Jim Silye

[Employment, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Human Resources Development announced a $2 billion, three year proposal to share employment training with the provinces. The $2 billion will come from an estimated surplus in the UI fund of the $5 billion paid into it by employees and employees of this country.,

Why is the government using its taxing and spending power to maintain its position in labour market training even though the government has already recognized provincial responsibility in this area?

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I can help the government by the very method I am using here today.

It is not what we promise but what we say. I am only criticizing the red book. We and other people took a look at the red book. There were 187 promises made in the red book. I have said the government has kept 46 of them. There is the compliment. It has 121 to go and only one year left before an election. It had better crank it up.

How we in opposition help the government is to hold the government accountable to those policies and principles it uses to get elected. The Liberals promised to protect the civil service. They fired 44,000. They promised stable funding for the CBC. When we came out with our first budget and said we would cut spending on the CBC by $330 million guess what? The Liberals broke that promise. They called us slash and burn and draconian for recommending that. They slashed the CBC to the tune of $337 million, $7 million more than what we said. Where is the slash and burn now? Where is the draconian budget cutting now?

Our job is to to exactly what we are doing, holding the government side accountable, questioning integrity and showing incompetence if there is any because taxpayers have invested in 295 people to look after their interests. The government can brag about what it has done and done right. I wish it would not distort the truth, though.

I wish the minister of myth would use reality rather than fiction. I have to point out what he is doing wrong. That is wrong. It is wrong to talk to Canadians that way. What is right is to talk about the whole picture. A true financial picture has assets and liabilities. People have to talk about their liabilities and not only their assets. Although he has done well on the deficit, what the government should be doing is targeting the debt as a percentage of GDP.

On a federal basis currently that is running at 76 per cent. Our debt at close to $600 billion is 76 per cent of our GDP. If the provincial debts are combined with that, we are at a trillion dollars. We are at 104 per cent debt to GDP. That is very high and the credit rating goes to risk.

Control over finances is not in our hands when 40 per cent of that debt is outside the country. My contribution to the government is to make it aware of the facts, remind it of the facts and hope it addresses the facts. That is how I help.

The government, the finance minister and the Prime Minister have the power to act. We do not. There are so many things the government is missing that it may sound like a diatribe on poor

government, but for me to talk about all the good ideas that we have would take another week.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. First, I never said that the government does nothing right. He must remember that I am in opposition. My job is to hold the government accountable. Therefore, by holding the government accountable I point out the areas where it is deficient: 121 promises yet to be kept, 46 broken promises. It is my job to point that out.

The one thing the government has done right which has helped the respectability of the country, is setting a deficit target to GDP, even though it is low, and meeting the target and appearing that it is doing better all the time is a positive, good message for the economy. It is good for everybody and good for the finial markets.

There is your compliment. I gladly give it. However, having given it, the problem is the debt. By concentrating on the deficit and not making a commitment to get to zero, not to get to a surplus, the government is focused in the wrong direction. It is my job to point that out. The focus should be on the debt, the cost of servicing the interest on the debt. Therefore, the increases in the revenue have to be greater than the growth of the debt and the service costs on that debt. That is my advice, that is my recommendation which has been ignored by the government for two and a half years.

There is no question with respect to international affairs that there is a time when the Prime Minister should travel and there is a time when there is a need to travel. The first trip he took to China was a necessity because of those deals. The member now claims the finance minister has signed and closed those deals as if he is the one responsible. Let us tell the truth. He is not responsible for that. These were deals and negotiations that have been going on for two, three, four and five years by private and public sector and government to government as well.

There comes a time when certain people in politics in Asia have to see that the politicians here are behind and backing and would shore-up. That trip was worthwhile. That was one trip, five days, but how many other days has the Prime Minister been out of the country? It is 176 days. How many other jobs has he created with those other trips? My point is this gentleman made a lot of promises to get elected. He should be in the House more. He should be leading his party because it needs to be lead. The ranks are pretty thin.

