Deepak Obhrai

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day what concerns me is whether this new century will be the century of missed opportunity for Canada. It will be if we do not address the fundamentals in creating the economic environment for business to thrive.

My colleague alluded to Japan and other Asian tigers. They became tigers because they recognized the importance of international trade and of a freer market and creating an environment for business to thrive. I accompanied the Minister for International Trade to Latin America which is doing the same thing.

The question is will this century become the century of missed opportunities for Canada? I hope not.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing forward a very good point of view.

Every member of parliament sitting over here knows that the number of complaints against the federal government and Revenue Canada has skyrocketed in our offices. The majority of the complaints somehow seem to get settled after we get involved and we wonder why. Why can the government and Revenue Canada not just settle these problems? Why do they make Canadian taxpayers go through the pain and suffering and time wasting procedures?

The majority of complaints are that the laws that have been made by the government are so weak that they can be interpreted by the bureaucrats in any direction they want. One goes in one direction and one goes in another direction. One will accept it and one will not accept it. There is inconsistency. Where can people go? That is why my colleague has brought in the Canadian taxpayers' bill of rights. At least the people will have somebody to complain to about what is happening. Maybe then the government will listen.

I am surprised that the members of parliament on the government side will not tell their ministers or the bureaucrats what they are hearing from their constituents.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised this question. Yes, the press release on the Ontario budget talks about reducing the corporate income tax. I did read about it.

I ask the member, aside from the corporate income tax, what about the payroll taxes? The federal government just increased the CPP premiums. How much money is it taking on the Canada pension plan because of the government's mismanagement? With the increase in the Canada pension plan premiums, the federal government is taking away the money. Look at the EI surplus. The government could reduce the tax burden on the corporations making them more competitive. Again it is the numbers game my colleagues on the other side like to play, but which at the end of the day does not result in what the corporations are looking for.

It is critically important that we say what is right. In our view, the budget does not create the environment required for Canadian corporations and businesses. It does not give the working Canadians the tax reductions that are needed.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-25 and comment on the exchange that took place between my colleague from Medicine Hat and the parliamentary secretary regarding the $58 billion which the Liberal government is talking about as being tax cuts.

As my colleague from Medicine Hat indicated, there really are no tax cuts. We simply have to ask Canadians if they see more money in their pockets. It is a simple question. All members should go to their ridings and ask this question of their constituents: Have you seen the so-called tax cuts that the Liberal government has brought down in this budget; the $58 billion which it is touting? They will not find Canadians who say that they have received any tax cuts. Where are these tax cuts? I do not know where these tax cuts are. Canadians do not see them.

The claim by the government that there is $58 billion in tax cuts is all accounting and bookkeeping which the government has brought forward so it can spin it to the country that there are tax cuts.

I would like to address two areas. One deals with what Canadians are facing. The other deals with the impact of the government's fiscal policy on international trade.

I have received constituent complaint after constituent complaint, complaints of the draconian measures that Revenue Canada takes when going after people who cannot afford to pay, unfairly squeezing money out of them, putting them into more misery.

The government says that Revenue Canada has a system of fairness and that people can complain. I can tell the House that is not happening. What is happening is that Canadians are calling their members of parliament. Any member of parliament would tell us that Canadians are complaining about the draconian measures which the bureaucrats are taking at Revenue Canada.

I received a call this morning which concerns me. A constituent of mine is having problems with Revenue Canada. This case was given to the Minister of National Revenue six months ago and we have not had a reply. My constituent phoned the agent who seized an aircraft from U.S. Customs. What did this bureaucrat tell my constituent? He said “You went to your member of parliament. You complained to the minister. I am sorry, but we are going to take our sweet time in dealing with this”. Is that how we deal with Canadians?

I have another case dealing with immigration bureaucrats, from whom I have written proof that they say to members of parliament “Sorry, we will not respond to your inquiries”. I would like to tell these bureaucrats that members of parliament have been elected by Canadians. We are the voice of Canadians on the street. It is their democratic right to come to us for help. It is our right to ask the government and the bureaucrats questions and it is our right to expect a response.

Is that happening? No, it is not happening. What is happening now is that we are seeing the bureaucrats taking over, making decisions and then telling members of parliament that they cannot respond to them. This is becoming a trend which is quite disturbing.

With respect to the tax cuts which the government is talking about, time after time calls have come into my office asking where are these tax cuts. Where is this tax relief?

