Jim Silye

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate our party's philosophy on debating the bill today.

The purpose of our amendments is to make our support clear for some portions of the bill. At the same time we may not support our amendments when they come to a vote. We were forced to do this because the government wanted to lump a bunch of bills together and put it through without due and proper deliberation.

We feel it is important that everybody get a chance to debate each specific issue on its own merits and not have things lumped together. The advantage of this philosophy or political strategy is that it has forced debate on five separate areas. We can bring attention to each of the areas so there is a clear understanding of what areas we are for and what areas we are against, on all sides of the House.

What is wrong with an omnibus bill is that it groups unrelated pieces of legislation together. It is an admission of two things.

First, it is an admission that individual members, at least government members, have no real input into substantive legislation. There is so much put together and so much to consider that it is too hard for an individual to comprehend.

Second, it shows how ineffectual the committee system is. If input was really expected from committees a bill as broad as this would never go to just one committee. It has five different components and thus should not go to just one committee. Members of this House, especially government members, could then do a proper and better review.

In the accounting taught in most schools eventually everybody gets to hear about the kiss system: keep it simple, stupid.

It would be nice if this government would not ram big bills through on the opposition and on the Canadian public but instead applied a new approach, a more simple and more visible approach. It should start separating bills and discussing each

issue individually. I encourage the government to adopt that kind of a philosophy. It would be advantageous for everyone.

We favour the section on the fiscal arrangements with the provinces, partially because it adopts some of the policies and principles of the Reform Party zero in three plan. With that plan we would have a zero deficit in three years.

At first we had a lot of criticism of that zero in three plan. The Liberal government said our cuts were too draconian and that our suggestion of 6 per cent cuts on this year's budget alone was too draconian. I have now found out that when the finance minister appeared before the Business Council on National Issues, he indicated that in next year's budget he is actually looking for perhaps up to 12 per cent in cuts. If our 6 per cent is too draconian for the spending cap we set this year, what can be said about the government's proposed 12 per cent? We would work toward showing the government where those areas of cuts could be.

Our zero in three plan for cuts in this area would have been combined with some workfare and some constructive mechanisms and with hope for people to do just as much with less money, acknowledging the fact that we all have to start living within our means. We know the Canadian public is forced to live within its means. It is only this government that will not accept the fact that the problem is the deficit and the debt. It is not looking for ways to reduce spending.

I want to make the point that when we see the government does recognize that, and there is a significant saving here of up to $466 million through this freeze, then we support it. We compliment the government on that section and we encourage it to do more of the same.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the Bloc amendment in this grouping and to set the record straight on two issues: first, collective bargaining and, second, the purpose of our amendments.

First, at the beginning of the debate on this grouping the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot indicated that he was both surprised and shocked that we had changed our minds. He felt that the Reform Party was against collective bargaining but with these amendments we had somehow or other changed our minds and were now in favour of public sector negotiations.

I would like to set the record straight. Our party's position is that we are in favour of collective bargaining. We are in favour of people forming groups and unions. We are in favour of them having the right to strike. What we are against is holding the public to ransom. We are against employers not being able to find replacement workers should they need to. Those are the areas where we have to make the public sector a little more like the private sector.

I say that so that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot will realize that we have not totally changed our position on that issue.

Second, I would like to set something straight on the omnibus bill of the government, Bill C-17. We object very strongly to the bull-headed, arrogant fashion in which the government brings forth legislation dealing with five or six different areas of the economy, lumps it all into one bill and tries to force it on an opposition party, not allowing us to question the purpose of each area or to evaluate each individual category separately.

The Reform Party had to come up with a strategy. I guess it is a political game to come up with some amendments to the omnibus bill in order to force debate.

What is happening now is based on Reform Party strategy and on what we feel is in the best interests of all Canadians so that we can discuss each of these five categories separately instead of them being all lumped together in order to confuse everybody.

We wish to point out those areas of the bill that we favour and those we are against. When it comes to voting on the groupings on this bill, I warn the members of the Bloc Quebecois that although we are getting compliments for changing our minds, we have not changed our minds.

Do not be surprised that we will be voting against our own amendments in the groupings.

[Income Tax Act, May 25th, 1994]

You like the humour, I hear, over on the other side of the House. It is the only way I can get attention around here.

A flat system of taxation will lead to a lower overall tax rate, shared fairly by corporations and individuals, a simplified system, and finally create an opening for government to legislate social programs that are more in tune with the realities facing Canadians.

I call on the Liberal government to make the major reforms that are needed in government spending, taxation and the bureaucracy. No more tinkering with legislation or nibbling at the deficit. If this Chevy government fails to make necessary reforms and respond to the changes that have occurred in this great country then it will meet the same fate as the previous government which, as we all know, was downsized from a big Cadillac to an obsolete Pinto.