Then he had to fire all his parliamentary secretaries, fire a couple of cabinet ministers and bring in two rookies from Quebec to help him handle that province, which the finance minister almost lost. He had to bring in two experts from Quebec. That is the kind of depth that party has and that is a sign of weakness, although the two members he brought in are outstanding in their field.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of our motion.

I refer to the Prime Minister's 1993 election commitment that "there will not be a promise I do not keep". I went through the red book. I researched the red book. I found in the red book 187 promises. I found also, as I checked them off with some help from some researchers, that 46 have been kept. That is drastically less than the 75 per cent bragged about in the testimony of the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago in the House. The Liberal government has 121 promises to go if it wants to keep the promises in the red book.

The Prime Minister also challenged any Canadian, not just MPs, "any time hold up the red book and ask me where I am on this promise". I would like to review some of these promises and maybe I will ask him where he is on some of these promises.

To get elected, as I mentioned to the member for Don Valley West earlier, this government when in opposition, when out on the hustings, used rhetoric, language and words to get elected that are so far from the reality of what it is doing today that it really brings into question integrity and accountability. Those are the two areas I will touch on.

We have even had a deputy prime minister resign because of the promise she made. The finance minister admitted they cannot keep the GST promise. The only person left who will not admit he cannot keep it, will not keep it, will not kill it, will not get rid of it, will not scrap it, is the Prime Minister.

He still thinks he is keeping his promise, that he will replace it. He says read page 22. I read page 22. It says they will replace it with a system of taxation that generates equivalent revenues. It does not. It will cost $1 billion in three provinces alone. "It will be fairer to consumers and businesses". It is not. To small business only it is fairer. For consumers it increases taxation on those goods and services that the PST did not apply to.

The reality is the government has not replaced the GST. What it has done is replaced the PST. Is that what it campaigned on? Did it say replace the PST with the GST? It has entrenched the GST into our lives forever. It has now become a 15 per cent GST. It is now to be there for all future generations. We will never get rid of it now unless a new government comes in and abolishes it with a new system of taxation. This was a big promise made to get elected, a big promise the government has failed to keep. It smacks of duplicity and exaggerated claims.

The Minister of Finance, the minister of myth, is now trying to brag about how he has done everything in the world to make this a better place to live. I have never yet seen a finance minister or a chief executive officer of any corporation in the private sector, of which I was a part for 25 years before I came here, stand up before a board of directors or shareholders and review the balance sheet of that corporation or the balance sheet of a nation and brag only about one side of the ledger, about how the deficit is coming down.

The finance minister gave an 80 minute speech to the shareholders of the country and not once did he mention the word debt. Look at his speech and find where he talks about the debt, the interest costs to service the debt or how much the debt is going up. He brags about six, five, four, three and hopes for two, one, zero, but will not make a commitment to it and does not talk about the debt, how the interest is rising on that debt and how that interest cost will suffocate the very social programs the member for Don Valley West brags about in terms of helping the disabled.

As much as they brag about how much they are helping, we subsidize and give $8 billion to aboriginals and he still claims they are disabled. Through five different programs in the expenditure system we have, we give $9 billion for children one way or the other and we still have a million starving children out there. That is a poor job and it reflects on the government.

To get elected the government promised to introduce an infrastructure program that would create jobs, jobs, jobs. There are still 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. Where are the jobs? The Prime Minister has now admitted once again that he cannot deliver on that promise of jobs. The infrastructure program has helped in some areas but overall it has been a failure. It has created 100,000 interim jobs and maybe 30,000 full time jobs at a cost of $6 billion. That is $60,000 a job. Is that worth it? I do not know.

The government also promised to reduce UI premiums to help businesses have money for investment and growth. Today we had a statement from the minister that they have reduced premiums, one-twentieth of one per cent. How much will that help businesses? How much will an entrepreneur reinvest? How many people will he hire on that basis?

