36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 225
CONTENTS
Monday, May 10, 1999
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-72. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1110
1115
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1130
1135
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1150
1155
1200
1205
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1220
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1250
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1310
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1315
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1320
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1335
1340
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL STUDENT COMMONWEALTH FORUM
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1400
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WEGENER'S GRANULOMATOSIS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORTH-WEST MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSTABLE MICHAEL JOY
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-FRANCE PARLIAMENTARY DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1405
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE GILLES RICHER
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1410
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MENTAL HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUG OVERDOSES
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ST. FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVERSITY GRADUATES
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRAVERY
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1430
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1435
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-77
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORTH KOREA
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1450
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR INDIA
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ST. JOHN'S PORT AUTHORITY
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILITARY COLLEGE IN SAINT-JEAN
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRESHWATER EXPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1455
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINING
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1500
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORGAN DONATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-511. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pension Plans
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Impaired Driving
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1510
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-72. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1515
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
1530
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1535
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1555
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1600
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1605
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1610
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1625
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1640
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1645
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1800
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1805
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1820
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-71. Third reading
|
1855
(Division 420)
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-66. Third reading
|
1900
(Division 421)
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPETITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-393. Second reading
|
1910
(Division 422)
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-72. Third reading
|
(Division 423)
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
1915
(Division 424)
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Agriculture
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1920
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries
|
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1925
![V](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 225
![](/web/20061116192304im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 10, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1105
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-72, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are
consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980)
and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the
Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain
acts related to the Income Tax Act, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the
bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Hon. John Manley (on behalf of the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in the time allotted to me
this morning, I will provide some context for the thinking behind
the 1998 budget and then highlight some of the measures that were
included in this particular bill which forms the income tax side
of the 1998 budget itself.
First, the 1998 budget reconfirmed our balanced approach to
building a strong economy and a secure society. The federal
books are balanced. We have put an end to credit card
government. We indicated in the 1998 budget and have continued
to reduce Canada's debt burden through a two-front strategy of
stronger economic growth and a concrete debt repayment plan.
As government members, we have always said and we recognize that
a healthy bottom line is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
In the 1998 budget we have also included the Canadian
opportunities strategy, which included the millennium scholarship
program, as well as other programs.
1110
The 1998 budget represents the second stage of a three part plan
that we put together in 1994. The Minister of Finance said that
this plan was not simply a theme for one budget or one year. It
has defined our approach from the beginning and will define our
approach in the future.
First, as in the previous budgets, we reduced the deficit. With
the 1998 budget we balanced the books and have begun the process
of debt reduction. In future budgets we will stay the course.
The 1999 budget proved these words.
Second, we have invested in the future. Over 80% of the
spending in the 1998 budget reflected two of the highest
priorities of Canadians: access to knowledge and skills, and
support for health and education through increased transfers to
the provinces.
Third, we reduced taxes initially in the 1998 budget in a
targeted way. As soon as the country's resources permit we will
broaden and deepen the process. As we saw in the 1999 budget,
that is exactly what the government did. Collectively, the 1998
and 1999 budgets provided $16.5 billion of tax relief to
Canadians. This is an approach that is delivering real benefits
for Canadians today. It is certainly a robust outlook for Canada
as we start the new millennium.
As I go through and highlight some of Bill C-72, I will take a
moment and comment on what members will probably hear from the
Reform Party, the Bloc and other opposition parties. These
parties will say that the government is off track. We will argue
that we are not. The true test will be what Canadians think.
As we conclude our prebudget deliberations from year to year,
and we are about to start in June and into the fall for the
upcoming budget, over and over again Canadians reflect on our
approach. We have taken a balanced approach in both the 1998 and
1999 budgets, which is what we will continue to do.
Let me highlight some of what is included in Bill C-72. When
the finance minister presented the 1998 budget, he noted that
these measures represent the first steps toward general income
tax relief. Each of the budgets have provided targeted tax
relief where it would be most beneficial. With the deficit
behind us, the government is now in a position to introduce broad
based tax relief while adhering to the principle that such relief
must not jeopardize our regained fiscal health or impinge on the
priorities like health care and education.
General tax relief as indicated in the 1999 budget will speak
for itself. The measures in the bill reduce taxes for low and
middle income Canadians, those least able to pay. Two of the
measures in the 1998 budget provide general tax. For low income
Canadians, the amount of $6,456 that can be earned tax free is
increased by $500 effective July 1, 1998.
Most people will ask, as I am sure the hon. member for Elk
Island has asked before, how this can actually work. It was
explained to the member in committee. He seems to understand the
technical matters of this particular bill so I will leave the
member to refer to the report from committee. The spousal and
equivalent to spousal maximums of $5,380 were also increased by
$500.
What does this mean? It means that single taxpayers with
incomes under $20,000 can earn up to an extra $500 tax free; for
a family earning under $40,000, the maximum increase would be
$1,000 tax free. As a result of this measure, 400,000 low income
individuals will be removed from the tax rolls and another 4.6
million taxpayers will pay less income tax.
The 1999 budget was a follow up on the 1998 budget and in fact
continued on the same track. The 1999 budget extended this $500
increase to all taxpayers and raised it by a further $175,
increasing the basic exemption by $675. Canadians are now able
to earn $7,044 tax free in 1999 and $7,131 in the year 2000. In
addition, the maximum spousal and equivalent to spousal amounts
will increase to $6,055.
1115
These measures will benefit 600,000 low income Canadians,
400,000 will pay no federal tax as a result of Bill C-72 and
another 200,000 will disappear from the tax rolls because of the
1999 measures.
The second measure providing tax relief in the 1998 budget is
the elimination of the 3% general surtax for people earning under
$50,000 and a reduction in the surtax for those with incomes
between $50,000 and $65,000. Members may recall, and there may
be people in the gallery who will recall, that when the
Conservatives were in office they put in place a 3% surtax to pay
for the deficit. What we have always said is that once the books
were balanced the 3% surtax would be the first tax measure we
would deal with, and the 1998 budget did so in a targeted
fashion. The surtax has been eliminated for almost 13 million
filers and it has been reduced for another one million Canadians.
The 1999 budget is very much intertwined with the 1998 budget.
In 1998 we targeted the reduction of the 3% surtax to those
earning below $50,000 and in the 1999 budget we will have
eliminated the surtax completely for 15.1 million Canadian
taxpayers as of July 1, 1999.
In every budget our government has provided targeted tax relief
where the need was greatest and the benefits most substantial.
The 1998 budget was no different. It introduced the Canadian
opportunities strategy which was designed to ensure that all
Canadians have an equal opportunity to participate in the
changing economy.
Hon. members know that many students have limited access to
post-secondary education because of financial barriers. Bill
C-72 implements several measures which will financially benefit
students.
For example, for some students a federal tax credit of 17% of
interest paid on federal and provincial student loans was
introduced, which will provide tax relief for about one million
students. A student with a $25,000 loan, which is the average,
would typically see a federal-provincial tax reduction of $530 in
the first year alone. The new credit would mean about $3,200 in
tax relief over a 10 year pay down period.
An hon. member: You're keeping me awake.
Mr. Tony Valeri: The hon. member says that I am keeping
him awake. I am thankful, and I am sure his constituents are
very thankful, that he is staying awake. It is not often that
the member stays awake in this Chamber. I thank him for the
compliment.
This tax credit complements other student assistance measures
announced in the 1998 budget, such as graduated interest relief
and extended loan repayment periods which will assist a further
100,000 students.
To help Canadians upgrade their skills through full time study,
often difficult for those in the workplace, Bill C-72 includes
measures such as tax free RRSP withdrawals for lifelong learning.
It is not uncommon, as I am sure hon. members across the way and
certainly members on this side of the House are aware, to find
that there are constituents back home who find themselves in a
job, in a position, they are employed. They have been able to
put away some money in RRSPs, but they need to upgrade their
skills and they find themselves unable to access money to do
that. Much like the homeowner program which utilizes the
registered retirement savings plan, this program would allow
Canadians to access tax free RRSP money for lifelong learning in
order for them to upgrade their skills and to further their
education.
An individual who is enrolled in full time training for at least
three months can withdraw a maximum of $10,000 per year from
their RRSP up to a limit of $20,000 over four years. The money
must be repaid to their RRSP program over a 10 year period.
Another measure in Bill C-72 extends the education credit to
many part time students who are trying to balance work, family
and other commitments. Students can claim a credit for each
month they are enrolled in a qualifying course which is at least
three weeks in duration and meets a minimum of 12 hours per
month. That also facilitates lifelong learning for about 250,000
part time students.
I am sure members will recall that in the 1998 budget the
government made some improvements to what is known as the
registered education savings plan. The 1998 budget introduced
the Canada education savings grant.
I have received a number of calls and a number of constituents
have contacted me to find out about the program. I am sure the
same is true for hon. members across the way. They include
grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles who want to contribute to
their niece's or nephew's, grandson's or granddaughter's
educational savings program. The government has provided a 20%
grant on the first $2,000 put into a registered education savings
plan for children under 18. That is a maximum of $400 per year
that the federal government will contribute to that program to
help young Canadians access post-secondary education.
1120
Bill C-72 also proposes additional changes to RESPs. It is
important to note that disabled part time students will now be
eligible for educational assistance payments from RESPs for the
first time. Families whose children do not pursue higher
education would be able to transfer up to $50,000 from their
registered education savings plan to their registered retirement
savings plan. That is an increase of $10,000. That creates a
bit more flexibility in the registered education savings plan
which will encourage more Canadians to contribute.
There is also the new caregiver credit which provides Canadians
caring for an elderly parent or a disabled family member a tax
reduction. This credit will assist about 450,000 caregivers who
are not normally eligible for it.
Another important measure which was included in the 1998 budget,
and I am hopeful that members opposite will draw attention to it
because many of their constituents will benefit from it, will
benefit self-employed Canadians. As a result of the 1998 budget
self-employed Canadians will now be able to deduct health and
dental insurance premiums from their business incomes. We have
allowed that particular measure to go forward. I know that the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business was a big promoter of
that measure, as well as a number of members opposite. Members
on this side of the House have consistently fought for
self-employed Canadians. This is an example of an initiative
that will help that sector of the business community.
Volunteer firefighters, under previous legislation, received
$500 tax free for their volunteer efforts. In the 1998 budget we
have increased it to $1,000 and will extend it to other emergency
service volunteers such as ambulance technicians and search and
rescue volunteers. There is also a recognition of volunteerism
in the 1998 budget because we know that individuals, like
volunteer firefighters, give of their time and contribute to
their communities. This is a way for the federal government to
provide some tax free moneys to them as reimbursement for
expenses they incur in the work they do for their community.
The 1998 budget continued the government's policy of providing
targeted tax relief and began the process of ensuring general tax
relief, starting with low and middle income Canadians. The 1999
budget builds on these measures and is part of a long term
strategy to reduce taxes. Of course members opposite will simply
say “Cut taxes at any cost”. They do not understand that the
commitment the government has made is to remain in balance. We
have provided targeted tax relief in the 1999 budget. We have
provided $16.5 billion in tax relief and we have never said that
this is the end of our tax strategy. We have always said that
this is the beginning of our tax strategy.
Together the 1998 and 1999 budgets set us on the track for tax
relief and will continue to provide tax relief to Canadians.
Some hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Tony Valeri: I see the Conservatives at the other end
of the Chamber hollering across the way. I think they are
hollering in support of Bill C-72.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants is yelling at a number of
individuals on the Liberal side. I would assume he is merely
saying that he is supportive of Bill C-72 and finds that the tax
relief is quite adequate as a starting point. It is certainly
something that we on this side of the house agree with and we
will continue to provide tax relief.
1125
If, for a moment, the hon. member for Kings—Hants could pay
attention to what is going on, then he would understand what tax
policy is all about and be able to provide some constructive
suggestions in the debate. However, I am not sure if that is
possible.
Bill C-72 is essentially in line with the government's
principles of tax policy. We feel that its relief measures are
fair. The initial focus for broad based tax relief is on
personal income taxes, where the burden is the greatest. The
government has said continually that personal income taxes are
where relief is needed first and that is what the 1998 and 1999
budgets have provided.
Most importantly, especially in the context of a lot of rhetoric
that goes on in the House, given that there is an Ontario
election campaign on right now and there is a lot of talk about
tax relief, the measures for tax relief in the 1998 and 1999
budgets are not financed with borrowed money. It is the first
time in decades that a government is providing tax relief to
Canadians and is not borrowing to provide that relief. In
essence, what we have is a reduction in tax relief. We do not
have an increase in the deficit. We do not have an increase in
the debt. What we also do not have is what most—
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I was listening to the comments of the parliamentary
secretary and I would like to advise members to move away from
him because I am sure lightning is going to strike.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. parliamentary
secretary.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, the hon. member probably
understands that when one has young children one actually engages
in discussion about mystic knights, Thor and all of the other
myths. In fact, when lightning strikes it is actually supposed
to be a symbol of good luck, so I would thank the hon. member
across the way.
I guess he was taking exception to the point that I was making,
in essence saying that the government is not borrowing money to
finance these tax cuts. Obviously the Reform Party has some
difficulty with that. I could point to some previous platform
documents in which the Reform Party indicated that we, the
government, should first balance our books before engaging in any
sort of tax relief. Obviously today that is not much of an issue
because it feels the wind is blowing toward tax relief and that
is where we should be going. Regardless of whether we put
ourselves back into a deficit position or increase the debt,
Reformers are just promoting tax relief for Canadians.
I can only reiterate that in every pre-budget consultation I
have participated in Canadians have consistently said they are in
favour of tax relief, that they want tax relief, that the burden
of personal income taxes is too high, but that they are not
prepared to pay the price of a reduction by decreasing the
quality of health care or education, or by increasing the deficit
or the debt. We very clearly and carefully listened to Canadians
and that is demonstrated in the 1998 and 1999 budgets.
I would reiterate that both the 1998 and 1999 budgets, and
certainly Bill C-72, represent the starting point for the process
of ensuring general tax relief. The 1998 budget started with low
and middle income Canadians. The 1999 budget broadened that tax
relief to include all Canadians. As we move forward in budgets
to come we will continue to provide a very balanced approach, one
that includes investing in Canadian priorities, continuing to
bring down the tax burden for Canadians and ensuring that we stay
in balance.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, ordinary members rise in the House to describe how proud
or pleased they are to speak to a particular bill. However,
today I can only say that I am disappointed with the thrust of
Bill C-72. Actually, it is more of a short stab in the dark.
The parliamentary secretary talked in glowing terms of long term
tax relief. The bottom line is long term. Will anybody live
long enough to actually see tax relief?
My disappointment arises from what is not in this bill, as much
as what is. We do not oppose certain measures such as the
reinstatement of the $5,000 credit for investments in labour
sponsored venture capital funds. That simply brings it back up
to where it was before the government tinkered with it.
1130
We understand the finance minister cut that amount in 1998
because certain funds were not doing what they were supposed to
do. Fair enough. But in some regions of the country these funds
are performing a valuable service.
We realize that we cannot simply open the floodgates on
investments and accept accountability and viable opportunities
for every dollar that is offered. That is why the Reform Party
has long advocated increased competition in the financial
services sector and a removal of foreign asset restrictions on
RRSP accounts. This country needs a diverse pool of investment
money and the widest possible range of opportunities for that
investment.
The truth of the matter is there are clauses in this bill that
can be commended in principle. The life learning plan allows
Canadian residents to take money out of their RRSPs to pay for
full time training for themselves or their spouses which is
basically a good idea. I do not know if everyone in that
situation can afford full time training—and that is the
loophole, the catch—as opposed to something a little more
flexible, but it is a noble effort.
We are aware that RRSP contributions have fallen off in the last
two years. People just do not have the cash to buy those RRSPs.
There is something like $126 billion in unused contribution room
outstanding. As I said, it is a noble effort and let us hope
there are a few Canadians out there who can actually afford to
get retrained and plan on using that training here in Canada
rather than being forced to go to other lower tax jurisdictions.
That same analysis applies to another program concerning part
time education. Eligible part time students can use education
tax credits and child care expense deductions to go back to
school. I presume that helps young single mothers in particular.
There is a lot of merit in doing that.
We can characterize this as a housekeeping bill. We are a few
days late in getting the parliamentary rules in place. Revenue
Canada's cutoff was about a week ago, but we still have not made
into law the restrictions and so on that are actually in place
for last year's Revenue Canada forms. It is a cart before the
horse scenario.
Why not fill out the skeletal legislative agenda with bills that
show vision, imagination and courage rather than something that
is last year's business? I guess we would be treading on the
Liberal's electoral secrets for success: say little, do less,
keep your head down. This is a major disappointment for
Canadians who are poised to grab their share of the future and
find themselves regulated to death by their government.
What we do not see in Bill C-72 is any admission by the finance
minister, his bureaucrats or any of the Liberal members of the
finance committee that their tax system is out of control. We
see a clause that reduces the individual surtax by a couple of
bucks. Who on the government side would dare stand up and defend
putting taxes on taxes in the first place? This goes on year
after year and Canadians still wait for the government to wake up
and straighten out the mess in the complex tax code it has made.
The 5% surcharge which remains untouched falls on incomes as low
as $60,000, not a lot of money in today's economy. There are
thousands of workers in high tech industries or specialized
manufacturing who easily make that much, and what do they do?
They take their skills and their incomes and they maximize them
south of the border.
The Liberals maintain their punitive tax structures while
Canadian artists, entrepreneurs, doctors and scientists head for
friendlier climates. Worst of all, they table bills like this one
to announce all over again what Canadians already heard about and
paid for in last year's budget. They are so hungry for any
positive PR spin that they keep talking about all the good things
that really do not add up to any dollars at all.
We have heard the finance minister claim that the country can
only afford this style of nickel and dime tax adjustment, that it
costs the government to give people their own money back. What a
ludicrous premise. We know what it costs because year after year
the finance minister announces that his programs will cost the
treasury so many billions of dollars, and he goes ahead and
subtracts that amount from the nation's books or the taxpayers'
pockets, whichever is handier.
There is another reason for my disappointment. This government
bill takes the opportunity to fiddle with the tax act, but
instead of simplifying it or even simplifying the language, it
merely piles more complexity on to the impenetrable pile it
started decades ago. Members have risen in this House and read
out passages from this bill, or have referred to this and other
bills as being as thick as phone books. I have said that if the
tax code was piled up it would be taller than any individual. I
can also say that the tax code when piled on the back of a
taxpayer can drive him to his knees.
Does Bill C-72 address the complexity or incomprehensibility of
the tax code? No it does not. It merely carries on the age-old
tradition of defining the taxpayers' responsibility to the
government and not the government's duty to lighten the burden of
taxes and to reveal clearly why they are needed and how they will
be spent. Accountability, quite a concept.
In the revised explanatory notes that accompanied this bill and
which were published in March, there are several pages of
anti-avoidance rules that chase taxpayers into their home offices
to make sure they are rendering unto Caesar what Caesar decides
is his.
1135
Ironically, they also include exceptions which allow clever tax
lawyers to again avoid the taxes that are being chased in the
first place. We know from the auditor general's report that
billions of dollars in potential taxes continue to elude
governments. We are aware that despite promises there are still
loopholes for the well to do to cart off family trusts to lower
tax regimes around the world. So much for our complex tax codes.
The Liberals have made it clear that they believe the myth that
high taxes result in high revenues and that excessive spending
leads to better service. We would not have to dig too deep to
expose how this logic breaks down in the real world. It is human
nature to resist when being pushed where we do not want to go.
When the price of a good or service rises, we look for a bargain
or reduce our consumption of that article. If taxes become too
much of a burden, we seek relief any way we can either by
avoidance or by going where a more enlightened tax regime offers
a better deal for our tax dollar.
Lower taxes are not the only thing that influences people but it
starts a cycle of prosperity that solves many other issues.
Increasingly higher taxes reduce economic activity until there is
less and less to tax. Governments see decreasing returns and
cannot afford the services they claim to uphold. We have seen
those cuts to the bone in health care. This is the opposite of
what some in the House will say. They are convinced that high
taxes alone provide a foundation for services. They follow this
logic to its faulty conclusion, a complex tax code, taxes on
taxes.
On the other hand lower taxes do not lead to a lack of services
for the following reasons. Given a limitless amount of money to
spend, it is also human nature to continue to demand limitless
services to go along with it. It is human nature for bureaucrats
to continuously try to satisfy those demands. What we have seen
in the last three decades or so is the explosion of government
spending in an effort to micromanage every aspect of our economic
and social lives.
Government is everywhere trying to be all things to all people
and failing at most. It tries to be charitable but ends up
subsidizing self-defeating behaviour. It tries to stimulate a
business on one side of the street while putting another one out
of business through higher taxation and artificial competition.
The government creates monopolies and then finds itself in an
endless process of paying inflated sums to keep the market under
control. The old adage is if it moves tax it. If it moves again
tax it some more. If it stops moving the government subsidizes
it so it can tax it when it starts to move again. That seems to
fit in very well with this logic.
In the 1999 budget we saw an increase in the child tax benefit
and an admission by the finance minister that the clawback
provisions are a disincentive for parents to earn more money.
According to the C.D. Howe Institute, even with the tinkering,
single earner families with two children with earnings in the
$20,000 to $30,000 range, which is right around that poverty line
that has been arbitrarily set, would keep less than $35 from an
additional $100 earnings. This is true of the worst provinces. I
define those as the ones where there are so many overlapping
federal and provincial programs that Canadians have no choice but
to sit and wait for the government to tell them what their income
is going to be.
In Bill C-72 we see the same tinkering at work. The child care
expense deduction has been increased to $7,000 but it only
applies to parents who hire people to take care of their kids.
This has become a fairly common situation in Canadian households.
Many people are of the opinion that one of the strongest reasons
for this is that the government takes too much money.
Canadian couples should have the decision as to how they are
going to raise their children. It has been snatched from their
hands and placed in the cold dead grip of a disinterested
bureaucracy with its own social agenda.
Taxpayers' money not only goes to finance programs to relieve a
situation that governments create, but it also goes to finance
lobby groups to perpetuate the myth that Canadian families would
be in stress without the government rather than because of it.
Even so, tens of thousands of brave parents make the courageous
decision to re-order their lifestyle to fit what is best for
their young children.
Bill C-72 fails to address another situation that is obvious to
everyone except the Prime Minister. On May 3 the Prime Minister
got up and said the government wiped out bracket creep by
increasing the personal exemption by a whopping $50 a month. He
failed to mention several facts of which the government should
rightly be embarrassed.
Not only should the basic personal exemption be in excess of
$8,000 a year, but the Liberals are only going to phase in their
tinkering over the next two years. It will only go to a maximum
of $7,131, not nearly enough in today's economy.
They like to brag on the other side that somewhere between
400,000 and 600,000 Canadians have been pushed off the tax rolls
with their generosity. They fail to mention that 1.4 million
people have been added back on through the back door to these tax
rolls because the Liberals have not got around to adjusting the
tax brackets for inflation. We call that bracket creep. That is
according to the OECD study.
1140
A KPMG study, and we know how much the finance minister likes
those when they are in his favour, has shown that the low to
middle tax bracket of $29,590 should be almost $37,000, an
increase of over $8,000. If anybody in the finance department
had bothered to keep up with the times, the higher tax bracket of
$59,180 should be over $73,000 just to keep up with inflation.
That might convince many of our valuable scientists, engineers
and skilled workers to stay here and add that value to our
country and our economy.
The Liberals would tell us that they cannot afford real tax
cuts, only the nickel and dime stuff they have been feeding
Canadians. In Bill C-72 there is another instalment of surtax
reduction, although we always hear that it is $500 a year when in
fact it was $250 last year and $250 this year. Again, the
numbers are better when we add them altogether. I wonder if many
Canadians will actually notice that change in April 2000.
There is a tax credit for interest paid on student loans which
is a good thing, but it only applies to the federal government
student loans, not to the bank student loans. There is a real
disparity. The students who are still going to school can write
off the federal government part but not the bank loans. As the
federal government withdraws from programs such as that, these
same students find themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma.
I wonder how much better off we would all be if the finance
minister had not wasted time with the millennium scholarship fund
and simply had gone to the source. That was really the
taxpayers' hard earned surplus in 1998. If he had turned the
money back to students who really need it, I think we would have
got a lot more bang for our buck.
Eliminating bracket creep for instance would have put a $900
million ding into the finance minister's slush fund but would
have put hundreds of dollars back into the hands of low and
middle income Canadians, right where they need it.
We also see provisions for people to use their RRSPs for
something other than a hedge against government incompetence in
mismanagement of the CPP fund. People can withdraw money for
education, which is good. But since it is their money anyway, it
is a bit of a shell game as to what they should be able to do
with it.
I come back to the question of why the government cannot do
anything more substantial or imaginative than this tinkering we
see in Bill C-72. This government will try to use two excuses.
It will say that it will not cut taxes and it will not tax us
back into a deficit the same way it taxed us into the high
spending it did in the first place. It will also say that it
wants to be fair to the poor or maintain services that Canadians
are so proud of, part of our Canadian mosaic, or that it
apparently represents what we are as a people.
We have seen government spending go up the last three years and
projections that it will continue to do so. This is hardly a
prudent way to manage the future. Our fundamentals are
supposedly right, but in our minds they are not.
We have also seen the insatiable desire of this government to
hold control of every aspect of health care and social spending
in its grip, even in the face of the Liberals' proven
incompetence.
As I said before, we have the cart before the horse with this
legislation. We are working with provisions in this bill that
were actually implemented last year. The funding was set aside
last year.
The parliamentary secretary in his address earlier this morning
talked in glowing terms about people below $20,000 being in a tax
free zone. I ask what is the big deal? That is still well below
the poverty line that is arbitrarily set in Canada, so that is
really not a whole lot to crow about.
People in Canada are looking for real tax relief. The industry
minister, with supporting statistics from his own department,
Industry Canada, has acknowledged the realities of a high tax
system in Canada and what it is doing to our economy here, our
productivity, as it were.
Again the parliamentary secretary talked about the RESPs. As I
said before, if we are talking to finance people, a trust fund is
far more manageable in the RRSP portion of it. It gives us lots
more flexibility. Students can do different things with that.
They do not have to go to the same type of college or facility
that the RESPs would direct them to. It is much more easy and
much more flexible to put that money into a trust fund.
The caregiver tax credit of $400 that he so eloquently spoke of
appears at $11,000 worth of income. It is nickels and dimes
again. It does not go anywhere. As a caregiver, $400 a year
does not begin to cover a week's cost when one is caring for an
invalid or a handicapped person. It is an insult to these
people.
The parliamentary secretary talked in glowing terms and his
words were that the winds of tax relief were blowing across the
country. I would say that the reality is it is not even a gentle
breeze.
1145
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak this morning for the last time on Bill C-72,
which implements certain measures set out in the 1998 budget
brought down by the Minister of Finance.
Some hon. members will most certainly recall, and I will take it
upon myself to remind the others, that in 1998 when the Minister
of Finance released his budget, we in the Bloc Quebecois had
some years previously encouraged the government to include
certain measures that were included in that budget. Minor as
they may have been, they were, in our opinion, a step in the
right direction.
Our position has not changed fundamentally with respect to those
highly specific measures.
Generally speaking, however, given the broad range of
possibilities presented to the Minister of Finance in 1998,
which were included in the latest budget for 1999-2000, we did
not feel the Minister of Finance had gone far enough. He
claimed otherwise, however, concealing the real figures on the
state of the public purse. With those real figures, we were
able to state that the Minister of Finance could have go much
further with the broad range of possibilities available to him,
if he had any real compassion.
What are the budget measures from 1998 that we find today in
Bill C-72, which we had encouraged and applauded at that time,
and still do today?
There is the $500 increase in the basic personal credit. We
supported this measure, although the Minister of Finance could
have gone even further beyond the tiny step he took.
There is the surtax reduction for individuals, to a maximum of
$250. This too is positive, but does not go far enough.
There is the home buyers' plan for the disabled. Finally, after
several years of battles, the plan is now in place. We worked
on this. A number of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues worked very
hard representing associations of the disabled from their
ridings so that special measures such as the home buyers' plan
for persons with a disability could become a reality. We
applauded this measure.
There are the tax credits for interest on student loans.
Students too deserve support in their efforts to acquire
knowledge and to enter the labour market. In this case too, the
government has not gone far enough in supporting students in
Quebec and Canada.
There is an increase in the child care expense deduction. This
is a good thing.
As regards the lifelong learning plan and the matter of tax-free
withdrawal of funds invested in a registered retirement savings
plan, here again, when the Bloc Quebecois made public a few
years ago an analysis of a possible and positive reform of
personal taxes, we were the first to ask the Minister of Finance
to use the funds invested in RRSPs for purposes other than
retirement.
The rate of unemployment, as we have seen, has remained fairly
high.
We could also see that there were urgent needs, particularly in
the case of middle income families, and that we should either
think about using the funds invested in a registered retirement
savings plan to create self-employment, to allow taxpayers to
create their own jobs, or about helping them return to the
labour market, through continuing education programs.
We were happy to see that measure included in the 1998 budget.
In fact, we supported that initiative when the Minister of
Finance made it public.
However, we do not agree with the minister—and he is certainly
not deserving of any praise regarding this aspect of his 1998
budget—when he says he could not do more than the few positive
measures found in Bill C-72, because this is utterly false.
