Jim Silye

[Employment, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister finally admitted what Reformers have been saying all along. The government's role in job creation is to create the atmosphere or environment for the private sector to invest.

This government has failed to deliver. Despite a $6 billion infrastructure program, 1.4 million Canadians are out of work, 800,000 are part time employees. Despite reducing deficits, interests costs on the debt are rising faster than the spending cuts made by the government.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell Canadians why her government continues to support deficit spending, make work schemes, direct business subsidies and higher taxes?

[Employment, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, now the Prime Minister wants businesses to create more jobs, not the government. I am trying to find out if in fact he still believes in the infrastructure program.

The way to create jobs is to lower taxes so taxpayers and businesses have more disposable income. To lower taxes there must be a balanced budget. The government is adding to the debt, not reducing it. Funding must not be decreased the way this government has done with its social and health transfer and education.

The government should look at the way it is handling everything to do with the economy and let the private sector grow and create the jobs it should create. The government has not done its part. The government must look at the debt and look at its budget and present a balanced budget.

When will the government present a balanced budget?

[Employment, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, after two years of promising jobs, jobs, jobs and promising hope, the Prime Minister's record is clear. He has failed to deliver on job growth; failed to balance the budget; failed to provide tax relief; failed to abolish the GST and failed to create the economic environment in which businesses can create jobs. His government is failing.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Who is responsible for job creation? The government or the private sector?

[Finance, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have bad news. As of one o'clock yesterday the doomsday clock which registers the national debt was $570,947,551,591.35. The second bit of bad news is that we cannot continue to borrow indefinitely. The third bit of bad news is that the public has lost confidence in the government's ability to manage money and resources and to live within its means as taxpayers have to do.

The greatest single impediment to job creation today is the plethora of taxes Canadians face. Governments must reduce the tax burden of individual Canadians and businesses alike. The debt and the interest expense to service the debt are jeopardizing the viability and flexibility of existing programs. That is why we need a balanced budget.

Instead we have a finance minister who mocks the Reform Party for presenting a balanced budget over three years as if the value and the merits of a balanced budget are insignificant and irrelevant.

When the finance minister talks about rolling deficit targets as a percentage of GDP and meeting those soft targets, he brags about bringing in a deficit of $37.5 billion. I would really be proud of that. That is exactly what the Conservatives projected two years ago, which of course ended up being $42 billion or $43 billion.

As a businessman I am astonished to find that even when the country is facing a debt of close $600 billion reality has not set in with the government. Government overspending is the number one problem facing the country, and the finance minister will not act decisively. He had his opportunity two years ago. He had his opportunity last year. He would rather concentrate on deficit financing, continually spending more money than we bring in. People are tired of this.

In 1968 the great and wonderful Liberal leader by the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau ran across the country and got everybody to vote for him. That is when the Liberals started to run deficits. He ran a deficit. He came in at $17 billion. When he left it was close to $200 billion. Then Mulroney came in and left the country with a debt of about $508 billion.

Now we have this Liberal government. After four or five years, when it leaves two years from now, its legacy to the people of Canada will be to leave a debt over $600 billion. I hope the government can be proud of that.

As the member for Medicine Hat said earlier, the debt and interest costs are hurting the country, the drag and the slag that will put us into receivership somewhere down the road. Our grandchildren will have to pay off this huge debt. We have a responsibility to do something about it.

Having been in the Standing Committee on Finance I heard a number of witnesses who appeared before it for the prebudget consultations, and that is really what we are debating today. Some interesting comments were made. I am looking forward to the budget to see if the minister listened to the submissions.

One day 10 leading economists appeared. I heard a number of them say-and it was consistent across the spectrum-that it was good a target had been set and achieved. That sends a good message to the financial community. There is nothing wrong with that. We needed some confidence. We needed to restore some credibility in the finances of the country. To that degree the finance minister has done that.

However the hole is dug and it is deep. Now he will continue to dig it deeper but just dig slower. To solve the problem he has to stop digging. That is what a balanced budget means. Somewhere we will stop digging in two years, three years or whatever.

This year a number of economists suggested a 3 per cent target next year in terms of the deficit as a percentage of GDP, 1.5 per cent the year after and zero in the third year. That is what they suggested.

