Liberal logic.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 34% of the vote.
Law Commission Of Canada Act March 27th, 1996
Liberal logic.
Law Commission Of Canada Act March 27th, 1996
Selfish.
Law Commission Of Canada Act March 27th, 1996
Is there such a thing?
Nisga'A Land Claims March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the future of British Columbia is about to change. The
Nisga'a agreement in principle is to be signed tomorrow, an agreement that lays the template for 50 other agreements.
This odious, non-transparent process took place behind closed doors without the full consultation of the public. The Nisga'a people must realize that no agreement can take place without full consultation with all people.
It is balkanizing British Columbia, creating many states with their own laws and regulations. It constitutionally protects a commercial fishery for aboriginal people where no legal precedent exists. It transfers the management of other resources to aboriginal control. It is not accountable to existing laws and regulations for the protection of the environment for all people.
The Nisga'a agreement in principle is apartheid. It creates different laws and different regulations for different people. It is by its definition racist.
Apartheid never worked in South Africa and it will not work in Canada.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97 March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. I am glad he asked them.
First, I never brought up a New Jersey model in my speech. To answer his question on tax cuts like there were in New Zealand, the plan we gave the government, the zero in three plan, did not involve an across the board tax cut for anybody.
Reformers maintain that government spending has to be controlled, the deficit has to be brought down to zero and then the debt, the real ogre, must be attacked. That is the plan we gave to the government. That is the plan it ignored.
Second, I did bring up the New Zealand model. It does take time for a country to get back on its feet after decades of overspending. The reality for New Zealand is it took 10 years. For Canada it is probably going to take a similar amount of time. If the changes are made today, we cannot expect to have the results for some years.
The converse of that argument is if the changes are not made things will be a lot worse for a lot longer. That is why we demand that the issues be addressed now, and if the government fails to do that it will imperil the Canadian public.
The hon. member did make a number of erroneous statements. New Zealand is doing better than it has ever done. It is one of the lions in terms of economic growth of countries in the world. Over the last couple of years its economic growth rate has increased dramatically from 5 per cent to 10 per cent.
The hon. member said that kudos have been given to Canada. I suggest the hon. member look at what the International Monetary Fund said. The IMF gave our Minister of Finance a very stern warning, making it very clear that his targets are totally unaccept-
able. That is not the first time. It has been repeated time and time again. The primary international financial agency in the world has told Canada to buck up or it will be in trouble.
The hon. member brought up the issue of free speech. We do not have a bunch of cowardly individuals, such as those who are in government. Many of them say they would like to make changes in the government but are afraid to do so because of the whip structure. At least in our party we can speak our mind, and we do.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97 March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10, an act to enable the government to borrow, simply should not exist. It is proof positive that the government has failed the Canadian people in trying to do that which it professes to do, which is get our economic house in order, preserve social programs and above all else, give hope to a Canadian public that so desperately needs hope.
Once again the government has mortgaged the future of every Canadian. It is borrowing on the future of Canadians, their children and their children's children to pay for today. Granted all of what we have today goes on their shoulders because previous governments, Progressive Conservative and Liberal alike, have spent wildly giving us the situation we have today.
Although the government has done a few things that no previous government has done, it still has much further to go. It is still compromising the country as we know it, compromising the very roots of Canadian society. Hence we see the great angst that exists among the Canadian people: their fear of the unknown, their fear
of the future, their fear of losing their jobs, their fear that their children cannot find jobs, their fear of losing the social programs which all of us have come to depend on for health care, for education and for pensions.
The fact that we have to borrow from the future speaks loudly to the fact that our economic house is not in order.
Reformers have been accused of being the slash and burn party. The government has repeatedly said that it is on the right track. This is a track running right into a brick wall.
The International Monetary Fund at the end of last year told the finance minister clearly that if the government does not change its targets, if it does not bring those targets more into line and be more aggressive, not only in its deficit reduction, but most important, in its debt reduction, then Canada is going to be in severe trouble.
We need not look any further than New Zealand to see the consequences of inaction. If the government does not act, if it does not get our economic house in order today, then Canadians are going to suffer. Those who will suffer the most are the poorest and most dispossessed in society. These are the people above all else who we should be here to help. The fact that the government is borrowing once again, spending more money than it takes in, is compromising the health, the welfare and the future of every Canadian.
