Deepak Obhrai

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 10th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak to Bill C-68.

Youth crime demands the attention of all levels of government and it demands the attention of parents and families. In Calgary I recently attended a town hall meeting for an organization called the Friends of Clayton McGloan. My colleague from Surrey North also attended another of the town hall meetings in Calgary. This organization was named for a young man whose life was tragically taken from him by two young offenders.

Clayton was stabbed numerous times and left for dead by two young thugs. These individuals are now fighting to have their cases remain in youth court while the crown is stating its case for the adult court. To my knowledge these two thugs have been in the system before. These are young murderers and they deserve to be held responsible for their crimes. However in this case maybe the law will be on their side. Maybe they will be tried in youth court and receive a much lower sentence than they would have received had they been tried in an adult court.

The family of Clayton McGloan is fighting through a petition asking for fair justice. The pain and the suffering they have gone through can only be felt when we attend town hall meetings and we listen to the family's pain.

Canadians have seen these kinds of cases all too often in the last 15 years. They have seen young murderers and rapists receive sentences that do not fit the severity of the crimes. Why? Because they are children. Because we say they do not know any better. I believe that many of the kids do know better.

The official opposition on behalf of Canadians has been calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act. Thankfully something is finally on the table for us to debate in this House. We know that the justice minister introduced a new youth criminal justice act as a replacement for the Young Offenders Act. It is my hope that the Young Offenders Act will be assigned to the garbage. It has been a failure and Canadians have had to suffer the consequences for far too long.

The justice minister upon taking her job promised that introducing the new young offenders legislation would be her top priority. That was two years ago. I had hoped that after such a long delay the justice minister would have put forward legislation to deal with the complicated issue of youth crime in an effective way, yet the youth criminal justice act fails again to deliver what Canadians expect.

The official opposition recognizes that there are two elements to youth crime. One is the rehabilitation aspect and the other is an accountability aspect. My colleague spoke very eloquently about what he felt the government should be addressing in the way of rehabilitation programs.

We have a youth justice committee in my riding. This committee has been doing a tremendous job in trying to address youth crime through community sentencing and rehabilitation programs. It has been quite successful. This is the kind of program we need to encourage.

We must also teach the consequences of actions. We must make youths aware of the severity of their actions when they cross the boundary and hurt people. That should be a fundamental aspect. Revenue Canada makes good examples of taxpayers who have not paid the money they owe. Revenue Canada comes crashing down by charging penalties and interest from the first day that they do not pay. Why? Because the government needs to set an example for others. Lo and behold, here we have people committing crimes and it is said there has to some leeway.

I heard a colleague from the Bloc address this. I did take exception to some of his comments when he addressed the issue of western Canada somehow being a right-wing very uncompassionate society. I beg to differ with that. I appreciate the fact that there is a lower crime rate in Quebec. As my colleague said, it is something we can learn from, but to say that we are uncompassionate is not appropriate. But the Bloc is the separatist party so that is fine.

When going through this new legislation the feelings of the members of the official opposition was that this is simply the old Young Offenders Act presented in a different colour and format. Some provisions in this bill appear to be tougher. However, there is always an opportunity down the road for provinces or courts to provide exceptions and maintain the status quo.

I believe the minister has had to appease all the different philosophies within her own government. Some want tougher legislation and others think the situation is just fine. Nobody wants to listen to what Canadians are saying.

In this House petition after petition has been presented asking for a fair justice system. The government's thinking is that perhaps this is some kind of paper in the basement that does not need to be addressed. Hence the bill that has come forward has all the loopholes one can imagine.

Throughout the process the minister claimed she needed time to consult with the provinces. We recognize the provinces have an important role to play. We have to understand just what the various regions of the country were wanting in the overall youth laws.

A great deal of this information has already been gathered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee spent many months conducting hearings from coast to coast. The committee listened to the provinces. It spent almost $500,000 to provide a comprehensive report with a number of recommendations toward significant changes to the youth laws. That is how our parliamentary democracy works. The committee conducts hearings and receives presentations.

The provinces are not satisfied with the legislation. The minister of justice for Alberta, John Havelock, wrote to the federal minister complaining that there had not been adequate consultation.

He was concerned that the federal government had failed to address some of the major concerns of many provinces. Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and P.E.I. all wanted a number of significant changes. Perhaps the most important was the reduction of the age of criminal accountability from 12 to 10. One speaker from my own town, Calgary's police chief Christine Silverberg, criticized the government changes as not going far enough with violent children under the age of 12.

