House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 71% of the vote.
Supply February 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of investment in research and development is extremely important.
We are the only country in the G-7 countries that has actually reduced its commitment over the past several years. I take the hon. member's suggestion very seriously. We as a party are extremely supportive of an increased commitment to research and development, especially medical research and development.
Supply February 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. He really should not be smiling at all because the Conservative government eliminated the manufacturers' sales tax and replaced it with a consumption tax, the GST, which made more sense in a global environment and his party committed to ripping it up.
Supply February 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, good government means looking ahead. Good government means recognizing trends, especially in a global environment.
The PC government recognized the global trends and brought this country free trade, the deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy, which enabled Canadians to compete nationally and internationally. The Liberal government inherited a country that was poised globally to compete and to succeed. It could have invested in Canadians. It could have provided opportunities for Canadians to succeed. Instead of allowing Canadians to embrace the future, the Liberal cuts to health and education transfers handcuffed young Canadians to the past.
The 280% growth in student debt has been a significant yolk, a significant burden on all young Canadians. The loss is to Canada. When are young people are graduating with a $25,000 student debt after a four year program, that is a loss to all of Canada. If we look at the reasons why Canadians are going south of the border and young people are pursuing their dreams elsewhere, we have to recognize that student debt and high taxes in Canada are directly related to that.
The February 14 issue of the Globe and Mail said:
There is evidence that the heavier tax burden, combined with lower overall incomes in this country is putting in motion a brain drain of our most productive workers. Higher tax loads mean bureaucrats substituting their judgment for that of business people and workers on how their income is to be spent. That is no recipe for productivity growth.
This is not about partisanship. This is about what is best for Canadians. I hope all members of this House support this motion because it is extraordinarily important that we take a non-partisan perspective on an issue as important as brain draining.
Like a lot of families in Atlantic Canada over the past 30 years, my family and I have watched the phenomenon of brain drain. We have watched our young people move to central Canada, for instance, to seek opportunities. It is very sad.
This phenomenon now exists throughout Canada. When the finance minister or any of these members fail to acknowledge the issue, when they look into that camera they are looking into the eyes of mothers and fathers in Atlantic Canada who are losing members of their families. They are losing their children. They are going away. The romantic thought that they will return some day just does not happen.
We have always talked about our standard of living in Canada and the quality of life our health and social programs provide us. With the right income that can be bought elsewhere. That is exactly what is happening.
Eighty per cent of Waterloo computer science graduates are now going to the U.S. There is a standing offer by Microsoft for Waterloo computer science graduates. Why? It recognizes the talent we have in Canada and that the Canadian economy will not provide the same level of incentive and opportunity for young people as the U.S. economy.
Let us look at some of the other issues in the U.S. On average, American manufacturing workers are paid $1 more per hour than Canadians. Effectively Canadians are paying one-third more in income taxes than Americans. The U.S. savings rate has remained steady at about 6%. That is about three times what Canadians have been able to save.
The budget will be about choices and we feel very strongly that those choices should be with Canadians. The Minister of Finance did not balance the books. The books were balanced by Canadians who have made significant sacrifices in their lives over the past four years. It is those Canadians who now deserve an opportunity to build their futures and to invest in their families, their educations and their homes in Canada.
Our registered education savings plan would provide tax deductibility. It is very similar to the structure of the RRSP. It would provide Canadians with more flexibility to save for their dreams, dreams that are important to them and their children.
That is the type of policy we are looking for and would like to see in the upcoming budget. We do not need the gigantic traditional Liberal policy of bringing forward some sexy program like the millennium scholarship program which will effectively do more for the Prime Minister's legacy than it will for young Canadians who are graduating at this point with significant debt load.
We need tax reduction. We are speaking about increasing the basic personal exemption from $6,500 to $10,000. Why should a Canadian making $8,000 per year be paying taxes? We have to ask ourselves that hard question. Why should a family that is below the poverty line be paying income taxes? It is fundamentally wrong. It is creating a direct disincentive to work and employment. It is similar to EI premiums which the government has refused to deal with in a significant way. We believe they should be set at about $2 as opposed to $2.70.
Payroll taxes, EI premiums and the CPP tax grab the government has implemented are the biggest impediments to job growth in Canada. High taxes kill jobs and the most insidious tax as a job killer is the payroll tax.
That has been demonstrated internationally. Policy does not need to be created in a vacuum. We can look at other countries and how they have succeeded. Let me say that high taxes kill jobs in any jurisdiction that practises them. In a global environment we do not have the luxury of taxing our citizenry to death because when we do it we are preventing them from participating in economic growth and prosperity in a global environment.
As we enter the 21st century what would be the best policy to ensure that our young people are able to compete in a global knowledge based environment? It is one that provides them with opportunities to seek and receive education and to succeed within their own countries.
The tax burden that has been inflicted on Canadians since 1993 with successive tax increases is draining the incentive for our brightest and best to stay in Canada and they are moving to the U.S.
We have a number of members from Atlantic Canada in our caucus who have a good understanding of this issue, based on what we have seen happening in our families over the past 20 or 30 years. It is now a national phenomenon.
If members opposite—and I see some of them grinning—do not take it seriously I would suggest they wait for a few years. When the continued government policy of high taxes has an impact on their families and their children move to the U.S. and other parts of the world, perhaps they will take the issue more seriously. I hope they will come to their senses and support policies to keep our young people in Canada.
