Nelson Riis

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, a very quick reply does not seem very fair at all to me.

I will be brief and answer my friend's question directly. One reason that countries like Denmark and Norway, the two that I am most familiar with, are able to have a first class health care system and spend less money than we do in Canada on a GDP basis is because they have a whole set of other social programs that complement their system. They have a comprehensive child care which assists children from birth if the parents require it. They have a whole set of programs that we call pharmacare or elder care or assistance and support for seniors in that country.

You cannot take health care out of the equation when it is part of a comprehensive package. Perhaps the member will understand that by having a decent social system, you do not have to have poor children in Canada. Those other countries have demonstrated by appropriate policies there do not have to be any poor parents and, therefore, poor children.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am not used to that category of question, the scintillating intellectual depth of such a question. However, I will do my best to respond to my hon. friend.

He has identified a rather crucial point. That is, over the last number of years governments on this side, regardless of whether they were Conservatives or Liberals, have seen fit to have a tax system that enabled year after year after year tens of thousands of profitable corporations to pay no income tax at all.

I have been listening now for almost five years to my friends in the Reform Party and I have never heard a single Reform member ever once suggest that we should change that part of the tax system.

Perhaps my friend is extraordinary. He is in many respects, I suggest, and maybe he holds this progressive view. I have yet to hear a single Reform member criticize the fact that our tax system presently allows, in the last analysis, 62,000 profitable corporations to not pay a single penny in income tax.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, where do I begin?

First, I want to acknowledge that the province of Saskatchewan reduced its provincial sales tax in its last budget. It was the first provincial government to have a balanced budget. It runs the most efficient government in Canada. My friends laugh. I would ask my friend to suggest a province which is more efficient in terms of the number of provincial employees per capita.

While the federal government was cutting back drastically on social programs to fight the war on the deficit, and while other provincial governments were doing the same, one province was not. One province decided not to cut social programs and actually added to the amount of money expended for hospital programs and health care. That province was the first to balance its budget.

There is a very clear alternative to look at in this country compared to all of the other provincial governments combined.

My friend's question is legitimate. When we advocate a particular proposal, we ought to have a way to fund it. Let me answer by way of example.

We have suggested that the tobacco companies get out of the funding of cultural and sports programs. The cultural and sports program says that if they do that, they will then not get the appropriate funding and will be unable to continue.

By adding less than 1¢ to a package of cigarettes in tax, they will provide more money than is expended in all those areas right now. That is for one penny a cigarette pack.

I would say that if we cannot eliminate tobacco advertising from all sporting and cultural events and the cost will be to impose a 1¢ increase on the taxation on a package of cigarettes, that is where we would get the money. It is easy for my hon. friend to say where will they get the money. I should tell him one more thing. I do not think he is aware of it.

That is, during our hearings—I know some of my hon. friends on the finance committee will acknowledge this—when Dr. Jim Stanford came before the committee, he showed that if the government had merely frozen spending at the 1995 levels and waited for economic growth and lower interest rates, the finance minister would have beaten his own timetable and still have reduced Canada's deficit to the lowest level in the G-7.

Put simply, the cuts that took place were not necessary to achieve the deficit reduction targets of the Minister of Finance. I think this is very important to point out. I might just add to my friend's question that if they are putting on targets to reduce the debt now, which I think is appropriate, we should also be putting targets on to reduce the level of unemployment in the country.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Thank you. This is a proposal. It is not a radical proposal. We have heard it from many people. A number of people during our intervention suggested we do that.

A number of my friends from the finance committee are here. How many people asked us to raise the ceiling on the RRSP maximum? Maybe three or four. How many people asked us for goodness sake to get rid of this GST as soon as possible? Most people. Which ones did we listen to? We met with them all, but which ones did we listen to?

We all acknowledge in this House that the GST is one of the most regressive taxes that has been introduced in many years. It is a regressive tax which the Tories introduced. They were mean spirited at the time. They said, “We are going to get those Canadians”. And the Liberals opposed it. I remember the current Minister of Finance standing in this House pounding his desk and saying that it is regressive because it hits poor people the hardest. Now is the chance to change that.

We heard advice from Canadians and there were some themes that came through very clearly. One was to increase funding for health care. Health care is what distinguishes our country from most others. It distinguishes what Canadians feel strongly about from others. It is almost a Canadian icon. Canadians from coast to coast and at least 80% of the people who appeared before the finance committee said to strengthen our support for health care.

