Jay Hill

[Justice, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 1995 this government invoked time allocation to ram its sentencing bill, Bill C-41, through the House.

Reformers supported the Canadian Police Association in calling for the rejection of this ill conceived piece of legislation. We feared judges would use conditional sentencing inappropriately in cases of violence. Our worst fears have become victims' worst nightmares.

The Bill C-17 amendment the justice minister just referred to only cautions judges to use this so-called tool appropriately. It does not prevent them from using it in cases of violence.

Will the justice minister now admit his mistake and take corrective action to ensure conditional sentencing is never used again in cases of violence?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 10th, 1997]

No, not the finance minister. There is a system of bracket creep. When the Liberals got into government they refused to index to the inflation rate, even though they complained about it when they were in opposition and the Tories were doing this type of thing. It is a sneaky way to increase tax revenue. They complained about it very volubly when they were on this side. When they got over to the other side they recognized it was a way in which to continue to gather in more and more tax dollars from Canadians, $24 billion more annually than when they took office. They have cut $7 billion from the Canada health and social transfer.

In Bill C-93 they are talking about the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, an $800 million program over five years. They talk about it as though it will be the answer. They hold it up as the be all and end all. The fact of the matter is that hospitals have closed and highly trained and skilled doctors have moved to other countries because there are not the opportunities here there should be, due to their cuts.

They have cut $7 billion on one side but on the other side they will initiate a few small new programs. I suspect they will be highly bureaucratic programs. The Liberals are talking about a board of 15 new patronage appointments that will necessary to operate the organization. That is typical of the government. That too highlights the problems and the differences.

As Canadians head toward the next election the choice will to be increasingly clear. They can choose big government, big spending, big taxes, big bureaucracy, more and more government intrusion into their everyday lives, or they can choose smaller government, balanced budgets and lower spending and tax cuts. That will be their choices. It will be made very clear as we go into the next election.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 10th, 1997]

That is right. They talk about the fact that there have been no tax increases. When they were on this side of the House they very clearly understood there were two ways to increase taxation. There is the honest way, where they increase the tax rate and take the heat from it publicly. Or, there is the sneaky way where they do it by plugging some so-called tax loopholes and with excise taxes and other such taxes. That is the way the government has opted to go.

I do not believe for a minute Canadian people will to be fooled by this, not for a minute. It is them at the end of the day, the end of the week and the end of the month who have less and less money to spend on essentials: food, homes, gasoline for their vehicle to get to and from work, and raising their children.

We must look at the real facts if we are to discuss the 1997 budget and the deficit. Both Liberal members across the way revealed quite correctly that the deficit had come down from $42 billion when they came to power in 1993 to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $19 billion today.

They look at that and say: "What a wonderful achievement. We are on the road to victory". Let us look at how that was accomplished. It was accomplished by $24 billion in increased tax revenue achieved in a number of ways. I spoke two hours ago to the 1996 budget and referred to the fact that a substantial amount of the increase was because of something called bracket creep.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 10th, 1997]

Exactly. Why are 1.5 million people still unemployed if the Liberals have done such a great job of jobs, jobs, jobs? That was one of their big promises.

Let us look at their two big promises in the 1993 election. One was jobs, jobs, jobs. We have 1.5 million people unemployed or two million to three million unemployed people with the ones out there who have given up looking for work. They have simply given up and are no longer even included in the unemployment statistics. There is no hope left in them to be out there seeking a job. Why are they so proud of that?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 10th, 1997]

Exactly. That is what I was going to say. It is not such a long time to a lot of Canadians. Canadians can remember back to balanced budgets. Canadians can remember back to a time when, even though wages were substantially lower, they had a lot more of their income at their disposal at the end of the day.

The hon. member for Durham went on to say that he came here to improve the financial situation. He spoke in glowing terms of how he was so proud of the Liberal record over the past 3.5 years. The budget we are talking about in Bill C-93 is the fourth budget since the Liberals came to power following the 1993 election. He spoke as though he was quite proud.

I wonder if Canadians watching the debate today are equally proud of another $111 billion worth of debt. The Liberals do not talk about that. They do not talk about the fact that interest on the debt is by far the single largest expenditure for the federal government and for taxpayers.

When we talk about the federal government it is important to understand there is only one taxpayer in the country. One person is paying the bill. Some seem to operate under an illusion in this place. They are insulated. They think the government is providing these services and programs. They turn to government to look for direction and for hope for the future when in reality it is the people of the country who are providing all this for themselves. Sometimes the old parties seem to forget this fundamental fact.

