Ray Speaker

[Income Tax Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is a privilege to be able to make a few remarks on third reading of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

I must confess that I have certain mixed feelings about addressing the bill. It introduces measures that were introduced by a previous government, and here we are today putting the measures into law. In a sense it is kind of a reverse process.

When a government enacts or wishes to carry on some type of policy or objective it should move the legislation into the House, pass it and then implement the programs. We are kind of following a reverse procedure that certainly gives me mixed feelings in my legislative responsibilities. However it has happened and we are here today examining the bill as such.

On the one hand it would seem only prudent that we support the bill. It is generally referred to as a housekeeping bill. As I have said, much of the policy in it has been enacted during the past year and we are just getting around to proclaiming the law today.

In my presentation I will not pretend for a minute that it would be anything but irresponsible of us to oppose these measures merely on principle because of the circumstances. On the other hand I wish to make clear there are some principles to which I am strongly opposed, as is the Reform Party.

The Income Tax Act, as we all know, has become a very unwieldy monster symbolizing what many Canadians see as the problem with government in general and that in general there is just too much government for all of us.

The last attempt by a government to amend the text and change it led to other kinds of reforms. It led to an income tax surtax, an alternate minimum tax, tax deductions, tax credits and the complicated GST that is before the finance committee at the present time. All these have rather confused the matter.

We as Reformers believe it is time to review the Income Tax Act and the variety of methods and means by which we collect funds to operate government. We think it is most important at this point in time. Even the forms need revision.

Today I was given an article from a newspaper about the fact that Revenue Canada workers have been issued a memo inviting them to consult with some of their colleagues in filling out their tax returns. The memo says: "The time for filing your income tax return is approaching. Should you require any information or assistance in the preparation of your return, you may contact one of the employees whose name and location appear below".

Not all citizens of Canada have that privilege, but the point we want to make is made by the writer of the article and others who have commented on it: if tax department employees cannot figure out how to fill out their own returns, imagine how the rest of Canadians feel. That is a very apt comment under the circumstances.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-17.

What I want to do in these 10 minutes is summarize the arguments of my colleagues in the last three days of debate. We have looked at this omnibus legislation and in all omnibus legislation we have a difficult time in deciding whether we vote for it or against it because involved in that type of legislation are often some good ideas and often ideas that are partly acceptable and some that are not acceptable at all. That is the choice we have to make in the final analysis, whether in an overall sense there is enough on the pro side to move one to a position of a vote of yes rather than a vote of no.

That is the way the bill has been presented. The ruling of the Speaker was that is the way the debate will carry on and we intend to do that. We want to put the government on notice, however, that at committee stage and at report stage it is our intention to be very aggressive in some of the areas before us.

I would like to touch on each of the important principles in the bill.

First of all, with regard to public sector compensation, we support the government's freezing of salaries as it has at the present time and also the freezing of the increments. There may be some abnormal circumstances or anomalies arising during the next period of time and I hope the government will be considerate and compassionate. I hope it will be able to deal with any of the circumstances that may in an adverse way affect some employee in government who, in terms of their responsibility, may have a right to an increase or fair pay for the work that they present and the responsibilities that they take in the public service.

I think of the Government of New Brunswick, I think of the government of Alberta when an issue such as this arises and the government either freezes a salary or reduces it. I have heard this from government and I have heard people in the public sector say they are being treated unfairly, governments are trying to balance their budgets on the back of the public service. We have to assess that statement and look at the framework in which it is being made.

As I walk through my constituency-I am sure it would be consistent no matter what community I visited in Canada, whether it be a major urban centre or a small community-I find people supporting themselves through some entrepreneurial endeavour. I find that their incomes have been reduced in the last four to five years in a significant way. They have also reduced the number of their employees. In the majority of cases it is 20 per cent to 25 per cent.

Their expectations have been lowered. They have made an adjustment in the business community. I visited 800 businesses in Lethbridge in the latter part of 1993 and again in 1994. They saw they were under economic pressure. The only way they could continue their businesses was to have a balanced book in which the revenues would somewhat equal the expenditures. They could not go out and borrow more to maintain their staff levels, their expenditure levels or the standard of living that they and their families were enjoying. They had to make adjustments.

They made those adjustments. They quietly made them. Many of them maintained their businesses. They are in place looking for growth in the economy. Certainly they have placed their confidence in us as members of Parliament to assure and to work toward factors that will bring about that growth.

They have made a significant adjustment, more than the 5 per cent that is being requested in the province of Alberta, more than the 7.5 per cent that is being requested in the province of British Columbia. On that basis we support this first move of the government in terms of freezing not only the levels of income but the increments that usually follow from year to year to the public service.

The second area is the reductions to the Canada assistance plan and the Public Utilities Transfers Act. Again we recognize the need for that. The government must consider the fairness with which it is done. In 1991 a cap was put on the amount of money that was transferred to three of the provinces of Canada. The other seven provinces did not have that cap. Now the cap is being put on all of them. Supposedly there is equity in the distribution of funds so that each Canadian, in no matter which province, is treated fairly in terms of those programs. As members of Parliament we must examine the concept of equalization. I spoke on an earlier bill in this House that brought about the equalization formula. I made the point that if the equalization formula is right and fair and is doing its job, it will mean the equalization of funding across Canada for a variety of programs. If that is correct, every other program that redistributes income or dollars to the provinces or a transfer of dollars to individuals in Canada should be done on an equal basis because we have created equality. I hope when the government implements this program it keeps that principle in mind.

