House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1993, with 42% of the vote.
Petitions March 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present.
The first is signed by constituents of Capilano-Howe Sound requesting that the House ensure the enforcement of the present provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting doctor assisted suicide and that Parliament make no changes in support of euthanasia.
The Budget March 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, now that I listen to the minister I can understand why some people call him the head dinosaur in the Liberal stable of those who believe that all the solutions to the economic and social problems of Canada are found with the government.
The issue of this budget is one of credibility. One year ago the Minister of Finance said: "We have now made all the cuts that we have to make". It is a matter of credibility not relative to what we have proposed. I think that we have been honest. What is at issue is the untruth, the smoke and mirrors we got in the last budget. It was said that there would be no cuts and especially that social programs were sacrosanct.
The budget speech gives the expenditure reductions by category. Would anyone believe there are cuts planned in health, in Canada Mortgage and Housing which serves the poor, and in veterans affairs? The people who served this country will now
be asked to make sacrifices by this government which promised there would be no cuts at all. One of the biggest cuts has been in heritage and cultural programs. There are cuts in international assistance as well. All of those things were promised to be sacrosanct.
The issue is one of credibility. I stood and applauded these cuts, but the story was given that there would be no cuts in the future. Now we are hearing all kinds of wonderful stories. Why should we believe them this time?
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Michael Wilson was also in the very fortunate position of having had a debt of only $250 billion rather than $550 billion.
The absolute spending cuts of $10 billion in the budget just about match the expected increases of $9 billion in the cost of servicing the debt over the projected budget period. The expected revenue increases due to prosperity and tax increases amount to a staggering $12.7 billion.
Does the minister expect similar spending cuts and revenue increases in the next budget to simply maintain the debt to GDP ratio?
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, during the 1980s Michael Wilson used to deliver budgets that contained the same rhetoric and projections of stable debt to GDP ratios as did the budget tabled yesterday. As
analysts said then and are saying now, planning for stable debt to GDP ratios during prosperity is not sufficient.
Why would not the next inevitable economic downturn again increase the deficit and once again put the country on the unsustainable path of a growing debt to GDP ratio?
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising this important point. The OECD issued a report in which it said that Canada's unemployment insurance system is an outstanding example of excessive generosity. The Auditor General has a graph which I recommend to the hon. member. It documents this generosity.
If someone in the United States earns $100 and goes on unemployment, he gets $20. In Europe if he earns $100 and goes on unemployment, he gets $30. Does the hon. member know what a person gets in Canada according to the Auditor General? He gets $60, twice the European amount. Is there any heartlessness in taking on the suggestions by the OECD and the Auditor General to reduce this excessive generosity a little bit?
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I believe on economic policy one has to take the longer run view. It does not do to penalize success like the banks have had now for a year or so after having absorbed huge losses for many years. If we do this kind of thing, we will drive out investment in Canada.
Investment in Canada is the source of our prosperity. It is the only source that will raise our living standards by increasing productivity. Without it, it is not possible. Even new technology needs investment to be introduced.
I do not share the judgment that it is wise for the longer run fortune of this country to say to anyone, be it a bank, a corporation, a professional, a gambler, anybody who has had success: "You are not allowed to keep it because there are some people out there who did not invest, who did not have luck, who did not work as hard. They have to get their money from us".
This is not what has made this country great and it is not what will keep this country prosperous. The Reform Party and certainly I will forever defend the system that has gotten us to the standard of living to which we have proudly become accustomed.
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Wilson would say: "We had to face financial reality. We had to take tough measures that will transform the way the Government of Canada works. In doing so we have turned the corner. We have stabilized the debt to GDP ratio. The next budget will bring it down. We are well on the road to fiscal sustainability".
I will never forget how we all agreed that the stabilization of this ratio during prosperity was not enough. Spending and tax measures to achieve this objective during prosperity will result in deficits once a recession hits again. We were right at that time, not as a matter of ideology, but of simple economic principle.
This budget is déjà vu all over again, except this time there are absolute spending cuts rather than Wilson's magic reductions in previously inflated plans for spending increases. These cuts represent a truly major achievement for which most of the credit must go to the Minister of Finance and some of his colleagues.
The tragedy is that these cuts are too little and too late. With a debt of $550 billion these absolute cuts achieve the same objective as did Wilson's phantom cuts when the debt was half that size.
The cuts of $10 billion in program spending just about match the $9 billion in higher debt service charges on the planned debt level over the life of this budget. The expected increases in revenue due to prosperity and tax measures amount to a staggering $12.7 billion. Yet, these revenue increases only keep constant the debt to GDP ratio.
