Jack Frazer

[National Defence, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner has found that officers in national defence headquarters altered and destroyed documents relating to the Somalia affair to prevent them becoming public.

He stressed that this deception was deliberate and the result of clear and direct orders. How can the House, the commissioners on the Somalia inquiry, or the Canadian public believe anything this minister or his department says when his officials are proven guilty of this kind of cover up?

[Nisga'A Land Claims, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the minister believes there has been consultation.

Here is what a forestry industry representative from the treaty negotiations advisory committee said about the process: "I cannot say we worked on this document because we never saw any of it until February 15, just hours before it was signed; not one page, not one paragraph".

The government has given the separatists a constitutional veto. Why is it denying the people of B.C. a say before this agreement is signed? Postpone it.

[Nisga'A Land Claims, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, officials from Ottawa, Victoria and the Nisga'a people are scheduled to sign the Nisga'a land claim agreement today.

However, there is widespread opposition to the radical constitutional precedent which will be set here. There has been insufficient meaningful consultation with all of the people who will be affected by this agreement.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister instruct the minister of Indian affairs to postpone today's signing?

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of National Defence when he would advise the civilian employees at 5 Wing Goose Bay which jobs were being considered for privatization, he answered: "We have just announced that this particular base may be a candidate and we will look at it over the coming months".

Either the minister misled us or he works very fast because yesterday, just nine days later, it was announced that 93 civilian full time jobs, 15 seasonal jobs and 81 military jobs were being cut, followed sometime later by surgical cuts. These people would like to bid on those jobs. When will the minister advise which jobs were cut?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Minister of Finance. He gave an excellent political speech when he brought in his budget. He smiled throughout and came very close on a number of occasions to breaking his arm while patting himself on the back.

What we are talking about is a futurama like "2001: A Space Odyssey". Everything happens way down the street. We were pleased to see the minister admit and recognize what Reform has been saying for the past eight years, that in the present financial circumstances, universality is really an impossible dream. What must happen and what he did in this budget is to recognize that support must be focused on those who need it.

Sadly, the minister has misled the public. He said for instance, that 75 per cent of old aged people would be better off. He neglected to say that if 75 per cent are going to be better off then 25 per cent will be worse off. He did not mention that.

He said there would be no new taxes. Between 1993 and 1995, the average Canadian family income tax has increased by $993 in real 1994 dollars. Since 1987, disposable income before taxes has dropped by 8.6 percentage points. The minister said: "We are not raising personal taxes. We are not raising corporate taxes. We are not raising excise taxes. In fact, we are not raising taxes".

However, in the budget at least nine changes to the Income Tax Act provide for a tax grab through the back door. What about the reduction of RRSP termination age from 71 to 69? This adds only $100 million by the year 2000. What about no more tax deductions for RRSP fees paid outside the plan? This adds $10 million over the next three years.

The minister has frozen the RRSP contribution limit at $13,500, whereas it was supposed to rise to $14,500 and beyond. This is until 2003 and results in $215 million in extra taxes over the next three years. These RRSP changes send conflicting messages. People are asked to provide for their own future, yet the incentive and advantages of doing so have been stripped away. Taxes have increased.

What about the taxation of those paying child support payments? We were looking for the mechanism whereby we could be assured those child support payments went to the appropriate place, to the children concerned. The finance minister has said that the government will collect the taxes which may be diverted elsewhere. This was not the purpose of child support payments. It remains to be seen if the changes will benefit the children and the families involved.

Despite election promises, the GST and the Deputy Prime Minister are still with us. During the election campaign Liberal candidates stood on doorsteps and said that they were going to axe the GST, that they were going to scrap the GST, that they were going to abolish the GST. Here we are three budgets downstream and not a change has been made.

In yesterday's GST debate the Liberal government members voted against the motion to abolish the GST. Even if the GST were harmonized, as the government suggests it is going to be, this would increase taxes for all Canadians, except perhaps Albertans who do not have a provincial sales tax. It would broaden the taxation base.

Why or how did the finance minister think he would succeed where the former Conservative minister Wilson could not? Was he hoper-groping? Was this a rash promise, a naive promise or was it a deliberately calculated vote garnering election misrepresentation to the Canadian public? Whichever, it has become yet another broken promise. The finance minister even avoided using the term GST, referring to it rather as the federal sales tax. He is asking the provinces to help him achieve his deficit reduction. He has passed the cost saving measures on to them.