Another economist suggested that we should get off of the treadmill of deficit as a percentage of GDP and talk about debt as a percentage of GDP. Overall as a nation it is over 100 per cent. As a federal government we are at a 73 per cent debt to GDP ratio. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada at a public accounts meeting said it was too high, that we had to get it down.

For two years we have had economic growth. The wonderful targets the minister has been achieving have not been through spending cuts. Ninety per cent of them have been through growth. He is deceiving the Canadian public by taking all the credit for it. The businesses and the people of Canada should take credit for it.

The minister is playing games with the people. The projections by the economists were 2 per cent or maybe 2.5 per cent in the short term. That is not very much. If the inflation rate is close to or higher than the growth rate, the economists say that what is needed is a surplus budget. That is what the Governor of the Bank of Canada says, but the government will not do that.

I recommend a balanced budget. Yes, we will have a deficit. The finance minister should tell the Canadian public when he will have a balanced budget and when he will address the real problem in Canada, the high levels of taxation. Then he can start promising Canadians tax relief. Then he can start promising Canadians a break in their pocketbooks. Then we can start looking at ways to stimulate the economy which will lead to money in the hands of the people and will let them do it, rather than the government.

I recommend the three 1.5 to zero scenarios, versus the four, three and two which the finance minister is now proposing. When the finance minister introduces his budget he will use the same principle he used before: selective hearing.

The business community was also at the standing committee hearings and said the same thing. It said that government targets were too soft and that it was moving too slowly. The finance minister has a tough job. It is difficult to predict and I respect the job he had to do. However, the business community said that if the finance minister was to err, he should err on the fast side and not on the slow side. It is better to err by cutting quicker than by cutting slower.

He is cutting slower. He is trying to ensure that he keeps his support in Ontario. He is not telling the truth to Ontarians. We cannot afford to make the payments for the programs that we are delivering at their current levels. We have to reduce them. We have to help the needy, the truly needy. We have to start helping people to become more responsible for themselves. The way to do that is to be honest with them. The way to do that is to tell them that somewhere down the road, if we bite the bullet now and learn to live with less, we can lower spending and then we can begin to lower taxes. That is what we have to achieve.

The finance minister also promised in the election campaign that he would get rid of the GST. The Prime Minister said they would kill it and that they hated it. The Deputy Prime Minister said that she would quit if the Liberals did not get rid of the GST. That was addressed at the hearings as well. People were saying: "Let us do something about the GST". Two years ago the recommendation was to harmonize with the provinces: combine it, have it at one rate, hide it and the people would forget about it.

No. Any tax should be visible. As a matter of fact, not only should taxes be visible but our spending should be visible. We use income tax too much to deliver social and economic benefits when we should be taking those tax breaks out of income tax and putting them in a spending envelope under direct spending as they did in New Zealand.

Then we would have politicians and bureaucrats who could be held accountable. Then we would have a politician saying: "This is what we will spend on welfare. Here is my envelope. It is a $5 billion program". The deputy minister and the bureaucracy could help the politician do that. That would create an incentive for bureaucrats to succeed. They could actually receive a bonus if they helped the politician achieve the objective. The morale in the

public service is very low. I critique the departments of Revenue Canada and Customs and Excise and I could tell stories that would scare people.

In the next budget I would like to see a solution to the GST that is better and different from harmonization.

The finance minister is doing a disservice to the country if he will not accept complete responsibility, present a balanced budget and tell Canadians when they can expect tax relief. I hope in the next budget he will not be accused by opposition members of having selective hearing in committee.

He should have listened to that committee the way I listened to that committee. I know what he has to do. We know what he has to do. Let us hope he has the courage and the conviction to be honest with the Canadian people and deliver a budget that is tough but fair and that he cuts out this crap about draconian reform measures.

Compliments of the season to everyone in the House.

[Finance, December 14th, 1995]

Can I have one of those trees?

[Canada Customs, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott has phoned the minister 37 times. This individual has used the procedures but has been stonewalled every time he turns around by the management of the minister's department. The poppy issue is over but what is at stake is that over the course of this year this gentleman has been put into forced unemployment.