[Income Tax Act, May 25th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will be here for a year. The Income Tax Act has become nothing more than a job security program for tax accountants like my hon. colleague, tax lawyers and the bureaucracy.

The Income Tax Act has lost its focus as a guideline for tax collection and governments now rely on it to dictate social policy. Recently I was at a Standing Committee on Finance meeting listening to witnesses on Bill C-17 which deals with the UIC program. The leader of the National Action Committee and the leader of the provincial Conservative Party of New Brunswick said that UIC and CAP are becoming more co-mingled and they reject the merging of UI and social assistance.

In fact, one witness described UIC as an expensive social assistance program which for many is a mainstay of their annual income. The end result is a bureaucratic nightmare that does little to solve the problems that many people face. Look at the problems that have been created in the area of child support payments. The principles of taxation that are upheld within the act are not responsive to the changes that have occurred in our society.

By continually amending the act, governments have buried its usefulness to the public in a bureaucratic quagmire. However just because the Income Tax Act has lost touch with reality does not mean that the government has to follow suit.

I would like to try once again to bring the Chevy government up to speed on the reality of our current economic situation. Government overspending is the number one problem facing the country and can no longer be put on the back burner only to be reheated at election time.

By adding $3 billion to current spending, by relying on the national infrastructure program solely as a means to kick start the economy, by gambling with low rate projections for interest rates, the government has embarked on a very dangerous, precarious and weak game plan for Canadians because all of the above adds to our problems, the deficit and the debt.

Operating on borrowed money is nothing more than deferred taxation. This Chevy government, like older model cars, has remained as a big gas guzzler continuing the trend of spending more money than it takes in.

As interest rates and payments go up, so too will the need for new sources of revenue. Instead of spending cuts and living within its means, the Liberal government is using the Income Tax Act to subtly squeeze out extra dollars from small groups in our society without alerting the majority of Canadians.

The Department of National Revenue recently used unenforced rules. They were in the rules but it had not enforced them for three to four years. The department revoked the overseas tax credit which provides incentives for Canadian industries to go after foreign contracts. Not only were they eliminated, but it made the decision retroactive to 1993, 1992 and for 1991. This is not fair to the businesses.

We believe that the Income Tax Act should be simplified and used solely as a means to collect necessary revenues to fund government programs. Government can then decide the programs that are to be legislated and do so outside the Income Tax Act. Enough with the 2,400-plus page act. Let us move toward a simplified tax system that serves a simple and single purpose, to collect revenue. A Reform income tax system, a party that has vision and some ideas for the future, would implement a uniform rate to replace current graduated rates and introduce simplicity, a one page return that is understood by all taxpayers; equality, where people feel that everyone is treated the same; visibility, no more need for tax loopholes and incentives; effectiveness, because it would draw people back from the underground economy.

The system would tax people in proportion to their income, family situation and ability to pay. There would be no longer a need for a federal consumption tax. No GST. I know some members opposite appreciate that philosophy because they have expressed it in the Standing Committee on Finance. Those are the bright Liberals.

Here is how it could work. This is a one page system. On one side we have personal income and on the other side the corporate. Both sides, personal and corporate, pay the same relative share. That has a lot of merit. Personal tax and corporate tax

would be set at a rate of 15 per cent or 20 per cent once it is determined how many dollars the federal government needs to pay for social and economic programs and the cost of maintaining this upscale size of government.

If we really need 44,000 people in the Department of National Revenue and Taxation then we have to raise the money to pay for it. The initial rate would be revenue neutral but it is expected that with more people and corporations paying taxes, revenues will be higher and we could apply this surplus directly to the deficit and debt.

I ask members of all parties to examine the idea. I know I am not the only one who believes that the income tax system can be simplified and that a uniform system of tax can work far more effectively than the current system. However, if we do not believe in the one simple philosophy that nobody likes taxes, and they always talk about a fair tax, but the only tax that is fair is if everybody pays the same. That is a little encouragement, a little inducement for the government to have the political will when it is considering the replacement for the GST. It should look at it and make sure it does not keep it complicated, confusing or convoluted. The only way it can do that is to tax everybody on everything the same and solve the problems that creates in other ways.

Rather than making the Income Tax Act thicker with Bill C-27, I urge the government to show some initiative, make the changes that Canadians have demanded, scrap the Income Tax Act altogether. Just get rid of it.

[Income Tax Act, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-27. However, the bill shows that the Liberal Party still has nothing new to offer Canadians even after six months behind the wheel of this Chevy government. In fact many of the provisions date back to finance minister Mazankowski and the Mulroney era.

