Stockwell Day

[Fuel Taxes, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was very encouraged to see a statement of moral obligation being made by the finance minister. Apparently, if he was accurately reported, and it is in the newspaper and so I do not doubt it, he said very clearly that he saw it as a moral obligation to reduce the particular tax on the excise.

I am very pleased to see that, just as I was pleased to see him stay with his commitment to go ahead with putting the surplus toward the debt. I commend him for that and I am sure they will all start to applaud now, but that was very good work. I appreciate that. Does the Prime Minister not also see this as a moral obligation?

[Fuel Taxes, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers will hold the Prime Minister to account for his words, not some other minister from another province.

During the 1993 election campaign, the Liberals promised to eliminate, abolish and scrap the GST. We know what happened.

In 1998, a Liberal committee proposed to stop collecting the GST.

Will the Liberal government once again break its promises regarding the GST?

[Fuel Taxes, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will start again. As I said before, when you live in the past you continue to be inaccurate about the present and the future. The Prime Minister has indicated he would like to see the next election based on values. I am encouraged by that, because he made a promise in 1995 when he slapped a tax on the excise tax for gasoline that it would be to eliminate the deficit.

The deficit is gone now and I believe very strongly that keeping one's promises is a very important value. Will he now live up to that value and scrap this increase in tax?

[Fuel Taxes, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when you continue to live in the past you continue to be wrong. The Prime Minister said very clearly that he would like to see the next election based on values. In 1995 when he—

[Fuel Taxes, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated with some concern that he could not allow a free vote to go ahead on the Canadian Alliance motion on lowering gas taxes for all Canadians because in fact it could be seen as a motion of non-confidence in the government as it is a budgetary item. I take him at his word that that is a concern of his. I would not want him to be in that tough position.

I have consulted with members of the Canadian Alliance caucus. We have all agreed we would not see this as a motion of non-confidence. As a matter of fact we would see it as a motion of great confidence in the government. Canadians would see it as a motion of great confidence and I would give the Prime Minister credit for doing it.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled by the amount of fascination with my previous history. As an elected person, as we all are, with virtually no ego at all, I hate talking about myself but when I have an opportunity like this I find it irresistible.

The $5 billion surplus figure that he just quoted is of course now. I was not there enjoying that type of surplus. What he left out of the figures that he was also quoting for 1999 was that 1999, closing out the year for 1998, was a phenomenal year of expansion and growth in the economy in Alberta. There was about $1 billion less in terms of resource revenue that year. There was $1 billion less in 1998 than in 1997 and yet the economy continued to expand, which continues to make my very precise point.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep all those questions in mind. First, on the issue of the environmental effects, we are talking about people who have to drive to work every day. We are talking about truckers. We are talking about people whose livelihood and transportation needs depend on gasoline.

If nothing had happened at all over the last decade or so in terms of a reduction in pollutants, then I think the point would be stronger. The fact is that just with the elimination of lead in gasoline alone, 85% of particulate has been removed from the atmosphere. There is clearly more to do. A number of provinces are allowing electricity and other forms of energy to be plugged into the power grid system which people can then order. Wind power, for instance, is already being plugged into the power grid in some jurisdictions.

Many things are going on for the good and proper pursuit of the reduction of particulate in the atmosphere. This, however, should not be used as an excuse by the government to be taking in more money than it should be.

In terms of the overall amount going into the treasury, and I obviously cannot quote the figures of the last month or two, but there has been quite a shift not just in the corporate percentage of revenue coming in but in the overall revenue. As a matter of fact, about two years ago in Alberta, as I recall the figures, the resource royalty amount coming from crude oil alone had dropped from just below $2 billion to about $545 million. So there has been a very significant reduction in terms of the overall royalty, but again an increase in the economy.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, as a newly elected MLA, yes, I was a member of that government and that was when that tax was put in. It was not put in while I was finance minister, as some have unfortunately tried to indicate. It was about a year after I was elected when that tax went in.

I will admit my deficiency. I was not able to stand as a lone member and turn the tide of that particular request. I was deficient in not being able to hold off the horde of others who wanted to see that go forward. I apologize for that.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I, honestly, have lost track of the number of taxes, fees and costs that I specifically reduced in Alberta. I will produce a definite list for the member because it is quite exciting that my colleagues and I were able to do that.

On the issue of the gas tax itself, when that question came up as the price of oil started to move up over the last year, my proposal clearly was that it should be for a rebate rather than the tax because of the lack of ability of a province to harness those national companies around a table and tell them they would be monitoring it.

The consideration at that time was not to go the tax route but to send out to all consumers, to everyone in the province, a rebate. That took place about three or four weeks ago. I was gone by then so I cannot claim the full credit for it, but that was my approach and that is what has taken place.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the hon. member for his work in this particular area.

Rebating is a legitimate form of returning to taxpayers that which has been taken from them in an excessive amount, as the federal Liberal government has been doing. I have even recommended that at various times in the past. As a matter of fact there is one government in the country which is now doing that.

The issue of the tax is the quickest, easiest and least administrative in terms of that particular reduction. I sense and share some of the concern that if the taxes are lowered, how do we keep the oil companies in line from, as I have been quite properly quoted as saying, filling in that particular ditch.

I would say that the federal government has the clout to sit down with oil companies, and far from presuming that that would happen, give those companies the benefit of the doubt, tell them there will be a very close monitoring and allow that to happen. However, administratively the signals could be sent out immediately through the tax process.

I again commend the member for continuing to advocate this. I am not sure how he will be voting. I am sure the history of a previous member on his side, who raised the concern about taxes, haunts him somewhat considering where that member is not today. However, sir, I commend you for your courage and insights on this issue.