Preston Manning

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government acts as if this were some isolated incident, but Rita Galloway, president of the First Nations Coalition for Accountability, says differently. She alleges that when band members write letters to the ministry complaining about financial irregularities or human rights abuses on reserve invariably those letters end up in the hands of the band and council being complained about.

If the government does not condone this practice, what concrete steps will it take to stop it?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs invited grassroots aboriginals to tell her about the problems they face on reserve. However, when Bruce Starlight wrote about the problems on his Alberta reserve, his letter with the minister's stamp on it was sent by someone in the minister's office to the chief of that reserve. Now the chief is suing Starlight, using band funds.

My question is for the government. Does this action not clearly violate both the spirit and the letter of the Privacy Act?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

The debt is underneath.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the minister on his speech. I want to make a couple of comments and then ask him a question.

First, I think he misuses the Titanic analogy. It is the government that is on the Titanic and the iceberg out there is the national debt. If you hit that, you are going to tear a hole in the government, you are going to tear a hole in every social program funded by this country.

Second, I was amused by his quoting Disraeli. He of course is free to quote whoever he likes. The minister realizes, of course, that Disraeli spent his entire life attacking and trying to destroy the British Liberal party under William Gladstone.

The minister also implied that Reform does not support federal spending. I encourage him to read and study what was actually said. We are prepared to support a spending program of $103 billion in 1998. That is exactly the same spending program in aggregate terms that the government is proposing. What we are saying is we should freeze that for three years and give greater attention to this debt and tax problem which we say is looming larger.

The third comment before I get to my question is the minister talked about flexibility and the desire to protect the Canadian dollar against instability such as is registered in the Asian financial flu. Surely the minister knows from his own background that the speculators that take a run at the Canadian dollar, or anybody else, look at your fundamentals. They take a run at you when your fundamentals are not right. It is true one of the fundamentals they look at is whether your budget is balanced, but the other fundamental they look at is your high debt levels.

Surely the minister recognizes that we are carrying a lot of our debt on short term money. A one and a half per cent increase in interest rates would add about $8 billion to interest charges in two years and blow the minister's projections for a balanced budget out the window. Getting the debt down is one of the best protections you have against Asian financial flu.

That brings me to my question. I know the minister will like this because he has sometimes indicated in question period where his heart is. He has admitted to the House that our tax levels are excessively high. He must know that high taxes kill jobs and low taxes help create jobs.

He knows our tax rates are higher than the US and that our unemployment rate is four points higher than the US. He knows that tinkering with taxes is not going to provide the tax relief required to stimulate real job creation.

Why in the name of jobs, why in the name of common sense, does the minister not become a champion of bold, vigorous, major, substantive tax relief within the Liberal cabinet?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the member's question is that we favour reducing the GST rate by 1% which saves taxpayers about $3 billion. That is one of the tax relief measures contained in this menu of tax relief measures.

Our longer term proposal for the GST is to flatten and simplify the income tax system and integrate the GST into it thereby eliminating it all together. We favour this as an intermediate measure because the other reform is a huge and complicated one, the 1% reduction in the GST.

There is another point I would make to the members of the NDP, and I make this sincerely. There is an awful lot of disagreement between Reformers and the NDP on a lot of things but I plead with the NDP to look at this issue of debt reduction and tax relief from a social standpoint. This is an area in which the NDP professes to have deep concerns and values.

We argue that high debt is socially irresponsible. It is the interest on that debt that is eroding all the programs the NDP hold most dear. We argue that these are punitive tax measures, particularly the ones that hit the lower income people. We can argue what is the best way to help those people, but surely leaving more money in their pockets has to be the socially responsible, not just the fiscally responsible, thing to do.

I appreciate the member's question. I would appeal to the members of the NDP to support these measures, perhaps for somewhat different reasons than ourselves, but to take into account the social as well as the fiscal implications of what we are proposing.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we were impressed by this member's commentary during his intervention, in particular the demonstration of his capacity to count to four and also his recitation of the one and only Shakespeare quotation he knows. We appreciated that contribution. Please, not more, not more.