What the government also did is increase the taxes on part time employees. Now when a business hires part time people it has to go to the trouble of filling out these UI forms. It is another tax. It increased payroll taxes by 7 per cent on part time employees, which inhibits and hurts. Businesses do not want that. No, the government wants more revenue. The minister talks about no taxes. That is also a myth.

There was talk about the Young Offenders Act, what is the root of increased crime and what is the problem in society. We have to empower people, but if we are to empower people we have to do two things. We have to leave more money in their pockets so they can look after their families and themselves and we need tougher rules for those people who do the crime. If someone does the crime they should pay the time. I do not care if they are 12 years old. I have been to public schools talking to kids in grades 6, 7, 8 and 9. They all say that if they do the crime they should pay the time.

However, the Minister of Justice, this soft hearted Liberal, does not want to do that. He talks like he is doing a lot of stuff but he is not. Crime is up.

What has the government promised on health care. It stated it would have a national forum and get to the bottom of health care. It would solve the problem and guarantee that every Canadian will have free health care.

Is health care free? The Prime Minister thinks it is free. He says it is free and he is going to protect it. The government and the provinces had one meeting in two and a half years and they broke up. What happened next? We are not going to hear about it until the next election. So much for health care.

The government reduced the funding for health care and education. It said to the provinces: "We are going to give you less. You handle it. But we will guarantee that five years from now we will always give you $11 billion. We will do that for you, but you handle this cutback. We do not know how to handle it".

The Liberals also said that they would restore integrity in government and bring in an ethics counsellor who would be accountable to Parliament. That is another broken promise. I even forget the name of the ethics counsellor, we have not heard of him for so long. He is responsible to the Prime Minister. That is not a watch dog. The ethics counsellor is a lap dog. That is not the integrity about which the Prime Minister spoke. It is an example of the rhetoric the Liberals used to get elected. The facts are different than the rhetoric. I am asking Canadians to recognize that.

The Liberals said they would cancel the Pearson airport deal. Yes, they did. They kept that promise. It has cost us half a billion dollars so far. It has been kicked around in the Senate. Guess what? It is coming back here. They will do another study to show that if they had gone ahead and privatized it those people who would have been taking the risk would have lost X amount of dollars. How silly. Do something with it. If it is to be cancelled, then cancel it. Handle the lawsuits and get rid of it. No, this government does not know how to do it. So far it has cost us half a billion dollars and it will cost more.

The Liberals said they would get rid of the EH-101s. They were going to cancel the helicopter deal. There were 55 or 54 EH-101s. Kim Campbell knocked the number down to 45 to try to save her butt and get re-elected. However, she was not re-elected. The Liberals said they would save that $5.8 billion. They said the country did not need the helicopters. Guess what? The department of defence needs more helicopters.

Did the Liberals tell us door to door that they would cancel this deal but spend $2 billion on another one? No, they did not say that. The rhetoric they used to get elected is different from the facts and what they are doing. The definition of a Liberal: "Say anything you want, do anything you want, be anything you want to get elected. Once you are there, do what you feel like doing".

As far as accountability goes, the Prime Minister said: "They can vote for me or not vote for me in the next election". He does not care. It is just one day every five years that he wants to be held accountable.

In opposition members of the government railed, ranted and raved about closure. When the Tories used closure the Liberal opposition said it was anti-democratic and dictatorial. This government has used closure on numerous occasions. It has limited debate on important issues that all Canadians should know more details about. It has invoked time allocation which has limited the amount of members who can speak. The government has impeded our freedom of speech. It has restricted the amount of time that 295 members can speak on controversial bills in order to get them out of the way. Canadians do not know both sides of the issues. That is what debate is all about. That is what democracy is all about. That is how the House should work. We must have proper time to debate both sides of the issue before we vote. Time allocation is anti-democratic. The Liberals said that when they were in opposition.

When they were in opposition they had integrity. When they were here they had values. What happened when they went over to that side of the House? Why did they lose it? Why do they no longer do the things they said they would do when they were in opposition? I do not understand it. I guess I never will.

