House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1993, with 38% of the vote.
Petitions February 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of some constituents of Simcoe Centre, requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation.
The petitioners fear such an inclusion would indicate societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The petitioners believe the government should not legitimize this behaviour against the clear wishes of the majority.
Supply February 21st, 1995
Yes, I am splitting my time, Mr. Speaker.
Supply February 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to take part in this debate on the motion introduced by my Reform colleague for Kootenay East.
Today is really the tale of the threes. I added a third three after listening to the intervention by my colleague from Kootenay East. The first three I had down was 3 per cent of GDP which we are talking about today as being not sufficient to address our current problems. Another three is the zero in three plan we introduced while we were campaigning in 1993. The third three I added was my three-year old grandson Nicholas. In many ways that is what this whole debate is all about. It is about the future of our children and our grandchildren.
Let me deal with the last three first. We in this House have been part of the generation that has accumulated the tremendous debt that we are all burdened under. We are not going to be around to pay the bill. We have accumulated this debt and we are leaving it on the shoulders of future generations; taxation without representation.
I have been part of that overspending and I have not been very proud of that. I am pleased that I am here, elected to this place to do what I can to bring the government to realize that we have to start living within our means.
Let us go to 3 per cent of GDP as the target that the government has set. What does 3 per cent of GDP mean? It means after we achieve this target we will still be overspending on an annual basis by $25 billion. However, at that point we will be facing federally a $650 billion debt and the interest payments on that debt will have reached $50 billion. What is worse, there is no plan to eliminate the overspending. It is somewhere down the road but there is no definite plan in place to address it.
I would suggest that without a plan to attack it, it will not happen. The 3 per cent of GDP is too little, too late. We have already lost a year. A year ago we were looking at a $490 billion debt and as we stand here this afternoon we are in debt to $550 billion. Our situation has worsened by $60 billion.
Let us take a moment to look at our zero in three plan which we campaigned on last year. We were honest with the Canadian voter when we campaigned. We spelled out where we were going to make the cuts, the departments we were going to make the cuts in and how much those cuts would be.
I would remind members that we were the only party that did that. We actually put some numbers to paper and presented it to the Canadian voter. Two and a half million voters supported us knowing where we were coming from. The deficit at that point was $30 billion. As we stand here this afternoon we are looking at a potential $40 billion deficit.
The deficit can be eliminated within a specific timeframe and we say three years. In eliminating that deficit we will create employment. We will restore investor confidence in our economy and they will come in and they will create the jobs that our children and our grandchildren need, full time, meaningful employment.
By getting our spending under control we will start to offer for the first time tax relief. Canadian voters will be able to see down the road that there is some tax relief coming and that we will not continue to attempt to go deeper and deeper into their pockets.
We speak a lot about the safety nets. Getting our spending under control and eliminating the deficit is the answer to saving our social safety nets. We are not the ones out to destroy it. We are the ones facing reality and we are the ones who want to save those safety nets for those who are in need.
The budget that will be coming down next week to my mind is the most important in Canada's history. If we do not do what is right in this budget we will pay some very serious consequences. The Canadian taxpayer is concerned. The financial markets are concerned. The warning bells are going off, the red lights are flashing and yet they are being ignored. As a matter of fact, we are shooting the messenger. We are being warned that we cannot go any deeper in debt, that we have to make some spending cuts. We are being warned by the people who buy our bonds, the people who have allowed us to go deeper and deeper in debt.
We appreciate it when they buy our bonds, but we do not like the fact that they are warning us that we are getting ourselves into a position where we cannot sustain that debt and are in danger of hitting the wall.
As I said, thousands of concerned taxpayers have spoken out. The message has been unified: no more taxes, reduce government spending, they are taxed to the limit.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has gone across Canada holding tax alert rallies that have been attended by thousands of taxpayers.
Yesterday we presented petitions signed by 230,000 concerned taxpayers and as I said, the message is uniform: no more taxes. Government spending must be cut.
Small business gave us the same message. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business in its survey of small business states that 88 per cent of those that responded said the
best thing the government can do to help small business is to cut spending. Get off their backs and out of their pockets.
It is happening all across Canada. In our homes and in our businesses, we have cut back in these times of restraint. We have had to make the cuts in order to survive. Government must do no less than what Canadian taxpayers and Canadian businesses have been doing.
When I was a youngster, I was told that there are only two things that were certain in life, death and taxes. What we are now finding out is that one is causing the other. The Canadian taxpayer is being taxed to death. Canadian taxpayers are fair, compassionate and reasonable but they have reached the limits. The message is that we have no more to give. The government does have room to cut its spending.
Protests have been going on across the country. Radio shows have been encouraging their listeners to phone their member of Parliament. I am sure all members have received phone calls because of the tax alert rallies or tax alert programs.
