Gerry Ritz

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary West.

As we debate this bill and some of the amendments this afternoon, I cannot shake the belief that the governments that introduce these massive omnibus bills can only have one of two motives in mind. The first motive, I would think, is that they are probably in a desperate hurry or, second, that they have something to hide.

Let us look at the first case scenario. Is this Liberal administration in any sort of a hurry? I cannot see why. The Prime Minister has spent this past weekend shortcutting democracy by laying claim to future mandates with his millennium scholarship fund and prebooking dollars for future programs.

Along with his lack of vision, I cannot see any reason why he would see a difference between 1968 or 1998 let alone the next millennium where he has already committed such a large chunk of our money.

Maybe we can find a sense of urgency in the office of the prime minister in waiting, formerly known as the finance minister. He is so eager to put his stamp on the economy that he has created this 464 page rubber stamp to enshrine Liberal tax policy in a never-never land of complexity, manipulation and government interference and intrusion into other government jurisdictions.

This Liberal government is asking Canadian taxpayers to think happy thoughts and fly straight on and never think of their income as their own, never believe one can make personal choices without first filtering the money through massive bureaucratic programs.

However, since this has been a feature of Liberal tax policy for the last three decades, we cannot see why anybody would be in a hurry. What can I conclude? This government has something to hide. What does it have to hide? We are told that this government is so open and transparent that it is now telling us what it is going to do with our tax dollars years from now.

Somehow taxpayers who are looking at another four years of diminishing net incomes and the next generations faced with paying off this massive debt we have accumulated, almost $600 billion, big government debt cannot find as much cause for celebration as members opposite would like us to believe.

Part of what the Liberals are trying to hide is the fact that they have completely ignored the wishes of the Canadian people, all those people who came to the finance committee last fall making presentations.

At this time of the year when millions of people are tied up trying to figure out their complex tax forms, this government offers nothing to simplify that process. On the finance committee we heard those witnesses last fall testifying that payroll tax cuts were essential to promote further prosperity and spin the economy in this country.

The finance minister offers us 10 cents off the EI premium while jacking CPP premiums through the roof. What is he up to with those excess premiums?

As it turns out they look real good when placed on the asset side of the ledger. They go to pay down the deficit, not to provide the training or the employment benefits this country so badly needs.

It turns out that the public pension surpluses also serve to make the government look good. No one on the government side wants all this to be as open to the public as they claim they do. Perhaps it is not that the Liberals have something to hide but something they want to protect. From what this bill contains I would have to conclude that they want to protect their ability to intrude in and control every aspect of Canadian economics and governance. Taxing municipalities that are only trying to pay for the downloading of services that was begun by the present finance minister is ridiculous. Where do the Liberals believe these profits are going? We should be encouraging cities and towns to be more flexible, not less flexible.

As for the perceived conflict of interest by the finance minister on clause 241, much has already been said. I want to offer my support to my colleagues on this side of the House.

I will not support Motion No. 3 because it simply adds to the bureaucracy of administration and it does so in the area of the provincial jurisdiction. What we are looking for is simplicity in the tax code and a vision from this government that recognizes that money left in the hands of those who produce it is much more effective than all the tinkering with an outdated tax code that only gets more incomprehensible and complex to those of us who are forced to use it.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I just had one comment on the member's speech.

The European model puts a lot more emphasis on trades people. When people are educated in that way it tends to lead to the quicker creation of jobs. These people finish their courses within six months to two years as opposed to university classes which take two to six years. This gives them a chance to get something on their resume. They can always go back for further education.

Does the member see that type of program working for Canadians?

[Petitions, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition with just under 12,000 signatures from my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminister as well as other Canadians, asking the federal government and the justice system to put more emphasis on victims rights other than criminal rights.

They pray that the government will re-examine consecutive sentencing and mandatory minimum sentencing in assault convictions.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we covered quite a bit in that and I am sure I do not have time to cover it all.

One thing that pops to mind for race right off the bat is that a short time ago the department of Indian and northern affairs announced $350 million to address the abuse suffered by natives at the hands of aboriginal schools years ago. Even the aboriginal community was not consulted in that. I know the chief of the grand council is having a terrible time trying to sell it to his people. It is a day late and a dollar short in their estimation. Maybe he should have consulted with them a little more than he did.

The member talked about the millennium scholarship fund. In reality that fund addresses 6% to 7% of students in Canada. What do the other 93% or 94% of students do? Do they sit and wait? This does not kick in until the year 2000. Students in our universities are in a crisis now. They need some help today, not two years down the road. That is a little too late.

He talked about the caregiver tax credit of $400. Fantastic. My elderly inlaws are living with us and $400 do not even cover the cost of putting in a bathroom rail so they can get in and out of the tub. At an $11,500 income that tax credit disappears. It just does not go far enough.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. She is also a member of the finance committee so she knows what we heard on the road from people talking about debt and tax relief.

Many regional programs that we have seen governments direct are always mistargeted. The cost of bureaucracy is excessively high and never create the long term sustainable jobs we would like to see.

She talks about a reduction in the surtax. We think that is great. It should apply to everybody. It is great that they started off and targeted a few people, but the complexity that they have added into the system with this budget takes a tax accountant and a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out the idiosyncrasies of this system, which certainly is at cross purposes to pandering to the poorest sectors of society that are not able to afford an accountant to begin with.

In addition, that complexity flies in the face of the target they are trying to make. When they take the huge CPP increases, which certainly affect Canada's working poor, and balance them off with the nickels and dimes we see tossed their way in the budget, the end result over the three year program shows the working poor as being worse off than they are now. I do not see that as helping that sector of society.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said in his speech that this is a milestone. I am here to say my constituents regard this more as a stone in your shoe than a milestone budget. Millstone is another good word.

