George Baker

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

The hon. member said "the truth". Here is the taxpayers' budget.

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

I will read it out. Here is the Reform Party of Canada on payroll taxes. What a dandy one this is. On page 45, for all the employers and employees in Canada, the Reform Party's budget.

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

They are not making enough. Incredible isn't it when each one of the banks are reporting profits over $1 billion. The CEOs are going to get $1 million in performance bonuses. The Reform Party and the Bloc stand in this Chamber as the two opposition parties and what do they say? "Oh no, we can't agree with members of the backbench" even though they are performing a function for the people of Canada.

Do you know what they are doing, Mr. Speaker? They are making the government accountable for the ordinary citizens of Canada, something that the official opposition should be doing.

What does the Reform Party want to do with the payroll taxes of Canada? Would everyone like me to read it out?

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

Yes, I heard that here in the House this afternoon from the spokesperson for the Reform Party. Of course the Liberal government said: "Absolutely not. We are not going to do that". So they carried through with the second portion of what was said in the red book.

Well, members of the Reform Party and the Bloc stand here today, talking about being honest with the Canadian people. It is interesting that Thursday last week, my hon friend from Don Valley North stood in the Chamber and introduced a bill to put some restrictions on the banks. What did the Bloc say? "Oh, no, we cannot do that. Oh, no, we cannot interfere with the banks". That is the Bloc for you. Then the Reform Party say: "Oh no, you can't do that. You can't interfere with the profits of the banks".

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words on this. After the excellent speech by my hon. colleague, I want to add a few words to what my hon. colleague said.

When he quoted from the red book from which the Bloc and the Reform parties keep quoting, the hon. member quoted exactly correct. But he forgot one thing in the middle of his quote. In the middle of the paragraph in the red book it says the committee will be mandated to report on all options for alternatives to the current GST. That committee met and a member of the committee from the Reform Party spoke in the House this afternoon.

It is interesting what the spokesperson for the Reform Party pointed out. He pointed out that the Tories and the Reform members of the committee wanted in their recommendations to tax food. The Reform Party of Canada, according to their spokesperson, according to their report, wanted to tax prescription drugs.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, first of all let me congratulate the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River for the magnificent job he has done in this Chamber since his election and his great contribution to the passage of legislation and also the great speech made by the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair a few moments ago.

In response to the hon. member's question, the answer probably is this. Since the Reform Party has been a member of this Chamber it has seen Canada internationally become somewhat of a hero not just in the economic field, not just in the field of peacekeeping, but also in the field of making international law, of standing up for the environment, of passing legislation that says that nations around this world can no longer plunder the resources of the sea and get a way with it; that Canada has led the way in the United Nations, at the United Nations conferences of the sea and the environment and

has consistently led the way in practically every issue that has dealt with the environment in the past three years; and also our economy.

I think that is why mainly the opposition party really does not want to become involved in any of these international activities of the Government of Canada. But of course the one exception is if these international agreements that we pass in the House help along, I suppose we could say their policies, that will assist in some way in their philosophical direction; that is, in giving tax breaks to the very wealthy or in having tax treaties, for example, that is fine.

The House will notice that whenever a tax treaty is introduced they always have been, if we examine the committee proceedings, very interested in giving huge tax breaks to the international corporations of the world who do business today. They are not too anxious to talk about transfer pricing or anything like that, but they are certainly interested in those across the board tax cuts to those very large U.S. corporations who do business in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Oh yes. They want the banks to own our bridges. They want the banks to own our airports. I notice nobody across the way is saying no to this because I was going to read it out. It is on page 14. It states: "Typically, physical infrastructure refers to traditional features like highways, ports, railways and airports. Given our current fiscal climate, however, governments are ill-equipped to spend money on massive improvements. In Canada, privatize airports and allow private sector companies to build and maintain roads and bridges". Tollgates. Imagine the tollgates in Canada if the Reform Party ever got elected.

If one notices, there is a likeness. There is another political party in Canada that now has practically identical policies to the Reform Party. That party passed at its most recent conference a resolution stating that we no longer can afford the Canada pension plan. Imagine passing a resolution at a national conference stating that we can no longer afford the Canada pension plan. While the Government of Canada and the provinces are struggling to try to fix it, along come the Tories, that great Tory party that was wiped out, having a policy meeting and stating: "Let's allow people to invest their money in a bank account and take the interest".

It made the same statement as the Reform Party of Canada when it talked about medicare. It stated: "Canada can no longer afford our present medicare system and for other reasons", they claim, "it is undesirable".

What we have is a situation where we are asked today to pass a bill that will allow judges to take part in international activities on invitation from other nations, international tribunals and organizations. We have the obstructionist tactics of the official opposition and the third party in the House, namely the Reform Party, to pass a simple bill of seven clauses.

The reason is that the Reform members are frustrated. The bill came from the Senate. They only want to see things from the Senate that match their policy, that is, give more to the rich, give it to the billionaires, give it to the big corporations. That is what they supported in the last amendments from the Senate and that is what they love to see. That is what they put through the House with only one speaker for a period of seven or eight minutes.

The other reason why the Reform members are so frustrated is because Canada is seen today on the international scene as progressing more than any other industrialized democracy in this world. We are now placed on the top by every international standard, from the IMF to the OECD whose job it is to examine the economies of industrialized democracies around the world. That is why Reformers are so frustrated. They do not know what they are going to do because they know they are going to end up in defeat again after the next federal election.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

I was not going to read all of it but I will now. This is according to the Reform Party of Canada. This is why its members are so frustrated with their lack of support: "The public may in time agree that although access to a broad range of basic health care should be guaranteed to everyone, the original medicare model in which everyone received everything health care professionals wished to deliver is not only intolerably expensive, it is undesirable". Imagine. What a position for the Reform Party of Canada to take.

Reform members not only say to the Canadian people that we cannot afford our medical services and medicare, they also say that if they are elected they are going to see the medicare system go down the tubes. They make other ridiculous claims. They want, for example, the banks to own our roads.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

It is on page 24. The document is called "The Taxpayer's Budget: The Reform Party's plan to balance the federal budget, provide social and economic security for the 21st century".

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

The hon. member says that I am stretching the truth.

I keep their budget in my desk just for the occasion when they say that I am not telling the truth about their platform.