Gary Lunn

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a disgrace and I am ashamed that we even have to talk about this as we are about to turn the millennium, that we discriminate against parents who choose to stay home and raise their children.

I will get into specifics. This all boils down to just one issue as I see it that we have to decide on. Will we recognize that parenting is one of our most important occupations that any Canadian can do? I suggest it is.

My wife stays at home. She works 14 to 16 hours a day raising our children. There is not one other occupation I can think of that is more difficult, more demanding and is more of a cornerstone of the fabric of our society than that.

Before I get into specific examples out of their own documents to prove this, I will relate something that is even more insulting, more disgraceful. Members opposite, instead of giving tax fairness to stay at home parents are more concerned about providing tax relief to NHL franchises, to NHL hockey players who are earning millions and millions of dollars. That is what they are focusing on. That is insulting. That is a disgrace to all these parents who stay at home.

I do not disagree that they are probably overtaxed but if the government is to give out one thin dime and a tax free certificate it had better give out 30 million of them.

I will get to the specifics. I have a document, a child care expense deduction form for 1998, form T778. That is what any Canadian will have to fill out to claim a child care deduction for this year. I will use myself as an example.

My wife has a university degree. She was a director of information services at a local college. She can speak four languages, is well educated but she chose to give up her career because she felt it was so fundamentally important to stay home with our children while I went out to work.

I have another example. My sister is a school teacher in Invermere, British Columbia. He husband James chose to put his career on hold and stay at home with their three daughters until they started school. He felt it was important that one parent be there. He put his career on hold and stayed at home.

For either James or my wife or anybody else in similar circumstances, if they wanted to get the same tax deduction as two working parents there is one way they could do it. I am looking on the tax form, part C. If they ticked off the box that they are mentally or physically incapable of raising children they would be eligible for the same deduction.

This one is even more amazing. Let me read word for word from the government's tax form:

e) The other supporting person was confined to a prison or similar institution for a period of at least two weeks in 1998.

Is so they would be eligible for that tax deduction.

That is not rhetoric. That is fact. It is an insult to every single man and woman who chooses to stay home and look after their children and it is absolutely shameful that we are discussing that as we go into the next millennium, that we can discriminate. I plead to the members. I am telling straight facts.

There is one other way that they could get this deduction. My wife and I would have to separate. If we are living separate and apart we would get the deductions.

It is an insult that we are promoting that. I know seniors who have come to me and said the only way they could get tax fairness is if they were to get a legal divorce. That is another whole issue.

The issue we are talking about today is whether we recognize the role of parents who choose to stay home and raise their children. The question is whether we recognize that as the most important occupation in society.

The government puts zero importance on it. It discriminates against it. They are not entitled to it.

In fact, one of the Liberal members point this out to me. I am appalled. These are the facts. I challenge any member on that side to come to talk to me personally or stand up in the House and I will provide him or her with this document. They can get it from any post office. These are the facts.

They keep coming up with all these other arguments on everything they have done. Some of these came in with the Tories but we are not discussing those because those are available to everybody. We are talking about the one deduction that is available.

Another issue that has been raised is how a two parent family each earning $25,000 is better off than another two parent family that has only one person earning $50,000. The family that believes it is important to stay home and nurture and raise children is discriminated by $4,000. This is on top of the the child care issue which I was just explaining.

My children are four and five. They go to preschool for my wife's benefit so that she can get a few hours out of each week to do the things she needs to do. It is also, I argue, a benefit for them and very good for them. However, we are not entitled to that tax deduction because my wife is not a criminal, she has not spent two weeks in jail and we are not separated. These words are right off the form:

f) You and you spouse were, due to a breakdown in your relationship, living separate and apart at the end of 1998 and for a period of at least 90 days—.

It is insulting to these people.

I have another example which takes me back four or five years going to law school. This goes on to part D. We had our children when I was going to school. My wife gave up her career while I was in law school. If the circumstances had been the same as they are today, we would not have been entitled to put them in a day care and claim that deduction even though the family income was only for three or four months a year around $16,000.

If both the parents are not working they both have to be going to school to claim that deduction in part D. This is right off the government's tax forms. I encourage members to look at them. I read these and I am appalled.

I then listen to other comments made by members in the House and the insults get deeper and deeper and the wounds become deeper and deeper.