Some said to do it even if it required an increase in taxation. They said, “We feel so strongly about being able to access quality health care no matter where we live in this country and no matter what our incomes, a one tier system, we want you to take that as a priority in terms of your recommendations”.

What they did not say is to keep funding at $12.5 billion. That is what the Liberals on the finance committee said but that is not what people said. That is rock bottom. If there is one thing that is clear from any province and territory is that our health care system is in a crisis.

Like many others, I do not believe that providing more money is the answer. It is only part of the answer. Even if we provided a few billion dollars more we would still be far below the cost of health care than we would find in the United States. It would seem to me that should be a priority we ought to follow.

Education is the second thing I want to talk about. When we are indebting our graduates as we are today with huge debt loads, does it indicate that we put a priority on education? Other countries that really value higher education go the ultimate mile and do not put up any hurdles to people and have removed tuition fees. Whether it is in grade 10, grade 12, grade 15 or grade 17, there is no cost to education.

Those countries make the assumption that if they invest in their citizens, it enables them to get the training and education they desire and can accomplish so that they will be contributing citizens then for the rest of their lives. They will repay the country many, many times in terms of the contribution they will make to the country's economy.

This is something we could do if we were bold. Or at least we could go beyond the minor little steps that we have taken and tell people that we must have better ways of easing the debt load and providing better grants to students who are in particular need. But we do not. We might think of something else when we talk about the tax system. We might take a lead from certain countries.

Ireland for example says that it wants to support its cultural industry, the creators, the composers, the writers. A composer or a writer, an artist of that nature in the country of Ireland will not pay any income tax at all. That country values its creators, it values those people in society who are writers and composers. Those individuals will not pay any income tax at all in Ireland. Has this made Ireland bankrupt? No it has not. Has this encouraged Ireland's cultural sector? Yes it has.

These are things that countries do that are bold. They send a clear signal to people that they are serious about encouraging particular investment.

Let us acknowledge a new trend in our country that our tax system does not reflect at all. The vast majority of jobs created in Canada in the last three years have been in the self-employed sector, individuals who are essentially creating their own enterprise. As a matter of fact, 87% of new jobs in the last three years have been created in the self-employed sector. The rest almost exclusively have been created in the small business sector. I am talking three, four or five people in a firm. Does our tax system reflect the needs of these new entrants into the economy? No it does not. Not at all.

I am just saying that in acknowledging the changes that are taking place our tax system needs a major overhaul in order that we reflect the reality of our economy and encourage, support and show our concern for those who are out there creating wealth, jobs and opportunities.

I do want to acknowledge a good point in the report. There are actually a number of good points in the report. It recognizes that without research and development through to production primarily, Canada continues to fall behind in an ever competing economy.

We heard from the granting councils that we need to restore funding in these areas to send a signal to the most creative elements in our economy that yes, we appreciate research and development. We appreciate the scientific research that is being done both in terms of applied and pure research. We have taken a small step in that direction by suggesting to the Minister of Finance that funding in some of these crucial areas be increased. So this is a slight move in the right direction.

I want to emphasize that to say the fundamentals of our economy are in place is simply wrong. The average family income since 1989 has fallen by 5%. Every other industrialized nation has seen theirs increase and ours has actually fallen. There are 530,000 more children living in poverty today than there were in 1989. The number of food banks in Canada has tripled and the proportion of the population relying on them has doubled. The number of Canadians filing for personal bankruptcy is at an historic high. I could go on and on.

When we talk about the economy of Canada, it is appropriate that we talk about at least two economies, one which is working for an ever reduced number of people and the other which reflects a social deficit, an economy where people continue to struggle. More than one million people are out of work. Seventy per cent of the young people in this country are jobless. Many who are working have three or four part time jobs at minimum wage. They are barely surviving. They are entering the ranks of the working poor.

We have much work to do. It is time that the government stopped listening to the bankers of the country and started listening to the ordinary citizens of Canada, in the rural areas, in the small communities, in the suburbs of the cities and see what it is they require.

In closing, I want to wish you, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues in the House of Commons a merry Christmas.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Somebody had the audacity to say “The Tories”. Absolutely not. I remember those heady days with interest rates of 20%, deficits going up by the second, debt skyrocketing and so on. No, that is not the answer.

