Jim Abbott

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated that question because it is so simple. The government cut in all the wrong places.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if Canadians ever had any question in their mind about the truth of the saying Liberal, Tory, same old story, it has been put totally to rest with this budget.

For the longest time in Canada, unfortunately Canadians have been subjected to very deceptive political practices, particularly as we approach an election. We have seen historically where governments have attempted to make things appear to be what they are not and particularly to try to buy the votes of the Canadian public. Canadians are far too intelligent to continue to put up with that kind of deceptive political practice.

Let me tie the Liberals and Tories together inextricably right from the word go. We are talking about a bracket creep, and that is not my opinion of some of the members opposite. In bracket creep we are talking about something that was actually brought into effect by the Tories in a budget of theirs in 1988. They basically deindexed the amount of the basic personal exemption and also deindexed any increases, unless inflation was over 3 per cent, that would occur in the tax brackets.

If we were to assume that an individual had a $3,000 job five years ago, it is quite feasible that the person today, for doing the same work, in order to have the same buying power that he had five years ago at $3,000 would have to have $3,600 in income. Unfortunately, his basic personal exemption of $6,453 in that period of time has not increased. If his basic personal exemption had increased, it should be around $7,900. So in fact, this individual with no change in his buying power from five years ago to today is now paying tax on an additional $1,450. That was originated by the Tories in 1988 and was continued by the Liberals in 1993 which is why I say Liberal, Tory, same old story.

Additionally that individual will find himself suddenly bouncing up into the next tax bracket. The problem is actually magnified or doubled because he is not only paying tax on the additional $1,450 but he is paying the tax at a higher rate. Liberal, Tory, same old story, the same kind of deceptive political practices.

What we are looking at here is not only the continuation of the Tory practices by this Liberal government, but it has taken this deception in this whole process to an even higher level. This government did not even have the intestinal fortitude to bring in the additional amount of money that is going to be taken off of Canadians' pay slips every month. It did not have the intestinal fortitude to include that announcement in this budget.

We are going to be talking about the fact that there have been tax increases later in my discussion. However the point I am driving at is that suddenly Canadians are going to be paying 70 per cent more on their Canada pension plan premium that is being extracted from their paycheque every month. At the higher level that is an additional $1,300 a year for which Canadians will receive nothing, nada, zippo. They will receive absolutely zero in additional benefits for paying out an additional $1,300 a year. If that is not bad enough, the problem is that if the Canadian happens to be self-employed, guess what? They get to pay the employer's portion of that amount.

This afternoon I was speaking to a newspaper reporter and I asked how many people were involved in the company overall. The reporter told me there were about 250. Let us think about this for a second. That company is now faced with an additional $1,300 a year it has to contribute to the Canada pension plan times 250 employees. It is going to be paying out an additional $32,500 a year for absolutely no benefit.

More important, that company will now have to make a decision to reduce the bottom line of the company by $32,500 or fire somebody. Unfortunately the company will probably end up making the worst of the judgments, which is to let somebody go.

This is what is going on here. The young people of Canada on this CPP issue are getting it in the ear two ways. First they are getting it in the ear by virtue of the fact that they will be paying our $1,300 a year more for absolutely no increase. The second difficulty is that their jobs will be jeopardized because companies have no way to attract more income in order to come up with the money for the government in this so-called CPP contribution.

Even for people who are in a lower income bracket, and I mean a very low income bracket, CPP will still be deducted from their cheques. They should know that the amount currently being deducted from their cheques will be increased by 70 per cent. That means they will have less money to spend.

There is a basic tax grab going on in addition to the CPP, which this government will never admit to. How can government members explain that the gross domestic product in Canada, the sum total of all of the goods and services produced in Canada, in the past three years, which is the three years this government has been in this Chamber, has increased by nine and a half per cent? The total goods and services, everything that can be taxed, has increased by nine and a half per cent, but guess what? Government total revenue has increased by twelve and a half per cent. And those members have the audacity to to try to tell us that this government has not been taking more money out of the economy. They cannot refute those numbers.

Taxes cost jobs, and we know that. Take a look. For over 70 consecutive months our unemployment rate in Canada has been over 9 per cent; it is now at 9.7 per cent. In comparison, our trading partners have the following unemployment rates: the United

Kingdom is at 6.7 per cent; the United States is at 5.3 per cent; Japan is at 3.3 per cent. The Liberals cannot walk away from it.