Let me talk about the member for Vancouver Kingsway. She was sitting on a committee in Calgary along with my hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast who explained to me the outrage of the people she was addressing. These people were just disgusted. There is a quote in Hansard which she laughs and sneers at when she is questioned in the House. She said perhaps individually you have low self-esteem for many reasons but you cannot say this applies to all women at home. They are not being looked down upon as misfits.

I would argue that my wife is not a misfit. She has a degree and is fluent in four languages, written and spoken, but she chose to place her priority on our family. We believe that it is very important to stay at home and raise our children. She is also fully aware of the sacrifices she has made. She wants to go back into the workforce when our children start school. We are facing those choices now. She took five years out of her career because she felt it was so important. We discriminate against those people. There are hundreds of thousands of those kinds of people across this country.

She also said most women can combine career and family life. It is not about that. It is about making choices. I find this absolutely outrageous. That the government will give the tax deduction to a criminal who spends two weeks in jail, somebody who is separated or somebody who is not capable of raising their children but the person who chooses to stay at home is not entitled to that same deduction is outrageous. How can the government insult Canadians?

There is an opportunity to correct this by standing and voting in favour of this motion. We can do what is right, put politics aside, rise above party labels and do what we believe is right for Canadians. I will give members this document and they can read it for themselves and make the choice.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member where I stand in the party. I spent five years in the province of British Columbia as a paramedic and nobody believes stronger in a national health care system available to every single Canadian than this party does.

The New Democratic government in British Columbia, my home province, has forced Canadians into a two tier health system where tens of thousands of British Columbians are forced to go down to the States to get health care treatment. That is an absolute disgrace. The Premier of British Columbia's home was raided today by the RCMP because of the questionable way he governs the province. It has led to a two tier health care system. That is what we have from NDP governance.

The Reform Party believes in a strong national health care system available to every single Canadian. That is what people would get from this party. We campaigned in 1997 on putting $4 billion immediately back into health care. We are committed to that, not like the current Liberal government which slashed $7 billion and then gave back a mere $1.5 billion or $2.5 billion, and it wants us to thank it.

Imagine if a criminal came into your home and stole $10,000 and came back and gave you $1,000 and asked to be thanked. I do not think it adds up.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is an exact example of what comes from this government, a bunch of numbers and figures.

Every Canadian will be able to show their paycheque stub in two months or six months from now. Let us see if there is any real tax relief. Look at paycheque stubs for the last five years since this government has been in power. It goes down and down. We have less and less to take home every single time. That will continue to happen.

The government can put out all the rhetoric and fancy numbers it wants but at the end of the day Canadians will look at their paycheques and there will be less and less to take home to provide for their families. There will be more and more deductions. The story will be told on the paycheque stubs of every working Canadian.

They will see that this is a shell game by this government. They will see there is no real tax relief. The government can tell us all the numbers it wants but Canadians will know the truth when they have less to pay their bills at the end of the month, less to provide for their families, less to give their children. Those are the facts. They can look at their stubs today and ask where the tax relief is and where are the hundreds and thousands of dollars this government promises. They are not there. It is a shell game. It is empty government rhetoric. The numbers will not add up on the paycheque stubs. I challenge the member to that.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what I said was that this government continues to give subsidies to foreign businesses, which in our view—and there are a lot of ways to characterize them—is illegal, not that the government is committing illegal actions.

This government has no right to take any credit for balancing this budget because it did nothing. The credit goes entirely to the Canadians who have been forced to pay $2,000 more in taxes each and every year. The credit goes to those who have lingered and died on hospital waiting lists, while waiting lists have grown longer because this government slashed $20 billion out of health care over the past few years.

No, it was not the Liberal government which made tough fiscal decisions, it was Canadian families. They were the ones who were forced to priorize their spending. They were the ones who were forced to pay more for less health care.

It is high time that Canadian taxpayers received the recognition they deserve. It is high time they got the tax relief they deserve.

What does this budget offer them? Guess what? More tax increases. While this government offers $7.7 billion in tax cuts it will raise CPP premiums by $7.2 billion over the next three years. Bracket creep will take another $2.7 billion. I think it is absolutely shameful that this government tries to spin a $2.2 billion tax hike and then tells Canadians they should be grateful for that.

It comes as no surprise that Canadian families are not grateful. Why should they be grateful for a government that continues to ratchet up the tax burden faster than income growth? Why should they be grateful for a government that treats stay at home parents as second class citizens?

Let us take a family of four, with an income of $50,000, with one of those parents staying at home to raise the children. That family pays $4,000 more in taxes each year than the same family with both parents working outside the home. This government has deliberately penalized stay at home parents.

