House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Borders April 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, he is quite correct that the senate judiciary committee did approve it. Yesterday Senator Dianne Feinstein of California vowed to fight Abraham's section 110 on the floor of the senate.
Since the minister is relying so heavily on his feelings that Albright is supporting this and on the support of the American congress, does the government really believe that its attitude on Cuba and the Prime Minister's visit to Cuba are going to assist support from the American senate?
Borders April 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, American border authorities are taking an increasingly hostile attitude with Canadians, now barring anyone who has ever smoked marijuana and detaining MPs at airports. Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs reiterated that he had extensive discussions with Secretary of State Albright to facilitate movement at the border.
It is obvious that these discussions are not getting anywhere. The situation is worse now than before these discussions. What other steps is this government going to take to stop the harassment of Canadians at the border?
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 April 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have developed a communication tool with my constituents. I am extremely pleased that now what seems to be happening is not only are the parents and adults responding with comments but also young people are.
I want to share with the House and with my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat some comments by a young man, a grade 12 student, who attended the forum for young Canadians in Ottawa in March.
“As for the millennium fund, I believe it is a good idea but it reaches so few young Canadians. That money should be put toward eliminating the national debt. The government should not undertake any new major projects, the millennium fund, until the financial situation is resolved. This means that until Canada's debt is gone, no new major projects should be started”. This is from a young man who is going to be faced with taxes. I thought this was unique.
Another point was put before me by another young person, 17 years old. This person would like an answer even though they are not of voting age: “How come the millennium scholarship fund will only help out 6% of post-secondary students and with only $3,000 per year?”
I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he is also experiencing this concern by young people when they look at the debt that our generation and the generation before us are leaving them.
Judges Act April 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if this is another case of legislation from the government side that has some aspects in it which might be acceptable and could be supported, but also includes other things which make it difficult for us to give the government our support on in its efforts to amend the justice system.
Is this again one of those situations where there is some good but there is a lot of stuff in it that is not acceptable?
Petitions April 1st, 1998
The petitioners urge Parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers and I concur with this request.
Petitions April 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 226 British Columbians. With the indulgence of the Speaker I will read their petition.
It states: “Taxing reading is unfair and wrong. Literacy and reading are crucial to Canada's future. Removing the GST from reading material will help promote literacy in Canada. `Applying tax to books and periodicals discourages reading. The Liberal Party has passed a resolution calling for the removal of the GST on books and periodicals and that's what I will do'. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, September—”
Transport March 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, words are cheap and when it comes to protecting Canada's west coast so is this government.
Falling helicopters, automated lighthouses, closing CFB Chilliwack, snubbing B.C.'s Seaforth Highlanders for not being Canadian enough are examples of how this government really feels about British Columbia.
Why does this government have more military personnel overlooking the Rideau Canal than it has on the west coast of this country?
Transport March 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, yesterday for the second time in a year the same search and rescue Labrador helicopter had to ditch in the Strait of Georgia.
Fortunately for the six personnel aboard, the Labradors float better than they fly and no one was seriously injured.
Are falling helicopters and automated lighthouses true reflections of this government's commitment to west coast marine safety?
British Columbia Byelection March 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, British Columbians were greatly amused yesterday at the spectacle of Liberal MPs from Ontario and Quebec professing their love and concern for our province, but only because there is a byelection under way.
They seemed so sincere as they read their prepared scripts and almost pulled off this piece of fiction until question period.
In response to a patsy question from one of her own colleagues, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women showed the true colours of the Liberals when she could not even remember the name of the constituency where the byelection is being held. This is truly remarkable considering that the secretary of state represents a riding that is less than 20 kilometres from Port Moody—Coquitlam. This shows British Columbians just how ignorant the Liberals really are about British Columbia.
Child Benefit March 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Motion No. 198, which is a motion to amend the child benefit. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join any debate where I can denounce the Liberal government for its high tax policies and increased use of stealth taxes.
That is what we are debating here, another stealth tax that this Liberal government is using to fill its tax coffers.
A person needs to review the history of the child benefit to fully comprehend what is happening.
