Jim Silye

[Child Care, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern with the discriminatory nature of the Income Tax Act, particularly the child care expense deduction.

Calgarians Jim and Laurie Boland were recently told in Federal Court that a parent who chooses to be at home with their child is not entitled to the same privileges as those who pay for child care.

The Income Tax Act admittedly denies the Bolands equal benefit under the law, but because stay at home parents are not a "discrete and insular minority" they are not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This legal discrimination must stop.

Parents should be free to choose the form of child care which best suits their situation as opposed to having government reward one choice over another.

In this, the International Year of the Family, it is my intention to introduce a private member's bill on the topic of equal child care assistance to all needy families, regardless of the type of child care they choose.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the opposition's motion encouraging the government to recognize equality between men and women and to implement necessary measures to ensure this in the area of federal jurisdiction.

On this International Women's Day it is truly a privilege for me to address such an important issue here in the House. However before I begin I would like to thank my mother, Irene Lemak, for deciding to have me, raising me, putting up with me, looking after me and loving me. Thanks, Mom.

Back to the motion, it is our duty as members of Parliament to address the problems of equality that women face in the workforce, encourage co-operation and protect the rights of all Canadians.

Economic equality can only exist between men and women when employment in the country is truly based on individual qualifications, experience, motivation and not gender. In this system the individual who is best qualified for a job, male or female, would get the job.

However the fact of the matter is that true equality in this form remains an ideal in Canada and not a reality. It is time for women in the country to be given the respect, the pay and the opportunities they deserve. This means that as a government, members of all parties should work to review the problems associated with sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace and correct any wrongs that surface as they are discovered.

We must explore the problems associated with maternity leave and the difficulty that many women face in re-entering the workforce. It must be a balanced approach with the needs of the

employer also factored in. Currently the system that exists seems to recognize the problems and it seems to work.

Before I became a member of Parliament I ran businesses for 25 years. A lot of times this problem surfaced and by allowing the women to have maternity leave, have their baby and holding their job open to them for a period time of three to five months to make a decision as to whether they wanted to come back, this seemed to work. Out of six such pregnancies I had four female employees who decided to stay at home and two who came back. Perhaps a system like this has improved.

We must examine the discriminatory problems associated with child care and the rights of stay at home parents who are not entitled to the same rights as those who pay for child care outside the home. We must acknowledge the fact that there is a social stigma attached to stay at home mothers which implies that they are not on the same level as those who work outside the home. We must recognize the value of the contribution of those women who work at home and give them the opportunity to pursue any direction they choose.

Having a child should not be directly influenced by the government with various incentives through legislation. For instance, Calgarians Jim and Laurie Boland were recently told in Federal Court by a judge who had to make the decision that a parent who chooses to be at home with their child is not entitled to the same privileges as those who pay for child care.

The Income Tax Act admittedly denies the Bolands equal benefit under the law, but because stay at home parents are not a "a discrete and insular minority", as used by the judge they are not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is legal discrimination and this must stop. If the motion today is intended to address problems like these, I would encourage the government to get on it right away and introduce legislation to make a judge's ruling unnecessary in situations like this one.

Parents should be free to choose the form of child care which best suits their situation as opposed to having government reward one choice over another.

In this International Year of the Family it is my intention before the year is over to introduce a private member's bill on the topic of equal financial assistance to all families regardless of the type of child care arrangements that they have made.

Let us build a country in which taxation and the options for employment are fair, a country in which opportunities flourish for individuals and employment is based on qualifications, experience and motivation, not gender.

If the motion suggests that affirmative action should be legislated in the workplace as a fixed percentage then the Reform Party opposes it. A lot of speakers earlier today pointed this out.

Women are not a special interest group. My caucus colleague from Beaver River mentioned this number of times. She said it twice and so I will follow her leadership and mention it twice as well. Women are not a special interest group. Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination and not equality. Women are people just like men and should be respected as such.

It is time that extremes, the extreme males who are called male chauvinists and the extreme females who are called feminists, come together and eliminate that hardness and that extremism from both ends and come together and recognize each other as human beings. Respect and understanding are key.

In conclusion, I believe that women in the home, in the workplace and in general deserve more respect, not quotas. Perhaps a good beginning would be, especially in this year of the family, a definition of family in which we subscribe to some of those values in an ever changing world that existed in prior years when we had commitment and we had a sense of direction.

Perhaps a family could be defined as two people who are related by blood or through marriage or through adoption. This would cover a lot of the situations for single parents, for marriages and other situations in which the parents are deceased and siblings live together. These are the things I feel we should address this year.