Does this budget put an end to this inequity? No.

Instead, stay at home families are treated to an insult, a slap in the face by the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. Instead of tax fairness we see discriminatory taxes and more shell games.

This budget reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 . In that novel the government announced that chocolate rations would be reduced from 20 grams to 10 grams. There was a second announcement the next day. There was all kinds of fanfare. The government with excitement announced it was increasing the chocolate rations from 10 grams to 15 grams. In that society citizens were brainwashed into believing that was an improvement. Canadian society is not so easily fooled. It is tired of the big brother from Shawinigan and his Liberal speak, Liberal speak like the finance minister's warning that Canadians must wait another two decades before they will see real tax relief.

I guarantee Canadians will not have to wait that long. Overburdened taxpayers do not have to wait another 20 years for something they have been demanding for decades. No, Canadians need only have to wait a year or two. Soon Canadians will take matters into their own hands in the next election. They will toss out big brother and his big taxes. They will vote for a party that is united in its resolve to give Canadians real immediate tax relief.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not all that happy to talk about this budget because it is about propaganda, not priorities. It is about brainwashing, not budgeting.

Despite all the government spins to the contrary, this budget leaves Canadians paying more in taxes and receiving less in health care. In 1999 the average Canadian will pay over $2,000 more in taxes than they paid in 1993. At the same time total cuts to health care over the last three years amounted to $1,500 per person.

There is no doubt that we had to eliminate the deficit. There is no doubt that Canadians wanted the federal government to balance the books. Before the 1995 budget a wave of protest ran across this country. Rallies were held in over 20 Canadian cities where thousands of overburdened taxpayers demanded an end to the era of chronic deficits. But they were also very clear about one thing: “Don't you dare raise our taxes”. After decades of constant tax hikes the anger of Canadians was growing. The rally cries were around no more taxes and, more importantly, they continued to tell the Canadian government “It's the spending, stupid”. Canadians gave the finance minister clear instructions: Balance the books on the spending side of the ledger, attack waste, inefficiency and lower-priority programs.

The finance minister appeared to hear these concerns. However, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of no more taxes, Canadians were hit with the single largest tax hike in the history of Canada. CPP payroll taxes were increased 73% and bracket creep continues to take a growing bite out of our wallets.

In addition, it seems the finance minister took “It's the spending, stupid” to mean keep up the stupid spending. Instead of cutting waste and inefficiency, the government ravaged transfers for health and education. Instead of funding hip replacement surgery, taxpayers are paying $100,000 in government grants for a book on dumb blond jokes. The government slashes university funding while protecting $4 billion in pork-barrel regional development grants over the last four years. Students get less while there is plenty of money for a very questionable hotel deal in the Prime Minister's very own riding. RCMP services are cut while this government continues to give millions of dollars in illegal trade subsidies to profitable corporations.

The government claims it was forced to cut health care spending. The government claims its hands were tied on real tax relief. It claims it had to make tough decisions so it could balance the budget. The government has no right to claim any credit for balancing the budget because it did nothing.

The credit goes entirely to Canadians—

[Veterans, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during the second world war 26 Canadian airmen were slated for execution at Buchenwald concentration camp.

This past December the Minister of Veterans Affairs responded with a mere $1,098 and stated “I am delighted to be able to close the chapter on this longstanding issue”.

Today Mr. Arthur Kinnis, spokesman for the survivors, has requested I return his cheque. Across Canada virtually all remaining Buchenwald detainees are doing the same.

Nearly 50 years ago these men fought against Nazi tyranny.

Australia and New Zealand have paid their Buchenwald survivors over $10,000 each. Now Canada offers just over $1,000 to the 14 remaining survivors. This is shameful. This is an insult.

I urge the minister to revisit this matter immediately and settle Canada's debt to the brave men of Buchenwald. It would be a disgrace to allow these men to die without the recognition they truly deserve.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will try to bring this debate back to Bill C-65. It is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and to speak to this bill, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. As we know from previous speakers, the primary objective of this bill is to renew the federal equalization program for another five years.

I will not take time to simply recount what my caucus colleagues and the leader of the official opposition have said with respect to Bill C-65. It has been repeated and eloquently stated by the Reform Party and the people of Canada that they do support the principle of equalization. That is very important to remember. We support the principle of equalization, but that does not mean we cannot improve the delivery vehicle.

Equalization transfers will amount to nearly $9 billion this year alone and will account for 8% of all federal program spending. That is an incredible amount of money. Yet with regard to one of the government's largest expenditure items the Liberal government recoils from any real scrutiny.

