Nelson Riis

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's comments with interest. It would be nice if all the debates in the House of Commons were as thoughtful, well researched and reflective as the one we just heard. Unfortunately that is not the case. Too many people read from prepared texts and so on that someone else has written.

Today we are talking about income tax. I suspect that when people hear that term they get crinkly feelings up and down their spine. There are probably hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Canadians sitting in their offices, their homes, their factories or plants just dreading the time when they have to go home and get out all those little pieces of paper, T-4 slips and so on and start filling out that bloody form.

The Constitution says we are not allowed to impose cruel and unusual treatment on people. I suspect asking people to fill out their tax returns is a form of cruel and unusual treatment. It is a painful experience.

The other day I ran into some young people who are self-employed. They are in the consulting business. They were absolutely livid because they fill out their tax returns, work very hard for all their money and have to send off cheques and cheques, all this cash to the federal government. They felt depressed. They were so frustrated. It is almost a form of self-mutilation.

People sit down at a desk, with papers piled all over, trying to figure out what the hell that form says. They read through the explanations and that is complicated, step by step. There are computer programs now. The laugh of the century was this elderly woman came to my office in Kamloops the other day and said “I just filled out my tax return and I do not understand parts of it. I wonder if you could get me a copy of the tax act”. She was thinking this was a little book, something like a little handout.

One would need a pickup truck to take home the tax act and all the explanatory booklets that go with it. Madam Speaker, I know how bright you are and some of my friends across the way, but I can guarantee that no one could understand it. Nobody can understand it. I will bet there is not a person in the world who understands this pickup truck full of tax law.

Let us test the crowd. We have some very intelligent people here. Let me pick up one of the little copies and I will randomly choose an item. I must admit I have not looked at this but I am going to read this and ask my friends, particularly my Liberal friends across the way, to follow carefully, then there will be a test afterward.

It goes like this. The minister may grant exemption from this application of the provisions from this act, other than the provisions set out in sections 14 to 19, or to any investment company, if the minister is satisfied that (a) the business of investment carried on by the company or a significant portion thereof is of short duration and incidental to the principle carried out by it, or (b) the company, although incorporated after January 1, 1972, primarily for the purpose of carrying on the business of investment and it intends to remain a company described in subparagraph 2(3), or subsequently from 5(2) to 5(17), or (c) it is not necessarily in the public interest that this act apply to the company, having regard to the purpose of the act and to any one or more of the following factors: (1) the persons to whom the company is indebted in respect of money borrowed by it, or (2) the amount of the indebtedness by the company in respect to the money borrowed by it, or (3) the nature of any security given by the company in respect of money borrowed by it, and (4) the extent of the integration of the company's activities with the activities of its subsidiaries, if any, and with the activities of any corporation of which it is a subsidiary and any other subsidiaries of that corporation.

Then we go to subsection 2. Here the minister, if he decides, may revoke an exemption granted under subsection 4. If subsection 4 does not follow subsection 2(b) and the minister ceases to be satisfied that any of the criteria referred to in that subsection are met, then when exemption from this application is granted under subsection 2 or subsection 15, following 2(b), then the corporation, after January 1, 1972 that is, if it is primarily for the purpose of carrying on the business of investment, then this exemption shall not be revoked.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again it was a very thoughtful question from my friend from Kings—Hants. I think he has answered the question himself.

He described the mythology surrounding this so-called health care budget, just like last year's education budget. He acknowledged that very little moneys will go into the provincial coffers for health care next year as a result of this budget.

My short answer to him is that I would be surprised if Canadians noticed any change at all in Canada's health care system as a result of this federal budget. He pointed out a major flaw in the mythology the government has been trying to perpetuate.

I think we all agree with his suggestion, and I know my leader has said the same thing, about the millions of dollars the government has spent trying to tell people that it has done a good job in health care. If that money was going directly into health care, it would be money better spent.

May I suggest that if a government or an individual is doing a good job, there is no need to advertise that they are doing a good job. People understand that. They will know that. But if they are not doing a good job, then they have to advertise.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it was a thoughtful question, one I suspect a lot of people are asking.

We have heard in the House repeatedly that one of the attractive features to lure foreign corporations to Canada is the low wages they are able to pay. This seems to be some kind of good news. It is a rather warped sense of good news.