Three years ago the Reform Party gave the government a specific, concise and effective plan to get the country's economic house in order, to get people back to work, to give confidence back to the people, to preserve social programs, to preserve programs that help those who need help. Did the government take it? Absolutely not. The government ignored it, to its peril and the peril of all Canadians.
The purpose of the plan was to make sensitive, effective cuts to government spending to preserve funding for those people who need it the most, to preserve health care, to preserve education and to preserve the core of the pension programs for those who need them for the future. The government ignored it. Yet the Liberal plan we are following is eroding away at government spending as we speak.
When we were all elected two years ago the government had $120 billion to spend on government programs. Today it has $103 billion. Next year it will have $93 billion to $94 billion. Where has the money gone? It has gone to pay the interest that must be paid on the debt, the debt that is being added to as we speak, the debt that will continue to be added to because the government has failed to balance the books. Every day Canadians have to balance their books. If we do not we go bankrupt. That is reality. The government is committing Canada to bankruptcy and that is completely unthinkable.
Why does the government not act? It does not act out of fear. I understand that. It takes courage to move ahead and address the problems in our midst. Why are the problems in our midst not addressed? It is for fear of having to lead the debate, for fear of the media and for fear of what some small minority groups will say.
However, members must have the courage to act on their principles. They must have the courage to do the right thing for the Canadian public. If they do not it will be the Canadian public that suffers. It is our job. It is not our job to play partisan politics which is what we are descending into and to an even greater degree every day. This place is fracturing into different groups rather than having the vigorous debate that is necessary to find solutions to the problems of the country.
I fear that the problems have become secondary to playing the game of politics. The maintenance and acquisition of power is the game. Canada's problems become secondary to that little dance that is going on here. That is the system and the morass with which we are faced. However, this is an opportunity to change that system and to become more effective.
As an aside, I personally believe that we need to make a hybrid model between the American system and the Canadian system to give individual members of Parliament more power, to give committees more power in enacting legislation and to enable all members of Parliament to represent their constituents rather than doing what the party tells them do. That is something that we in this party have been pushing forward for a very long time, free votes in the House of Commons. I believe it is essential for a democracy to have this because we do not live in a democracy today.
If those changes can be made then this House will provide a more vigorous and effective debate that enables members to formulate plans that can be directly applied to the problems which face Canadians today. I fear these problems are not being dealt with in an effective fashion in the House because of the insidious creeping of partisan politics among us. That is in part why we do not see action on the great problems that face Canada today.
However, it is still inexcusable for the government not to act on the economic situation by continually borrowing on the future of all Canadians.
The Minister of Finance wants to create a study group to determine how the tax system can be addressed more effectively for businesses. I will give the minister a free bit of advice. If he wants to improve the economics in Canada, if he wants to give people a better chance of getting a job, if he wants to preserve social programs and if he wants to give people hope, then he should
cut the tax rate. People should be given more money in their pockets so they can spend it.
Interestingly enough, I believe in 1991, in the dark years of the Conservatives, the Prime Minister of the day actually decreased taxes for a very brief moment in time. What happened? More money was coming into government coffers at that time than ever before. What did the government then do? It started to tax wildly. It brought in the GST and increased taxes. What did all that do? It simply decreased the amount of money coming into the public purse, crushed the economy, raised taxes, decreased the ability of people to get jobs and generally smothered an economy that could otherwise have been more vigorous.
In Canada, we have an enormous opportunity. We are blessed with enormous riches in minerals, in timber but also in the people. We have an enormous wealth of individual strength, tolerance and understanding that cannot be rivalled by any other country in the world. These enormous talents, ideas and potential need to be focused on the issues that not only affect us but affect all countries in the world. It does Canadians a great disservice not to do that.
I implore the government to use its power to work with us, to employ some of our ideas and to use them itself for the good of all Canadians. The problems of this country cannot wait another day. They must be acted on today. The solutions are out there. Let us act on them for everybody.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97 March 21st, 1996
Yes.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97 March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we need to move this debate away from the heated rhetoric which has been taking place here today to the issue that really counts, the people of Canada, those of Longueuil, Lac-Saint Jean, Montreal, Papineau-St. Michel, Toronto, Hawkesbury or Victoria.
The issues being discussed today affect everybody in the country. The hon. member brought up the issue of overlap in government. This is a problem we are all labouring under. We need to solve this problem for all our constituents, including Canadians in Quebec.