Let us say who are the real heroes of the deficit war. They are the students, thousands of students who leave universities and colleges with massive debt loads. They are the real heroes. Another set of heroes are the men, women and children lined up on waiting lists to get into hospitals for critical surgery. They cannot get in because of the cutbacks in health care. They are the real heroes.

The 1.4 million children living in poverty today, their moms and dads, are the real heroes of the deficit war. The many thousands of people who declare bankruptcy every single month of the year are the real heroes. It is not hundreds, not thousands, but many thousands who declare bankruptcy month after month. Personal bankruptcies have never been so high in Canadian history. Business bankruptcies have never been so high in Canadian history.

I am simply saying these are the people who have sacrificed in order for this government to say the deficit war has been won. If these are the real casualties of the war, if these are the people who fought and won the war, should they not be the people who should receive the benefits now that the war is over? No. Are they going to receive the benefits? No.

The government says across the board tax cuts are out. My friends in the Reform Party say they should be in. It is fair to say to my friends on the finance committee, it was clear that Canadians said that they are out, that across the board tax cuts are simply not what they require or even request at this time. Some selected tax cuts, yes.

The government decided that the people who need to have a tax break are the people who pay the maximum into RRSPs. We can lift the ceiling of an RRSP so that those people who have $13,000 or $14,000 in loose change at the end of the year will be able to put more money in. Is this a priority in our country?

Madam Speaker, how many tax filers actually use the maximum RRSP contribution? One per cent? If you said 2% you would be too high. Less than 2% of Canadians now use the maximum RRSP contribution. But the government said we have to raise that to assist that 1% of tax filers as a priority tax measure. This is maddening and it is sort insane. No wonder people look at this place and ask “Who are those folks? What on earth are they doing? What have they been smoking? Where have they been? Who have they listened to?”

May I suggest a tax break that would help everybody, that would help every single citizen of this country immediately. One that would put money into the hands of every single individual, particularly those who have been hardest hit during these tough economic times. It would help every business person, every consumer, every working person, people dependent on social services. That break would be to begin to phase down the GST immediately.

Why would the government not start to phase down the GST? After all, we all remember when it was said that we need the GST to pay down the deficit. The deficit has been paid down. Therefore it would make sense that we start phasing out the GST. Imagine the kind of signal it would send from this place if the Minister of Finance rose on budget day and said “We have now essentially wrestled this deficit lion to the ground. We said we needed the GST to accomplish this. It has been accomplished and now we are going to repay the people. We are going to start phasing out the GST from 7% to 5% in the first year”.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

The real heroes, the real people who made this deficit war work for the Minister of Finance are—

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Is it the members of the Liberal caucus?

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

As a matter of fact I suspect he is a lot richer than he was five years ago. Is it members of the Liberal cabinet?

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

My friend says “Yes”. They are simply fobbing it off on other people, hard pressed provincial governments and citizens.

We have heard that essentially the deficit war has been won. Let us acknowledge the real heroes of the deficit war. Is it the Minister of Finance?

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

I challenge the Liberal member who is challenging me. Let the record show that my Liberal friend is saying that I am wrong, that there are poor children living in the country of Denmark. There are not.

My friends opposite do not even know the facts. They do not know the reality. They are saying that all countries have poor children. Not all countries have poor children.

I remember when we kicked off our hearings with my hon. friends. They are honourable friends; they take their work seriously. They worked hard and they met with all sorts of people. I wonder if they listened, however. The Minister of Finance kicked off the hearings by saying that we have now cut up our credit card.

It is easy to resolve the deficit crisis if it is simply passed on to everybody else, if it is passed on to students. The average student debt is more than $25,000. It is easy to get rid of a deficit problem by asking everybody else to take out four or five extra credit cards.

The government passes it along to the provinces with major cuts in health care, major cuts in education, major cuts in social programs, and major cuts in the granting agencies for research facilities across the country. It puts the provinces in more debt to resolve its debt load.

There is something even more cynical. One reason we do not have a deficit today is that the government has been dipping into the EI fund. The government is letting all working people and employers contribute through payments to the EI fund. It will dip into that to pay down the deficit on the backs of working people. It is easy to do, but does it really solving the deficit and debt crisis?