One of the realities is that the radical changes to the employment insurance program resulted in that the majority of Canadians who paid into that program are receiving no benefits at all.

Mr. Speaker, imagine what it would be like for you to lose your job. When people lose their jobs and have no income, they become vulnerable to people who could exploit them in terms of paying for their services of one kind or another.

I am aware, and I know the hon. member is as well, that because of the changes to the employment insurance program, when some people get their employment insurance cheque, the amount is actually as low as $32, $50, $75. Mr. Speaker, I know you are a very frugal man, but imagine trying to live for a couple of weeks on $32. This is tough. Anybody who is trying to live on $32 a week, $100 a week or $200 a week will be vulnerable to people who are prepared to exploit the worker's skills, background, talent and so on. That is one of the reasons so many people today are in a very difficult situation.

That was one reason. The other reason is our taxation. It is fair to say that Canadians by and large with a few exceptions are paying too much tax, income tax and other kinds of taxes. It goes back to my friend who asked what we would propose, and that is a tax cut that would benefit every single man, woman and child in the country, not this group or that group.

There is a tax cut that every single person would benefit from. Even a little kid buying a teddy bear would benefit, or a parent purchasing a needed vehicle or a washing machine would benefit from a cut in the GST. This would benefit every single person.

Guess what the people who would benefit most from a cut in the GST would do with that saved money in their pockets. They would spend it. People are pushed to the wall and their savings are minimal, if they have any at all. They would spend those dollars.

Those dollars would go from business to business to business around that little community. They would support the small and medium size businesses. Those dollars would circulate around and around in the community benefiting the small businesses which hire people and provide employment opportunities. But instead, those dollars are coming to Ottawa to be used for some questionable purposes from time to time.

I do not know whether I have been thorough in my answer but those are some of the reasons Canadians are having a tough time getting by and why employers are able to pay such low wages and salaries.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very reasonable question.

First, I do take back referring to the Minister of Finance by his name. I was referring to the Minister of Finance. And so there is no mistaking, if the word dictator can be used in a positive sense, that is what I was trying to do. Perhaps I could use a different term. I will be serious with my hon. friend because I respect his views and the work he does, but too much power now sits with one cabinet minister. There is too much influence.

My friend knows because I heard his comments earlier that this budget gives the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance even more authority and even greater power in terms of disbursing funds. This very clear trend is a serious concern which I share with him and which others have shared with me. His criticism was well placed. It was a term that could be misconstrued. I did not mean it in a pejorative sense. I meant it in a neutral sense with dictator meaning one single person deciding on government policy.

My friend said that a major accomplishment of this government was balancing the books. I do not think a single Canadian would say that was not the case, but let us acknowledge how that balance was achieved. That balance was achieved by dipping into the EI fund. By dipping into the EI fund and taking billions of dollars in employment insurance premiums, it was easy to balance the budget. The other way to balance the budget was to devastate the health care system. My friends over here would suggest there were some tax issues involved in this as well.

Any government can balance the budget if it slashes the meaning out of a society. Anybody can do that. If the government shut down every university and every hospital, it would balance the budget. It is that simple. But what kind of a country is that? What kind of a government is that?

Not only does the government dip into the EI fund, which some people have suggested is illegal to do, but it is now going to dip into the pension fund of the federal government employees. The government is going to dip into $37 billion of a pension fund for which it has no authority. The government is going to have to bring in legislation to be given that authority.

My second point was to acknowledge that the surplus comes with a great deal of pain. Were the people who were most pained by this budget cutting rewarded now that there is a surplus? Were the homeless recognized? No. Were the unemployed recognized? No. Were the people who need affordable housing recognized? No. Were the farmers acknowledged? No. Were the RCMP recognized? No. Were the people in the fisheries industry recognized? No. Were the miners recognized? No. Were the forest workers recognized? No. Who was recognized?

By the time we eliminate all of those groups, the nurses were hacked out, the doctors, the teachers, the professors, and on and on and on, there was a handful of people who liked this budget. My suspicion is that they probably hang around Bay Street.

I think I made my points.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

That is interesting. My friend says the United States government. There is a lot of truth, unfortunately, in that. We will come back to that in a moment. The person in charge sits over there. He is called the Minister of Finance. He actually decides now on major social policy in the country.

Let us go back one budget. In last year's budget we were having this debate. One of the big items was the millennium scholarship fund.

