kill the economy. Government deficits lead to high taxation and excessive regulation. Government deficits suck the wealth out of the private sector and destroy hopes for the future. Government deficits turn out the light at the end of the tunnel.

I find it hard to believe that at least some of the government members have not realized that the government, like ones before it, has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. I find it hard to believe that at least some of them have not realized that we have reached tax saturation point, that it is time to abandon these possibilities of widening the tax base. It is time to realize that increasing taxes will only lead to a bigger underground economy. Prior to the 1993 election Reform was the underdog. If this government does not wake up, it will find that after the 1993 election Reform is the watchdog and after the next election we will be the top dog.

The best way for government members to retain their seats in the next election and to prevent Reform from winning is to support the motion before us today. That is another bit of the free advice I give occasionally to government members to help them with their re-election.

I know that government members like to say the policies of Reform are slash and burn. This is ridiculous rhetoric. It really does not contribute anything to solving the problems. The people who watch the proceedings of the House of Commons on television are intelligent, thoughtful people who can see through that rhetoric. They understand it for what it is.

We on this side of the House try to offer constructive alternatives. We offer alternatives that are workable and reasonable. It would not hurt for a government member to occasionally vote with us on something that we propose.

The evidence that we speak the truth is all around us. The National Citizens Coalition, which the government would dearly like to silence, has widely distributed a taxpayers' score card. If any government member filled it in honestly, they would have to admit that the government had failed in its budget plans.

More evidence came right from the horse's mouth, so to speak, when the deputy finance minister admitted to the public accounts committee on March 9 that the tax burden on individual Canadians and corporations is higher than in any other major industrial power except France and has climbed to almost 40 per cent of the gross domestic product.

Peter Cook in the Globe and Mail on the same date wrote:

Mr. Martin may have convinced himself that economic growth and the spending cuts he announced will head off a debt crunch, and he has convinced his boss-

Do we know who that is, Mr. Speaker?

-who is rather easily convinced on this subject. But at the great bar of public opinion he is not doing so well. Not only has he failed to convince most Canadian economists and the Canadian media, but he is facing an international audience that is getting rather peppery and impertinent.

Reports in the financial circles of Germany and the U.K. criticized the failure to act on the spending and predicted that the Canadian dollar would continue to slide. The proof is out there for us all to see; another third of a cent drop in the dollar last Friday, almost four cents since the election. Is the government proud of this wonderful achievement?

Can government members not see that this will lead to higher interest rates, higher inflation and no possibility of getting control of this deficit? Anyone with a calculator can see that we are already off the targets that were set in that budget. Even the government's infrastructure program, which was supposed to

kickstart the economy, has become a scandalous wish list of pork barrel politics and make work projects.

In a news release on February 18 by British Columbia-Canada infrastructure works it was revealed that short and long term job creation are no longer essential criteria. They have been reduced to only important criteria. The item at the top of the list is now incrementality and/or acceleration of investment, whatever that means. Let's face it, it is a mess and it is not going to get better as a result of the budget.

Our Reform motion today tries to address some of the problems and it promises co-operation. If I were a betting man I would bet that the government members will do the usual thing and vote against it without having any good reason to do so.

The Globe and Mail editorial on the morning after the budget said:

The budget makes a mockery of Jean Chrétien's promise to return to the good old days. In the good old days the future was not mortgaged to the selfishness and cowardice of the current generation.

I am not a coward. I am prepared to tell it as it is, and I am not afraid to support decisive action.

I am also not selfish about it. I have taken a voluntary pay cut and refused to sign the form making me eligible for the gold-plated MPs' pension plan. I have proven that I am prepared to make sacrifices to avoid dumping more debt on to the next generation. I can sleep at night because I can say to the next generation that I tried to stop the debt train in that long dark tunnel while the government opened the throttle, hoping the light at the end of the tunnel would reappear only to discover there was a wall in front of it.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did enjoy the hon. member's speech, as I always do.