The government has also proposed spending $50 million to try to battle the underground economy. It expects to cash in on $185 million over the next three years. The root cause of the underground economy has not been addressed. This includes high personal income taxes and the GST. Obviously, as long as these remain in place there will be a higher and more active underground or barter economy.

The budget affects taxation in an indirect way. It backs off from fiscal restraint and does not provide any tax relief into the next century. These rolling two-year targets which the finance minister is so proud of exhorting are being met because they are too timid, too faltering and too slow. Almost anyone can be an expert high jumper if the bar is set only a foot above the ground. The reason the targets have been met, besides being set too low, is because we have had a growing economy and the interest rates have remained unexpectedly low.

Let us look at our next projection. The next deficit target is set at $24.7 billion. That is another $25 billion added to drive our debt to over $600 billion with another $2 billion added to the interest on that debt. Under the Liberals the debt has increased by more than $100 billion since 1993. The interest payments on the debt have gone from $38 billion to around $48 billion. That is $10 billion paid out at the expense of social programs.

The taxpayers' budget would have cut only $1 billion in health and welfare spending; whereas the Liberals cut $8.2 billion to the Canada health and social transfer. The Reform Party has been saying for the past eight years that the biggest threat to Canada's social programs is the debt and the interest payments on that debt.

The target for the following year has another $17 billion deficit and we will be well on our way toward a debt of over $700 billion.

If the Liberals would have adopted the Reform taxpayers' budget in 1994 instead of following their infamous soft rolling two-year targets, by this time next year we would be debating where to apply the surplus. Would we apply it to the debt or to social programs? By the next election, rather than increasing the debt by $112 billion the debt would have increased by only $50 billion, a difference of $62 billion, almost $3 billion less in interest payments that we would be required to pay.

There is still no time line for a balanced budget. The minister simply will not say when he intends to balance the budget. That means there is no tax relief. This is causing economic concern and a lack of confidence for both the consumer and the business community. This constrains spending and expansion which in turn constrains employment opportunities.

The government has said that it is going to strike a technical committee to study the business income taxation act which will look for ways to encourage job creation and investment, yet another committee. This is simply window dressing. Based on past experience, we know the cost of a committee is anywhere from $500,000 to $5 million.

The Liberals spent $6 billion on the infrastructure program. We know every well this created no lasting jobs and was borrowed money that went down the drain. The best way to fuel the economy and to create jobs is to balance the budget and start to pay down the debt.

Canada is a rich country despite the huge debt we have. However, it needs a far sighted, courageous government willing to do what must be done. This government, this budget lacking in foresight, courage, ideas and leadership is not doing the job. Most of these budget measures will not be implemented until after the next election. Promises, promises. Much like the past election, the Liberals make them, but they do not have to keep them. This budget is not the budget Canada needs at this time.

[Petitions, March 11th, 1996]

I have a second petition, Mr. Speaker, which is also duly certified by the clerk of petitions, on behalf of 1,206 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to consider the advisability of extending benefits or compensation to veterans of the wartime merchant navy equal to that enjoyed by veterans of Canada's World War II armed services.

[Petitions, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, on behalf of 46 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area. The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[National Defence, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the employees have been informed that the plan has already left the base. These employees are not only being kept in the dark about their future, they are even being denied the right to bid on these contracted out functions. They are also worried that a local Liberal supporter has an inside track in seeking this contract.

Will the minister assure this House that all legitimate bids for contracting out will be considered and that we will not see yet another example of political payoff and patronage at 5 Wing Goose Bay?

[National Defence, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Union of National Defence Employees at 5 Wing Goose Bay are concerned about government plans to privatize or contract out some base functions. They accept the need to increase cost effectiveness but are not being told what is going on and thus cannot prepare for their future. The union's president was this morning again denied details of the proposal and it would seem they will not be released until after the Labrador byelection.

Will the Minister of National defence stop playing politics with these worried employees and sit down and tell them which base areas and personnel are to be affected by privatization?

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister would take the time to read the taxpayers' budget, he would find out where those cuts were. He would also be aware that this time next year we would be debating what to do with the small surplus that would be forthcoming as a result of implementing that budget, not looking at another $24 billion down the drain including interest charges and cutting into social programs.