They gave Kim Campbell a rough time in the last election. They tried to say that she did not know what she was talking about when she said that the unemployment rate would probably hover around the 10 per cent level. I recall the current Prime Minister was in absolute glee when Kim Campbell said that. And what have they accomplished? They are still at 9.7 per cent, and with no hope because in the future they will be taking even more money from the economy.

In terms of deception it does not just stop in the area of taxes. I cannot imagine the chutzpah of a finance minister who would actually put out a pamphlet saying that they will be sustaining and improving health care. They will be putting $300 million back in to a place where they took $7 billion out. Let us put this into perspective. Seven billion dollars is seven thousand million dollars. They took seven thousand million dollars out of the health care transfers to the provinces; they are putting three hundred of that seven thousand back, and they say that they are going to sustain and improve health care. Is this a joke or what? The chutzpah of this government is absolutely immense.

The government has downloaded this entire problem to the provinces from the word go. I believe Canadians are intelligent people. Canadians are not going to be taken in by this. When Canadians take the time to realize what a chicanery has been perpetrated on them by the people in government, they will treat it accordingly in the next election.

[Points Of Order, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is just one small point I would draw to your attention. I think you would find that the members of Parliament who were in the lock-up that was allowed by the Department of Finance were not allowed out of the lock-up until the minister stood up.

In the converse, the members of Parliament who were not in the lock-up, who are all honourable people and I am sure all had honourable intentions, nonetheless had the details of the budget prior to the time the minister stood up. I cannot imagine that anyone would have abused that privilege but it is possible that telephone calls could have been made from the lobby.

If members of Parliament are in the lock-up and are not permitted out, there has to be a good reason for it. Why then were the members of Parliament in the House given copies of the budget prior to the minister standing up?

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister today made one of many announcements, specifically about the fact that she is putting together a program for schools.

I must say that I agree with my colleague from Beaver River, as I do with my colleague from Calgary Centre, that we are proud Canadians and that these symbols, these flags, these crests and all of the information about the provinces are a very important part of Canada. I applaud the minister for the intent that she is exhibiting in making this kit available.

However, I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on this. In our so-called paperless society, it is rather interesting that all of the information is currently available from Industry Canada by way of Internet. Probably the majority of schools at all levels in Canada now have access to the World Wide Web, the Internet.

They can retrieve from the Internet all the graphic material which would include the flags, the coat of arms, all the provincial crests and provincial flags, and all the background and data that the teachers would require as teaching aids to tell our Canadian children more about Canada. However, while that is at no cost, this kit that the minister is putting together just by coincidence happens to include a CD ROM and a video. Very clearly there is going to be additional information on that.

I wonder if the member would agree that the probability is that once again our heritage minister is going to be giving to the students and teachers of Canada her own tiny perfect little vision of what Canada is really about rather than simply providing the information so that the people, the teachers and the students can come to their own judgment and inform themselves accordingly.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could help me understand something about just one of the many aspects of Bill C-32. I am thinking of the blank tape levy.

With the blank tape levy where people are going to be charged so many cents, which we talked about in committee, 35 or 40 cents a tape, it is going to raise $12 million which supposedly will be distributed to artists. Could the member help me understand how this encourages Canadian artists, considering that the vast majority of the music being copied is an American product. The money is going to be distributed in small part to the Canadian artists.

This is actually simply encouraging two things, number one a trade battle with the U.S. where it says "if you are collecting $12 million and the product that you are copying is an American product, we demand to have our fair share of that". Therefore we once again have the Liberals instigating a trade battle with the U.S. much like with Sports Illustrated .

Second, could she explain to this House, indeed to Canadians, how this will actually encourage more work by or for Canadian artists, if it is not what I have always called it, simply a tax on tapes.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the point of my speech is very simple and straightforward. Patriotism cannot be manufactured.

Contrary to the ideas the Liberals have, that if it is not done by the government, somehow it is not worthwhile and it is not going to happen, the point of my speech is this. Canadian culture is what Canadians do. Canadian culture is what Canadians are. We are proud of our nation. We are proud not only of the magnificence of our nation and the bounty of its resources but we are particularly proud of its people.