Let me talk about travel. When Mulroney travelled the world there was a headline in the media every day. When this Prime Minister travels it is Team Canada and it is good. What did the Prime Minister do to the media? How did he get the media on his side? This Prime Minister has travelled more than Mulroney did in his first four, five or six years. In two and a half years this Prime Minister has travelled more. Nothing is being said about it.

We talked earlier about the patronage appointments to the Senate. Where is the integrity when a prime minister of this country stands up and talks about appointing senators? I know that is our system. We want senators to be elected. That is what this party stands for. We want a Senate which is effective, elected and equal. We think there should be two Houses in the country.

The system is patronage. The people who they think will do a good job are appointed. There are rules as to where the senators come from. Should a senator not be appointed to represent the region? I think so.

There are people on the other side who are well studied-I see two of them across from me-who are well learned and probably have impeccable credentials when it comes to the meaning democracy and political values. They know more about it than I do. I am just a businessman. I know the two members across from me know this.

Is it not important for the Prime Minister to simply say: "I appoint this man because I think he will do a good job for Alberta", instead of, "I will appoint a Liberal and he will represent my party in the Senate?" Is that democracy? That is not right. I know it is not right. The Prime Minister knows it is not right, yet he does it and he gets away with it.

I will get back to the GST by reading from two letters. In opposition and even in government, what some of these members have done with the GST and harmonization is replace the PST, which was not in the red book, with the GST. They entrenched it into our lives forever.

When the Liberals were in opposition they said such things as: "The GST is to be applied to reading materials. How do we expect to have another generation of people who can know more and can compete in the a world around us?" This question was asked by the former Minister of Health in 1990.

"Thousands of other Canadians are appalled that the government decided to tax books, magazines and newspapers. We in the opposition objected specifically to the inclusion of these products. We continue to oppose it". This was said by the member for Kingston and the Islands in 1993 when the Liberals were in opposition.

"The government is proposing to add GST by taxing the printed word. It strikes a blow at learning, the transfer of information". This was a statement made by the current member for Willowdale, the chairman of the finance committee.

They all said that it is wrong to tax reading. They all said that it is incorrect to tax reading. They all talked about, but what did they just do with harmonization? They increased the tax on reading by 7 per cent. I give up, that is enough on that topic.

The minister of myth, the Minister of Finance said: "We have produced three budgets and we have not increased personal taxes in the first, second or third". He has said it so often that I can almost do an imitation: "We haven't increased personal taxes, we haven't increased corporate taxes, we haven't increased excise taxes. In

fact, we haven't increased taxes". Wrong, wrong, wrong. I will point this out.

Here is one example, a letter from a senior in South Surrey, Mr. Sidney Martin:

Do we now have a government that blatantly lies to us? We were told that there would be no change in income taxes, 1994-1995.

On line 301 of the income tax return a non-refundable tax credit of $3,482 is available to those over 65 years of age-subject to certain limitations. In 1994 a minimum credit of $1,741 was allowed, but in 1995 this has been reduced to zero dollars.

Although my taxable income is down $1,244 in 1995, my income tax, as a result of this change, has increased by $138. In other words, I am suffering a net loss of $1,382 in 1995.

As a World War II merchant navy veteran I question, is this the type of government we deserve after defending our country from 1939 to 1945?

Is this the kind of finance minister we deserve, one who stands up and blatantly misrepresents what he has done in his budget when he claims that he has not raised taxes? There are two ways to raise taxes: raising the personal rate or broadening the base and reducing deductions. That is what he has done. That is clearly a tax increase.

On May 7 the Prime Minister claimed that the Liberals have managed to reduce the deficit with no tax increases. This is untrue. It is blatantly untrue. On the same day the Minister of Finance, the minister of myth, stated that in the last three budgets the government did not raise personal taxes. This is also untrue. This letter is evidence that he raised taxes for this gentleman by $138. This is proof.

