Jim Abbott

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I find it particularly unfortunate today that the Bloc has chosen to bring this issue to the House for a couple of reasons.

We have thousands if not tens of thousands of people who presently cannot get to work or even if they could get to work do not have the materials with which to conduct their jobs. It is estimated the strike by the rail workers which the Bloc is stopping will cost the economy $3 billion to 5 billion. When the Bloc comes to the House to discuss this issue, I find it really unfortunate.

Speaking specifically to the motion of the Bloc, why is it-

[Taxation, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the world today international money traders are looking at Canada. They want some kind of feeling of security on where the government is going.

Why do 1970 ideas keep bubbling to the top whenever the Liberals get into their think mode? Do they support the Tobin tax? Yes or no.

[Taxation, March 15th, 1995]

Yes, undenounced by the foreign affairs minister.

What is the position? Does the government support the Tobin tax? Yes or no.

[Taxation, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is confusion surrounding the Liberal position on the electronic transfer tax, otherwise known as the Tobin tax, which seeks to impede the flow of capital around the world.

Last week in Copenhagen the human resources minister said that it was a good idea. He repeated it again in the House on Monday. The finance minister denounced it and now it has been undenounced-

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I believe that every member should be permitted to speak in this house, particularly on issues like this debate.

However, I note that in the last House our party had one independent member, the hon. member for Beaver River. When she was in the House the Conservatives consistently dealt her out of being able to enter into debates.

I wonder if the Chair might be able to explain to the House under what rules the next member is permitted to speak, considering that he, as a member of the previous government, did everything he could to stop our member from being able to speak.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals constantly talk about the whole issue of cutting slowly.

I wonder if the member has had a mortgage on his home. I will assume that he has, along with probably 90 per cent of Canadians. Let us say it is a $50,000 mortgage and he is paying $500 a month. He probably knows that when he first starts paying on the mortgage very little goes toward the principal. Most of his $500 payment is going toward the interest. I also wonder whether the hon. member has had the opportunity perhaps through an inheritance or hard work on his part to put $10,000 toward the mortgage and seeing that instead of the money going toward interest that suddenly he is paying more on principal.

In other words, going slowly on deficit reduction simply does not work. To get the deficit to a point where it is not continuing to add to the burden of the debt there must be prompt, aggressive action so that we will not be doing away with our ability to fund the social programs, so that we will be able to reverse the situation that is forecast and planned for by his government of increasing interest payments from $38 billion to just under $51 billion. That $13 billion is eating up the ability to fund social programs.

Surely there must be some Liberal in this House who has had the experience of making an abrupt payment down on the principal of a mortgage. Can the hon. member not see that that principal might not apply to Canadian finances, therein being able to correctly and properly protect social program funding.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised, if not disappointed, that the hon. member again brought up the issue of the so-called human deficit, as though human deficit means that if governments are not prepared to make the cuts today they are somehow more compassionate than if they make the necessary cuts to be able to protect the ability to fund these programs.

I submit that the government with this budget has gone further to lose the ability to control our currency and we are becoming involved in the international currency casinos, as the hon. member has stated.

Pragmatist that he is, I wonder if he is being realistic in suggesting that Canada, as a bit player in the global world economy, can actually bring about the kind of restructuring he is talking about. Second, what is his position on the so-called Tobin tax, that is, trying to recapture some taxes in the actual exchange of currency around the world?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Oh, really.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting yesterday in question period when I raised the question with the Minister of Human Resources Development whether he was actually floating a trial balloon with the idea of increasing taxes.

One of the difficulties we and I think all Canadians have is that we do not have any idea what the real intention of the government is. It keeps on talking about perhaps we should be taxed more or, as the Prime Minister says, perhaps the health act has to be completely changed, perhaps it has to be downgraded. The health minister says it will not happen and then the Prime Minister turns around the next day and says it might. It seems to be absolutely unclear as to what the intent of this government may be with respect to the health program and tax increases.

I have felt the frustrations from people in my constituency. I wonder if the hon. member has had the same feelings of frustration from her constituents over the fact that the government just does not seem to be coming clean with respect to tax increases.

[Petitions, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition with 38 signatures from citizens of the town of Elkford calling upon Parliament not to enact any

legislation that would allow doctor assisted suicide. I concur with this petition.