Keith Martin

[Health Care, April 11th, 1997]

Canadians are up in arms. The government is pursuing a course to ban commonly used herbs and medicinals that people have been using safely for decades.

Would the Minister of Health get his priorities straight and allow people to use these substances without restriction?

[Standing Orders Of The House, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Motion No. 267 put forward by my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam. She has put forth a very interesting private member's bill which really goes to the heart of why we have certain problems within Parliament today.

The substantial changes needed in our country will not come from the legislation we put forward in this House. Before we make the changes in the country we first have to start with changes within Parliament, which is what my colleague is trying to do through her motion.

One major problem we have in this House and indeed in this country is that Parliament does not operate as a democracy. Rather, it operates more like a medieval fiefdom. The principles of democracy are repeatedly and continually trashed in this House. The government knows this and the government has ignored it. Perhaps the greatest example of this was a study which was done by members sitting in the House today, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour, the newly elected Acting Speaker of the House.

All these individuals put forth a very erudite study which basically took apart the structure of governance we have in the country today and said that we do not live in a democracy but here are some constructive solutions we could put forward that would bring the power of the people into this Chamber so their wishes, desires and ideas could be brought to bear on the legislation we debate in this House. They were ideas we would support and indeed they are ideas that members from the Reform Party have put forward repeatedly.

However, once these members and this group came into power as the government, these good ideas were tossed under a table and

have been ignored by this government. It has been a huge lost opportunity. There were such ideas as recall, giving members of Parliament the ability to represent their constituents through private members' bills, which is what my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam is putting forward. She is saying that private members' bills must become votable and that they must be entertained in this House in a very sensible and respectful fashion instead of being tossed under a table to be forgotten, as most of them are.

We are the only democracy in the world where private members' bills are non-votable. Why do we use taxpayer dollars, why do we use the efforts and the intelligence of members across party lines to put forward private members' bills only for them to have one hour of debate in this House and be made non-votable? Why do we have private members' bills, such as the one my colleague has put forward on victim rights, go through the system only to be held up by the government in committee? The government can and does block intelligent, compassionate and fair private members' bills in committee if it chooses to do so.

That is not a democracy. That is a trampling on the rights not only of the members in this House but, worse, it is a trampling on the rights of the public to have its wishes, desires, ideas heard in the House. That is what is happening.

We talk often about ideas and how we can strengthen our democracy, ideas on how we can put forward new solutions for our country. We will not have those changes, the substantial changes that our country needs to make it strong, to make it powerful, to make it as good as it can become unless we first begin to have changes in this House. That goes from justice to the national unity issue, to economics, to the environment and to health care. Each of these important issues is not going to have the effective solutions they require and demand unless the government says "Enough is enough. We are going to bring the power of Canadians into this Chamber. We are going to bring the power, the knowledge and the intelligence of members of Parliament to bear on the legislation that we debate here and we are going to make it effective".

If we do that we will be able to achieve the potential that our country can have. Until we do that it will not occur.

I ask every member in this House to support the very intelligent private member's Motion No. 267, put forward by my hon. friend and colleague from Mission-Coquitlam, to make private members' bills votable, to make them debatable, to make them transparent and to make us truly answerable to the people of Canada. If we do that we will certainly be doing Canada and Canadians a huge service, which at the end of the day is our role and responsibility.

[Tobacco Products, March 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from a recent Health Canada study which shows that the nicotine content of tobacco used in Canadian cigarettes has increased 53 per cent in the last 27 years.

This government has invested $2 million in increasing the nicotine content of tobacco to make it more addictive in its Delhi plants in Ontario. I ask the Prime Minister, for the sake of all Canadians and in particular for the health of our youth, will he stop using taxpayers' money to fund research into increasing the addictive potential of cigarettes?

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

That goes into government revenues. The member cannot have it both ways. Where the money is going is not the issue. The fact is that this money has been yanked out of the pockets of individuals and companies. It is a price they must pay.