When the Minister of Finance brought down his 1998 budget, he
claimed there would be a zero surplus for each of the following
three years. However, we were quick to react and set the record
straight regarding the 1998-99 figures and the anticipated
results for 1999-2000.
In 1998-99, the surplus will exceed $15 billion. We are talking
about a $15 billion surplus for the fiscal year that ended on
March 31. In the next fiscal year, the surplus will be $20
billion.
1150
The Minister of Finance is still claiming there is no money
available. But he forgets to mention that, under the Financial
Administration Act, all the unexpected surpluses in the previous
fiscal years were automatically used to pay off part of the
debt. Last year, over $20 billion went directly to pay back part
of the capital on the debt.
We have nothing against paying off the debt. That is not the
point. However, when one has a surplus, one must make a number
of decisions as a good manager of the public treasury.
Instead of using a portion of the surpluses from last fiscal and
a portion of the surpluses from this fiscal to help out middle
income families, he could have provided more assistance for
unemployed workers and students, given the precarious economic
situation in which many families have been living in Quebec and
in Canada since 1997-98.
Instead, the Minister of Finance presented an inaccurate picture
of the state of the nation's finances. He then used this
picture to make his argument that it was impossible for the
federal government to provide any more assistance to middle
income families, who have been having a hard time for several
years now because of him.
What could the Minister of Finance have done during fiscal
1997-98, fiscal 1998-99 and the current fiscal year? He could
have done something we have been asking him to do since the 1993
election, which is to devote some of his precious time to
federal fiscal reform. Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has come
up with two possible scenarios for reforming federal taxation,
one for individual taxpayers and one for corporations.
When we released our two reports, the Minister of Finance even
congratulated us on our good work, but he has done nothing about
reforming federal taxation since.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, would you please ask the members
opposite to withdraw if they have matters to discuss? The
environment is not conducive to productive exchanges,
particularly not during a speech on something as basic as the
future of families in Quebec and in Canada. Would you please
ask them to continue their conversation elsewhere?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I do not think the other
members were being too noisy. They were merely chatting, but I
understand your point.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing petty in what I
said.
It is rather tiresome to be speaking and hear the whispers of a
Liberal MP over there. Out of mere courtesy, perhaps out of
respect for this House, if there is a need for private
conversations, they should be held in the lobby. Moreover, the
Chair has often stopped conversations of that nature in order to
ensure that the institution operates as it should. That was all
I was asking for. I see that my colleague has finished his
discussion, so I can now continue my speech.
I was saying that, in 1998-99, the Minister of Finance could have
done great things. He had choices to make. The same thing goes
for 1999-2000, but since Bill C-72 is connected with the 1998
budget, I will limit myself to that budget.
He knew he had a surplus of $15 billion. He could count just as
we could.
If we in the Bloc Quebecois were able to determine that the
surplus for fiscal year 1998-99 would range between $12 billion
and $15 billion, he could have done the same with the whole gang
of public servants, specialists, and the amazing prediction
machine at his disposal. But instead he concealed the real
figures.
We have been calling for tax reform for years now. The Reform
Party did exactly the same recently. The Minister of Finance
prefers to focus on economic conditions rather than taking a
serious look at the tax system.
This is certainly a major undertaking, because the last tax
reform was in 1968, with the Carter report. That report led to
the implementation of certain measures which resulted in some
marked improvements to the tax system, ones which were of
considerable significance.
1155
But it is work. It is true that the time he spent on reforming
the tax system he would not spend promoting his candidacy for
the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The Minister of Finance must have the interest of the public
more at heart than his own interests, and, until he convinces me
otherwise, I think he has worked more for his own interests, and
he has displayed a certain laziness not found among his
predecessors.
He could have done extraordinary things.
When he felt the lid on the pot was beginning to lift, he
decided to establish an empty working group that produced an
empty report. Some considerations were correct, but most did
not relate to the needs for significant change, particularly in
the area of personal income tax.
The Mintz working group, which he set up in order to reform
taxes, focussed on corporate taxes only. What did the Minister
of Finance do with the report Mr. Mintz submitted? He took it
and he put it on a shelf. He applied none of its
recommendations.
He did not deign to work on reforming personal income taxes,
which would be easy to do.
As I mentioned earlier, the reports the Bloc Quebecois produced
were applauded and welcomed by the Minister of Finance. But
there has been no follow up. There really is a lack of
interest.
What could the Minister of Finance have done without racking his
brains and compromising his race for the leadership of the
Liberal Party of Canada? He could have fully indexed the tax
tables and all the parameters of federal taxation. He could
have done it very simply. I will illustrate my remarks in this
respect in a few minutes.
Here is what happens without indexation. Since 1986, the
government has not taken inflation lower than 3% into account.
When the rate of inflation is such as the one we have been
experiencing for several years, the federal government gets tax
revenues that increase every year, without having to impose any
direct tax increase or specific tax measure. So, by not fully
indexing tax tables, the Minister of Finance is quietly getting
more money, every year, in the federal treasury.
When inflation is high, taxpayers must pay more for goods and
services. They must pay more for food, housing and even in
taxes. They pay more indirectly because no adjustment, or only
partial adjustment, is made by the federal government to the tax
tables and the various federal tax components, to take into
account the cost of living increase.
If the government fully took inflation into account, it would
lower federal tax rates for certain income categories, or it
would allow a tax rate that is currently low and that applies to
a specific income category to apply to a higher income category.
Instead of doing that, the government decided it was just too
easy to get more money. It was just too easy to fully index tax
tables and components. Instead of helping middle income
families, the Minister of Finance decided to maintain the unfair
system that has been in place since 1986.
What is the result of all this? I tried to illustrate how it
affects taxpayers, particularly middle income earners, who
account for 70% of all taxpayers.
On the first $29,590, the federal tax rate in 17%. If the
government had fully taken inflation into account since 1986,
and had also fully indexed federal tax brackets, taxpayers would
now be paying 17% not on the first $29,590 that they earn, but
on the first $36,918.
1200
This makes a difference. Because taxes are not fully indexed,
taxpayers are paying 17% on the first $29,590 of earnings
instead of on the first $36,918. This has a negative impact on
families' disposable income.
We are told that families' disposable income has continued to
fall since the late 1970s. This is a measure that reduces
disposable income. Disposable income is what is left over after
taxpayers have paid all their taxes. It is what they have left
to buy goods and services and to make investments.
When tax brackets are not indexed, it starts to add up: 17% on
the first $36,000 rather than 17% on the first $29,590 starts to
add up to thousands of dollars a year.
The $29,591 to $59,180 federal tax bracket is taxed at 26%.
After that, it goes up. Normally, with full indexing, the 26%
tax rate would have kicked in between $36,000 and $73,800
instead of between $29,000 and $59,000. This becomes important,
because the first $36,000 earned would be taxed at only 26%
instead of 29% or 30%, which is quite a difference.
The Minister of Finance preferred instead to continue with this
unfair system, to allow the economic situation and inflation to
continue unchecked so as to provide him with additional revenue,
rather than impose any unpopular measures like raising income
and other taxes.
I would remind hon. members that some 72% or 73% of taxpayers
fall within the category of the two taxation levels I referred
to, of 17% and 26%, for incomes of between $29,000 and $59,000.
So not having fully indexed tax tables, tax levels and other tax
parameters since 1986 has cost the majority of taxpayers very
dearly.
I will give an illustration of what not having full indexation
can represent for a resident of Quebec and a resident of
Ontario.
For example, for a family with one wage-earner and two children,
with a 1986 income of $25,800 and a 1996 income of $35,400, the
lack of indexation of the tax tables and other tax parameters
has meant a loss of between $7,000 and $10,000 since 1986. That
is a considerable amount of money.
We are not talking about a family with millions in income, but a
family with one wage earner and two children, whose income was
$25,800 in 1986 and had risen to $35,400 by 1996, as a result of
inflation and promotions. The lack of indexation of the tax
tables and other tax parameters has meant a loss of $7,000 since
1986. That is a considerable amount of money.
These people do not have any money to throw away. They are not
taking vacations in Acapulco every year.
Since 1986 they have seen between $7,000 and $10,000 in net
revenue taken out of their pockets. They could have invested it
in their children's education. They could have used it to
improve their general situation. They also could have perhaps
put it toward buying a house.
Maintaining such unjust situations is a serious matter. We have
a family with one wage earner, a family of two adults and two
children, losing between $7,000 and $10,000, if their present
income is $35,000 or $36,000.
That is what lies behind the inaction of the Liberal government
and the laziness of the Minister of Finance .
1205
It is not for the fun of it that we have been asking him to
reform taxes since 1993 and keep asking him to do so. They
could have done something else to improve people's situation.
They should have reformed taxes years ago. It needs to be done
soon. It needed to be done in 1993, when there were one million
poor children in Canada. Today, in 1999, there are 1.6 million
poor children.
This man, rising every week with his hand on his heart and
speaking of his compassion for poor children, is helping make
the parents of these children poorer.
This category of middle income earner, representing 70% of
taxpayers, makes the greatest contribution to the employment
insurance fund. The Minister of Finance is literally stealing
the surplus from it, to the tune of $6 billion or $7 billion a
year, rather than take this money and give it back to workers in
the middle class and employers in SMBs or give a significant
part of it back to the unemployed who are excluded from the
application of the employment insurance plan.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, who says that he
too has great compassion for those worst off, cut the plan and
tightened eligibility criteria with the complicity of the
Minister of Finance. The Minister of Human Resources
Development is a kind of sherpa for the Minister of Finance.
Middle income earners paying because the tax tables and brackets
are not fully indexed are also paying in terms of the money they
take—and I am being polite—the money they rob from the
employment insurance fund. These people pay double, and this is
the fault of the Minister of Finance. If we look at the
category of the public servants, these are the same middle
income earners whose pension plan surplus will be taken by the
President of the Treasury Board.
He has just introduced a bill that will establish the pension
investment board for the main pension plans. He also announced
that he expects he will use the $30 billion surplus accumulated
in the plan as he sees fit, without consulting anyone.
This is a curious style of management, in which money is taken
from middle income earners, because there is no tax reform.
More money is taken from them when the government helps itself
to the surplus in the EI fund. And moreover the same thing is
happening to federal public servants, as the government is
grabbing the surpluses in their pension funds.
I was going to say something unparliamentary, but I will
refrain. I am casting about for a word that is parliamentary
but conveys my meaning. It begins to look like the federal
government is systematically misrepresenting the numbers, using
money that does not belong to it, wasting this money on measures
designed more for the visibility, such as the millennium
scholarships, the Minister of Canadian Heritage's Canadian flag
operation, or the Council on Canadian Unity. This is no way to
manage taxpayers' money and the public knows it. The public
should not be underestimated.
When we travel throughout Quebec, as I often do, people, not
necessarily hard-liners, tell us that the federal government's
management of taxpayers' money and the type of hypocrisy we see
here make absolutely no sense.
Since 1996, the Minister of Finance has been promising
legislation to eliminate tax loopholes that mostly benefit
Canada's millionaires and billionaires. We have not seen it
yet.
People will remember the auditor general's criticism in 1996,
following our denunciations that went all the way back to the
1993 election campaign of the family trust system for
millionaires—not for middle income earners, but for
millionaires—that lets them use tax loopholes for tax planning
purposes instead of the purposes for which they were originally
intended, such as providing a life annuity for a permanently
disabled child.
Here we have a situation that was denounced by the auditor
general, a situation where officials from the Department of
National Revenue, the Department of Finance and the Department
of Justice got together of an evening one December 24 a few
years ago and came up with an advance ruling allowing a family
of billionaires to transfer two family trusts totalling $2
billion completely tax free to the United States.
1210
This was unprecedented. At least, we were not aware of any other
similar situation.
There was a public outcry and the Bloc Quebecois strongly
condemned what had taken place. I must say that the public
servants who were present when that advance ruling was made and
who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts found it to be most
uncomfortable to say the least.
Following that incident, the Minister of Finance announced that
he would table a bill to make taxpayers accountable in the case
of such transfers by providing a certain amount to pay taxes to
Revenue Canada when assets are transferred abroad.
Three years ago, when the minister announced his intention to
eliminate that loophole, what did these millionaires and
billionaires do? They came up with all sorts of schemes to
immediately transfer their trusts to tax havens abroad, by
taking advantage of the precedent created by that advance
ruling. They took advantage of the situation. In 1999, three
years after alerting robbers, the Minister of Finance has yet to
table his bill to eliminate the tax loopholes available to these
millionaires.
It is hardly surprising. In the last budget, the most
significant tax reductions are for those with incomes of
$250,000 and up. Based on the proposed tax reductions, these
people, who do not have a hard time making ends meet—unlike a
family of two adults and two children with an income of
$36,000—will benefit from tax savings of $3,800 as early as this
year.
On the other hand, those earning between $25,000 and $50,000 are
not going to benefit from a tax saving of any more than $80 to
$350.
The reason is obvious. We see where the friends of the Liberal
Party and the friends of the Minister of Finance fit in. They
are not families with one wage earner, with two adults and two
children, and an income of $36,000. They are millionaires and
billionaires. Moreover, what came out yesterday or the day
before about the key contributors to the Liberal Party of
Canada's campaign fund is most revealing. There are many banks,
trust companies and family trusts. No change there.
Join the dots between a $35,000 or $45,000 contribution, even
$100,000, from major companies to the Liberal Party coffers, and
then ask yourself whether the Liberals will end up with their
hands tied afterward when it comes to tax reform, to blocking
the loopholes for millionaires, for preventing the banks from
doing certain things.
It is so ridiculous that I recently cut out an article on this
subject, which I found most instructive. In 1993, when I first
came to this House, I said we would be fighting to block the
gaps in the taxation system, the so-called loopholes. These
loopholes enable people who are far from being in need to do tax
planning, to do all sorts of tricky tax moves, with the blessing
of the Minister of Finance, in order to find themselves
tax-exempt in foreign tax havens.
In the newspapers in 1993, there were classified ads that read
“Come and plan the retirement of your dreams with us”. They were
talking about tax havens. At that point, the Income Tax Act
permitted millions and millions of dollars in taxes to be saved
through various means.
I was looking at a paper last week again, and it made no sense.
There was another classified ad, which read in English and
French, “Come and see us, we have ways for you to save hundreds
of thousands if not millions in taxes, depending on your
income”. No family earning $36,000 a year will be able to take
advantage of the advice on how to save money in tax havens. One
has to have money to do that.
Six years later, nothing has changed, with tax havens. With
permissive federal taxes and the federal Income Tax Act, the
situation is similar to that of 1993, in which millionaires and
billionaires paid no taxes and 70% of Quebeckers and Canadians
pay most of the taxes, that is, the average income earners. Yet
the Minister of Finance still has not introduced a bill to put
an end to this scandal.
1215
Bill C-72 contains some positive measures. They are the ones we
praised in the 1998 budget. The Minister of Finance could have
done so much better that it is ironic he is getting off so
lightly.
With the options available to him then and now, he could have
helped improve the situation of people in this country, of
middle income families that have been struggling for years.
Some of them have sunk into poverty because of the measures of
the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of Human Resources
Development in the area of employment insurance. He could have
done a lot.
Still, this bill is a small step in the right direction, and we
would not want to tell taxpayers “These incomplete measures
would save you a few dollars, and we could not oppose the bill
simply because it really did not go far enough”.
Therefore, we will support this bill, but we will continue to
condemn this rip-off of middle income families and the fact that
the Minister of Finance has simply let economic—and
political—conditions dictate his course of action for several
years, not assuming his responsibilities as he should have.
Who knows, perhaps he will make it and become Prime Minister
some day, but I certainly do not wish it on Canada. As for us,
we will be gone; we will have left and probably have achieved
sovereignty a few years earlier.
Canada deserves better than a minister like this one, a minister
who did not take his responsibilities when he was in a position
to effect social change, but chose not to.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am quite delighted to speak to Bill C-72
today in this closing round of debate.
My first question would be to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance. What is it about bracket creep that he
likes so much? We hear an awful lot about bracket creep. I know
it is something that my friend feels very strongly about because
he just refuses to let it up. He wants to hold it close to his
chest as though this is his special bracket creep and no one is
taking it from him. I will get back to this point in a moment.
In order to give a balanced approach, I have to say that there
are a number of things in the legislation that are actually quite
helpful; for example, the increase in tax breaks for caregivers.
Who can stand in the House and say it is not a good idea for the
government to come up with an extra $400 per year for people
taking care of people in their homes? This is going to make a
tremendous difference. Something like $35 will really be noticed
by people who are caregivers. Quite frankly, it is the ultimate
in baby steps in terms of tax reform but it is at least a slight
lean in the right direction.
There have also been increases in the registered education
savings plan, the homebuyers plan, the part time education
deductions, the child care expense deductions, and, as I
mentioned already, the caregiver tax credit which provides, as it
states here, a new refundable tax credit up to $400 per
caregiver. This will make a major difference.
There are a number of changes that we would support in
principle. However, they are the most infinitesimal changes that
one could imagine occurring to the tax act of Canada. If we sat
down and asked what the absolute minimalist approach we could
take to tax reform and what would be the least we could get away
with and still sound like we are doing okay, that would be what
Bill C-72 is all about. However, to say that none of this is
worthwhile would obviously be silly. There are a number of
important gestures. I perhaps would use the term gesture more
than anything to indicate that we are moving in the right
direction.
Having said that, what on earth am I going to say at report
stage and third reading on this particular bill?
I got up early this morning and reread all the weekend papers to
look at what they were saying about taxes, tax changes, tax
reform and so on. We have all filled out our tax returns in the
last few weeks.
1220
We all have a sensitivity about the tax system. I was curious
to know what the editorial writers, reporters and others were
saying. The general theme was that the tax rate and the tax
burden should be reduced.
I think we have seen this movie before. I remember reading in
the newspapers a few years ago that the fundamental requirement
to achieving economic prosperity in the country was to reduce the
levels of inflation. The levels of inflation were simply too
high. We had images of Prime Minister Trudeau wrestling this
phantom inflation to the ground and pinning it down. Once this
was done the economy would turn around. I can say with some
pleasure that we did that. We wrestled the old inflation to the
ground, pinned it down for three counts and it was down and out.
Now, for all intents and purposes, we have no inflation.
Did that significantly change the way the economy was
functioning? Did we become more productive? Did employment
levels come down substantially? Unfortunately the answer is no.
There was no significant shift.
The government then admitted it had made a mistake. It felt
that if it could get interest rates down then that would
stimulate the economy back into high gear. We went through all
sorts of contortions and interest rates finally came down to
relatively recent historic lows in the 4%, 5% and 6% range for
people borrowing money. However, that did not have the big hit
that we had anticipated either.
The government then said that it was not just inflation and
interest rates, that it was really the size of government. The
President of the Treasury Board then said that 55,000 federal
civil servants would have to be laid off. The government laid
off 55,000 people across the country, one of the largest layoffs
ever in Canadian history. Did that achieve the results? No,
that did not have much of an impact in the end either.
The government had laid off 55,000 people and inflation and
interest rates had gone down but now the problem was the deficit.
It then began cutting programs and the deficit went down. As a
matter of fact it was wiped right out. The deficit is history.
It went the way of the dodo bird.
Things, however, did not change a whole lot or turn things
around. The government then said it had a new problem called tax
cuts. It felt that if taxes were cut it would get the economy
moving and into high gear. My friend from the Conservative Party
agrees with me. It is a mantra for people to get up in the
morning and say “Please God, lower tax rates and the economy
will get into high gear”.
Who is going to say that we should not do that? I am not going
to say we should not lower taxes. It would be almost suicidal to
say that. However, I have seen this movie before. Getting
inflation down, the deficit down, downsizing the government and
cutting taxes does not work. It has not worked in the past. I
am not sure this is the answer. Where is this call coming from?
Is it widespread across the country?
I know my Conservative friend and the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Finance will recall the questions we asked
Canadians when we toured the country during our prebudget
consultations. We asked Canadians what they thought should be
done, and what their priorities were for the budget in terms of
the economy.
I can say without any hesitation that some people said that tax
cuts were not a priority. They said that health care, education
and training were priorities, but that tax cuts should come after
the health care system is back on its feet and after a decent
educational system is in place from kindergarten to
post-secondary. If some of my colleagues who were on the
committee feel differently, then I think we should hear from
them.
Sometimes people were pushed and pressed and said they wanted
tax cuts, but when the question was asked whether they wanted to
see tax cuts or health care left the way it was, the answer was
no. The same answer came back when they were asked about
education. Most of these people, who were experts in their
field, admitted to our committee that they did not want tax cuts
as a top priority.
Perhaps we should set that aside because it would appear that
tax cuts are not really the top priority. It really is a major
issue. When a poll was conducted recently asking Canadians what
should be done in terms of the federal budget, 45% of Canadians
felt that health care should be a priority and only 7% said that
taxes were the most important issue facing Canadians.
I wonder who those people are? We have heard some of them speak
out. We heard Paul Desmarais say that taxes were too high,
particularly for wealthy people. Jimmy Pattison, on the west
coast, said that taxes were too high for wealthy people. We have
heard others make the case that taxes are too high, resulting in
a lot of Canada's best managers, high tech workers and scientists
going to the United States.
1225
There is no denying that many people are being attracted to the
United States, but I suspect that the tax rate is only one of the
attractive features. I suspect the offer of perhaps twice as
much money to leave Canada and go to the United States to work in
Texas, Michigan, Florida, or wherever is probably as crucial as
any in the decision making.
What is perhaps even more important to some of the high tech
workers and the scientific community is the fact that they will
have decent lab supplies and decent labs to work in. Having the
funds available for their research also attracts some of our best
researchers to go to the United States. I suspect that taxation
is far down on their list of points when they make that decision.
I am not saying that reduced taxes is something we should not be
concerned about. We obviously should, but is it a priority?
I suspect that if we were to press the issue we would find that
most Canadians are fed up with the taxes that they pay because of
two things. I think most Canadians filling out their tax returns
and either writing a cheque to the Receiver General of Canada or
have been writing cheques over for the last year, depending on
the nature of their income, are fed up with the high taxes they
are paying because they think they are not getting a good deal
for their taxes. They think their taxes are being spent on some
questionable priorities of the government.
I do not think Canadians are that far out. I remember a big
deal that happened in the House when we found out that $3.3
million was being spent to improve the image of the other place.
Is it a national priority for Canadians to improve the image of
the other place? Some people think it is, but I suspect that,
other than a handful of senators, we would be hard-pressed to
find a single Canadian who would say that he or she wants his or
her tax money to go toward enhancing the image of the people who
inhabit the other place across the hallway.
Does anyone remember the $98,000 spent for a book on dumb blonde
jokes? I took that personally being somewhat of a blonde myself.
Is it a national priority to give someone $98,000 to write and
publish a joke book about blondes? Is this something that
taxpayers want to see their hard-earned tax dollars going to pay
for? I doubt it.
There is also the $500,000 canoe museum up in the Prime
Minister's constituency. I know many of us are very fond of
canoes. A lot of us have canoes and we paddle them. A canoe is
a great Canadian image-maker, but I do not know if it was a
priority to spend $500,000 of our hard-earned tax money on a
little canoe museum in the Prime Minister's riding. I will
listen to my Liberal friends opposite as they stand up and say
that having a dumb blonde joke book funded by the taxpayers was a
good way to use taxpayers money, or whatever. Let us face it,
the list is endless.
The point I am trying to make is that most Canadians do not
begrudge the fact that they have to pay taxes. That is why in
the past we have had a very good health care system. That is why
we have a whole variety of programs that differentiate us as a
country from most other countries of the world. However, there
is a feeling that their taxes are not being wisely invested or
wisely spent, that there is a lot of frivolous and unnecessary
spending going on without a proper accounting. As
parliamentarians, I think we all have to admit that there is not
a proper accounting.
I remember that when I was first elected the big time of the
year was when we went through the estimates. We would sit down
in our committees, whether it was the agriculture committee, the
foreign affairs committee, the finance committee, or the health
committee, and spend days and days going through the estimates so
that members of parliament would at least have some inclination
as to what the department was spending the money on. The minister
and the parliamentary secretary would be grilled. The secretaries
of state and the departmental representatives would also be
grilled. At the end of the process we had a general feeling that
the moneys being invested were at least identified as to where
they were going.
1230
Whether we agreed with them or not, we at least knew they were
being spent here and being invested there, they were going to
build this or they were going to try to get that thing happening
in that part of Canada, et cetera.
Now the whole process of dealing with the estimates has
essentially been thrown out the window. Committees really do not
deal with the estimates in the same vigilant way they did in the
past. In many cases they do not go over the estimates at all.
They are deemed to have been discussed, deemed to have been
passed and that is the end of it.
When taxpayers feel that their elected representatives do not
represent them in going through how taxes are being used it is
absolutely true. There is a good reason the taxpayers of Canada
feel a little uneasy at this time of the year when they are
writing their cheques to the Receiver General of Canada.
It is fair to say that most Canadians, may I say all Canadians,
feel that some people get a better deal than others because of
our tax system. Some people benefit from our tax system where
other people pay too much. Let us face it. Some are in a
category where they can hire a tax accountant, or they have a
good tax adviser or lawyer, and they use the part of the tax act
of Canada, the Income Tax Act which is annotated with
explanations beside some of the points.
My guess is that if they can afford a tax lawyer, or their
affairs are in such a way that they have a good tax accountant or
a good tax adviser, they can probably take advantage of
provisions in the act that will enable them to either pay very
little income tax or in some cases pay absolutely no income tax
in spite of the fact that they might have had substantial income
during that year.
It is a fact of life that a lot of people pay very little income
tax. As a matter of fact I know lots of people in this country
who are proud of the fact that they have used this book. They
have good advisers and have arranged their financial affairs in
certain ways that they do not pay any income tax all. That is
the way it is. They are not doing anything wrong. They are not
doing anything illegal or unethical. They are simply using the
provisions of the tax act that most Canadians are unable to use
because their income tax is deducted at source. For Canadians
who work in a plant or a factory, or in an office, somebody
deducts their income tax and that is it. They do not have any
real deductions that other people obviously have.
There is this feeling that the tax act is haywire, unfair,
unjust and that it is biased in favour of certain Canadians who
tend to be wealthy, and larger corporations, compared to the
average small business. That is simply a fact of life.
I am going ask that we pause for a moment or two while I read
from the bible of taxation. It has come that time of the day
when it behoves us all to set aside a few quiet moments to
contemplate what the tax act actually says. I will not read much.
I have chosen for today's reading chapter 127, verse 11,
subsection (b)(vi). I think all members of parliament will get
quite a thrill when they listen to this part of the bible. It
may even be inspiring. Let us put ourselves into a state of
meditation for a moment or two while I read from section 127,
verse 11 of the tax act. It goes like this:
Application of ss. (9) after November 16, 1978.—In applying
subsection (9) in respect of
(a) a qualified property or qualified transportation equipment
acquired after November 16, 1978, or qualified construction
equipment acquired after April 19, 1983, the references in
paragraph (a) and (b) thereof to “5%” shall be read as
references to “7%”, the references in paragraphs (a.1) and
(b.1) thereof to “5%” shall be read as references to “13%”
and the references in paragraphs (a.2) and (b.2) thereof to
“2.5%” shall be read as references to “3%”,
(b) a qualified expenditure incurred by a taxpayer after
November 16, 1978 and before his taxation year that includes
November 1, 1983, or a qualified expenditure incurred by him in
that taxation year or a subsequent taxation year if he deducted
an amount under section 37.1 in computing his income for the
year,
(i) where the expenditure was incurred by a Canadian-controlled
private corporation in a taxation year of the corporation in
which it is or would, if it had sufficient taxable income for the
year, be entitled to a deduction under section 125 in computing
its tax payable under this Part for the year, the references in
paragraphs (a) and (b) thereof to “5%” shall be read as
references to “25%” and the references in paragraphs (a.1),
(a.2), (b.1) and (b.2) thereof to “2.5%” or “5%”, as the case
may be, shall be read as references to “0%”, and
(ii) in any other case, the references in paragraphs (a), (a.1),
(b) and (b.1) thereof to “5%” shall be read as references to
“10%” and the references in paragraphs (a.2) and (b.2) thereof
to “2.5%” shall be read as references to “0%”; and
(c) a qualified expenditure incurred by a taxpayer in his
taxation year that includes November 1, 1983 or a subsequent
taxation year, other then a qualified expenditure referred to in
paragraph (b), the references in paragraphs (a) and (b) thereof
to “5%” shall be read as references to “20%”, the references
in paragraphs (a.1) and (b.1) thereof to “5%” shall be read as
references to “10%” and the references in paragraphs (a.2) and
(b.2) thereof to “2.5%” shall be read as references to “0%”.
1235
That is from the tax act, section 127, verse 11(b)(vi).
I could read some more of the fascinating passages but I think
the case is clear. Who in their right mind could understand what
the hell that is all about? Nobody. I doubt if there is a tax
expert in this country who could honestly say they know what that
is all about. They practise the grey area of taxation.
Back in the sixties the Carter commission went from coast to
coast and spent a great deal of time analysing the tax act of
that period. It made a number of recommendations. Now is the
time to have Carter commission two and to re-evaluate our tax act
from top to bottom to ensure for the future that it is a fair and
just piece of taxation.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have to
comment. I was truly warmed at the reading by the minister, and
he is not the minister; I was thinking of minister in the
ecclesiastical sense. It warmed the cockles of my heart.
The member said something about tax breaks not having an effect
on the economy. I want to challenge his thinking about this and
I would like him to respond.
