Gerry Ritz

[Taxation, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if we forget the phoney rhetoric and forget the Liberal spin on a lot of this, the reality is that RRSP contributions are shrinking.

How can Canadians take charge of their own future when the government's tax gouge keeps putting them in the poor house? What kind of help is that?

[Taxation, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the reality at tax time for most Canadians is no money for RRSPs.

How can Canadians save for their future when this government's high taxes drive them to the poor house today?

[Taxation, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, from some of the answers we have heard today it is no wonder that Canadians continue to express their lack of confidence in this government's tax schemes. The reality at tax time for most Canadians is no money for RRSPs.

How can Canadians—

[First Nations Land Management Act, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-49, a framework on first nations land management. It is a great title.

My colleagues from Skeena and Prince Albert have done a considerable amount of work on this issue through committee and through the various stages in the House of Commons. But we have only scratched the surface of what is really wrong with this government's approach to native Canadian issues.

Our amendments to Bill C-49 call for the co-ordination of first nations land code changes in concert with their municipal neighbours and in line with the laws and provisions set out by the provinces in which the effected lands are located. Otherwise it would seem to me that what this government has in mind is to set up a fourth level of government superior to the provinces and with no accountability to the other Canadians around it who are subject to property taxes and codes much more restrictive than what we see in Bill C-49. Who would believe that a Liberal government would undermine the provinces and hand out special privileges based on who a person's grandfather was?

We have to assume that every member of the House and most Canadians are interested in the same thing, the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people. We all want to see a country that has stable families, good health and education for its citizens and the maximum opportunity for individuals not only to provide the necessities in life but also to enjoy leisure activities that make life more pleasant. How a country can best provide these conditions is where the parties in this place disagree. That is why Canadians vote for different parties and hope for the best.

Canadians both aboriginal and non-aboriginal look at misguided legislation like Bill C-49 and they are still hoping for the best. It is more likely that very few Canadians, including those aboriginals who are directly affected by it, will get to see this legislation or to understand its implication. Again we have closure. We forget how little time ordinary citizens have to follow the deliberations that consume our time in this place. When we do hear from them we tend to pick and choose what we want to hear depending on whether they already agree with us or not.

We cannot forget that what comes out of here in terms of legislation has real consequences. While we are trying to appease one group we may end up victimizing another. I am sure everyone is familiar with the plight of the residents of Salish Park on the Musqueam reserve in B.C. Twenty or thirty years ago they signed 99 year leases with the federal government to build homes on the native land. We have to assume there were perfectly legitimate reasons for the arrangements made by the federal government then. But before a generation has passed a new ideology was loose in the halls of this government and all the promises and legal documents that once offered rights to one group were torn up in the interest of giving new rights to another group.

I am aware that native bands are familiar with this process. They have been fighting it for years. But to continuing to make and break deals with the victim group of the week is never right, no matter who is the victim and who is the beneficiary. The non-native residents of Musqueam lands now find themselves cut off from recourse to such basic rights as voting for local representation. They have no way to protect their property against expropriation by a band council that also has the right to raise their property taxes by any amount and then offer them arbitrary compensation after the value of their property has collapsed. As I said, some may defend this abuse of constitutional rights of one group by saying they had a sweetheart deal in the first place and now they must pay the piper. If I were a Musqueam band councillor or chief I would be nervous about this weak minded logic since it suggests that every agreement made by government can be tossed out at the discretion of a later government.

Let us not be mistaken that what we are talking about is a bunch of displaced white homeowners. The provisions of this bill that hand over open ended powers to almost unaccountable legislative structures fall heavily on natives as well. We as MPs should have all received an e-mail recently from Wendy Lockhart Lundberg who is described as a registered status native and a member of the Squamish nation. Ms. Lundberg describes Bill C-49 as a legislative end-run around treaties and as a little publicized government bill. She said that her band council has sent a member to Ottawa to support Bill C-49 while not informing the general band membership of the existence of the bill itself. That does not sound like the conditions for effective legislation are representative to me.

Ms. Lundberg complains that the all too common tragedy of divorce on reserves leaves women and children high and dry. Frequently the male assumes ownership of the matrimonial home as dictated by their band council and there is nothing here to change this situation.

This government might be willing to leave these issues dangling in its legislation but the B.C. Native Women's Council is not and is taking this government to court.

The letter goes on to say that all band members, not just women, may be subject to the limitless powers being implied by this bill. Anyone who is not interested in toeing the band council line may find their property expropriated for vaguely defined community works or other first nations purposes.