There were really two questions in his intervention. He wants us to give the federal government credit for this balancing of the budget. We have already argued that we have pressed harder than any others in the House for the achievement of that objective so of course we are pleased when we get to that point.

However there is something the government must recognize and apparently the member missed my entire point. There are four things wrong. That is a number he should be able to grasp. There are four things wrong with the federal fiscal house. One is the deficit, another is chronic overspending, another is the high level of debt and another is the high level of taxation.

Any member in this House who is under the illusion that the fiscal house of the federal government can be fixed by fixing only one of those flat tires has an awful lot to learn. What we are endeavouring to do is get the member beyond this point to the point where he recognizes that increased spending by the federal government is the wrong course. A new attention to debt and tax relief has to be given. That was the whole thrust of my talk.

The member's allegation is that somehow what Reform is proposing is divisive to the country, or in other words tax relief is divisive but spending brings us together. If high spending brought us together this ought to be the most united country in the world. What Reform's tax relief measures do is something that is beneficial to every part of the country.

My time did not permit me to translate our $20 billion of tax relief into its regional impacts, but let me give the member those regional impacts. If the government implemented that package of $20 billion in tax relief measures per year, the nine measures listed in our program, this is what that would deliver per year to the regions of Canada.

Atlantic Canada would get $1.4 billion per year, more than what the government has ever paid in regional development grants. This is given to the many rather than to the few and you do not have to be a friend of the government to get it. Quebec would get $4.5 billion a year in tax relief. To Ontario, $7.5 billion a year. To Manitoba and Saskatchewan, $1.4 billion in tax relief. To Alberta, $1.9 billion. To British Columbia, $2.5 billion.

I suggest that if we gave that kind of tax relief to every part of the country, it would do more to stimulate our economy and bind us together than the divisive and patronage-riddled spending of the federal government.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

moved:

That this House condemns the government for imperilling the economic and social security of Canadians with their reckless commitment to dramatically increase spending, at a time when the average family's share of the federal debt is approaching $80,000 and Canada has the highest personal income taxes in the G-7.

Mr. Speaker, as we move toward the 21st century one of the things that Canadians have a right to expect from their federal government is leadership, far-sighted, decisive and strong leadership, but that is not what the Canadian public has been receiving from this government.

I talked to a pollster several weeks ago who conducts a lot of polls and focus groups and is particularly observant of the adjectives that people use to describe the government of the day.

He noted that in the last days of the Mulroney administration the word arrogant occurred more and more frequently as the adjective used to describe that government.

I asked what adjective is being applied to this government as it enters into its last term. He said the adjective that is being applied to this government by Canadians more and more is the word weak.

In case some hon. members are not sure what that word means or think that it refers to seven days in a row, according to the dictionary these are some of the synonyms for the word weak: feeble, frail, fragile, infirm, decrepit, impotent, strengthless, powerless, flaccid, anemic, exhausted, flimsy, broken down, run down, rickety, tottering, doddering, broken, lame, halt, withered, maimed, shattered, shaken, palsied, decrepit, languid, poor, infirm, faint, sickly, vapid, flat, insipid, watery, loose, lax, nerveless, slack, spent, weatherbeaten, decayed, rotten, worn, seedy, languishing, wasted, unsupported, helpless and defenceless.

Today we want to focus on a particular area where the weakness of the government is self-evident. The subject of the supply motion before us condemns, and rightly so, the government's management and mismanagement of Canada's high debt and taxation levels.

The government is fundamentally weak on debt reduction and tax relief and it is the duty of the House to hold it accountable for that weakness.

There is a critique of the Liberal position and Reform's alternatives for debt reduction and tax relief which we have produced in a little booklet entitled “Securing Your Future”. This is a summary of a longer 50 page paper containing the results of the prebudget consultations conducted by the official opposition entitled “Securing the Dividend”.

All this material has far more to say on debt reduction and tax relief than anything produced by the finance committee of the House. It is the work of the official opposition research and communications people, with the supervision and involvement of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley and the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. I thank them for the enormous amount of work they have done on this subject.

I should also mention to the public that this booklet can be obtained from any Reform MP or by contacting us at 1-888-733-6761, or at our web site, www.reform.ca.