Whether one taxes or not does not really destroy any money. All
it does is change who gets to spend it. It is my understanding
that when we are taxed, our earnings are simply put on a train or
now on the electronic highway and they are shipped at a million
miles a second to Ottawa. Politicians and bureaucrats spend the
money which the people have earned.
It is certainly true that some government spending provides
people with jobs. We know that is true for all government
workers as it is true for other people as well who contract for
government jobs. I do not think we would totally discount that
taxes are an active player in the economy.
Most studies I have read or read about imply very strongly that
if we leave the money close to the people who earn it, they
actually invest it in a better way than most governments spend
it. The member indicated some of the waste government is involved
in.
I would like the member to comment on why it is in his view that
reduction of taxes would not help the economy. It certainly
would not hinder it. I think it would help it because the people
would spend it more wisely than the politicians and bureaucrats.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, as usual I appreciate my
friend's intervention. He always has a thoughtful point to make.
Once again he has made a thoughtful point. I agree with him in
part and I will explain the part.
1240
All of us would agree that government expenditures in health
care and education are probably tax dollars well invested. I do
not think anyone would deny that. Tax dollars spent on canoe
museums or dumb blond joke books and so on are probably moneys
not well invested. Let us agree that there are useful public
expenditures and unuseful public expenditures.
The point my hon. friend makes is if there is a tax cut, is this
not good for the economy. There is a lot of talk about tax cuts
these days in the provincial election in Ontario. The so-called
winners of the Ontario provincial tax cuts which were introduced
previously resulted in someone earning $15,000 will save $160 a
year and someone earning $250,000 will save $5,000 a year. In
other words someone making a lot of money is going to save a lot
more.
We can call our economic system a capitalist system, a market
driven system or whatever, but it depends on people buying goods
or services. As long as people are buying a lot of goods and
services our economy heats up. When those consumer dollars are
not being used our economy weakens.
When we give a tax break to low or middle income earners, they
will likely spend every nickel of that tax break. They will go
out and spend it either on buying a new car, on clothing, on
food, on whatever. They will spend all that extra money they
have in their hands. An upper income earner will take that money
and invest it in the international stock market. They may set
money aside for investment at another time and they may even
start a business.
The point I want to make is that it is more likely that middle
and low income earners will spend their money than will a
multimillionaire who gets a tax cut. They may not spend the
money. They may, but they may not. They may not even spend it
in Canada. They may prefer to buy a condo in Florida, the Cayman
Islands or wherever.
If we want to get the maximum bang for our tax reduction, can I
suggest to my hon. friend that we give some thought to cutting a
tax that would be felt the next morning by every single citizen,
from a child to the most elderly taxpayer or consumer, and that
is a reduction in the GST. That would be felt from top to
bottom. Every single person would benefit, as opposed to having
selected tax cuts for the benefit of certain people.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I hate to dominate the debate
but I did give others the opportunity to stand before I stood for
the second time.
I need to get my head around this. There is certainly the view
that some Canadians may spend it outside the country. The fact
is that if it is earned in Canada, it is taxed in Canada. Surely
the member is not going to be in favour of passing laws that say
people face some financial penalty if they invest their money
outside the country. I am sure he would not be contemplating
that.
I want to make a comment and again have a response with respect
to how people spend their money. I am quite convinced that a
member of the NDP would certainly favour reducing the money that
flows from the poor to the rich. What is happening is that not
only collectively as taxpayers and as citizens do we owe a lot of
money to the big financiers and the large financial corporations,
but also as individuals. People are loaded with debt like they
have never been before. It could just be that with a tax cut
those individuals would be able to reduce their debt and
certainly we should reduce it as a country so that we end up
transferring less of the earnings of those in the middle to lower
income class to the rich class.
I think the hon. member should be in favour of that. I would
like his comment.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, what I am about to say I
say with all the respect possible.
I think that those who are calling for a tax cut as the only
element of major tax reform are being a bit narrow in their
thinking, to be fair.
I would like to use a harsher term than that, but I will just say
narrow.
1245
I believe that what we require in this country is tax reform.
If we have decent tax reform that is fair and just and honest in
approach we would find that most middle income Canadians would
get a tax break. The taxes would be lowered for the average
middle income earner and those at the higher end would perhaps be
paying slightly more.
The reality is that we have to close some of these loopholes. I
know the government has closed a few little ones, but if we close
more of the large tax loopholes that exist, have a complete tax
reform as we saw during the Carter Commission period, then we
would have a better tax system and a fairer distribution to those
who pay the taxes of Canada.
For decades and decades the system has become so out of whack,
so convoluted, so biased, so unfair, so unjust that it has caused
most Canadians to enter the underground economy whenever they
have an opportunity. I know that what happens underground is
illegal, by and large, but we understand why people do it. They
do it because they know that their taxes are not being wisely
invested. They know that a lot of people are getting tax breaks
that they do not get and cannot get. Therefore, they get
whatever tax breaks they can by operating in the underground
economy.
The auditor general did us a service in his last report by
suggesting that it is in the range of about $40 billion worth of
transactions. I would guess that is very conservative. He is a
conservative individual. His methodology is always conservative.
I suspect it is much larger than $40 billion.
We could imagine that if that $40 billion was on top of the
table, the amount of debt reduction and program expenditures that
exist in our economy that could be financed just from that would
be quite substantial.
I think it behoves us to go beyond our rhetoric and our
discussion of simple tax cuts to talk more about a decent
overhaul of our whole tax system.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker,
before I begin my comments I would like to commend my colleague
from the New Democratic Party on his comments today on tax reform
as opposed to tax cuts. I think that is a very important
distinction that needs to be made.
The problems we face as a country are perhaps more complicated
now than they have ever been. The challenges that we face change
more rapidly now than we have ever seen before. We are in a
rapidly changing, globally competitive environment. Within that
context, Canada now, more than ever, needs significant holistic
tax reform.
My colleague referred to the Carter Commission which travelled
the country formulating public policy in the 1960s. I believe
those tax reforms were implemented in 1971. The next tax reform
that was significant was in the late 1980s, I believe 1988, when
there was a significant broadening of the bases and decreasing of
the number of brackets.
Of course, we will remember the GST in 1993, a significant tax
reform which resulted in significant political reform, most of
which, politically, was not positive. That being the case, the
impact of the GST, I would argue, ultimately has been quite
positive. It replaced the manufacturers sales tax, which
pummelled Canadian enterprise in a global environment, and
replaced it with a consumption based tax.
Increasingly that is what tax experts and productivity experts
are calling for, a movement from taxes on capital, from taxes on
income, to a more fairly based consumption tax, which could in
fact be progressive. It need not sacrifice progressivity as an
expense to a tax system that fosters competitiveness. I
appreciated his comments.
These are exciting times that we live in today in Canada. It
took 14 years, from 1984 to 1998, to eliminate the deficit. In
fact, the leader of the Reform Party in this House said that
deficit reduction in Canada really began back in 1984.
At that time, when the Progressive Conservative government was
first elected, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was around 9%.
Over the next nine years it was reduced from 9% to around 5%. At
the same time program spending growth was reduced from 15% per
year to zero growth by the time that government left office
rather suddenly in 1993.
1250
Since then efforts to reduce the deficit have continued, largely
abetted and aided by the policies implemented by the previous
government. Those policies were free trade, the elimination of
the manufacturers sales tax, the introduction of the GST, and the
deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy.
Those structural changes in the Canadian economy made by that
government were credited by the Economist magazine in 1998
as being pivotal and important for the reduction and the ultimate
elimination of the deficit in Canada.
The reason I mention this very important period of time in
Canadian history in terms of fiscal policy and economic policy is
because I believe that as we enter the new millennium, as we
enter a period where change is going to be more rapid and the
challenges facing Canadians are going to be ever more complex, we
need a government that is more than a caretaker, more than a
stewardship short of government, a government that basically has
inherited some strong economic policies but really has not done a
whole lot to create new economic policies or made the types of
visionary changes that are necessary to lead Canadians proudly
and prosperously into the next century.
Right now, when the challenges are so great, we need the type of
government that would engage Canadians in the kind of dialogue
and the type of visionary public policy creation that would
produce in the long term the types of policies that will attach
the hands of Canadians to the opportunities of the 21st century.
Tax reform is a very important part of that. Arguably, tax
reform, particularly in the early 21st century, will be very
important as an economic development tool. We are seeing that
around the world, whether it is in countries like Ireland which
have very aggressive corporate tax strategies, the tax policies
that we are seeing in the U.S., for instance, or within our own
country. We are seeing provinces jockeying for position to
reduce provincial taxes in order to attract industry and create
increased levels of job growth and prosperity within the
province.
Tax reform is going to become more and more important. In this
environment it is going to take more than tinkering around the
periphery of taxes. It is going to take a significant, mature
and holistic approach to what are systemic problems.
This government's approach to taxation policy is anaemic. The
government has refused to deal with some of the root difficulties
and some of the distortions we have within the tax system.
There are some individual elements of Bill C-72 and some
individual initiatives that are difficult to disagree with in
terms of their general direction. For instance, the increase in
the personal tax credit of $500 is positive. We agree with the
general trend to increase the personal tax credit. The PC party
is calling for an increase, not just to $7,000, but to $10,000.
It is unconscionable that in Canada we are taxing people who make
as little as $7,000 per year. We believe that the personal
credit should be raised to $10,000.
The government is saying that by increasing the personal credit
by $500 it is taking 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. What
the government fails to mention is that since 1993, due to
bracket creep, this government has actually dragged 1.4 million
low income Canadians, kicking and screaming, on to the tax rolls
for the first time.
It is hardly fair for the government to say that it is taking
people off the tax rolls when in fact it is putting more people
on the tax rolls, and bracket creep continues to cost Canadians a
lot. We are calling for the elimination of bracket creep and the
re-indexing of tax brackets, particularly in the post-deficit
environment.
1255
We saw the reduction of the 3% surtax, which was a deficit
reduction surtax. Seeing that it has played a role in reducing
and ultimately eliminating the deficit, we would call for the
government to eliminate the 3% surtax, which has been the trend,
but also to eliminate the 5% surtax. The government is calling
it the high income surtax. That is one of the issues we have
from a competitiveness perspective because the government treats
people making over $60,000 as though they were rich.
In Canada the highest marginal tax rate is hit at around
$60,000. In the U.S. the highest marginal tax rate is not reached
until the individual hits a threshold of about $412,000 Canadian.
Last week in Maclean's magazine there was an interesting
survey of opportunities for freshly minted graduates in Canada.
The average salary for a freshly minted graduate with a bachelor
degree in commerce, according to Maclean's, who is entering
the financial services sector in investment banking, is $72,000.
In the first year out of university these bachelor of commerce
graduates, or business administration graduates, are making
$72,000. Immediately, in the first year out of school, with
student loans and everything else, the government is taxing them
at the highest marginal tax rate.
It is little wonder that we are chasing from Canada some of our
best and brightest young people who are seeking opportunities,
particularly south of the border, in what is frequently referred
to as the brain drain.
The government sometimes says that it is not really a personal
income tax issue, that that is not the biggest reason; the fact
is that U.S. companies are also paying more money. The fact that
U.S. companies are paying higher salaries is partially due to the
fact that U.S. companies are paying lower percentages in
corporate tax rates. The general compensation trends have been
toward salaries combined with stock options. In that type of
environment our capital gains tax plays a significant role in
reducing incentives for Canadians to stay here. This is
particularly pervasive within the high tech sector.
If we are to be competitive in the 21st century it is
particularly important that we be competitive in the high tech
sector and that we be competitive in the service sector as
opposed to simply focusing on the traditional manufacturing and
resource based sectors.
The challenges and the opportunities we have now are very
exciting. In the post-deficit environment tax reform is a very
viable and, I would argue, important initiative that the
government should be pursuing more aggressively; not just
tinkering with, but offering significant broad-based reform.
In a pre-deficit environment, without a fiscal surplus, tax
reform is more difficult because whenever there is tax reform the
government stands the risk of creating winners and of course
losers. It is dealing with a zero sum issue. It is not possible
to give more to one group without taking more from another.
However, in a post-deficit environment it is possible to
implement significant, important and innovative tax reform
without hurting any group within society. Tax relief can play an
integral role in tax reform. When one group is provided with
more through a simplification of the tax code, it need not mean
that another group receives less. The surplus environment
provides an opportunity for ameliorative tax relief that would
compensate for any detrimental effects of tax reform.
1300
Canadian workers and taxpayers have played a significant role in
the elimination of the deficit. As I said earlier, it took 14
years from 1984 to 1998 to accomplish that. Canadian taxpayers
have seen an increase from 1993 to 1998 from $112 billion in
federal taxes to about $150 billion in federal taxes, a growth in
federal taxes that far outstripped the growth in the economy.
According to Douglas Porter, senior economist and vice-president
of Nesbitt Burns who was a witness before the finance committee
last week, disposable income has fallen significantly in Canada
primarily due to the high tax burden, particularly relative to
the U.S. The fact is that in the U.S. over the past few years
there has been a significant increase in personal disposable
income and during the same period there has been a decrease in
Canada.
Personal debt rates are at an unprecedented high in Canada.
Personal bankruptcy rates are higher than they have ever been.
The government may boast of being in the black, but the fact is
that because of the government's high tax policies Canadians are
in the red at an unprecedented rate.
During the seventies and eighties Canadian disposable income was
around 80% of the U.S. level. By the end of 1998 Canadian
disposable income had fallen to 50% of the U.S. level. Part of
that as well is related to the lower dollar in Canada and that
whenever our dollar is weakened it represents to a considerable
extent a pay cut for Canadians in the global environment in terms
of what we can consume. It is a corporate tax issue. It is a
personal tax issue. It is a productivity issue.
Interestingly on the productivity question, which we have been
studying in the finance committee, most witnesses indicated that
high taxes in Canada had played a role. Some said it was a very
significant role. Some said it was a smaller role. Almost all
the witnesses attributed, at least in part, our low productivity
growth in Canada to our high tax regime and the secular decline
in productivity over the past 30 years to taxes which are simply
too high and make us uncompetitive.
Another issue that comes up frequently at the finance committee
productivity hearings is investment. In jurisdictions where
investment is high, typically productivity is higher. The
Canadian government tendency to tax capital and income on capital
reduces incentives to invest. When one reduces investment one
ultimately reduces productivity.
Certainly members on the government side would like to debate
the whole notion of productivity and spend a lot of time trying
to define productivity in a rather esoteric or arcane
intellectual argument. The government does not seem to realize
that productivity is one of the greatest challenges facing
Canadians in the 21st century in terms of our ability to build
wealth in Canada.
There is a huge number of factors. Tax policy is very
important. Social policy can play a role in terms of innovative
social policy. While the government claims that innovative or
forward thinking tax policy or tax reduction cannot coexist with
innovative social policy, the fact is that the government is
wrong on that.
One witness before the finance committee was Dr. Fraser Mustard
who has done an immense amount of work on innovative social
policy and on investing in young people and children,
particularly in preschool, and what is known as head start
programs or early intervention programs aimed at children in high
risk situations. Many of these studies have been done in inner
city communities where the need was greatest, but they would
apply almost anywhere.
One dollar invested in preschool children in high risk
situations would provide a societal benefit of about $7 by the
time the child reached the age of 25.
It is a very innovative social policy aimed at those first three
years of early childhood development, the first three years of a
child's life during which 90% of the child's cognitive adaptive
skills close off.
1305
That is the one area where we do not have any real government
policy. We have a post-secondary education policy which is
primarily provincial but with some federal co-operation through
things like the millennium scholarship program. We have a
secondary and primary education system.
We have absolutely not strategy for the area during which we can
have the most significant and positive impact on the lives of our
young people and on the future competitiveness of our country
through augmenting our human capital for those first three years.
The government will argue that we cannot have tax reduction, tax
reform and innovative social policy. That is not true. This is
a government that cannot walk and chew bubble gum at the same
time. The fact is that we can have both.
We spend more on health care in Canada than the U.S. government
does on a per capita basis. I would argue that the U.S. health
care system is very inefficient due to the lack of a single tier
system, the insurance industry and the litigious nature of U.S.
society. By the same token, the U.S. spends more on health care
than we do in Canada on a per capita basis and has a defence
budget that is mammoth on a per capita basis relative to ours.
We can actually have the type of tax reform Canadians need, the
type of social policy reform Canadians need, but it will take
vision, leadership, courage, a depth of knowledge of global
issues which Canadians have not had since the previous
government, and innovative policies like free trade, reducing or
eliminating the manufacturers sales tax, and deregulation of
financial services, transportation and energy.
Unfortunately it seems that Canadians will have to wait until
after the government has left office before they get the
meaningful broad based tax reform they need to compete and
succeed in a global environment.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague from the Conservative
Party.
He brought one point forward when he said an investment of $1 in
early childhood would give dividends. He used the figure of $7
at age 25 as being the benefit to Canada, which is an extremely
positive feature. I would like him to take into account the high
tech brain drain we are seeing from the country. We probably
will lose the $7 with that brain drain.
Now there is a new proposal coming from the finance minister
with reference to giving tax breaks through stock options for
high tech industries. What would the member's point of view be
on this kind of tax break? Would that be the way to go, or would
a comprehensive tax reform for every Canadian be a better way to
go?
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, the member raised the
very important issue of the significant investment in Canada in
social infrastructure aimed at producing bright, talented young
people who ultimately choose to live in other jurisdictions if we
do not reduce our tax burden. That represents a huge loss of
potential and a huge loss of investment for Canadians and for
Canada. If we take into account the cumulative effect over the
person's life of the bright young talent that we lose, it is
immense.
I agree with the member. We have to address tax issues if we
are to benefit from the type of social investment we spoke of. He
referred to the same studies, Dr. Fraser Mustard's studies on
early childhood intervention, which is very important and very
innovative.
In terms of a tax break which would benefit specifically the
high tech sector, I agree with the hon. member that we do not
need a more complicated and Pavlovian tax code that encourages
one behaviour and discourages another.
We need significant broad based tax reform aimed at providing all
Canadian industries and individuals with a heightened level of
competitiveness.
1310
I guess in Canada all sectors are high tax sectors, but we
should be fostering and supporting our high tech sector. I would
argue that the tax system should not be used to encourage or
discourage one type of behaviour or another. I am in complete
compliance and agreement with the hon. member that we need broad
based tax reform effort aimed at reducing corporate and personal
income taxes, at simplifying both of them, and at moving our tax
bases from the taxing of capital and income on capital.
In a global sense and in a competitive sense we have to move
toward a consumption tax base. We can have a consumption tax
base that is progressive. There are ways to ensure movement
toward a consumption tax which need not sacrifice the
progressivity that is important to Canadians as part of our tax
code.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend's
thoughtful presentation which he always gives.
I have a question for him regarding the GST. I know the GST is
a friend of his and he likes the idea of the GST. However, would
he not agree with what many tax people tell us? It was the
introduction of the GST, setting aside the rationale, explanation
and need for it, which was the straw that broke the camel's back
when it came to the underground economy? People said it was too
much, a rotten tax and therefore moved as much of their
operations underground as they could. I do not mean that to be a
critical point directed to my friend.
Would my colleague agree that perhaps the people's perception of
the GST, as accurate or inaccurate as it may be, was what lead to
an acceptance of the reality of the underground economy as a
reasonably legitimate way to do business in Canada?
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, the GST was arguably the
straw that broke the government's back. I am not sure of the
camel to which the member referred, but the government seemed to
be ignominiously humped from office at that point.
The difficulty the government faced at that time in selling the
GST, which replaced the manufacturers sales tax that pummelled
and punished Canadian export industries, was that only 18% of
Canadians were aware that there was a manufacturers sales tax. It
was not a good news story. People were not aware by and large
that there was a manufacturers sales tax. This new tax was a
very difficult sell.
A couple of weeks ago I participated in the Canadian Tax
Foundation annual meeting on a weekend. That is what I do with
my weekends; I go to tax foundation meetings. I am a pretty
exciting guy. At that meeting over and over again tax experts
suggested that the baby step movement in Canada with the GST to a
consumption base was very important for Canadian competitiveness.
They argued that we need to move further toward a consumption
base and away from income based taxation and taxes on capital and
income on capital. Those types of taxes, whether they are on
capital, income from capital or personal or corporate income,
make Canadian industry and Canadian individuals less competitive.
They hurt our productivity, reduce the potential for Canadians
and companies to grow jobs, and hurt our potential to keep
Canada's best and brightest young people in Canada.
1315
A consumption tax, and there are ways to effect progressivity
within a consumption base, would provide a more broadly based
system which should not and would not increase the degree of the
underground economy.
The numbers used by people in terms of the degree to which we
have an underground economy in Canada vary significantly. It is
much harder to get around paying GST than it is for people to use
high priced tax accountants and get away with paying less income
tax. As the member indicated earlier in his speech, there is an
inherent regressivity in the tax system. People at the higher
income levels can afford to hire tax experts and pay less income
taxes, corporate taxes or whatever. With a consumption base it
is much harder to get around that. I would argue that it would
ultimately reduce in the long run the degree to which there is an
underground economy if we are serious.
Another issue that exists is that it is much easier today to
have significant tax reform than it would have been in 1993
because we are in a post deficit or surplus environment. We need
not improve the tax situation for one individual by reducing or
hurting another individual with the tax system. It is not a zero
sum game any more. We can combine tax reform with tax reduction.
I would argue that to maximize the potential of either we need to
implement both.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to join in the debate. I was not planning to do so
until I heard my colleague's remarks about productivity and the
discussion about the brain drain during the questions and
comments.
It brought to mind that part of the 1998 budget which dealt with
investing in young and older Canadians to make them more
productive and more effective citizens. I am referring to the
various measures under the Canadian opportunities strategy, a
co-ordinated group of measures specifically focused on creating
opportunities for Canadians. I want to mention one or two
aspects of that co-ordinated strategy.
The first one is the establishment of the Canadian millennium
scholarship foundation which is now beginning to provide
scholarships to Canadians across the country. The focus of the
scholarships is on qualified students who have problems dealing
with the steadily increasing tuition fees found in universities
in virtually every province in Canada.
The problem of accessibility to university and college has
become a serious national problem. It was very appropriate at
that time, as it still is, for the Government of Canada to look
at the causes of the decrease in accessibility as provinces and
universities increase their tuition fees, a serious problem for
many students, and to try to deal with it directly through the
millennium scholarships.
It is true that a couple of provinces very sensibly kept their
tuition fees down. Even so, students will benefit directly from
that aspect of the 1998 budget which deals with the productivity
of Canada and of all Canadians and with the brain drain mentioned
by my colleague in the Reform Party.
The second area of this co-ordinated set of measures to create
opportunity by expanding access to knowledge and the skills
needed for better jobs that were built into that budget is
substantially increased support for advanced research and
graduate students.
1320
The federal government supports research in Canada, particularly
through the grants councils, the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council, and the Medical Research Council. In 1998 there was a
substantial increase in the funding of those councils.
At one level it would appear to be funds which are going into
creative research projects in the social sciences, in
engineering, in the natural sciences, and in the environmental
sciences and so on across the country. However the other aspect
is that those grants provide income directly to graduate students
at various levels of their careers.
The increase in funding to the grants councils can almost be
thought of as a job creation program, a very rapid and effective
job creation program for highly educated young people who are
seeking to become more educated. In effect they use those moneys
to support themselves and to continue their education.
I would say again to my colleagues that in the 1998 budget there
was a focus on research and on improving research to make Canada
more productive. However through the grants councils the focus
was on providing funds for graduate students who are the future
of all kinds of science research in Canada.
Dealing with the same problem, the access to university and
college which I mentioned with respect to the millennium
scholarships and the question of graduate students receiving
funds to support themselves through school, there were measures
in the budget to help students manage debt loads.
It is popularly known now that our students because of increases
in tuition are faced with much greater student loans to pay off
than was the case previously. In the budget, dealing with the
productivity again, tax relief was provided for interest on
student loans. The Canada student loan program was improved to
help students deal with the debt loads which they are
unfortunately facing when they graduate.
I would point out to my colleagues that in the same package of
material each item is directly tailored to dealing with improving
research, improving the quality of our students, our future
teachers and researchers, and helping to encourage students to
stay in school, which we know is the way to go for jobs and for
productivity nowadays.
It should be remembered that the government provided in the
budget for tax free RRSP withdrawals for lifelong learning. That
is important. We pay lip service to it now that we have to learn
and relearn throughout a career. Before it was possible to go to
school, to do an apprenticeship and be set for a career. Now
that is no longer the case. People not only have to go to school
when they are young. They have to go to school when they are
less young.
Since the budget it is now possible for Canadians to upgrade
their skills throughout their working lives because they can make
tax free withdrawals from their registered retirement savings
plans, specifically when those withdrawals are for lifelong
learning.
In the same budget there was an extension of the education tax
credits and the child care expense deduction for part time
students. All those measures were aimed at productivity and
ultimately at the brain drain which my colleagues opposite were
discussing.
In the budget as a part of a very focused package there was the
Canada education savings grant. In our educational system we
often think there are no grants—
An hon. member: There is a brain drain going on now.
Mr. Peter Adams: My colleague points out there is a drain
of brains occurring now. I will try to speak more slowly and
perhaps more will stay.
1325
I stress that the Canada education savings grant is a grant. It
is often thought that grants no longer exist in our system. For
very low income students there are still grants. For certain
specific identified groups of students there are still grants as
well as the student loans they can obtain in various ways.
In addition, as a result of the budget we are discussing today
families can better save for their children's education through
the Canada education savings grant. That means people who invest
in RRSPs obtain a grant of 20% on the first $2,000 of annual
contributions to registered education savings plans in addition
to the tax benefit from that investment. There is actually a
grant up to a maximum amount per child which families can obtain
and retain until they take those moneys out of the plan and
invest them in their child's education.
Continuing with the group of measures built into the 1998
budget, the focus of our discussions today, there was an EI
premium holiday for youth at risk. Support for youth employment
was provided by more than doubling funding for youth at risk who
lack basic education and job skills and by providing employers an
employment insurance premium holiday for additional young
Canadians hired in 1999 and 2000.
We are no longer dealing with students who are faced with
problems of getting into college or staying in college or
university. We are dealing with those who lack basic education
and job skills. Those provisions are extremely important for
young Canadians. Through 1999 and 2000 they and their employers
get considerable encouragement so that jobs are created for them.
The last measure I want to mention in this group of co-ordinated
measures is designed to create opportunity by expanding access to
knowledge and skills needed for better jobs and higher standards
of living in the 21st century.
This package of budgetary measures was designed to focus on the
area of increased funding for SchoolNet, community access and the
Canadian network for advancement of research, industry and
education, the acronym for which is CANARIE. The purpose of
these investments is to bring the benefits of information
technology into more classrooms and communities across Canada.
Let me talk first about SchoolNet. It is very common to say
that education is a provincial jurisdiction. Of course it is.
The federal government has no interest in running elementary
schools, except in certain special cases which exist across the
country. However we have great interest and a great
responsibility in elementary schools and high schools if in the
national interest there is concern about the quality of education
across the country.
I believe the federal government should do something about it.
SchoolNet is as good an example as I can think of. Under the
SchoolNet program, one of the focuses of the 1998 budget, the
federal government linked every elementary school and high school
to the Internet.
It started in the rural areas and the more remote parts of the
countries and gradually moved into the cities. Today all our
young people, our elementary school and high school students,
have access to the Internet many years before all students in the
United States will have access to the Internet. If this is not
an investment in productivity, I do not know what is.
I mentioned researchers and university professors getting
increased funding. I mentioned graduate students getting
increased funding. I mentioned through the millennium
scholarships undergraduate students getting increased funding.
I mentioned their families getting support to allow students to
go to college and university. I mentioned the increased support
for people who want to go back to school. Now I am talking about
our elementary schools. If we are to have a truly productive
society, if we are to stop the brain drain, not just today or
next week, but forever, the federal government has to think about
the whole pyramid. If we were to fix one part of the pyramid so
that, for example, university faculty would be better off,
important though they are, in the end, if we were not producing
people to replace those university faculty through the elementary
and high schools and undergraduate programs, our system would be
of little use.
1330
The SchoolNet program was the federal government thinking about
productivity, thinking about accessibility to colleges and
universities, and doing something in every elementary school and
every high school in Canada. That is the way a federal
government should think, nationally.
By the way, except in the House, I have never heard a protest
from the provinces about interference by the federal government
in their jurisdiction with respect to SchoolNet.
I also mentioned, in that same section, the community access
program, which does the same thing. It links people to the
Internet, but in this case, in my riding for example, it links
libraries, township offices and other public places to the
Internet so that people who are not in elementary school and high
school can link and interact with the great virtual world of the
Internet. The Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research,
Industry and Education, CANARIE, does the same thing. It links
research organizations across Canada.
My point is that the discussion we have had about productivity
is not simply a matter of manipulating taxation, although in the
measures I mentioned there were some taxation changes; it is a
matter of the fairest possible and most effective tax system we
can have, but also positive investment in areas which encourage
productivity such as those I have mentioned.
I have been very pleased to have this opportunity to speak and I
move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Debate.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I need clarification. We have a motion that the question be now
put and I am not sure that is debatable, if I am not mistaken.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes, it is debatable
that the question be put at this time. The floor is open.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, then I
will rise on debate.
The government wants to close the debate and get on with the
vote, and I suppose in a way I do not blame it, since we have
already filed our income taxes which concern this bill. I do not
understand exactly what the government is doing.