The government said “This is what we are doing for education. We thought this through. We have education policy. We want to find ways and means of encouraging young people and others back into the school system, whether it be university, vocational school, college, technical school, an institute or whatever. We have this great idea. Its called the millennium scholarship fund and it will provide support for at least 7% of the students of this country”. What about the other 93%? The funds have been cut to universities and colleges. The government got out of the student loan program. For those 7% of students there is a scholarship fund.

They made educational policy. Was it the backbenchers on the Liberal side? No. It certainly was not on this side. Did we have a single debate in the House of Commons on education? Not a minute of debate.

The Minister of Finance decided that he knows best and he knows what educational policy should be. He introduced it. He is a very smart man. He is a very nice guy. I do not think he knows anything about educational policy. Why should he? He is a financier. That is his responsibility. That is the beginning.

We then asked what does this country need. It requires a major overhaul of our health care system. We all agree that health care is a crucial priority. Who decides on health care policy? Is it the Minister of Health? No, it is the Minister of Finance. He decides how much money is going into the system.

A few years ago he said “We will gut the health care system, slash the guts out of the health care system”. The government did, almost to the point this was an emergency situation. Now the minister says they have made a mistake. Things have to be changed so they will start refunding health care. Five years from now we will be at the level we were five years ago.

The Minister of Finance is determining health care policy in this great country. There is something wrong with this. This is just the beginning. I could speak for the next two hours about the Minister of Finance being in charge of everything in this country. Cabinet is not in charge and neither is the Prime Minister.

I will use one other example because it is a hot issue, the replacement to the Young Offenders Act. The government brought in the new Young Offenders Act which has various provisions and ideas, some very positive, some questionable, some negative. Nevertheless it is a reasonable try at doing a better job in terms of dealing with young offenders. I will give the government credit for that.

However, what is lacking? Are ideas lacking? No. Are new initiatives lacking? No. Are new proposals lacking? No. There is no money to implement the program. We could have all the programs, all the policies, all the new initiatives, all the new legislation, new regulations we want, but if no money is available to deliver to the provinces, what good is it?

That is the same problem we had with the last Young Offenders Act. One of the main problems we had with the last Young Offenders Act was that it had all types of suggestions that judges could take but there was no substance. There were no opportunities at the local level. Lawyers could argue on behalf of their young offender clients about the most appropriate way to deal with an offence but the judge would say he had no choice but to throw the kid in jail. That is the only choice the judge would have. Unfortunately after this new legislation is in place, if that takes place, it will be the same situation.

If my recollection serves me, there is $200 million available over the next three years to implement all the provisions in this new act. It is pittance. It is an impossibility to implement the provisions of this new Young Offenders Act. That is the mythology. Who decides this? Who decides how young offenders are dealt with? Is it the Minister of Justice? No. Is it the solicitor general? No. Is it anybody in cabinet? Yes, the Minister of Finance.

There is something wrong with this picture. I can see members shaking their heads. I think we all agree. There is something wrong with the system. We have to change this so that the Minister of Finance can spread his decision making around slightly.

This was also to be a budget about productivity, acknowledging that we need to improve our productivity. I think we all agree there are areas of the economy where productivity is important. When we say the word productivity, most Canadians watching will start to panic. When people hear the word productivity they think of layoffs, salary cuts and overtime. In other words, productivity does not mean what productivity is. Productivity means tougher times for most working people.

When we talk about productivity, I will take my hat off and acknowledge that the government put aside some money for research and development, to fund some of the major research agencies of the country. That was a positive step. By and large those funds are destined for the large multinational corporations. That is fair enough if some incentive will get them moving into more highly productive areas.

Where the real innovation and creativity takes place is in the small businesses of the country, in the medium sized businesses that are out there on the cutting edge of technological change, the innovators. Therein lies a real serious funding problem. The government would rather fund Bombardier, which probably does not really need any help, than to fund that small business in New Brunswick, northern Manitoba or wherever. That funding is not there. That is a serious problem we have to confront through either the tax system, granting agencies or whatever, to recognize that is where the real creativity is.

I will identify the fundamental fault with this legislation in this budget. What kind of successful life would you have if you did not have a clue where you were going, if you did not have a clue what you would try to do in the next two months, two years or whatever?