It is absolutely shameful that the government gave the House a single day's notice that it would introduce this bill. It is shameful that it did this without asking Canadians whether equalization adequately served their needs. The government claimed there were two years of consultations yet we had one day's notice of this legislation's coming before the House. It is shameful for this government to invoke closure after only one day of debate. We have seen that over and over again in the House. It is shameful that the government is ramming this legislation through to avoid any real debate or accountability.

Let us not dwell on those acts but talk about the details of this bill. I want to address the misinformation we hear from the members opposite. I reiterate that we support the principle of equalization throughout this great country. A common theme among proponents is that this program works so well that it does not need our full attention. They say things like the formula is absolutely clear, transparent, simple. I have heard it being referred to as scientific. A few members a few moments ago said it is very clear.

I would argue that the opponents opposite are wrong. It is absolutely not transparent. It is not clear. It is not scientific nor is it precise.

Let us just look at the legislation. The general formula is laid out in section 4 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. It is very important that we read the facts and this is what the formula states:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this part, the fiscal equalization payment that may be paid to a province for a fiscal year is the amount, as determined by the minister, equal to the greater of

(a) the product obtained by multiplying

(i) the aggregate of the amounts obtained by subtracting, for each revenue source, the per capita yield in that province for the revenue source for that fiscal year from the average per capital yield of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan for the revenue source for that fiscal year by

(ii) the population of the province for that fiscal year, and

(b) zero.

That is the equalization formula, word for word right out of the act. I have to note that days before Premier Tobin in Newfoundland called his election he automatically received $30 million, the exact amount of Newfoundland's deficit, so he could say he balanced the books before he called the election and that met this formula.

I am only a short way into my 20 minutes so I will try to get right down to it. I see some members are not interested as we get to the facts and give them the specifics of this.

It is a natural response to the bureaucratese that those members claim is so transparent and it is not even worth debating. We need a formula that will work, that is truly equalization, and I will get to offering alternatives.

Thousands of Canadians could be asked about that formula I just read and they would not be able to decipher it. Even most people in this Chamber, members who are used to reading legal jargon, would have to carefully read and reread, mull it over for a few minutes and attempt a guess. Then the 301 members of this Chamber could be asked to give their definition of how the formula works. I suggest there would be 301 different answers.

Even if it could be figured out there is a mountain of preparatory calculations that needs to be made before actually making the transfers. An army of specialized economists is needed to calculate the revenue base and the per capita yield of each province for 31 separate revenues. I would wager there is not one member here who could list 31 revenue sources without looking at notes.

This is all out of the formula. It creates a bureaucracy, a glass tower of people even to come up with this formula. They work all year long on it. There are all kinds they have to look at, personal income tax, corporate income tax, corporate capital tax, general miscellaneous sales taxes, harmonized sales tax, amusement tax, fuel tax, motor vehicle, alcohol, medical, forestry, mining, water rentals, and the list goes on and on. I have pages of them here.

There are more such as provincial and municipal property taxes, racetrack tax and lottery ticket sales. All these have to go through pages and pages of formulations for every single province to come up with this formula.

To suggest it is not politicized is absolutely ludicrous. In only a stroke of a pen the province of Newfoundland received $30 million to balance the books before the premier called the election the next day. He had a balanced budget.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the amendments laid out in Bill C-65 are complex and confusing to say the least. They are nothing compared to the actual calculations made by the finance department number crunchers.

I have here the results of the revenue source calculations. I have done my homework and looked at this. I do not know if I can get into this in 10 minutes. There are pages and pages of calculations in this book. Each line is a very small step. I cannot get into them all. They have to go through this for every single one of the revenue sources for every single province.

There are 95 general steps for each revenue source for each of the 10 provinces. That is nearly 1,000 separate calculations. They are all added up, it goes on and on and in the end we have tens of thousands of calculations done by the number crunchers.

The point I am trying to make is that we have this simple, clear, transparent amending formula that creates a huge mountain of bureaucracy.

Yes, I believe in equalization for all 10 provinces. I have travelled this country from coast to coast to coast. I believe in this country and that is why I am standing in the House. We could not have a better country. But just because that is the way it has been done for 50 years does not mean that is the way it has to stay. There are better vehicles to do this than the bureaucracy we have created.

Of the members asked how will the Reform Party meet its financial numbers, 50% to tax reduction and 50% to debt. The other numbers come from reducing the size of government, eliminating these bureaucracies.