We thought we would be using the day to debate this issue, to
talk about taxes and the measures the government is using, and
here we are with a very flagrant motion to stop the debate and to
basically shut off our discussion on this whole topic.
1335
I wish that people in Canada knew what was going on in the
country. We have a lot of members who are very upset. I am
talking about members of our society, our citizens and taxpayers.
They are very concerned because we have a government that
insists on taxing them to death. At every turn there is another
tax. There is a tax on a tax. The governments of the past 30
years have not done a thing about this. They have simply been
riding roughshod over taxpayers.
This Liberal government has brought in a bill to implement parts
of the Income Tax Act provisions from the 1998 budget after the
provisions have already been put into practice. That probably
puts the thumb on the whole issue of why we are in such trouble
in this country. These Liberals want to pass themselves off
across the country as having been successful in bringing our
fiscal house into order. That is what they keep crowing about.
The fact of the matter is that we have more debt than we did
when the Liberals first took office, about $180 billion more. We
have higher interest payments on the debt as a result, even
though we are blessed these days with low interest rates. We
have an endless stream of taxes and user fees. The average
Canadian family has at least $3,000 less than it had when the
Liberals took office.
I believe that the way parliament works is the root of the
problem. We have no mechanism by which the taxpayers can be
represented here, no mechanism at all. Many members over there
would argue that is not true. The Liberal government represents
the government and its wishes. Liberals vote the way the Prime
Minister or the finance minister directs them. They will
acknowledge that they do not represent the people, that they vote
on these issues the way they are told to. Surely it must be the
role of the opposition to represent the people here. That is
fine, but the frustration is that we on this side get up to speak
on behalf of taxpayers, we speak on behalf of students, we speak
on behalf of those people who are laying on cots in hospital
hallways, we speak until our voices are hoarse, but no one
listens. No one does anything about it. Then, when it comes
time to vote, we are routinely outvoted simply because we do not
have quite enough members here yet.
I am looking forward to the day when we have members in this
House of Commons on the government side who, in contrast to the
Liberals and the Conservatives, are dedicated and committed to
representing the people who sent them here, to representing the
taxpayer and the call for lower taxes, for fairness in taxation
and decency in the way the government spends our money, not the
flippant kind of spending that we see over and over again from
this government. It is really atrocious that the government
keeps doing these things and not listening to taxpayers.
I will refer briefly to a newspaper clipping, the headline of
which indicates that 85% of Canadians are upset by the tax bite.
I suppose that no one would really ever say that they love taxes.
If I earn money and someone has the legislative right in this
country to take it away from me, I suppose, no matter how good
the cause, there is going to be a certain degree of resistance to
that.
However, we ought to pay attention when the headline says that
85% of Canadians are upset. In the text of the clipping it says
that these people are very concerned about taxes. They are upset
by them. In that scale of question, half of Canadians said they
were very upset or extremely upset. The reason is twofold. The
total tax bite is too high. Together the different levels of
government take too great a proportion of our earnings. It is
around 50%. It takes until July 1. Maybe that is why it is
called Canada Day. We work from January to July just to pay our
taxes.
1340
It is little wonder that the proportion of families who have two
earners instead of only one is being increased so much, against
the will and the choice of many Canadians. They simply have to
do that in order to pay their taxes.
I have mentioned in the House before that my wife and I decided
she would be a full time mom. What did I do? I had to get an
evening job to supplement the income. I used to tell people that
I worked on Tuesday night for Trudeau and on Thursday night for my
family. Back in Trudeau's time it was already that bad.
Has it been alleviated? Did nine years of Conservative
government solve the problem? I think not. We had a massive
increase in our national debt under that administration. Have
the Liberals solved the problem? They want people to think they
have. I suppose reluctantly we ought to say, thank goodness, at
least they did not spend the surplus that was dumped into their
lap through lower taxes, particularly in Ontario and Alberta, and
more competitive and better trade because of the free trade
agreement. The Liberals were against it, but it has been a bit
of a saviour for our country and our economy.
It is incredible that these people want us to believe they have
done anything. I insist that the budget is balanced these days
despite the government. If we had not had this government we
would have been way further ahead now.
I find it atrocious that the government has absolutely no plan
to reduce the debt. Over 30% of our tax dollars go to pay
interest. That is a direct transfer of wealth from ordinary
Canadians who are earning it to the pockets of the bankers and
the rich people who have more money than they need.
We have poor people who are hardly able to make ends meet. They
have to pay atrocious rates of taxes, one-third of which go to
interest payments on the debt. Does the finance minister or the
Liberal government have any plan to reduce that debt? The answer
is no, they do not have a plan.
I have a copy of the figures taken from the budget. This
happens to be the 1999 budget, but the comments are still
appropriate, even though we are talking here about the 1998
budget. It is the same thing. I am looking at the net public
debt numbers.
It is true that the deficit has gone down, but what has happened
to the public debt? What is the plan? The net public debt in
1998 was $579.7 billion. What is the plan for 1998-99, which
is the budget we are talking about? It is right in the document,
$579.7 billion. It is exactly the same number. What is the plan
for 1999-2000, the budget which the finance minister gave several
months ago? It is $579.7 billion.
In that document, for the year 2000-01 what are they projecting
for the debt? It is $579.7 billion.
1345
What is the change in the debt? Zero. Because the government
has no plans to pay off the debt. Instead it is saying it has a
contingency fund and if it does not need it, of course it will be
used to reduce the debt. Meanwhile the government is using all
sorts of chicanery in its budgeting process, in its documentation
and in its communications and says “We are going to take this
money and put it into a fund. We will be able to use it so that
Canadians will think we are doing something”.
In this budget which we are talking about today, and the debate
on which has now been shut down, there is a motion about the
millennium fund. The parliamentary secretary, for whom I have a
lot of personal respect, read a departmental speech and referred
to the millennium scholarship fund. That is atrocious. It is
against accounting rules. It is against everything that makes
any sense.
The government in the 1998-99 budget is costing out money that
will not be available until the year 2000 so we can celebrate the
year 2000. It is taking money year by year, budget by budget,
and socking it away for the big Liberal re-election fund which
coincidentally will happen within a year of the millennium
celebration. That is atrocious. The way the government is
trying to spin it is absolutely shameful.
I have a son who is a student and is really having trouble
making ends meet. He has to look after his family while he goes
to classes. He is trying to earn money so that he can pay his
tuition and provide food and housing for his family. He has to
make enough money so that he gets close to having to pay taxes.
If he actually earned enough so that he could get by without
having to borrow, he would have to pay taxes. As it is now, all
the Liberal government does is force him into debt while it is
saving up for its election fund with this big high power
millennium scholarship fund for students in the future. The
government is ignoring those who have a genuine need today. The
1998-99 budget ought to deal with the issues of 1998-99 first and
foremost.
I am not against the government saying it projects in subsequent
budgets that this will be done and there is room for long term
planning, but to actually budget it out is contrary to the rules
of accounting. It is contrary to what the auditor general says
is acceptable and those guys are doing it anyway. They are
running roughshod over the rights of Canadian taxpayers.
I think of the ways the government mismanages and misspends
money. My hon. colleague from the NDP brought some of these to
our attention already. It keeps spending money and wasting money
on things no Canadians would support if they were actually given
an opportunity to vote on them. Instead the government is just
wasting our money.
The hon. member mentioned the dumb blond joke book for $98,000.
There are people in my riding who make $15,000 a year and pay
taxes. If I asked them if they were happy about the fact that
the taxes they are paying are going to supplement the publishing
of such a book, they would really get upset and I would not blame
them.
There are other things which are just ridiculous. There is one
in Hamilton which is using $60,000 of taxpayers' money, which I
suppose is the money that 60 middle income taxpayers have to earn
in a month. Sixty taxpayers will be sponsoring a trail in
Hamilton so that visitors can stroll along and discover old
factory buildings. That is totally absurd.
We need to leave the money in the hands of the people who earn
it. Sure we can justify taking money out in the form of taxation
for reasonable expenditures, but this type of thing has to stop.
I am committed to making it stop.
1350
We are contributing $50,000 to a scavenger hunt in Parry Sound.
When I was a youngster we had scavenger hunts and they did not
cost a penny. Somebody would make up a list of things that
people would go looking for. They did not need $50,000.
There is a millennium project under way recreating the Calgary
town hall with the original bell for $1.1 million. Why can the
locals not do that? It is because the federal government is
taxing them to death. They have no choice in these matters. The
whole country has to fund this. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have been listening attentively for the last 12 minutes
to the member for Elk Island. I look at Bill C-72 and I see
things which deal with supplementary personal tax credits and the
homebuyers plan. I have not heard the member talk about anything
pertaining to Bill C-72.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sure the hon.
member for Elk Island will make his speech pertinent to the bill.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, of course the member is
totally wrong. The millennium fund was announced in the 1998
budget and the member knows it.
An hon. member: This bill, Bill C-72.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, Bill C-72 deals with the 1998
budget and that is what we are talking about. We are talking
about the whole issue and what should have been in this budget.
We are talking about what should have been in Bill C-72 to fix
the budget to make it right. Instead we are being fed all this
garbage. I think it is time that we looked at the way the
government does these things.
The Income Tax Act is pages and pages of convoluted words that
only add to the distress of Canadian taxpayers. There are several
ways to reduce taxes but all of them require the use of
professionals. Gone are the days when ordinary taxpayers making
$12,000 or $15,000 a year could do their own tax forms. Canadians
have to hire professionals. They know that this government will
screw them out of another couple of thousand dollars unless they
have a paid professional. Whether Canadians pay the government or
the professionals, their money is being stolen from them. It is a
shame and the government ought to be ashamed of itself.
What does Bill C-72 say about health care? It is what it does
not say. It is a fact that budget after budget is a shell game
on how we are going to communicate. We have a government that
talks about an education budget. All the government does is it
arranges for students to have a maximum amount of debt. The
government gives them no real help. It taxes them. Sure the
government gives a little deal with a tax break on the interest
on student loans. Thank you very much but that has to be the
correct kind of loan. Bank loans are not covered. Is that not
shameful.
Some students cannot get enough money from their student loans
to go to school, especially mature students with families. They
do not have enough money from the basic student loan to attend
school. They have to get a bank loan. Can they deduct that
interest? No. They pay taxes and interest on the money that is
left after the tax bill.
That is how the government operates. It takes money over and
over again from those who are unable to pay a great deal because
of their low income levels. Not to mention the fact that our
dollar has slid down to almost zero because of the tax and grab
scheme of the federal government. I think it is atrocious.
We have tax changes that are supposed to increase the
non-refundable personal tax credit for the individual surtax.
Once again the spin doctors and the communicators announce a
number, $500.
1355
The Speaker: With that comment, you have run out of time
my colleague, but you still have 10 minutes for questions and
comments. We will take one question and a response. You will
have still some time later on.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I
would prefer to continue after question period with my comments
and questions and possibly my remarks, if that is favourable to
you.
The Speaker: It is okay with me. That will give the full
10 minutes to our hon. colleague who can use it all up. This will
give us a bit more time for Statements by Members. We will
proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, May 9 to 15 is National Police Week in Canada. It
provides Canadians with an opportunity to show their appreciation
for the remarkable job being done by police across Canada. These
men and women have chosen to dedicate their professional lives to
serving and protecting our communities often at risk to their own
safety. We applaud their commitment.
Police week provides police with an opportunity to forge
stronger ties with those they serve. Police men and women in
Canada help to maintain a consistently high level of safety in
our communities. The fact that Canada is considered the safest
country in the world in which to live is no coincidence.
I know that I have the support of the House when I say that
Canadians value their police forces across the country. Strong
police community relations are vital to the preservation of our
safe streets and homes.
It is a privilege to recognize National Police Week. I invite
all Canadians to join me in saluting those men and women who have
chosen to dedicate their lives to the protection of our homes and
communities.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, spring
is here and farmers in Lakeland constituency have started seeding
the 1999 crop. Many have been dealing with the fallout from the
worst drought in recent history and again are planting into dry
soil. They are faced with low prices due to unfair European and
U.S. subsidies and unfair import restrictions into Asian markets.
For eight long years the Reform Party has promoted its policy of
creating a trade distortion adjustment program which would use
part of the capitalized value of the Crow rate subsidy to create
a fund to compensate farmers for this type of financial loss.
The Liberal response was to announce a $900 million compensation
program which was supposed to be delivered to all farmers before
seeding began. Show me the money. In my riding where the
disaster is the worst I have yet to hear that a single grain
farmer has received a cheque from this $900 million program. Why
does this government routinely make promises it has no intention
of keeping?
* * *
NATIONAL STUDENT COMMONWEALTH FORUM
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday, May 4, I had the honour of addressing the
National Student Commonwealth Forum. These students came together
in Ottawa from every region of Canada to explore global issues
and work toward reaching a consensus in their vision for a better
tomorrow.
A project of the Ottawa branch of the Royal Commonwealth
Society, now in its 27th year the forum encourages learning, role
playing, discussion and brainstorming regarding the cultures,
countries, institutions and issues of the Commonwealth. The theme
of last week's forum was poverty.
On Wednesday, May 5 members of the federal branch of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had the opportunity to
meet with the students and share their views about issues facing
Canadian youth.
I would like to thank the planning team for organizing an
exciting week and commend the Royal Commonwealth Society on its
leadership in creating this forum.
* * *
NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House that May 10 to 16 is National Nursing
Week. The theme is “Older Persons and Nurses—Partners for
Healthy Aging” emphasizing the pivotal role nurses play in the
delivery of safe quality health care.
Nurses have long played an important role in providing quality
health care and in promoting the development of more appropriate
health care service delivery systems. Today there are 260,000
registered nurses in Canada whose commitment, dedication and
caring services touch every aspect of our lives.
This year, the International Year of Older Persons, the Canadian
Nurses Association will be highlighting available resources and
raising public awareness for the needs of our aging population.
This week and every week let us give our nurses the appreciation
and respect they deserve.
[Translation]
Thanks to all the nurses in Canada and congratulations to them
for them invaluable contribution.
* * *
1400
[English]
WEGENER'S GRANULOMATOSIS
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Wegener's
Granulomatosis is an uncommon disease where the body's immune
system attacks its own body tissues leading to the inflammation
of the blood vessels.
Primarily affecting people in mid-life, this disease affects
their respiratory system and may involve the kidneys, eyes,
throat, skin and other body organs. With no known cure, early
diagnosis and proper treatment are essential to bring the disease
into remission.
I congratulate the Wegener's Granulomatosis Support Group of
Canada for increasing public awareness about this disease and for
the ongoing support it provides to those with the disease and
their families.
* * *
NORTH-WEST MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was 1874.
The North-West Mounted Police, only one year old, was dispatched
from Manitoba to points further west. The primary goals were to
establish friendly relations with the aboriginals and to maintain
peace as settlers arrived. Two hundred and seventy-five men, 114
ox carts, 73 wagons, 93 cattle, field artillery and agriculture
tools were on their way to Alberta.
Now 125 years later this trek west is being re-enacted as a part
of preserving the history of our proud police force. Saturday,
just two days ago, the first contingent left Emerson, Manitoba.
The northern contingent of this trek is expected to arrive in
Fort Saskatchewan in my riding on July 23.
We are proud of our history and the RCMP which had its
beginnings 125 years ago. Congratulations to the organizers and
participants in this historic re-enactment. We look forward with
enthusiasm to the excitement of this celebration throughout the
summer.
* * *
CONSTABLE MICHAEL JOY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to a model Canadian and a
great constituent from Hamilton West.
Back in 1997, Constable Michael Joy, an officer with the
Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Service, received the Star of
Courage, the second highest medal of bravery. Earlier today
Constable Joy was again at Rideau Hall and became the first
officer to be decorated with a second bravery award from His
Excellency the Governor General.
These awards from the chancellery add to Constable Joy's
numerous recognitions. He was awarded seven St. John's life
saving awards, including the Priory of Canada. In 1996 he
received the prestigious Ontario Police Medal of Bravery for
which he has been nominated a second time. Constable Joy has
also been nominated for this year's Canadian Police Association
Top Cop Award.
On behalf of all hon. members in this House, I thank Constable
Joy, the most decorated officer in Canada, for his dedication to
the Hamilton community and to the people of Canada. Mike, thank
you. Thank you for continuing to serve with distinction, courage
and bravery.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA-FRANCE PARLIAMENTARY DAY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce the second
Canada-France parliamentary day being held today within these
precincts.
The day began with a symposium on the co-existence of the civil
and common law systems in international commercial contracts.
French and Canadian experts shared their concerns and
suggestions with us.
Late this afternoon, there will be a round table on the
Canada-France action program signed last December by prime
ministers Chrétien and Jospin with a view to strengthening the
partnership between our two countries.
At the end of the day, there will be an opportunity for all
participants to meet His Excellency the Ambassador of France, as
well as members of the France-Canada federation.
Clearly, the relationship of co-operation and friendship between
France and Canada is very strong and grows stronger daily, both
at the intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary levels.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the conflict in Yugoslavia rages on. Last weekend however saw a
tragic change of events when the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was
mistakenly bombed.
On behalf of the official opposition I would like to express to
the Chinese people and the Chinese government our profound
regrets for this tragic loss of life and the injuries and
sufferings caused by this bombing.
This incident illustrates the unintentional consequences of
combat. Despite that fact, NATO must stay the course in its
resolve to bring an end to Milosevic's campaign of ethnic
cleansing and to ensure a safe return of Kosovar Albanians to
their homes whereby they can live in peace and security.
In the past, all efforts to resolve this conflict peacefully
failed because Mr. Milosevic refused to agree to a negotiated
settlement.
1405
On Thursday, members of the G-8, including Russia, came up with
a seven point plan aimed at ending this conflict. It is now up to
Mr. Milosevic to demonstrate his commitment to peace and his
desire to end this conflict by signing on to the plan.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE GILLES RICHER
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was with sadness that we learned yesterday of the death of
Gilles Richer, a pioneer in the field of television writing.
Gilles Richer began his career in the summer of 1964 as a member
of the travelling team producing Radio-Canada's Rouli-Roulant. A
few months later, he became a writer for the top talk show of
the era, Les Couche-tard, with Jacques Normand and Roger Baulu.
From 1966 to 1970, Gilles Richer wrote 151 episodes of Moi et
l'autre.
He also wrote several plays and revues, which were performed at
the Saint-Sauveur theatre, and worked on a number of films, the
best known of which is Tiens-toi bien après les oreilles à papa.
I extend my deepest condolences to the family and friends of
this pioneer of television.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
after a year and a half of talking about a national children's
agenda, the federal government has released a brightly packaged
piece that talks a lot about vision but demonstrates very little.
In fact, this supposed blueprint for children is only a starting
point for public consultation, which in turn will lead to a
vision document in the fall, which may or may not lead to
concrete action a year from now.
Let us put things in perspective. In the time it has taken for
the federal government to come up with this discussion paper,
thousands more children have slipped below the poverty line. Why?
Because Canada now has the dubious distinction of having cut
more on social programs than any other G-7 nation.
Poor Canadians are suffering because the federal budget has
directed not one single federal dollar to families on social
assistance since 1985 and because of broken promises on a
national child care program.
Canadian children need action, not glossy discussion papers. I
call on the government to fast track this process to ensure that
it is children who benefit, not Liberal policy wonks and
pollsters.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the national round table on the environment
and the economy has issued an important challenge to the federal
government: to adopt a strategy integrating a number of options
in order to attain the Kyoto objectives on greenhouse gas
reduction.
The advantages of a harmonized approach for all of North America
are ample justification for the effort required to encourage the
governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico to work
together on this.
The Government of Canada ought to be quick in adopting an
integrated action plan bringing together all federal departments
involved, while respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction.
The time is ripe for action. We all have an obligation to
future generations. They expect sustained and effective
leadership from us. The ball is in the federal government's
court.
* * *
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday,
the Bloc Quebecois member for Trois-Rivières expressed outrage at
the presence of Mayor Guy Leblanc at consultations currently
being held in all regions of Quebec by our party.
I wonder how the Bloc Quebecois can explain that, at their May
15 forum on globalization, Carl Grenier, Deputy Minister in the
Quebec Department of Industry Trade and Commerce, is going to be
the guest speaker at a partisan assembly of the disciples of
Parizeau.
One might well wonder whether, as in 1980 and 1995 with the last
two referendums, the separatists are again putting the Quebec
governmental machinery to work in the service of separation from
the rest of Canada.
Will the taxpayers of Quebec find that acceptable, I wonder.
* * *
[English]
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, in April the
Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce and the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada
organized a luncheon to celebrate five years of NAFTA.
There is so much to celebrate. Total trade among the three
countries has increased by 75% and now surpasses $700 billion a
year. Employment has increased significantly in all three of the
NAFTA partners.
The Prime Minister's comments to Michigan State University on
Friday neglected to mention an important fact. NAFTA's success
story in Canada came about for one single reason: the visionary
leadership of the former Conservative government.
The Prime Minister and his Liberals must stop taking credit for
Canada's growing economy because of NAFTA. This Liberal
rewriting of history rivals credibility.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on November 24,
1989, the House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution to
eliminate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.
1410
Since then, the Liberals have done everything in their power to
increase poverty. They have drastically reformed employment
insurance, which hits women and young people the hardest,
refused to index tax benefits for children, cut $33 billion in
the Canada social transfers, and so on.
What are the effects of this policy on the eve of the year 2000?
The response is overpowering. The number of poor children has
increased by 60% since 1989, and, surprise, the minister has
announced in excited tones new consultations on the subject.
We know what the solutions are. It is time to act and to put
the elimination of child poverty at the top of his list of
priorities.
* * *
[English]
MENTAL HEALTH
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week was Mental Health Week in Canada. As part of that week
I had the opportunity to visit the Kitchener-Waterloo regional
office for the Canadian Mental Health Association.
The federal government under the national strategy on community
safety and crime prevention has provided $48,000 to the CMHA to
run a project called the diversion protocol. This project will
assist and support members of the Kitchener community who have
mental health problems and who have been involved in the criminal
justice system. The objective of the diversion protocol is to
assist individuals and provide them with the necessary resources
for managing their mental illness and ensure they do not become
involved in a cycle of crime.
Mental health problems affect more Canadians than does any other
illness. In Ontario approximately 1.5 million people have some
form of mental illness. It is therefore important that this
government continue to work in partnership with community
organizations to ensure that Canadians with a mental illness have
access to the programs and services they require.
I commend the CMHA of Waterloo region for its dedication and
commitment to the community.
* * *
DRUG OVERDOSES
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice hands out $2 million to
the Canadian Bankers Association, the Insurance Council of Canada
and the Retail Council of Canada to fight crime, over 2,000
people in British Columbia over the past decade have died of drug
overdoses. In 1998, 371 died and from January to March of this
year 48 died from overdoses in greater Vancouver.
Drug overdoses in British Columbia are reaching epidemic
proportions and the Liberals choose to fund lobby groups to fight
crime rather than deal with the drug tragedy. The effects of a
government devoid of a drug strategy led this weekend to a riot
at the Kent maximum institution in British Columbia where inmates
high on heroin went on a $50,000 rampage. Add heroin to inmates
already known for violence and escape and you have a recipe for
this kind of carnage.
It is time the government got serious on the drug and drug
overdose issue. The solution to this tragedy and the
consequences we saw this weekend at Kent can be found at the
street level, not in the boardrooms of lobby groups.
* * *
ST. FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVERSITY GRADUATES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to extend congratulations to the
graduates of St. Francis Xavier University in my riding of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
St. FX was founded in 1853 by Bishop Colin MacKinnon in Arichat,
Cape Breton and in 1855 it was relocated to the beautiful
community of Antigonish.
St. FX defined its true mission and purpose in the 1920s and
1930s with the creation of the Antigonish Movement and the
Extension Department. It took direct action to help communities
take control of their economic and social destiny gaining
international recognition.
This is the same university that is world renowned for its
famous “X”, the official symbol of the university. It is also
the university of one of Canada's former prime ministers, the
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.
On May 2 degrees and diplomas were conferred on St. FX's
graduates. This is a significant milestone that these talented
young men and women have achieved. Graduation is a special time
and an opportunity for students to celebrate their achievements
with family and friends. Many of St. FX's new graduates will be
entering the workforce to embark on their chosen careers and to
begin a new and exciting phase in their lives. On behalf of the
PC Party I congratulate the new St. FX's graduates and all 1999
graduates.
* * *
BRAVERY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to
recognize five very brave members of my community of Dartmouth
today: Rodney Kenneth Druggett, Marion MacClellan, Lindsay
Woodin, Laurie Boucher and Jill Louise Quinn, all of whom
received the Medal of Bravery this morning. I will focus on two
people for the moment.
On July 5, 1997 Laurie Boucher and Jill Quinn saved their
children from drowning at Lawrencetown, Nova Scotia. Seeing the
boys were being carried to the open sea by a strong undertow, Mr.
Boucher and Ms. Quinn swam to their rescue 30 metres out. Ms.
Quinn reached her panicked son and towed him to shore. Mr.
Boucher managed to grab hold of his own son and repeatedly pushed
him against the waves to keep him afloat. Despite his valiant
efforts he was unable to fight exhaustion and was swept out to
sea. The boys and Ms. Quinn were able to reach shore.
Laurie Boucher's son Jeffrey was here today to accept the Medal
of Bravery for his father from the Governor General. A brave
father who will not be forgotten.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today there were reports of a partial withdrawal
of some Yugoslav forces from Kosovo, but the United States and
Britain have rejected a partial withdrawal as an unacceptable
half measure.
Does the Prime Minister agree that a partial withdrawal of
Yugoslav troops from Kosovo cannot be considered a credible
fulfilment of NATO's demands?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is probably not enough to ensure the security of the
people who would like to go back to Kosovo. One of the main
conditions of the five conditions we put forward was the end of
the violence and the security of Kosovars returning to their
homes.
The partial withdrawal will probably not satisfy the goal of
making sure that the refugees can go back in total security. At
this moment it is better than having no offer at all. My view is
that it is very important the violence be terminated, that
Milosevic withdraw his troops and we stop the bombing. That
would be the best result we could hope for.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is an interesting response, but this weekend
Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the continued
presence of some Serb forces in Kosovo was negotiable. He
implied therefore that the partial withdrawal of Yugoslav forces
from Kosovo might well be acceptable to Canada.
Does the Prime Minister agree with NATO that a full withdrawal
of Yugoslav troops is necessary, or does he agree with his
foreign affairs minister that a half measure may well be
acceptable?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I did not say that a partial withdrawal would be
acceptable. I said that one of the major planks in the proposal
put forward at the G-8 meeting on Thursday was that there would
be a clear commitment to the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia
and the surrounding countries.
I said that there would have to be some way in which that could
be implemented. That is as far as we went. What exactly and how
we would be doing it are the kinds of details we are now
discussing. Those will be the kinds of proposals that would be
included in a security council resolution.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone in the House wants the G-8 peace plan to
succeed, but it is important that NATO speak with one voice and
that the members of NATO speak with one voice.
NATO says a full withdrawal of Yugoslav forces is essential. Our
foreign minister is being quoted in the press as saying something
different.
Just to make Canada's position crystal clear, will the Prime
Minister say that from Canada's perspective any presence of the
Serb war machine in Kosovo is unacceptable?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the five conditions which have been set out are very
clear.
We are talking about an immediate end to the violence in Kosovo,
the withdrawal of the Yugoslav security forces from the region,
the safe return of the refugees, the deployment of a strong
international military presence capable of guaranteeing the
safety of the refugees, and the commitment of the Yugoslav
authorities to pursue a negotiated settlement based on the
principles of the Rambouillet agreement.
These are the conditions that have been agreed to and are still
the conditions of the 19 countries, but in terms of implementing
them there will be some discussion.
There is an element too that we have to keep in mind. There
will always be a minority of Serbs in Kosovo who will need
protection. There is a group of Kosovars who would like to gain
the independence of Kosovo through an armed struggle. We have to
ensure that there will not be war there. That is why there are
negotiations at the moment, but the five conditions set out by
the 19 countries are still valid ones.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the U.S. Congress takes the support of its troops very seriously.
Last Thursday it allocated another $13 billion for the NATO
mission in Yugoslavia.
The Liberal government has yet to discuss any substantial
increases for our forces even though we know that they are
probably stretched to the limit as it is now.
Why has the government not announced an immediate increase in
cash for our troops for this specific Kosovo mission?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have the authority to spend the money that is
required to make sure our troops can do the job they have to do
while they are abroad.
We have done it in the past. We are doing it now and we will do
it in the future.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it would not hurt to tell parliament about that. I think the job
to be done is now. That is the important point. That is exactly
what we need to get to.
The implementation of the G-8 proposal will require a
peacekeeping force of about 60,000 people. Our Prime Minister
has pronounced that 800 of our troops will be going to the NATO
mission, but we will likely be asked to commit more and very
soon, and that will mean stretching our limited resources even
further.
Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity right now to let
parliament and Canada know that he will be injecting emergency
cash into this specific mission because the job, the time is now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had more troops in previous years in the former
Yugoslavia and we always managed to do it through the normal
process.
We have estimates. We debate the estimates. There will be a
debate on the estimates on June 9. When we need more money
during the year we come up with supplementary estimates. This is
the way we have always operated and never was there a lack of
money when it was time to provide the protection soldiers need to
do their job properly.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is about to get involved in the area of child
benefits by setting up its own programs under the social union
framework agreement. I should point out that there are now half
a million more Canadian children living in poverty than there
were in 1989.
