Did we address the issue of-
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 22% of the vote.
Financial Administration Act March 21st, 1996
Did we address the issue of-
Financial Administration Act March 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I believe we have addressed the issue of electoral boundaries, have we not?
Financial Administration Act March 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I do not believe we are on questions or comments at this time. If the member will tell me that in the next election there will not be 301 seats, then I will take back my charge.
Financial Administration Act March 21st, 1996
I appreciate that, Madam Speaker, but this is a three-hour debate. We do not know whether it is more than fair. If you continue that the rest of the way we will really appreciate it.
First, I would like to point out that my speech this afternoon is intended to convince the government to recognize that we have a problem. In so doing, I will obviously be creating the need to solve that problem and offer a solution.
Since this is the first time the government has heard about the solution presented by my colleague from St. Albert I feel the government deserves some time to consider it. We would not want it to be too hasty in its position, especially in light of the first two comments we heard by its members. We would like government members to listen to the debate with an open mind.
It seems very suspicious. This is the first time we have brought this forward and suddenly the government has concluded that it would involve a bigger bureaucracy, that it would cost more money, that therefore we could not do it, that it is going along quite nicely as it is. I will get back to the bigger bureaucracy issue in a second.
The suggestion by my colleague requires all departments and agencies to table in the House of Commons a specific response to the auditor general's report on their activities, including timeframes within which corrective action would be taken regarding any shortcomings. This is the point that I want to stress. This is the point that I want to concentrate on. It is the corrective measures that will produce the efficiency gains in the system.
As my colleague from St. Albert said, we pay $50 million for an auditor general and three times a year he is reported in the newspaper for a couple of days. There are headlines about government waste here and government waste there, which is not necessarily the fault of the politicians. However, he sees this waste. What happens after? How do we know if there is a follow up? At what point will there be a follow up?
This suggestion is a way to take advantage of the $50 million investment in the auditor general and a way to allow departments and bureaucrats to respond. Heaven knows they have received a lot of flak lately. Heaven knows they have not had a raise in pay for a long time and unlike the MPs they could not give themselves an increase in their pensions. Therefore, they have to suffer at the mercy of the criticism of the auditor general. If they were given a specific opportunity to respond as to when they would have corrective measures, they could follow that timeline, and politi-
cians could come and go. It is more important that we have some production out of the criticism. This process would only occur if there were areas which needed fixing. This is what the purpose of the auditor general is.
There is an excellent suggestion in the motion. It legitimizes the auditor general's review. If there are no problems, there are no problems. If there is a problem, then let us solve it. When will we solve it? Who is responsible for solving it? These are the things that are not happening in all cases.
As my colleague said, the public accounts committee does review things. It does do a good job. It takes time. If we make a list and we have to do things one through ten, it takes 10 times longer to do it. If we had 10 departments doing it we could get it all done in the same amount of time. That is the point in terms of efficiency gains. That is the point in terms of solving problems faster, thereby saving money.
The negative impression that an auditor general's report could give of government could be eliminated sooner. The reputation and the integrity of government would also improve if this motion were adopted. It shows co-operation. It does not show a hand up like a football player trying to block somebody from tackling them.
The opportunity for departments to clarify and rectify any criticisms more quickly gives them the opportunity to take matters into their own hands and do something about the issue as fast as possible.
I would now like to spend a couple of minutes on the hypocrisy of the government. I spoke yesterday about the GST and the sanctimoniousness, the hypocrisy of how the government raises duplicity to its highest form.
Today I will try to make a constructive suggestion. Already the argument is being used that with the size of the deficit, which is going down, that bureaucracy cannot be made bigger. It is going to cost us more money and, therefore, it cannot be done.
How hypocritical is that statement? I will tell the House how hypocritical it is. The government said it wants efficiency, to retain a small bureaucracy. Then someone tell me why the government voted to add six more members of Parliament to the House of Commons? It wants to increase the numbers from 295 to 301. That is what the Liberals voted for, to approve the electoral boundaries which would increase the number of seats to 301, an additional six seats. The government is hypocritical for supporting the addition of six more MPs. It is a cost that will be far higher-
Financial Administration Act March 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize for giving you a hard time earlier. I thought there were set rules and perhaps there was an oversight.