The net transfer of payments in the order of billions of dollars has been going to Quebec for many years. Where does it come from? It comes from the west, British Columbia and Alberta. Do the people of Alberta and B.C. complain? Absolutely not. Why? At this time we are enjoying economic prosperity whereas the east is not.
Since we are all Canadians we do not mind transferring the funds to the east to help other individuals in the country who are not doing as well. That is a part of being a Canadian.
What will they do when the transfer funds are eliminated if they separate? The business community has repeatedly told the premier of Quebec that if there is separation there will be a huge negative economic impact on the people of Quebec.
What does the hon. member think about that, and what does he think about our 20-20 plan which is a comprehensive plan on how to decentralize federal-provincial jurisdictions for all Canadians across the country?
Supply March 20th, 1996
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Who am I? We hate it and we will kill it. The hon. Prime Minister of Canada, May 2, 1994.
Here we are in March 1996. When we go to the store, what do we pay? We pay the GST. It may as well be called the "get stuffed tax" because that is what the Liberals are saying to the Canadian public. They did not get rid of this reviled tax.
When I talk to the people of this country, when I talk to the people of my riding, when I talk to the businesses, no single tax is more reviled than the goods and services tax. It is complicated, it is expensive and it is inefficient. It was misleading for the government before it was elected to promise the people something that they so desperately wanted but which it has not given them. This tax provides $18 billion to the public coffers every year. How much of that actually gets to be used? Two-thirds. One-third of the tax goes into administration. How inefficient can we get? That is completely inefficient.
What the Canadian public needs and wants is tax relief. Reform members want the GST to go and we have a plan. What is that plan? The plan is to balance the budget. We simply cannot provide tax relief and get the GST down without doing that.
What has the government done? When I was elected two years ago, the government had $120 billion to spend on programs such as health care and education. What has it done? It has dropped it to $103 billion because it cannot balance the budget, something everybody here has to do in our private lives. Otherwise, we would go bankrupt. That is what is happening to Canada. We are going bankrupt.
It does every Canadian a great disservice to continue with the mythology that we can spend more than we take in. Two years ago Reformers put forward a specific, sensitive plan that would preserve the core of our social programs, that would preserve the core of health care and education to get the deficit down to zero and bring the debt down which is the true ogre.
We gave the plan to the Liberals and said, use it. Take it for all Canadians. Did they do that? Absolutely not. They continue to mortgage the future of all Canadians and compromise the lives of their children. That is reprehensible.
We have been accused of being the slash and burn party. I submit that we are the only political party that is committed to preserving social programs. We are the only party that has a plan on getting the deficit to zero, bringing the debt down so that we can preserve spending and give the public the desperate tax relief that they demand.
I challenge the members opposite to go into their communities, to speak to people about how they are overburdened by taxes. The GST is but one. Before they decrease the GST, we should get our spending down.
There are actions that the government can take today, and that includes simplifying this odious tax. It is absolutely absurd that the GST in its complexity exists. We can simplify it by businesses only putting in one submission every year. It would also diminish the amount of money that has to be spent on administration which is a complete and utter waste of money.
It shows a deplorable lack of trust and integrity on the part of the government that it will promise things purely to get elected. Reformers have not done that and the public finds it absolutely reprehensible that any political party does that. They will see through this at the time of the next election.
My hon. friend has put forward a brilliant way of simplifying the tax system. The government has done absolutely nothing to simplify a tax system so that the average person can fill out the tax forms.
Reformers are going to provide this year a simplified tax system for all Canadians to use so that they can fill out their own tax forms. Ultimately we will provide a way in which all Canadians will be able to get tax relief. That is the name of the game. We will provide it through a simplified tax system.
Once again I feel it is falling on deaf ears for some strange reason. Tragically for all Canadians the government failed to co-operate and use our constructive solutions to help all Canadians across the country.
Once again I challenge members across and I challenge the government to use our good suggestions. Nobody has a monopoly on suggestions for the country. However, we have a lot of good ones but the government has ignored them, to its peril. These suggestions come from the grassroots of the country.
Supply March 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, "axe the tax". That was mantra of Liberal members before they were elected.
Who am I? I am opposed to the GST. I have always been opposed to it and I always will be opposed to it. Who am I? I am the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Jean Chrétien, on October 29, 1990.