Dick Harris

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate seeing so many Liberals rush back into the House so they can take part in the debate today. It will be a refreshing experience to hear some real facts and substance coming from the official opposition party rather than listening to the spin doctors and the backroom boys who came up with Bill C-28. I thank the Liberals for returning to the House.

One thing missing from the bill is any kind of tax relief for Canadians. As we know, Canadians are the most overtaxed people in the entire world. Mr. Speaker, every year when you fill out your income tax form I am sure you must shed a few crocodile tears over what this Liberal government has done to people just like you.

There is nothing in the bill—zip, as my son would say—about tax relief. There is no mention of the 73% CPP tax hike, the payroll tax which will be applied to Canadian businesses and individuals. There is no mention of the more than $5 billion in extra EI premiums Canadians are paying and that is considered a tax.

Every think tank in the country has concluded that high taxes kill jobs. It is as simple as that, but the government just does not get it. It refuses to look at the high tax regime of this country and it continues its reckless spending.

We have in our party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the hon. member for St. Albert. On a regular basis he puts out the waste report. We have sent $2 million off to Brazil to promote electrical energy. I believe they have had electricity down there for quite some time and they realize the benefit of it, but we sent them $2 million.

We have sent $450,000 to Lebanon for the Lebanese Parliamentary Institute. I hope that $450,000 is not to teach it how to spend money in a Liberal fashion. I do not think the people of Lebanon would appreciate that.

Bill C-28 does not even consider the $600 billion debt hole that this country is in, which this government and the Tories and Liberals before it helped to create. It does not even mention the $45 billion in service charges and interest payments every year. Those service charges could pay the entire health care bill in Canada for one year, plus educate every student in the country for one or two years. This bill does not even talk about that crisis.

Do the Liberals have a plan for this crushing debt? Not in this housekeeping bill. They wanted to start off slow and maybe work up to something.

Do the Liberals have a plan for tax relief to put more money in the pockets of Canadians to give them the option of spending or saving it? Not in this bill.

The minuscule changes to the bill are designed to make us forget for a little while just how high the taxes are in this country.

Things could be so much simpler if the Liberals would just listen to the Reform Party, the official opposition, which has brought to this House a plan called “Securing Your Future”, a plan which economists all across the country have said is right on the mark. It is on the right track. But no, it clouds the vision, the philosophy and the legacy of these tax and spend Liberals. They have scales over their eyes. They cannot see the truth.

While the Reformers are calling for less taxes, less debt and less interest charges on our $600 billion debt, the Liberals are calling for more program spending in areas of little need, forgetting the areas of great need that they gutted like health care and education payments to the tune of $7 billion since they came to power. They are now throwing back a paltry $1 billion and saying they have fixed it. No, the arithmetic tells me that they are $6 billion short.

We want the government for once to consider the average working Canadian, to consider the students who are struggling to get through university and college and ending up with huge student loans, to consider the people who are living below the poverty line, and to consider the people who are trying to raise families and are having their pockets picked by the Liberal government through high taxes.

If the government would for once consider all those people instead of its own political tax and spend philosophy, maybe some day we would get a bill in the House that our party could support.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today. It is nice to be back in the House and fighting Liberals once again.

After listening to the previous Liberal speaker all of a sudden we have had some good ammunition given to us. It was indicative of the Liberal short term vision that the member just talked about the tax cuts, the economy and the budget shortfall in Ontario.

Statistics will show that the economy, because of the tax cuts put in by the provincial government in Ontario, is undergoing tremendous growth. On a long term basis that will be of immense benefit to the province of Ontario, as it was for the province of Alberta which is now leading all the provinces in economic growth and it certainly has some lessons for the federal Liberals.

This tax bill, Bill C-28, is all about a tax system that is patently unfair to the Canadian people. The Liberals instead of wanting to fix it are simply making changes that will make it more confusing for Canadians to figure out this Canadian tax system and how the Liberal government is able to wrench billions of dollars out of their pockets, decreasing dramatically their disposable income for their families, increasing dramatically the tax levels on Canadian small businesses, the backbone of our economy which are providing more jobs in this country than any other sector, including the government sector.

This Liberal government likes to say it is creating all the jobs. That is absolutely false. It is the private sector and primarily the small business sector, but the Liberals do not recognize that. In their tax system they seek only to penalize small business.

Bill C-28 can best be described as a smoke and mirrors bill designed to cover up the fiscal mismanagement of the Liberal government. Some people have compared the Parliament of Canada to a circus at times. Trickery, smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand do belong in a circus. We are getting a good example of it in Bill C-28. It does nothing but confuse Canadians about how the tax system is working.

We are talking about the lack of substance in Bill C-28. The government has managed to put together some 500 pages talking about changing 20 different acts and regulations in the income tax system. The Liberals certainly do not know how to make anything simple. I think their motto is make it complicated, convoluted and confusing and no one will see what they are actually doing.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has obviously not taken the time to look into the rescue plan that the Chilean government put into place when its public pension system was on the brink of disaster.

Before the hon. member from the government criticizes a program that is working very well today, is self-sustaining and is returning a good investment income to all the Chileans who are retiring, I would strongly suggest that he read it and understand it.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the member for Mississauga is in the House. Perhaps the hon. Speaker would like to direct the query directly to him and give him the opportunity to withdraw those words.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I want to bring to your attention the comments made by the member for Mississauga when he accused the member from Calgary—Nose Hill and the Reform Party of having, and he used the words, misled and deliberately. I am sure Madam Speaker, that you will find these are not parliamentary terms to be used in the House. I would ask that the member for Mississauga retract those words.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is a rule of this House that props should not be used during a speech.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, all day long no doubt we will see Liberal members trying to be the good guys and trying to take credit for ending the strike.

The reality is that the responsibility for the strike, this whole mess, falls squarely on the shoulders of the government. For seven months it has known that Canada Post and the union were at a stalemate, that their heels were dug in and no one was moving. The arbitrators or conciliators that were sent in told the government the same thing. Did the government do anything? No. It said it would wait and see, which resulted in this strike.

With all this fooling around to get us to a strike and the money it has cost Canadian families and businesses, what does the member say to those who have suffered so much and lost so much money? Would he tell them that the wait and see attitude was a good idea?

[Privilege, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in support of the question of privilege by the hon. member for Markham, I want to tell you that I have firsthand knowledge of the proceedings and how he got to his question of privilege.

I want to add to the argument. It is very clear from comments made that the Liberal members of the committee in fact did have prior knowledge of the committee report before it was presented to the committee. That was absolutely clear from statements that were made.

Also, there were members of the committee who did acknowledge that they had discussed certain issues that the committee dealt with with the media over the last few days. To what extent that went is up for debate but members had recognized that.

I also believe that the opposition members' privileges were breached due to the fact that the Liberal members of the committee took part in the formation of the committee report at the exclusion of the opposition members of that committee.

[Taxation, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the average Canadian family has had $3,000 less disposable income every year since the Liberal Party took power in 1993. That is how the finance minister has been achieving some of these targets.

If the secretary of state recognizes the incredible burden high taxes are putting on Canadian families and businesses, how will he be able to convince the finance minister to see his point of view?

[Taxation, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state talked about the deeds and actions of his government's fiscal policy. Let us look at a couple of them.

There have been 37 tax increases in different areas since 1993, $25 billion in increased taxes since 1993, and now it wants to increase the CPP payroll tax by 73%. Those are the deeds and actions of the Liberal government.

Since the secretary of state astutely put it that he recognized the high taxes in the country, has he been able to demonstrate his perceptiveness to the finance minister?