Financial Administration Act March 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order. There are three hours of debate on the motion. It is a votable item. There are rules in the standing orders with respect to the rotation we should be following.
I will live by your decision. However, if there are rules I think we should follow them. I believe the Reform Party is the next to speak. It is our motion.
Financial Administration Act March 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have a quick clarification. Does the rotation not go back to the Reform Party if it is our motion?
Supply March 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I quote the current minister of fisheries, promoted to his job, from February 11, 1993, a man who I believe keeps his word, a man who believes in what he says: "Our alternative to the GST is that we are not going to have one. We are not going to have a tax that burns the individuals and the small businesses which then go broke because they cannot afford the people and computers to do it".
The red book states "replace". If the Liberals replace it through harmonization have they provided an alternative to GST, because we will still have the same hierarchy, administrative work and the valued added tax in place that we have to collect, get credit, pay back, collect, get credit, pay back? Will this problem be solved? Will it still burn individuals in small businesses? They will still go broke because they cannot afford the people and computers required to do the work.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
I have another quote by the member for Broadview-Greenwood, whom I respect a lot because he stands up and says things he believes in and he believes what he says. He wants the government to consider tax reform. He wants the government to introduce a simplified system of taxation. He submitted to the Standing Committee of Finance ideas and suggestions supported by 17 of his colleagues on a way to keep their election promise, the promise he made at the door, because he is a man who keeps his word, to get rid of the GST and replace it with a flat tax.
We just heard the chairman of the Standing Committee of Finance talk about how that was impossible because there was not enough time to consider it. What a foolish statement to make when the Prime Minister sat in opposition and said: "I would get rid of the GST in one day". He has been here for over two years and has not replaced it. In 1993 he said he would replace it by 1995. It is now 1996 and he still has not replaced it. To me this is all about trust, integrity and being held accountable. That is what this debate is all about.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said: "It is no secret that we as Liberals, if we are given, and I say it humbly, the trust of the people in the fall, the GST will be scrapped". The Liberals have received that trust. They made those promises to replace the tax. They have not achieved, they have not engineered, they have not accomplished trust.
I have another quote from the current national revenue minister who I worked with in the standing committee. She is a person who I know has conviction, who believes in what she says and who will do what she says. In the Winnipeg Free Press , March 24, 1994 she said: ``As Liberals we were elected to change the tax, abolish the tax, scrap it''. She said this as an MP.
We know that certain members of the Liberal government, one for sure, has said publicly that because the government is not keeping its promise on the GST, he is going to vote against the budget.
There is a difference between what Liberals said at the door to get elected and with the phrasing in the red book which they are now hiding behind. The current minister of revenue, no matter how much she tries, and I heard her speech, said that they will change the tax, abolish the tax, scrap it or replace it. They still have not done it.
Now they throw back quotes in our face and say that when the Reformers worked on the Standing Committee of Finance this is what they said but they are all selective quotes out of context.
Let me put it back in context. In our executive summary, and this is after the first year we were here, we were trying to show Canadians that we were a constructive alternative. If we were going to criticize we would come up with some suggestions on how to make it better. Of course the government never listened.
We have heard bits and pieces of quotes for the last week in question period. The master of myth, the Minister of Finance, has used little parts of it. The member for Capilano-Howe Sound, the member for Lethbridge and myself were responsible for the minority report. We said the majority finance committee report on the replacement of the GST cannot be fully endorsed by the Reform Party. While the replacement goes part of the way in responding to concerns presented to the committee, many of the concerns will only be addressed by future negotiations with the provinces. Even that the Liberals are not doing in good faith.
If they really want this harmonization to work, if they really want to meet their commitment to replace the GST, they should be giving the provinces an incentive. But they want their 7 per cent. They want to leave the provinces with 8 per cent and still charge 15 per cent.
