Deepak Obhrai

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps we could get unanimous consent to question the minister longer than just the five minutes allotted. Perhaps it could be extended to 10 minutes.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very important question. I agree with him. Only four days ago there was a headline in the Calgary Herald that 6,000 children in Calgary face hunger.

The member is absolutely right when he says the government has failed to address the fundamental issue that is facing Canadian society, which is to give tax breaks to parents who like to stay at home. This has totally been ignored. When Beverly Smith met the minister, the impression she got was that the government was not interested in stay at home parents.

I concur with the hon. member that this is an absolutely important issue. I thank him for bringing it up. We know that the government has yet to do something about that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing that point up.

Again I would like to take this opportunity to advise my colleagues on the other side of the House to look at what the Government of Alberta has come up with, to listen to the voices of Canadians and get off our backs with high taxes. I have given members examples in my speech. They should look at those examples. They are real Canadians who are suffering. The government is sending them into bankruptcy. They must be allowed to work and put food on the table. The government must get off the backs of Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to answer the hon. member's question.

I will dwell on the first point, the child tax benefit. It is amazing that he says the federal government is giving child tax benefits. I tell him it is not in this budget. The government's child tax relief is going to come in 2000 and 2001. Why not now? The member talked about his constituency and what it was looking for. That did not address the issue. It moved it back.

The member in his second question talked about Alberta. I mentioned in my speech that the new tax the Alberta government came up with is uncoupled from the federal government. Why did it decide to uncouple in the year 2000? Alberta is the first province to do it. Other provinces will follow because they do not agree with what the federal government is doing in giving tax relief. Alberta has decided to uncouple from the Liberal government so it can give tax relief to its citizens. That was one of the best things the Government of Alberta did. It has come up with one of the most innovative ideas in this country, a single flat tax rate. This government could learn from Alberta.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation act.

I will start by quoting from today's morning smile in The Globe and Mail . There is a sign at the dry cleaner's which reads “We charge GST, PST, EHT, UIC, WCB and a small fee for cleaning”. A small fee for cleaning. That is the livelihood of that small businessman. That sign talks about the economic conditions in this country.

We are in the middle of the tax season, the time when Canadians realize how much they pay to the government. It is not a pretty picture.

Canadians have been complaining for years, but the government has not listened to them. Now we have economists and tax specialists joining the debate and calling for a reduction of the huge tax burden. There is a fine article today in The Globe and Mail which makes reference to this.

We have to know what is this burden. The burden consists of federal income tax, payroll taxes, provincial taxes, municipal taxes, GST, PST, and the recent phenomenon of user fees, which I call hidden taxes.

Let me dwell on some real examples of what hard working Canadians are facing. Dan Ticcapaugh, a constituent of mine, is a hard working father. He is raising two children. He earned $17,000 last year to feed his family. He paid $2,000 in taxes when he completed his income tax form. His refund came to $97 and his wife's refund came to $150.

He asked me a very simple question. How can the government justify taking taxes from a low income family? I asked the same question. How does the government expect a family of four to survive when such a large portion of their disposable income is taken away? It is no wonder we are hearing of rising child hunger and poverty among our fellow citizens.

I would like also to turn my attention to the plight of small businesses in our country. During the last month I have heard from the owners of three small businesses who have approached me about recent rulings by Revenue Canada. These small business owners put in long hours and try hard to put food on the table for their families. Let me say at the outset that they are also willing to pay their fair share of taxes and have been doing so for years. What is happening to them now?

These individuals run small trucking and cleaning firms. They work hard to get contracts and to sell their services to prospective clients. They also hire people to provide services on a subcontractual basis. It is a fine arrangement that helps both parties to put food on the table. It is not easy for them. They work long, hard hours. They make a small income, enough to provide the basics for their families.

Lo and behold, Revenue Canada enters the picture and says that this arrangement is not right. They say “Sorry, but you have to pay EI. We do not accept these people as being subcontractors”. To make matters, worse it is backdated. Suddenly a successful business is facing a crisis. It is threatened with bankruptcy, which will put people out of work and send them back to welfare.

They have said that this arrangement is the most economical and viable option they have to keep them employed and to put food on the table. They have been forced into this kind of arrangement because of high payroll taxes and taxes that keep going higher and higher.

Instead of helping these people, instead of letting them use their entrepreneurial skills to earn income for their families, the government is forcing them into the hands of creditors.

The government has a huge EI surplus because it has squeezed money out of hard-working Canadians. It is a surplus that has accumulated on the backs of workers and small business owners. Therefore I say to the Minister of Finance, please listen. Listen to what is happening to small businesses and to people.

It is ridiculous to tax people so much that they are forced to go to food banks and welfare. In the end it costs us more. To make matters worse, how do these people feel when they see that while the government is reducing their meagre incomes through taxes it is spending their tax dollars on projects like a tunnel for senators so they are able to go to their offices in comfort and avoid a two minute bus ride? What about the millennium project; spending $140 million on what basically is a party?

