Dick Harris

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary East for the question. It raises another question. Why does the finance minister not recognize particularly middle income Canadians and the terrible tax burden they are under? If he is going to give tax relief on the stock options to the high tech people, why is he singling them out for special favouritism? Why is he doing that? If he believes in tax relief, why does he not reflect it with a policy and program that is going to give broad based tax relief to working Canadians, particularly those in the middle class?

It is shameful that the finance minister would consider a proposal like that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elk Island for the question. I think it raises another very serious question. If the Liberal government has paid the $30 billion, that is fine, but where did it get it from? Where did it come up with $30 billion.

I suspect the government has already taken the $30 billion out of the public service pension fund. Let me say that again. Has the government already taken the $30 billion out of the public service pension fund without bringing it forward to the House first in some form of a bill that would allow them to do it?

Maybe the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader can tell us—and this would be scary in itself—whether the government can simply scoop that $30 billion without bringing it to the House for a vote, a vote which of course the Liberal majority would ram through anyway?

Can the government simply take that $30 billion without bringing it before the House? I pose that as a question to the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam was making too much noise for the hon. member to really understand what I was saying.

We are talking about total household incomes. The money comes into only one place, whether it is earned by one parent or two in that family. The family on one side of the street happen to have two parents working with a total household income of $40,000. The family living on the other side of the street, the Smith Family, have only one parent working but also have a total household income of $40,000. No family is making more money than the other.

The Liberals do not understand that the disposable income left in the hands of the $40,000 one income family after the taxman gets hold of the paycheque is about $3,500 less to buy shoes for the kids, to put food on the table, to buy clothes and school supplies and to send their kids to what little recreation they are able to afford. That is the tax discrimination I was talking about. I do not know why the member did not understand that. There is no difference in household income.

The difference is the discrimination that comes when the tax man comes a-calling on their gross paycheque. Why should this family, when they have one parent at home but the same income as the other one, be dinged an extra $3,500 or so, simply because they have made sacrifices to have one parent at home to help full time in the guidance of bringing up the children? Who can argue against that? Only the Liberals can.

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

—Her Majesty's Official Opposition, the party that returned here in 1997 with 60 seats. Despite the forecast and predictions of the Liberals that we would be wiped out, we are back in the official opposition position.

Our party could never support Bill C-72 because it represents everything that is detrimental to a buoyant economy. It has been well said by economists in the country that were it not for our export market, our country would be in serious problems because we do not have a domestic economy.

We should be very thankful that the U.S. is so buoyant right now. Its consumption of so much of our Canadian goods and services is giving our economy a bit of a boost. Why is it able to help us by buying our products? It is because its economy is booming. Why is it booming? It is because its tax levels are far lower in every area than they are in this country. We will unequivocally oppose Bill C-72.

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

Is it not amazing that when the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam comes into the House and listens to reasoned rational debate which he has no answer for, his only response can be incoherent babble. If the hon. member really wants to find out what his government is doing rather than simply what it tells him, he might listen to the debate that is coming forth.

It was also interesting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talk about the raising of the tax exemption for firefighters and volunteers from $500 to $1,000. That is good and we certainly support that.

It is interesting to note that since 1994 the government has taken another $2,200 in personal income taxes out of the pockets of the firefighters and other volunteers who serve our citizens so well. It has taken another $2,200 in net personal taxes from the firefighters and then it has turned around and given them another $500 in tax exemptions, which would be worth maybe about $200 or $300 in actual net taxes. The firemen after six years of Liberal government are still at a net tax deficit of around $1,800. Would it not be nice if it had left the paycheques of the firefighters alone?

The government has an insatiable appetite for taxing Canadians. We are as you well know, Mr. Speaker, the country with the highest personal income tax in all the G-8 countries. I know you are aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and I know that it really rubs against the grain of your fiscal conservative thinking. I know that you are a free enterpriser, Mr. Speaker. I know you hate income tax. I know you can hardly stand it when you are in that chair listening to the government talk about how good it is to the Canadian taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with your job when you have that bunch standing up in the House today talking about just how tax friendly they are to Canadians.

The government has never yet addressed the question of the unfair taxation of Canadian families, particularly two parent families who have one single income in the household. The other day I pointed out one example and I will do so again for the benefit of the Liberals who have trouble understanding things when they are told just once.

On one side of the street lives the Jones family: two parents, two kids and two incomes. On the other side of the street lives the Smith family: two parents, two kids and one income. Both families earn a household income of $60,000 a year. Everything is the same except one household has two jobs.

The big difference is that the Smith family has made sacrifices because they have realized that in their particular case there is value in having a parent at home to help on a full time basis with the guidance of the children. Because they have made that decision they will pay about $5,000 more in personal income taxes than the Jones family who live on the other side of the street.

We are not saying that either side has made the wrong decision or the right decision. It was their decision to make. What we want to know is why the so-called Canadian, family friendly government thinks it is fair to penalize the Smith family with one parent staying at home to the tune of $5,000 each and every year out of their income tax?

The government has not addressed that yet. That is tax discrimination of one of the very worst kinds. Most members know what I am talking about even if the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is still having problems figuring out what day of the week it is.

The Liberals have an unfair, unclear, incomprehensible and unacceptable tax code. Canadians have been looking to the government for some sort of tax relief. Middle income Canadians, who are by far the biggest supporters to the personal tax revenue the government grabs every year, have not had a tax break and are still waiting.

Middle income families have contributed about 70% to the personal income tax of the government. They are wondering why they are still being penalized while everyone else is getting a tax break. They want to know why wealthy Canadians and poorer Canadians get a tax break but middle income Canadians do not.

The message is that the government really is not the caring government that it says it is.