This booklet also contains a score card for rating the finance minister's forthcoming budget with respect to its treatment of debt reduction and tax relief. This score card for rating Liberal financial performance was inspired by the score cards used to monitor rowing contests, rowing being the only activity we can think of where one can sit on one's rear end and go backward and still have some chance of crossing the finish line.

On the debt problem, this is the essence of it. Under Liberal-Tory mismanagement the federal debt rose to $583 billion, which is 70% of the GDP. Over the past 25 years Liberal administrations added $195 billion; the Tories, $300 billion; the current administration, $75 billion. Canadians spend $45 billion per year on interest, more than on health, education, equalization and pensions combined. The interest on this debt is the greatest threat to social programs.

To put this in understandable terms, most Canadian families have a mortgage but what this debt does is establish a second mortgage on the future of every family of four to the tune of $77,000. The average family, therefore, pays $6,000 to $7,000 a year in taxes on that mortgage, so this debt erodes the disposable income of every family in the country.

In summary, the Liberal-Tory record of debt accumulation is the worst of any post-war government in the western world. It is a national disgrace and strong leadership is required to correct it.

The official opposition therefore proposes that Canada make federal debt retirement a top financial priority by committing 50% of any future federal surpluses to debt reduction. We believe that we are supported in this by a majority of the Canadian people.

If we were to say to average families saddled with a $77,000 second mortgage because of the federal government that they will receive some extra cash this year, we are convinced that most families would make it their number one priority to pay down that mortgage, and that is what we are saying the federal government should do.

In this booklet and in the background paper that supports it we have set down a plan to pay down the debt. It includes setting debt reduction targets and sticking to them, aiming to reduce the debt from 70% of GDP to 50% by the year 2003 and to 20% by the year 2016. In other words, the debt would almost be cut in half by the year 2016, in 20 years. That could cut the second mortgage on the family from $77,000 to $39,000. If the Government of Canada did that it would save about $20 billion in interest payments per year by the 20th year.

To back up this debt reduction plan we also propose balanced budget legislation, a legal requirement to keep the budget balanced over a four year cycle, a legal requirement to put 50% of any defined surpluses into a national debt retirement fund, and penalties on ministers and on MPs for violation.

Six provinces of Canada have balanced budget laws. There ought to be a federal law to make a repeat of the Liberal-Tory debt accumulation illegal.

Turning to the Liberal-Tory tax record, under Liberal-Tory administrations Canadians have been subjected to over 108 federal tax increases since 1984, 71 by the Tories and 37 by the Liberals. We now have the highest personal income tax levels among G-7 industrialized countries, some 56% higher than the average of those countries. We do not just tax the rich. Canada's top tax rate kicks in at incomes of $60,000 a year. In the U.S. it kicks in when one makes $270,000.

I often go to universities to speak to the students. Invariably, when we have an open question period, some student will stand and say “I am graduating next year with a computer science degree” or a degree in this or that. “Here is my tax position in Chicago and here is my tax position in Canada. Why is the tax incentive to leave the country rather than to stay?”

We do not just overtax the middle class. We overtax the lower middle and the poor. Canada starts taxing people when they make $6,500 a year. Even the heartless U.S. does not start until one makes $9,500. The average among the OECD countries is that one does not start paying income tax until one makes about $15,000 a year.

The Liberal government currently takes $1.8 billion a year from people who make $15,000 or less and takes $12 billion from families who make $30,000 a year or less. In other words, it collects almost $14 billion a year in taxes from people who, by its own definitions, are near or below the poverty line.

Last year, to add insult to injury, the government announced the biggest tax hike in history, bigger than the Mulroney GST, the finance minister's 73% hike in CPP premiums.

Putting this again in understandable terms, the disposable income of the average Canadian family has dropped by $3,000 as a result of the taxing policies of the Liberal administration. There has been economic growth in the country since 1993 but governments have consumed the lion's share of it. The average Canadian family now spends more on taxes than on food, shelter and clothing.

I do not have time but other members will get into this point. Reform has a concrete plan for tax relief. We want to make tax relief a real priority by committing 50% of future surpluses to genuine broad based relief. We urge the government to adopt these tax relief measures. We list nine particular measures in “Securing our Future”. These measures plus the indexing of personal income tax add up to about $20 billion a year in tax relief by the time all are delivered over a period of five years.