Interestingly enough this is not the end of it. The chief actuary has said that the CPP is actuarially unsound. This increase is not the end. As the baby boomers start to retire it is quite likely it will increase from 10 per cent to 14 per cent. As I said, it is money that comes out of the pockets of individuals and companies.

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad my hon. friend actually agrees with me that CPP is a payroll tax.

By an extension of his argument he would also have to agree that employment insurance is a tax and employment insurance is running a $6 billion surplus.

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from the Liberal Party for his innovation and initiatives in his riding. It is a very important thing to do. Canadian youth are looking for leadership in their political leaders in pursuing that.

However, let us talk about taxes for a moment. There have been 37 tax increases and I will give a couple of examples. The last was the CPP increase which is going to remove $10 billion from the pockets of Canadians and is going to cost jobs, jobs, jobs.

Second, the increased gasoline taxes have spread across to all Canadians. Those who hurt the most are those who are poorest because they are on fixed incomes.

I also raise the cold, hard salient fact that our country has been burdened by the highest, consistent level of unemployment at10 per cent since the government was elected. Those are facts and that is the state of affairs of our economy.

I am sure the hon. member goes into his riding to speak to businessmen. He cannot get a message that is different from what the rest of us hear. They must tell him that their greatest restriction in their ability to be competitive is the taxation levels that are crushing the daylights out of them. The government has done nothing about it.

One need not look any further than at the underground economy which is growing by leaps and bounds. Members do not have to take my word for it. They can go into their own ridings to find out. It is the palpable, factual evidence that we have to demonstrate the economic proposals of the government have not improved our economy but have crushed it.

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-70 which deals with the harmonization of the GST.

I would like to discuss a number of issues concerning the competitiveness of Canada's economy and the inability of government to provide small and medium size Canadian businesses, the economic backbone of our nation that employs most people, with the tools to enable them to be competitive not only within the nation but outside the nation.

It has been a great disappointment for me to see the government repeatedly ignore constructive suggestions made by our party and other parties, indeed by backbench MPs of all parties through private members' bills. We have given the government opportunities to make our country greater and stronger. It has repeatedly played politics with the economics of the country. Rather than trying to do the right thing, it has chosen to do the political thing.

Competitiveness relies on a number of issues. It relies on a strong education system. It relies on strong investment in research and development. It relies on a taxation structure that does not hang around the necks of Canadians and corporations like a noose which is pulled progressively tighter and tighter until individuals and companies cannot take any more. It also relies on a structure of rules and regulations that do not inhibit the ability of our private sector to function.

It is unfortunate that over the last 20 years a series of Liberal and Conservative governments have taken it upon themselves to do the exact opposite of what is necessary to make our economy stronger.

The government has chosen to eviscerate education by removing $7 billion in transfer payments to education, health and welfare. That is not the way to build a strong economy.

Our students do not only compete with students in Toronto, Vancouver, Quebec City, Montreal and Moncton. They compete against students in Tokyo, New Delhi, Cape Town, London and New York. The world has a global economy. The traditional nation state borders have virtually disappeared. The globalization that has taken place has made it such that nation states are secondary to the movement of capital and the rules and regulations among different groups of countries.

It is imperative for the government to take a leadership role to maximize the ability of students in secondary and post-secondary institutions and of people in the workplace. They should have access to the skills that will enable them to be competitive. We have to continue to learn to keep our skills up and to ensure that companies are competitive.

It is an unfortunate statistic the money invested in training workers is among the lowest of OECD nations. I believe Canada places 33rd of all OECD nations in its ability to train its workers. That is an absolute embarrassment.

Over the last 15 to 20 years our competitiveness has repeatedly and consistently gone down. Our competitiveness now ranks along with that of Italy. This is an ignominious statistic and not one that we should be proud of.

The solutions to these problems are not rocket science. As I have said before, they have been repeatedly presented by members of the House over the last 3.5 years.