The following facts about the three budgets of 1994, 1995 and 1996 are for the minister of myth and his Department of Finance that keeps feeding him these wonderful lines to use to try to fool the Canadian public. Economists agree there are two ways to increase taxes: explicitly raising the tax rate from 26 per cent to 29 per cent, or 17 per cent to 20 per cent or by broadening the definition of taxable income to include previously excluded income. The federal government has relied on the latter method because of its stealth characteristics.

Taxpayers do not see an increase in their tax rates and hence are fooled into believing that their tax liability stayed the same. It is on that basis that this minister of myth claims no tax increases. However, at tax time that taxpayer's tax liability will increase just as surely as if tax rates had been specifically raised. Once again, this is a specific example of how that works.

Excluding changes to the Income Tax Act designed to improve compliance and crack down on the underground economy, the government has instituted 14 revenue positive changes to personal income taxes; 15 positive changes to corporate income taxes and 2 revenue positive changes to excise taxes for a total of 31 revenue positive changes to taxes, which means 31 tax increases. Yet the Minister of Finance stands before the Canadian public and says: "No tax increases".

I have just shown that he has raised taxes 31 times. These increases add up to $10.5 billion in extra revenue over four years. The truth is, what Liberals say and the rhetoric they use does not match the facts.

Liberals have increased taxes 31 times and taxpayers will pay an extra $10.5 billion. As much as the Liberals claim they are reducing the deficit, the debt is growing faster, the interest costs to service the debt is growing. Since they came to power it has gone from $40 billion to $50 billion and the debt is up by $70 billion. When they leave this Chamber in the next election, they will have increased the debt by $112 billion. That is the true financial picture of the country. We need a finance minister that will address the problem of the debt and the service cost of that debt.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Don Valley West talks about what a Liberal is. It seems to me, especially in the last two and one-half years I have been here and when I participated in my first election campaign,

the definition of a Liberal is to say anything you need to to get elected and then do what you want when you are here.

The Prime Minister himself exemplified that statement when he said: "Ask me after I am in government. I will tell you how I govern after I get elected". Make any kind of promise you want and then get here and do what you want. In my speech I will talk about the broken promises.

The member claims that the Liberal Party has a social conscience and it is looking after health care. How do the Liberals look after health care, education and welfare? They lumped it all together, said that they did not know how to do it, so they just took $7.5 billion and cut it. They cut $7.5 billion form established programs financing and the Canada assistance plan and that is how they solved it.

Is that a solution? Is that responsible government? Is that the way the member thinks that his party has a social conscience, by downloading health care, education and welfare on to the provinces so that the Ontario legislature gets the rocks thrown at it and not this building?

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Talk about the debt.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

If you are going to speak, tell the truth.

[Income Tax Act, May 29th, 1996]

It is obvious the member is trying to find a way to get more money into the pockets of Canadians so they can look after the essentials of life, their children, the disabled and the aged and have more disposable income.

The solution is not by increasing the caregiver tax credit. The member also hinted that the solution is tax reform. He talked about the blue ribbon commission which will come up with a pink ribbon prize, I am sure. He is encouraging the finance minister to look further.

I support his efforts to eliminate discrimination against stay at home parents. This motion is too vague. It does not give any amounts and it will probably get shot down the same as my private member's bill did even though they both tried to do the same thing.

He is absolutely right about the tax reform angle he talked about. We have to create a tax free zone and allow the first $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 of a person's income to be tax free. We should also allow that same amount for a spouse, whether or not that spouse works outside the home. It would be the best way to develop good social programs by leaving the money in the hands of the people who earn it.

Currently the Reform Party is working on a simplified tax system in which the first $8,200 would be tax free along with another $8,200 for a spouse, for a total of $16,400, and $2,000 for each child up to age 16, which would be deductible as well. That would total $20,000 for a family of four which would be zero taxed. Anything above that 21 per cent would be revenue neutral and all the other exemptions and deductions for the wealthy and the loopholes would be gone.

