Jim Silye

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the borrowing bill, I rise to simply say I am disappointed that this government has to borrow so much.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first I will make a comment and then I will ask a question. The hon. member who just made his speech took an awful lot of credit for the recent statistics he quoted on how much the interest rates have gone down, on how employment is higher and on recent changes as if the government caused all of them and should take credit for them.

I am glad he is taking the credit. When the economic fundamentals change, when interest rates go up as they will and as they are already starting to do, when unemployment does not get solved by cash injections from governments, and when the Liberals get tired of trying to blame the private sector for the jobs they promised to create but cannot create, I wonder whom he will blame.

The member said that the government has the fundamentals right. A few members over there have accounting and tax backgrounds. I wish they had a little more influence over the finance minister. They stand to tell Canadians that the back of the deficit has been broken and that the balance sheet of the nation is in order. They are distorting some facts to a degree that the elastic band will almost snap.

Does he understand the difference between a government coming in with a huge debt and adding $112 billion to the debt when exiting? Is that getting it right? Does he understand leaving a $17 billion deficit and committing the country to spending more than what it brings in as it did when it first started? Does he understand

when a government has a balanced budget over its mandate? Does he understand the difference between what this party represents in terms of a balanced budget and what the government side represents in its continued support of deficit spending?

The difference is the size of the debt and how much the government adds to the debt. According to the finance minister's own numbers, the government will have added close to $113 billion to the debt when it leaves. With our numbers it would have been half of that; it would have been $60 billion. The difference is $61 billion. The interest cost to service that additional debt is what it is all about. Those are the fundamentals. Does the member understand that difference in the fundamentals?

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is very seldom that I get a chance to make a comment and ask a question of a cabinet minister during debate so I appreciate this. This is one of my first opportunities and I have been here for over two years.

Could the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm the current size of the UI fund? I know during the campaign there was a deficiency of about $3 billion. I know there is a surplus and I would like to see the amount confirmed. I anticipate it is going to grow. At what point would he consider offering tax relief to this sector by lowering premiums?

I come from the private sector and I know what employers and employees think of payroll taxes. It is a subject of concern to many Canadian taxpayers.

My final question for the minister is this. Has there been talk or consideration given of reconciling the UI fund in the future? Has consideration been given to making it into an insurance program between employer and employee that stands alone, regulated and monitored by the federal government to ensure that people get their proper benefits as opposed to co-mingling the fund into the general account and using it to apply on current revenues?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this confirms the finance minister is the master of myths.

Our report, if he read the first part, recommends tax reform and a simplified system of taxation to replace the GST. It was in the final form, out of context, that he was taking our recommendation, but that is fine; he is the master of myths.

Will he confirm for the House that the real problem he is having with the new Liberal supertax, which he is trying to get co-opted with the provinces, is that the combined rate, for instance, in Ontario of the 8 per cent and 7 per cent to 15 per cent would actually represent a $2 billion to $3 billion increase to the consumers of Ontario? That is why he is having trouble.

[Goods And Services Tax, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party promised to abolish the GST. It also promised to replace the GST. This is the finance minister's third budget and he still has not replaced the GST. Why?

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport about that aspect of the budget which a number of his colleagues have touched on, the rewriting of the Tax Act with respect to custodial payments or payments for child support.

How does he rationalize the change in the Income Tax Act which to me, if he will listen to his logic, appears to be a tax grab because payment now for child support is no longer deductible?

It is acknowledged by the finance minister that there will be extra revenues to the government. It makes it sound like it will really do something with that money in the budget. It will increase the child tax credit.

If in the current system before it made this change the agreement between the couple was taxable, deductible, all that money was within the family.

Now the government has taken this issue and said: "Not all the money that will be shared between the two of you will be within your family. We will make it non-deductible, keep some of it ourselves and help a whole bunch of other people".

I have been trying to speak slowly to clarify my logic. Does that not mean that some of the money that would have been available for the children within that family will now be redistributed to other families?

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member opposite questions the quality of the contribution I have made to the House. I will talk about the quality of the contribution I have made.

I have talked about integrity and I have talked about honesty while that member has sat opposite and laughed. I did not say $125,000, I said $150,000. I said it because I believe the government was paying itself those gold plated, fat cat, huge pensions with millions and millions of dollars to be paid to its members when they are finished serving in the House. Is that what we are here for? That is not what we are here for.