Will the Prime Minister have the courage to admit that if there
are 60% more poor children than in 1989, it is largely because
of his government, which made very deep cuts to the Canada
social transfer and to employment insurance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
set up new programs such as the credits for poor children, which
will total $2 billion as early as July 2000. This means there
are new programs. Other new credits have also been put in place.
I am convinced that our programs will prove helpful.
As for transfers to the provinces, the provincial governments
are receiving more money now than they did in 1994, when we
brought down our first budget.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is a
classic scenario. First, this government cut funding, thus
putting pressure on the services, and then it got involved in
jurisdictions in which it has no business.
My question to the Prime Minister is: Could it be that his
government is about to get publicity at the expense of Canada's
poor children?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have provided child benefits since 1946, if I am not
mistaken, when the Constitution was amended to allow family
allowances in Canada. Therefore, such benefits do come under
federal jurisdiction.
We changed the tax credit formula, so that those who do not need
such credits do not get them, thus leaving more money for those
who need it. This is the system that is in place and that was
negotiated a few years ago with all the provinces agreeing.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have no
problem with the federal government talking with the provinces
about the problem of poverty. But in Quebec the government has
begun implementing various components of a comprehensive family
policy. Federal interference that might be detrimental to this
policy and this approach would not be welcome.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us whether
there will be discussions with Quebec, like those with the other
provinces, regarding the right to opt out with full
compensation?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one excellent example of federalism has to be the
national child tax benefit. It was designed to allow each
province to set up its own programs, while the federal
government focuses on helping the children of poor families
within its own constitutional area of jurisdiction. This has
provided most of the funding for Quebec's five-dollar day care
program.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec did
not sign the social union framework agreement because it does
not want the federal government interfering in our areas of
jurisdiction and undercutting what we do by making direct
transfers to individuals.
Either the federal government will impose its new programs on
Quebec or it will give Quebec the right to opt out with full
compensation.
1425
Which is it going to be?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been the same story for 30 years.
In 1967, Jacques Parizeau, the Bloc Quebecois' senior adviser,
or maybe its crypto-leader, warned people that, although Canada
was amazingly decentralized, centralization was in the offing.
Barely two months ago, Mr. Parizeau repeated this warning.
In Canada, the provinces and the federal government work in
partnership, and that will continue to be the case.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has told the House that the protection of Kosovo
civilians and the search for peace in Kosovo are the government's
highest priorities. Meanwhile the serious, tragic, erroneous
bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, an infringement of
international law, does nothing to move the diplomatic process
forward.
Under these circumstances how does the government propose to win
China's co-operation at the UN security council?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday I wrote a letter to the President of China on
behalf of Canadians to apologize for the mistake which caused the
damage and the death of one person at the Chinese embassy. It
was an error by NATO that we deplore.
The leaders of China said they still believe that a peaceful
solution is needed and that they will not use this incident to
withhold their collaboration in trying to find a peaceful
solution through a resolution at the security council. As the
minister of foreign affairs said over the weekend, we are working
very hard to achieve this.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
regrettably the bombing of the Chinese embassy is a spectacular
screw up, a serious setback for the UN sponsored peace process
that must involve the Chinese.
Now we are hearing press reports of a partial Serbian troop
withdrawal from Kosovo. Is this not the ideal time to suspend
bombing in order to get us to the final peace settlement that is
so desperately needed in Kosovo?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think so. We have to tell Milosevic it is not
a partial solution that we need. We need a situation where he
will stop the murdering, cleansing, raping and destruction of a
people in Kosovo. We shall never lose sight of that. It is very
important.
The best way for Milosevic to have peace and stop the bombing is
to make sure the Kosovars can go back home in full security.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
just seems to be getting worse for Canadian farmers.
Fusarium is a disease affecting cereal crops across Canada. Last
year alone it cost $70 million to Manitoba farmers. Manitoba
scientists and farmers have been asking the PMRA to authorize an
emergency registration of Folicur. Nothing has been done to date
even though this fungicide is registered in the United States.
Will the Minister of Health, under his authority, allow the
emergency registration of Folicur so farmers will not be
devastated by another disaster this year?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member knows the Pest Management Regulatory Agency,
which is responsible for examining and processing applications
for approval of pesticides, has to take into account the science,
not only the needs of the producers and growers but also the
needs of the environment and the safety of consumers.
Farmers themselves want to be certain that the food supply is
safe. The PMRA will continue its work responsibly assessing all
the factors and will act at the earliest possible time in the
public interest.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture. During a meeting of
the national safety advisory committee a few months ago, Paul
Martin from the department of agriculture stated that it was
possible to cover negative margins in the design of a current
AIDA program according to article 7 of annex 2 of the WTO
agreement.
Arbitrarily the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food decided not
to cover negative margins at a cost to Canadian farmers.
1430
Why were negative margins not covered in the AIDA program if
they were WTO compliant?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of things taken into
consideration when the criteria for the AIDA package were put in
place.
Those discussions took place with the safety net advisory
committee and other representatives of the industry and the
provinces. The strongest package that we could put forward at
that time was put forward.
I encourage the farmers again today to please send in their
applications so that we can send them their cash.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
latest Statistics Canada report confirms that job creation in
Canada has been stalled for the last three months, but tax
creation, that just goes on and on and on.
CPP premiums went up January 1, part of the largest tax hike in
Canadian history, and we have bracket creep taking $1 billion a
year out of Canadians' pockets. The net result is that Canadians
are paying higher and higher taxes, we have fewer and fewer jobs
and low income Canadians are being hurt.
When will the Prime Minister make the connection between high
taxes and fewer jobs?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in every one of
our budgets we have had tax cuts, starting with targeted ones. In
the last two budgets we have cut taxes by $16.5 billion, which
means 600,000 Canadians are off the tax rolls.
We will continue to cut taxes in the future, but we will not do
it in a way that rips the fabric out of Canada's social programs.
We will do it in a responsible and balanced way, respecting the
priorities of Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am overwhelmed with emotion when I hear that.
The fact is the government takes $6 billion a year from
Canadians who make less than $20,000 a year. That is the
compassionate approach of the minister and the government.
When will the Liberals figure out that when taxes keep going up
forever and ever, low income Canadians are hurt the most and in
this case it is Canadians making less than $20,000. When will
they make that connection?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party
recently called for $25 billion in new budgetary measures but
could not tell us where it would pay for more than $9 billion of
those new expenditures.
Every day the Reform Party is calling for new cuts here and
there or new expenditure programs. Every day the black hole of
fiscal reform gets deeper and deeper.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
According to our information, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
held a meeting with the Chinese ambassador to Canada this past
weekend in connection with the Chinese reaction to the
accidental bombing of their embassy in Belgrade.
In light of the events of this past weekend, can the minister
bring us up to date on the changes in the Chinese position with
respect to the peace process?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, the Chinese are
currently engaged in the peace process.
Certainly the circumstances are regrettable, but at the same
time this is, in my opinion, one more reason to continue to seek
a resolution to this conflict through diplomacy. And I believe
the Chinese share that view.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know that
the Canadian embassy in China is located in the vicinity of the
U.S. embassy. In fact, it is in the same security sector.
Chinese protestors encouraged by the communist regime have
targeted a number of symbols of the west, and have done
considerable damage to the American embassy.
Can the minister tell us whether the Canadian embassy has been
affected by the recent demonstrations, and what steps have been
taken to ensure the safety of our embassy staff and of Canadian
nationals in China?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the present moment there are sporadic
demonstrations in and around the Canadian embassy. As a result,
a substantially increased security presence has been developed.
At this moment, reports from our ambassador indicate that no
direct damage has been done. It is simply a matter of
demonstrating their point of view.
There are of course much wider demonstrations that seem to be
organized or orchestrated. We regret the fact that this is the
way of presentation.
1435
However, as I said in my earlier answer, I think the most
important objective right now is to work with the Chinese as well
as the other members of the security council to find a peaceful
resolution and bring this all to a—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
* * *
BANKING
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's delay in his
response to the MacKay task force report is causing a lot of
uncertainty and speculation in the country. One speculation is
that the finance minister will soon allow banks to sell life
annuities through their retail branches.
I want to ask the secretary of state if Canadians are in fact
about to see their local banks selling life insurance annuities?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
will be responding to the MacKay task force before the summer. I
know the member will be happy to see the results of what we
decide at that time.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the country and particularly those in
the financial services industry wait, and wait and wait for the
finance minister's response to the MacKay task force report, the
uncertainty within the industry continues to grow.
I want to ask the secretary of state if he can tell us exactly
when the finance minister is going to respond so that we can end
this uncertainty and speculation within the financial services
industry? Exactly when is he going to report?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
will be responding fairly soon to the MacKay task force.
I find it quite interesting that the hon. member would have time
to even look at this issue. After all, he has spent much of his
time trying to plot against his leader in the establishment of
the UA.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-77
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
Bill C-77 to deregulate interprovincial bus service is causing
concern to both the businesses involved and the people served,
especially those in the regions.
Is the Minister of Transport aware that by going after the
cross-subsidization of links established by the Quebec transport
commission, he is preparing to deprive people living in the
regions of affordable inter city bus service?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have this bill before the house right now for the
purpose of debate and to raise questions such as the hon. member
has just raised.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with Bill
C-77, travel by bus will cost a lot more or disappear in the
regions and cost less between major cities.
Does the minister not see that, by going ahead with his bill,
the federal government is not only attacking the regions yet
again, but is also scuttling the revival of train service
between major centres?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I must inform you that there are other
provinces—British Columbia and Ontario, for example,—that have
another opinion on the matter.
I think the question raised by the hon. member is one for the
committee that will be studying the bill and not for Oral
Question Period.
* * *
[English]
THE FAMILY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately the government continues to put children's
needs last. The justice minister's response to the report of the
special joint committee on “Putting Kids First” is to wait
until the next millennium before addressing children's needs;
well after the next election.
After 55 meetings and over 500 witnesses, why do kids have to
wait until the next millennium for access to both of their
parents?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has
bothered to read the response tabled in the House today, he knows
that our response reinforces the principle of the best interests
of the children.
One of the things the hon. member seems to forget in this
discussion is that custody and access and parental
responsibilities are a shared jurisdiction between the federal
government and the provinces and territories.
Unlike the Reform Party that preaches provincial rights, we
actually want to work with the provinces to ensure we have a
family law system that does act in the best interests of all
children.
1440
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have read the response and it is of little comfort to
the needs of children.
Over three years ago I introduced a private member's bill on
shared parenting. Then we had a year for the committee to hold
more than 50 meetings and hear from over 500 witnesses. Now it
is going to take a minimum of three years before the minister
does anything more than talk.
This minister's delay does nothing to help the 47,000 children
caught up in painful custody battles each and every year. Why
does the minister feel it is acceptable for thousands upon
thousands of children to go through the pain of custody battles?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everyone on this side
of the House is very much aware of the difficult and emotional
circumstances that may exist when families break up.
Unlike the hon. members on the other side of the House, we
recognize that this is a complex issue and one in which the law
has a role to play, but that there are other strategies that we
have to work on as well. What we are committed to doing is
ensuring we protect the best interests of the child but in
co-operation with the provinces and territories with whom we
share jurisdiction.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-68
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
bill on young offenders is not short on contradictions. For
example, the French version of the statement of principles in
Bill C-68 alludes to the positive perspectives and social
reintegration of adolescents, while the English version refers
to the meaningful consequences of the crimes committed by young
offenders.
Considering the fundamental contradiction that exists between
these two principles, could the minister tell us which version
will guide the courts: the French one or the English one?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member believes
that there is a problem with the form of expression in either
the English or the French text of Bill C-68, I would be more than
happy to discuss the matter with him in committee. If changes
need to be made we will accommodate them.
* * *
YOUTH
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday it was announced that the Missing Children's Network
Canada has entered into an alliance with Hilton Canada to
increase awareness of the plight of missing children.
Can the Minister of National Revenue tell us what role his
department is playing in this vital endeavour?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were very happy last Friday to be part
of the announcement that Hilton Canada will join the Missing
Children's Network Canada to promote the cause of child safety
and heighten the public's awareness of the serious problem of
missing children.
I am particularly proud of my department's participation in our
missing children's program which assists police forces and other
agencies across Canada and internationally in locating and
returning abducted children and runaways.
We all share in the responsibility to find every missing child.
One missing child is one too many.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-49 fails to protect aboriginal women's property rights in the
case of divorce.
The Senate is now looking at this bill and will send it back to
the House with the very amendments the government refused to
accept.
The minister is being given a second chance to right a wrong.
Will she commit to protecting aboriginal women's property rights
in this bill, yes or no?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that
Bill C-49 is a very good piece of legislation not only for
Canadians but certainly for the 14 first nations who will now
have the authority and jurisdiction to deal with lands on their
reserves.
As is always the case, the Senate has the prerogative to hear
witnesses and make recommendations for amendments. I would be
pleased to hear them if they wish to present them to me.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think she heard the question, but I am going to look at you
and I am going to ask it and I am sure you will understand.
Aboriginal women's rights were not protected in the bill. Now
the minister's colleagues in the Senate are saying the same
thing. How can she deny aboriginal women in this country the
same property rights that other women have?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would
read the bill he would see that the 14 first nations that are
part of Bill C-49 have agreed to include matrimonial property
issues as they develop their land code. If they would just read
the bill they would see the answer.
* * *
1445
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, because of
low commodity prices, the failure of AIDA and unchecked input
costs the pessimism on the prairies this spring is apparent to
all and palpable.
Now farm organizations want a grain freight rate costing review
because recent efficiencies within the system appear to be
favouring CN and CP by about $200 million a year. Two hundred
million dollars a year would amount to about $5,000 per farm per
year.
My question to the Minister of Transport is, when he meets with
the stakeholders on Wednesday in Winnipeg, will he agree to
establish a comprehensive grain freight rate review?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting on Wednesday in Winnipeg with the
various stakeholders to discuss the next step following Justice
Estey's report.
We are looking at a process that would facilitate an
implementation of Justice Estey's report. The government feels
that Justice Estey has put together a reasonable group of
recommendations that move us toward a more commercially oriented
system for the haulage of grain.
I will not slam the door on any reasonable suggestion from any
party at that meeting.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
the minister would agree that Mr. Estey in his report did not
review transportation costs in any comprehensive way. The
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and many other prairie organizations
stand ready to help the minister in this costing review.
Why will the minister not take this advice from a dozen prairie
farm organizations and agree today to investigate this on
Wednesday with them?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is somewhat premature to accept the
opinion of one group of stakeholders without listening to all of
the stakeholders.
I should say that in this whole process I have been much
heartened by the fact that the four western provinces have been
united in their support for a more competitive grain
transportation handling system, including the Government of
Saskatchewan, the hon. member's province.
I hope that this spirit of co-operation will continue forward so
we can solve this very difficult problem that has bedevilled
farmers' incomes for more than a century.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Since the 1996 flood—and I make no apologies for bringing this up
again—everyone has become aware of the necessity to preserve the
valuable heritage of the few remaining houses surrounding the
little white house in the old section of Chicoutimi, known as
“le bassin”, which everyone wants to preserve.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to collaborate
with the City of Chicoutimi in the signing of a bilateral
agreement, if possible, to help the municipality preserve this
reminder of the floods?
Several dozen homes were devastated in part of downtown
Chicoutimi, but there are strong feelings about preserving for
other purposes—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone in Canada, and everywhere in the world, saw
that little white house being threatened by the flood waters.
This afternoon we are awaiting a call from the Mayor of
Chicoutimi, and we are going to try to work together closely to
develop this heritage, which belongs not only to Chicoutimi and
the Saguenay region but also to Quebec and to Canada.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the minister is she really wants to work along with the
municipal authorities because, right now, there is some to-ing
and fro-ing going on with Quebec over residential zones and
economic and cultural zones.
I hope the minister is going to help the municipality to get
this matter under way. We really want to transform the entire
area into a cultural and tourist attraction, which I believe
will be of interest to the entire country.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member, who has himself shown how much
collaboration is possible when there is a desire to settle
something.
I can assure him that we will work together. The heritage in
Chicoutimi is one that is now known throughout the world, thanks
to the strength of character of the people of the Saguenay in
coming through this flood which is now famous around the world.
* * *
NORTH KOREA
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after
several years of poor crops and natural disasters in North
Korea, millions of people are suffering from malnutrition and
countless numbers of them have died of starvation.
Can the Minister for International Cooperation tell the House
what Canada is doing to help the victims of this tragedy?
1450
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
has been much talk of the Kosovar refugees recently. However, we
must not forget the other people in the world who are starving,
particularly in North Korea.
In the last two years, we have sent $23 million in fish, peas
and vegetable oil. We are certainly going to go on providing
food assistance, because they lack the means of providing for
themselves.
* * *
[English]
AIR INDIA
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
The biggest mass murder in Canadian history took place 14 years
ago when 300 Canadians were blown out of the sky on an Air India
flight off the coast of Ireland. To date no one has been charged
with respect to that terrorist act and there has been no royal
commission of inquiry in Canada, notwithstanding that the
Government of Ireland has had a royal commission as well as the
Government of India.
What is the current status of the investigation? When does the
solicitor general expect charges to be laid? Does he intend to
keep the promise to hold a royal commission of inquiry into that
tragedy?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a heavy burden
for families and friends of the victims of the Air India crash;
however, this is a very complex investigation. In fact it is up
to the Attorney General of British Columbia to decide whether
charges will be laid.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, when in opposition the Liberal Party promised a royal
commission of inquiry and that is clearly the responsibility of
the federal government.
Can the solicitor general explain to the people of Canada and to
the families of the victims why his government has not initiated
a royal commission of inquiry?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague, the
investigation continues. The information is being relayed to the
Attorney General of British Columbia and he will decide whether
charges will or will not be laid.
* * *
ST. JOHN'S PORT AUTHORITY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the transport minister approved the appointment of Mel
Woodward to the St. John's port authority even though he works at
Coastal Shipping, which is a regular user of the port. He claims
that Mr. Woodward has resigned his post and that his appointment
therefore does not contravene the Canada Marine Act.
We phoned Coastal Shipping and guess what? Mel Woodward still
works there. He is still the boss. Why not? He owns the
company.
Will the minister now please obey the law and remove Mr.
Woodward from the board? Shame on you, Mr. Minister.
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members, please, to always
address the Speaker.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member, as a
member of the transport committee which studied Bill C-9, would
know what the law states. The law states that one member of the
advisory group of the port authority is nominated by a province
and one by the municipality.
The appointment of Mr. Woodward was the prerogative of the
provincial government. The provincial government was well aware
of what the law states and I understand that the provincial
government has sought legal advice and believes that the
appointment of Mr. Woodward is in compliance with the law.
* * *
[Translation]
MILITARY COLLEGE IN SAINT-JEAN
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on July 1,
2000, the lease between the federal government and the Conseil
économique du Haut-Richelieu for the former military college in
Saint-Jean runs out. Companies want to start up on the site of
the college and are impatiently awaiting Ottawa's decision.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Does the
minister intend to grant the request by the Fort Saint-Jean
campus to renew the lease on a long term basis to ensure the
campus' viability?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members
know, we have already invested $25 million to keep the campus
going and help it become an institution that serves the entire
region. We are now negotiating with regional officials to find
a way of allowing this campus to continue to be used for the
benefit of the local population.
* * *
[English]
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of the Environment has been reassuring the House
that the government will be protecting our freshwater resources
from becoming a tradable good.
1455
The proposed voluntary ban of bulk exports has been denied by
some provinces. Newfoundland and other jurisdictions do not fall
under the IJC mandate. Canadians demand that the government
protect, preserve and conserve our waters.
Will the minister commit today to a national water act that will
ban the wholesale export of our freshwater in this country?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government made an announcement in
February that we were calling for an immediate moratorium on the
withdrawal of bulk water from watersheds in this country. All
provinces, with the exception of Quebec, agreed to the
moratorium.
We said that we would be developing an accord with all of the
provinces and territories in this country with regard to the
withdrawal of bulk water from watersheds. We expect that we will
achieve that. We will be amending the International Boundary
Waters Treaty Act. We are going to develop with all of the
provinces and territories a strategy to protect all freshwater as
it exists in our freshwater basins.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
have been told that it costs $6,500 an hour to keep our aging Sea
Kings airworthy, whereas the modern helicopter flies at $800 to
$1,000 an hour. The auditor general has questioned the wisdom of
spending taxpayers' money on helicopters that have an
availability rate of less than 50%.
When will the government initiate the maritime helicopter
program by releasing a statement of requirement? It is long past
due. Please, think of the families and crew.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has said
on many occasions that he wants to move on a replacement project
for the Sea Kings as quickly as possible. He has also mentioned
that he hopes to make an announcement sometime this year.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
his spring 1999 report, the Auditor General of Canada indicates
that the federal government will have to recruit some 3,000
scientists and technologists in the next five years.
Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us what
strategies the government intends to take to meet this important
objective?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, the
main science oriented departments have established recruitment
strategies to ensure their needs are met. They are doing so
through the regular programs of the Public Service Commission
and through pilot projects they have already begun to put in
place.
The auditor general has quite rightly alerted us, and we are in
the process of putting place the measures that will ensure we
have the scientists the government needs.
* * *
[English]
MINING
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the giant gold mine near Yellowknife has been dumping
arsenic dust into the mine for almost 50 years. Cleanup costs
are estimated at anywhere between $100 million to $1 billion.
Who will fund this cleanup? Will the government guarantee that
it will not be the beleaguered Canadian taxpayer?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department is fully aware
of the collection of arsenic as a result of the processes at the
giant gold mine. We know that Royal Oak is under considerable
duress and that there has been a receiver appointed in regard to
that mine.
It is our hope that a private sector interest will be found to
take over the mine. However, I would like to confirm for the
House that my department has a plan of action in place to deal
with the arsenic should the mine be closed down. The safety of
the community will be protected.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
According to the National Post, Canada is involved in
transactions aimed at lifting economic sanctions against Iraq
and even at providing compensation if it allows UN inspections
to resume, on the grounds that compliance with the UN
resolutions can never be totally guaranteed.
Is this approach not sending the contradictory message to
President Milosevic that he will succeed in bending the will of
Canada and the international community if he hangs in long
enough?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can make a comparison. As the
hon. member knows, we had put in place a series of panels in the
security council to assess the humanitarian and the arms
inspection regimes.
1500
They came forward with proposals and we were basically
supporting those proposals which would allow the re-enactment of
an international arms control but at the same time make sure that
there not be excessive humanitarian damage in Iraq because of the
sanctions policy.
We were trying to provide a bridge between the two extremes,
between those who simply say keep the sanctions the way they are
and those who say there should be no inspection. In good
Canadian style we are trying to build a bridge between those two
positions.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one
of the very negative consequences of the downloading of social
housing and co-op housing by the federal government has been the
confusion around the management of co-op housing.
As the minister of public works knows there has been a very
spirited campaign from the co-operative housing federation for a
third sector agency. The minister has agreed to this in Ontario,
but there is also a campaign in B.C. to have the same kind of
arrangement.
Will the minister respond in the affirmative to the request from
the co-op housing movement, and when will he make an announcement
that third sector management will take place?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the announcement we
made on co-ops in Ontario applies to the other provinces. We
will deal with it every time we negotiate with the provinces.
In the case of British Columbia as soon as negotiations start we
will definitely discuss them. The same arrangements that were
given to the Ontario co-ops can definitely be offered to the
British Columbian co-ops.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
for the second time in a week a Sea King was forced to make a
precautionary landing due to a gear box problem. According to
experts a gear box failure could be catastrophic. With all the
problems with our 35 year old Sea Kings the minister's comment in
scrum was “let's not exaggerate”.
Will the government initiate a maritime helicopter program
before lives are lost due to an aging, unreliable Sea King? The
minister said within two weeks. That was two weeks ago.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I mention to my hon.
colleague that the air force follows a very strict maintenance
and inspection regime. The problems we have recently seen are
being addressed. We will continue to do what is necessary to
keep our aircraft flying safely.
In conclusion I mention to my hon. colleague that Canada is not
the only country that has Sea Kings. The Americans have them and
the British air force have them also.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
* * *
1505
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House,
in both official languages, the second report of the Canada-China
Legislative Association regarding its first co-chairs annual
visit which took place in China and Hong Kong from March 27 to
April 9, 1999.
I wish to thank His Excellency, Mr. Howard Balloch, Canada's
ambassador to the People's Republic of China, and his staff for
their assistance, as well as officials from the Department of
Foreign Affairs.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
table, in both official languages, the second report of the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 1, 1999,
your committee has considered the main estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2000.
In conclusion, the committee was somewhat taken aback by the
small allocation of moneys this year for the small craft harbours
and those used by our fishery people.
* * *
ORGAN DONATION ACT
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-511, an act to
establish a national organ donor registry and to co-ordinate and
promote organ donation throughout Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill in
the House that will establish a national organ donor registry.
Unfortunately in Canada there is a critical shortage of donated
organs.
This private member's bill will co-ordinate and promote organ
donation throughout Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
PENSION PLANS
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to present to the House a petition from
constituents of my riding who are asking, on behalf of all
Canadians, that the government stop the plundering of the
pensions of workers and retirees, and that it put an end to any
measure that undermines the confidence and the morale in the
public service, the Canadian forces and the RCMP.
[English]
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition on behalf of the citizens of the
general area of Peterborough who point out that an average of 4.5
Canadians are killed and 125 Canadians are seriously injured
every day as a result of alcohol related crashes.
They point out that 62% of fatally injured drinking drivers in
Canada have a blood alcohol concentration that is over double the
legal limit of 80 milligrams per litre.
The petitioners pray that parliament immediately amend the
Criminal Code so that mobile digital breath test units are added
to the list of approved instruments under the Criminal Code, that
police are authorized to use passive alcohol sensors in impaired
driving enforcement, and that any driver involved in a crash
resulting in death or bodily harm provides police with probable
grounds to request a breathalyzer.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 195, 213 and
222.
.[Text]
Mr. Peter MacKay:
With regard to the preparation of the budget presented on
February 16, 1999: (a) what expenses were incurred by the
Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance for outside
media advice, speech writing, and promotional and strategic
services; and (b) what steps were taken to ensure that outside
consultants were not able to use budget information for
commercial purposes?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): As in previous years, the Department of Finance
enlisted private-sector expertise to assist in the preparation of
the 1999 federal budget and, more particularly, the government's
efforts to communicate to Canadians the budget's contents and its
possible impacts.
Moreover and again as in previous years, strict measures were
put in place to ensure that those whom the department contracted
were unable to use their pre-release knowledge of the 1999
budget's contents to realize commercial and/or individuals gains.
Specifically, those contracted with knowledge of the budget's
contents prior to its release are legally bound to adhere to the
provisions of the Official Secrets Act.
Those contracted to assist the government with the prepqaration
and communication of the 1999 budget and the xpenses incurred for
said assistance were: Principium Inc., $44,000 for speech writing
services performed for the months of December 1998 through
February 1999; Earnsciffe Strategy Group, $60,000 for strategic
services and advice provided from November 1998 through February
1999; HyperActive, $11,541.61 for on site technical support in
February 1999 for the creation of interactive Internet
presentations; and Magma, $17,575 for provision in February 1999
of an outside of government server used to broadcast the live
budget speech over the Internet in real time. Magma did not have
access to any budget inormation previous to its release.
Mr. John Herron:
With regards to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
announcements on June 19, 1998, of a $100 milion program for
measures to protect and rebuild salmon fish habitat on Canada's
west coast is there a similar program available in Atlantic
Canada that has the same four components of (1) establishing a
permanent fund for habitat initiatives, (2) developing community
based stewardship programs aimed at protecting habitat from
further damage, (3) extending community restoration and
partnership programs, and finally, (4) increasing public
awareness of the problems affecting salmon stocks and, if so, how
much money is spent in Atlantic Canada on this type of program?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
The $100 million program to rebuild west coast salmon
habitat announced June 19, 1998 was part of a $400 million
comprehensive program to rebuild the resource, restructure the
fishery, and help people and communities adjust to the changing
fishery. That same day the government announced $730 million for
restructuring and adjustment measures for the Atlantic groundfish
fishery.
While the west and east coast initiatives are both aimed at
ensuring stable sustainable fisheries, they have been
individually tailored due to the differences in the nature of the
fisheries issues on each coast. On the west coast the major
commercial fishery, salmon, is particularly dependent on healthy
and productive fish habitat in freshwater streams which are more
susceptible to the impacts of human development. For this reason
a large portion of the west coast program is devoted to habitat
conservation and enhancement. On the east coast, production for
habitat is not a key limiting factor with respect to groundfish
fisheries. As a result the adjustment measures are focused on
reducing industry capacity trough licences retirement; adjusment
measures to help current and former TAGS, The Atlantic Groundfish
Strategy, recipients become self-employed, get work experience,
develop new skills or relocate; extra help for community and
regional economic development, to be provided to Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency for co-operative initiatives with provinces
and other partners; and a cost shared early retirement program.
On July 17, 1998, the government announced $1.16 million in
funding to support volunteer groups in their efforts to improve
and restore local waterways. The funding is to be provided under
the Canada-Nova Scotia co-operation agreement on economic diversification.
