Ray Speaker

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give notice to the chair that Reform intends to divide its time from this period forward.

The resolution that we have before us that was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound makes a very clear point not only to this House but to Canadians that we believe there should be no net tax increases at all used to eliminate the deficit that we face in this country. I think that should be the focus of the debate here today.

Canadians have told us very clearly, as a Reform caucus, that is the message that should be brought to this House. I have found in the last few days that the rate of mail that deals with the matter of taxes has increased significantly. For example, this morning I had 80 letters delivered to my office which sent a clear message that there should be no new taxes or no net tax increase of any kind in the upcoming budget expected at the end of February 1995. I think that is a message we should listen to and not ignore it at all when we are debating this issue.

It is important that this resolution is on the floor here today prior to the finalization of the 1995-96 budget because the minister and the Liberal government must hear a clear message. By debating this supply motion I think the clear message can be presented here on behalf of Canadians.

I want to put into the record a copy of a letter I received that was directed to the finance minister. I have the approval of the author of this letter to make it available in this House if necessary. The letter comes from a resident of my constituency from Magrath, Alberta, Mr. McClung. I thought he put this tax question clearly on the table as a middle income taxpayer of Canada.

He said this to our finance minister as of January 31, 1995: "Sir, I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it any more. Don't raise taxes, cut your spending. If you raise taxes on gasoline I will be forced by you to cut back on my driving. If you raise taxes on milk I will drink water. If you raise taxes on goods and services I will cut back on my purchases of taxed goods and services. If you raise taxes on my income I will be forced by you to again follow the above pattern.

"In my workforce lifetime of 36 years I have seen my take home pay dwindle and my purchasing power of that take home pay dwindle to the extent that I now need a second job in order to pay for my basic needs of shelter, food, clothing and transportation.

"Your suggestion of raising taxes is revolting. It will not fly this time. This is a revolt against higher taxes. Follow the lead from the states in the United States who have raised taxes and achieved the negative revenue increase and from those states who have lowered taxes and have achieved their goal of increased revenues".

His final advice to the minister is this: "Tighten your belt as I have tightened mine". Thousands and thousands of Canadians want that message placed on the floor of the House of Commons prior to the delivery of the 1995-96 budget.

Canadians do not only feel very strongly about taxes not being increased, but they also feel they are not getting value for their dollar. They also feel they are not getting the services nor the results from that dollar that is sent to Ottawa where it is redistributed in a variety of ways.

They asked this very basic question. "Where were our tax dollars being spent? I cannot see any difference, except that I have less left over at the end of the day". They have less in their pockets to spend on their own personal needs. If we look at some of the statistics available to us, that comment is only reinforced and confirmed in many ways.

Canadians today are paying more in taxes but a smaller percentage of these dollars are really being spent on services. In 1961 the average family's tax bill was 22 per cent of the family income. Today in 1994 the average family's tax bill is 46 per cent of that respective income.

I know we have all heard the projection as to how many months of the year we pay taxes to various forms of government. Not too long ago we paid taxes until the month of May. Now we are paying taxes until the month of June and then after the month of June we have some money left over for our own personal needs and support for our family responsibilities.

We also find that since 1980 alone the average family's tax bill has increased on average by $3,500. That includes a variety of taxes that are paid. That is a major increase, a major imposition on Canadians.

If we look at the other side of what is happening in terms of services, we will see the other part of this paradox that Canadians talk about, the fact that there are less services. I have heard that expounded here in this assembly.

People today find that crime is spreading. There is more crime, more dollars are being spent. This country's roads, bridges and infrastructure are somewhat deteriorating. The government is trying to shore that up with some kind of an infrastructure program that really did not directed to roads and bridges like it should have.

It got involved in a lot of other hobby projects and projects that seemed to be the pet objectives of local, provincial and federal politicians, but not on target in terms of what is really the basic infrastructure. Look at hospital beds for example across Canada. Waiting lists have been growing while we have been spending more and taxing more on the Canadian people.

The question is obvious. Why has this happened? It is because of our debt. We owe too much money and it is costing us too much to keep on going the way we have been. In fact, if we look at it in a small segment of time, every minute costs us $86,000 in terms of interest on the debt. Interest on the debt was about 10 per cent of government spending in 1974. Today it is over 25 per cent. In other words, 25 cents out of every dollar that government spends goes to pay the interest on the debt. That is not good enough.

The hon. member for Willowdale has made a very eloquent speech in this House. He said that the job is tough. It is a difficult job to face this deficit question and the government is going to stand up to it. He also said in those remarks-and I hear other Liberal members saying it at the same time-that we are going to introduce new taxes when the budget is brought down at the end of February.