We should not be surprised that this recommendation was not included. Not only did the government ignore its partners in the youth justice process. It ignored the justice committee and its report which included a similar recommendation, a committee that is made up of a majority of government members.

The government continues to attack the official opposition. I will conclude by saying that the official opposition, throughout this debate, will indicate its concerns and the shortfalls of the government.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member across the way an opportunity to reply to my colleague.

I have a very short question for my colleague. This legislation is piecemeal tax relief. What is his view of the fact that the finance minister is now talking about giving tax relief through stock options to address the brain drain in the high tech industries?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I should talk through the Chair.

The debate today is not about a balanced budget. The debate is about tax relief. The government is talking about the tax relief it has given out. That is what we are talking about. We would like to point out to the hon. member that the tax relief his government is talking about is piecemeal tax relief and it is not what Canadians are looking for. There is a huge debate going on among Canadians including businessmen and students. They are all saying that there has to be an approach taken by the government that addresses this basic question. The bottom line is Canadians are saying to get off their backs.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is questions and comments and I am so happy to see the member finally ask a question. I was sitting here for such a long time and he would not rise to ask a question. I am so glad he rose to ask me a clear question. He asks what party I am in. I am from the official opposition which will keep him in line.

He talks about a balanced budget. No wonder he has not been asking any questions. He does not know his facts. Of course we all believe in balanced budgets but the issue is that when there is so much surplus, where is the tax credit? That is the issue. Canadians are saying enough of this tax burden. Where are you in coming along and saying yes—

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have risen to speak about the budget announced by the federal government. Bill C-72 reflects what has been brought in by the budget. It deals with what I would call piecemeal tax relief for Canadians.

The government says it is giving a non-refundable tax credit for interest paid on student loans. I do not think any Canadian would have a problem with that. The government is proposing changes to the registered education savings plan. I do not think anyone would have much of a problem with that. This is a small step toward correcting the problem of high debt loads which students pay.

In my last speech to this House I talked about the problems facing students. We see the government again addressing this issue in a piecemeal way. The government is claiming credit by saying it is addressing the heavy tax burden from which Canadians are demanding relief.

The government estimated that it expects a $3 billion surplus in the budget. Most forecasters are now expecting that the 1998-99 balance could be anywhere between $7 billion and $12 billion. The government is not really looking at the money that is forecast and it does not have a proper plan to provide tax relief to Canadians.

My colleagues from the NDP and the Conservatives talked today about income tax reform to address all of the issues. They feel that tax credits should not be the driving force.

My concern is that we could have tax reform, but we do not want tax reform where, in the final analysis, the bottom line remains the same and the government gets more money from Canadians. There is no point in tax reform which transfers the burden from one group to another group. What Canadians are asking for is real tax relief.

Today in the Montreal Gazette there is an article with the heading “I do not pay my taxes joyfully”. This arose from the fact that Reverend Bill Phipps said we should pay our taxes joyfully. In the article the writer talks about how much tax he had to pay after he did his income tax return. His bottom line, after indirect taxes, service fees and all of the taxes that are taken from his pay cheque, came to 60%. Sixty per cent of our income is going toward taxes. I do not think there is any Canadian who would say that they would joyfully pay 60% of their income toward taxes when they feel there is no return from the federal government.

There was another news item in the paper today saying that when the premiers meet at their annual conference in Montreal, productivity and tax reduction will be at the top of the agenda.

We have heard the business community screaming about high taxes. Now we have the business community, the provinces and Canadians talking about high taxes. I do not know whether my colleagues on the other side, when they go back to their ridings, have constituents coming into their offices talking about high taxes, but they are coming into my office talking about high taxes. Students are talking about high taxes.

Today we have heard government members and the parliamentary secretary giving great facts and figures on how they are addressing this issue. However, nothing has happened in 1998 and 1999 with respect to tax relief. If we were to take their figures, in 1999-2000 the total tax relief will be around $55 million. That is a positive aspect for all Canadians. When we take it further, in the year 2000 we will have bracket creep, which the government does not wish to talk about. The bracket creep will increase and will take more money away from Canadians. They will be paying more taxes than they are now. Where is this tax relief they are talking about?