We are not here for the $64,000, but to serve the country. However, the way we compensate members of Parliament is something that has to be addressed. That is what I said. I received a lot of compliments from members of his own party about my having the courage to talk about the compensation issue. I should have stuck to the pension. I now have a conflict of interest by saying how much because I am an MP.

I should not have stated an amount, but the member well knows that when it came to the pension debate, the quality of that debate was deteriorating because from the Prime Minister on down everybody in the House who opted in wanted to take care of their future pensions on the cry that we do not make enough money in salary. All members agree we do not have a high enough salary but they do not talk about the high pensions.

I walked from the pension. I am such a smart businessman that I walked from this pension. If I get re-elected I will not qualify for a pension and neither will any of the Reformers in the House because we have integrity. We attacked it and criticized it with the exception of one Reform member. Fifty-one out of fifty-two walked from this and that is the quality we have provided. That is the quality of debate I am providing to the House.

If the member wants to talk about an issue, let us talk about the entire issue. Where is this member on the pension? Did this member walk from the pension? Does this member believe that after he leaves he deserves millions and millions of dollars for the work he did during years he was here?

I get upset when somebody questions the quality of what I contribute to the House. I am in the House and I am supposed to debate issues, putting forth my ideas and suggestions. Nobody has to agree with them, but who in the House has the God given right to

check and verify quality? I think the member should take a look at his own quality in terms of his criticisms.

I also want to talk about the simplified tax system. A simple tax is a very complicated tax. It is a complicated tax that takes a lot of discussion and a lot of debate. The advantage of simplifying the tax system is to restore the purpose of the income tax back to its original purpose, which is to generate revenue.

If we do that, all of the programs we want to give Canadians we can deliver through grants and subsidies and not by the complicated income tax system in which bureaucrats and politicians can distort and play games in society both economically and socially. We should make it more visible, transparent and taxable. These are the issues I stand for. I want to have things fair and above board, not in back rooms behind closed doors.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

If provinces do not co-operate, guess what? It will be the fault of the provinces, not the Liberal's fault. The Prime Minister is not going to eliminate the GST. He is just going to rename it.

To get elected the Liberal government promised to create jobs with its infamous infrastructure program of $6 billion. Now that it has failed it challenges businesses to create the jobs that it could not and in a desperate move will try to blame the private sector for high unemployment. The problem is not government overspending, it is not high taxes, it is not oversized government, it is not duplicity in government services, it is the private sector that is at fault. The government will not accept any responsibility. Blame business, blame the provinces, blame the opposition, blame the backbenchers, blame the markets, but for heaven's sake do not ever blame the federal government.

The government promised to preserve and protect social programs. What does it do? In a desperate move it lumps all funding into one Canada health and social transfer, reducing the funding for education, health and welfare by $6.6 billion. Talk about slash and burn. It is another desperate but clever move to shift responsibility to provincial governments. Let them take the flak for the cuts on programs that they have to administer after the federal government reduces the amount of money they receive.

By the way, the Reform Party cuts to education, health care and welfare would have only been $3.3 billion, not the $6.6 billion that the Liberals propose. That is one-half of the Liberal cuts. We recognize that education is the key to future jobs.

The government promised no return to constitutional wrangling. In the new throne speech, in a desperate move because it almost blew it during the referendum with poor advice to Canadians it wants to quickly entrench distinct society and a new amending formula in the Constitution.

I get a laugh when the Liberal members always harass Reformers and say: "Where were you during the unity debate? What did you do during the unity debate?" We listened to the Prime Minister. He told us to stay away and keep our mouths shut for fear we make the separatists in Quebec angry enough to vote for separation. That is what he told us to do. That was the Prime Minister. That was the leader of this country telling us: "Don't worry, be happy, it is all looked after".

Can you picture a replay of the Meech Lake, Charlottetown type of shenanigans across the country again? In desperation because the Liberals have no plan, have no people, they want to go behind closed doors with a first premiers conference to discuss jobs, devolution and the Constitution, hoping the premiers have solutions.

When the Prime Minister campaigned he said he had a plan, as he waved his red book. Now after two years he has revised many of his plans, replaced 70 per cent of his people and brought two outsiders into his cabinet. This is a desperate move to strengthen the cabinet, which just shows his lack of confidence in his own people.