He mentioned the fiscal monitor but the Minister of Finance said in this House that the people of Canada cannot understand the fiscal monitor. We would like to see it put in a form once a quarter so that the people of Canada can actually understand whether the deficit is being addressed or not.

The problem is that people cannot buy the groceries that the hon. member was talking about. To buy $7,000 worth of groceries, they need to have $14,000 earned because of the level of taxation from each level of government.

Taxes are the problem. Will the member admit that it is government overspending and government overborrowing that is the problem? That is what creates the high taxes. Will he admit that the budget is a fraud, should be scrapped and replaced with a real plan to get control of spending, to reduce taxes and to create jobs?

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

The finance minister said the people of Canada cannot understand it.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, March 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in rising to speak to private member's Bill C-201 I would like to state at the outset that Reform MPs do support a change to the oath of allegiance. In fact a separate oath of allegiance has already been developed by the Reform Party. Many of us used it in our ridings, as my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap mentioned.

I held a local swearing in ceremony at my office in North Vancouver on January 7 of this year. We invited about 175 voters, chosen at random from the voters' list, people we liked and people we did not. It did not even matter if they voted Liberal; we had them in our office. Although for the most part the event was fairly informal we did have a formal part of about five or ten minutes when I took the oath of allegiance.

I would like to quote from documentation we used that day which is headed: "A Statement of Principles and a Pledge of Commitment by Your Reform Party Member of Parliament". I will read some of these principles quickly.

I, Ted White, having been elected by the voters of the Federal Constituency of North Vancouver to represent you in the 35th Parliament of Canada, do hereby sincerely pledge that I am committed to the following principles as I carry out my duties on your behalf:

I am committed to the development of a new and stronger united Canada: a balanced democratic federation of provinces, distinguished by the acceptance of our social responsibilities, and the recognition of the equality and uniqueness of all of our provinces and citizens.

I am committed to equality for all Canadians regardless of race, language, culture, religion or gender and will give true and faithful representation to all of my constituents.

I am committed to being your democratic and fiscal conscience in the 35th Parliament, and I am prepared to demonstrate this commitment by showing leadership by example.

I believe you have sent me to the House of Commons to present your views in that forum, not to represent Ottawa's views to you. I believe that the House of Commons must be the house of the people, not the house of the parties. The word "politician" must mean a representative of the people not a servant of a party. To that end, I shall not only encourage you to communicate with me, but I am committed to consulting your views at every opportunity, and shall make myself available to you regularly, within our constituency. I need your advice and guidance.

I believe that when decisions are to be made on contentious issues of major national importance, it is my duty to seek the consensus view of my constituents, and to represent that consensus in Parliament, even if it conflicts with my own personal view.

I believe you have placed me in a position of great trust. I shall therefore conduct my personal and public life with honour and integrity. I shall administer public funds as carefully as if they were my own. I shall make sure that neither I, nor my family, will profit from any knowledge or influence I have as a legislator.

Then I took the short oath with one of my peers, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby taking the oath. The oath read:

I, Ted White, your Member of Parliament, do pledge, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Canadian federation and to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and that I will faithfully represent the people of the Electoral District of North Vancouver in the Canadian House of Commons.

The document was then signed and witnessed by 25 of the people present.

The wording for a new oath as suggested in Bill C-201 is similar to the suggested Reform oath in that it addresses the concept of loyalty to the Canadian federation. However I feel that it does lack the very important reference to the need to faithfully represent the people of the riding. Bill C-201 proposes that the oath read:

I, Ted White, swear that I will be loyal to Canada and that I will perform the duties of a member of the House of Commons honestly and justly in conformity with the Constitution of Canada.

The oath refers to performing the duties of a member of the House of Commons. However the problem is that there is no job specification for a member of the House of Commons. If the duties are not defined then it is meaningless to swear to carry out those duties. MPs are entrusted to conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the position and very few constraints are placed on us. We must be free to speak and to act on behalf of our constituents without any controls being placed on us by the system or the government.