I can only speak from my experiences dealing with the complaints of native constituents in my riding, but the instances of abuse of band funding and administration are so outrageous that they would not be tolerated in any other part of the country.

We do not have a system in this country for making sure that the benefits provided by all Canadians go to those less fortunate on reserves. I can hardly blame native administrators for the way they take advantage of government handouts. If somebody handed any one of us a cheque for millions of dollars and said that we could spend it however the receiver of the money saw fit, I do not doubt that we would all be tempted to dabble in a bit of mismanagement.

When it concerns the dispensation of taxpayer money to party favourites we are angered. But this concerns people's lives. The Minister of Health and his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, got an earful last week when they tried to brag to natives about the pitiful new health programs they came up with. The natives were angered that $190 million would not go far enough. But they would have been better off getting an answer to the question where has all the money gone.

This country spent billions of dollars to make things better on reserves and has far too little to show for it. Most people would like to see a better way of doing things.

I guess the government will finally see that it is a two edged sword to falsely accuse others of evil intentions while trying to address the problems of the day.

We have to assume that the government is counting on goodwill and good intentions for the future implementation of this badly written bill. The problem is no one can do a good job in a bad system. This does not apply to certain races and not others for any kind of cultural differences. We are people. We all desire similar things from life. But if we do not have accountable, open systems of government that apply equally to everybody, we will simply be exchanging one group of disgruntled citizens for another.

There is a tremendous amount of people out there who say they have not been consulted on this bill, women's groups and rank and file natives. They are all concerned that this will be an entrenchment of existing disparities and problems that are systemic in all levels of government acting on behalf of rank and file aboriginals. Rank and file aboriginal peoples are crying for a voice, someone to carry their message to the House. There has been a number of petitions presented here with regard to that.

As my colleagues have said here today, parts of Bill C-49 are a step in the right direction but very tentative, small steps.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there was a lot verbiage but I am not sure there was too much meat. I remember an ad years ago with a little lady standing at a hamburger counter saying “Where is the beef?” I guess that points to what the member was talking about.

The biggest problem we have in the country is underperformance. People are penalized to get out and make things happen. We have a tremendous problem with brain drain. There is a little bit of money in the budget to address that issue, but it is a significant problem. Taxes are driving people out of this country. We cannot bribe them to stay here. They will gradually migrate to where there is more tax incentives and work incentives.

We have a burgeoning underground economy. It is created by overtaxation. People have to make a living, put bread and butter on the table for their families and they do it in any way they can. If it means cheating Uncle Sam a little bit they are more than willing and prepared to do that. Many people said it was the GST that created the underground economy. It is not.

My background is in construction and the whole premise of the underground economy is not the GST. It is 7%. As a contractor I can pass that on and claim it back. That is not the problem. It is the income tax that I pay. It is the income tax that the plumbers, electricians, concrete finishers, carpet layers pay. It is the heavy tax load on everything. The not profit sensitive tax, a lot of them have become user fees and programs and things like that, drive the burgeoning underground economy. That is not being addressed. There must be fairness in the taxation system.

The member also talked about the debt and the deficit. We are paying $41 billion or $42 billion a year in interest on what has been a runaway debt. The prudent approach has added another $130 billion to that debt in the last number of years. Thank God we finally got our deficit under control, but it has been done by taxpayers; 70% of the deficit control was done on the backs of taxpayers. They are looking for some sort of relief from this overburden. They are looking to the government for some direction and leadership.

This budget is a small step in the right direction. We need to take large strides. We are going into a worldwide economy. Canada can be a leader. We do not have to settle for 17th place.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is great to rise today on behalf of my constituents and speak to the budget that was brought down on Tuesday. For most of my constituents they are finding it a very muddled document that is not really quite sure what it wants to do.

It is touted as the health care budget and we are waiting to see the proof of the pudding. This document claims to restore health care funding but in fact it hardly starts the process of putting back into place what existed before members opposite came to this place in 1993.

While Canadians were piling extra billions of dollars into government coffers, waiting lines for health services went up by 28%. Members opposite like to blame the provincial governments. If the provincial governments were solely to blame, it still would not explain why federal expenditures on health have fallen from the promised 50% base line as outlined in the original Canada Health Act to the measly 11% that exists today. It does not explain why the much talked about five principles are in a shambles while this government did nothing but download to its provincial counterparts.

Where is the portability when we see one government failing to fully reimburse another for treating its residents? Where is the universality when the wealthy are put at the front of the queue or skip off to the United States to get their service, leaving 180,000 Canadians waiting weeks and months for operations here in Canada?