A constituent came into my office. He had been granted a CPP disability pension. Under the CPP disability plan he was eligible for a claim because he was recognized as having health problems. He is disabled. When he filled out his income tax forms and included the disability credit, lo and behold, Revenue Canada said “No, you are not disabled. This disability claim is disallowed”.

How can one arm of the government give him a cheque, saying that he is disabled, when another arm of the government, Revenue Canada, is actually telling him that he cannot claim the disability credit and, therefore, will have to pay tax? Then Revenue Canada charges interest on it, and this poor man just cannot afford to pay. He is on disability from CPP. How does this work? I do not know.

The government says that it is compassionate and is giving a tax credit. Students and single parents have come to me who cannot pay. Do members know what is killing them? It is the so-called interest and penalties, even if it is Revenue Canada's fault. That is the problem.

At times Revenue Canada will not tell the constituent what it is doing. It just goes ahead and assesses without giving due notice. That is why my colleague from Calgary Southeast is presenting a taxpayer bill of rights. That is the best legislation that could be brought down to give Canadians at least a voice against the draconian measures taken by the bureaucrats of Revenue Canada.

What can be done about a system which charges penalties and interest and says that we have to pay it? People are already facing problems and having difficulty paying in the first place. These are not people who are trying to cheat. They are not denying their incomes. It is not that. They are not making much income but the problem they are facing is that Revenue Canada without informing them is taking draconian measures.

They come to our offices and at times we are successful, but why does it have to take us to do it? Why cannot the government do it? This is a concern which I thought was appropriate to bring out when we are talking about Bill C-25.

I am the international trade critic and I would like to talk about the government's fiscal policy on international trade. Many times I have heard the Minister for International Trade mention very proudly that 43% of our GDP or one out of three jobs is tied to international trade. He says this proudly. As a matter of fact he said it today.

I refer to book entitled “Africa Trade Strategy 2000”. That is fine and I accept it. We are proud of what is going on. However, I have a question to ask of him. Why has there been no trade mission to Africa? The Minister for International Trade rightly said that when Canadian companies are interested we will have a trade mission to Africa. The essence of the point is: when Canadian companies or businesses are interested in doing it.

The Minister for International Trade and all the trade officials that work for the Department of International Trade around the world are promoting trade. Trade means jobs for Canada. We all know that. They are promoting trade to the best of their ability, signing deals, creating corridors and opening windows of opportunity for Canadian companies. That is great.

The problem is that it is for Canadian companies. With the high taxation that the government's fiscal policy has created and the refusal of the Prime Minister to recognize that, will Canadian companies at the end of the day be able to take advantage of the international windows of opportunity? Absolutely not. As the minister said, he may go out there and find there are no companies.

A problem is also originating out of this, which is evident even from EDC's list of clients. We have a serious problem henceforth with calling for EDC's privatization. We are getting concentrically narrower and narrower and narrower with only a few Canadian companies out of the whole Canadian economy. I can name a couple of them, Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin. These are the companies that are taking advantage of it. The Canadian economy is growing. There are companies all over the country that would like to do international trade. We need to expand to get them to take advantage of international trade.

We cannot restrict it to companies that are benefiting from grants and that have connections with the government. We have to open it up. That can only happen if there is sound fiscal policy by the government. Lowering taxes is the peak criterion. Time after time every business leader says that productivity has curtailed and taxes are too high. At the end of the day the government refuses to listen. The Prime Minister says that if they do not like it they can leave the country.

About a week ago I saw an article in the paper indicating that 500 Newfoundlanders were going to Ireland to work. Companies from Ireland came to Newfoundland and asked people to work for them. What does that tell us? It tells us that in Ireland the economy must be booming. There is a shortage of people so they come to Newfoundland, and rightly so. Let them come to Newfoundland. If Newfoundlanders can find work in Ireland, great.

We can look at the massive change that has taken place in Ireland because of lower taxes. Ireland looked at its business environment and said that its economy had to be productive. It did that. Today its companies are coming to Canada looking for workers.

Our government refuses to do that. The Minister for International Trade and everybody else including me will proudly say that we are trying to promote international trade. That is good for Canada. International trade provides jobs. When we try to sell business opportunities in the international market to Canadian companies they say cannot do it. They cannot expand because people are leaving the country. They do not have the workforce and taxes are very high.