During the election Canadians were promised change, new directions, ideas and initiatives. What they are receiving are rehashed housekeeping bills that have been kicked around since the Tory days, lumped together and packaged as new and improved.

It is bills like this that show members of the Reform Party that the Liberals may have the people but they most certainly do not have the plan.

The sheer size and complexity of this bill is symbolic of what is wrong with our entire taxation system. The title reads an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related acts.

The explanatory notes alone almost outnumber the amendments. Bill C-27 covers everything from the tax treatment of automobile operating costs to minerals in the mining industry. It is one inch thick. Once passed it will add more rules, regulations, subsections and pages to the overall complex, confusing and convoluting Income Tax Act.

Let me read something from the Income Tax Act and see if we can understand it after we are finished. Section 23(1) paragraph (c) of the definition "superficial loss".

This is what we have to know by the time we are done:

-in section 54 of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) was the disposition deemed by paragraph 33.1(11)(a), subsection 45(1), Section 48 as it read in its application before 1993, section 50 or 70, subsection 104(4), section 128.1 or subsection 138(11.3), 144(4.1) or (4.2) or 149(10) to have been made,-

1. (1) Section 55 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(3.1) Notwithstanding subsection (3), a dividend to which subsection (2) would, but for paragraph (3)(b), otherwise apply is not excluded from the application of subsection (2) where the dividend is received as part of a series of transactions or events in which

(a) a person or partnership

I might as well stop. Do we know what a superficial loss is?

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for her comments and her speech.

I would like to ask if she believes farmers should be exempt or non-exempt on the Liberal GST replacement tax on machinery and equipment that is pending.

[Income Tax Act, May 6th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child care expenses).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to try and correct an injustice we found through the Income Tax Act in its efforts to drive and dictate social policies.

The Income Tax Act currently discriminates against stay at home parents because the child care expense deduction is only available to families who pay institutions to look after their children. Because stay at home parents are not a "discreet and insular minority" the courts have ruled they do not qualify for a child care expense deduction.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to allow parents to choose the method of child care and allow the deduction of a fixed amount as child care expenses of $5,000 up to age 7 or $3,000 between ages 8 and 14, regardless of the income of the parents and of the amount of child care expenses actually incurred.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Employment, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement of yesterday implies that hard working people are the cause of unemployment.

Using the minister's logic, if the Deputy Prime Minister herself worked overtime she would be contributing to unemployment.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that her minister's logic and her own logic are flawed and do not address the real problem in this country, that high taxes are forcing people to work longer hours and high deficits and debt are causing unemployment?

[Employment, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Ridiculous statements from senior cabinet ministers continue to plague the government, not only today but yesterday when the Minister of Human Resources Development said that if people with jobs would not work overtime there would be more jobs for unemployed Canadians.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell Canadians if legislation to limit the work week is currently under consideration by this government?

[Supply, May 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Léonard for his contribution to today's debate. I am a little disappointed that he has just focused on the GST as a partial solution to our taxation problem. Perhaps he is too busy being the Liberal whip to put full concentration on this area of taxation.

He brought up a point about the cost of consultation and as a Reformer I feel I should address this particular issue. Current hearings are always held by most standing committees, especially the Standing Committee on Finance.

With the replacement tax for the GST provincial governments are certainly encouraged to look at the issue of harmonization and therefore the government and/or committees will be meeting with provincial finance people. When they are doing that and for the same cost at the same time the government can be bringing up other areas of taxation that provinces, individuals or witnesses may want to contribute toward an overhaul of the taxation system. In the next year and a half, at no extra cost, this extra review can be initiated with Canadians and provincial governments.

On the order of public finances the member indicates that he feels his government is bringing order to the public finances. I counter that position as a comment by saying that the government has increased overall spending by $3.3 billion and is

concentrating on the revenue side to generate more revenue for the government.

By borrowing $2 billion on the infrastructure all the government is going to get back at most is $400 million in taxes with the extra jobs it creates if it creates them.

That will be a net loss on the infrastructure program so it is headed the wrong way.

I compliment the hon. member for Saint-Léonard as party whip for handling the budget of the Board of Internal Economy. I do not know whether it is $250 million or $270 million, but he and his committee, and I believe it was through his efforts, came up with a $5 million saving for this House and the taxpayers of Canada.

I wish that he would take his insight and his understanding of how cuts should really work and apply it to the Department of National Revenue. When the deputy minister of National Revenue and Taxation was asked to come up with some cuts, he came up with an amalgamation of two departments. Out of a budget of $2.2 billion all that he could come up with, not that it is insignificant, was $36 million.

On a proportionate and percentage basis, I would like to know if the hon. member would be willing to serve as the cabinet minister of National Revenue and Taxation. He knows how to cut.