It is virtually impossible to define our duties, making the suggested new oath better than the one presently used. However I believe it is open to improvement. In the absence of the ability to amend the bill I do support it. I am sorry it is not a votable bill. I congratulate the member for introducing it to the House.

[McDonald's Restaurants, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada has made all 253 of its company operated restaurants, including the three in my riding, smoke free as of today. In addition, approximately half of the 422 restaurants not directly controlled by McDonald's of Canada are also becoming smoke free.

The health consequences of exposure to secondhand smoke are well known and the establishment of smoke free environments in family restaurants is to be congratulated. McDonald's will help tremendously in the move to prevent children from taking up smoking.

Ronald McDonald should be adopted as the mascot for the Canadian Lung Association. I congratulate McDonald's for taking a giant step toward the eventual elimination of smoking in all restaurants in Canada and I ask members of this House to join with me in identifying this day, March 7, 1994, as McDonald's smoke free day in Canada.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. member has agreed that the government should take the blame for whatever happens as a result of this budget.

By 1995 our debt is going to be 75 per cent of our gross national product. That is a little like billing $22,500 to a credit card when one only earns $30,000 a year. Sooner or later one is in deep trouble.

The Reform Party has a very comprehensive plan, an alternative budget. The Chair will not give me the two hours I would like to be able to give my own budget speech, but I invite the member to come across to our side and see all the details on the way we would cut.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is always interested in addressing inequities or problems. I think what we wanted to point out here is that in any situation where you freeze a situation you also freeze inequities or unfairness. If you extend that freeze further without addressing the problems that your freeze created I think that is something we should all oppose.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-14, the borrowing authority act, it is important to look back and review the budget that was presented to this House on February 22 by the hon. Minister of Finance.

On February 23 a Vancouver television station, UTV, conducted a poll of 3,000 people in the Vancouver area asking whether the budget was too tough, not tough enough or just right. The results of that poll indicated that 65 per cent of the people felt the budget was not tough enough, while only 17 per cent felt it was too tough.

Clearly the people wanted the government to act. They wanted the government to act decisively and make meaningful and substantial cuts.

During the budget presentation, the hon. minister stated that it was the fifth time he had risen in this House to speak on a budget and it was the first time there had been anyone in the House when he spoke.

A constituent of North Vancouver called me to say that based on what he heard on the fifth occasion he was not surprised that there was nobody here on the other four. He said the minister was fortunate to have a captive audience to clap like trained seals for a budget that was badly flawed. I agree with the caller. There are terrible flaws in the budget that will have to be recognized by the members of the government as time proceeds.

The plain fact is that today we are debating a bill that plans to borrow up to $37 billion only because the Minister of Finance failed to do his job properly on February 22.

Before the government members become too depressed, I feel I should in all fairness do as my colleague did and mention that there were some good proposals in the budget. I agree with my colleague that the decision to freeze government salaries has some major inequities and it is a shame that there were not provisions put in there to deal with those.

However, the overall impact is beneficial to small business because an extensive survey taken recently by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business showed that on average most salaries in the government sector are still above those for similar positions in the private sector. By having this freeze for the next two years it will take pressure off of the small business sector to have to increase its own salaries.

Many workers in the private sector have taken wage rollbacks over the past few years as their businesses struggle with the tax burden and increasing costs. I think it is entirely appropriate that the government sector be seen to take some of the load while the economy recovers.

Moving to another item that came up in the budget, in my speech to this House on January 24 I commented on the government's red book proposal to establish a Canada investment fund. I suggested that permitting RRSP investment into some sort of mutual fund that invested in venture capital would be a good way to create finance for small business without involving taxpayers' money.

However, I also suggested that if the government went ahead with the fund anyway, which it has now done, it should at least put private sector management in place to look after that fund rather than make patronage appointments.

