Rick Casson

[Nuclear Waste, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say earlier, it has been reported that the cabinet has approved the test burning of plutonium from U.S. warheads in Canada's reactors.

If this is true, the decision directly contravenes an all-party committee that specifically ruled out such a test burn.

What part of no does the minister not understand?

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, March 22nd, 1999]

With respect to the transfer payments as outlined in the 1998-99 Estimates (Part III), could the Minister of Environment provide details as to the recipients, use of, or any further details concerning the monies distributed to date under Grants and Contributions, specifically: (a) the contribution to the Province of British Columbia and environmental non-government organizations (ENGO's)—Wildlife Strategy, Pacific Coast Joint Venture of $325,000; (b) the contribution to Building International Partnership of $1,009,423; and (c) the contributions made under Minister's Authority of $393,500?

Return tabled.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have three questions on the order paper, Question No. 166 and Question No. 167, which have been in for 120 days. Question No. 183 has been in for 100 days today. They deal with asking the government for information on the clean-up of the contaminated DEW line site in northern Canada and also deal with distribution of funds by the environment minister.

I would like these questions answered. I do not know why it has been taking so long.

[Criminal Code, March 18th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code (forfeiture).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to introduce my first private member's bill on behalf of the citizens of Lethbridge and indeed of the children of Canada.

My bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow courts that convict a person of an offence under the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code to order the forfeiture of anything used in the commission of an offence under this provision.

This amendment, once passed, would give courts and law enforcement officials one more tool to use in their fight against child pornography.

It is my hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will join with me in supporting the bill. The bill gives courts the same authority to deal with child pornographers that they have under 55 other federal statutes, giving children protection that is long overdue.

I want to close by recognizing the efforts of our law enforcement officials who fight the spread of child pornography and who have been instrumental in developing the bill. I would especially like to recognize Detective Inspector Robert Matthews of the Ontario Provincial Police, Project P, the OPP Child Pornography Unit, and to all those who continue the fight against child pornography I say keep up the good work.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with some interest to the member for Vancouver—Kingsway. She mentions how fair the tax system is, how wonderful it is and how it treats everybody in Canada the same, but we have to ask the Liberal member some questions.

Why are Canadians paying $2,020 more in federal taxes today than they did in 1993? Why over the last decade do more families have both parents working? In 57% of all families both parents work now and in 1976 only 34% worked. Why is that if the tax system is so fair?

I would like to take this member back to an October 8, 1998 finance committee hearing in Calgary where Kids First were appearing. The member for Calgary Southeast was there to witness the outrage that these people felt when the member stood and said “Most women can combine career and family life. A lot of times people just take the easy way out”.

Is this member telling Canadians that people who stay at home to take care of their kids are taking the easy way out? Is that what she meant to say?

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the following petitions which come from concerned citizens in my riding of Lethbridge, Alberta.

The petitioners call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act in order to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into by a single male and a single female. It is my pleasure to support them.

[Endangered Species, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is expected that this spring the environment minister will finally, after many delays, be introducing legislation that will give our endangered species the protection they so desperately need. Before the minister tables this legislation I want to make one thing crystal clear so she does not make the same mistakes that her predecessors made.

Co-operation, not confrontation, is what will ensure the prosperity of our threatened wildlife.

This government must work together with provinces and landowners. It must recognize the responsible stewardship practices of landowners and create an environment where these practices are rewarded. It must respect private property rights and provide fair compensation for those landowners affected by endangered species recovery plans.

Wildlife is not protected by top-down command and control government regulations. Wildlife is protected when the government works with landowners through voluntary incentive-based legislation. It is protected when all members of society work together. It is time for our endangered species to be given the kind of co-operation and protection they deserve.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has to be done before there is any credibility is to take care of expenses. This government has refused to cap its expenses. The finance minister, the tax minister every year, comes up with more places to spend the money. The Liberals do not want a surplus Canadians can look at.

Let us not talk about what we think. Let us talk about the Canadian Bond Rating Service report which notes:

—that budget 1999 includes a greater resource allocation towards expenditure priorities with fewer tax and debt reduction incentives. In fact, the government has made no direct or specific commitment towards debt reduction other than to allocate its residual surplus after spending goals have been met.