As my final words, I do not think we should gloss over the problems that exist between men and women. I believe we should recognize them, face them head on and try to resolve them through respect and understanding, rather than through legislation and affirmative action.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about a pension plan and in the private sector we have to match dollar for dollar. In this House, the taxpayers have to pay $6 for every $1 MPs put into their pension. It is gold plated, it is exorbitant and it is too extravagant.

Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians why he and his government support lifetime pensions for members of Parliament after only six years of service?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It was inspired by Mr. Frank Filek of Toronto.

It was reported last week that taxpayers are on the hook for another $12.2 million shortfall in the MP pension plan. This follows the $158 million contribution made by taxpayers in 1992.

Will the Prime Minister commit to convincing his caucus colleagues to the immediate elimination of this gold-plated pension plan for members of Parliament?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member and with respect, I just cite the figures of the finance minister which show that the Liberals were elected on a promise to create jobs. The number of jobs they are going to create after 12 months is one-tenth of 1 per cent. If the member figures it out himself he will see that is not very much of a growth.

If they keep that up in year two, year three and year four, pretty soon the rest of the member's mates will be back over on this side of the House and we will be all over there full. Once eastern Canada gets to see what we are talking about, the advantages of living within our means, it will understand that we have the right medicine and we have identified the right problem and not the pie in the sky that the Liberals keep talking about.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have long abandoned the deficit because when you say deficit the opposition tackles that. So let us present the real problem: the debt; the fact that the government is now adding another $41 billion to the debt. It is going to be $550 billion at the end of this coming fiscal year. It is the debt that is causing the problem and the interest on it. They make an emotional plea about jobs. Currently the unemployment rate is at 11.2 per cent. At the end of this year, with the finance minister's projections and the Minister of Human Resources Development with these 168,000 jobs offered, at the end of all this the unemployment rate goes from 11.2 per cent to 11.1 per cent. This is one-tenth of 1 per cent. Is that what this government calls giving jobs to Canadians?

All you do is talk and promise, promise, promise but you do not deliver the goods. Here was your opportunity to lower the deficit to a point at which you could leave money in the hands of private enterprise so it could create long-term, meaningful jobs and it is equity capital.

In the previous speech I heard the Minister of Human Resources Development say that capital creates jobs. There is no question that capital creates jobs but not borrowed money and not governments-equity capital not debt capital, private enterprise not public enterprise.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the budgetary policy of the government as presented by the Minister of Finance.

As a new member of Parliament and a member of the Standing Committee on Finance I listened intently to the minister's speech in the hope that this budget was going to be different. After cutting through the finance minister's wonderful rhetoric, the budget is nothing more than a continuation of the Trudeau philosophy that we can grow out of our economic problems.

That concept was the solution for a different problem at a different time. In fact, the only things that grow out of this budget are overall spending, up by $3.3 billion, and the number of task forces, committees and hearings to determine and sell next year's budget. These new studies are up to about 15 new committees with three or four task forces.

I have said this before in the House and I will say it again. Total government revenues are projected at $123.9 billion. Total expenditures are slightly less than this. It is the interest on the debt that creates the deficit of $41 billion. Interest expenses on the federal debt now total 33 cents of every tax dollar. I submit that it is the debt and the interest expense to service the debt that puts in jeopardy the viability and flexibility of our existing programs.

The Minister of Finance has taken great pride in the unprecedented degree of consultation that his party sought in the preparation of the budget. What good is consultation when a government will not implement policies that people want and are demanding?

I fail to see the finance minister's so-called game plan that he claims to have presented in a budget that is full of wait-until-next-year promises. Spending increases are this year and all the big spending cuts are left for future years.

As a former professional football player I know the value and the purpose of a game plan. A game plan is about attacking a known obstacle or problem which in this case is the rising costs associated with servicing the debt.

Based on the government's game plan I can tell members that they are attacking the wrong problem because they have ignored the debt. It will not work in the field of economics. However through his great political skills and wondrous humour skills, the Minister of Finance will certainly know how to talk to the reporters after the game. Will he blame the players, the game plan or himself when this plan fails?

The finance minister has promised to "put an end to real drift" by guaranteeing meaningful jobs, training and retraining. How does he plan to do this when he tells the people who pay our salaries to wait another year for government to fulfil its policies? It appears that he has learned nothing while he was eight years in opposition and has applied, I am sad to say, very little of his own business acumen.

I hope that the finance minister and the Prime Minister truly enjoy themselves as they travel across the country selling another year's worth of hope and weak promises on the rock solid financial foundation of living on borrowed money and over spending while those to whom they speak must live within their means.