Members of this party find it ironic that Liberals have attempted to frighten Canadians with that bogeyman of a two tiered American style health system when in fact they have encouraged through their action or inaction the creation of this very thing.

The problem began in the first days of this government. The present Prime Minister was elected in October 1993 and his finance minister brought down his first budget in 1994. Since this was greeted with roaring disapproval, the Liberals decided on a new tack for 1995. They would make the appearance of cutting the deficit their central theme. What a good idea, one near and dear to everyone's heart, but not the way we would have pursued it.

The government started to see the economic recovery and decided to do two things: rake in the maximum amount Canadians could stand to give and download the responsibility of paying bills on to provincial governments. That is a reality. The numbers are there for anybody to see. I am gratified to see many commentators starting to say the things we have been saying for the past few years.

This government has never got its wild spending habits under control. It has never admitted to the anchor that its high tax regime imposes on all Canadians. It cannot get it through its collective head that Canadians want to be in charge of their own destiny. Leave the money with them and let them decide.

This government lays claim to a balanced budget because it pulls $42 billion more in revenues from the economy than it did in 1993. We are paying more while provinces, individuals and institutions are getting less. Members opposite will say to look at the tax cuts.

The 3% surtax will be cut in half this year and eliminated in the year 2000. Average taxpayers will see a few dollars per week from that one. The basic personal credit is up $340 over 1998 and will go up another $240 next year. This translates into another couple of dollars per week for hardworking Canadians and that sounds really good. It works out to about a cup of coffee a week. The reality of this cut is on average $79 a year. We know the EI rate is going down a whopping 5%, from $2.70 per hundred dollars to $2.55. The CPP is certainly going to offset that with the increases we are seeing there.

Everyone was saying the EI rate should have gone down even more. Business is calling for it. It is a tax on jobs. But the finance minister has been banking that $7 billion a year surplus and the Liberals will have us believe that these nickel and dime returns should have us all thanking our lucky stars to get anything at all. That is the reality again. This government would have us believe that their tuna fish ideas are seen as caviar by the peasants out there.

If we add all this up, what do we get? As it turns out Canadians will pay $2 billion more in taxes while these little tidbits of so-called tax relief are phased in. We pay more, we get less. We pay more CPP premiums with no guarantee that anything will exist in 20 years. We still have bracket creep working its magic on our incomes while this government ignores outdated brackets and disincentives that have existed in our tax code for decades, especially for small business.

What do we get for this? Do we get more health care? Do we get more economic activity? Do we get more national wealth? No, we get more politics, the last thing we really need.

Two weeks ago were treated to the spectacle of our government leaders trumpeting the creation of a social union deal. Did this amazing document re-establish the primacy of the two levels of government in their respective spheres of jurisdiction as set out in our Constitution? No. It put on display the arrogance of the Liberal government and the desperation that provincial politicians feel when they see billions of dollars up for grabs. They need it. They have programs to run.

There was no thought to leaving that money in the hands of the taxpayers, or to giving it back from where it originally came. These politicians traded away the right to spend the money and take the credit as if there were two kinds of taxpayers and government was all about the size of the program and not how good it is. He who has the money makes the rules.

Why does the federal government not concentrate on what it is supposed to do? The budget just released puts $175 million into DND. That does not rebuild a single soldier's house, add a single soldier, sailor or pilot to the forces, nor does it buy a single piece of equipment. The Canadian forces as we see them now are overcommitted. They cannot train up to the proper standard without the proper equipment. They cannot replace worn out equipment. They have lost $7 billion from what previous governments told them to expect, and this administration has the nerve to give them this pitiful increase.

Members opposite will say to look at the wonderful job they do. That is the whole point. Despite broken promises by this government and unfulfilled commitments, despite the downloading of responsibility, despite the fact this government does nothing but take while it asks for the moon, these hardworking Canadians get the job done.

The Canadian taxpayer is in the same leaky boat. We are so used to high taxes, hidden costs and government programs that are supposed to alleviate every problem under the sun, that I am afraid we are complacent about the antics of this government in this budget. This budget repeats what we have seen in the last three. The minister's projections are wrong. He finds himself with more of Canadians' money than he even thought possible so he pumps up government spending. The debt continues to fester, taxes continue to suppress our potential, a key element, and the Liberals continue to claim that they are being prudent, generous and compassionate. They are none of these things.