Then we add to that the CPP increase. No matter what we want to say, the mismanagement of the CPP has resulted in a negative balance and it is a tax that Canadians are paying.

While the government wants to say that it has been addressing the demand for tax relief, more and more Canadians are saying that it is not fair. There is no tax relief for them. There is just a manipulation of accounting procedures. My colleague just spoke about the accounting procedures that the government employed, which everyone is questioning, including the auditor general.

Where is the tax relief that the government talks about? I sat here this morning and heard the many points on tax relief that the government talked about. However, when we look at what is happening out there, tax relief is not there for Canadians. How long will Canadians wait before this government addresses the issue?

We hear from the finance minister that he would like to take a cautious approach. He is keeping money in the contingency fund. Now we see that the surplus will jump from $7 billion to $12 billion. What will the government do with the surplus?

The government likes to put forward the argument that if it gave tax relief the social services which Canadians dearly love, especially health care, would somehow face a crisis. I would say that health care is facing a crisis already because of the cuts the government implemented. Now it is putting money back, but it is only what it took away. What about expansion? Canadians are getting older and older. It is not sufficient to put back the money the government took away. The health care system is looking for more solutions and more money because more and more Canadians are getting older. That is why we have a health care crisis. When huge surpluses are being racked up by this government it is wrong to say that if tax relief is given somehow it will impact the health care system.

There are other areas where the government could cut waste. It has been identified many times in this House that the government could cut taxes and it would have no impact at all on many of the social services and health services we have in this country.

It is interesting that the federal government is the last one to address this issue. The provinces have already started to address the issue of tax cuts. They understand that the burden on the Canadian taxpayer is very heavy. The federal government is the only one that does not seem to realize or understand the feelings of Canadians.

Bill C-72, which the Liberals call a housekeeping bill, we would oppose. We oppose it not because there is no tax relief in it, because we understand that there is some small tax relief, but because it does not address general, overall tax relief for Canadians.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say and I would like to ask him a question.

What is his view of the way the government actually does its accounting? Perhaps he could elaborate on that point.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from the Conservative Party.

He brought one point forward when he said an investment of $1 in early childhood would give dividends. He used the figure of $7 at age 25 as being the benefit to Canada, which is an extremely positive feature. I would like him to take into account the high tech brain drain we are seeing from the country. We probably will lose the $7 with that brain drain.

Now there is a new proposal coming from the finance minister with reference to giving tax breaks through stock options for high tech industries. What would the member's point of view be on this kind of tax break? Would that be the way to go, or would a comprehensive tax reform for every Canadian be a better way to go?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking that question. It is a good question.

Where did this deficit come from? Was it not started by a Liberal government? It initiated this business of deficit spending and the Tories followed. It started over there. Now the Conservative governments are bringing in legislation to stop deficit spending.

My colleague talked about Canadians borrowing money. I forgot that point. He is absolutely right. I have had people in my riding come to me and say that they had to borrow money to pay their taxes. The tax burden on Canadians is pretty high.

Let me cite some statistics. And I will give them statistics, not hot air. The statistics are very simple. Each Canadian taxpayer will be paying $2,020 more in taxes in 1999 than they did in 1993 when the Liberals came into power. Canadian taxpayers will pay $42.1 billion more in taxes than they did when the Liberals came into power. Let us talk about facts.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, talk about the hot air that just blew over from the other corner. He just stood to ask anything. He did not say a single word about what I was talking about.

He talked about deficit reduction. The deficit was reduced on the backs of Canadians. Government did not clean it up. It was cleaned up by high taxes.

He talked about the Ontario Conservatives borrowing money. Let me tell him this. There is no Canadian law, but there is a law in Alberta that governments can no longer have deficits. Do that over there and then we will talk about it.

He talked about being praised around the world. Let us ask the people who are leaving Canada to work in other parts of the world about this business of being praised around the world. Where is this hot air coming from?

He talked about giving mothers a choice. Yes, we should give them a choice. But the government's tax system has created no choice for them. That is the problem. Even I agree that they should be given a choice, but the government has not done that. We know where this hot air is coming from.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

I will give the hon. member some tablets for his indigestion.

The central theme of what I have been saying is that the federal government will have to address the issue of tax relief. It will have to address the issue of smaller government. Get off our backs. That is the bottom line. That is what Canadians are saying. Get off our backs. Become efficient. We have had enough big government and enough high taxes. Now it is time to stop.