We do not have to be told that we are different to someone else. We do not have to feel inferior to anyone else. Canadians are the greatest people in the world. They are industrious. They are forthright.

It bothers me so much when we run into a situation that unless somehow the government gets involved, the government mandates, the government controls, the government funds, the government over arches everything, somehow we cannot be Canadian.

The approach of the heritage minister to everything, whether it is the Canadian copyright law, or the Canadian content rules that she was musing about over the weekend with respect to the CRTC, or where we should be going as far as CBC or even the importation of books into Canada, I find absolutely appalling that this minister is so shortsighted that she cannot see the greatness of our people and the greatness of our nation right in front of her face.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the debate today is rather interesting.

It is my considered opinion that the heritage minister is a walking, or I should say, a flying disaster. The minister envisions

herself as a unity minister but cannot even maintain unity in her own cabinet on issues which surround her portfolio.

For example the defence minister supports a Reform position that would maintain funding for CBC radio, Newsworld and RDI, but would privatize CBC television and CBC stereo. He is clearly offside with her on that issue.

The industry minister and his ministry are understandably very upset with the last minute disjointed amendments to Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, which destroyed the process of developing a thoughtful, balanced copyright law. After destroying the committee process, she presented a dog's dinner of disjointed amendments that will create a problem of great magnitude rather than solve the conflict.

The international trade minister appears to be going bald from pulling out his hair when she stumbles forward with frivolous comments about cultural exports totalling $1.4 billion a year because she is jeopardizing Canada-U.S. trade relations. Serenity in Canada's exports of $1 billion a day is threatened by her intemperate, illogical rants about Canadian culture.

I have in hand a letter from the Minister of Transport dated November 21. It should be noted that I also have department statistics which show that as of November 18 there had been 2,237 flags issued to his constituency against the provincial average of 2,500. In the November 21 letter, three days after those numbers came out, he went to great lengths to say that flags appeared to be held up. What he was really getting at was he wanted to be able to make the following comment.

I quote from the Minister of Transport's letter to the Canada flag challenge program: "I am writing to you to inform you that any flags distributed to my constituents may be done so under the signature and mailing privilege of my colleague, the Canadian heritage minister, under whose jurisdiction the program falls, or any other way you see fit. I do not believe that it is appropriate for myself or my staff to be directly involved". Clearly, on the issue we are debating today, the transport minister was going out of his way to distance himself from the frivolousness that surrounds this entire issue which was developed by the heritage minister.

To make my case that she is a loose cannon and a walking disaster in her heritage portfolio, here is what she has actually done with this extremely expensive flag program at a cost of $15.5 million. Unfortunately, she has unwittingly proved that there are two solitudes in Canada and manufactured patriotism by flag waving does not close the gap.

I have figures indicating the number of flags ordered by riding throughout Canada. The question is: Why are these statistics divided into ridings by the Canadian heritage department? There must be something there. Let us take a look at it.

For those of us who may not be aware, flags ordered in Liberal members' ridings were sent out through their offices. That is right. The members' frank or mailing privileges were used. Of course, there is a tidy list of individuals who ordered flags which no doubt will prove to be quite useful in the upcoming election. The heritage minister in a debate with me in the House made the statement: "The flag is not Liberal. The flag is Canadian".

As proof that she is taking a hypocritical position, let us look at the details. An average of 2,000 flags per riding were ordered in every province across Canada, excluding Quebec. However, the following ridings had a considerably higher number of flags ordered. What is the similarity among these ridings? They are held by Liberal members. I would suggest that these members were encouraged to ensure these numbers in order that the minister could meet her one million flag mark.

For example, 8,000 flags were given to the riding of the minister of fisheries; 8,000 flags to Brian Tobin's former riding; 6,406 flags to the riding of the minister of francophonie; and 8,440 to Lanark-Carleton. In contrast, to show how these members pushed so hard on this program, the heritage minister's own riding only ordered 2,847.

The real telling numbers are in Quebec. With 25 per cent of the population, that province only accounted for 11 per cent of the flags ordered. The average number ordered in Quebec ridings was only 400. Again I note the following numbers of flags ordered by the ridings of Liberal members in Quebec against an average of only 400 flags per riding in that province: Hull-Aylmer, 2,944; Pierrefonds; 3,075; Gatineau-La Lièvre, 3,338; Gatineau, 3,000. This clearly establishes that Quebec Liberal members were aggressively spreading as many Canadian flags around as possible in a vain attempt to get the numbers up in Quebec.