As I was saying, it is critically important that we have a sound fiscal policy. That will create an environment where business can flourish, which in turn means jobs for Canadians, which in turn means prosperity for Canadians. If we do not do it, the prosperity of Canadians will go down and down. It is a question we need to be worried about because Canada has the potential. We are touted as the best country in the world. If we do not stop this now, we will start slipping.

I think we already are slipping, when we look at our partners that compete with us on the international trade scene. We have started to lose ground to them rapidly. If everybody else is recognizing the problems of productivity and high taxation and are addressing those issues, when will our government address them?

In solution 17 that my party proposed we are asking for the general corporate tax rate to be reduced from 28% to 21%. We are asking for the payroll tax, the EI premium, to be reduced to $2. We are asking that the small business tax rate be reduced from 12% to 10%.

We do not have to be rocket scientists to know what all this means. It will mean more money in the hands of businesses and of Canadians. More money in their hands means more consumer spending, which means companies become productive, the business environment has the strength to grow and we will be looking at a robust economy. If we fail to do that it will not happen.

The international trade agreements we are signing are opening the doors for other countries to come here as it is opening the doors for us to go first. If we are not going to go, they are going to come here. When they come here there are jobs for Canadians, but we would be weakening Canadian companies. We want them to be strong and to take advantage of the ongoing globalization era around the world.

It is a question of priorities. Yesterday the Ontario government introduced a budget which targeted the business sector and a reduction of taxes as its number one priority. It is the largest province and it is doing well. I was at the dinner and I can say there was a great sense of optimism in that province. In my home province there is also a great sense of optimism. Those two provinces are optimistic. The question we might ask is why. The answer is simple. Their economies are becoming robust, not because of the federal government but because of the provincial governments which have taken the lead in reducing taxes.

The federal government is refusing to recognize the results. It is refusing to recognize the evidence that is out there. There is evidence of those provinces reducing taxes. The European Union started reducing taxes. If we are not careful, even with the NAFTA trade we are doing with our neighbour to the south we can start losing ground. Nothing will stop them. They will be going down to Mexico.

We hope that by bringing it to light the government will recognize it and do something about it. At this time I would like to move an amendment to the amendment.

That the amendment be amended by adding the words “by the Official Opposition”.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member opposite who asked a question of my colleague, I would like to ask him what his view is of yesterday's Ontario budget which made cuts to corporate income tax and the capital gains tax. That has actually done more for the Canadian economy, for which the Liberals would like to take credit.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague has said is just one example of the waste of money that has been going on. The government has the wrong priorities. We need officers on the street. The auditor general has talked about tools not being available to the RCMP. We are now taking the RCMP away from the job of keeping our streets safe and putting them into looking at a registry. That is a burden on Canadians, a waste of taxpayers' money and will not address the situation.

This is the same as the $1 billion boondoggle with the grants and contributions in HRDC. The government is giving money on one side and taking money on the other, perhaps giving it to their friends. Businesses with government connections are doing very well compared to those which do not.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for stating that absolutely correctly. Solution 17 addresses that point. Let me just read what solution 17 is going to do for families.

Solution 17 will create a marginal rate of 17%. It will increase the basic personal and spousal credit to $10,000. It will introduce $3,000 per year per child. It will decrease the EI rate to $2 from $2.40. I see every member on the other side has disappeared. I guess they do not like good news either.

Solution 17 will reduce the capital gains tax to about 20% from nearly 40%. This is what Canadians are demanding. It will address the issue of families trying to put food on the table.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in saying that this is the best country in the world, but if the Liberals continue to govern for very long, it will not be the best country in the world.

It is quite interesting that he would ask why we are not saying good things about the budget. I will tell him why. If we ask Canadians what has happened to their take home pay, perhaps we will get an answer that will tell him why nobody in the opposition is so thrilled about the budget.

We could look at today's poll and ask the people who want health care. The hon. member's government is the one that killed the health care budget. I am sure those people will tell him why nobody is so excited about the budget.

With regard to reducing the deficit, that was done on the backs of Canadians and not on the government's back. It did not come up with any innovative ideas. Instead it has set us back. It is just flying straight. Nothing great has come out of this. The budget deficit was killed on the backs of Canadians. Ask them about their take home pay. They have seen it go down and down. That is how the budget deficit was killed. There is nothing to be very excited about there. Let us listen to what Canadians are saying and address the issues.