The Reform target would be to provide $2,000 of tax relief to the average family of four by the year 2000 and to lift 1.2 million taxpayers off federal tax rolls altogether.

We will urge the government to proceed immediately with tax relief measures that stimulate job creation. One of those of course is to make a 30% reduction in EI premiums paid by employers, to stop using the EI surplus funds to offset general deficits, and to convert the EI into a genuine job loss insurance program. This proposal is based on the simple proposition, which seems self-evident to everyone but the government, that high taxes kill jobs and that lower taxes create jobs. It is time for a national job strategy built on that principle.

When it comes to financial reforms, timing is everything. We say now is the time for debt reduction. Now is the time for tax relief. Now is not the time for increased federal spending.

The official opposition, therefore, does not support the government's plan to make increased spending the top priority by committing 50% of any surplus to increased spending. We do not support the finance minister's plan to increase program spending from $103 billion to $113 billion over the next three years.

We advocate holding the line on program spending for three years at $103 billion, saving and spending more wisely during that period until we get our financial house in order, not wasting on mismanagement such as the helicopter decision, such as numerous decisions the government has made, and reducing spending in some areas in order to hold the line.

That does not mean you cannot increase spending in some areas like health care or research but if you do, you have have to reduce something else just like the way most of the families in this country have to live.

After the year 2000, we say to hold spending at 10.5% of GDP. After 2000 spending can be allowed to increase but not faster than the economy is growing.

To reiterate, now 1998 to the year 2000 is not the time for increased federal spending. Now is the time for spending what we have more wisely, for saving, for paying down debts and reducing taxes.

In conclusion I want to say two further things. The first one is to the public. This is a watershed budget year. Very often budgets are simply a one year extension of whatever was done the previous year with a whole lot of PR hype around it to make it look like something more is being done. That is not the case this year. We are actually at the point where the federal budget should be balanced and therefore some crucial decisions with respect to future direction have to be made.

I appeal to the public to inform themselves on this issue, to look at the finance minister's budget in detail, to look at Reform's plan “Securing Your Future” and to communicate their advice and their position to elected representatives. If they share our conviction that debt reduction and tax relief should be the highest priorities, please let this Liberal government know in no uncertain terms.

I also say to the House that I feel we should all be conscious of a sense of urgency on this matter. It has taken 15 years to balance this federal budget. 1983 was the first year the polls showed sufficient public support to implement a vigorous budget balancing policy in this country. The election of the Tory government in 1984 was largely based on that appeal. People balked, they were tired of Liberal overspending and they thought the thing to do was to elect a Conservative administration.

We know what happened. Conservatives were elected in 1984 and re-elected in 1988 but the debt continued to grow, the taxes continued to go up and the deficits got worse.

It was in 1993 that a block of members were elected to this House who made deficit reduction their number one priority. Under constant prodding from Reform and from others throughout the country, the Liberal government finally has got the deficit under control and will have the budget balanced by 1998.

My point is that it took 15 years to implement a self-evident policy for which there was public support. It still took 15 years to do it. My point is that we cannot afford now to take another 15 years to get debt and taxes under control.

The leadership of this government on debt reduction and tax relief is weak and indecisive. It needs to be prodded like it has never been prodded before. This is why the official opposition urges support of this supply motion that this House condemns the government for imperilling the economic and social security of Canadians with their reckless commitment to dramatically increase spending at a time when the average family's share of the federal debt is approaching $80,000 and Canada has the highest personal income taxes in the G-7.

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition welcomes the opportunity to share its thoughts and feelings on the January ice storm. I do not think of this opportunity—and I do not think many members do—as a debate. It is a get-together of members of Parliament from all sides of the House to express our thoughts and feelings. It is a good thing to do.

I would like to use this opportunity to do four things. First, I officially recognize the suffering and damage experienced by our fellow citizens as a result of the storm. This is something we do not always do as in the case of the droughts and floods in the great Peace River country. It is something we should do and should do more often. I welcome this opportunity.