The third area in this bill is with regard to transportation subsidies. We would support these reductions in terms of our economic conditions because we have to make those kinds of decisions. We feel that western Canada in terms of the Western Grain Transportation Act and the maritimes should be involved in the decision-making and the government should consult those respective parties as these programs are delivered and the shared responsibility for them is taken.

The other area in this bill is the borrowing authority that we are giving to the Canada Broadcasting Corporation. We do not support that because we feel this is only another avenue by which funding is going to the CBC in order to pick up its deficit. In the last fiscal year I believe its deficit was between $40 million and $60 million.

We do not believe this is the right thing to do and we certainly are going to be speaking about it in subsequent debate. We do not believe that the capital projects the CBC has in mind can be repaid in a period of two to three years as it stated to us in our briefing on this part of the bill. We do not believe that can happen.

We believe that another means is being established by which the CBC is able to secure funds by borrowing. We must recognize that the Government of Canada, this Parliament, in the end result has the responsibility of picking up the deficit. If this plan of the CBC does not work, we are on the hook. It is just another way that public funds are put into the broadcasting system of this nation. We think this authority is opening up a valve that cannot be controlled by this Parliament, even though there is a lid of $25 million on the amount that can be borrowed.

The last area is the area of unemployment insurance changes. I know that has received a lot of debate in the House, both the pros and cons, the good and the bad. We believe that this program should be put on an insurance basis so that if someone loses his or her job, he or she has income during the interim period between jobs. It should not be an income program as it has been. It has changed from its original objective to an income program in many instances.

I know presumably responsible people who have highly paid jobs for three or four months who after that automatically go on unemployment insurance and take advantage of this government income. It is in every business community that we can think of. It is up to us as legislators to stop that in any way that we can.

In conclusion, and I realize I only have a few seconds left, I will make these two points.

First, we are going to vote against this because of the mixture of principles that are in the bill. Our position is weighted on the side to say nay to the bill.

Second, we are opposed to some of the measures that are contained in the bill and we are concerned that the reforms do not go far enough. They could be extended and be better for Canadians.

On that basis, and I summarize this for my colleagues in the Reform Party, it is our intent to vote nay on this second reading of the bill.

[The Economy, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the government recognize there are other signals out there?

Long term rates are on the increase, 1 per cent above what was projected in the budget. We have a drop in the dollar value. There are foreign investors that have lost confidence in investing and have taken their money out of this country.

What is the Prime Minister prepared to do under those conditions to adjust the budget to meet the needs of the signals in the marketplace?

[The Economy, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister recognize those signals from the marketplace and if he does, what is he going to do about them in terms of rearranging, changing and adjusting the fiscal plan of this government?

[The Economy, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister sits here today and tells us that he is not going to do anything with the budget. The minister of state sits here and says that everything is okay and everything is great in Canada.

It is time we recognized there are signals not only from this government that are harming the marketplace, but there are signals from the marketplace that the Prime Minister and the ministers of this government should take into consideration, and they should do it today.

I wonder if the Prime Minister recognizes, and this is one of the signals that he should recognize, that interest rate spreads on 10-year Canada-U.S. bonds have increased since the budget came down and continue to increase. This government must act.

[Lethbridge Pronghorn Hockey Team, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Lethbridge Pronghorn hockey team has matured into an outstanding representative of southern Alberta.

Last weekend for the first time in its history the hockey team advanced to the University Cup national championship tournament in Toronto. The team's accomplishments did not end there. The Pronghorns went on to capture the national CIAU title after a five to two win over the University of Guelph in Toronto's Maple Leaf Gardens.

I would like to commend the Pronghorns for their hard work throughout the season. The University of Lethbridge is a small university but clearly has produced a team from southern Alberta that we can be proud of.

It must be noted the Pronghorns have claimed the CIAU victory in the face of serious budget cuts in the athletic department. For this reason I believe Sunday's win is a double victory for the team.

I would like to congratulate the Pronghorn members. Their win displays their ability to do what they do best despite difficult circumstances.

[Presence In Gallery, March 15th, 1994]

My colleagues, I would like to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Sandy Jolly, the Minister of Municipal Affairs from the province of Nova Scotia.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, to the hon. member for Lotbinière, in my remarks earlier today I made the point that the Quebec election followed by a potential referendum would have a major effect on the 1994-95 fiscal budget of the Government of Canada.

The comment of the hon. minister was that we will have an election and that is the normal process in our democracy in Canada. I can agree with that. It is true but this is rather an abnormal and unusual circumstance that would be an aberration in the election process and how the election process would affect the budget or the economy of our nation.

I would appreciate a comment from the member on how he sees the current 1994-95 budget affected by an election in Quebec and the position of his party with regard to an independent Quebec.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

In terms of monitoring the budget as it progresses from today into the fiscal year, what mechanisms are in place that trigger the government to come back to this assembly to deal with such problems as revenue projections off track?

That could happen on the basis of two things. The first is the cigarette tax reduction and the potential reduction in taxes on liquor across this nation. There is tremendous pressure for that. Second, marketplace interest rates increase significantly. Because of those two factors we would see our deficit moving from $39.7 billion to over the $40 billion mark.

What mechanisms are in place to trigger a reaction by the government in the House?

I want to say two more things to the minister. First, I appreciate we are going to have a review this fall, but that is a long time into the fiscal year to wait to react.

Second, the concern I have with regard to the government's approach is that there were much appreciated cuts but at the same time they were replaced by new expenditures. I do not feel this really came to grips with fiscal accountability.

I would appreciate the minister remarking on the question and the remarks.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the usual custom that following a member's remarks there is time for questions to that hon. member?