Mr. John Duncan:
For each of the last two fiscal years, with the last fiscal year
ending March 31, 1998, what is (a) the total number of income
tax returns processed annually by Revenue Canada, both personal
and corporate, and (b) the total number of people involved in
processing these returns; and for this fiscal year what is the
total number of returns that are being redirected to Shawinigan?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): For each of the last two fiscal years, with the last
fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, the chart indicates (a) the
number of personal and corporate income tax returns processed
annually by the Department of National Revenue and (b) the number
of people involved in processing these returns:
Fiscal year—Number of personal returns, 000
1996-97—21,432
1997-98—21,677
1998-99—22,075, estimate
Fiscal year—Number of FTEs* for processing
1996-97—4,110
1997-98—3,551
1998-99—3,604, estimate
Fiscal year—Number of corportae returns, 000
1996-97—1,110
1997-98—1,140
1998-99—1,201, estimate
Fiscal year—Number of FTEs for processing
1996-97—814
1997-98—820
1998-99—840, estimate
*Full-time equivalent, FTE
The Department of National Revenue is constantly updating the
way it does business in order to improve client service and
increase efficiencies. One example of such change is e-file for
the electronic filing of personal income tax returns, which is
now being used by over 25% of Canadians. Changes such as e-file,
telefile and corporate e-file will reduce the workload in all of
the department's processing centres. Rather than allowing these
workload reductions to occur across all centre and suffer the
resulting reduction in efficiency, the Department of National
Revenue is redirecting the work from the Ottawa Tax Centre.
As announced in October 1996 the Ottawa Tax Centre has assumed a
new role as a specialized technology site with a national call
centre, as well as scanning and imaging systems. The processing
of personal and corporate tax returns previously handled by
Ottawa is being redistributed across the seven other tax centres
located in Surrey, Winnipeg, Sudbury, Shawinigan, Jonquière, St.
John's and Summerside. This will require some boundary adjustments
for all centres. This change will ensure that the Department of
National Revenue's processing operations remain efficient in
processing the reduced number of paper returns.
The total number of personal income tax returns being redirected
nationally is 3.9 million and the total number of corporate returns
is 231,000. This year the total number of returns that
are being redirected to Shawinigan from Ottawa and north eastern
Ontario is 695,000 personal returns and 28,000 corporate returns.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
1510
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on May 3, I reminded the government that the response to
Question No. 189 was late. It is still late.
I was told at that time the government was answering 90% of the
questions on time. I must point out that never once have I had a
question answered within the 45 day period. In fact, of 11
questions of mine the government answered by May 5, it took an
average of 127 days to answer them. The quickest response was 58
days.
As of Monday, May 10, today, I have three questions that have
been on the order paper for more than 45 days: Question No. 189,
Question No. 226 and Question No. 227. I would like to know if I
have to wait another 100 days or so to get them answered.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I know of the member's
interest in Questions Nos. 189, 226, and 227. I will certainly
look into them.
I have a new update for him in the area of petitions, having
received well over 2,300 of them. We are running at 93%. In the
area of questions we are running at 78%.
As the member knows, some questions involve consulting every
department in government. Sometimes it involves going to one
department, then going to another, and only then being able to go
back to the first one.
We are working as hard as we can. I assure the hon. member I
will look into the whereabouts of Questions Nos. 189, 226 and
227.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-72, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are
consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980)
and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the
Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain
acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and
passed; and of the motion that the question be now put.
The Speaker: When debate was interrupted for question
period, the hon. member for Elk Island had 10 minutes remaining
for questions and comments.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say and
I would like to ask him a question.
What is his view of the way the government actually does its
accounting? Perhaps he could elaborate on that point.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, that gives me carte blanche,
does it not? What do I think of the way the government does
accounting? I think it does not do it right. It is disobeying
the rules.
In fact, the auditor general has said as much. It is not
permitted under the rules to charge expenditures from one year's
budget to different years' budgets. The government is doing this
continuously. According to its numbers it has put $11.5 billion
into health care. That is the number its spin doctors like to
put out.
If we look at the details, we see this one time payment of $3.5
billion being available to the provinces any time they want it.
When most ordinary thinking Canadians hear that they think it is
$11.5 billion plus $3.5 billion because that is the way it is
communicated.
It is not explicit so I checked it out. The accounting methods
are totally unacceptable. In the 1999 budget the government
charged $3.5 billion against the 1998 budget even though it was
already past. That is not acceptable. It cannot backload
expenses. No business can do it. The government should not be
able to do it. Then it forward loaded expenses like the
millennium fund, about which I have already spoken.
Just to finish off on health care, if we look at what the
government has put into the budget it is $2 billion a year on
health care. That means $2 billion this year and $2 billion next
year. That adds up to $4 billion, but the way it is being done
is that the $3.5 billion comes out of that. It is not an extra
amount at all. I have checked this out because I did not
understand it.
At a committee meeting I explicitly asked the officials to
explain this to me.
1515
It is also clear after we read the documents for the fifth time.
We can finally understand that this is what the government is
really saying. There is zero more in the budget. Next year
there will be half a billion dollars more for health care. After
that the government is talking about $2.5 billion and $2.5
billion and $2.5 billion. Most of us would think that is an
increase of $2.5 billion every year. Wrong. It is an increase
of $2.5 billion from what it was before the first five year plan
started.
The government is taking an amount and milking it for all it
can. Everyone thinks it is a big amount because the government
is announcing the same amount over and over, but it is actually
one amount being announced five times. I think that is
dishonest, if I dare say that. It is communicating to Canadian
taxpayers, to the citizens of this country, our voters, the
people who want to put their trust in this parliament—
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I listened with interest to what the hon. member had to say and I
think he used the word dishonest. It is my understanding that
that is an unparliamentary word. It is inappropriate in this
case anyway.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I heard the word as
well and I heard the context in which the word was used. The
context was not attributing it to a specific member of the
government, it was attributing it to actions of the government.
In my opinion it was used in a parliamentary fashion.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I mean no
offence, as I am sure the hon. member understands. However, I
think that Canadian taxpayers have the right to know what is
actually going on. The government's accounting methods are not
correct. The auditor general has said so. We need to listen to
what the auditor general says. It is his duty and it is the duty
of all of us as parliamentarians to guard carefully the
accounting and the expenditure of the money that Canadian
taxpayers are forced to give to the government.
An hon. member: How's Manning doing?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member
who is speaking to ask me an intelligent question and I will try
to give him an answer.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is the third time I have risen to speak about the budget
announced by the federal government. Bill C-72 reflects what has
been brought in by the budget. It deals with what I would call
piecemeal tax relief for Canadians.
The government says it is giving a non-refundable tax credit for
interest paid on student loans. I do not think any Canadian
would have a problem with that. The government is proposing
changes to the registered education savings plan. I do not think
anyone would have much of a problem with that. This is a small
step toward correcting the problem of high debt loads which
students pay.
In my last speech to this House I talked about the problems
facing students. We see the government again addressing this
issue in a piecemeal way. The government is claiming credit by
saying it is addressing the heavy tax burden from which Canadians
are demanding relief.
The government estimated that it expects a $3 billion surplus in
the budget. Most forecasters are now expecting that the 1998-99
balance could be anywhere between $7 billion and $12 billion. The
government is not really looking at the money that is forecast
and it does not have a proper plan to provide tax relief to
Canadians.
My colleagues from the NDP and the Conservatives talked today
about income tax reform to address all of the issues.
They feel that tax credits should not be the driving force.
1520
My concern is that we could have tax reform, but we do not want
tax reform where, in the final analysis, the bottom line remains
the same and the government gets more money from Canadians.
There is no point in tax reform which transfers the burden from
one group to another group. What Canadians are asking for is
real tax relief.
Today in the Montreal Gazette there is an article with the
heading “I do not pay my taxes joyfully”. This arose from the
fact that Reverend Bill Phipps said we should pay our taxes
joyfully. In the article the writer talks about how much tax he
had to pay after he did his income tax return. His bottom line,
after indirect taxes, service fees and all of the taxes that are
taken from his pay cheque, came to 60%. Sixty per cent of our
income is going toward taxes. I do not think there is any
Canadian who would say that they would joyfully pay 60% of their
income toward taxes when they feel there is no return from the
federal government.
There was another news item in the paper today saying that when
the premiers meet at their annual conference in Montreal,
productivity and tax reduction will be at the top of the agenda.
We have heard the business community screaming about high taxes.
Now we have the business community, the provinces and Canadians
talking about high taxes. I do not know whether my colleagues on
the other side, when they go back to their ridings, have
constituents coming into their offices talking about high taxes,
but they are coming into my office talking about high taxes.
Students are talking about high taxes.
Today we have heard government members and the parliamentary
secretary giving great facts and figures on how they are
addressing this issue. However, nothing has happened in 1998 and
1999 with respect to tax relief. If we were to take their
figures, in 1999-2000 the total tax relief will be around $55
million. That is a positive aspect for all Canadians. When we
take it further, in the year 2000 we will have bracket creep,
which the government does not wish to talk about. The bracket
creep will increase and will take more money away from Canadians.
They will be paying more taxes than they are now. Where is this
tax relief they are talking about?
Then we add to that the CPP increase. No matter what we want to
say, the mismanagement of the CPP has resulted in a negative
balance and it is a tax that Canadians are paying.
While the government wants to say that it has been addressing
the demand for tax relief, more and more Canadians are saying
that it is not fair. There is no tax relief for them. There is
just a manipulation of accounting procedures. My colleague just
spoke about the accounting procedures that the government
employed, which everyone is questioning, including the auditor
general.
Where is the tax relief that the government talks about? I sat
here this morning and heard the many points on tax relief that
the government talked about. However, when we look at what is
happening out there, tax relief is not there for Canadians.
How long will Canadians wait before this government addresses the
issue?
1525
We hear from the finance minister that he would like to take a
cautious approach. He is keeping money in the contingency fund.
Now we see that the surplus will jump from $7 billion to $12
billion. What will the government do with the surplus?
The government likes to put forward the argument that if it gave
tax relief the social services which Canadians dearly love,
especially health care, would somehow face a crisis. I would say
that health care is facing a crisis already because of the cuts
the government implemented. Now it is putting money back, but it
is only what it took away. What about expansion? Canadians are
getting older and older. It is not sufficient to put back the
money the government took away. The health care system is
looking for more solutions and more money because more and more
Canadians are getting older. That is why we have a health care
crisis. When huge surpluses are being racked up by this
government it is wrong to say that if tax relief is given somehow
it will impact the health care system.
There are other areas where the government could cut waste. It
has been identified many times in this House that the government
could cut taxes and it would have no impact at all on many of the
social services and health services we have in this country.
It is interesting that the federal government is the last one to
address this issue. The provinces have already started to
address the issue of tax cuts. They understand that the burden
on the Canadian taxpayer is very heavy. The federal government
is the only one that does not seem to realize or understand the
feelings of Canadians.
Bill C-72, which the Liberals call a housekeeping bill, we would
oppose. We oppose it not because there is no tax relief in it,
because we understand that there is some small tax relief, but
because it does not address general, overall tax relief for
Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments? Questions et commentaires. Resuming debate. On
debate the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to opposition members talk
about the budget and a few other things. I have been here for
only a year. I came from a city where I was a council member and
a mayor for many years. All we hear from members opposite is
crying and complaining about many things, but they never come up
with any solutions.
We have surpluses in Canada for the first time in many, many
years, and a balanced budget. The fact is that the federal
government paid down the debt load by $30 billion just the other
day. The debt load is coming down. We have a balanced budget
and a few other things.
Members opposite mentioned health care. The premiers are very
happy with the money the provinces received for health care.
Members opposite mentioned high income taxes. B.C., where I
come from, has an income tax rate which is 15% higher than any
other province. Ontario lowered its income taxes, but the
Ontario government borrowed the money to do that. Does it make
sense to borrow money to give people a break? This government
will do it the way it should be done. When there is money in the
budget it will lower taxes.
1530
Does the member not believe in a balanced budget? With all the
things he is crying about and with what he is complaining about
that is happening or is not happening, I would like to ask him
where the money would come from.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
am a little confused. I believe this was a speech and it was a
very short speech, but I was getting ready to ask a question of
him since I think he just made a speech and we should now be in
questions and comments on his speech. Is that correct?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a really
good point of order. After two years it is the first point of
order that has been a real point of order. It is a point of
order because I recognized the hon. member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. I believe I asked three times
for questions or debate and I recognized the member on debate and
so it was. The hon. member for Elk Island has a question to pose
to the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The government side would have no objection to the member for
Elk Island answering the questions of the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Let us sort it out
then. Was the question asked of the member for Calgary East?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In that case we will
take it on advisement that the hon. member was rising on
questions and comments and that the question was directed to the
member for Calgary East.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is
questions and comments and I am so happy to see the member
finally ask a question. I was sitting here for such a long time
and he would not rise to ask a question. I am so glad he rose to
ask me a clear question. He asks what party I am in. I am from
the official opposition which will keep him in line.
He talks about a balanced budget. No wonder he has not been
asking any questions. He does not know his facts. Of course we
all believe in balanced budgets but the issue is that when there
is so much surplus, where is the tax credit? That is the issue.
Canadians are saying enough of this tax burden. Where are you in
coming along and saying yes—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I
have a responsibility to interrupt to ensure things do not get
out of hand. Please address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I should
talk through the Chair.
The debate today is not about a balanced budget. The debate is
about tax relief. The government is talking about the tax relief
it has given out. That is what we are talking about. We would
like to point out to the hon. member that the tax relief his
government is talking about is piecemeal tax relief and it is not
what Canadians are looking for. There is a huge debate going on
among Canadians including businessmen and students. They are all
saying that there has to be an approach taken by the government
that addresses this basic question. The bottom line is Canadians
are saying to get off their backs.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-72. The
title of the bill is sort of scary in itself. Bill C-72 is an act
to amend the Income Tax Act and implement measures announced in
the February 1998 budget.
It scares the pants off me whenever the government starts
talking about income tax changes and implementing its budget
proposals. What was even more frightening was when the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talked about
the fact that this was just not a one year approach, that the
government's approach back in 1993-94 was going to be a
continuing approach.
It certainly has been.
1535
We saw the tax increases by the Liberal government start in
1994. At that time we gave it the benefit of the doubt. We
thought maybe just for that year we would see the income tax
increases the government was proposing, but in fact we have seen
them every year since the Liberals have been in power. The
parliamentary secretary has certainly given credibility to the
tax increase plan the government had back in 1994 when he said
that it was not a one year approach.
I am sure the Canadian people have a little bit of a problem
with the income tax increases that have been brought in by the
government since 1994. As a matter of fact, there has been
almost $40 billion of increased taxation since the government
came in. That was brought about by some 38 or 39 individual tax
increases.
To see the members of the Liberal government stand and talk
about tax decreases or tax relief is a shock in itself. It makes
one wonder what kind of horror movies they have been watching
that would demand this huge turnaround in their thinking, which
we cannot take with much credibility anyway.
The other frightening thing the parliamentary secretary said
this morning was that the government has eliminated the deficit
and that it is not borrowing any more to balance the books. The
Liberal line is “We do not borrow any more; we have eliminated
the deficit”.
The real story is the Liberals have raided the EI premium
surplus fund to the tune of well over $20 billion. They have
simply taken the money despite the fact that the current premium
of $2.55 per $100 of earnings has been described as being far too
high by their own people within the EI commission. The EI
commissioner has clearly said that a premium of $2.00 per $100—
An hon. member: It is down from $3.05.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says
it is down from $3.05. That is good. I am glad they brought it
down from $3.05 to $2.55. The fact is they suddenly stopped.
They stopped within 55 cents per $100 of what the EI commissioner
said was sufficient to maintain the EI fund as well as to provide
for a rainy day fund in case there was a dramatic decrease in the
economy and more people were claiming benefits. It is still
several billions of dollars ahead of what is required to sustain
the fund and provide for EI benefits.
While we are on the subject, the Liberal government has cut
benefits to EI payees, to the workers in Canada. It has cut
benefits by almost 40%. Almost 40% of the benefits that were
available to workers in Canada before the government came to
power in 1993 have been eliminated. Millions of Canadian workers
are still paying the price for the plan they had in 1993 but the
benefits of the plan have been cut by about 40% by the
government. That is one of the ways the Liberals managed to
eliminate the deficit and of course it is another tax increase.
Now the Liberals are planning on scooping, I think the number is
about $30 billion, from the public service pension fund.
One has to ask if this government simply has no shame when it
comes to scooping money. These funds were contributed, yes by
the government, but in good part by the public servants
themselves who work for the government.
1540
The government says no, it has this surplus and it is not going
to use it to enhance the retirement benefits of the public
servants. Rather it is going to take it all out of there because
after all, it is in its bank so it can do it. That is a pretty
high-handed attitude from this Liberal government which has
always claimed that it is a government which is there to
represent the people and to reflect in its policies the wishes of
the Canadian people.
I see the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam
is in the audience. I am glad he is because obviously he needs
as much exposure to debate in the House as he can possibly get so
he can catch up to the rest of us.
What we have here is a give them a dime take another dollar type
of government. This government is like someone who will take the
whole jug of water away from someone who is about to embark on a
desert trip.
Mr. Lou Sekora: What about a brain transplant.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Is it not amazing that when the
hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam comes into
the House and listens to reasoned rational debate which he has no
answer for, his only response can be incoherent babble. If the
hon. member really wants to find out what his government is doing
rather than simply what it tells him, he might listen to the
debate that is coming forth.
It was also interesting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Finance talk about the raising of the tax
exemption for firefighters and volunteers from $500 to $1,000.
That is good and we certainly support that.
It is interesting to note that since 1994 the government has
taken another $2,200 in personal income taxes out of the pockets
of the firefighters and other volunteers who serve our citizens
so well. It has taken another $2,200 in net personal taxes from
the firefighters and then it has turned around and given them
another $500 in tax exemptions, which would be worth maybe about
$200 or $300 in actual net taxes. The firemen after six years of
Liberal government are still at a net tax deficit of around
$1,800. Would it not be nice if it had left the paycheques of
the firefighters alone?
The government has an insatiable appetite for taxing Canadians.
We are as you well know, Mr. Speaker, the country with the
highest personal income tax in all the G-8 countries. I know you
are aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and I know that it really rubs
against the grain of your fiscal conservative thinking. I know
that you are a free enterpriser, Mr. Speaker. I know you hate
income tax. I know you can hardly stand it when you are in that
chair listening to the government talk about how good it is to
the Canadian taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with your job
when you have that bunch standing up in the House today talking
about just how tax friendly they are to Canadians.
The government has never yet addressed the question of the
unfair taxation of Canadian families, particularly two parent
families who have one single income in the household. The other
day I pointed out one example and I will do so again for the
benefit of the Liberals who have trouble understanding things
when they are told just once.
1545
On one side of the street lives the Jones family: two parents,
two kids and two incomes. On the other side of the street lives
the Smith family: two parents, two kids and one income. Both
families earn a household income of $60,000 a year. Everything
is the same except one household has two jobs.
The big difference is that the Smith family has made sacrifices
because they have realized that in their particular case there is
value in having a parent at home to help on a full time basis
with the guidance of the children. Because they have made that
decision they will pay about $5,000 more in personal income taxes
than the Jones family who live on the other side of the street.
We are not saying that either side has made the wrong decision
or the right decision. It was their decision to make. What we
want to know is why the so-called Canadian, family friendly
government thinks it is fair to penalize the Smith family with
one parent staying at home to the tune of $5,000 each and every
year out of their income tax?
The government has not addressed that yet. That is tax
discrimination of one of the very worst kinds. Most members know
what I am talking about even if the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is still having problems
figuring out what day of the week it is.
The Liberals have an unfair, unclear, incomprehensible and
unacceptable tax code. Canadians have been looking to the
government for some sort of tax relief. Middle income Canadians,
who are by far the biggest supporters to the personal tax revenue
the government grabs every year, have not had a tax break and are
still waiting.
Middle income families have contributed about 70% to the
personal income tax of the government. They are wondering why
they are still being penalized while everyone else is getting a
tax break. They want to know why wealthy Canadians and poorer
Canadians get a tax break but middle income Canadians do not.
The message is that the government really is not the caring
government that it says it is.
Unfortunately, despite two sterling examples in the country, the
provinces of Ontario and Alberta, the government has not
realized, despite examples from all over the world and
particularly in the United States, that there is a direct
connection between high tax levels and high unemployment as well
as a direct connection between low tax levels, low unemployment
and a buoyant economy.
The provinces of Alberta and Ontario have given tax relief to
their working residents and their economies have boomed. More
jobs have been created in Ontario. The biggest portion of jobs
that the Liberal government likes to crow about were created in
the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, the very two provinces that
gave their residents real and substantial tax breaks. The
government stands up and takes the credit for that. That is
insane. Has it no shame?
The provinces with the lowest unemployment in the country are
the ones that have given their residents substantial tax relief.
They have done it and have still allowed for increased spending
in education and in health care.
1550
Mr. Klein in Alberta and Mr. Harris in Ontario have done well. I
know Mike Harris will be the winner in this coming Ontario
election because he has lived up to his promises. He has a very
buoyant economy. He has had to address the health care and
education problems created by the NDP under the leadership of Bob
Rae when he was the premier. The problems fell into Mike Harris'
basket after the people of Ontario threw out the NDP and their
disastrous performers. I just cannot wait until June 3 when we
will see Mike Harris, the tax cutting premier of Ontario,
returned as premier again.
The Liberals still do not get the message. They do not know the
direct correlation between low taxes, low unemployment and a
buoyant economy. Our party has a lot of problems with the way
Liberals run the finances of the country.
I was in Port Moody—Coquitlam not too long ago and met with
some of the people who voted for the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. They told me how glad they
were that their former mayor was now in Ottawa. They said they
were very happy to see him leave town. They also said that they
had not cared what party he was running for, they voted for him
to get him out of town. They were just beaming because he was
not the mayor anymore and he was a long way from Port
Moody—Coquitlam.
Bill C-72 is not representative of a government that really
cares about the tax levels of the Canadian people. Our party—
An hon. member: What party is that?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: —Her Majesty's Official
Opposition, the party that returned here in 1997 with 60 seats.
Despite the forecast and predictions of the Liberals that we
would be wiped out, we are back in the official opposition
position.
Our party could never support Bill C-72 because it represents
everything that is detrimental to a buoyant economy. It has been
well said by economists in the country that were it not for our
export market, our country would be in serious problems because
we do not have a domestic economy.
We should be very thankful that the U.S. is so buoyant right
now. Its consumption of so much of our Canadian goods and
services is giving our economy a bit of a boost. Why is it able
to help us by buying our products? It is because its economy is
booming. Why is it booming? It is because its tax levels are
far lower in every area than they are in this country. We will
unequivocally oppose Bill C-72.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have heard a lot of discussion, debate and lectures on taxation
and on monetary and fiscal policy, but I have never heard such a
rambling diatribe of information as I have just heard in the
House.
We have to come reality. We are not here to speak for 10
minutes and consume the 10 minutes. We are here to present
facts, realities and some conclusions to the Canadian people.
After listening to the member talking about the two families, I
cannot help but wonder what the attitude and policy is of the
Reform Party. It seems to show that two low income families
should pay the same amount of taxes as one major income earner
family.
1555
Would the member comment on how his party could come to the
conclusion that two families, being compared in terms of total
income, one where two people each earn $20,000 a year, should pay
the same income tax as a single earner earning $40,000 per year.
Could the member please inform the House of his thinking, his
logic in coming to that conclusion?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member
for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam was making too much
noise for the hon. member to really understand what I was saying.
We are talking about total household incomes. The money comes
into only one place, whether it is earned by one parent or two in
that family. The family on one side of the street happen to have
two parents working with a total household income of $40,000. The
family living on the other side of the street, the Smith Family,
have only one parent working but also have a total household
income of $40,000. No family is making more money than the
other.
The Liberals do not understand that the disposable income left
in the hands of the $40,000 one income family after the taxman
gets hold of the paycheque is about $3,500 less to buy shoes for
the kids, to put food on the table, to buy clothes and school
supplies and to send their kids to what little recreation they
are able to afford. That is the tax discrimination I was talking
about. I do not know why the member did not understand that.
There is no difference in household income.
The difference is the discrimination that comes when the tax man
comes a-calling on their gross paycheque. Why should this
family, when they have one parent at home but the same income as
the other one, be dinged an extra $3,500 or so, simply because
they have made sacrifices to have one parent at home to help full
time in the guidance of bringing up the children? Who can argue
against that? Only the Liberals can.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was very
interested in my colleague's speech. He has a way of putting
into simple words a very important concept and that is that
Canadians are taxed to the hilt and they are sick and tired of
it.
One thing that rather interested me was the way the government
keeps doing its accounting and trying to communicate to Canadians
that they are doing just fine and everything is tickety-boo,
everything is clicking along whether it is or not, because the
communications do not always agree with it.
I was quite surprised to hear the member from Port
Moody—Coquitlam announce that the government has paid down $30
billion on the debt because I had not heard about that. It was
news to me, but maybe I just have not picked up the newspaper
today to read this announcement.
I made a phone call asking about this and apparently it is true.
Can my colleague who just spoke comment on where he thinks this
money came from? Does he know anything about this? How
wonderful that the government is paying off the debt.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for Elk Island for the question. I think it raises another very
serious question. If the Liberal government has paid the $30
billion, that is fine, but where did it get it from? Where did
it come up with $30 billion.
I suspect the government has already taken the $30 billion out
of the public service pension fund. Let me say that again. Has
the government already taken the $30 billion out of the public
service pension fund without bringing it forward to the House
first in some form of a bill that would allow them to do it?
Maybe the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader
can tell us—and this would be scary in itself—whether the
government can simply scoop that $30 billion without bringing it
to the House for a vote, a vote which of course the Liberal
majority would ram through anyway?
1600
Can the government simply take that $30 billion without bringing
it before the House? I pose that as a question to the hon.
parliamentary secretary.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments. The hon. member for Calgary East.
Mr. Peter Adams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I heard the hon. member ask me a question, but it is my
understanding of the standing orders that I am not allowed to
reply. Is that correct?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
parliamentary secretary will have an opportunity to be recognized
on debate and certainly then he will be recognized for questions
and comments.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will give the hon. member across the way an opportunity to reply
to my colleague.
I have a very short question for my colleague. This legislation
is piecemeal tax relief. What is his view of the fact that the
finance minister is now talking about giving tax relief through
stock options to address the brain drain in the high tech
industries?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for Calgary East for the question. It raises another
question. Why does the finance minister not recognize
particularly middle income Canadians and the terrible tax burden
they are under? If he is going to give tax relief on the stock
options to the high tech people, why is he singling them out for
special favouritism? Why is he doing that? If he believes in tax
relief, why does he not reflect it with a policy and program that
is going to give broad based tax relief to working Canadians,
particularly those in the middle class?
It is shameful that the finance minister would consider a
proposal like that.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make a point to my hon. friend.
About a year ago I received a letter from a constituent of mine
which has to do with the complications in the income tax form. I
am going to quote from it. Dalton Fisher states:
I have just added up my expenses and my income and find that I
cannot afford to hire a tax consultant to do my taxes so
therefore I have provided a sheet of paper complete with all my
income and expenses and I have filled out my tax form to the best
of my ability. I therefore submit the same for your audit. Or
for your acceptance.
I would like at this time to submit that if the tax form were
made simpler then most people would gladly fill out their entire
form and make life simpler for the tax department and for the
average taxpayer.
I think he has a good point. I would like my friend to comment
on that.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, this has been a
request we have had from Canadians all across the country. They
have been tearing out their hair for years in frustration over
the complexity of the income tax form. It might be good for H&R;
Block and the accountants but for the average Canadian of which
there are far more, the tax form the government uses is
absolutely ridiculous in its complexity.
Certainly Dalton Fisher's suggestion that we have a very
simplified tax form would be a very welcome relief for Canadians.
But once again this is talking about common sense, something we
have not seen from this Liberal government since 1993.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent, particularly because
the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam did not
have a chance to ask an intelligent question—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order, and it would not have been acceded to in any event.
1605
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to take a different approach on reviewing Bill C-72,
which is an act to amend the Income Tax Act and implement
measures announced in the February 1998 budget. I did hear some
of my colleagues talk about the 1999 budget. I am going to focus
my attention on the 1999 budget.
I want to say right off the bat that it is very easy for an
opposition politician to criticize. We can criticize almost
anything. It is also as easy for a government member to put a
spin on something that is very positive. That is part of the
government-opposition interchange.
It is interesting when a member of the government does a
critique of its own budget. That has happened. I am not going to
embarrass him by identifying him specifically, but there is a
current sitting member of the Liberal government who is a well
respected accountant. He came from an accountancy background to
this place. I have talked with him personally. I find him to be
a logical reasonable individual.
The member said that he would try to do a critique, a review of
the budget each time it came out. He has no axe to grind. He
has no reason to put a spin on the proposal. He is a
straightforward accountant. For the benefit of Canadians, I
would like to go over the things that he says about the 1999
budget. Next year there will be an implementation bill just like
this one for the 1999 budget.
On the issue of the surplus that has been reported in the
current budget, there is an $11.5 billion surplus just reported
in this budget. This MP says, and says it very plainly, that the
$11.5 billion surplus comes from increasing tax revenues, not
from spending cuts. Let me quote that specifically again. The
surplus in this budget comes not from spending cuts, which is
what the government has been saying over and over again, but from
increasing tax revenues.
As an accountant he went through and picked out the figures.
