Dick Harris

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the fact is, to use the words of the finance minister, that since 1993 the Liberal government has ripped seven and a half billion dollars out of the health care and education systems. Now it is looking for the crown of heroes for putting a billion and a half back. That is a net loss of six billion dollars. The government is putting the money back by specifically targeting it for pure political means.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the old Liberal arithmetic is going full force over there.

The member absolutely knows that the millennium fund is a trophy for the outgoing prime minister. It is going to benefit only 6% of the students in this country. What about the other 94% who will not be able to take part in it? For those 6% it does benefit, the tax increases this government has put in have ensured it will get back every single penny and more from those 6% once they start their jobs. That is the fact.

Let us also look at the economy. The one thing the Liberals do not get as far as building a healthy economy is that there is a undeniable direct link between lower tax regimes and lower unemployment and an economic growth. There is a direct link. Countries with low or even reasonable tax regimes have much lower unemployment than we have in Canada and they have a healthier economy that is growing at a better rate than Canada's. These Liberals do not get that because it is not in their philosophy to give a reasonable tax regime to Canada. They do not get it.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Surrey Central.

It is interesting that the member across the way just finished talking about this tax relief for business in regard to the EI premiums. I can tell the hon. member that I was in business for over 25 years as a small businessman and I never hired one single person because there was some money available from the government. I hired additional people because I thought that my business could improve and make money by having more staff. So these government programs that the hon. member is talking about really are not a big incentive for businesses to expand. I want her to know that, particularly in the small business sector where the small businessman has to be very cautious in his approach to expanding, and I have that experience.

I am pleased to speak to the budget today. I have done a reasonable amount of travelling in my life in Canada, in the U.S. and in some other countries of the world. What struck me when I was travelling outside of Canada was how people from some other parts of the world believe that Canada is a caring country, a country that looks after its citizens.

Today, across the House, is a government that claims to have the best interests of Canadians at heart. In the last few months I have talked to Canadians from all parts of Canada, all walks of life, all sectors of employment and I have noticed one thing, and that is that they simply do not buy this line about a caring Liberal government.

After decades of massive overspending, helped on by their brothers and sisters in the Tory party, massive debt, the highest tax rate among industrialized countries in the world, after seeing education costs skyrocket, after massive tax hikes that the Canadian people have endured, after watching our health care system crumble like ancient ruins, after all this there is no way that this government can sell this idea that they care about the citizens of this country. This budget will simply harden and strengthen this opinion that they are not the caring government that they claim to be.

Let me start at an obvious point: our children. A caring party would see children as the key to Canada's future. It would want to make sure that they get the very best start in life possible. A caring party would make the families of these children the highest priority in a budget, but the Liberal budget does not do this.

For instance, the increase in the child tax benefit will not replace the billions of dollars in cuts to health care and education that families are having to face now. It will not even begin to lift our poor families out of poverty because the increase in benefits, as small as they are, will be taken back through increased taxes.

For example, the 15% in income for a $21,000 income a year two child family is taken back by their income tax burden, up 15% since 1992. The increases in the child care expense deduction will not help families much either, especially—and these were overlooked—single income families where one parent chooses to stay home to look after the children. This government treats single income stay at home parents as second class families in this country. The official opposition, the Reform Party, would end this discrimination by extending the child care deduction to all parents, including stay at home parents. In short, Reformers would make staying at home to raise children a choice, not a sacrifice. That is what Canadians want more. They want to have choices and they want the freedom and the tools to do it. Reformers would also increase the spousal amount from $5,380 to $7,900, levelling the playing field for all parents, all families.

Our policies in the Reform Party put families first because they deserve to be first, and certainly they should be first in a budget by this so-called caring Liberal government. But these things are not in this government's budget.

Children grow up fast. The first thing you know, they are off to college and university. Does the Liberal budget help a young Canadian currently with a $25,000 student loan debt? If the student is maybe one of the lucky 6% to get the maximum each year from the Prime Minister's personal trophy, the millennium fund, their outstanding debt would go down to $10,000. At first glance that looks good.