I want to relate one of the many phone calls that I got in my riding. It was from a young mother. She said: "I am 24 years old. I have three young children. My husband has a good job. He makes a good wage but we are just getting by. Please do not raise taxes. Do what you can to make sure taxes are not raised. We just have no room to move".
I said to her: "I understand where you are coming from. I will do my best to see that your tax burden is not increased". Just before she hung up she said: "There is one other thing that really bothers me. I know the social programs are important but I have a neighbour who is on social programs and in many ways that family is living much better than we are".
The message was that there are people riding in the wagon that she and her husband are pulling who are enjoying more benefits than they are. That has to stop.
Raising taxes are counter productive. For 25 years now we have told the Canadian people that we have to raise taxes and we are going to address the deficit and the debt. In fact what has happened in those 25 years is the exact opposite. While we have raised taxes, the deficit has increased and as a result, the debt has increased.
There is absolutely no justification for any tax increases. They achieve the very opposite to what they are supposed to achieve. We already have a huge underground economy because the Canadian taxpayer has said: "I am giving you more tax dollars and I am getting less service. I am going to find a way to escape this tax burden".
That underground economy is very difficult to get a handle on. I have heard figures from $5 billion to $30 billion. Whatever the number is, it is huge. By increasing the tax burden, we will only inflate that figure, whatever it is.
Today we introduced the taxpayers' budget. It is the first time this has ever happened in Parliament to my knowledge. No party in opposition or third party has come forward with an alternate budget.
We said when we were campaigning that we would offer constructive criticism. That is what we have done. We have been saying cut. In this budget we are outlining where those cuts should be made and the departments in which they should be made.
Twenty-five billion dollars in three years is not a draconian target. We are talking about $8 to $9 billion a year from a $750 billion GDP. That is about 1 per cent a year. It can be achieved and it must be achieved.
It will bring some pain but it will be short term pain for long term gain. The cuts have to be made in all sectors, not just in the social services. We have to do it in the public and in the private sectors.
I get concerned when I hear the message that we are out to destroy the social programs. That is not true. We have been spending $80 billion on these social programs. What we are talking about is $65 billion. That is not destroying the social programs.
If these people really wanted to protect those truly in need, they would be working with us to see that the cuts are made. There is lots of room to improve the efficiency of those programs and deliver them in a better way at far less cost to the taxpayers.
When taxpayers hear that they do not understand what they are asking for when they ask for reduced spending, you are insulting their intelligence. They do understand. The taxpayer in many ways is miles ahead of the politicians, and when taxpayers read that their protests are futile, we forget who is working for who.
We are dealing with an aroused and an informed voter. They understand. They are aware of the situation. No longer are they prepared to roll over and take it. They are speaking out. They spoke out on the cable situation and found out that they can make a difference. Government will ignore the messages that are being given to us at its peril.
Members Of Parliament Pensions February 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, on Friday the President of the Treasury Board said the government will acquit itself of its obligation with respect to MPs pensions mighty soon. The only obligations in the red book deal with double dipping and the age of eligibility.
Will the President of the Treasury Board confirm today that real cuts will be made to bring all MPs pensions into line with the private sector and not just the obligatory scrapes mentioned in the red book?
Members Of Parliament Pensions February 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how quickly viewpoints change when a party becomes the government.
In opposition the Liberal rat pack railed against the Mulroney government patronage perks and pork. Now in government the rat pack has become the fat pack. They fought against changes to their lavish gold plated pension plans and they appear to have won. The Liberal government has backed off reforming the pension plans of the fat pack and any other MP with more than 10 years of service.
My question for the President of the Treasury Board is: Why will he not introduce pension reform that cuts equally across the board?
Petitions February 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the final petition is about section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code so that those convicted of first degree murder will have to serve their full 25-year sentence behind bars.
Petitions February 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests the Government of Canada not to amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation.
The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would indicate societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The petitioners believe that the government should not legitimize this behaviour against the clear wishes of the majority.
Petitions February 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present three petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.
The first is on the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners request that Parliament not sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or of euthanasia.
Members' Pensions February 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, there is a price to pay for floating trial balloons and this one may be shot down.
I have a supplementary question. Why will the government not bring MPs' pensions into line with those in the private sector, do it equally across the board and do it now?
Members' Pensions February 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, for months now we have been listening to the Liberal government rail against two-tier health care and two-tier taxation.
Imagine my surprise when the Liberals floated a two-tier MP pension: a reduced trough for the new MPs and the original pork barrel for the Liberal frontbenches.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why does the Liberal rhetoric of equality not apply to MP pensions? Why are so many Liberal MPs reluctant to part with their gold plated pensions?