In the past, Canadians slowly became outraged as they saw finance minister after finance minister miss the mark on the deficit and charge them for it in increased taxes. Now they are slowly becoming outraged that this finance minister misses the mark on spending and charges them for it. It is not their imagination. It is being exposed everywhere. The numbers are there. They are documented very well.

Think tanks, research institutions and economists are all asking where the surplus went. They are all answering that the finance minister is hiding it from the Canadian people so he can pursue a political agenda of his own. For how long are Canadians going to accept this outrage? For how long does this minister think he can make taxpayers pay more and receive less?

This Liberal government has failed on health care. It has taken out far more than it intends to put in. It has failed to perform the federal role it is supposed to focus on. And it is losing the trust of Canadians by manipulating the national books.

Over the last few months we have heard a great deal about productivity but I do not see much about that from the Liberal spin doctors. I do not suppose that is because it is another missed opportunity by this government. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business classed this budget as a missed opportunity. We have been losing ground on these issues for years. This finance minister trots out the typical line that things are looking up and that adding a few dollars will address the situation. Everything looks better after you have hit rock bottom which is where we seem to be headed.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has warned this government that Canada is failing, not rising upward on the issue of productivity. These studies indicate that our tax burden is just too great. The window dressing in this budget does nothing to solve that. Again nothing for business, the engine of the economy, the job creator. It says that the United States is surging ahead in this area with half the unemployment rate, but here we have the finance minister bragging about job creation. Eighty per cent of those jobs are created by the small business sector, not by government programs.

Our unemployment rate is twice that of the U.S. Is that good enough? Our standard of living is falling; disposable income continues to fall. Why is this acceptable? Why is being 17th in the world good enough? It is not. There is so much more that has to be done.

What did the minister do about the small business deduction? Nothing. It is still mired in 1980 values. What has he done about corporate taxes, payroll taxes, user fees? Nothing in this budget. Where is the burden of personal income tax? Among the highest in the world, and this budget does a little tinkering with it. We pay more and get less.

We need a government in this country that is committed to openness, accountability, freedom and wealth creation for everybody. Instead we are stuck with a government that is obsessed with manipulation, social engineering and bureaucracy. I do not see anything productive about that.

[Small Business, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Canadian businesses create those jobs in spite of these government programs. The CPP hike more than offsets any nickels and dimes that EI gave.

The CFIB gave this finance minister a failing grade. They called it a disappointing budget. They called it a missed opportunity. Payroll taxes in reality gouged deeper.

The small business deduction is mired in 1980 values. How dare this finance minister stand there and continue to force small businesses into paying more and getting less?

[Small Business, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, even this Liberal government grudgingly concedes that small business is the engine of our economy creating in excess of 80% of the jobs the Liberals like to brag about.

My question is very simple. Why does this finance minister continue to derail that engine with high payroll taxes and an overburden of user fees?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my fellow members in addressing Bill C-63, but I cannot say I am terribly impressed with what we have to work with in the bill.

It has become typical of the government to spend months and years responding to a report and then drop a band-aid piece of legislation in our laps that it claims to be in great rush to push through. In this case we have a bill that tinkers with some definitions and procedures but completely ignores what really needs to be addressed in this country.

Our immigration system has been in crisis for years. It is in a tailspin. It has been abused by groups and gangs from around the world because they have found they can manipulate our system while legitimate refugees and law-abiding new citizens wait in a bureaucratic limbo to have their cases heard, reheard and deferred for months on end.

Thousands of known criminals walk our streets with impugnity after brushing off the most cursory examination at border points while mysterious legions of organized criminals and drug fuelled gangs set up shop in our cities, apparently beyond the reach of our Canadian securities.

What does the government have to respond to all this? At least these people still have to swear allegiance to the Queen at present, but it should be expanded to include Canada as well. Since we are here to deal with what little the government has to offer by way of a legislative agenda, I will point out where I believe the government has gone off the rails.

If a woman in this country has a baby then we confer upon that child the blessing of citizenship, and that is how it should be. However, if a woman comes here from another country to have a baby we have a bit of a problem. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recommended that the child only be considered a citizen if one or both of its parents were a permanent resident or citizen. There should be some leeway for refugee claimants who have been accepted, but the idea is that for Canadian citizenship to mean anything it should be held up to a certain standard.

We should ask people who are coming here to observe our laws and accept our requirements. Simply having a child here, then claiming that it would be unfair to be deported because one is the mother of a Canadian citizen is nothing but twisted logic and an abuse of that child.

