Deepak Obhrai

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very nice poem and I commend the Bloc member for reading it to the House.

What does the hon. member feel is the reason that the government is not willing to put this debate to a vote for the members of parliament? Is it afraid at this point that we will be questioning its commitment, or does the member think the government will bring the debate forward after it is committed, should it ever come to that situation? Hopefully it will not? What would be her opinion?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. minister. The minister indicated that the House has debated the question of Kosovo seven times. The question that we are asking today is very simple. The Canadian people elected members of parliament to this place. Why are the Liberals afraid to put the question when we commit ground troops to a fighting force? Why are the Liberals scared to put the same question to the House of Commons?

The minister said that good government should lead. I would remind the minister that the Liberals were elected with approximately 38%. Therefore, my question to the minister is: Why not let the Canadian parliament vote on the question?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what my colleague said. I was quite moved by many of the comments she made. I know her personally and I think she put her point of view forward very well.

When she started her comments, she said that we have to be very careful as to what we say and to make the right decision here. Would she not think it is right for parliament to debate and for parliamentarians to be held responsible by their constituents if in the future, not now but in the future, Canada is going to commit ground forces, its soldiers, in the war? Does she not think it is the right of parliament and parliamentarians to debate and vote on that issue?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is very happy to see that the minister has responded with immediate aid to alleviate the suffering that has taken place, which, as we have seen on our television screens, is horrific. I also thank the minister for having contact with the NGOs.

We have already spent $22 million in trying to alleviate suffering. When the minister of immigration announced that 5,000 refugees would be coming in, the estimated cost was over $100 million. It is understandable that the High Commission for Refugees has said that the Kosovar refugees should stay within the region.

What does the hon. minister anticipate? Is she satisfied with the way things are going and, if not, how much more does she think Canada can commit to aid and ensuring that the refugees have at least a reasonable standard of living in those regions?

[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?