Who knows whether others were also urging the same thing of the member, but maybe the Minister of Finance was watching my speech that day. If he was and the suggestion of a private sector management fund appealed to him I congratulate him for including it in his budget.

I hope that the privately managed venture capital fund will be required to return a profit to the public purse while it helps new and innovative businesses get established.

In terms of the ongoing viability of small business, I was also pleased to note that the capital gains exemption for the sale of small business shares was retained. I would like to quote from a recent issue of the Times of London in which former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lament, writes: ``To grow, businesses and individuals need to plough back their profits, but capital gains tax and other business taxes work against this. They encourage proprietors to drain their businesses of cash. This has weakened small businesses and has made it difficult for many of them to survive the recession''.

Small business owners who provide most of the jobs in this country were encouraged to see that their investments in their businesses were protected.

Unfortunately just as the government members are starting to feel all warm and fuzzy about this budget I have to go back to talking about the appalling bill that is before us which asks for authorization for up to $37 billion more to be spent.

Did any member of this government ask their children and grandchildren whether they wanted us to borrow another $37 billion? How will the government members explain to their children and grandchildren that they sat here on a Monday in February 1994 and supported a mortgage on the future of the next generation? How will they explain the higher taxes and the reduction in government services or even a possibility of a debt crisis in the future as a result of this borrowing?

Some of the government members are pretty decent people. I even like a few of them, despite their permanent mind block against deficit reduction. Surely they cannot in good conscience support this bill knowing that it condemns their children and their grandchildren to a lifetime of debt and interest payments.

I am going to refer to a letter in the Financial Post of February 16, 1994. The writer says: ``A Post article of February 1 quotes Jean Chrétien as stating Canada's deficit is not out of line with international deficit levels and that his government will take a gradual approach to cutting it. What on earth does it take to make these people realize we have no God given right to live beyond our means on other people's money? Every businessman or businesswoman in this country knows very well that we would have been bankrupt years ago if we all handled our personal affairs as the previous Liberal and Tory governments have done for over 25 years. Millions of Canadians are fed up to the eyeballs with politicians blaming past politicians who blamed politicians before them''.

It is very disappointing to note that while they sit here blaming the politicians before them, government members opposite will vote in favour of a budget which does nothing to right the wrongs of the past.

They will vote in the hope that personal income tax which plunged by $6 billion last year will miraculously bound by $7 billion this year.

As I sat listening to the budget presentation I had a feeling of great sadness for I have already seen another country follow this same pathway. I have seen the denial and I have seen the failure to act and I have seen what happens when the bills finally have to be paid.

On the afternoon of February 22 I felt a little bit of anger and I felt a little bit of despair but the overwhelming feeling was sadness.

I know that many of the government members do not feel the same sense of urgency about the deficit that I feel and if I could just have one wish it would be somehow to transfer my experiences from New Zealand so that collectively we could start down a pathway to recovery instead of continuing down the slippery slope of disaster.

It would be a miracle if government members would vote down this borrowing bill but I truly wish they would.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech given by the hon. member very interesting.

At one point during her speech, the hon. member mentioned the people in the gallery and said how we were discussing the future for the young people of this country. I definitely agree.

Did the hon. member ever ask her children and her grandchildren or the young people in this gallery whether they wanted another $34 billion to $37 billion added to the mortgage for their future? This bill we are discussing today could add $37 billion to their debt load. How is the member going to explain to her children and her grandchildren that she supported mortgaging their future?

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, our motion seems to have been a burr under the saddle of the members opposite today.

The hon. member decries a government by petition, as if we had proposed government by petition. Debating the occasional major petition is hardly government by petition. It is certainly sad the members opposite are afraid of reforms that would show Canadians we really care about their opinions between elections.

Would the hon. member consider a petition with one million signatures on it worth debating. I am asking the hon. member the same question I asked earlier of another member: Why is he afraid to debate a major petition? Is he afraid that in front of the television cameras his constituents will see that he does not actually represent them?

1639