The hon. member for Willowdale said: "We are just about at the ceiling". Those are the kind of weaselly words we use sometimes as politicians to say: "We are going to do something. We do not think we have pressed you hard enough. We do not think we have taken enough from you. We are just about there but we can take more".

In the Reform Party we believe we are at the ceiling. Canadians believe we are at the ceiling. We have paid enough taxes and there is no room between us and the ceiling of taxation.

The government has made a great case to Canadians about the fact that we have to create jobs. If we tax more, what is going to happen to the jobs?

The question was raised earlier about the hurt in terms of taxes and the economy. We know it will hurt individuals. We know it will hurt the budget of this country. Every 1 per cent increase in our interest rates, which is a direct result of increased taxes, will create a problem. I do not think that is acceptable.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose two questions to the hon. member who has just spoken in response to the member for St. Paul's.

The first question is with regard to tax increases. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot indicated that the Bloc as a party did not want tax increases. Then he went on to say that maybe there are some places where new taxes can be applied.

Is the Bloc Quebecois saying there should be no net tax increases of any kind and that if there is a redistribution because of a change in tax policy, that if there is an increase in revenue in one area, it should be redistributed to other Canadians by way of a tax reduction? Is that the position of the Bloc Quebecois, no tax increases?

I say that in light of some of the other comments and the other observations that I have made in this assembly. When we look at the cafeteria of social programs, unemployment insurance, post-secondary education, old age assistance and also the tax credit with regard to those people over 65, the Bloc did not want to allow or make the change that was recommended in the 1994-95 budget.

If we maintain all of those programs at their current level, how are we going to deal with the deficit and possibly maintain the tax policy that the hon. member recommended to the House?

I would like the hon. member to comment on that first of all. Is his party in favour of no tax increases on a net basis?

Second, with regard to family trusts, I am a member of the finance committee and I have been waiting for some type of a presentation which indicates that there is a major error in family trusts. Is the hon. member asking the finance committee or the government to pass legislation or some mechanism by which it is able to deal with people's private income and private bank accounts to derive what is the composition of a family trust?

[Order In Council Appointments, February 13th, 1995]

The preambles to the questions, my dear colleagues, seem to be getting a little bit longer. I would ask all hon. members to please try to make the preamble a short sentence or two and then into the question. The same with the answers.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley West, his question, please.

[Income Tax Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to enter into this discussion on Bill C-59. I want to say very clearly to begin with that I do not support the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Mercier today. There are some very strong reasons we cannot support what was suggested.

The recommendation that came in the 1994-95 budget is certainly a policy change by the Liberal government. It is a move away from universality. Now the program is targeted and takes into consideration those people most in need of additional assistance to carry out their daily responsibilities.

As has been pointed out not only by the mover but by the hon. member from the government who just spoke, this amendment would continue universality and put back in place a federal tax credit of 17 per cent or an amount of about $3,482 for any and every taxpayer 65 or over. At this point we have to ask whether we can afford it and continue to do that.

The Liberal government and Liberals when they were in opposition argued that universality should be sustained and it should continue and that should be the policy of government forever after. They argued that when the question of the clawback on old age assistance was presented before this House in the last sitting. At that time the Conservative government made the decision that we should put a clawback in place. Now that is in place and old age assistance is somewhat more targeted toward those in need.

Now we are at the stage at which the Liberals, now in government, see that the reality of our fiscal situation is bringing us to this kind of decision making and that it is most necessary. We must be able to target government funds toward those most in need. If we supported this Bloc amendment it would revert to universality and I do not think that would be realistic in light of today's current economic circumstances.

I would like to make one or two remarks with respect to the case put forward by the hon. member for Mercier today. The hon. member said in her presentation that the change of the federal tax credit from universality to one which is targeted and institutes the clawback principle is a deliberate attack on the middle class. The hon. member went on to say that it abruptly ends universality. She said that before we do these kinds of things we should have tax reform. She said we want to keep a feeling in Canada that everybody belongs and that we should keep taxes off of the unemployed, the middle class and those most in need.

That sounds like an ideal society that a socialist point of view would certainly put forward in this House.

It is always the underlying premise that one is going to take away from the rich somewhere and give to someone else. One is going to transfer payments continually to look after someone else in our society. One can understand that from people who have this kind of a left wing socialist approach to life in which they think that somebody is rich, that somebody else is earning more money than they and that through government law they must transfer those earnings to somebody else they may feel is in need.

If we look at this policy here where we had the tax credit to all taxpayers over the age of 65 it will tag seniors who have retired with huge incomes. It could be $1 million or $100,000 or $200,000 a year, we were providing an extra benefit to the rich. I do not know how well that sits with someone who looks at it from a rather left wing, socialist approach as the Bloc Quebecois does.