That is fine until they go out and get a job and they are finished university. If they happen to be making the average industrial wage of $36,900, then whatever help they may have got through the millennium fund is quickly eaten up by the tax burden they are going to have to endure as soon as they start working.

Students do get a little tax relief on the debt, but it is quickly eaten up because over the next 12 years they would pay a 73% CPP tax increase, they would pay every cent and more back to the government that they ever got from the millennium fund and they would still have the leftover portion of the student loan.

What we are talking about here is sleight of hand budgeting by the Liberal Party. On one hand the government gives to students and on the other hand it takes it back. That is what this budget represents. What we have here when you do all the math is a zero net benefit to our Canadian students.

Looked at this way, the millennium fund is sleight of hand funding for students. It helps only about 6% and it leaves the current students with heavy debt loads simply out in the cold.

The official opposition has a lot more compassion for the younger generation than this so-called caring Liberal government. As a start, we would restore health care and education funding by putting $4 billion back into it, not the $1.5 billion that the Liberals have so generously said they were going to. We would put $4 billion back into it.

This will do a lot more for the students and the Canadians worrying about their health care than the millennium fund or the small amount of the $7 billion that the Liberals have cut from health care and education in the last three years.

Canadians wanted a budget that has some compassion for the seniors in our country. When it comes to overspending, patronage or pork-barrelling, these Liberal governments can never be accused of dragging their feet, but somehow they missed the seniors.

This budget offers no benefits for Canada's seniors. Two years ago the Liberals announced the new seniors benefit proposals. Two years later, now, seniors are still waiting to find out what it is all about. Two years later, seniors are still wondering how it is going to affect their retirement plans. When the seniors benefit kicks in, if it does, seniors will be looking at it, wondering what it has been all about because there has been precious little released on it.

They do not know how to plan for their retirement appropriately to work into the new seniors benefits because they do not know what is in store for them. They are angry and afraid. For instance, this great benefit will not even begin to help the poorest seniors. It will provide them with a scant 17 cents a day in increased benefits and that is not enough to buy a cup of coffee in this country.

At the same time, this being zero help to the poor seniors, the benefit discriminates against the middle income and upper income seniors by taxing back up to 75% of their personal retirement savings that they have sacrificed and put away so they can be secure in their retirement.

What it means is that the poorest seniors will not benefit and the seniors who make sacrifices in their working career will be penalized for doing so.

So this is the heart of the matter. Canadians expected a budget that would respect the challenges and the sacrifices they have made in their lives. They wanted a budget that tells them that the government appreciates the challenges they face and thanks them for the sacrifices they make; for the young boy up on his father's shoulders looking around believing every dream was possible; for the students up late at night studying, trying to make their dreams possible; for the mid-career Canadians hoping for their dream of a secure retirement; for the seniors who have had their dream of retirement with dignity shattered. Where in the budget are the dreams of Canadians? There are no dreams, only nightmares.

There are high taxation levels, promises of debt reduction that have been broken and increased spending programs that give ample evidence that the tax and spend days of the Liberals are back again. The only thing that happened was that Canadians woke up to the reality that this Liberal government is not the caring government it claims to be.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, only Liberal arithmetic could talk about this budget as being a benefit to Canadians.

As a matter of fact, if you look at the budget very carefully—which we have done and they obviously have not—you will see that because of the budget there is no net gain for Canadians. In fact, there is a net detriment to Canadians to the effect of $4.8 billion in increased taxes by the year 2000 since the Liberals came to poewr.

I want to specifically go back to the health care issue of which the member is so proud. The fact is that the Liberals have cut $7.5 billion out of health care and education since 1993. They are putting $1.5 billion back into it. That is a net loss of $6 billion.

Even the NDP party can figure out that is a net loss. Why can the Liberal Party not figure that out?

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

The arrogance. Good word. Have we got some more here? We could go on and on. I should have a thesaurus here. We could have a lot of fun here today.