What does Bill C-63 say to that? It says in clause 4 that the government is not prepared to lay down the law but apparently to wait for the supreme court to make up the law as it sees fit. We all know where this perverted logic led recently.

Unfortunately where the Liberals do not want the courts to rule they put the authority to interpret into the hands of the minister. In a perfect world we could all assume the minister and all her heirs would rule with a benevolent hand and never let politics or special interests affect her judgment. Of course in a perfect world we would not have people taking advantage of the generous nature of Canadians by trading off their children in this manner.

There are no fewer than 16 paragraphs with a number of subparagraphs describing what the minister might arbitrarily decide behind closed doors about how this act will work. Most are administrative and no doubt there is a sensible rationale for applying them, but I cannot help thinking that the more such clauses we have, the more open ended the law is and the more open it is to abuse or incompetence. We know how difficult it is already for opposition members and their constituents to get satisfaction from a government department after a case has wound its way through the labyrinth it must follow.

There is also a clause in the bill that the minister can delegate her authority. Once again maybe this is necessary to keep this creaky thing rolling along day to day. I do worry, though, that the minister saw fit to include the phrase “without proof of the authenticity of authorization”. That is kind of an open ended statement. That comes from subclause 44(1). I hope this is not intended to be some sort of escape clause for future screw-ups but it certainly would not be the first time.

The minister has given herself the authority in the bill to decide what the criterion is for people to have an adequate knowledge of our official languages. There is no definition of what adequate is. It surely leaves open an opportunity for some cracker jack immigration lawyer to appeal on those grounds.

We see a clause that says that potential immigrants cannot use a translator to take a language test. This would be a laughable inclusion if it were not so sad that the Liberals never thought of this before.

The minister has given herself the authority to define what constitutes a relationship between a parent and a child for the purpose of determining entitlement to citizenship. We have to wonder why this relationship has to be defined at the door when we are thinking of letting somebody into the country. There is already a reference to adoption outside the country in clause 8, and aside from being the birth parents we are left with a big question of how this authority might be applied.

Maybe subparagraph (i) hints at the many possibilities for relationships the minister may have in mind. She has taken upon herself to define who is a spouse for the purposes of this act. As is its usual practice, we know the Liberal government has left it up to the courts to allow some special interest groups to redefine what constitutes spouse.

We can interpret this subparagraph to be anticipating that court case or, if we are generous, we might say that the minister will simply decide if a couple is married or not. I find that a little hard to swallow. This clause is wide open for the social engineering which many Liberals favour and of which Canadians have repeatedly made clear they are not in favour.

The minister's powers are even more frightening when we move on to grounds for refusing citizenship. Clauses 21 and 22 suggest that the minister can decide arbitrarily what constitutes the public interest and having disqualified someone under this heading can refuse that individual an appeal.

Ironically members opposite build their careers on the insupportable assertion that this party wants to keep immigrants out. That is not the case. However this clause puts incredible power in the hands of the present minister to do that very thing.

The problem is not that the minister may keep criminals out, something they do not seem to be terribly good at now, but that this act does not define what this or any future minister might decide is public interest. Might this one day apply to someone who holds opinions contrary to some accepted government wisdom? It is not clear here where the guidelines are.

It is likewise with the term national security which appears in clause 11(f). The minister may grant citizenship to someone who has not been convicted of an offence against national security. The problem is that there is no specific category of offence in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act or the Criminal Code here.

There is merit in prohibiting people who constitute a risk to the country or who have demonstrated that they cannot behave according to the laws of this land or any other for that matter, but it is weak legislation that leaves this concept open to interpretation to abuse. It leaves the country open to dictates by the courts, and that is not why our constituents have sent us here.

One of the flaws in Canadian politics is the difficulty in dealing with subjects such as immigration, as if to raise the issue itself were tantamount to questioning its benefits, the place of immigrants or the value of a certain category of immigrants.

This kind of unspoken censorship has been a chronic problem for politicians for years. We firmly believe that the government must account for the way the objectives of immigration programs are being met. This is in accordance with the rules that allow the true exercise of the democratic rights of Canadian citizens.

Only then can we restore the public's faith in the management of immigration programs. At the same time we will restore the confidence of those who implement these programs and in the end all those who elect to settle in this great country.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting concept to have everyone receive more education. That is definitely a laudable goal. We are into a knowledge based economy. Canada leads the world in a lot of the technology.

I do not think it is feasible to eliminate tuition fees. I would certainly like to see the government rather than direct money to the university, the physical structure and all the things that go with it, to redirect it to the actual students so the students control the outcome of their own education.