This is very useful. He also made a condemnatory statement when
he said “These figures here I think have been massaged”. A
Liberal member of the government commenting on the Liberal budget
said again “These figures here I think have been massaged”.
He turned his attention to spending. The first budget from the
Liberals came down in 1994. The last budget was in 1999. He went
back and looked at the spending in 1994. This is discretionary
spending, something the government could do something about. In
1994, $56.7 billion was spent. In 1999, $54 billion was spent.
We heard over and over again about the huge amounts that spending
had been reduced by. The difference is $56.7 billion down to $54
billion, a grand total of $2.7 billion, not the figures we have
been hearing.
Then he turned his attention to taxes. He did exactly the same
thing. He went back to 1994 and to see what the government took
in in taxes, and this is a public document and a public record,
and the projection for 1999. He found that in 1994 the
government took in $116 billion in taxes. In 1999 it proposes to
take in $157 billion in taxes. That is an increase of more than
$40 billion.
We will go back to the original statement. The original
statement was plain, that the surplus in the budget comes not
from spending cuts but from an increase in revenue.
I have listened to my colleagues across the way say that it is
because the economy is working so much better and they are
getting more tax revenue.
There is some truth in that statement. There is more revenue
because the economy is better, largely because of provinces that
are now booming. The provinces that are booming are provinces
that have actually had a significant change in their taxes.
1610
The member talked about the debt. He said “My government
promised to put revenue excess to pay down the debt”. He looked
at the figures. Accountants really have a talent for this. He
looked at the figures and found that there is no reduction in the
debt. To the member across the way who said that the government
has reduced the debt by $30 billion, this is what his compatriot
said. There is $580 billion of debt now and that is shown right
through to 2000-01. As plainly as I can state it in the member's
words there is no reduction in the debt. It is difficult to
refute when the figures are so plain.
On the issue of the way the accounting is done is where the
member's comments become so perfect. As an accountant he said
“The finance minister has hidden some revenue”—interesting
words for an accountant—“in things like the $3 billion
contingency fund”—which is an emergency fund—“or into lump
sum payments for health care which will not be spent until next
year”. The member then followed that statement by saying “This
flies in the face of good accounting”.
Hark to the words of the auditor general who said exactly the
same thing “this flies in the face of good accounting”. The
auditor general will not sign off on this method of accounting,
nor will the sitting Liberal member who is an accountant. This
money will not be spent this year. It should not be booked this
year. It should not artificially reduce the deficit.
I digress from the member's comments and ask why would the
finance minister not want Canadians to see the surplus? Could it
possibly be because there is a lot of pressure on him to spend
that surplus now, to go back down the deficit road? I think so.
Could it possibly be that the finance minister wants to hold on
to any surplus so that it could be used closer to an election?
Possibly. Interesting questions.
The Liberal MP, an accountant, then turned his attention to
public debt charges. This is interesting. We are told debt
charges are going down. The cumulative debt and cumulative
interest are going down. That makes sense. The interest rate is
going down. In 1997 the public debt charges were 40.9% and in
2001 the public debt charges are 43.3%. They rose. His comment
was “He is showing”—that is the finance minister—“cumulative
interest going up, yet we know market debt is going down.
Something does not add up”. These are not my comments and not my
criticism. These are the comments and criticism of the Liberal
MP who is an accountant.
On the surplus he says plainly that the government expects an
$11.5 billion surplus. He said “I think if it”—the
budget—“was based on generally accepted accounting principles,
yes, there is a surplus and the public has a right to know how
much it is”. We come back to the issue of the hidden surplus.
I query again why would the surplus be hidden? The Liberal
accountant MP asked the question, not myself.
I do not know who asked the question, but he was asked whether
the current budget gave a clear and accurate picture of
government finances. His answer was an emphatic no. The answer
from that sitting Liberal MP was no when asked whether the budget
gave a clear and accurate picture of government finances.
1615
It is interesting to look at the way the government balanced its
books, which is something I do not believe the public has a good
grasp of. The budget was a health care budget. My prime interest
in being in the House is health care. We saw all the advertising
and heard all the talk about an $11.5 billion increase to health
care funding over the next five years. That in itself was
wonderful news. We would expect bells to ring across the country
when the public heard about it. How could anyone criticize it?
I am not now speaking for the accountant across the way. I am
speaking for myself. Since 1993 I have watched cash transfers to
the provinces drop $21.4 billion in the previous five years. Let
us think of the cumulative effect on the provinces of them
dropping $21.4 billion in five years. In the next five years
they are to rise $11.5 billion. Is there any wonder why there is
no cheering? Is there any wonder why there is no excitement? Is
there any wonder why there are still long waiting lines for
health services?
I listened to a colleague across the way haranguing the Ontario
provincial premier on Thursday on the issue of health care. He
said that the provincial government in Ontario had done terrible
things to health care. The figures are plain; $1.3 billion were
put into health care by the Ontario government while the federal
Liberals took out $3 billion.
How could an individual Liberal in good conscience say what he
said? It is a great difficulty. I will say it again as plainly
as I can. Over five years $21.4 billion was taken out of health
transfers and over the next five years $11.5 billion will be put
back in. When I speak to kids in grade eight they say to me
“Doc, the math doesn't equate”.
The budget is very easy for an opposition politician to
critique. I have chosen to use a Liberal MP's critique of it to
say that all is not as it is spun. Are there good things in the
budget? Let me take a few moments to say yes, there are. Are
there things that I will not critique? There are. I believe
there are things that my Liberal accountant colleague across the
way would say are positive in an attempt to say there is some
balance. None of these words were my critique, except for the
health care critiques. They are the ones that are probably the
most condemnatory.
Let me summarize the comments of the Liberal MP accountant. I
have not identified him so that he will not be embarrassed. In
summary, the budget surplus comes from increasing tax revenues,
not from spending cuts. The debt will the same from now until
2001 according to the budget projections.
The Liberal MP stated on the accounting that the finance minister
had hidden some revenue. This flies in the face of good
accounting practice. On the public debt charges, something is
going on that does not equate.
1620
When asked if the budget gave a clear and accurate picture of
government finances, and I wish I had asked him, the answer was a
simple straightforward categoric no. The auditor general said
it. The Liberal MP said it. The accountant MP said it, and I
will rest my case with his words.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Agriculture; the hon.
member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Fisheries.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very interested in the hon. member's comments on
the underfunding of medicare. He is, after all, very familiar
with the system, having worked in it.
The problems with medicare are not confined to any particular
province or to any particular stripe of provincial government. I
live in Saskatchewan, the cradle of medicare, which has a
dreadful situation. I do not blame the provincial government. I
do not agree with its politics, but I cannot point to the
provincial government and say it has allowed the system to
collapse out of malice or ineptitude. It has collapsed because
of chronic underfunding from the federal government, which has
lowered its annual contributions from 50% when it started out
down to about 15% now. No provincial government can stand that.
There are hospitals in Saskatchewan where elderly helpless
people have to rely upon relatives and friends to bathe them and
to feed them because there simply is not enough staff to carry
the load. I have had personal experience in this regard.
I have lived in several Third World countries and that is the
way hospitals operate there. When did we get to that stage of
development in Canada? This is awful. I blame the members over
there totally for this situation. They took $21 billion out of
the health system in a period of only five years and now,
whoopie, they are to put $11.5 billion of it back over the next
five years. For that we are supposed to be eternally grateful.
The hon. member is a medical doctor. I would like him to
comment more fully on that. I am sure his range of knowledge is
wider than mine. I can speak only anecdotally, having seen these
things with my own eyes. I would like him to say whether he
believes any province is doing worse than another or can be
blamed for the disastrous condition of medical care in Canada
today.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, I lived in Saskatchewan for
a period of time. I just recently completed a tour of that
province on this issue. It is true that there are problems in
Saskatchewan. A number of hospitals were overbuilt in the years
of largesse, building up a fairly significant debt structure in
Saskatchewan.
Specific to Saskatchewan, it spent more on health care during
the time of the cuts. It is closest to the people who are ill
and has the most accountability. Every province in Canada but two
during the times of reduction found funds by priorizing and
cutting funds in other areas.
1625
The part that troubles me most is that there were other choices
for the federal Liberals to cut. There were large grants to
successful businesses totalling billions of dollars. There was
the opportunity to remove regional grants that were choosing
areas in which to place money. There were significant areas of
spending that were completely useless and easily totalled the
$21.4 billion over five years.
How was that cut from health care? It was hidden under the
Canada health and social transfer. The public was ready for
deficit reduction at almost any cost, until it found out that the
cost was our grandmas and our grandpas on waiting lists.
That is why health is now the most important issue and why it is
so politically popular to say somebody else will be the
scapegoat. The fact of the matter is the public does not care.
It does not want to point at anybody. It wants the health care
system fixed and that is what we should be expending our efforts
doing.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in debate. As my colleague
from Cypress Hills—Grasslands stated, we in Saskatchewan have
taken a terrible beating in health transfer costs because of the
government opposite.
If I were to talk about individual cases which have come across
my desk, I would be speaking at midnight about the horror cases
in my province. People would like to blame that totally on the
provincial government. When a any government issues a figure of
$11 billion it sounds good, but it forgets to tell us to divide
it by five.
On the way into work the other morning a radio host had three
people on his show representing the three parties in Ontario in
the upcoming election. I could not believe what one individual
said, that we just could not stand any more tax cuts. If there
is anything the country needs right now, it is individual tax
cuts. A T-shirt can be seen on almost any street in any Canadian
city which says “Tax me, I am a Canadian”. I have three
brothers who went state side and stayed there to develop their
professions for obvious reasons. They could not stand the
Canadian tax regime.
It used to be in April of any year most senior citizens on my
block would come to me with their tax forms. They would ask me
to fill them out. It was a very simple form and I gladly did it.
Now it is no longer a simple form. It has become a very
complicated form. Only a government can produce a complicated
form for a very simple process of collecting income tax from an
85 year old lady.
Let us talk about simple forms. Saskatchewan farmers used to
get a form from the government by mail. I cannot ever remember a
form coming from the government on Internet. They have to apply
for it or have to go to the RM office for it. It constitutes
about 40 pages even though the form itself may only be seven or
nine pages. The farmer looks at it and says “It is like my
income tax. I cannot fill out this form”.
Members opposite tell me that it is a very simple form. Of the
hundreds of people who phoned in, I only know of three who
actually tried to fill it out themselves.
1630
We continue to completely ignore the wishes of the people. One
Norwegian chap phoned me and said that he thought the government
should get a very simple form with only three lines on it. The
first line would be “How much did you make?” The second line
would be “What were the expenses?” The third line would be
“Kindly remit the rest”. That is about the way it is.
I have to congratulate those who figured out the AIDA form. They
did a masterful job. It would take real brains to figure out how
to force a person farming to put all of this down on a form, only
to find out how much money they made and there would not be any
help coming. That is the kind of form it is. It is a Rubik's
cube.
Canadians have a right to know about our budget. When I was
asked on television what I would say about the budget if I were
the finance minister, I said that I would say this to all of the
employees and workers in Canada: “Thank you very much. We just
robbed you of $26 billion bucks. Thank you very much, workers
and business people, because that is what we took away from you
in extra employment insurance premiums”.
Another thank you should be mentioned. We ought to thank those
who contribute to the pension fund because the government is
dipping into that fund and will take out $30 billion.
The “tax me, I'm a Canadian” theory goes beyond just income
tax. I must mention something that really bothers me. There is
excessive income tax, but the government is also finding the ways
and means in different departments to take more funds.
Where I live partly borders on the state of Montana and partly
on the state of North Dakota. There are nine border crossing
points and many of my people live closer to a hospital south of
the 49th parallel than they do to a hospital in the province.
Members will know that when their wife is expecting they will
take the shortest route in the case of an emergency.
That is what happened to a family that lived almost 70 miles
closer to a hospital in Montana than they did to a hospital in
their province. This couple has paid their income taxes and has
watched the form grow and grow. They have watched their taxes,
municipal taxes and school taxes, grow until they are at the
point that they get the AIDA form and they do not even know if
they can fill the thing out. On three occasions Brian and Louise
did not have much choice. Away they went. After less than 30
miles they were in a modern hospital. Three of their four
children were born stateside, just a few miles across the border.
They are Canadian people. Both mom and dad were born here in
Canada. Both paid large income taxes. Both paid huge
agriculture taxes. Both paid huge road taxes, and they do not
have any roads. Their children received their birth certificates
from the states. The oldest boy is now 14. Guess what? He has
to get a SIN number to take his driver's training. Guess what?
It is going to cost Brian and Louise $75 a kid, or $225, for them
to get their SIN numbers. Talk about a government that does not
miss a beat. Congratulations. If it can get its hands in the
pockets of a Canadian citizen, it certainly knows how to do it.
These people and many people who cross the border in an emergency
situation in my constituency use the hospitals in the United
States. It is not out of preference, it is because of an
emergency. They do not ask the provincial government or the
federal government to pay their costs, they just do it. But when
these three individuals want to get their social insurance
number it will cost them $75 apiece.
1635
Who do they contact? They contact their member of parliament.
What will their member of parliament do? Just what I said I
would do; not only will I speak in the House about this, but I
will write the particular authorities to complain bitterly.
We need to humanize this whole idea of extracting money. We
simply make fools out of ourselves by doing this. These three
little kids, born to Canadian parents, have lived here, have been
raised here and went to school here, but the government says
“Give us a little more”, and they are protesting.
Finally, I want to draw the attention of the House to another
factor. I mentioned this case before. There was a single
working mother who had two children. The government finally
caught up with her husband and extracted a lot of money from him
for support payments. He was made to pay three years of support
payments, which amounted to about $11,000. What did the
government do? It said “Give us $5,500 all at once”. My
argument is that members opposite are wrong. It should have been
divided by three and it should have been at that rate, but so far
this valiant young mother has not heard from Revenue Canada.
I think that Canadians deserve a little more attention. Perhaps
the government could humanize its approach to Canadians. We are
human beings. Brian and Louise do not have $225. They do not
even know if they will be able to plant a crop because of this.
Not one cent of AIDA money, to my knowledge, has been dropped
into the province of Saskatchewan. I know the minister says that
the farmers in Prince Edward Island have it and the farmers here
have it. They all had their forms before ours were printed. I
would bet that our income tax forms arrived at the same time. I
know that mine did.
My constituents are like other constituents. The young people
move away. There are more than 200 students going to university
in Minot. Why? Because they can get bursaries and grants and it
is cheaper. Why do we do this? Why do we continue to tax
ourselves to a standstill?
I most certainly will not be supporting Bill C-72. I cannot do
it. My conscience would not let me do it even if I were sitting
on the other side of the House, but I expect that all of those
members will support it.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
somewhat amazed to hear the hon. member. He may recall last fall
when he and I had a lengthy conversation on the farming problems
in the province of Saskatchewan. Following that we implemented a
program which provided some $900 million to help the farmers
across this country. Where does the member think that $900
million came from? Was there some magic pot or was it from
taxation?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member
asked that question. First of all, when that program was
announced there was some reluctance on the part of Saskatchewan
to even opt into it because basically, as this House knows, most
of the farmers in Canada live in Saskatchewan.
Therefore, the greater proportion of the 60:40 split would have
to be borne by the provincial government. The province opted in,
but, interestingly enough, just a week later the agriculture
minister for Manitoba said “We are opting in because only 15% of
our farmers will qualify”. What did the minister of agriculture
for Manitoba know that we did not know?
1640
I now know that less than 15% of our farmers will qualify
because of the Houdini form that has been sent out. The
government is returning to Canada's number one industry,
Saskatchewan's number one industry, $900,000, which is a great
deal less than was spent on the floods and the ice storms, and
those people deserved it. Is the government trying to say that
the people out there do not deserve it? They did not deserve the
forms which were sent out. Most assuredly, that is the biggest
disaster they have had so far.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain was
talking about disasters in the medical system in Canada I thought
he would probably mention another case from his riding which I
believe is the most atrocious I have heard so far.
An elderly man was suspected of having a brain tumour. He
needed an MRI. With Canada's wonderful system he could get one
within a year. He thought that was a little tough, so he went
across into the United States, as just about everybody does in
that part of the world. He got his MRI and was told “You, sir,
have a brain tumour. It is growing rapidly and if you do not get
it removed right away you are going to go blind”. So he said
“I still have a few years left. How much is it going to cost?”
He was told it would cost $40,000. He said “I just happen to
have saved in my lifetime $40,000, and my sight is worth it, so
go for it”. They operated and removed most of the tumour. The
gentleman went home quite content.
Then he decided that for his checkups, which he had to have
after major surgery of that nature, including another MRI, at
least he would get that done in Canada and it would be covered by
our wonderful medicare system. Lo and behold, he was told “No,
my friend, you had that work done in the United States. To hell
with you. Go back there to get your MRI checkups because we are
not going to have any part of you here in Canada”.
It is absolutely unconscionable that Canadians would be treated
that way. First they get driven out of their country to seek
medical care and then, when they come back, the bureaucrats are
so mean-spirited that they will not even give them follow-up
care.
I am curious. I would ask the hon. member what is going on with
that particular case now. Does he have any new information?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, in that case the individual
tried through various means and ways to get some support, or at
least to get back what it would have cost in Canada, or a portion
thereof, but he was not able to do that. He saved his own life.
The officials refused to give him treatment. He was refused that
surgery outright for at least three months. He would have been
dead. He saved his life and now, as my hon. colleague has
mentioned, he has been denied follow-up care simply because he
used the services at a clinic which is world famous.
We have to face reality. There are hundreds of cases like this.
The least the government could do would be to pay a portion of
their expenses, at least the same portion as they would have paid
here. That is not the only case. There are three more, Mr.
Speaker, but I know that you do not want to hear about them right
now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1645
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, is the vote on the motion
proposed by the parliamentary secretary?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question was put
by the parliamentary secretary.
The vote is accordingly deferred until the end of Government
Orders today.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed from May 5th consideration of the motion that
Bill C-68, an act in respect of criminal justice for young
persons and to amend and repeal other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
bill, of which we are resuming debate at second reading today,
was initially introduced on March 11 by the Minister of Justice.
Today, we will continue debating the motion moved by the member
for Laval-Centre.
First of all it must be remembered that all Quebeckers, without
exception, spoke out against and opposed the approach proposed
in Bill C-68. This bill is a useless, dangerous, vicious and
right-wing, if not extreme right, piece of legislation.
In Quebec, the rate of youth crime is the lowest in Canada. Why?
Because Quebec authorities look after teenagers and young people
and provide them with a framework.
Bill C-68 would lower the age limit from 16 to 14. This would
mean that 14 or 15 year olds could be tried as adults. I wonder
if the Minister of Justice has teenage children of her own, if
she has raised children.
I had the chance and the pleasure of raising three children who
are now young adults, and I have vivid memories of my son, when
he was 14, 15 or 16 years of age, playing with his Tonka cars in
his twelve by twelve sandbox. He did not look like a criminal,
but I often looked at him and observed him. All the kids from
the neighbourhood liked to come and play in the sandbox.
My son was no saint at that time. He probably stole carrots from
our neighbour's garden, apples from our other neighbour's apple
tree, he probably went fishing and exceeded his quota, but he
did not become a criminal.
1650
Had he had the bad luck of hanging around with friends who could
have had a negative influence on him, he could have become a bad
boy. A one night or one week adventure could have landed him in
jail. Even at 14 or 15 years of age, he could have been
incarcerated in a facility for adults. The danger is that, when
a young person is treated as an adult, that young person is
still at the learning stage and jail is the worst school there
is.
Moreover, under this bill, 14 or 15-year old children who receive
an adult sentence could have their name and even their picture
published in the newspapers.
The justice minister is a member of the Liberal government, the
same party that, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, slipped a bit
towards the left, as hon. members certainly remember, when the
House voted to abolish the death penalty. Does the minister
today think the exact opposite of what her party stood for at
the time? I do not think so.
The justice minister represents the riding of Edmonton West, in
Alberta. I wonder if she is not about to give in to the right,
to the extremists who say something like “He who kills shall be
hanged”.
Before I was elected to this House, I had the pleasure to teach
for 27 years.
During those 27 years, I met thousands of high school students
and often the teachers would see how some of them behaved and
comment among themselves “If this young guy does not change
soon, he will run into some serious trouble”. I remember we
were all in agreement about one student in particular, who
seemed to be highly refractory. A few years later, he pulled
himself together, and today he is a much sought-after renowned
lawyer who earns a respectable living. The entire teaching staff
was wrong about him.
Mr. Speaker, you yourself have been young, and you know that
young people sometimes go out, in groups of three or four, in a
car, and end up in a bar. With such a party atmosphere, one
young person in the group could be a little more devious than
others and lead good boys and girls to commit an unfortunate
act. Thus, one evening's mistake could ruin a lifetime.
I was talking in fact to my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm of
the example of David Milgaard, in Saskatchewan, who was
imprisoned some 20 years because of an error of justice. It
would seem the Government of Saskatchewan is getting ready to
compensate him.
When an adolescent is incarcerated for over 20 years, these
being the best years of his life, a few million dollars cannot
rectify such an error. They are preparing to give him $2
million plus $20,000 a month for life. Naturally, such
situations give us pause for reflection.
1655
Ottawa did not consult the provinces, despite the commitments
the government made at a meeting in Regina with the various
justice ministers in Canada.
My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm also seems to recall this
commitment by the Minister of Justice, who comes from Alberta.
She seems to want to espouse the ideals of the Reform members
increasingly. This is most unfortunate.
I would like in closing to quote the opinions of a number of
Quebeckers on Bill C-68.
André Normandeau, a criminologist at the University of Montreal,
said, and I quote:
People out west are still reacting the same way they did 20 or
30 years ago, when crime was constantly on the increase. They
have retained a highly punitive mindset. Changing the law is
too simple and, more importantly, ineffective. Coercion has no
effect at all on violent crime, which accounts for 10% of the
whole.
So said André Normandeau in the March 13 issue of Le Soleil.
I will now refer to what Cécile Toutant, another criminologist
and member of the Quebec Bar Association's subcommittee on young
offenders, had to say.
When interviewed on the television
program JE, the criminologist expressed her concerns about the
reform, because of its potential for automatic referrals to the
adult court.
The criminologist maintained that, despite the flexibility of
the process, there will be the possibility of measures being
applied. She wondered why what is unjustified and inappropriate
should be made possible.
In Quebec there is unanimous support for rejecting bill C-68
which, I would remind hon. members, lowers the age of adulthood
from 16 to 14 years. Placing children of 14 or 15 in
penitentiaries, where they will be raped and come under the
influence of adult criminals, means the lives of these
adolescents will be ruined for ever.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up to speak to Bill C-68. My
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois may get his wish. At the rate
the bill is going through the House, and with rumours that we may
prorogue some time this fall, it may never see its final resting
place in this session.
Last spring the House passed Motion No. 261 which called for the
establishment of a national head start program. This motion, the
vision and work of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, may
well form part of the solution we seek in the administration of
youth justice. I might even mention another colleague right next
to me, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who seconded
the motion of the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The genesis of this enlightened approach to raising, nurturing
and disciplining a child is based on the concept of prevention of
anti-social behaviour, rather than the management of a situation
or problem that has been years in the making.
The work and research of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca reveals the importance of the first eight years of life. If
an individual is exposed to pernicious behaviour such as drug
abuse, sexual abuse, violence, dysfunctional parenting or absence
of parenting at all, it has a negative impact on the child's
brain. The neurological development of the child's brain is
impeded. This has a consequence as the child grows to
adolescence and on to become adult.
There is no question large segments of the current prison
population are products of negative family exposure years before.
This does not diminish their deeds, but I wonder if given a
better chance we could have eliminated some of the possibility
that these people would turn to criminal behaviour. Bill C-68 is
all about making sure that people do not turn to criminal
behaviour and that young children do not turn into criminals.
Would it not be better to spend a few dollars on those now in
their formative years of one to eight than to spend it on
lawyers, courts, psychologists, prisons, halfway houses and
parole officers later? As they say, an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure.
1700
Bill C-68 provides us with an opportunity to initiate the
practice of prevention rather than crisis management. Have we
not been practising crisis management of young offenders since
the early 1980s? Are we not on a treadmill to nowhere? Are we
trying to transmogrify something that cannot be done?
I would like to speak about a national headstart program as one
means to start on a different path. While I realize this
initiative may not be a panacea, it may be at least one of the
components in reducing youth crime and developing a more
emotionally and socially adjusted adolescent into our society.
In the course of my years in politics one of the problems and
curiosities as I see it in the development of public policy is
neglect of linkages between programs emanating from department to
department within governments. By this I mean government is
negligent in identifying existing programs and policies which may
aid or benefit in instituting a new program or help move a new
concept along.
In short there is a plethora of programs out there in some sort
of void waiting to be accessed and used. We have to get better
at using the tools we have if we are to make the enlightened
choices that we should be making.
Back in 1966 the government's own National Crime Prevention
Council identified a national headstart program as a way to
prevent crime and one that is cost effective. I mention again my
colleagues the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the member
for Saanich—Gulf Islands who put that motion before the House in
this session. In 1996 the government was doing it itself,
talking about a headstart program yet to this date we do not have
anything. There is nothing in this bill that talks about going a
different way or doing anything different from what we have been
doing all along.
One headstart program that was identified as being instrumental
in significantly reducing crime was the Perry preschool program
in Michigan. This program was one of two others identified, one
which is in Moncton and the other in Hawaii. They were proven to
in total decrease child abuse by 99%. Any program that can reduce
this problem by 99% is one that we should be taking a quicker
look at than we are in the House. A few years ago we looked at
it from the government side and now this side puts in a motion.
We are still not looking at it.
This program kept kids in school longer and dropped youth crime
by 50% in other areas. It decreased teen pregnancies by 40% and
saved the taxpayer in the final analysis $30,000 per child. What
a success story. What a testament if not a template for Canada
to use as a national youth strategy. Why are we not doing it?
The government has some money in this program but it only covers
about 30% of the cost instead of 50% like it agreed to. It could
save us $30,000 per child by bringing in this program. Why does
the bureaucracy not push the government to get this program in
place? The government bureaucracy says it is a good idea.
Members on this side say it is a good idea. We should be looking
at it.
We listened to our colleagues from Quebec who are opposed to
this bill. They brought up some very good points. The
government likes to attack and fight them because they are
separatists but the facts are that the province of Quebec has a
lower crime rate for children than we do in the rest of Canada.
We should be looking at the program Quebec has. We should be
paying attention to what is being done there.
I hope that when we get this bill into committee we will have
lots of time to bring people from the province of Quebec to tell
us what they disagree with in the present legislation and where
they think we should be going. We should be looking to where the
successes are, just as we should be looking to the headstart
program because of the great success in that program.
One of the critical elements in the success of these three
programs is the involvement of the parents. Parents are and have
to be the axis around which the program revolves. No amount of
money will replace the intrinsic importance of good parenting.
Without a loving safe environment with rules of behaviour defined
and boundaries established can a child be expected to grow to a
stable socially responsible participant in society.
Bill C-68 has three elements concerning the role of parents.
Should a child fall between the cracks and need help, under Bill
C-68 parents will be called upon to become involved with
representatives of the community to design and implement
extrajudicial measures. There will have to be compulsory
attendance of the parent at court when considered by the judge to
be in the best interest of the young person. There will be
increased punishment for the parent who signs a court undertaking
to supervise the young person upon release and who wilfully waits
or fails to fulfill that responsibility.
That is extremely important. I will repeat that. There will be
increased punishment for the parent who signs a court undertaking
to supervise the young person upon release and who wilfully fails
to fulfill that responsibility.
1705
My colleague from Surrey North played a great part in this
paragraph that I am reading. We should give him a lot of credit
for the work that he has put into this youth legislation. We all
know the effort that he puts in in the House working toward
children. We all appreciate his commitment very much.
My colleague from Surrey North can take great pride, credit and
solace in managing to motivate the government to include his
initiatives in Bill C-68. It is because of the member's
determination and concern as manifested in his private member's
Bill C-260 that we have the parental responsibility prescribed in
the new youth criminal justice act. It is one good part of this
bill if nothing else.
That is why it is even more unfair for the government members to
perpetuate untruths about Reform policy surrounding how to deal
with 10 and 11 year olds in youth justice. At no time has any
Reform member suggested incarcerating 10 and 11 year old kids. In
fact enlightened work like the kind instituted by the member for
Surrey North indicates a compassion for children and an attempt
to put the onus on the parents.
Frankly it is the government that would like to sweep the issue
of 10 and 11 year olds under the carpet, ignoring this challenge
by saying there is no problem. It is simply abandoning these
children. Is that not in itself a form of incarceration?
Maybe it is the government that has to take a look at its lack
of recognition of 10 and 11 year olds in its new bill. Maybe it
is the federal government's responsibility to become equal
financial participants in programs with the provinces to
rehabilitate these kids who have strayed. Maybe it is the federal
government's responsibility to deal now with the issue of 10 and
11 year olds before they become incorrigibles later on.
It will however take more than $206 million over three years.
The provinces have pleaded with the federal government on the
need to deal with this age group. Why is it so difficult for
the federal government? Is it because of the money? That is
what is scary. This age group needs help and needs it badly. It
is really a money issue. The government tries to cover it up
under the flim-flam and the puffery but we need help in those
areas. The provinces need help in those areas. We will debate
these issues very deeply in committee and I look forward to that.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is my privilege today to speak to Bill C-68.
