Nelson Riis

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in today's debate.

I listened to eight or nine Conservative budgets. After each budget I could almost hear the champagne corks popping on St. James Street in Montreal, on Bay Street in Toronto and on Howe Street in Vancouver because almost inevitably that same group was always pleased with the Conservative budget.

Of course working people just shuddered because they knew that they would be slapped with additional taxes, they would be hacked here and there and slashed up. Indeed, they were never disappointed because that is exactly what happened time after time after time.

When the election came along in October, the people of Canada said that they were going to send a clear message to Ottawa and they jettisoned all of the Tories, except two. They said that they were going to send the strongest message possible and set these Tories back so far they were never going to come back, at least in the foreseeable future. They disappeared almost like the dinosaurs.

The people of Canada said that they wanted a government with a strong mandate, one that was going to do something totally different. There was going to be a new direction. There was going to be a new approach. We would get off this monetary and fiscal policy that we saw in the past and the government was going to create jobs. It went on and on.

In the red book there were jobs here, jobs there, jobs, jobs. Of course, this was what Canadians wanted to hear. Therefore they elected the Liberals. Almost the next day things started to change. There is a magic conversion that takes place when Liberals walk across that central aisle and occupy the seats on the right hand side of you, Madam Speaker.

I can see all my friends across there. I remember their passionate speeches against NAFTA, how NAFTA was going to be the killer of jobs. I heard "killer of jobs" echo throughout this Chamber days on end. The first thing they did was sign NAFTA. This sort of jarred people. They wondered what was going on.

Of course, they remembered the payroll taxes that those mean and nasty Conservatives used to impose on small business. The first thing the government did was to impose another payroll tax. The people of Canada started to get a little shell-shocked at this.

Then they remembered that cruise missile testing by the United States was coming up for renewal. They remembered all of the Liberals saying for years that this was dastardly, that it was caving in to the Americans, and they would never do that. When the time came, they did that too. They agreed to it.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. Before we even got started, people were dazed because suddenly the Liberals started to break their promises and do exactly what they said they would not do. They enacted exactly what they said they would never enact.

Along comes the budget. I guess Canadians thought: Well, here is a chance because Liberals were elected to do a job, and that job was to create jobs. What Canadians got was a snow job.

Look at this budget. I am sure that if you went back a few days you would find there were some ghostwriters such as Michael Wilson and perhaps Don Mazankowski. Perhaps they wrote that budget. Maybe Kim Campbell slipped back from Harvard and added her two bits worth.

Has there been a significant departure in terms of domestic policy in this country? No. Has there been a change in monetary policy? No. I know there is a new Governor of the Bank of Canada, sort of a John Crow look-alike. He says that the same monetary policy will continue.

Is there a shift in policy? No. Canadians were hoping for a different kind of budget that would actually put people back to work. What did they find? If they read the budget carefully and they go to page 9, they may ask what the government predicts all of this is going to do. They read through and, lo and behold, they find that unemployment levels will continue in double digits for the foreseeable future.

After all the red book rhetoric, the budget plan says that unemployment will continue at essentially the same level for this year, next year and on into the future.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Well, indeed, introduced it and a few days later rolled it back.

But are these items some of the reasons that my hon. friend thought that the present government looks an awful lot like the Conservative government?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend's commentary. What caught my attention was his reference to the fact that he thought the Liberal government looked very much like past Conservative governments.

What gave my hon. friend the clue? Was it the fact that the Conservatives promoted NAFTA? Of course the Liberals opposed NAFTA and then after they became the government they signed it. The Conservatives supported cruise missile testing and the Liberals opposed it, but when they got into government they too approved cruise missile testing. In opposition, my hon. friend opposite often spoke against payroll taxes, and one of the first things the government did was, of course, increase payroll taxes.

[Petitions, February 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition on behalf of constituents from Kamloops, Chase, Savona, Pinatan, Knutsford, Little Fort, Barriere, Birch Island, Monte Creek, Pritchard, Monte Lake, Westwold, Blue River and Clearwater.

These constituents point out their concerns regarding the Young Offenders Act. They suggest that the act as currently enacted is inadequate for the needs of a modern society. They are asking Parliament to review the Young Offenders Act and take the necessary steps to ensure appropriate sentencing, better post-custody supervision and more effective rehabilitation programs.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the underground economy and the recognition that Canadians generally have lost faith in our tax system. Somewhere between $60 billion and $100 billion in business transactions now take place beneath the surface in a way.

My question to the minister the other day was whether or not the government was taking any definitive action to encourage those people who now want to move their operations above ground and become legitimate players in the marketplace. Also to what extent would the government introduce programs that would encourage that to occur.

What is it about the tax system that has upset people? What is it about the tax system that has discouraged people who are hard working, who are running their businesses or going off to the mills or the mines, the farmers, the fishermen? It can be summed up in the interpretation bulletin IT-518 from Revenue Canada. This was sent recently to various businesses and individuals. It gives clues on all the things one can use as a tax deduction, legitimately to be fair, within the tax system, particularly when it comes to entertainment.