Something needs to be done. The time has come for a real tax break, not just cosmetic changes. For years Canadians have been held accountable to pay taxes and they have complied. Now it is the government's turn to show accountability in the way it uses that hard earned tax money. Unfortunately this year's budget contains precious little for Canadians to smile about.

Let me quote what some economists and tax experts are saying. “Our taxes are snuffing out innovation, investment and entrepreneurial spirit”. That is from Sherry Cooper, senior VP and chief economist of Nesbitt Burns. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said “The government has chosen to spend far beyond what it had budgeted for just one year ago. Spending for 1998-99 will come in at a stunning $7.6 billion higher. In 1999-2000 program spending has been set at $111.2 billion, a $4.2 billion increase over the $107 billion projection in last year's budget”.

It seems to me that we cannot get the Liberal government off our backs.

Jeff Rubin, chief economist with Wood Gundy, said “From a tax competitiveness standpoint, Canada ranks dead last in the G-7. While virtually every other G-7 economy lowered its personal income tax burden over the last 15 years, Canada's rose sharply, both as a percentage of GDP and of household income”.

This year's federal budget does not address many issues. It does not address reducing our federal debt. The federal debt today sits at $579.7 billion, which translates into $18,800 per person. The interest payment on the debt is $42.5 billion. It is the largest single government expenditure and translates into $1,400 per person.

My colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill this morning said what she liked about the federal budget. I would like to dwell on the issues we do not think the government has addressed.

It was the usual pay more and receive less budget. The government continues to waste money. From $107 billion it is going to $111 billion. I do not understand why the government cannot get off our backs and allow Canadians to bring prosperity to the country.

There are examples. There is the Ontario government. The Alberta government has decided to uncouple its taxation system that is tied to the federal government. It is the first provincial government to do that. That trend will carry on because they do not see the federal government addressing what Canadians are looking for.

Personal income tax continues to make up the largest share of household spending. In 1997 an average of 21 cents of every dollar of household spending went toward personal income tax, as opposed to 20 cents for shelter, 12 cents for transportation and 11 cents for food. These figures are from Statistics Canada.

The top federal marginal tax rate is reached at less than $60,000 in Canada. In the United States the top rate kicks in at over $200,000. No wonder many of our brightest and best are moving south of the border.

After tax family incomes declined by over 5% in real terms from 1989 to 1996. Personal savings per taxpayer have fallen to an all-time low. Canadian families continue to work harder and harder and find they have less at the end of the month.

The government continues to ignore the critical issue of lowering the debt rapidly. The costs of social programs will rise dramatically early in the 21st century. We will not have the financial means to handle the increase because of the massive debt hanging over us.

Where has this budget failed on social programs? People work harder and pay more income tax. Canadians have heard about tax relief from this minister in past budgets but have seen little happen. Most will find that the basic personal amount remains at $6,456, a pitifully low amount as a basic deduction. Two years from now when we do our taxes for 2000 we will see that the basic deduction has increased by $675 to $7,131. That is probably because it will be election time and the Liberals are starting to hand out small goodies off the table.

Because the basic deduction is not indexed, its value decreases each year by the rate of inflation. Let us assume an inflation rate of 1.5% per year for a total of 3% over the next two years. The value of our deduction declines by $214 and our tax breaks by $36. Suddenly our $115 tax break is worth only $79. Already almost one-third of our promised tax break will have been lost. What have we gained? The government talks about tax relief but grabs it back through deindexing or stealth taxes.

The government has promised that over 200,000 low income Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls this year. Can we trust that promise? As it stands right now, unemployment insurance premiums are too high and with benefits declining, this gives a surplus which basically belongs to Canadian workers and business people. To make matters worse, the finance minister wanted to use this fund to balance the budget.

The government's budget has been totally silent on homelessness. It is a growing problem which the federal government should look at and decide what measures it should take.

What do we have in this budget that is going to take us into the next century? Unfortunately Canadians have nothing to smile about.

The productivity gap is growing. The government's own minister talked about it. As a matter of fact the ministers are fighting over the issue. The standard of living for Canadians is lagging further and further behind the U.S. and other countries. The brain drain continues with an increase in loss of international competitiveness. The government has reduced opportunities for many.

I have indicated in my examples what Canadians are facing and what this government has failed to address. I hope the government will listen to what Canadians and economists are saying.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my colleague very eloquently put forward the views of my party in reference to the budget. I would like to ask her a question.

Recently, that brave lady, Beverly Smith, met with the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. Beverly Smith is a single parent who has been fighting the unfair taxation burden on single parents. She came out of that meeting very disappointed with the impression that the minister is giving lip service to the burden on single parents.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about that meeting. How can we help Beverly Smith bring forward her concerns?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague.

I rise today with a heavy heart to see once again human tragedy happening in the Balkans. When I became a member of parliament I never thought I would debate a situation where Canadian troops were engaged in combat.