The gentleman is suffering severe stress. The department has put this gentleman, who has received many commendations of good employment, under such duress and stress that he has had a medical certificate given to him. This is the kind of work this minister considers efficient and effective.

Why does he not return his phone calls? Why does he not give this gentleman what he promised and what his department has promised over the last six months?

[Canada Customs, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last year Mr. Callum Scott, a Canada Customs agent at the Ottawa airport, was reprimanded and subsequently left in employment limbo because he was wearing a poppy on his uniform on Remembrance Day.

The mismanagement by the minister and his department officials has cost Mr. Scott his job and his dignity over the course of this past year.

I ask the Minister of National Revenue and taxation, customs and excise how this could possibly have happened. What measures has he taken to ensure Mr. Scott receives a fair hearing from senior management, as he has been promised over the course of the year?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 11th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to make a few comments on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.

I believe and a lot of people in this House know that this bill was concocted in haste. It was concocted to please the wrong people, to please the separatists. It has already been criticized by other provinces that are supposed to be pleased by it: B.C., Alberta and Quebec are not happy with this bill.

An amendment to Bill C-110 was introduced today recognizing B.C. as a separate region. We knew that right from day one. Where has the Prime Minister been? Why did he not include B.C. in the first place?

The hon. member for Renfrew-Pembroke-Nipissing spoke eloquently. He says that B.C. is such a wonderful place that they should have signs 20 feet by 20 feet. Where was he a week ago when the bill was brought forward? Why were they all sitting there so quiet, kowtowing to the Prime Minister who only consulted a few people when he brought in this bill?

The issue is not five regions or four regions. We know that B.C. is a region. We have always known that. All the members of the Reform Party from B.C. have known that. The issue comes down to the Constitution and what this Prime Minister and a very few members of his cabinet are doing to it. This is what the Canadian public does not understand. This is what I feel is important for us in the House to point out, especially in opposition.

The Constitution Act of 1982 has rules on how to make changes to it. If we wish to amend the Constitution, wherever it starts from, here or in the provinces, it requires the approval of seven provinces out of ten representing 50 per cent of the population. That is in order to approve an amendment. It also requires the approval of the federal government, the House of Commons.

The government is now trying to share. It is arguing that it is sharing the federal government approval along with the seven out of ten provinces. It is going to share that with the provinces but it is not clear what "provinces" means, whether it means legislatures or whether it means the people of a province. It divides the provinces into regions and lumps them together.

I do not wish to address five regions versus four regions. I want to argue that the government is tinkering with the amending formula. By tinkering with the amending formula I am afraid the bill is going to be ruled unconstitutional and this is all a waste of time. We should be addressing what is on most people's minds--

and the very reason this party got elected supposedly was to create jobs-the economic agenda and the criminal agenda.

The bill may be struck down as unconstitutional. As my colleague from Calgary West pointed out earlier, this bill violates the principle of the seven provinces out of ten representing 50 per cent of the population. By sharing it with the regions, whether it is four or five is irrelevant. The bill is now requiring the approval, before the federal House gives it, of 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the population. Therefore, it is tinkering. It is tinkering at its worst.

It is all a waste of time to please some people in the country who will never be happy. They are called separatists. The more we give them the more they want. Why do we not stop the game, please Quebecers and please all Canadians and get on with making laws which are important? In fact, the Prime Minister was elected to not talk about the Constitution and constitutional amendments, and here he is doing it.

If the federal government wishes to share its vote, why not give it to the people? Why not be clear about it? Why not give it to the people of the five regions? No, government members voted against that in committee. They want to give it to the legislatures again. The legislatures already have a vote through the seven and fifty formula for constitutional amendment. Now, whether the federal government approves or denies, the legislatures will be given another vote based on regions. That is ridiculous. It is a double veto. I do not understand that. If it really wants to have more input, if it wants to share its veto, if it wants to share its vote, then why not share it with the people of the regions as opposed to the legislatures for a second time?

The reason we are criticizing this is that the legislatures already have a say. They have one say. That is great. If they do not get their way, then they will go behind closed doors and the leaders of the provinces of the five regions will make a deal. We want to protect the Canadian people against that. If Canadians are going to have a say, they should have it through referenda. That is why we are barking, loud and clear, about what we mean. I hope the government is listening.