There must be a simpler way. As the leader of the official opposition, the finance critic and a number of my colleagues have pointed out, we simply cannot stand back and tinker with federal-provincial financial relations, with something so important and so complex and convoluted we need a task force to consult with policy experts and others. We need to talk about substantive reform and about the three pillars that finance our social services. We need to rethink our tax policy, rethink Canadian health and social transfers and rethink equalization. We need to look at all three because they are tangled up together. They are interrelated.

Real reforms, real improvements mean first of all we must simplify and rationalize federal transfers by providing equal per capita grants to all provinces for social purposes. Second, we should simplify and refocus the equalization program even more to low income provinces. Third, we must introduce substantive broad based tax relief to increase disposable incomes of Canadians.

These are issues we must address to improve the social and economic well-being of our citizens. We need to debate these issues and we need to act now. We do not need the status quo. Liberal tinkering and half measures that continue to prop up our fossilized federalism are not the way to go.

I could not in good conscience support Bill C-65. I urge all members to reject this bill and demand the government introduce real improvements to Canada's social policy.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know we all agree on how despicable all of this is. I have the highest respect for the Minister of Justice but I am offended when she suggests that I do not. I want it put on the record that I am deeply offended.

I want to get back to using section 33. I have the highest respect for the courts. My respect is as high as anybody's including the minister herself but it does not preclude following the appeal process. It is fundamental for that to happen and that it be expedited as quickly as possible.

Section 1 is the courts' tool to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals. Our tool is section 33. She says it is only a last resort. I appreciate that it is unprecedented in the Parliament of Canada but we have to look at the gravity and importance of the situation. The suggestion is that it can only be used after going to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I know I do not need to preach to her about the charter. She knows it as well as I do. The invocation of section 33(2) can be limited. It does not have to go for five years. I know they are laughing at this but my heart is in the right place and I am serious. We can invoke the notwithstanding clause for any length of time we wish in order to provide for the interim protection of children. We do not have to wait. Canadians do not have to wait. The courts do not have to adjourn cases. It is no disrespect to our justice system.

Section 33 was included as a tool for parliament to limit rights and freedoms where we feel it is necessary. Section 1 is included in order for the courts to do that. We have a duty to do that.

I appeal to the justice minister to leave the partisan politics aside. I mean this in all sincerity. We should look after the interests of our children. Look at the gravity of this situation. We are talking about child pornography. We have the tools right now to invoke section 33 to protect Canadians.

The Minister of Justice knows as well as I do that there can be delays. There are all kinds of reasons people can get off charges. We can offer that protection right now with no maybes, with no disrespect. I put on record that I have no disrespect for the courts. Why does the Minister of Justice feel so passionately that we are showing disrespect by invoking section 33? I have the highest respect for our justice system.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. When there is a decision of a higher court—and this is the B.C. supreme court—all lower courts in that province are compelled to follow it. The provincial court judge in the second case had absolutely no choice. He had to follow the higher court's decision unless it could be distinguished some other way. In this case it could not be. It was a very recent decision.

In the rest of Canada this case can be used as persuasive. I agree it is not compelled but lawyers use them as persuasive evidence. Under section 163 a person can be prosecuted either in provincial court on a summary conviction or on an indictable offence and can go to the supreme court. Even indictable offences are prosecuted in provincial court. The person who is charged has an election when he is charged. Under this criminal offence he can decide that he wants to elect a provincial court judge, a supreme court judge or a supreme court judge and jury. The accused can make that election.

Every one who is accused will elect a provincial court judge. Why? It is because they are compelled to follow the B.C. supreme court decision. It can be used persuasively in the rest of the courts and it can still run its process. We are not arguing that. It should be appealed but that is why she is wrong.

British Columbian children are not protected at all until this decision is looked after.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in my heart this is the right thing to do. We have to act and it does not show any disrespect for the courts.

There are 80 members who signed this petition because in their hearts and their guts they feel it is the right thing to do. They also know they have to act. There are probably many more who never saw the petition.

I pray that in the House we can leave the partisanship outside the doors, that we can come in and do what we feel is the absolute right thing. If the Minister of Justice believes that and I do not, that is up to her, but she should not preclude every member of the House or hold a club over their heads so that they cannot do the right thing.

We have to leave partisanship behind. I will not try to pit one person against another or one party against another. I do not believe the hon. member was doing that in his question. We just have to look after the interests of the children of Canada first.