With the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the desire of those who were oppressed either politically or economically rose to ask for freedom and autonomy so that they could control their own destiny. However, dictators and those leaders living in the past have been using old repressive methods to control these aspirations.

We have had many hot spots in the world. Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan are a few that come to mind. However the way the world has responded to these tragedies has raised eyebrows and created an uneasiness.

Today the skies over Yugoslavia are light with trails of missiles and rows of fighter aircraft. The ground in Kosovo is on fire and soaking with the blood of the innocent. It is a scenario that no one wanted to see.

I question whether it was necessary to go to war. Just because the dictator Milosevic did not sign the peace accord, was it necessary to use force to bring him to the table? I have heard arguments on both side but I am still skeptical.

Today a large number of lives have been lost. Over half a million refugees are living in horrifying conditions. The country of Yugoslavia is losing its infrastructure. That will hurt the innocent population in years to come. Is this not a very heavy price to pay?

That is why we are asking whether the bombing of Yugoslavia was the right strategy. I have heard lots of arguments on both sides. Let me say both sides have been quite convincing, but somehow I remain convinced that there could have been a better course of action.

In my view NATO has been responding to the situation as it is arising and not with a well thought plan. I am afraid that NATO has played into the hands of this ruthless leader.

My party is supporting the current strategy of NATO. As facts stand now, it seems that we have put ourselves into a corner. I agree that under no circumstances can we let Milosevic win, or there will be no peaceful future for mankind. Hence our support for the current NATO strategy.

Nevertheless we must ask some hard questions. Today polls are indicating that Canadians are favouring ground force intervention because they cannot stand the plight of the refugees. Actually who can stand the plight of the refugees and what we see on our television screens? It is horrifying. The plight of the Kosovars have touched the hearts of all. We want to see this tragedy end soon.

Military analysts are suggesting ground troops for a quick end to this misery. However I would like to caution that bombing was supposed to help bring Milosevic to the table, and 20 days later they are still bombing. They were supposed to be no refugees, and today we have over half a million refugees. We know Milosevic is a ruthless leader with no heart, but the tragedy is that the Kosovars are paying the price.

I understand we cannot stand idly by. The Rwanda crisis indicated that we cannot stand idly by. Hence the support my party has reluctantly given to the bombing of Yugoslavia. Perhaps it is time to take a pulse and open up a new front which I would like to call a diplomatic front or a diplomatic war.

Canada is in a position to take a leadership role. Canada can start by sending our diplomats to world capitals. Canada can campaign to get world leaders to descend on Belgrade.

Let us kick diplomatic sense into Milosevic. If he is not willing to listen, then we can seek out other Serb leaders. We must point out to them that the world will not stand for the atrocities that have been committed by the current leadership in Serbia. I am sure we will find Serb leaders who are willing to listen.

We can kick-start the UN into action. The UN is proving to be ineffective. It was ineffective in Rwanda. It has become ineffective in Yugoslavia. How long is the UN going to remain an ineffective organization? Let us kick-start the UN into action. The way the security council is designed it can use its veto. Nevertheless, we owe it to future generations to put all our effort into kick-starting the UN, otherwise it will become irrelevant in future world events.

We have heard from numerous speakers here, but let us get Russia involved. Why Russia? Because of Russia's special ties with Yugoslavia. Perhaps we can entice Russia with the carrot of economic aid.

Let us explore the options. There are a lot of options. We owe it to the international community to restart the diplomatic offensive.

Having said that, I salute the troops who are helping the refugees, those who are doing peacekeeping duties and those who are risking their lives over Yugoslavia to bring peace. We are proud of our soldiers.

We have heard of the special place Kosovo is for Serbia. I also heard from a U.S. general that Serbs can withstand pain to achieve an objective. I beg to differ on both points. While Kosovo may hold a special place for Serbia, Kosovo also holds a special place for the ethnic Albanians who call Kosovo their home. This is what the Serbians must understand. The Kosovars are citizens of Yugoslavia as well.

NATO has come up with the new proposal to call it a protectorate. Some of these proposals, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the creation of this protectorate infringe on international law.

I conclude by saying I hope and pray there will not be another debate in this House on the issue of Canada's involvement in a war.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that some of the interest groups to which she has been giving money are fine, but she has also been wasting money on other interest groups like EGALE.

My question is quite simple. We agree with her that there has to be rehabilitation. The justice committee said that under the new act the age should be reduced to 10. Why did her government ignore that?

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague across the floor. Before I ask her a question I would say that we agree with the concept there has to be rehabilitation, and that is where the government cut money.

We also understand that a message has to be sent. The government has had tons of opportunity to bring forward good legislation. Even the Minister of Justice has said that the Young Offenders Act was legislation in need of an overhaul, and it took a long time.

You talk about special interest groups and you talk about giving—

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Prince George.

I would like to ask the member about the problem of break and enter which is becoming quite prevalent in Canada. In light of the fact that the revised Young Offenders Act was presented, I would like to have his opinion on why he thinks this was left out.