What did all this cost and how much planning was there? At the outset the minister clearly and specifically stated that without donations the program would cost $6 million. Her press secretary, Duncan Dee, again confirmed the cost would be between $6 million and $7 million. Now the minister has applied her own mathematical skills to this program, which has cost the taxpayer $15.5 million. According to this minister, she has actually saved us $8 million because there was some wild and orchestrated speculation this past summer that the program would cost $23 million.

In summary, the program announced on February 14, 1996 according to the minister would generate patriotism, drive Canadian unity and would be funded by donations. Instead we have a

program which has had little consequence in the province of Quebec and has cost all Canadians $15.5 million. Remember, the minister originally said that it would cost $6 million but because it cost $8 million less than the wild speculation, she says she is under budget when she comes in at only $15.5 million. We can only hope the Prime Minister will not make her the Minister of Finance.

Included in that cost is another tidy little contract for the minister's former campaign manager, a senior partner at Thornley Fallis, Inc., who is not doing too badly. Since Thornley's benefactor was made Minister of Canadian Heritage, it would seem he has obtained five contracts from the Liberal government.

The minister claims to have reached her goal of one million flags. How was this attained? As I reflected on earlier, with the assistance of her Liberal colleagues. I have received calls and letters from many Canadians who never ordered the flags they received. In many cases they received two, three and even four flags. A Montreal Le Devoir reporter indicated in a story that his offices received seven unsolicited flags, again not ordered. The reporter promptly stuck them in the bottom drawer of his desk. So we ask, what effect are these flags at Le Devoir? An anonymous source in the minister's office contacted me and said that they were instructed to invent names and addresses to get the flags out so the minister could reach her goal.

I ask members of this House, did they see a great flurry of flags this past weekend, which would have demonstrated the tremendous success of this program? How successful? Students in Halifax who have seen the Liberal government gouge $4 billion from the CHST which includes funding for post-secondary education showed their contempt for this wasteful spending by ordering 750 free flags which flew from their windows in protest. This was the most significant flurry of flags that anybody could see this weekend.

All of this falls into the same category as the minister's ill thought Canadian Information Office which when announced was supposed to cost us only $20 million. Using the same mathematics, one can only assume we are going to get dinged for considerably more when the government's term is over. What are we getting for this? Not even a free flag.

I remind the House that the office is not accountable to Parliament. It is not accountable to access to information requests; they are blocked by cabinet order. Employees of that office are considered to be exempt staff which means the minister once again can stuff in as many Liberals as she can dig up and put their services to work for her own partisan purposes. The minister said the CIO would not duplicate any other government service already in place. However, what about Reference Canada within the industry department and all the other information offices run by each department? Further, a minister is responsible for intergovernmental affairs. Does his department not respond to requests for information?

The minister clearly stated that the office was not aimed at the separatists in Quebec. In her July 9 press release she said "Canadians made it clear that they are proud of their country and want to know more about each other-the office will bring measures to help Canadians to understand each other and build a stronger Canada".

She denied very vehemently that it was aimed at separatists at that time. However, only two months later the minister admitted to a reporter "the federal government has a duty to respond to the propaganda which the Quebec government spread during last year's referendum campaign". Which is the truth, her position on July 9 or her position two months later because the two things are mutually exclusive.

Only in Canada could we have members of Parliament who come to dismantle our great, magnificent nation. While I share the minister's concern about the seeds of disunity that the Bloc Quebecois and other separatists are spreading in the province of Quebec, she does not have clue one as to what it will take to focus Canadians on what it means to be Canadian.

Her office has set up a web site, for example, at the CIO office. Not surprisingly Quebecers are ignoring the information office web site in the same proportion as they ignore the minister's ill-thought out expensive flag program.

Let me now remind members of the enormous pride we, as Canadians, all Canadians, feel when we have such enormously successful winning athletes standing on the podium at the Olympic ceremonies, athletes such as Silken Lauman, Donovan Bailey, Karen Magnussen, Sylvie Frechette and Canada's special Olympians at Collingwood, Ontario. Does this not instil a greater pride in our country than a bunch of flags filtered through Liberal MPs offices at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers to the tune of $15.5 million?