The Reform Party supports the freedom of choice for farmers. The Reform Party supports the individual initiative of Canadian farmers. The Reform Party supports that that initiative can be rewarded by getting the best price possible for their products. If they can do it themselves, then we want to let them.

We cannot support this bill or any of the amendments put forward by the Liberal Party or the NDP. I rest my case. This is a terrible bill in the history of farming in Canada. It cannot be supported in this House.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, they ask what corruptness. There has been allegation after allegation by Canadian farmers who have sought to take this issue to court only to find that the Canadian Wheat Board and this Liberal government do everything they can to keep the issues out of court.

When one Canadian farmer wants to try to do something for himself to improve his standard of living, to expand the best possible market for the product that through his toils he grew out of the ground, what do they do? They throw him in jail because he will not be guided by the dictatorial powers of the Canadian Wheat Board.

It is a sad day in this House when the Liberal government brings in closure on an issue so important as this. This is an issue that takes away the rights of Canadian farmers. It is a bill that serves to increase the secrecy of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a bill that serves to cloak more in secrecy the goings on, the financial dealings and how they are doing business so that ordinary Canadian farmers and members of the opposition cannot get access to find out where the mismanagement is occurring, where the corruption is occurring, where the sleight of hand is occurring in the Canadian Wheat Board.

Who could we expect in advance to support the government on this oppressive bill? None other than the New Democratic Party members. We could have bet a day's wages that they were going to jump on board with the Liberals on this bill. The only type of authority they understand is a state authority.

That goes back to the roots of this member's philosophy when he talks about big brother looking after everything and not letting any individual initiative come to the surface, not rewarding individual efforts. That is not the style or the philosophy of the NDP. It wants a collective state where everyone works for the state. They get little in return and they pay into the big brother government.

No wonder the NDP member fled his rural riding after the 1993 election and sought refuge in the city where he could find some new fields on which to sow his socialist philosophy. It is unfortunate that he did and we have him back in the House.

The Liberals have put forward an oppressive bill. It oppresses the right of farmers to work hard, to succeed and to try to make life a little better for themselves. It places them under the thumb of a wheat board that does not want to open its books to Parliament. They would not even let the Auditor General of Canada look at the books.

What are the Liberals trying to hide by putting in a bill like this? They do not want the Auditor General of Canada, the watchdog for Canadian taxpayers including the western farmers, to look at their operation. Why? Because it would expose the mismanagement, the nepotism and yes, the corruption in the Canadian Wheat Board. There is that word again. It comes up all the time when I think of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not listening to what the Reform Party has said because he chooses not to. He chooses to keep his head in the sand and not listen to a new way of doing things.

It is a way of doing things which we believe would free the farmers from the oppressiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board. It would free the farmers from the dictatorship of the Canadian Wheat Board. It would free the farmers from the corruptness of the Canadian Wheat Board, free the farmers from the mismanagement of the Canadian Wheat Board and free the farmers from the influence of the Liberal friends of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite likely the hon. member's thinking is one-half in the mud and one-half in the sand. There is no doubt about that.

We have heard the member talk about this glorious wheat board, a wheat board that is determined to shackle the efforts of Canadian farmers. That is the philosophy of communism where the state is in control of everything. I am not surprised that it is coming from that member from Saskatchewan, a disciple of the socialist communist philosophy.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely astonishing to listen to that member from Saskatchewan rant and rave about how he is the great protector of the rights of Canadian farmers. Here is a member who fled from the rural ridings of Saskatchewan because his support was non existent. He fled to an urban riding to seek re-election. What did he care about the farmers? He wanted to go to the city so he could get himself another job.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs' performance on the Starlight case is simply unacceptable. She had no problem breaking the confidentiality of Bruce Starlight when he asked for help, but she has no problem keeping the confidentiality of this mysterious investigator she says she has. I will ask once again. Who is it? Who is looking into the case? And why is she keeping it such a secret?