For example, this is not an exhaustive list but entertainment includes tickets for theatres, concerts, athletic events, or whatever the performance might be. Renting or leasing a private box at the sports facility and buying champagne for friends is all tax deductible. Renting hotel rooms to have a party and entertain people is deductible. Buying liquor for a hospitality suite of course is tax deductible. Taking a cruise in the Caribbean, the South Pacific or to Greece is tax deductible. Taking friends to a fashion show is also tax deductible. I guess people want to learn how to dress more modernly and so on.

If you want to take your guest to a nightclub, Madam Speaker, or out to a hockey game, a football game, a baseball game or whatever; or if you want to take your friends fishing in northern Canada, northern Quebec, British Columbia or wherever; if you want to go hunting in northern Ontario, northern Saskatchewan or northern Quebec, that is all tax deductible. Generally you can say: "Let us go on a three week vacation in Labrador and we will discuss business". Again that is tax deductible.

I am not saying there is necessarily anything dastardly or terribly sinister about this. However certain people can go fishing, hunting, camping, to the football game, or rent a room to entertain friends and it is done with the help of the tax system. The taxpayers generally pick up part of that tab. If one is deducting up to 80 per cent of those costs obviously then those who are at the hockey game watching the people up in the box drinking champagne or whatever, who have free tickets or only pay 20 per cent of the price, are paying their way buying hot dogs and so on.

In closing, after reading things like this bulletin from Revenue Canada is it any wonder that people have become absolutely disenchanted and disappointed with a tax system that can only be described as unjust, unfair and biased.

[The Late Irénée Pelletier, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to Irénée Pelletier, whom we remember in this House from the seventies and early eighties. We remember him to be a very popular member in his constituency. Often visitors from the constituency would come to Ottawa and he would go out of his way to introduce them, particularly to those of us from western Canada. I personally always appreciated that.

The fact that he won election after election speaks well of the kind of constituency person he was. We all remember the issues that he was deeply devoted to, not only in terms of overseas development from a Canadian perspective but particularly his concern for the plight of people living in many of the countries in which our aid projects were undertaken.

He would share those experiences from his travels and his knowledge with us in the House, particularly in those days in the evenings over dinner. He would come back from a trip and explain the kinds of conditions he experienced. I found him to be a very motivating individual and a very kind and compassionate member of Parliament.

I simply want to join with my colleagues in saying that Mr. Pelletier will be missed. Our hearts and our prayers go out to him, to his family and to his friends today. Again I want to say how sad we were when we learned of his passing.

[Points Of Order, February 11th, 1994]

I had a point of order, but it has been answered. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Small Business, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot name all of them. Because of the previous government's fiscal and monetary policy they were actually forced into the underground economy as a way to survive in business.

My question to the Minister of Finance or the Deputy Prime Minister is considering that this is a new government promising a whole set of new initiatives, is the government considering specific steps that would reach out to those small business operators particularly and independents that have been forced to operate in the underground economy and who now wish to come above ground and participate on the level playing field with their competitors across the country?

[Small Business, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is inspired by tens of thousands of small business operators who as a result of the previous government's-

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

"What about Yukon", somebody asks. Yukon is the same.

I am not saying that New Democratic governments always work super well everywhere, just like I do not think anybody here would say the Tories or Liberals-Reform has a short record so far-essentially work everywhere. I am saying that we have to look around for models of excellence in which people actually have done the job well. I am saying that British Columbia is doing it well, just like the New Democratic and CCF governments in Saskatchewan have done well over the years.

I want to acknowledge the point made by my hon. friend. To do this properly one must manage debt and deficit.

How do you do that? Ralph Klein is trying one approach. It does not seem to be working. The Tories before him I guess tried that. He is trying some more cut, cut, hack, hack, seeing if that works. So far it has not worked.

I was here for the nine years that the Progressive Conservatives were in office and they said they tried that approach. The situation has never been worse in this country. We have over a half trillion dollar debt. Obviously the people of Canada want to try something totally different.

The province of British Columbia is doing it a bit differently. It has cut back on all sorts of unnecessary government spending. It also acknowledges that there is something called government investment. It is investing in a variety of areas such as the development of high tech firms, training highly skilled technicians, putting money into scientific research and development through to production. In other words, it is recognizing that there is government money to put into investment and government money to put into simply spending and that has to be cut. It has done that.

As a result I am pleased to say that probably within another two years there will be a balanced budget in that province, the only province in Canada. I say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am not saying that everything that it has ever done has been perfect. We would not say that about any government. However, when it comes to managing the economy it seems to be working better than any place else in Canada.

I say to my hon. friend that I think his question was good. It was not really a question, I guess. It was simply would I agree. Largely I would agree.

To tie equalization in in terms of the fiscal management of provincial governments, I think that was the question, is worth some merit. Perhaps it is the kind of thing I would like to see discussed more in committee to see what the implications of that would be, particularly for some of the very poor parts of Canada. I do not want to name those provinces, but I think there would be some provinces that would have a very difficult time without substantial equalization in a whole variety of programs. It probably is sufficient for my hon. friend to say that they are doing a good job.