With respect to research and development I congratulate the government for putting $800 million into research. It is the first time that has happened in a long time and I hope it continues. Research is another underpinning of our economy and the ability for us to be competitive.

With respect to taxes the government has done an absolutely appalling job and the HST is but an example. I have demonstrated in my questions that the HST will not provide for tax relief for Canadians or for our companies. It will not do anything of the sort. In many instances it will actually increase taxation levels and the burden upon companies.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated what it felt was important about harmonization and where the proposal of the government under Bill C-70 actually failed. It indicated that a properly harmonized system of sales taxes was far more preferable to the mess we currently have. However, it continued, properly harmonized is defined by the small business community as having one sales tax system across the country at a lower rate than would occur by simply combining the GST with the respective PST with one set of rules and one set of audit procedures, a single remittance requirement and one tax collector.

That does not occur here at all. That is quite unfortunate. The government has had an opportunity. It must provide a harmonized sales tax and decrease the inefficiencies in the system. We are in favour of doing it in the manner in which the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has put forward to the government and to the finance minister. However it was ignored. It is essential, if the government is to harmonize, to bring taxation levels down.

This again is just nibbling around the edges. If the government were truly interested in eliminating that which compromises the ability of our companies to be competitive, the taxation levels, it would not have increased taxes 37 times since it was elected. It is utterly disingenuous for the government to tell Canadian taxpayers that it has not increased taxes. Just a few weeks ago the Minister of Finance increased the CPP payments by 10 per cent over the next few years. The contributions are akin to a tax increase that removes $10 billion from the hands of companies and individuals. That will cost jobs all over the country.

On the one hand we have the government nibbling away on a harmonized sales tax which will not do anything to increase efficiency and reduce the tax burden. On the other hand, on a much larger scale it has increased the tax burden on Canadians. Every family has had its taxes increased by thousands of dollars since the government was elected.

That is part of the reason we have an underground economy which is growing by leaps and bounds. It is part of the reason why when we talk to small and medium size businesses they say they cannot hire anybody because all they do is work and give their money to the tax man. That is what is happening.

In 1992 the government of the day chose to decrease taxes. What happened? The economy was stimulated. Revenues to the government actually increased. What did the government do then? It started to tax wildly. This does not make any sense.

There are numerous examples from around the world to demonstrate that there are ways in which to decrease our taxation system. It can be done in such a way that government revenues will increase and it will be a stimulus to the economy.

The other object in trying to make our companies more competitive is the government getting its own fiscal and monetary house in order. Three and half years ago we provided the government with a concise, specific, detailed and logical plan to bring our deficit down to zero and produce a surplus budget. Right now we would not have deficit spending if the government had chosen to take up our plans. But the government did not adopt our plans and as a result we have a debt that is $100 billion higher today than before.

We have a situation where instead of spending 25 per cent on the moneys taken in by the government, the government now has to pay 40 per cent, that is 40 cents out of every dollar it takes in just on interest on the debt. That is the single greatest threat to all our social programs. If we liken the situation to a pie, when we were elected in 1993, only a quarter of that pie went toward payment of interest on the debt. Now it is 40 per cent and soon enough it will be 50 per cent. As time time passes, as our debts increase, as our interest payments on those debts increase, less and less money will be available to pay for health care, education, welfare, the guaranteed income supplement, old age security, all of those fine social programs we have. All these programs that protect people who do without, who have not, that are meant to protect them so they do not suffer, are being compromised.

Government members like to claim they are the great white knights, that they are the compassionate ones, that they are the ones who are trying to protect the poor and the underprivileged. However, they are actually doing an absolutely huge disservice to Canadians, in particular the poor, by not getting our fiscal house in order.