Abraham Lincoln said: "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong". This desperate government is now attacking profits of banks and businesses, trying to shift the burden of responsibility. Are profits a sin? Do not profitable companies retain employees and do not bankrupt companies lose employees? Why not attack the government overhead instead?

For instance there are 5,000 people in the Department of Health working in Ottawa. They are not doctors, they are not nurses, they are not receptionists, they do not have anything to do with the internal functioning of the hospitals and delivering health services. Ottawa just transfers the money. Why do they need 5,000 people to write 10 cheques to 10 provinces?

Lincoln said: "You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer". This desperate government plans to increase payroll taxes despite the fact that the wage payer pays 1.4 times the wage earner for the benefits of the wage earner.

Lincoln also said: "You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn". This desperate government clings to the belief, in fact brags about deficit spending. The deficit last year was only $39 billion, it will only be $30 billion this year, next year it will be $25 billion and it is going to get to $17 billion. Wow, aren't we doing great? The Liberals see nothing wrong with deficit spending.

Lower the deficit, the economy will grow. We cannot continue to add to the deficit. That is the problem. We are adding to the problem. We must have a surplus budget creating hope, growth and

opportunities. A simplified tax system would complement the spending cuts of the government and would provide the vehicle we could all ride to greater prosperity.

My last Lincolnism: "You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence". I have a suggestion for this desperate government. The way to create initiative and independence is to reward it with lower taxes, not higher taxes. The way to expand the economy is to lower government spending so that we can have lower taxes, so individuals and businesses have more disposable income, which in turn would expand the economy.

The way to create jobs is through a simplified tax system, a form of a flat tax which is pro-growth, pro-family and represents progress toward solving economic problems besides just spending cuts.

The government is so desperate it is even firing its own people from jobs well done. What a shame. What a desperate display to cover up the lack of leadership.

I submit the best solution, notwithstanding the many good ones already made, is that the government plan a fall election this year and allow the people of Canada to vote for the party that has plans to solve our debt crisis, our debt problem before it is all too late.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

On February 6, 1996 the Liberal member for Broadview-Greenwood said: "We are going to defend the status quo. You can tell by the way we are treating the GST. I am dead in the water with this government. It is one word, trust. I am doing my best to fight for tax reform, but my best is not good enough".

"Get rid of the GST" has become harmonized. "Kill the GST" has become harmonized. "Abolish the GST" has become harmonized.

As the Liberal member for York South-Weston, a former Liberal leadership candidate stated: "I hope we do not try to hoodwink people into thinking our commitment was contingent on the provinces agreeing to harmonize their taxes with the GST".

This potential Liberal leader further stated: "The integrity and credibility of the Prime Minister are at at issue. He made promises. We all made promises. We went door to door to scrap the GST and if we do not keep that promise it will be very difficult for Liberal MPs to go into an election knocking on the same doors, asking support once again from people they lied to in the first election campaign".

In the red book the Liberals promised to replace the GST. They cannot even do that.

In a desperate act the Liberal government proposes to transfer the problem of getting rid of the GST to the provinces by promoting a national sales tax, by promoting harmonization which will be nothing more than a change in name to the son of the GST.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the current throne speech presented in the other House and written by the Prime Minister is a desperate statement of promises by a desperate government in a desperate situation.

To get elected the Liberal government promised to get rid of the GST but so far it has not kept its word. Here are some comments and quotes throughout the past few years.

On October 16, 1993 the Deputy Prime Minister said: "If the GST is not abolished under the Liberal government I will resign". On March 2, 1996 she changed this to: "If the GST is not replaced under a Liberal government I will resign".

On September 27, 1990 the Prime Minister said: "I want the tax dead". On May 2, 1994 he said: "We hate it. We will kill it".

The current Minister of Human Resources Development said: "The goods and services tax is a regressive tax. It has to be scrapped and we will scrap it".

The new revenue minister on March 24, 1994 said: "As Liberals we were elected to change the tax, abolish the tax, scrap it".

On April 4, 1990 the finance minister declared: "I would abolish the GST. The manufacturers' sales tax is a bad tax, but there is no excuse to repeal one bad thing by bringing in another one. Let me figure this out. Does he not think by merging the GST with the PST and bringing in a national sales tax he is doing the same thing? Is that not just replacing an old bad tax with a new bad tax?