Second, I welcome the opportunity to listen to the firsthand stories and reports from MPs whose constituencies were directly affected by the storm. All our members are from outside that region so we welcome the chance to hear the stories. We have heard some of them already but we want to hear some more.

Third, we want to join with other MPs—and the prime minister has done it to a certain extent already—in paying tribute to all those who endured the disaster and to those who came to their rescue.

Fourth, I would like to comment on the role of parliament in assisting Canadians to cope with natural disasters, not just at the practical administrative level but at the emotional level or at the level of the heart.

The facts concerning the ice storm of 1998 are well known. It is worthwhile taking a moment to state them in the House and for the record as a measure of the scope and the severity of this calamity.

Three eastern provinces experienced a five day ice storm, the worst in half a century. Freezing rain froze on contact. Three inches of ice coated streets, power lines, trees and buildings. Trees, branches, power lines and utility poles snapped under the weight.

By January 9 many towns and cities were officially declared disaster areas. About 40% of Hydro Quebec's electricity transmission network was damaged. Some 24,000 to 30,000 utility poles were down. There were vast power outages, the triangle of darkness south of Montreal perhaps being the worst hit.

People were without electricity, phone, heat, food and water. Many rural communities also lost their plumbing, septic tanks, wells and sump pumps. Flooding was a major problem in many areas.

People from across the country donated mats, cots, blankets, food, portable generators, firewood and money. Emergency shelters provided help to over 100,000 people. The Canadian military, as the prime minister said, deployed 15,000 personnel to help people in need as well as to deliver supplies and equipment.

Businesses and offices closed in downtown Montreal for over a week and for days in the Ottawa area. The Retail Council of Quebec estimated $180 million in lost sales due to power blackouts by the middle of the month, with the final total being much higher.

The Via Rail passenger service was out between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and between Halifax and Montreal. Airports were closed.

The agriculture industry was particularly hard hit as dairy operations were crippled. Livestock and cattle were killed. The maple sugar industry was devastated.

I was raised on a dairy farm and I know what cows will do that have never been milked by hand and have always been milked by a milking machine when you try to milk them by hand. I do not envy the people who tried to do that.

At the peak of the storm more than three million people were without power, stretching from Ottawa and eastern Ontario through southern Quebec.

By week two 800,000 to a million people in the region were still without power. By week three 300,000 households were still without power and some rural areas are still without power.

At least 20 deaths in Quebec alone were linked to the devastation of the storm.

These are some of the sobering tragic facts, but they do not tell the whole tale. That is also why we have met here to listen to the firsthand stories and reports from those directly affected and to hear the more human side. We can listen to statistics and they are sad but it is the human stories that tell the whole story.

Some of these stories we have already heard from fellow MPs and from our own parliamentary staff. The official opposition's director of communications, Jim Armour, and his young family were without power for three weeks. Their basement was flooded. He had very little sleep at nights for days on end. Jim somehow still managed to try to keep up with his parliamentary duties while all the time worrying and trying to cope with the disaster at home.

There were thousands of public servants in this area who tried to do that. They were coping with the storm while trying to deal with keeping up their work to the best they were able.

Our grandchildren will hear the stories about the great ice storm of 1998. They will hear about how people went without electricity for weeks on end but were in no way left powerless because there was another power at work. They will hear how in the bitter cold and darkness the flame of human ingenuity and compassion burned ever more brightly. They will hear how the ice storm of 1998 changed the lives and relationships of people and made them feel more acutely conscience of what is truly important in life, the necessities we take for granted, and the value of both individual initiative and community. We want to hear these stories.

Fifth, the official opposition joins with other members of Parliament in paying tribute to the heroism of so many. To all those who endured this disaster we pay tribute to their fortitude and resourcefulness. To the hydro personnel, the army personnel, the Red Cross, the other relief people, the churches, and the local governments that have worked so hard to assist the suffering and repair the damage, we salute them tonight and we honour them.

We realize the words we say here can add little to the regard in which they are already held by those they helped and by their fellow citizens. We say the words anyway because thanks is a word we can never say often enough.