This is an important issue, especially if we look at it from the perspective of Nova Scotians. Nova Scotia is the cradle of higher education in Canada. When I consider the impacts of the government's policies of taxing and cutting on my province and on my region, this issue is particularly important to me. In fact, to underline just how important this motion is, I would like to take this opportunity to move the following amendment to the motion:
That the motion be amended by adding the word “serious” before the words “brain drain” in the third line of the motion.
It is absolutely critical that all members of the House support the motion and ensure the policies we generate as parliamentarians will provide opportunities for our young people to embrace the future as we enter the 21st century and not handcuff them to the past.
Point Of Order February 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We support this point of order. We feel this process requires transparency, not just for the opposition but for the government and the minister.
One of the Liberal promises was that the ethics counsellor would be reporting to parliament as opposed to simply the prime minister. In lieu of that, the committee needs to have the ability to investigate the matter.
For instance, the commissioner talked to CSL to find what the tax implications would be. Perhaps the committee would be able to call tax experts to find out what the implications would be.
The point is that all Canadians will be best served by a transparent process in the hands of parliamentarians at the subcommittee level.
Bill C-28 February 18th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret, but important to remember, what the ethics commissioner said yesterday. We cannot ignore his testimony. He stated that he was called in to investigate the apparent conflict of interest between the finance minister who did sponsor Bill C-28. He also said that he contacted CSL executives to determine the impact on CSL.
Why did the ethics commissioner contact CSL to find out what the impact would be on CSL? Why did he not contact a tax expert?
Taxation February 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance needs to be briefed a little better. Between 1989 and 1993 the Conservative government reduced income taxes as a per cent of GDP by 1%. Since 1993 this minister has increased income taxes as a per cent of GDP.
The
Globe and Mail
on Saturday reported that the heavy tax burden combined with overall income taxes in Canada is putting in motion a brain drain that is taking our most productive workers. Over 80% of Waterloo graduates are going to the U.S. When will this finance minister act to end the brain drain and bring broad based tax relief?
Taxation February 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be put in the penalty box for joking about his salary when Canadians have had a 6% drop in disposable income and a 15% increase in income tax over the past several years. Our most talented Canadians are leaving Canada to work elsewhere.
Is the Prime Minister's policy of continued high income taxes and a weak Canadian dollar part of his plan to reduce the pay gap between himself and the NHL players?
Russell Maclellan February 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, after being savaged by four painful years of Liberal government in Nova Scotia, the Grits needed someone to turn their provincial fortunes around. They found their Mr. Fixit in Ottawa in Russell MacLellan.
As an MP, Russell voted to decrease cash transfers to Nova Scotia from $638 million in 1994 down to $411 million by the year 2003. Nova Scotia needs a commitment from Ottawa to restore adequate health care funding for Nova Scotia.
Will Russell MacLellan work with the federal Progressive Conservatives in asking that the federal government restore the CHST floor based on the provincial level and not on the federal level, or will he continue to betray Nova Scotians as he has with the BST promise and his toll highway pledges and allow Ottawa to continue its massacre of Nova Scotia's health care system?
Supply February 5th, 1998
Madam Speaker, earlier today the leader of the Reform Party said that it took 15 years for Canadians to wrestle this deficit monster and to beat it and he was absolutely right. It did take 15 years. And it took more than this Liberal government to beat the deficit; it also took a Conservative government.
I will quote from The Economist . It stated that much of the credit for deficit reduction in Canada comes from the passage of time and successful reforms earlier in the 1990s introduced by a Conservative government, including free trade which the members opposite fought, the GST which the members opposite fought, and the deregulation of the financial services industry, the deregulation in transportation, and the deregulation of energy, like the national energy program which when we eliminated it benefited western Canadians. The Reform Party should remember that and give credit where credit is due.
When I hear members of the Reform Party speak, there is always a certain amount of warmth because they usually refer to their own family situations. I think that is wonderful because I came from that kind of Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver family as well. However I am not naive enough, like a lot of members of the Reform Party are, to assume that is typical of Canadians and that all Canadians are so fortunate.
The difference between the Reform Party and our party is that we care about all Canadians. We will continue to fight not just for the wealthy or for those who are privileged and have access to the economic levers and to bootstrap themselves out of poverty, but for all Canadians. That is why we propose in our party platform to raise personal exemptions to $10,000 and to actually help the poorest of Canadians and not just the rich Canadians for whom the Reform Party would fight.
I would like to ask the Reform Party member a question relative to student debt. In 1993 eight students in Atlantic Canada had $30,000 or more of student debt after a four year program. Today in 1998 there are over 900. What is the Reform Party's position on student debt? How would it address the student debt issue for young Canadians who are now looking to go into the 21st century to compete on a global stage with over $30,000 worth of student debt upon graduation?
Supply February 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments, and perhaps we should ask him to translate yadda, yadda, yadda. Sometimes these are very complex, mathematical and economic equations and perhaps I could lend him a calculator. One-third plus one-third plus one-third equals one, and what we are suggesting is one-third for debt reduction, one third for tax reduction and one third for sound, strategic investments in the future competitiveness of Canadians. I do not think this is particularly difficult but I would gladly sit down with the hon. member after we are finished and we can do the math ourselves.