Unfortunately, despite two sterling examples in the country, the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, the government has not realized, despite examples from all over the world and particularly in the United States, that there is a direct connection between high tax levels and high unemployment as well as a direct connection between low tax levels, low unemployment and a buoyant economy.

The provinces of Alberta and Ontario have given tax relief to their working residents and their economies have boomed. More jobs have been created in Ontario. The biggest portion of jobs that the Liberal government likes to crow about were created in the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, the very two provinces that gave their residents real and substantial tax breaks. The government stands up and takes the credit for that. That is insane. Has it no shame?

The provinces with the lowest unemployment in the country are the ones that have given their residents substantial tax relief. They have done it and have still allowed for increased spending in education and in health care.

Mr. Klein in Alberta and Mr. Harris in Ontario have done well. I know Mike Harris will be the winner in this coming Ontario election because he has lived up to his promises. He has a very buoyant economy. He has had to address the health care and education problems created by the NDP under the leadership of Bob Rae when he was the premier. The problems fell into Mike Harris' basket after the people of Ontario threw out the NDP and their disastrous performers. I just cannot wait until June 3 when we will see Mike Harris, the tax cutting premier of Ontario, returned as premier again.

The Liberals still do not get the message. They do not know the direct correlation between low taxes, low unemployment and a buoyant economy. Our party has a lot of problems with the way Liberals run the finances of the country.

I was in Port Moody—Coquitlam not too long ago and met with some of the people who voted for the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. They told me how glad they were that their former mayor was now in Ottawa. They said they were very happy to see him leave town. They also said that they had not cared what party he was running for, they voted for him to get him out of town. They were just beaming because he was not the mayor anymore and he was a long way from Port Moody—Coquitlam.

Bill C-72 is not representative of a government that really cares about the tax levels of the Canadian people. Our party—

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says it is down from $3.05. That is good. I am glad they brought it down from $3.05 to $2.55. The fact is they suddenly stopped. They stopped within 55 cents per $100 of what the EI commissioner said was sufficient to maintain the EI fund as well as to provide for a rainy day fund in case there was a dramatic decrease in the economy and more people were claiming benefits. It is still several billions of dollars ahead of what is required to sustain the fund and provide for EI benefits.

While we are on the subject, the Liberal government has cut benefits to EI payees, to the workers in Canada. It has cut benefits by almost 40%. Almost 40% of the benefits that were available to workers in Canada before the government came to power in 1993 have been eliminated. Millions of Canadian workers are still paying the price for the plan they had in 1993 but the benefits of the plan have been cut by about 40% by the government. That is one of the ways the Liberals managed to eliminate the deficit and of course it is another tax increase.

Now the Liberals are planning on scooping, I think the number is about $30 billion, from the public service pension fund. One has to ask if this government simply has no shame when it comes to scooping money. These funds were contributed, yes by the government, but in good part by the public servants themselves who work for the government.

The government says no, it has this surplus and it is not going to use it to enhance the retirement benefits of the public servants. Rather it is going to take it all out of there because after all, it is in its bank so it can do it. That is a pretty high-handed attitude from this Liberal government which has always claimed that it is a government which is there to represent the people and to reflect in its policies the wishes of the Canadian people.

I see the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is in the audience. I am glad he is because obviously he needs as much exposure to debate in the House as he can possibly get so he can catch up to the rest of us.

What we have here is a give them a dime take another dollar type of government. This government is like someone who will take the whole jug of water away from someone who is about to embark on a desert trip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-72. The title of the bill is sort of scary in itself. Bill C-72 is an act to amend the Income Tax Act and implement measures announced in the February 1998 budget.

It scares the pants off me whenever the government starts talking about income tax changes and implementing its budget proposals. What was even more frightening was when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talked about the fact that this was just not a one year approach, that the government's approach back in 1993-94 was going to be a continuing approach. It certainly has been.

We saw the tax increases by the Liberal government start in 1994. At that time we gave it the benefit of the doubt. We thought maybe just for that year we would see the income tax increases the government was proposing, but in fact we have seen them every year since the Liberals have been in power. The parliamentary secretary has certainly given credibility to the tax increase plan the government had back in 1994 when he said that it was not a one year approach.

I am sure the Canadian people have a little bit of a problem with the income tax increases that have been brought in by the government since 1994. As a matter of fact, there has been almost $40 billion of increased taxation since the government came in. That was brought about by some 38 or 39 individual tax increases.

To see the members of the Liberal government stand and talk about tax decreases or tax relief is a shock in itself. It makes one wonder what kind of horror movies they have been watching that would demand this huge turnaround in their thinking, which we cannot take with much credibility anyway.

The other frightening thing the parliamentary secretary said this morning was that the government has eliminated the deficit and that it is not borrowing any more to balance the books. The Liberal line is “We do not borrow any more; we have eliminated the deficit”.

The real story is the Liberals have raided the EI premium surplus fund to the tune of well over $20 billion. They have simply taken the money despite the fact that the current premium of $2.55 per $100 of earnings has been described as being far too high by their own people within the EI commission. The EI commissioner has clearly said that a premium of $2.00 per $100—

[Banking, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the country and particularly those in the financial services industry wait, and wait and wait for the finance minister's response to the MacKay task force report, the uncertainty within the industry continues to grow.

I want to ask the secretary of state if he can tell us exactly when the finance minister is going to respond so that we can end this uncertainty and speculation within the financial services industry? Exactly when is he going to report?

[Banking, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's delay in his response to the MacKay task force report is causing a lot of uncertainty and speculation in the country. One speculation is that the finance minister will soon allow banks to sell life annuities through their retail branches.

I want to ask the secretary of state if Canadians are in fact about to see their local banks selling life insurance annuities?

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was listening to the comments of the parliamentary secretary and I would like to advise members to move away from him because I am sure lightning is going to strike.