On August 30, 1996 the minister insisted that the budget is sufficient to cover the costs and that she will not have to cut other programs to come up with the funds. She should tell that to the amateur athletes whose living funds are being eroded today by the heritage ministry. These are the athletes who grow to become Canada's athletes at home and abroad. Can patriotic Canadians afford to buy flags? You bet they can. Could athletes make use of the $15.5 million for incidentals like track shoes and food? I guess so.

Why did this minister blow the $15.5 million on this program when our athletes are starving to death? As part of the $414 million slashed and bled from the CBC, CBC radio, which is supported by the majority of Canadians, took a $30 million hit. With unbelievable massive cynicism last week this minister has now restored $10 million to CBC radio. The net loss to CBC radio, $20 million. The point is she is blowing away the same amount of money as she has

slashed from CBC radio and she is spending it on the Canadian Information Office.

As a consequence I move the following amendment to the Bloc motion.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words "Heritage Canada" and substituting the following therefor:

"such as the $20 million spent on Canada Information Office and the $15.5 million spent on the One Million Flags Operation at a time when cuts unprecedented in the history of Canada have been imposed on cultural institutions such as CBC Radio and direct funding to amateur sports".

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, amid the uproar of the heritage minister's many flip-flops on CBC radio funding along with the deserved hoots of laughter when she recited the Liberal red book promise of stable multiyear funding for the CBC, a few points have been under reported.

First the heritage minister is the person who hacked, slashed and gouged $414 million from the CBC funding in the first place. Giving back $10 million shows incompetence of immense magnitude. It is not only too little too late, but it exhibits management by crisis. She does not have a clue what she is doing. Her chewing gum and baling wire approach to the CBC is crushing that institution.

The Reform Party on the other hand has a rational plan for the CBC to continue funding for CBC radio French and English services, Newsworld, RDI and Radio-Canada International and will privatize television and stereo.

Second, former CBC president Manera has said the heritage minister's $10 million intrusion by cabinet direction "amounts to a vote of non-confidence in the CBC directors; it has turned them into eunuchs". I agree.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we would first have to get our deficit to zero. We have to stop spending more money than we are taking in. At that point we would have the option to ask what we would do. The Reform Party has proposed to offer the average family of four in Canada $2,000 by the year 2000 in a tax reduction: $2,000 by 2000 will become a battle cry of people across Canada.

Second, we would make all sorts of changes in the area of personal exemptions so that the people at the low end of the scale, the single parent families that are presently continuing to pay tax would be taken off the tax roll. It is our projection that for those people earning $30,000 and under, we could remove 89 per cent of the taxes those people are paying.

By lowering the taxes of people at the bottom end of the scale, the people in the lowest income decile, we would have the opportunity to give them the ability to make decisions about their own lives with their own money. That money, interestingly, would end up back in the economy immediately because obviously a family of four with an income of $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 will be spending all of its income on the essentials and the necessities of life with a few frills. The family of four with a $100,000 income will of course have choices.

The beauty of our idea is that by making sure the taxes stay in the hands of people in the low income decile or the low income area, those people will spend the money and put it back into the economy.

Once again we come back to pizzas and muffins. We end with more pizzas purchased. We end up with more muffins purchased. We end up with more barbeques purchased. We end up with more chocolate bars purchased. In that way we end up with more people working. It is a direct way for Canadians to help themselves with their own money rather than the government helping them with their own money.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I can advise the member that I was not aware of it, but it is very typical of what happens with taxes.

In the province of British Columbia we have the situation of the forest renewal fund. That fund was never ever going to be touched. The NDP told us: "Oh, my goodness, the sky would fall before that was ever touched". What happened when they ran short of money is they turned around and grabbed it.

I do not believe for a split second that the Liberal government or its successors, unless it is ourselves, would not twist things around ever so slightly, just a little bit here and just a little bit there so that it would end up with the tax not appearing, as the legislation currently calls for, on the sales receipt. That would disappear. Over a period of time it will disappear and once again it will be a hidden tax.

I concur with the member. It is just taxes, taxes, taxes. Canadians are absolutely sick and fed to the teeth with taxes.