In 1985 Tory finance minister Michael Wilson set out to reduce the children's tax exemption and to increase the refundable child tax credit for lower income families. In the 1985 budget he introduced a 3% threshold for full indexing. The benefit would only increase if inflation exceeded 3% in any given year. That was not a concern in the 1980s, as the lowest rate of inflation in that decade was in 1985 when it was 3.9%.
In 1988 the children's tax exemption was replaced by a non-refundable credit. In 1991 Canada was in the midst of a recession. By 1992 the inflation rate had dropped below 3%.
In 1993, the last year of the Tory government, the three major child benefit programs were replaced, which were the family allowance, the non-refundable child tax credit and the refundable child tax credit.
That government replaced them with a single income tested child tax benefit that is similar to the old refundable child tax credit. It meant that the maximum benefit would go to families with a net income under $25,921.
I want to talk about the threshold effect. Since inflation has not topped 3% since 1991 that means that neither the amount families receive for the child benefit nor the income tax level at which people can collect the maximum benefit have been adjusted for inflation, yet inflation has risen by a cumulative amount of 10% since 1991. That means that the real value of the child benefit has been reduced by 10%.
The non-indexing of the threshold level to receive benefits means that many families whose income has just kept up with inflation are now receiving lower benefits. This is the true legacy of this government: stealth tax.
By not allowing full indexing, this government saves money by allowing the real value of the benefit it pays out to decline. By not indexing the income threshold, it means that more families are collecting lower benefits and paying more taxes.
This is not the only place this government is using stealth tax technology. I mentioned it the other day when I was talking about bracket creep. I would like to make a comparison using that. Bracket creep occurs when an individual's pay rises to the point where they enter a higher tax bracket. While salaries have inched up over the past six years, the tax brackets have not. Like the child benefit payments and income thresholds, tax brackets are only adjusted when the consumer price index rises by 3% or more in any given year. Thus, individuals whose salaries have just kept up with inflation often find themselves in a higher tax bracket.
It looks like we have developed a pattern here. However, what is even worse than allowing this to happen is the fact that this Liberal government is doing it deliberately.
In his budget speech the finance minister made it clear that this is a deliberate move and that he intends to continue with this practice. He stated “Upon coming into office, the government and the Bank of Canada agreed to hold inflation inside a range of 1% to 3% to the end of 1998. That policy has worked. That is why we are announcing today that we will extend the current agreement with the Bank of Canada for a further three years”.
Thus, this government has made it perfectly clear that it intends to keep gouging the Canadian taxpayer in this fashion. Where is this government's commitment to child poverty?
It would appear that the Liberals only believe in fully indexing pensions when it comes to their own gold plated MP pensions and those of their political cronies in the Senate. They think that someone like former Senator Andrew Thompson, who showed up for work only 12 times in the past 8 years, deserves full indexing of his pension. They think it is fine for someone like Thompson, who received $600,000 in taxpayers' money over the last eight years, or $50,000 for every time he appeared in the Senate, to receive an indexed pension. They have no problems that a man who rarely ever showed up for work should now be receiving $48,000 a year in a fully indexed pension. That is almost twice what the average Canadian wage earner receives.
The Liberals eagerly support full indexing for Andrew Thompson, but when it comes to single mothers or low income families they are against full indexing. Members on the government side of this House should be ashamed of themselves.
That brings us to the motion currently before the House, M-198, and the attached amendment. The original motion read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review the level at which the child benefit is indexed.
Unfortunately, I think the Liberals have already reviewed the level at which the child benefit is indexed and they like it just fine. Full indexing would cost this government millions of dollars in tax revenue and that could lead them to actually having to make cuts. They might even have to lay off a few of the political hacks they have appointed to patronage positions or they might have to take away the full indexing of Andrew Thompson's Senate pension.
The amended version of the motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review the possibility of fully indexing the child benefit.
I am sure this government has reviewed the possibility of fully indexing the child benefit. If I were a betting person, I would say that the possibilities of the government agreeing to it are slim or none.
I congratulate the member for Shefford for her motion and her efforts to make the child benefit fairer. I assure her of my support and hopefully the support of my colleagues. But unless a few government members find their consciences and live up to their commitment to battle child poverty I do not see this government rushing to create a fair tax system.