As I said, 43% of our GDP is now in export. Great, but it will not last very long if you do not address the issues. Now you sit sit over there and claim that the government is doing great. It will not last too long.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Calgary East constituency. This is my second speech on the budget. I have chosen to speak on this topic again because I would like to tell the House what my constituents and other Canadians have been saying. My remarks are based on two concepts.

The first is what constituents are saying are their two major concerns. Time after time the phone calls I receive have one theme, that people's take home pay is dwindling. People are having a hard time making ends meet. One of my constituents wrote, “We love our work but we are always in a financial bind due to low wages and no recognition of our qualifications and college degrees”. Despite having a college degree all she earns is $7.50 per hour.

I understand it is quite difficult to tell a business to raise wages. But a lot of our money disappears into the government coffers. It is interesting the way the whole taxation system is designed. We take it at one end and then we go around in circles and try to send it back in another way, and either we tax them or we say that we do not tax them and that we are taking care of the lower income workers. At the end of the day, at the time when people need the money which is when they get their weekly paycheque, the money is gone. It takes months for the money to come back to them at the other end. In between what are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to live?

My riding is made up of blue collar workers, single mothers and parents trying to send their children to school. When I go knocking on doors I hear time after time, “I am earning $30,000 and I cannot make ends meet. I am paying so much in taxes”. Many government members have said to me “No, no, we are taking care of all these things”. True, it comes back through social outlets such as cheques for family allowance, child care, GST refunds and all those things. The GST refund can take four months. What are they supposed to do until then?

Why can the government not address the issue for single parents, growing families and those who are earning low wages? Why not give it to them up front so they have more take home pay?

I have a letter from another individual in my riding. He asked for a T-1 slip. He had to go through a huge bureaucracy. Revenue Canada said he had to fill out so many forms and the guy just said to forget it, that he was not interested. The paperwork burden in the taxation system is so humongous that people are fed up. I have heard time and again “I am not going to respond to Revenue Canada. I am not going to fill out all the paperwork”.

A constituent phoned me, a pensioner, who said on the one hand the government gives money to pensioners and then, bingo, Revenue Canada needs $248 back right away. For what? He got phone call after phone call and letter after letter until he was fed up. We intervened and the matter was resolved, but why did it not get resolved in the first place?

The finance minister has said that we have not been asking questions about the budget because he thinks the budget is great. Perhaps the poll which came out today indicates why the opposition has not been asking the finance minister questions on the budget. There is nothing to ask. He will talk about budget cuts and all those things but we know, Canadians on the street know, and students know that when they look at their paycheques and when they look in their pockets, their take home pay is less.

It does not agree with what the finance minister is saying. It is better to tune out what the finance minister is saying than to listen and ask where is the tax break he is talking about. He gives a tax break, but at the same time CPP premiums are hiked up.

Look at EI. Surplus after surplus is going into the EI fund that the government is using to spend in other areas. It will not even reduce the EI premiums. How will Canadians feel? Will Canadians actually get the feeling from their take home pay that taxes are going down when the government is set on spending?

We have people in the government who have their own agendae. Our heritage minister wants to be recognized as the Canadian cultural protection person. She keeps writing out cheques, cheque after cheque, and doing her best, but what do we hear on the streets? We hear on the streets from Canadians that their take home pay is shrinking.

Let us go to the issue of the economy. I am critic for international trade, so what happens in the economy is quite important and of concern to me. I have been on many trips to see how Canadian trade officials have been working hard to promote trade in Canada. That is one of the areas of prosperity for the country.

Time after time the Minister for International Trade boasted in committee and everywhere that 43% of our GDP is in the export market. That is great. I applaud him for that. I hope it goes higher and higher. After all, it helps the Canadian consumer and it brings prosperity to Canada.

I give credit to our trade officials, those who are in the field and have been working very hard to ensure that Canadian companies are out there seeking the opportunities that globalization has opened for them. I commend them. I have seen them hard at work. I have seen Canadian companies working hand in hand with these people, promoting the goods and technology that Canadians have developed.

The subcommittee on international trade is now studying how to improve trade with Europe. As we know, trade with Europe has been gradually declining. It is improving but not to the level that we thought it should have improved.

All this points to the fact that there are people who recognize the need for Canadians to be taking advantage of globalization. If there are problems at home with Canadian companies which we have not fixed, how will we market ourselves outside the country? If the foundation at home is not strong, what is the point of trading outside? Somewhere down the line it will crack.