There is no plan. The debt will continue.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. It is interesting that just last week while I was in the constituency a young man came to me. He has been offered a job in the states. This young man has been looking for a job in Canada, but he can get a job in Nebraska. The benefits are better, the pay is better, the take home pay is much more, and the prospects are better for him.

I have come across a document. The National Post published some headings from e-mails it received from Canadians about the budget. I would like to let members know how Canadians feel about this. These are the headings from e-mails received at the paper: Taxed to death and back. The non-stop robbery. Bludgeoned dry. Feeling milked dry. Overtaxed. Tax depression. Taxpayer ready to revolt. Tired of no value for my taxes. Drowning in taxes. Lament decay of incentives. How dry I am. Bludget:Bloodget. Excessive taxation. Milked and bludgeoned. Support for a tax revolt. The bludgeoning of taxpayers. Milked and fed up. Ottawa bludgeons. The tax bite. Hate this country and government. I have the bludget blues. Taxed into oblivion. Bludget alias big joke.

That is not coming from this side of the House. That is coming from Canadians across the country. That is how Canadians feel.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the latest version of the Liberal budget on behalf of the citizens of Lethbridge. I have been looking forward to this chance to chronicle the assault of this government on the Canadian taxpayer, the unfortunate soul who is paying more but getting less.

This is now the sixth straight time that Canadian taxpayers have had to suffer through a Liberal budget. For the last six years, Canadians have endured slash and burn budget cuts that have devastated health and social transfers.

The Liberals have downsized our armed forces as my colleague just mentioned to a hollow shell, sacrificed environmental protection, tightened and restricted EI benefits, reduced portions of our national highway system to gravel, and worst of all, increased taxation revenues. Simply put, taxpayers in Canada have been paying more but they have definitely been getting less.

When this government took office in 1993, Canadians were paying $51.4 billion in personal income tax for the year. At the end of this year, personal income taxes will have risen 46% to $75 billion, an increase of $24 billion. This is an increase of $650 for every Canadian. This shell game which has been foisted on Canadians by the finance minister has forced Canadians to pay personal income taxes that are 56% higher than the G-7 average.

Of course, we can forget the infamous promise to scrap the GST. We heard a bit about that today. When the Liberals took over, Canadians were paying $15.7 billion in GST per year. By this year's end, Canadians will be paying $21.6 billion, an increase of $5.9 billion, or about 38%. That translates into about $156 more per Canadian for a tax that this government promised to abolish.

As if these increases were not bad enough, the government is set to hike CPP premiums by 73% over the next six years. Sadly, the former chief actuary of the CPP, before he was fired for not singing from the Liberal song sheet, estimated that this increase would likely not even be enough to save the plan.

To top it all off, the government has added insult to injury by ripping off taxpayers by overcharging them on their EI premiums. According to the chief auditor for this program, the government has been overtaxing Canadian workers by an average of 37% for the last five years. Canadians now pay more of their hard earned money for a plan that delivers them fewer benefits, that is, if they even qualify under the strict new rules.

This is the sad truth that the Liberal government refuses to tell. The Liberals hide behind their sleight of hand accounting practices, practices the Auditor General of Canada does not approve of. They hide behind their spin doctors and their rhetoric machines. They boast about EI reductions but say nothing about CPP hikes.

When the Liberals took over the reins of government from their partners, the tax and spend previous government, total federal tax revenues were $94.3 billion and total government revenues totalled $107.3 billion. At the end of this year, the federal tax revenues will top $131 billion, an increase of $36.8 billion and total government revenues will be $149.4 billion, an increase of $42 billion. Members opposite can claim that the government is raking in these record revenues because of the strong economy, and they do. But how do they explain that when the economy only grew by 3%, government revenues grew by 8%?

I think I have made myself perfectly clear. Canadians are paying more than they ever have before and they are getting less. What are they receiving for these astronomical increases in taxes? What do they have?