It is fair to say that for anyone to be a successful individual, however success is defined, there needs to be a bit of a road map. Goals and strategies have to be set. There has to be a plan, a business plan as the business community would call it. A person with a business idea, whether a farmer, small entrepreneur, home based business or self-employed, before going into any lending institution has to have a thought through business plan in order to qualify for support or funding.

That is the first thing anybody asks for. What is your plan? Where are you going?

Mr. Speaker, I know you are very successful in a whole variety of areas and I know the reason you are successful is you know how to write a good business plan. Successful business people know how to write a successful business plan because it is fundamental. Your plan on politics may be a little warped but that is something we can discuss another time, Mr. Speaker.

We need a plan to be successful as individuals. There has to be a plan to be successful in business. There has to be a plan to be successful as any organization, whether it is the Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, a minor hockey team or whatever. There has to be a plan to be successful. We all agree with this fundamental premise.

What about as a country? Do we need a plan to be successful as a country or can we just mumble, fumble and jumble our way through? That is what we are doing. Most Canadians if asked what they thought the game plan for our federal government is would probably laugh or shudder “oh my God, I think it is this but I am not sure”.

Why would Canadians not be aware of what our plan as a country is? We do not have a plan. We have no idea where we will be six months from now. Look at the budget itself. When most countries put together a budget their minister of finance has the guts to say “This is where I think our projects are going for at least the next five years. For five years this is what we project our revenues to be and for five years this is what we predict our expenditures to be”.

We do not dare go there as a country. We might foray out a couple of years. That is it. Even those, let us face it, are ultra conservative proposals. Even the Minister of Finance agrees we have no plan. We do not plan ahead and therefore we are in trouble. How can we evaluate a budget that is not based on anything?

One thing in this budget that really concerns me is the revenue agency being created, this monstrous form of government that will have access in everybody's lives, and this legislation facilitates that.

They say we will share information about people. This is the ultimate in big brother, sharing information between provincial governments and federal government departments about individuals.

If this agency were accountable, at least to the elected representatives of Canada, I would not feel so bad but it will operate at arm's length, virtually like a crown corporation. There is not accountability. It can intrude in Canadian lives all over the place and nobody will be able to ask the minister what is going on because it will be set aside. It will be like Canada Post.

Has anyone ever tried to find out what Canada Post does to wrecked letters or why the mail is not delivered? It is almost impossible.

This provision is something we should be waving some flags about. If the government is going to go ahead with this new revenue agency, it must have some real transparency and accountability to parliament and the elected representatives of the people of Canada.

I have a whole host of other items but I am running out of time. I will close by saying that we are not going to support this bill. We have too many concerns about it. I would not say that there is nothing good in it. There is obviously something good in any budget. There are a number of positive initiatives but overall it misses the mark. It does not reflect the views and concerns of Canadians. And frankly, I do not want a whole country run by a dictator called Paul Martin.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

The world is not perfect. The reality is closure, closure, closure.

Who is in charge? My friends opposite in the back who are making suggestions for my speech, are they in charge? No, they are not. Is the cabinet in charge? No, the cabinet is not in charge. Who is in charge of this country? Not the Speaker. He is too nice a guy.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

Or in Windsor. People do not believe they are involved. They know they are left out of the circle.

Before I get into proof, who makes the decisions? Here and now, what we have in this great country is not a parliamentary democracy. We have it in name but in reality we have an elected dictatorship where every few years Canadians elect a dictator. That person then decides they know what is best for everyone else.

This really started with our old pal Brian Mulroney. He came in here and said “I'm really a bright person”. I just thought of a joke. We do not hear many jokes in this place. These can be told about Brian Mulroney but you can load almost anybody else in.

Brian Mulroney and the member for Halifax were being invited to a speaking engagement in Vancouver. At the airport in Ottawa there was a young fellow standing there feeling very dejected. Brian said “What's wrong with you?” The fellow said “I'm a Boy Scout and I am supposed to be at a jamboree in Vancouver. I missed my flight”. Brian said “Join us. We're heading for Vancouver”.

The plane took off and just about over Thunder Bay it got into real trouble. The pilot said “Folks, I have bad news. We're going down. We're going to crash. You have to jump out but there are only two parachutes. So you will have to fight it out between you”.

Brian Mulroney jumps up and says “Listen, I'm obviously the smartest guy in the world. I have to get down there and save this country”. So out he goes.