If they really want to have it they should reduce the federal rate by 2 per cent. Give the taxpayers a reason, an advantage and show that those efficiency costs can be passed on. This government does not pass savings along to the taxpayers because it is a tax and spend government.
The majority report recommendation merely tinkers with the current GST and does not live up to the Liberal promise to scrap it. That is in the report, that is quoted but then they stop.
Reformers are of the view that value added taxes are incapable of responding to a significant portion of the concerns raised during the hearings. The hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound pointed that out very well in his speech. That is in Hansard if any of the members would like to check it out.
The third thing the Reform Party recommends is spending cuts be the government's first priority. It took the Liberals two years to even make a cut when they should have done it two years ago. This country would be $10 billion better off in terms of debt and $1 billion better off in lower costs in terms of interest.
As well, the entire current system of personal, corporate and value added taxes should be replaced. Here is what the Reform Party would do. It would use a simple, visible and fair system of taxation that incorporates the principles of fairness at the lowest rate possible.
In the interim the party will support reforms to the current regimes that move in this direction. I am adding today, with the staged elimination of the GST once the budget is balanced.
We have positions. We have suggestions. This government's strategy is to blame the provinces because they will not harmonize the tax systems. The government will not even be able to replace the GST. It does not want the provinces to agree with it otherwise it would have given them an incentive. It would have lowered the rates. There is no incentive. Therefore, there is no real desire.
The Liberals' strategy is to try to convince Canadians. The master of myth, the finance minister, says: "Let's put this deal out there. We'll blame the provinces. Let's throw it in the face of the
Reform members. We will select sentences from their executive summary, put them on the defensive, show that they support our harmonization and then we get out of it. We don't have to do it. We'll just make that promise, re-elect us and then we'll do it".
I predict that is what the Liberals are jockeying for. That is what they are trying to do, put themselves in a position so they do not have to keep that promise. Even in that promise of replacing the GST, Canadians will not be fooled. Canadians are smarter than the government thinks they are. Canadians should be given more credit than what the government gives them. They are not going to be fooled. They are going to see through this duplicity.
Talk about the intellectual dishonesty, of which the revenue minister accused us, of saying one thing to somebody face to face at the door: "If you elect me, I'll scrap something, I'll abolish something, I'll get rid of something, I'll kill something" and then not really point out to them that all they really said was they would replace it with something that generates equivalent revenue. That is not the rhetoric they used.
The Liberals said: "Elect me. I'll replace the GST". How would it have sounded if they had said: "Elect me. I'll replace the GST with something that gets just as much money out of your pockets as we are now". Would that not sound great? Would that not be the best way to get elected? That is why they will not keep this promise. That is why they cannot keep this promise.
I know I have a minute left, but I have said enough. I am sure everyone gets the message. I am sure the Liberals now realize that their intellectual dishonesty is going to come back and haunt them.
Supply March 20th, 1996
I stand corrected.
I thought the member's speech was very pointed. I thought it was an excellent speech and an excellent commentary. It shows us it does not matter which part of the country we come from. It shows us it does not matter which political party a person supported. The members of the Bloc Quebecois stood for something. They went door to door and told their people there needed to be change in Ottawa and they are here trying to put forth that change.
I do not agree with the change they are pushing for. I do not want the country to separate. I want them to reconsider. I want them to be a part of Canada. Nevertheless, they are here and they are doing what they have to do.
When we told the voters out west and in Quebec what we wanted they woke up, smelled the coffee and knew how bad the federal government was. They knew we needed to change the system so they sent us and the Bloc here and we have kept our promises. We backed out of the pension plan, as we said we would. We can be trusted to keep our word.
We presented a budget to the government and it laughed and scoffed at us. It is now whining that it does not have one this year that it can throw in our face when it cannot defend its own.
It does not matter where you are from in this country, what you say you should mean and you should keep your word. I would like the hon. member to comment on how his constituents react to what was said at the door by Liberals in his riding versus what they are doing now in government.
Supply March 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, that is why I appreciate the impartiality of the Chair. Government members were yelling at me that I was on debate. I wonder why they were yelling that.