We have free trade agreements through NAFTA with Mexico and Chile. We are trying to get agreements with Costa Rica and other countries. We have seen the demand coming in for Britain to join NAFTA. These are all good things. They are great things, but we need to address the issues at home.

Time after time new cries are being heard that there is a need to address the issues at home and the need for productivity. The biggest one is taxation, the way we are taxing our companies. The way our economy is being overtaxed leaves little room for companies to aggressively seek foreign markets.

Let me quote here for a second an editorial in the Globe and Mail . Where it says country, I will substitute that by saying the past government was too dumb to understand that 25 years of high deficits would lead to a debt and tax crisis and maybe too dumb to understand that another 10 years of uncompetitive taxes and regulations would lead to a permanently reduced standard of living.

Let me read from the Calgary Herald of today, written by one of the CEOs of Alberta Energy Company Ltd. He said that Canada looked good but was moving too slowly. Perhaps the finance minister should read the article which contains that warning from an executive of a very important company in Alberta.

All of them have one simple straightforward message: taxes are too high. If the government does not address that issue and take it seriously, 43% of GDP in exports will start going down. Canadians will be unable to take advantage of the globalization of economies that is taking place.

Our ambassadors, including the minister of trade and I, travel around the world pushing to expand trade. We sign agreements but if at the end of the day there is no competitive advantage for Canadian companies, what is the point? They must be able to take advantage of market opportunities. The government is not selling the products. It is the Canadian companies that are selling them. They are the ones who are out there selling their products.

We talk about the greatness of Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin and other big companies. At the end of the day we look at the companies that do the majority of the exports. We could name 10 of them. That is all. Big companies like Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin and mining giants are the few that are on the international market. If we want to have prosperity we need small and medium size businesses. Everyone knows that. I do not have to repeat it. Everyone talks about it. Everyone says they are the vehicles of growth and that is what should happen.

Time after time when we talk to them they express concerns. They do not have the infrastructure or the competitive advantage to go out and grab these opportunities. The Americans are doing it and now we have the European Union with its $500 billion market. They take advantage. Canadian companies need to be aggressive.

We are saying that Canada should be the route for European companies into NAFTA, into the U.S. market. That is a great idea. It is fantastic if we can do it. At the end of the day, if taxes in Canada are not reduced, competitiveness will not be there. How will we become the conduits that we aspire to be and our trade officials want us to be?

It is time the Minister for International Trade had a talk with the Minister of Finance and said that something should be done. There is no point in each one going in different directions. Then the industry minister, who recognizes what is happening, tries to speak out but his chain is pulled back.

Canadians are worried. Today's polls indicate the priorities of Canadians. Health care is a priority of Canadians. Irrespective of what the government wants to say, every Canadian knows that it is the federal government that cut the money. This is creating the crisis in the health care system across the country. It is the number one concern, and rightly so. Why should it not be? The population is getting older and is looking down the road to see that health care will not be there when it will be needed.

This is a government run by polls. Everything it does is by polls. Maybe it will wake up and address this issue. I am sure it will. Today's poll said that Canadians want the federal government to put more money into health care.

We know what happened when the industry minister tried to give money to professional hockey. I am glad that Canadians spoke up about it. That is what Canadians should do.

Let us talk about health care for a moment. There is a hue and cry about bill 11 in Alberta, saying that it is an attack on health care. We listen to the grandiose statements of the Minister of Health. He is a lawyer, after all, so he can use the flowery words he loves, but at the end of the day the point is that the government cut money for health care.

This has created a crisis for the provinces. They are trying to address the needs of their constituents. The federal government is saying that this is the money the provinces will get and that is about it. There are millions of dollars sitting in Toronto which have not been used, but we are asking for long term solutions. We are asking for stable funding on which the provinces can count so they can address their health care needs and not deal with the business of either a reduction in the budget or little more than crumbs.

There is no stable funding for the provinces so they cannot address long term health care needs and issues. When they come up with a solution we hear the government screaming. I would like to state that it is very important for the government to address what the economy is demanding. The budget has not addressed it. We all know that.

The Canadian Alliance, with the proposal it is putting forward in the 17% solution, addresses many issues. Why do we propose the 17% solution? It is because we have heard from the grassroots. We have heard from businesses. We have heard from Canadians who have told us their priorities. The 17% solution we are talking about is something Canadians want. Hopefully when we form the next government that will be the solution.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was in the middle of explaining some important points and I would like him to finish them.