It should be a great honour to stand here today and deliver my first speech on a federal budget. I am honoured but I have serious reservations about the honour reflected in this budget.

My constituents and I certainly understand what budgets are all about, making choices. Inevitably there will be people on both sides of the debate. Some will be pleased and many will find fault no matter what you do.

I would like to sympathize with the government on that point but I cannot because what we see in this budget is that it has have made no tough choices at all.

The Liberals claim their approach is balanced but I think the more accurate term for them would be indecisive or unimaginative. What we see here is a major disappointment, a huge flop and a missed opportunity that Canadians will continue to pay for, for decades.

Canadians made it clear in our prebudget deliberations that the tax burden on them and their economy was excessive. That tax burden drags on job creation. We see that reflected in our permanent persistently high unemployment figures.

Not only has the finance minister ignored the opportunity to create real sustainable jobs, but these policies continue to penalize the unemployed. Thousands find themselves ineligible for benefits or have had their benefits cut to minimal levels while the finance minister shovels billions of dollars into an EI surplus fund. He announced nickel and dime cuts to premiums late last year but continues to operate that EI fund as a cash cow rather than the insurance program it was intended to be. I do not find much honour in that.

The minister's colleagues will quickly point out that there is money in the budget for job creation but experience with government shows these programs are at best short term fixes with excessive bureaucratic costs that still leave not thousands, not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of Canadians outside the targeted groups.

This is the choice they make when they try to be the magic bullet that aims itself at narrow agenda items instead of creating broad policies that treat all Canadians equally and treat the economy not as a revenue generator for government excess but as the public trust that belongs to all its citizens and their descendants.

We have seen programs across the political spectrum that reflect the choices the Liberals have made to be always the party of the special interest groups as opposed to being the party of the whole Canadian community. We see them choose to base their programs on race, language, gender or regionalism rather than on creating equal opportunity for everybody.

A government must create an environment where people are not set at each other's throats in a competition for rights and benefits that excludes their neighbours. We on this side of the House know there are localized or specific problems that must be addressed by directing programs but too often these directions are given by the special interest and lobby groups with agendas that do not reflect the values held by the majority of Canadians.

The finance minister said that the time has passed when a government could be all things to all people. By having so many priorities it in fact has none. The finance minister was trying to paint the budget as a point in the nation's history when we would turn from the irresponsible, misdirected, wasteful spending of the past and open a new chapter where every tax dollar would be spent in such a way that it would always reflect focus and balance. I am not saying these buzzwords are meaningless, but I am saying that the actions of the government drain them of any real meaning.

The finance minister rejected the notion that the treasury could afford broad based tax relief. He rejected the advice of many finance committee witnesses who said that decisive debt reduction was not only prudent but would pay large dividends almost immediately for all Canadians and their descendants. Instead he made the choice to be many things to many people. In the process he rejected the values of Canadians by ignoring the polls that said people wanted debt reduction and tax relief most of all.

The minister left many important things out of the budget. There is no mention of the crisis in agriculture or transportation on the prairies, no mention of crisis in the east and west coast fisheries, no mention of the tax burden carried by our small business owners who are the real job creators in the economy. He says to them that they will have to wait, but can they afford to wait for this tax relief?

We can afford $600 million for an office of official languages. We apparently cannot afford to attack the debt, but we can afford to subsidize our own heritage to the tune of $440 million per year. I am not saying that there are not worthy causes in there somewhere but these expenditures are never questioned. Would Canadians abandon their own culture or a second language if these things were not subsidized? I think the evidence would point to the contrary. The evidence suggests that the majority of Canadians being compassionate and reasonable will do many things on their own without being bribed with their own money.

What are the Liberals afraid of? The budget shows what they are afraid of. They are afraid that if they give Canadians the freedom to make their own choices they will choose to support common values; they will strengthen their families, contribute to their communities and naturally gather into a strong country with a shared vision of our future.

By failing to make any courageous choices, the government has not changed anything from the previous three decades of its irresponsible predecessors. Canadians will continue to finance massive programs. They will continue to spend 30 cents of every dollar on nothing more than interest on the national debt. They will continue to hear from Ottawa that bureaucrats know better than they do how to run their own lives. I see nothing honourable in that.

[The Economy, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told Canadians to relax and rejoice. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are waiting for health services, 1.4 million are trapped in the unemployment line, 17% of our youth are searching for a full time job.

Does the prime minister in waiting also believe these people should rejoice and relax?

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question on the government's debt reduction policy. She talked about the old 50:25:25 program but what I see in the budget documents is a $3 billion contingency fund. If there is enough money left out of that, barring any other glitches to the economy or whatever, it will be applied to the debt.

Over the next three years the maximum we would see paid down on the debt is $9 billion according to my math. In that same three years, interest on the debt will accumulate to almost $140 billion. I am wondering how she gets some sort of balance or fairness out of that for taxpayers.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, I just wonder whether he would care to comment in that in the budget document the government talks about spending for foreign affairs at $2.2 billion and for health at $.9 billion. I wonder how it can justify those priorities to the Canadians standing in waiting lines at hospitals.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after all the hype and the headlines what real change has this budget brought about?

Canadians still pay the highest personal income taxes in the free world. We still have a $583 billion national debt, a second mortgage of $77,000 per Canadian family. Government spending has never been higher in Canadian history.

It did not have to be this way. After all, we had a surplus.

Why did the finance minister blow this money on more spending instead of real tax relief and real debt reduction?