The Liberal member for Huron-Bruce talked about two of the goals the Liberals had when they were elected in 1993. It was job growth and controlling the deficit. Once again the hon. member, as did his previous colleagues, spoke in glowing terms of how far we have come.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to try and speak to this bill. I am completely confused.

It is really quite incredible to sit here and listen to this debate today on Bill C-93. It strikes me as more than a little odd that in

just about the last two and a half hours we have managed to move ahead about a year and a half. About two and a half hours ago we were debating Bill C-92 which dealt with implementing certain aspects of the 1996 budget. Here we are now moving at the speed of light and dealing with Bill C-93 and the implementation of certain facets of the 1997 budget. We are moving ahead very quickly.

In replying to this legislation, I noticed that once again the Liberal government is doing exactly the same thing that it has become renowned for doing over the past three and a half years. It is using every procedural tactic possible to stifle debate in the House of Commons, particularly today. Rather than face the public honestly and try to shut down debate as it normally does with time allocation, it has opted to use another procedure and shuffle these two bills off to committee, regardless of the fact that the principle of these bills has already been decided. I listened to a couple of Liberal members make their presentations. The hon. member for Durham said something to the effect that it has taken us a long time to get to where we are today.

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was merely referring to the fact that back in 1993 you recognized this as a form of increase in taxes. I was merely applauding your insight.

What Canadians are telling us today is clear. It is Liberal-Tory, same old story, when it comes to taxing, taxing, taxing.

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

The hon. member opposite is suggesting that it is only millionaires who experience this. It is quite the contrary. This is falling on the already horribly overtaxed middle class of Canada.

It is interesting to note what was said by some government members about bracket creep when they were in opposition. I remind those members of what they said by quoting from Hansard .

Who do we suppose said the following? This individual was referring to the Tory finance minister, Michael Wilson:

He said lower taxes. He told us there were no tax increases in this budget. That statement is false because taxes are going up in this country because of the deindexation of deductions which this government has done in its past budgets. The government knows it is going to get more money this year as a result of the removal of the indexation provisions on all deductions in the Income Tax Act and the removal of indexation on the rates of tax on various levels of income. Those have all been taken out so taxes will go up this year.

That is a quote from Hansard of April 28, 1993. I am sure the House will recall that individual, the Liberal member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands. It was you, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1993 you recognized that bracket creep was a sneaky way in which governments, at the time the Tory government, could increase taxation on the already-

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was merely pointing out that I believed this standing order is broad enough and loose enough that potentially some abuse can exist. That was the point I was trying to make.

Earlier in debate the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River attacked Reformers, saying that we were misrepresenting the facts on how this government is moving toward a balanced budget. I believe the Canadian public is coming to realize that how the Liberal government is moving toward a balanced budget is on the backs of taxpayers.

Tax revenue has increased in the neighbourhood of $24 billion a year. There is a proliferation of user fees for various things that used to be provided for Canadian citizens. There is the downloading of approximately $7.5 billion to the provinces in reduced transfers through the Canadian health and social transfer. The government has been enjoying the lowest interest rates on the national debt in four decades.

If taxpayers and voters really analyze who is responsible for gradually bringing the budget into line they will recognize that they are. They are the ones who are paying and making the advances that have come.

It really galls me to no end when I hear government members saying it is because of the growth in the economy. Who has ever said that if we as a nation enjoy some growth in the economy big government should benefit by just taking more out of the economy to spend as it sees fit? It is the principle of the matter and I have great difficulty believing that principle is supported by the majority of Canadians.

This bill deals with a range of subjects, tax credits for individuals, child care expense deduction, deferred income plans, foreign reporting rules whereby people with assets overseas will have to report not only the income derived from those assets but the assets themselves to the government. It deals with a wide range of issues.

Earlier the member for Scarborough-Rouge River said Reform is not accurately representing the facts on the budget and the whole issue of bracket creep. People have asked me "who is this bracket creep and what crime has he committed?" They are really interested. They hear about this bracket creep and they wonder where they should direct their attention.

To try to explain it as simply as possible, bracket creep is what happens to a taxpayer in a certain income tax bracket who, because the government has failed to index income tax to inflation, finds himself moved up into another bracket.

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since I did not opt to rise, as a number of members of Parliament did, to take the time of the House during that point of order, I thought it was within the purview of my presentation to at least point out that you are quite right, Mr. Speaker, I was not challenging the decision made by the Chair, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so.

What I was clearly pointing out is the misuse by the government of this standing order, not the decision arrived at by the Chair.