I have been most disappointed to hear that kind of view from that party in its contribution to this House. Most likely it has made a very good replacement in some sense for the New Democratic Party which once sat somewhere in this relative position in the House.

However, we must look at reality today. The Government of Canada has a deficit of $39.7 billion. We have interest payments of $40 billion on a debt of over $500 billion and it is moving toward $50 billion per year as our debt continues to accumulate as we continue to spend. That is the way it is. Every one minute $18,000 is added to the debt. If we look at that in terms of the income of members of Parliament, every four minutes we add $64,000 to the debt of this country on to the current accumulated debt. That is adding up very quickly and we need to do something about it.

Fiscal responsibility must be part of the policy that we have in front of us here. We must recognize that the decrease in cost to the government of some $300 million is part of an expenditure reduction program that was necessary and is necessary to be used to try and keep the level of deficit down and keep the level of interest costs down so we can get this country back on a more pay as you go basis.

Bloc members do not understand that kind of language. They feel they can have it both ways. They feel they can spend here,

tell one crowd that we are going to spend and keep all these benefits for them on this hand and at the same time we are never going to have to face fiscal reality and deal with this big deficit in the country or deal with the accumulating debt of the country. Those two policies, if they were told in the same building at the same time, would look very foolish. These inconsistencies are continually presented on the floor of this House and Canadians are not buying that kind of approach.

I know the people of Quebec, as they may watch this debate today and as members of this House point out the inconsistencies of this debate that is presented, they will not buy the kind of message that the Bloc Quebecois is presenting to Canadians in this House and in the referendum that is going on in Quebec trying to present to the people of Quebec. They will not buy it. They will see the inconsistencies. They will see that it is the wrong approach to building Canada. It is the wrong approach to building any city in Quebec. It is the wrong approach to building any community in Quebec. It is not the approach that will bring fiscal accountability to Canada, nor will it bring fiscal accountability to the province of Quebec as it should.

This amendment before us is unacceptable in principle and unacceptable in terms of the current circumstances. It is unacceptable because it comes from a philosophic bent that is unacceptable to Canadians. It is one that will not build this nation of ours.

I encourage the members of this House to vote against the amendment because it just does not fit in terms of today's reality.

[The Budget, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly appreciate what the minister has said, but what we want in this country is the opportunity to have the freedom to invest without the intervention of government. Less government is what we want.

The minister wants to take all of the credit for the growth of the economy and the improvements in this country, but I think the provinces have something to do with it. For example, Alberta has the lowest taxes at the current time in the country. We have unemployment at 7.2 per cent. We have a surplus budget and we have investor confidence which is something that is necessary for all of Canada.

In his considerations and responsibilities as the Minister of Finance in creating an investment climate, is he considering the Alberta model as one that should be followed?

[The Budget, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the latest budget rumour among many is that Canadians will be forced to invest all of their RRSP savings in Canada.

If the government wants Canadians to invest money in this country, it has two choices. It can force them through regulations and legislation or it can encourage them by getting its fiscal house in order, which this government should do. That would create some confidence.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister prepared to force Canadians to invest in Canada or is he going to give them the opportunity to invest freely, as a Canadian should?

[Taxation, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance should also recognize that this minister at

that time cut a billion dollars of spending in the public and placed it back in the treasury of Alberta. That billion dollars is helping the taxpayer of Alberta today.

I want to tell the Minister of Finance and also the Prime Minister today that there is a message from Canadians, from the tax rallies that I have attended in the last week or so. I want to tell them something about taxes.

If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance increase the taxes to Canadians, they are going to bring on themselves and the government of this country what they call the triple-R whammy. They are going to resist. They are going to react. They are going to revolt in terms of any kind of tax increases. If that is not good enough, they are going to reform this country.

Will the Prime Minister stand in his place today and tell Canadians that there will be no tax increases in 1995?

[Taxation, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this government has had 16 months to do nothing and it did. The Canadian Manufacturer's Association told the Minister of Finance that governments do not create jobs, customers do.

This government is talking about increasing taxes to the customers, taking money out of their pockets. Does the Minister of Finance not realize that increasing taxes will only kill jobs in this country?

[Social Program Reform, February 6th, 1995]

At the beginning of the period I said welcome to 1985 because in 1985 they had very long questions and very long answers. But in 1995 I am sure we are going to shorten both. The hon. member for Beaver River.

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I know I have limited time but I would encourage Canadians to speak out and speak against tax increases of any kind. We cannot afford them. We are at the maximum level. If it leads to revolt and if that is what the government wants, that is the way it will be.

I am very disappointed that the government has not stood up at this point in time and continued this debate and put its position on the table as to why it supports tax increases. If it does not, why does it not speak against the report and not concur in it?