These facts represent the key to understanding my negative views of this budget. Let me repeat them.
The cuts of $10 billion, however wrenching they may have been, just about match the required increases in debt payment of $9 billion on the planned increased debt over this period. The expected increases in revenue due to prosperity and tax measures amount to a staggering $12.7 billion. Yet, these revenue increases only keep constant the debt to GDP ratio.
The reason for this bottom line is that the biggest spending category in the budget, transfers to persons, which amounts to $37 billion is to remain unchanged. The debt to GDP ratio will never be lowered during prosperity unless this spending category is made to contribute its share to the solution of the country's crisis.
Investors who determine the fate of the dollar and the Canadian interest rate will look at the bottom lines that loom behind the rhetoric and brave actual cuts. They will ask why transfers to persons are unchanged. They will remember the traditional Liberal slogans recalled above and will connect the two. They will not be assured.
Mr. Speaker, I hope for the sake of Canada and my children and yours that my diagnosis is wrong and that Reform will never be able to say we told you so.
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I think that without malice it is useful on the occasion of this budget to recall what Liberals used to say on such occasions: "The budget cuts of $6 billion out of general government programs are slash and burn. They will lower the quality of government services that Canadians expect from their federal government as a matter of sacred trust. The firing of 42,000 civil servants is heartless and without compassion". The Liberals would have said it destroys forever the sanctity of labour contracts, it is equivalent to union bashing.
The biggest indignation Liberals in opposition would have reserved would be for the close to $4 billion cuts in transfer payments. They would have said: "It will make it impossible to enforce national standards on health and higher education and; heartless and without compassion on welfare. This is the proverbial slippery slope where Ottawa and the upholders of standards of compassion will lose their grip. The country will fall apart. It will become just like the United States. Oh, my god. There will be beggars on the street. The poor will have to commit crime. People no longer feel like Canadians because when they move from one province to another they will get lower welfare rates, can you imagine that, inferior universities and different health standards".
They would say the deficit problem is being solved on the backs of the poor, those least able to defend themselves. The Liberals in opposition would have said the gasoline tax increase is a tax grab and regressive because of all those with lower and middle incomes who have to use their cars to go to work. Worse, the tax measures did not tax the allegedly obscene profits of banks. They did not raise the tax on the rich or expropriate wealth by an inheritance tax.
The finance minister when he was in opposition used daily question period to ask the government to lower interest rates. He now refuses to. He did not order the governor of the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates and the debt burden. What is wrong?
I am sure the Liberals when in opposition would have used this opportunity to remind the government of broken election promises. The regressive, expensive, annoyingly complicated GST is still there and will be used to grab another $2 billion from Canadians, many of whom are poor. There is still no new day care facility. NAFTA is sucking jobs to Mexico.
The rat pack would have hurled the ultimate insult at the opposition. They would have said: "They are slowly eating their red book". For a summary indictment, these Liberals would have used: "This budget sounds like the agenda of right-wing think tanks and horror or horrors, like the program of the Reform Party". We proudly say that this is so.
I am not a Liberal and I will not use these slogans to criticize this budget. Its shortcomings are fundamental and frightening for anyone familiar with history and the power of compound interest.
During the 1980s my economist colleagues and I would sit at the lunch table at Simon Fraser University. We discussed the successive budgets of Michael Wilson, who sounded just like Paul Martin-like the present Minister of Finance. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
Income Tax February 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has said repeatedly that he will make the taxation system fairer by increasing taxes on the rich. Here is a Canadian tale that contradicts him.
Two students did equally well in high school. One went to work at age 18. He had a good time, attended the rallies of the peace generation and spent all he earned. The other went to university and graduate school, worked during the summer, lived frugally and invested wisely. He held his first full time job as a professional at age 28.
Both men are now 50. The first makes $30,000 and pays 14 per cent of it as income tax. The second makes over $51,000. He belongs to the top 10 per cent of Canadians who pay 50 per cent of all income taxes.
This so-called rich person insists that fairness requires he pay less income taxes, not more as the minister suggests. I agree.
Social Policy February 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to have that answer because I think the capital markets will not like it.
A revenue increase in tax measures announced for the next budget will drive more Canadian investment abroad. The way he talks, the Minister of Finance will have a good shot at becoming the man of the year for job creation in the United States.
Does the minister not agree that it is time to stop the tired Liberal rhetoric about tax fairness, do what is right for Canada and rule out tax increases in the next budget?