Dick Harris

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for reminding me—and I certainly agree with him—that it is not only a sacrifice, but there is real value and reward in having one parent stay at home if a family can make that sacrifice.

I agree with the other points that he made as well. The fact is, today we are talking about the Liberal government and the penalty which it has imposed, the levy it has heaped upon families who choose to have one parent stay at home and a single income. That is the motion today.

The other comments that he made I am sure we will deal with as this parliament goes along. I thank him for his support of the motion.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first respond to an assertion made by the member for Mississauga South. I sort of agree with his line of thinking. He said that families choose to have a parent stay at home for reasons other than tax benefits, in particular family values and decisions they have made about the worth of having a parent stay at home. I absolutely agree with the member if that is what he believes. I am sure the member for Calgary—Nose Hill agrees with that. It is not a tax driven decision when parents make that decision. We can agree on that.

I want the member to also agree with me given the clear evidence in his tax policies that once a family has made the decision to have a stay at home parent in a single income family that the tax system of this Liberal government, the member's government, then penalizes it for that decision. That is what it is about. It is about the penalty the Liberal tax regime imposes on two parent families that choose to have one parent working in the workplace at home raising the kids because of values and decisions and one parent out working in the general workplace outside the home. The government penalizes them for that decision.

Let us agree on that. We can agree that it is a decision made by the family in the best interest of the family. We can all agree on that. If we can agree on that then we have to agree, given the evidence in the Liberal tax policies, that a family of four that chooses to have one parent stay at home with a single earner income of $55,000 a year is penalized to the tune of some $4,000. That is the whole point of this.

Let us not be confused by all the rhetoric we heard from the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women who I believe is completely out of touch with the ambitions, the goals and the dreams of the average Canadian family. She verifies that statement every time she stands to speak in the House.

My personal opinion, although I know it is shared by many Canadians, is this tax discrimination, this tax penalty does not stand alone as sort of a single thought. I believe it is part of an overall scheme of social engineering that began back in the mid 1960s with the hero of these Liberals, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. No other person in this country set out to purposely destroy the family as we know it as Pierre Elliott Trudeau did. He alone was the driving force that has fuelled the Liberal government's scheme to initially drive the second parent out of the household, to separate that second parent from the responsibilities and the ability to nurture and guide their children in the values that made this country strong in the first place.

It is far more than this penalty. This is a continuation of a social engineering plan put in place by the Liberal government under Trudeau back in the mid 1960s. This government is carrying on that social engineering plan very well.

Why does it not want a parent at home? If there is not a parent at home, if both parents are working, it takes away from the time the children have with their parents to look to them for guidance. It takes away from the strength of the family. It takes away the togetherness of the family unit, the strongest building block we have in our society. At one time we had far more building blocks, far more family units than we have now.

The member from Mississauga South agrees with us. He knows families with a stay at home parent on a single income are discriminated against by the government. I will tell the House how he knows it. He said it. He agreed with us. He said on July 22, 1998, and he will remember this: “The bold reality is that our Income Tax Act does discriminate against families that choose to provide direct parental care”. His Liberal colleagues are all shaking their heads saying how could he make such an outlandish statement. I believe that if the member from Mississauga South looks into his heart he knows about the value of the whole part of our argument. He knows we are right.

The problem is with the majority of his colleagues. I say majority because there are some members who do not because of their beliefs hold positions of any great authority in that government. If there are free thinkers in the Liberal caucus, if there are members who cling to some traditional values, they do not get very far in that government. I congratulate the member for Mississauga South, even though his talk is a little confusing today, and probably a half dozen or more in that government who have had the courage to stand up for their deepest held convictions. Mr. Speaker, you know the value of standing up for your deepest held convictions. I know you appreciate those few members in that party who do as well.

The real nut and bolt in this thing is the tax penalty, the fine, the levy, the increased tax burden placed on two parent, single income families. That is the whole point of it.

There is a severe penalty to pay if any Canadian family makes the decision to have one parent in the workplace and one parent at home. There is a single income. There is a severe penalty to pay.