The Boy Scout says “Listen, Ms. McDonough, you're the head of one of the most progressive political parties in the country. You have great ideas. I think you should go”. She turns to the Boy Scout and says “No, we can both jump out. We can both take parachutes”.

The Boy Scout said “What about Mr. Mulroney? Didn't he jump out?” “Yes, but the smartest guy in Canada grabbed your pack sack”.

Brian Mulroney started the trend to make this place somewhat irrelevant. I do not think he liked parliament. He found it a nuisance and so on but he had to go through the motions. They used closure, time allocation and so on to get legislation through the House.

Then the Liberals came in. I was hopeful. I thought they have a much longer tradition of parliament, particularly with the leadership of the cabinet, and they would use closure less often. Lo and behold, they use it more often.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

My friend says no. He is a very smart individual.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999. The reason it is a delight to have a chance to participate in this debate is to clarify some of the mythology surrounding the most recent budget.

I realize that politics has a lot to do with perception. Perception is a fancy word for mythology, or misleading I suspect.

I have had some interesting advice. Watching today is a very important individual, Ange Vautour, who is age 75. Today is his birthday. He is very interested in the outcome of today's deliberations. As well, my father who is in his mid-nineties, is watching today. He gave me all kinds of advice in terms of what to include in my comments on the budget. They are two very special individuals, and I suspect many other very special individuals are watching today's proceedings.

I have listened with interest to the debates to this point. The picture from the constituency level is that this was a health care budget. In other words, a lot of people said that the government took major steps to once again fund Canada's health care system. In a sense that is true, but only in a sense. When we look at the fine print of this budget, we notice that if we wait for not this year, not next year, not the year after, not the year after that, and not the following year, but the following year, the funding the provinces will get will be at the same level as it was way back in 1995.

This is a bit of magic, a bit of hocus-pocus. This is moving the little shell between hats when the government says it is reinstating a whole lot of money into health care, which is true, but after all is said and done, many years from now, we are still way back in the mid-1990s in terms of funding for health care. Let us admit today that we are still going to be seriously underfunded in terms of developing the health care system that Canadians wish.

There are two items that I remember my friends in the Liberal Party promised Canadians. They promised, and promised. They said, “If you elect Liberals, we are going to have a decent home care program across the country. If you elect Liberals, we are going to have a decent pharmacare program. As a matter of fact, we will have a national pharmacare program and we are going to wind it into our medicare system”.

I noticed that the budget was relatively mute on two items. The Liberals do not talk much about home care any more. They do not talk much about pharmacare. I suspect they can talk about it all they want if they do not put any money into it. Mr. Speaker, you might want to have home care, I might want to have home care and my friend from P.E.I. might want to have home care, but if there is no money for home care, what the heck do we do? This is an empty promise. This is a promise that means nothing.

It is fair to say we are not going to have a pharmacare program in this country for two reasons. The most obvious one is that the government puts no money into it. But there is another one and it is called NAFTA.

Under the provisions of NAFTA if we were actually going to impose a pharmacare program that made sense, we would make a lot of multinational pharmaceutical companies unhappy, particularly those based in the United States. They would say to us, “If you want to impose a national pharmacare program to give the people of Canada a break when it comes to buying their prescription drugs and so on, you have to compensate us for all the lost profits, billions and billions of dollars in lost profits”.

No government is going to be in a fiscal position to do that. The promise on home care and pharmacare in particular is mythology that has been perpetuated by this government. It continues to be perpetuated, but I do not think Canadians are being fooled in the least.

I have some very specific concerns I want to raise about this bill today. I want to talk for a moment about a fundamental problem that exists in this House, with this government, with this parliament and in this country.

I know all of us have encountered people saying they do not trust us, they trust politicians. They say we will let them down. They do not believe we will do the things we say we will do. They feel we do not listen to them. They feel alienated from the process.

There is good reason for having those feelings. The government has let people down. They are alienated. Do members think a person living in Kamloops or in Chicoutimi or in Moose Jaw or in Thunder Bay is involved in the decision making of this government at all?

[Petitions, March 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops who are concerned that our international trade agreements limit the ability of the House of Commons or provincial legislatures to pass legislation to protect the health of Canadian citizens. The petitioners ask the House of Commons to consider examining these international agreements to ensure they do not limit the ability of members of parliament to take decisions on behalf of their constituents.