Finally, a brief comment on the role of parliament in assisting Canadians to cope with natural disasters. At the practical, administrative level, natural disasters call for action on the part of governments from the mobilization of relief efforts, including mobilization of the army to the provision of compensation. It is our duty to ensure that these tasks are performed promptly and efficiently.

There is another role for elected members of Parliament to play in such situations which I believe is equally important. That is to express the feelings which people in one part of the country experience when people in other parts of the country experience pain and loss and adversity.

Parliament must not only think but feel. It must not only deliberate but empathize. I fear, and I am talking about myself as well as other members, that sometimes we think and deliberate too much in this place and we feel and empathize too little.

Let us therefore take time this evening above all to express and share the feelings Canadians experienced when this disaster struck.

To my fellow citizens in Quebec who were hard hit by the effects of this disastrous ice storm, I wish to express my deepest compassion. I also wish to tell them that our party will support any measures necessary to ensure their well-being.

I would like, if I may, to add a personal note. In times of natural disasters, whether they be an ice storm, flooding in the Saguenay or the Red River area, fires in southern Alberta, or the recent storms and flooding in Nova Scotia, to name but a few, Canadians from across the country come together and help each other out in every imaginable way. They do so spontaneously and with sincerity. Is that not a sign that being Canadian really means something?

Why not give voice to the feelings we express during natural disasters at other times as well? The country would be better for it, more united by the feelings of its citizens.

What did Canadians feel? Let me summarize. Let me direct my words to those directly affected.

Alarm was one of our feelings when we saw pictures of families on television, parents who were scared, small children who were bewildered; fear for the old and the vulnerable, many of whom were stranded in unheated apartments; anguish when we saw people forced to leave their homes; pain when we learned that people had lost pets and livestock and suffered damage to property and business; sorrow for those who lost a family member or a friend to the storm. Our hearts are with them today.

We felt their frustration, anger and exhaustion when the weather eased and then worsened, when the lights flickered on and then they flickered off again. We felt the impulse to help in any way we could. As we watched, we felt admiration for the way they coped. We saw example after example of people making the best out of a bad situation.

We were encouraged to hear the optimism in the voices of people who called in to radio talk shows to share their experiences. We felt amazement at the generosity of people who opened their homes and their hearts to strangers, offering elderly neighbours, families, kids, cats and dogs a safe and warm refuge for days, even weeks, on end.

We felt thankful for the men and women who worked night after night in shelters, preparing hot meals, serving coffee, welcoming newcomers with open arms and encouragement. We felt pride watching Canadian soldiers offering a gentle hand to people in need.

Finally, as power was restored and their world lit up again, we felt great relief. We could imagine the simple and profound gratitude that they must have felt for their first warm bath and a hot meal.

While life slowly returns to normal for many, we know there are others who are still suffering, struggling and coping. We continue to think about them and to feel for them, feelings evoked in the hearts of Canadians by an ice storm, alarm, fear, anguish, sorrow, frustration but also admiration, encouragement, thankfulness, pride and relief.

Is there a lesson in all this that we could carry forward in the days ahead? I believe there is and it is this. If we, as Canadians, would express our feelings for our fellow citizens more frequently and more frankly, not just in times of natural disaster or political crisis but every week of the year, this country would be united not simply by laws or ribbons of steal or concrete but by invisible cords binding Canadians' hearts each to the other.

[Foreign Affairs, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if it is demonstrated that Saddam Hussein is continuing to produce weapons of mass destruction, and if this is done in defiance of UN resolutions, and if diplomatic efforts fail to stop it, then Canada is going to be asked whether it will support or oppose military action to uphold the UN resolution. To properly make that decision Parliament needs an update on the state of readiness of the Canadian military for potential action in Iraq.

Would the prime minister commit to having that information available to Parliament at the earliest possible date?

[Foreign Affairs, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, despite the confusion on the Russian position it would appear that the Iraq issue is becoming more confrontational and urgent by the hour. Yet this Parliament has not received any in depth briefing on this matter and Parliament has not even discussed the principles which should guide us in supporting or opposing actions by the U.S. and the United Kingdom or the UN.

Would the prime minister agree that Parliament should have a debate on this subject as soon as possible? Would he be willing to ask the House to arrange a date and a time as expeditiously as possible?