Fiscal irresponsibility, not getting our deficit down to zero which would produce a surplus budget and bring down the debt, is the single greatest threat to our social programs and the single greatest threat to the poor and the underprivileged. It is the single greatest threat to our ability to provide health care to Canadians in a timely fashion. However, the government continues to play political football with these issues and not lead from the front. It is leading through polls and focus groups but it is not saying what it is going to do.

Perhaps the flavour of what the government has been doing in the last three and a half years can be summarized by an Italian politician from the 19th century who said something like this: "There go my people. I had better find out where they are going so I can lead them". In effect that is what this government has been doing for the most part over the past three and a half years.

However, the government has done some good things. I commend the government members on their ability to increase free trade, in particular in the new Canada-Chile free trade agreement. I applaud them in trying to establish links with other countries. This is very important and they must continue to pursue that as part of their agenda.

There are other issues the government has failed to do which compromise all provinces. In particular, it has compromised the people of Quebec on the issue of Quebec sovereignty. If we look back at history we find that the issue of Quebec nationalism and Quebec sovereignty is something like a sinusoidal curve with public interest on the y axis and time on the x axis. Public interest and political interest increases to a fervour at referendum time. As soon as the referendum is over interest declines to a nadir.

Unfortunately the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, and the Parti Quebecois are working very strongly to pursue an agenda for separation. Given this very obvious fact, the government is doing nothing to improve interprovincial relations, devolve some federal powers to all provinces, not just Quebec, in a way that would improve the efficiency services like housing, education, manpower and training, health care, which provinces already have responsibility for but which the government attaches strings to.

These are all issues from which all provinces can benefit. If the government were to take a leadership role, it would sit down with all the provinces and ask them what it does best as a federal government and what they do best as a provincial government and then devolve those responsibilities. The feds should do what they do best and the provinces should do what they do best. This would

increase efficiency and decrease the burden on the taxpayer through decreasing costs.

Instead of taking this initiative, the government has done absolutely nothing since the last referendum on this issue. Despite what some people might say, the threat of separation and the threat of a unilateral declaration of independence is causing great uncertainty and is crushing the economic lifeblood out of Quebec.

It is a sad thing for me to see what a wonderful city Montreal was-it still is-an incredible, lively, vibrant and economically strong Montreal when I lived in Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s, a place everyone looked to as being a magical place which had so much to offer to Canada. Unfortunately the threat of separation has gutted its economic ability and has decreased the moral of people there. It is a very sad thing to see. It is compromising their ability to get on with their lives and build a strong city not only for Quebec but for all of Canada.

Furthermore, it is compromising the ability of all people of Quebec to be socially and economically strong and stable as individuals, families and communities.

I challenge members again to look at the proposals the Reform Party put forward prior to the last election. They are sensible proposals, fair proposals and proposals that are for all Canadians across the country equally. They are not predicated on a distinct society for one province. They are not predicated on providing laws and regulations and privileges for one province over another. They are based on giving an equal hand to all provinces and all Canadians for the betterment of all people.

I encourage everyone to do this because if the government does not take this issue seriously, if it does not address this issue now, when the next referendum comes along the government will be scurrying to put forth a plan and it will be too late. We will help put forward a good plan for all Canadians. We will help build a stronger Canada for all Canadians. However, we ask this government's co-operation.

We also ask for the co-operation of all honest, well meaning people in Quebec that if they are interested in building a stronger province for themselves, their families, their children and their communities, if they are interested in building a stronger nation, they must join with all of us to do this.

It would be interesting for them to know, if this ever gets out to the people of Quebec, that the issues, fears and aspirations that the people of Quebec have, by and large, are very much the same as those shared by Canadians in every single province.

I do not care whether someone lives in Cache Creek, British Columbia or in Nanaimo, Victoria, Baie Comeau, Toronto, North Bay or in Shediac, the aspirations and the fears of having a job, living in a safe environment, having a future for oneself and one's children and having a stronger future for everybody are shared by all Canadians.