It is a double veto and a direct legal instrument. The government, instead of the House of Commons where it has the majority, is now going to share its veto with five regions. It gets worse. With the legislatures of the five regions it is a double veto. Now the government is going to give its veto to a separatist government from the province of Quebec. How in heaven's name are we ever going to make changes to the Constitution? How in heaven's name are we ever going to unify the country if the government gives the Parti Quebecois a veto? That party will never vote on anything for Canada. It does not want to build a nation; it wants to tear it apart. I cannot believe how such a passionate plea can comes from the government side with such stupidity. It has failed to recognize who it is giving the veto to. It is giving it to the Parti Quebecois, which wants to break up the country. That province should not have a veto.

The people of Quebec should have the veto. The people of Quebec should be able to stand on any issue which affects their Constitution and which drastically changes the rules of the Constitution Act. The people of Quebec should have a say. I trust the people of Quebec. They have voted already. Yes, it was close, but they voted to stay in Canada. That is who we should be pleasing.

Why does the government not give them the same right if it is going to share? It should share with the people who helped government members stay in their seats. It should share with the people who helped to save the Prime Minister. It should share with those people who want to keep the country together. Do not give it to the Parti Quebecois which wants to tear the country apart. That is absolutely ridiculous.

The people of the country are smarter than what we become after being in this closed box for a year or two. That is why we need input every once in a while. That is why we need a little jab in the back or a pinch in the behind to wake us up. A little cool water, running fresh over our faces, will make us pay attention to the voters who sent us here. It gets too easy when we talk to ourselves.

I cannot believe it. I cannot believe that the government will not listen. It plays politics with everything. The issue is the people versus the legislatures. We are making meaningful amendments, such as the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary West.

It says in the bill that no changes can be made unless the amendment has first been consented to by a majority of the provinces. We understand that is the seven out of ten. It is kind of funny rhetoric-and the member for Calgary West has studied the Constitution extensively-that replacing two-thirds of the provinces would clear up the mess. It would clear it all up and we are down to the issue of whether we mean the people or the legislatures.

If we give it to the legislatures we are giving it twice. We are giving it to the party in power right now for the next two years. If saint so-and-so gets elected as a leader of that party, who knows how long he will be leader? The country will be held up for ransom for time immemorial. A no vote means never and a yes vote will mean forever. Just once we have to lose a referendum and we lose the country.

This is how serious it is, and the government laughs. It makes snide remarks at the Reform Party. I call the government to task. I am not here playing politics. I am serious about what I am saying. I am serious about giving a veto to a government that can never ever allow change. It should be difficult to make changes to a constitution. There is no question about it, but change should be possible with reasoned arguments and reasoned debate.

I will end my comments on that note. I hope the Prime Minister is listening somewhere in the world.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to finish my intervention with about 60 more seconds of words of wisdom for the government on its unemployment insurance efforts.

It collects $19 billion and it pays out some $11 billion. The other billions of dollars are just to get votes. The government has the opportunity to truly reform unemployment insurance, to truly push it down to the level of government that is closest to the people and let it serve them, to truly eliminate overlap and duplication of services, to save the taxpayers $5 billion, and to lower government

spending. If it is a matching fund between employer and employee it should never go into a deficit whatsoever.

The government had the opportunity to offer some hope and tax relief to corporations through a reduction in the payroll tax. It has chosen not to do any of those things that stimulate the economy. It has chosen not to do any of those things that would benefit taxpayers. Instead it has chosen to continue taxing on the side and overburdening us with more and more taxation.

[Taxation, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am not here to compliment the minister. I am here to criticize the finance minister for not listening to the leading economists in this country and for not listening to the taxpayers. They are overtaxed and overburdened. They want fewer taxes and lower taxes.

The economists say we should get to 0 per cent of GDP a heck of a lot quicker than what the minister has put forward. He obviously does not understand what is ticking people off. He is too busy praising himself.

Why will the minister not do what is right, do what the people want and commit today to presenting a balanced budget within two years, keep his promise of eliminating the GST, thereby setting the stage for true tax relief?