They have a two tier health system. The health care system that Canadians have come to rely on is under siege. Waiting lists have increased 8.5% in one year to over 187,000 in 1997. Almost 200,000 people in Canada are waiting for health care services. The waiting time to see a specialist has increased 38% and the number of hospital beds have decreased by 25% in some provinces. My own daughter in Edmonton with a severely broken ankle waited 42 hours for surgery to repair it just a month ago.

In 1993 when the Liberals first took power, CHST payments were about $1,453 per taxpayer. But today after this budget, these payments per taxpayer have dropped to $1,005. That is a drop of 31%. So Canadians are paying more and getting less.

The government has announced with great fanfare that it is putting back $11.5 billion over five years into the transfer payments for health care. But if we look at the Liberal record at the end of this five years, we will see that cumulative CHST reductions will total $50 billion by the end of the five years. The Liberal government has taken $5 and it will give $1 back.

This budget was to be the cure to what was ailing the health care system, but Canadians are still paying more and getting less. They are paying more for out of pocket medical expenses and will be getting $4.3 billion less in health care in 1999 than they did in 1993. That is the legacy of this government.

Our soldiers have suffered. The Canadian armed forces, the brave men and women who have dedicated themselves to their country, those who are willing to put their lives on the line, have borne the brunt of the government's politics. These politics have put the well-being of our troops at risk. The defence policies of the government have led to a serious deterioration in the morale of this once proud force. It has left the armed forces with equipment that is 20 to 40 years old. It has cut personnel levels by almost 25% and has threatened to cut even more to balance the books.

The effects of the government's cuts have cost the defence department about $7.8 billion since 1993-94 and now the finance minister offers a pitiful $175 million per year. It is an insult to treat our soldiers with such disrespect. They deserve more, not less.

Nothing seems sacred to the government. With this budget the Liberal track record on the environment went from bad to worse. Across the country contaminated sites sit like a cancer on the land. These sites are affecting the health of Canadians, yet the government refuses to take a leadership role in their cleanup. Look at Sydney, Nova Scotia, the tar ponds. Nothing has been done. Lots of talk but no action. We are paying lots and getting nothing.

In six years the government has not made any serious effort to protect our endangered species through legislation despite its international commitments.

In May 1998 the environment committee released a report that outlined the serious deficiencies in the enforcement capabilities of Environment Canada. Funding levels have been cut to the point where enforcement officials are stretched so thin that they are falling behind in training and cannot enforce many of the increasing number of environmental regulations.

It is beyond belief that when the government was sitting on a $10 billion surplus it did not take the environment more seriously. Contrary to what the finance minister may think, the environment cannot survive on empty promises of relief for next year. Time is running out now.

I think the point has been made. Canadians are definitely paying more and they are getting less. They are paying $2,000 more in taxes since the government took office and they are getting at least $1,500 less for health and other services.

Another fact is the savings that Canadians have are dwindling. Canadians are unable to put any money away and they are starting to use their savings just to get by from day to day. Canadians do not deserve this. They bore the burden of the deficit cutting and deserve to share in the benefits. Nine out of ten Canadians say they want tax relief, not new spending, as their number one priority.

A Reform government would deliver comprehensive tax reform beginning with $26 billion in total tax relief phased in over three years. These reforms would simplify the tax system and, combined with the elimination of marriage and child care penalties, will deliver thousands of dollars per year back into the pockets of the average Canadian family of four.

Our health care is on life support and needs a major federal cash infusion. Reform would deliver immediately $2 billion to boost federal transfer payments. Wasteful government spending in other areas would be eliminated to give health care the priority it rightly deserves and Canadians are demanding.

Canada needs a reliable health care system with stable funding, funding that does not wildly fluctuate from year to year. Reform would also right the injustice done to Canadians like Joey Haché and compensate all victims of the hepatitis C tainted blood system. This is not a question of money, it is a question of fairness and a question of equality for all Canadians. It is doing the right thing.

Our soldiers earned our respect. A $1 billion increase in defence spending would equip our soldiers with the tools they need to do the jobs that we ask them to do.

Reform would introduce a credible plan for reducing the size of our national debt. The debt will consume $43.5 billion in interest payments alone this year, robbing Canadians of funding for programs that they really need.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Under this government Canadians will continue to pay more and get less.