Deepak Obhrai

[Export Development Corporation, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the Minister for International Trade told the House that the Export Development Corporation acted at arm's length from the government in deciding to fund the Three Gorges dam project, and yet we know that Canada account loans of over $50 million must be approved by cabinet.

Why did cabinet time its decision to fund the Three Gorges dam project to coincide with the Prime Minister's team Canada trade mission to China?

[Economic Development Agency, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a taxpayer's nightmare the way this government spends taxpayers' money. He still does not get it. Even after three audits the problems and I quote what it says “have remained appreciably the same”. Do these audits not show that the bungle at HRDC was just the tip of the iceberg?

[Economic Development Agency, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the CED audits are a mirror image of the mess at HRDC. If the minister does not have a copy, it would be my pleasure to give him the audit report. There is too much flexibility, insufficient monitoring and lack of compliance. After three audits the problems remain. Why?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I will take the compliment the member has given the Canadian Alliance and thank him very much. We do have a different approach on how to solve the problems.

He is absolutely right that it is the middle class Canadian taxpayer that is taking the heavy burden of paying taxes and giving money to the government for frivolous spending. I agree with him on that point.

I have some statistics. Britain recently reduced to 10% the maximum rate for low income taxpayers. Ireland is cutting its maximum corporate rate in stages to 12.5% by 2003. Australia is implementing substantial personal income tax cuts that will allow for 80% of Australian taxpayers to pay no more than 30% maximum.

We can see from this that everyone understands economics and that high taxes at the end of the day will kill productivity. Even the Minister of Industry agrees with that. I hope I have answered the question.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because it gives me an opportunity to tell him how wrong his accounting is.

Let us talk about that family. He said, and I repeat his words, that under $17,000 the family will be charged $1,000 but will get a GST credit. I want to tell him that over and above the $1,000 he is talking about, that family pays GST when making purchases. If they get a credit back, it is over and above the $1,000 that they are paid.

Let us go back to the GST issue the member was talking about. We can see how he is twisting numbers. It goes to show how the numbers are twisted by the government.

As for his question about the $40,000 and what is going to be paid and no exemption, I am talking about our proposal, not what is there right now.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Hopefully the election is next year. Then we will see more spend, spend, spend to buy Canadian votes to try to win the election.

My colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill last week presented a motion in the House to deal with the crisis in health care. Even Liberal pollsters said that health care was the number one problem in the country that needed to be fixed. What did they do in the budget? There was a mere $2.5 billion after the major cuts had taken place over four years since 1993.

Yet the budget increased, it is amazing, by $1.5 billion grants and contributions, not to health care. The HRDC fiasco has shown what is happening to the grants. Grants and contributions are nothing but patronage, trying to buy votes and helping out their Liberal friends.

The same applies to EDC. The minister has been using confidentiality not to answer questions about loans. Where is the accountability of EDC to parliament? There is none. As a matter of fact today in the Globe and Mail it is stated quite clearly that there was influence by the government on the EDC's final report from the Gowling team. The government is using its grants and contributions to help its friends, not ordinary Canadians. What terrible mismanagement.

The two main things the Canadian Alliance offers are tax relief and to fix the health care system.

Let us look at our solution for tax. Our solution 17 is a flat tax rate that will take the government off the backs of taxpayers. Solution 17 will reduce the top federal-provincial tax level to roughly 29% over five years eventually freeing 1.9 million Canadians from paying taxes. Solution 17 says there will be a flat rate tax of 17%. The exemptions still remain and will rise to $10,000 per person. Those earning $20,000 or $30,000 who have a family of one and $40,000 for a family of four will not pay any taxes contrary to what people, even with small children, now pay of what they are earning.

We are talking of federal tax. My colleague over there was taking much credit for bringing unemployment down among other things. Let me tell him that it was on the backs of the provincial governments.

In closing, I say to Canadians do not be fooled by the Liberal budgets; they are designed to win your votes. At election time clearly say no to old style politics. I tell the Liberals this is the 21st century. It is time for change. Welcome to the Canadian Alliance.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. It is coming. In Manitoba 80.9% of the people said yes. In New Brunswick 96.2% said yes to the alliance. In Newfoundland 94% said yes to the Canadian Alliance. In Ontario 91% said yes to the alliance. In Prince Edward Island 92.2% said yes. In Quebec 91% said yes. In Saskatchewan 82.8% said yes. In the territories 80.8% said yes. In total 91.9% said yes to the Canadian Alliance, so beware.

What is in the future for Canadians? Today is the budget debate so let us talk about the budget. The budget the Liberals brought forth is an election budget, an election budget in which they want to again spend, spend, spend. They want to buy the votes of Canadians with their own money as they have been doing in the past. It is a shame.

The budget ignored the pleas of Canadians for tax relief, for reducing the deficit and for fixing health care. Let us deal quickly with the tax cuts proposed in the budget. Let us see what my constituents are saying.

I recently talked with a young man living in my constituency who has a wife and two children. He earned $17,000 last year and paid $2,000 in taxes. Upon completing his tax return his refund came to $97 and his wife's, $150. His question to me was: “How does this government expect a family of four to live on this kind of an income?”

Yesterday I got a call from a senior in my riding. She is working part time. She is 67 years old. She said “I am working part time so that I can go out and earn a little income and be busy”. Why is she paying $24 in EI when she is 67 years old and has no intention of collecting EI? That was her question to me. This is how the government indirectly taxes Canadians.

My son is 15 years old. His friend went out to work in the evenings. He is a young fellow, 15 years old, working out there. His first paycheque was $300 minus $87 in taxes. He told my son “Tell your dad what is going on here”. I said “Excuse me. It is the party on the other side that is not in touch with Canadians on taxes”.

Out there on the streets of Canada there is a demand for the government to address the issue of high taxation. What do we get from the budget? A band-aid solution. It is designed to win votes. The Reform Party brought this out and it scared them into bringing forth some tax relief. Otherwise there would have been no tax relief. I am skeptical and apprehensive that the next budget brought forth by the government will be spend, spend, spend.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak as a member of the Canadian Alliance. As a matter of fact this is the first speech by a member of the Canadian Alliance. It is an historical moment. I am extremely proud to be part of this history. Yes, yes, yes.

What happened on Saturday night in Calgary? Canadians from coast to coast, fed up with Liberal arrogance and disregard for the wishes of the Canadians, spoke with a tremendous roar. They created a new political force that will send these Liberals packing into the Canadian wilderness. A total of 91.5% of Reformers said yes to a broader coalition. What a mandate.

Today I stand proud to be the first member of the Canadian Alliance to speak. Let me say what happened in referendum 2000. For the record, 94.5% of Albertans said yes to this broader coalition; 93.1% said yes—

[Export Development Corporation, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which said “EDC is alone in that it still has almost all its resources tied up in providing services that banks and insurers had been supplying for many years in other countries”.

Why is the government forcing the taxpayers to assume the risk that the private sector would be willing to take?

[Export Development Corporation, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister wants it both ways. He wants a tax free crown corporation that competes directly with the private sector and follows private sector confidentiality practices. However, he also wants to use the money not paid in taxes to provide export financing for Canada's powerful and profitable corporations with Liberal connections. This is a sweet deal at the expense of the taxpayers.

Canadians are in the dark because this government refuses to tell them how EDC spent its money. Why?