It seems to every logical, common sense, grassroots, ordinary Canadian to be a travesty, to be an injustice in this country that this government would lay that upon a family which makes the decision to have a parent stay at home to raise the kids while the other parent is out earning a living.

Just think of the sacrifice that parents make when they make that choice. There could be two parents who are capable of earning, say, $50,000 a year each because they have gone to school. They have an education. They have training. That is $100,000 in gross income they could be bringing into the household. But they say no because the nurturing, the guidance, the care of their children is more important. One of them will stay at home. That is a tremendous sacrifice they make from a financial point of view.

Then they find, after they have made that decision, that the Liberal government imposes a penalty on them on top of what they have already given up. I cannot believe the insanity of whatever weird logic the government used in that decision.

I cannot and I will not, when this motion of ours comes to a vote, understand any government member who votes against it. I will not understand the logic of any member of parliament in this House who votes against this motion.

Our party and this member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley will stand up for Canadian families in this House now and forever.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hope the member talks about should be the hope of the millions of Canadians who have been driven into the ground by the oppressive tax regime of this Liberal government. That is the hope the Reform Party holds out for Canadians, that some day when this government is replaced by a fiscally responsible government, by a government that recognizes the hard work and the sacrifice made by hardworking Canadians, we will give them the tax relief this government will not.

We want to talk not in rhetoric as the previous members did but in facts. Let us look at the Liberal record since 1993.

Since 1993 the average working Canadian has seen his paycheque decrease by over $2,200 in increased taxes, increased taxes per Canadian worker.

The average Canadian household has seen a decrease in disposable income by over $4,000. That is over $4,000 that families cannot spend on food and clothing and education, let alone try to save any money.

We have also seen the overall taxes increased by this government by 40—

[Taxation, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all the mothers who are staying home looking after their families will be very happy with the minister's remarks.

The fact is women who stay home to look after their families and parents who stay at home work as hard as those who are in the workforce, but the government does not give them one bit of credit for it. As a matter of fact it charges them for the sacrifice they make to stay home to look after their families.

What kind of government has that little respect for stay at home parents?

[Taxation, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has had two days to answer questions from our party about single income versus dual income families.

The fact is that since day one the government has discriminated against single income families. The single income family will pay more than double in taxes what a dual income family making the same income will pay in this year's budget.

Why does the government continue to discriminate against single income families in Canada?

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to inform the member that raising his voice does not make his story any more believable.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

As a matter of fact the Reform Party has put forward many times that if we were in power, and we will be in power, there would be no family with a household income of under $30,000 paying any tax whatsoever. There would be zero tax for a $30,000 household income. That is what we would do.

We would lower the taxation rates for the hardworking Canadians out there. They would have more money in their pockets to spend into the economy. That would bring more revenue into the government coffers which would allow us to give more services to the poor families the member talked about.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her rhetoric. However these are the facts. On that side of the street lives the Smith family: two parents and two children. One parent works. The total household income is $60,000. On this side of the street is the Jones family: two parents and two children with both parents working. Their total income is $60,000.

The Jones family pays $4,000 more in taxes than the Smith family on that side of the street. The same size family, the same annual income, same street, same house and they even drive the same car, but they pay $4,000 more than the family on this side of the street because of the government's discriminatory tax policies against families that choose to have one income and one parent staying home.

That is the fact. All the rhetoric in the world put forward by that member cannot dispute that. Where did I get the numbers from? It was from the finance minister's own budget. That is where the numbers came from.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is looking forward to this presentation today. I know he will listen to what I have to say about the budget and take the message to the finance minister and his party.

It has been said that the Liberal government has truly and rightfully earned the title as the pay more, get less government of all time. In all of Canadian history there has been no government that has picked the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer, the individual, small business and large business as has this Liberal government.

No matter what the finance minister said a couple of days ago in his great budget speech, these are the facts. Canadians since 1993 have consistently, every year of this government, paid more in taxes and received less in services.