I submit that the budget, like those before it, has missed the mark. The Minister of Finance has truly wasted some golden opportunities to reduce spending and here are a few of them.

The budget could have included the elimination of business subsidies and regional development programs; savings to the government, $3 billion to $4 billion. The budget could have outlined at the minimum a 25 per cent reduction of subsidies to crown corporations; savings to the government, $1.25 billion. In this area our party would have gone further and outlined the value of some privatization, with the application of the proceeds from the sale to the national debt, another savings to government of $3 billion to $4 billion.

This budget could also have addressed old age security payments going to seniors whose household income is in excess of the national average of $54,000 per year. That is $54,000 and not $35,000 as the finance minister seems to say on television. They are not truly needy. Savings to the government, $2 billion to $3 billion.

If the government or the finance minister had done nothing, in other words no new budget, with his own figures and estimates it shows us that the federal deficit would have gone down, dropped to $41.2 billion from this artificially inflated $45 billion, in the coming fiscal year, and unemployment would have remained at around 11 per cent. By doing nothing that is what we would achieve. What the finance minister did was shuffle the financial deck of cards and confuse everyone with a new hand to evaluate.

The finance minister has deferred the tough decisions and at the end of the day has ended up with virtually the same results. Why did he bother? He has created a whole lot of pain with no net gain for those who have been asked to sacrifice. At the end of the day, in my opinion, if you are asked to contribute and sacrifice, there should be a reward, and there is none in the budget for those people.

In my estimation, Canadians have been dealt a rotten hand while the finance minister on the other side of the table has finessed four aces in the financial deck of cards. When will he play the ace of toughness and cut overall spending by the government? When will he play the ace of reality and stop hiding behind taxpayer funded task forces and committees to debate the obvious? When will he make the real choice; do what has to be done, reduce overall spending.

When will he play the ace of change and show something for his party's eight years of opposition, spent criticizing Tory budgets, and work toward helping Canadians see the benefit in attacking the debt instead of adding to it, more so than the previous Tory government did in their last year?

Finally, when will the Minister of Finance play the ace of all aces, the ace of tax reform, and eliminate the incredibly high, complicated and bureaucratic taxation system that all Canadians want simplified and lowered? Canada needs a simple, visible or flat tax that is the same rate for individuals and businesses alike; a tax with no exemptions or loopholes in the range of 15 to 20 per cent, which addresses the problem of equality, equity, neutrality and efficiency; a tax that increases disposable income for all Canadians and businesses and reduces the current bureaucratic, suffocating nightmare.

These are the key factors for an effective system of taxation. The Liberal budget addresses none of them. When the finance minister has the courage to play this card, the ace of tax reform, his government will have begun to address the real problems in the country.

This budget is not about change, but rather a nibbling at the edges leaving only high debt, high taxes and high unemployment, the exact opposite of what is intended.

The Liberal Party always challenges us for alternatives. Here in my speech I have provided over $9 billion in cuts this year for the Minister of Finance to use which are not in his budget. I challenge him to take the initiative, take the credit, start reducing the debt and do what is best for the country.

I say to the Minister of Finance: Stop talking a good game. Make some real decisions. Get into the game. Get your uniform dirty and complete the grand slam to lower debts.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

My side woke up, finally.

I think it is imperative that the government not shy away from its law enforcement duties even though it changed the law so that the law will not be broken.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Plus increase the police resources and enforce it. That is a fine argument, but we have not captured the people who were responsible for the smuggling in the first place. They will just find something else to smuggle now. If they knew who was doing it, why did they not arrest them prior to the price reduction?

Like the complete four point package, it is a package. I think it is a way to solve this problem. To shy away from enforcing the law-and the Minister of Justice is listening to us intently here-is backing away and shirking your responsibilities. I am not saying that the minister has shirked his responsibilities, but somehow, and I am just repeating what has been said to me by a lot of people, there is a perception that there are two sets of laws, one for native Indians and one for on reserve and off reserve natives. The RCMP has been reluctant-I am not saying it was ordered not to-to enforce the law where the law was being broken.

This is a package to eliminate all that. With respect to the members of my party who spoke out in terms of law enforcement, this is the area where the government's action has been weak; the argument about if the speed limit is being broken, then raise the speed limit and the law is not being broken any more. Let us enforce the law.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. That philosophy and that argument is what is forcing a lot of my colleagues to argue that the government was afraid to enforce the law. The law was there. We knew where the smuggling was taking place and nothing was being done about it. Nobody was going there and arresting those people. They were staying away from those areas.

The member's philosophy now is or he is suggesting that by eliminating the profit out of smuggling that the smuggling will not occur and therefore the arrest will not have to happen.