The income would be redistributed from this system of taxation which features a single rate through direct government spending, as is done through the Departments of Transport, Health or HRD. There would be better accountability and visibility of spending. That way we would get to a balanced budget faster and then we could decide how much more money to leave in the hands of the people who are suffering, the people who have specific needs for disabled. If they happen to be low income we could decide how much more we could help them. We could do it through direct

grants. Social workers in the field could find out where those 1 million starving children are.

We spend $9 billion on this complicated, confusing, convoluted tax system we have now. Through five different programs we spend $9 billion on children, subsidizing single parents, child care deductions, day care centres and there are a million children starving? This does not make sense to me.

I respect the efforts and the intent of the motion. However, because of its vagueness and lack of a cost benefit analysis I will be voting against it. It must be more specific. I really believe we should have a system in which the money is directly given to those people identified as being truly in need through direct spending instead of this mirage of the Income Tax Act. Change it, replace it with a simplified flat tax. That is how we could truly solve our social problems and create more hope, growth and expansion in the economy.

[Income Tax Act, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the motion put forward by the member for Mississauga South.

He points out this would contemplate changes to the Income Tax Act which would refocus available resources to those in need. Additional savings would be realized by reducing demand on child care spaces or institutionalized services. Cutbacks at both the federal and provincial levels necessitate that we look for creative ways to provide options or more choice to families.

Although the intentions are honourable, I feel the motion as it stands is vague. I missed the first part of his speech because of standing committee work. Unless it was pointed out earlier, it does not outline the amount of the tax credit he refers to so one can compare it to the existing redistribution of tax dollars that we now

apply to families in need, the disabled and all the people he wishes to assist in a greater fashion.

From his comments, I feel there is not enough of a cost benefit analysis. The motion talks of the need for people to have more money, to have more access to funds and it is a feel good motion. We all want to do the things this motion puts forward.

On a caregiver tax credit, I thought long and hard about what is a caregiver. A caregiver is somebody who earns money and who pays the bills. That is a caregiver. Whether they give the care to themselves as a single person, whether they give the care to a family of whatever size, a caregiver is someone who pays the bills. The existing system takes care of caregivers now because we do have a lot of exemptions, deductions, incentives and loopholes within the current system.

However, with the vagueness in the motion it seems the member for Mississauga South wants to give a bigger tax credit. He lists all the things this bigger credit would do, if it is a bigger credit or just a reshuffling. It would recognize the value of work in the home. It would free up jobs. It would free up child care spaces, spaces in long term care facilities for the handicapped and the aged, provide the option for direct parental child care, promote financial independence of the spouse in the home and enhance the quality of life for families.

It seems to do an awful lot of things but we do not know how much more we have to spend to achieve all those things. It sounds like the speeches I give when I talk about the flat tax and how that is the cure all and the end all for all our problems in this confusing complicated taxation system. It seems a caregiver tax credit will solve all our problems.

There is no question there are some issues the member is seriously trying to address, and I respect his efforts to do so. We both had private member's bills before the House in which we were concerned about the discrimination against stay at home parents. There is no question our system encourages, forces, begs, pleads and wants families to have both spouses working outside the home.

There is incentive to work outside the home. If parents each earn $30,000 with two children at home versus a family that chooses to have one spouse work outside the home making $60,000 and the other looking after the children and providing the care in the home, the difference in the family situation, same family size, same salary, is about $6,000 or $7,000 in taxes.

There is discrimination against stay at home parents. In order to solve the problem I presented a private member's bill which would provide a $5,000 child care deduction for children up to age 7 and $3,000 between the ages of 8 and 13. The finance department quickly calculated that number and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance gave a nice speech and said "although the suggestion of the member for Calgary Centre is honourable and great, it will cost the taxpayers another $6 billion more and therefore we cannot do it". So much for helping to eliminate discrimination against stay at home parents.

The member for Mississauga South also put forward a bill in which he looked at income splitting. I believe that suffered the same fate.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 8th, 1996]

Would the Chair please explain why we are going through all the motions when the bell has not rung to give notice of the votes?