Here are some numbers. Average Canadian taxpayers are now paying annually over $2,000 more in personal income taxes than they paid in 1993 when the government was elected. These are the people who are out spending their earnings in the marketplace trying to create a growing economy. The average Canadian household income has shrunk by over $4,000 since 1993. Let us imagine taking $4,000 out a household income. One year it is there and five years later it is gone. That is what the government has done to Canadian families.

As well, the government is responsible for the highest increase in payroll taxes for workers and employers than any other government in the history of the country.

We will see Canada pension plan premiums increase by a whopping 73% over the next few years. And guess what? When the current generation in their early twenties and thirties retire, having paid the full 73% increase at least for now, they will get less money. There might be more increases coming down the road. I hope not. Having paid that massive increase through their entire working lives, they will get less money in Canada pension benefits than someone who has paid the lower amount, lower than the 73% amount. That is the legacy of the government.

Average workers and employers are paying far more in EI premiums than necessary. That is another payroll tax. The EI commissioner has clearly said that the government is scooping an additional $7 billion out of the EI fund that it is not entitled to. It is simply not entitled to it. Why does it not just give it back?

One thing that really aggravates hard working Canadians is the war on the two parent, single income family begun many years ago by the hero of the Liberal Party, Pierre Trudeau. It is continuing today under this Liberal government.

The average two parent, single income family with a $60,000 income, that is one parent working and two children, will pay for the privilege of having one parent stay home to nurture the children, to help to steer them in the direction within the belief of the family, over $4,000 more in income tax than a two parent, two income family with two children earning the same $60,000. In other words, if a family earns $60,000 with one parent working and one parent staying home, they pay $4,000 more than if both parents were working earning the same $60,000 and had two children.

One has to ask why the government continues this war against the family. Why is the government so determined to drive every last stay at home parent out of the house and into the workforce? Why is the government so determined through its discriminatory taxation regime to ensure that children growing up do not have at least one parent at home to help in their formative years and through their teen years into adulthood? Why is the government through its taxation regime so determined to do that? I do not know.

It has been suggested that some sort of social engineering is going on. It has been suggested that the Liberal government with its socialist philosophy has figured out that a family unit has strength and as long as that family unit is together the strength is present and the government cannot get its clutches on those kids. It wants to break up families, get rid of the parents, get them out working, put the kids in day care and make free thinkers out of them so that it can come in with its philosophy and teach the kids what the world looks like through the eyes of a Liberal.

I do not say it lightly when I say there is a war against the family. It was started back in the days of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, when he brought in tax regimes that literally forced the second parent out of the home and into the workforce so that they could maintain the same standard of living. It was not to increase their standard of living but to maintain the same standard of living.

What is this master plan the Liberals have had for so many years? We do not know their real agenda, whether it is social engineering or whatever. However, we do know that what they have been doing is very real. It has been very effective in getting both parents into the workforce through their discriminatory tax regimes.

I can speak on behalf of many families who have made sacrifices while raising their children in order to have one parent stay home to be with the family. It happened in our family and it happened in many other families of people whom I know very well. They say it is no longer a privilege to stay home and raise the kids. It is a true sacrifice because one has to give up so many other things to have that ability.

It makes me very angry when I look at the budget to find some relief for the two parent, single income families and it simply is not there. There is over $4,000 difference in taxes between those two examples simply because one parent stays at home and one works or they both go out to work. It is discriminatory. We had hoped the government would address it and it has not.

I say to all the families out there with one parent at home and one income that we will keep the fight up. We will keep the pressure on the government and sooner or later it will recognize the value of mothers or parents who stay home to be with their kids.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Macleod for his very well delivered and factual presentation on this budget. He is a particular expert in the area of health care, being a licenced physician for many years.

I would like to ask a question of the member. The government has indeed promised to put $11.5 billion back into health care funding which brings it back to the 1995 level. This is over a five year period.

Demographics clearly show that we have an aging population. As well, as we grow older our demands on the health care system dramatically increase. Five years from now when the $11.5 billion is used up, will the aging population create a demand on the health care system such that we will find ourselves right where we started again because of the increased demand on the health care system? Is there any chance, given the way we are moving to a greater dependency on health care, the 200,000 waiting list has any hope of being shrunk under this Liberal formula?