It is within that area of communality that we must come together to build a stronger nation. If we continue to divide this country up into areas, the west, central Canada, the maritimes, Quebec, francophones, anglophones, immigrants, hyphenated Canadians, if we continue to do that then we will have a balkanized nation and we will be just but a shadow of what we can be as a nation.

If, however, we lead from that front and come together in an area of common interest, shoulder to shoulder to build a stronger nation, indeed that is what we will have. We will rightly take our place in the international community as one of its leaders.

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and would like to ask him a number of questions on some important issues he addressed, in particular on improving the export potential of Canada.

Our standard of living is largely dependent upon our ability to export. Competitiveness in export markets relies on lower taxes, a strong educational system and a situation that decreases the barriers to trade. Over the last 3.5 years the government has seen fit to pursue a strategic economic course that has increased taxes 37 times. The most recent one is the increase in CPP which basically took $10 billion out of the hands of consumers.

With respect to education, the backbone of our ability to be competitive in the world, the government has chosen to remove $7 billion from transfer payments to the provinces. This has significantly compromised the ability of students in Canada to get the training they will need in the future to compete with students from as far away as Tokyo and Moscow.

Barriers to trade are a significant deterrent to our competitiveness. Why has the government chosen to nibble around the edges of the issue of interprovincial trade barriers to such an extent that today there are fewer barriers north-south than east-west? It is absolutely essential for all companies in the country be able to work in an environment free of egregious government control. Interprovincial trade barriers are probably the greatest deterrent to our companies being competitive.

How can the member can stand in the House and talk about competitiveness when the government has done numerous things to make Canadian companies uncompetitive?

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member brought forth examples from New Brunswick and said that New Brunswickers are in favour of this. I would like to cite some examples from New Brunswick.

The Canadian Real Estate Association said that the harmonization will increase the cost of a new house by $4,000 in Nova Scotia and by $3,374 in New Brunswick. The GST harmonization will be responsible for the closure of five Greenberg stores and a loss of 79 jobs in Buctouche, Dalhousie, Moncton, Sussex and Saint John. The management of this chain said that there is a 50-50 chance of further store closures and a loss of 71 jobs in such places as Shediac and Moncton. These are very specific examples of what the harmonization will do in the province of New Brunswick.

Again, I would like to ask how the hon. member can say in this House that the harmonization of the GST is actually going to improve efficiency and increase co-operation when provinces in the maritimes are blatantly against it.

I agree with the hon. member that a harmonization with a decreasing tax base would benefit the provinces and individuals but it has to be a substantial decrease in the taxation on individuals.

Furthermore, I would like to bring to the hon. member's attention that the government is actually nibbling around the edges on this issue. Since being elected the government has introduced 36 tax increases. What has been the impact of the 36 tax increases that his government has introduced over the last three years on people not only in the maritimes but also in the rest of Canada?

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I hold my hon. colleague in high esteem since he always makes very intelligent comments. I would like to hold up some of his comments to some factual statements made by members from the maritimes.

The hon. member mentioned in his speech that Bill C-70 would increase efficiency and provide a climate of working together. I want to take the time to quote some statements from our provincial counterparts.

Ontario finance minister Ernie Eves said that the blended sales tax using the GST base would cost Ontarians over $3 billion in extra taxes and put a kibosh on any other harmonization schemes. In the business community, the Retail Council of Canada said that by forcing stores to bury the new tax in prices, the harmonized tax regime was going to cost retailers at least $100 million a year. The Halifax Chamber of Commerce predicted that the harmonized sales tax would push up new house prices by 5.5 per cent as well as force municipalities to raise property taxes. I have other examples. I am sure this is no news to the hon. member opposite.

In view of the statements I have just made, which contradict what the member said, I would certainly like to know how he can stand in the House and say that Bill C-70 and the harmonization of the tax is actually going to increase efficiency and provide a climate of co-operation. Clearly many members in the business and political communities in the maritimes and the rest of this country are blatantly against it.