Youth crime demands the attention of all levels of government
and it demands the attention of parents and families. In Calgary
I recently attended a town hall meeting for an organization
called the Friends of Clayton McGloan. My colleague from Surrey
North also attended another of the town hall meetings in Calgary.
This organization was named for a young man whose life was
tragically taken from him by two young offenders.
Clayton was stabbed numerous times and left for dead by two
young thugs. These individuals are now fighting to have their
cases remain in youth court while the crown is stating its case
for the adult court. To my knowledge these two thugs have been in
the system before. These are young murderers and they deserve to
be held responsible for their crimes. However in this case maybe
the law will be on their side. Maybe they will be tried in youth
court and receive a much lower sentence than they would have
received had they been tried in an adult court.
The family of Clayton McGloan is fighting through a petition
asking for fair justice. The pain and the suffering they have
gone through can only be felt when we attend town hall meetings
and we listen to the family's pain.
Canadians have seen these kinds of cases all too often in the
last 15 years. They have seen young murderers and rapists
receive sentences that do not fit the severity of the crimes.
Why? Because they are children. Because we say they do not know
any better.
I believe that many of the kids do know better.
1710
The official opposition on behalf of Canadians has been calling
for changes to the Young Offenders Act. Thankfully something is
finally on the table for us to debate in this House. We know
that the justice minister introduced a new youth criminal justice
act as a replacement for the Young Offenders Act. It is my hope
that the Young Offenders Act will be assigned to the garbage. It
has been a failure and Canadians have had to suffer the
consequences for far too long.
The justice minister upon taking her job promised that
introducing the new young offenders legislation would be her top
priority. That was two years ago. I had hoped that after such a
long delay the justice minister would have put forward
legislation to deal with the complicated issue of youth crime in
an effective way, yet the youth criminal justice act fails again
to deliver what Canadians expect.
The official opposition recognizes that there are two elements
to youth crime. One is the rehabilitation aspect and the other
is an accountability aspect. My colleague spoke very eloquently
about what he felt the government should be addressing in the way
of rehabilitation programs.
We have a youth justice committee in my riding. This committee
has been doing a tremendous job in trying to address youth crime
through community sentencing and rehabilitation programs. It has
been quite successful. This is the kind of program we need to
encourage.
We must also teach the consequences of actions. We must make
youths aware of the severity of their actions when they cross the
boundary and hurt people. That should be a fundamental aspect.
Revenue Canada makes good examples of taxpayers who have not paid
the money they owe. Revenue Canada comes crashing down by
charging penalties and interest from the first day that they do
not pay. Why? Because the government needs to set an example
for others. Lo and behold, here we have people committing crimes
and it is said there has to some leeway.
I heard a colleague from the Bloc address this. I did take
exception to some of his comments when he addressed the issue of
western Canada somehow being a right-wing very uncompassionate
society. I beg to differ with that. I appreciate the fact that
there is a lower crime rate in Quebec. As my colleague said, it
is something we can learn from, but to say that we are
uncompassionate is not appropriate. But the Bloc is the
separatist party so that is fine.
When going through this new legislation the feelings of the
members of the official opposition was that this is simply the
old Young Offenders Act presented in a different colour and
format. Some provisions in this bill appear to be tougher.
However, there is always an opportunity down the road for
provinces or courts to provide exceptions and maintain the status
quo.
I believe the minister has had to appease all the different
philosophies within her own government. Some want tougher
legislation and others think the situation is just fine. Nobody
wants to listen to what Canadians are saying.
In this House petition after petition has been presented asking
for a fair justice system. The government's thinking is that
perhaps this is some kind of paper in the basement that does not
need to be addressed.
Hence the bill that has come forward has all the loopholes one
can imagine.
1715
Throughout the process the minister claimed she needed time to
consult with the provinces. We recognize the provinces have an
important role to play. We have to understand just what the
various regions of the country were wanting in the overall youth
laws.
A great deal of this information has already been gathered by
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The
committee spent many months conducting hearings from coast to
coast. The committee listened to the provinces. It spent almost
$500,000 to provide a comprehensive report with a number of
recommendations toward significant changes to the youth laws.
That is how our parliamentary democracy works. The committee
conducts hearings and receives presentations.
The provinces are not satisfied with the legislation. The
minister of justice for Alberta, John Havelock, wrote to the
federal minister complaining that there had not been adequate
consultation.
He was concerned that the federal government had failed to
address some of the major concerns of many provinces. Alberta,
Manitoba, Ontario and P.E.I. all wanted a number of significant
changes. Perhaps the most important was the reduction of the age
of criminal accountability from 12 to 10. One speaker from my own
town, Calgary's police chief Christine Silverberg, criticized the
government changes as not going far enough with violent children
under the age of 12.
We should not be surprised that this recommendation was not
included. Not only did the government ignore its partners in the
youth justice process. It ignored the justice committee and its
report which included a similar recommendation, a committee that
is made up of a majority of government members.
The government continues to attack the official opposition. I
will conclude by saying that the official opposition, throughout
this debate, will indicate its concerns and the shortfalls of the
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-68, an act in
respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and
repeal other acts.
It is a very important piece of legislation that deals directly
with one of the most delicate aspects of our collective
behaviour. When dealing with youth crime, it is important that
society behave correctly so that the situation does not become
worse for the individual who is directly involved and that
measures be taken to ensure adequate rehabilitation.
In this regard, Quebec has a very legitimate historical position
which seems to be the envy of many other countries and which has
had notable and undeniable success.
I would like to share with you an excerpt from the report
brought forth in 1995 by the task force established by the
Government of Quebec to look into the Young Offenders Act. It is
called the Jasmin report, no doubt after the chairman of the
task force. This excerpt truly reflects the position of the Bloc
Quebecois, which is valiantly put forward by the member for
Berthier—Montcalm. I take this opportunity to recognize the
excellent work he has done on this issue, as he usually does on
any issue he tackles.
I quote from the Jasmin report:
It is often easier to change a law than to change practices of
intervention. It may be tempting to think that tougher
legislation is the answer to the problems of delinquency.
Simplistic responses blind us to the full extent of complex
problems and create the false impression that we are doing what
is necessary to resolve them.
One such simplistic response is substituting get-tough measures
for educational approaches. This, however, overlooks the fact
that adolescents are still in the process of learning, and it
means they are being saddled with full responsibility for
delinquency, as if the society and environment they live in had
nothing to do with it.
1720
I think these lines are a good reflection of Quebec's very
progressive position, one which has proved itself and, as I
mentioned earlier, is the envy of many.
This is the position of the Quebec coalition, which is opposed
to the federal government's plan to change the rules of the
game, putting Quebec in its place to a certain extent, and
refusing to follow Quebec's lead. On the contrary, the federal
government is siding with the Reform Party, which takes a right
wing approach, an approach pushed by Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan when they were in office, an American approach the
effects of which are becoming increasingly apparent in our daily
lives.
The coalition is composed of well known individuals. They are
very representative of our society, and speak knowledgeably
about this issue. I will name the 16 groups who are in favour
of the same position, the position supported by the Bloc
Quebecois, and who all criticize the position of the Government
of Canada and support that of the Bloc Quebecois.
First, there is the Commission des services juridiques du
Québec, which represents the defence. This includes prosecutors
and defence staff involved in legal proceedings. As if by
chance, it therefore includes both those who prosecute and those
who defend, which is the best proof of all of how representative
this coalition is of those who work daily in this very difficult
area.
This is the list of 16 groups: the Commission des services
juridiques du Québec, which is on defence side; the Conseil
permanent de la jeunesse; Jean Trépanier, of the School of
Criminology of the University of Montreal, who is an eminent
criminologist; the Aide communautaire juridique de Montréal,
which also works for the defence; the Fondation québécoise pour
les jeunes contrevenants, the Institut Pinel which is
represented by Cécile Toutant, also prominent in that area; the
Association des chefs de police et pompiers du Québec; the
Conférence des régies régionales du ministère de la Santé et des
Services sociaux du Québec; the Association des centres jeunesse
du Québec; the Commission des droits de la personne et des
droits de la jeunesse; the Bureau des substituts du procureur
général, which works on the prosecutor side; the Association des
CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec; Marc Leblanc, of the
Psycho-education School of the University of Montreal, who also
is a well-known authority in that area; the Regroupement des
organismes de justice alternative du Québec; the Canadian
Criminal Justice Association; and finally the League for the
well-being of young children of Canada.
These are Canadian organisations which have made Quebec's
position their own and whose Quebec section completely endorses
the position of the coalition and the position of the Bloc
Quebecois.
I believe this shows there is serious unrest on two levels;
first on the socio-economic level and second on the Canadian
political level.
On the socio-economic level, when we talk about young offenders
and youth crime, fortunately this type of criminality is
decreasing. Indeed, it has decreased by 23% between 1991 to
1997. As a matter of fact, youth crime is linked to serious
unrest in our communities leading young men or women, to commit
such serious acts. We should not only treat the effects of crime
but also deal with its causes.
As can be seen in the quote from the report, this makes young
people alone bear the responsibility for delinquent behaviour,
as though society and the community had nothing to do with it. I
am deeply troubled by this kind of thinking.
When we talk about young offenders, we are talking about the
failings of our economic system. We are talking about the
failings of neo-liberalism, which is promoted by right wing
parties like the Reform Party, to which the Liberal government
is much too eager to cater.
1725
The same applies to the problem of the homeless, to the
unacceptably high unemployment rate in Canada and Quebec, to
precarious employment, to family violence, to food banks, to
over consumption of drugs, to mental illnesses, to the
unacceptably high suicide rate for a civilized society like
ours, to family tragedies with murder and suicide or murder of
the wife and children, tragedies that are becoming far too
frequent.
All those things are inter-related, and it is not coincidence. We
must go to the roots of the problems. We must examine not only
the effects, but also the causes of these excesses and failings
in our societies.
This is when we have to look at the socio-economic causes,
something we do not do often enough in this parliament, where we
like to deal with issues on a superficial level, on a case by
case basis, without ever getting to the bottom of things.
We must talk about the causes and stop talking about the effects
and quickly go on to some other topic.
I believe there is something very political in this bill within
the larger context of the constitutional debate. What we have
here is two historically different approaches: Canada's and
Quebec's. In Quebec the approach focuses less on guilt and puts
less of a burden on the individual, whereas in Canada it is more
punitive.
The fact that the government is ignoring the success of Quebec's
approach is indicative of the new Canada envisioned in the
spirit and the letter of the social union, whereby Quebec is not
recognized as a distinct society, does not have a say, and is a
province like all the others. It is important for those who are
listening to understand this.
In this area, Quebec is a province like all the others. Its
track record and success story are being trivialized. This is
the future of Quebec within a Canada where everything is
trivialized. From now on, Quebec will be a province like all the
others, and its government will become a regional government.
This gives us a lot of food for thought.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to
discuss Bill C-68 once again. The motion before the House
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois looks at the possibility of in
essence striking the entire bill and sending it back for further
discussion.
Although we in the Conservative Party have great difficulty with
some of the initiatives, and perhaps more so with the perception
of what the bill will actually accomplish, I think it would be a
giant step backward to completely throw the baby out with the
bath water when it comes to youth justice. That will not
accomplish what we in this place hope to accomplish, which is to
fix a existing fundamental problem when it comes to youth crime.
One major problem with the Young Offenders Act since its
introduction over 15 years ago has been the impression the act
has given young people that they will not be held accountable for
criminal behaviour. Right or wrong, that is the impression out
there and that is what is drastically undermining public
confidence in our youth justice system and our justice system in
general.
An attempt has been made by the government to address some of
the problems. I will be very straightforward in pointing out
some of the steps that are improvements on what we have seen.
Obviously the ability to bring parents into our justice system is
something that has to occur. However what will occur in this
instance is not the full package.
What will happen now is that the parents of young offenders who
have been apprehended and are in the process of going through
court and potentially being released back into the community will
now be forced to come forward, sign, and essentially make a
contract with the province and the attorney general's department
that they will ensure the conditions deemed appropriate by a
court will be followed. They will be brought to court themselves
and charged if those conditions are not adhered to.
That is what will be accomplished and that is a laudable attempt
to fix some of the problem.
1730
However, what we do not see happening is parents being brought
forward to answer for where they were in the first instance when
a child was involved in a criminal act. Why is it that a young
person was out breaking into a neighbour's house or stealing
their car at 2 o'clock in the morning? That accountability we
have not yet achieved and sadly we will not through this piece
of legislation.
There has been much ado, much discussion, much debate and
acrimony about the age of accountability. Again I think the key
word in all of this is accountability. The Liberals have
countered attempts by the opposition to debate this issue by
saying “Look at this overreaction on the part of
neo-Conservatives who want to somehow throw 10 and 11 year olds
in jail for criminal acts”. That is not the case at all. That
is certainly not the position that has been taken by the
Conservative Party.
What we want to see happen, obviously, is that if by some
misdirection or some misdeed a 10 or 11 year old finds himself or
herself involved particularly in a violent criminal act, there
will be some mechanism by which to bring that young person to
account, not necessarily through the full hammer of criminal
sanctions in a courtroom, but at least there should be the
ability to trigger a response.
As it currently stands, that does not exist in our Criminal
Code. It exists in other countries. It once existed in our
Criminal Code under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act.
As I said at the outset, the issue is accountability. The issue
is the state, the province, the police and our social services
having a mechanism by which to bring to account and to bring
forward some recourse for a young person at that tender age.
Certainly the whole principle behind the Young Offenders Act and
the principle behind the new youth criminal justice act is to
recognize that there is obviously a difference in the level of
accountability that will be levelled upon a person under the age
of 18. We are saying that it should be taken one step further.
Drop it down a bit further so that we can at least start the
process of rehabilitation, bringing that person into a system, be
it the criminal justice system or be it a diversion into the
social welfare net. There has to be something to start the
process.
We know that when violent crime is involved the response has to
be quick. The criminal justice system, I suggest, is best suited
and best equipped to make that intervention and then to follow
through. After the fact, when an arrest has been made, when the
justice system has been given the tools to act, then we can
decide what the long term recourse will be.
To accomplish all of this the provinces will have to receive
greater funding. This has been the crux of the issue with
respect to the provinces and their responses, both positive and
negative, when one starts to look at the overall strategy as to
what is to be accomplished in our youth justice system.
The Progressive Conservative government has to take some fault
in this as well because when the justice system was first set up
to encompass the Young Offenders Act we never saw the 50% share
of the funding that has to be shouldered by the federal
government. That has never occurred. The Progressive
Conservatives froze that funding. The Liberals then went further
to cut it to the point where, in some provinces, it is below 30%.
The irony in all of this and the reason for giving some
background is to recognize the fact that much of what is sought
by this youth justice system, that is, earlier intervention,
preventive measures, a proactive approach taken to justice, which
are all wonderful buzzwords and laudable goals, cannot be
accomplished unless we have the opportunity to put into the hands
of the provinces the proper funding to administer it. We know
that the drastic cuts that have been handed out by this federal
government have had an absolutely deteriorating effect on social
services throughout the provinces.
The brunt of this legislation and the administration thereof
will fall on the provinces once again. The 50% funding that
should be coming from this government to accomplish all of the
goals, as laudable as they are, simply will not happen without
that resource allocation.
Once again we have seen the government speaking grandly, giving
a grandiose plan as to what it would like to accomplish. There
has been a great deal of absolutely wonderful press conferences
and announcements that have been made time and time again at the
press gallery instead of here in the House of Commons.
That was all done in the run-up, in the raised expectations of
the new youth criminal justice act. However, those goals, those
accomplishments that the government has put forward, will not be
achieved unless the provinces are given the money.
1735
There has been a lot of discussion in the Chamber as well about
the approach that has been taken by the Quebec provincial
government and there are statistics to back it up. La belle
province de Québec c'est la première province pour la justice
when it comes to the treatment of youth. The difficulty with
this legislation is that once more we see a very cynical position
put forward by the government. Not only could it have borrowed
from what Quebec has done, it has said “If you do not do it our
way you can opt out and not receive the money”. Not only is the
money not sufficient, the provinces can decide not to do it the
federal government's way and they will not get the money.
We see an approach that time and time again has left Canadians
feeling very cynical, feeling almost despondent about the way we
accomplish these goals. They are common goals. We in the House
should certainly be able to put partisanship aside when it comes
to accomplishments in our youth justice system. However,
every time we get into these issues emotion and partisanship
prevails and we get bogged down in debates, casting aspersions on
who did what last. The Tories did this. The Liberals did that.
It is the Reform Party. It is the Bloc. It is the NDP. That is
not going to accomplish these goals.
There are issues in health, taxation and justice that we should
be trying to work toward in a very positive fashion instead of
continually dredging up the past. We could go back to John A.
Macdonald, if we want to do that. We see it and we live it every
day in this place.
If the government is serious about accomplishing these things
and if it is serious about aiding the provinces in the
administration of this new youth justice act, it should not
simply spout figures like the $206 million that is going to be
handed to the provinces in the next three years, it should live
up to the commitment that was originally intended and that was
that the federal government would pick up 50% of the tab when it
came to the administration of justice and the administration of
this new youth criminal justice act.
I, like other members of the House, look forward to
participating at the committee level, proposing changes, working
with my colleagues, both in opposition and on the government
side, to achieve these laudable goals.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to pick up where my friend from the
Progressive Conservative Party left off. He made some very valid
points and I will focus on a few of them.
What we have to focus on is that every single young offender,
every single youth who comes before our courts, the ones who
commit the most serious offences, who are incarcerated, are going
to be released into society. I agree with him absolutely that we
need funding for this.
The Young Offenders Act will be re-packaged. There will be a
new bow put on the package, with a few new dressings on the
outside and it will now be called the youth criminal justice act,
but we will basically have the same thing.
I held a one-day seminar at a high school in my riding and I
invited the head youth provincial court judge, Judge Chaperon, to
participate in the seminar. She brought up a very disturbing
fact that happens within our youth justice system, which boils
down to what my friend was focusing on, and that is the lack of
resources. Her biggest frustration is not being able to give the
youth in our justice system the help they need. The resources
from the federal government are not there, although, again, it
mentions the $206 million.
She told me that over 50% of the people who are in the youth
detention centre in Victoria have one form of psychological
problem or another. However, they do not have the resources to
give them the counselling and the programs they need to turn them
around and to make sure they do not come back.
The government has the responsibility to make sure that it puts
the resources out there so that the provinces will have the tools
they need to provide the rehabilitation that is so necessary.
Warehousing these youth, locking them up and not doing anything
with them while they are in the warehouse, not ensuring that they
are getting anger management, drug counselling and psychological
counselling from experts before they are released into society,
is a waste of time. We have to focus on that.
That is one area in which the government has really been slack.
1740
Another area, and my hon. friend also brought this up, is the
involvement of parents in the youth justice system. I do not
think the government has really done anything there.
Under section 7.2 of the old Young Offenders Act if a youth was
incarcerated and the judge was going to release them the judge
had a tool whereby the parent could be forced to sign an
undertaking that they would report any breaches of the
conditions. It could be a curfew, going to school or attending a
certain program. It could be anything. If that young offender
breached one of those conditions, it was absolutely imperative
that the adult or whoever signed the undertaking report it to the
authorities. It is not forcing parents to make sure they have
control over their children, but when they lose control they must
report it to the authorities.
There is a positive step. The old penalty was up to six months
and the new penalty is up to two years. I agree with my hon.
colleague from Surrey North. As he put it, maybe that will be
the incentive required to make parents fulfill their obligation,
because in many respects they are not. In the personal situation
of my good friend from Surrey North that did not happen.
I think we need to go one step further. We need to make sure
that we press charges, especially in the most violent cases where
there is absolutely no excuse for them not to report it or where
we can absolutely show that it was a blatant abuse of the system
and they did not report it when they knew about. I would submit
that is not happening now. That is something we should be doing.
My hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast spoke
about the importance of prevention. I really want to emphasize
that. That is where we need to be going in our youth justice
system. We have to look at prevention at the front end. We do
not want our youth put into warehouses and locked up. We want to
make sure they are productive members of society. There are
programs, such as the head start program put forward by the hon.
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca in Motion No. 261, which would
go a long way to achieving some of these goals.
At the end of the day we are now getting this new youth justice
bill and I do not think it is going to change a whole lot, as my
colleagues have stated. I do not think the government is putting
the resources into it that are required. I do not think it is
compelling the parents enough to participate in the process.
There should be a section in the bill which makes it mandatory
for parents or guardians of all young offenders, at all levels,
to be present in the courtroom. That is not happening now and it
will not happen under the new youth justice bill. For any young
offender who is before the courts, it should be absolutely
mandatory that a parent be there to participate in the process.
We know that young offenders are going to be released into
society. If they are going to succeed, then they are going to
need that parental support and we should be making it mandatory.
Again, I want to focus on the resources. I have practised
criminal law within the youth justice system and my own
experiences show that if we are going to make the changes
necessary, then we have to make sure that we provide the
resources necessary so that when our youth go askew, when they
fall under the cracks, there is accountability and that our
number one goal is not to warehouse them but to put them back
into society in a productive manner. To do that the people in
our justice system will need resources and tools. Under this
bill they will not have them. The $206 million does not even
come close to cutting it.
An hon. member: That is over three years.
Mr. Gary Lunn: I have just been reminded that that will
be over three years.
Again, I will bring this back to Judge Chaperon from Victoria,
who is a youth court judge. That is her biggest frustration.
The resources are not there so that when these kids go askew she
can make sure they get the help they so desperately need.
In many cases they had disastrous family backgrounds which are
absolutely beyond imagination.
It is up to us as a society to make sure we can give them at
least a fighting chance, get them into counselling programs or
life skills programs or whatever they need. If they need
psychological help we could provide it, but that is not there.
1745
My colleague from the Progressive Conservatives also talked
about Quebec and the opt out provision. I personally do not
think that we should be giving a province an opt out provision.
We need a national youth justice program. The reason it is
fighting for it is that what is on the table is not adequate. It
is not the answer.
At the end of the day there is no question we have seen the same
Young Offenders Act. There will not be a lot of difference.
There has been some tinkering, but there will not be much change
in how we administer our youth justice system. We have lost the
confidence of the Canadian people. We have lost the confidence
of the public. We have to restore that.
There has to be accountability and a twofold approach. When we
get them before the courts in the beginning we need a tough love
approach. Let us deal with them. Our number one goal is to make
sure that they never come back into the justice system again. I
am not talking about incarceration. I am talking about tough
programs and curfews that are mandatory so that they will not
want to come back. It will not be an easy ride. It will also
deal with the rehabilitative side.
Obviously there will be a second approach for the few that go
askew and will commit these incredible and horribly violent
offences. There will be accountability and we will deal with
them in a severe way so it will not carry on.
At the end of the day we have to restore the confidence of the
Canadian people in our youth justice system. Unfortunately the
bill basically repackages the Young Offenders Act with a new
outside but the same interior.
The Speaker: I am going to make a comment that is not on
the bill. I have watching these debates for most of the day and
I see that more and more members are speaking without notes. I
compliment the hon. member; I was here for his talk. I think
that is great.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will be
pleased to know that I too do not have a prepared speech to read
and put the House to sleep with.
Allow me to begin with an important quote, which could guide our
discussions today. It is from the report submitted by the Jasmin
task force, established by the Government of Quebec to look into
the application of the Young Offenders Act.
This excerpt is important in the context of the current debate.
The Jasmin report sates:
It is often easier to change a law than to change practices of
intervention.
It may be tempting to think that tougher legislation is the
answer to the problems of delinquency.
Simplistic responses blind us to the full extent of complex
problems and create the false impression that we are doing what
is necessary to resolve them.
One such simplistic response is substituting get-tough measures
for educational approaches. This, however, overlooks the fact
that adolescents are still in the process of learning, and it
means they are being saddled with full responsibility for
delinquency, as if the society and environment they live in had
nothing to do with it.
In today's debate, this should be a beacon guiding the minister
as regards the bill before us. But that is not what the Liberal
Party is doing. The minister should have travelled across the
country to explain that, as far as young offenders are
concerned, the best policy is the one advocated by Quebec, but
she did not do that.
Instead, the minister decided to reform herself. She decided to
adopt the philosophy of western cowboys. Members will recall
that the cowboy approach to young offenders was simple: shoot
first and ask questions later.
Listening to my colleagues from the Reform Party and the
Progressive Conservative Party, I could not help but wonder if
the hanging would be reintroduced. Why not have public hangings
while we are at it? The Reformers and the Conservatives are
going a little too far.
I condemn the Liberal government for moving toward such radical
solutions. It is not by changing the law to make it tougher and
by imposing exemplary sentences that we will solve the problem
with regard to young offenders.
1750
I think Quebec's approach was better. Unfortunately, as usual,
the minister and her cabinet colleagues simply ignored that
approach. She will engage in a big centralizing exercise. We
will have to wait and see how it will fit in with the various
provincial justice systems. We already know there will be a
problem in Quebec.
The minister claims, among a lot of other things, that the
existing legislation is not clear.
However, statistics do not lie. The crime rate in Quebec is the
lowest in Canada. Why has the minister not taken Quebec as
model instead of embracing the philosophy of the Reform Party
and western Canada and bringing forward such a harsh piece of
legislation to deal with young offenders? She even found a way
to criticize everything that is related to Quebec's justice
system and police forces.
The Government of Quebec does not agree with the minister's
bill. The Barreau du Québec does not agree. Most criminologists
have expressed great concern about the minister's approach.
Youth centres, which deal with young offenders and see to it
that they are rehabilitated instead of punished and put into a
system they will never get out of, have expressed their
opposition to the minister's proposal. And so has Quebec's
president of the bar.
I did not take many examples from the law, but one that caught
my eye is the one about publishing the names of the young
offenders. We consider this totally counterproductive.
Juvenile delinquency breeds new recruits for gangs like the
Hell's Angels and the Jokers. When a juvenile delinquent is
planning a career with the Hell's Angels, and his name appears
in the papers, he need only report to the Hell's Angels and say
“See what a naughty brat I am. I am ready to take over in a
motorcycle gang”.
It seems to me that publishing the name of these young people is
counterproductive. This is one of the measures I found in the
bill. There are a lot more.
What we have before us today is again two systems and two
values. The Quebec system believes in rehabilitation.
Under the Quebec system, all the energies of the justice system
and the police forces must go toward rehabilitating young
offenders who have not reached the age of majority. The
solution is not to send them to a harsh prison setting where
there is absolutely no chance of rehabilitation.
Quebec considers it important to give young people who have
committed an offence, whatever the offence, the opportunity to
rehabilitate themselves. Unfortunately, I think that the
minister opposes this. As usual, she holds the philosophy of
centralization under which all of Canada's justice systems,
Quebec's or that of other provinces, must align with the federal
system. That is totally deplorable.
There are not just the visions of Quebec and Canada that differ.
There are also two visions in the area I hold dear, Indian
affairs.
In most provinces, except in Quebec maybe, the rate of
incarceration of young natives is very high.
Some people understood how to deal with the issue in Quebec. A
travelling judge used to go to northern Quebec and attend what
they call sentencing circles. When a young native had a crime
problem, people gathered in a room and asked the community “What
can we do, by using a healing circle, to reintegrate this
teenager?” Some extraordinary things are being done in Quebec
but unfortunately not elsewhere.
This judge was Jean-Charles Coutu.
He travelled to the far north on a regular basis to solve
problems. Contrary to many judges and indeed to the minister's
philosophy, this judge sat down and, after having heard the
evidence and before sentencing, he would listen to what the
community had to suggest in order to rehabilitate the young
offender.
On numerous occasions, the judge agreed with the healing circle
and said “I will sentenced this young person according to what
you told me and we will see how successful rehabilitation will
be”.
1755
The rate of success was very high. Besides avoiding
overpopulating jails, they succeeded in rehabilitating those
young people.
This is why it is regrettable that the minister is leading us
down a different path and taking a hardline approach.
Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will have to vote against this
bill, for the main reasons I have just given.
The Speaker: Once more, dear colleague, I wish to congratulate
you. Except for the short quotation, you spoke without any
notes.
The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to finally get a chance to speak to the
government's attempt to revise and update the Young Offenders
Act. Contrary to popular belief, this is something for which
Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been calling for
years, not just cowboys from western Canada.
I find it ironic that my party gets abused for this. We are
portrayed as insensitive and tough minded when it comes to
criminals, yet the first thing the Liberals do when they trot out
their latest effort is to brag about how tough minded it is. I
guess we could say that it is pretty insensitive too, but in this
case it is insensitive to the wishes of a majority of Canadians
and certainly my constituents who are looking for a little more
meat on the bones.
The youth criminal justice act like other legislation that has
percolated up through months or years of consultation and study
contains a germ of good intentions. Section 6 formalizes the
role of police to correct the actions of young offenders who have
committed minor infractions.
Over the last few years our justice system has been bogged down
with the rights of the criminal to the point that police find
themselves on the defensive after carrying out their duties. What
was acceptable on one occasion is found unacceptable by a later
court. This process has made the officer's ability to deal with
people frustrating and time consuming.
At a town hall meeting one year ago my constituents told me that
for first time and minor offences rehabilitation is the top
priority. Local authorities must have the option of running
programs that suit local conditions and that bring young
offenders face to face with their victims and the impact of their
thoughtless actions. It is kind of based on the sentencing
circle model we see being used in the aboriginal communities.
I was told that young people must have respect for the justice
system. I believe that is something which cannot be started
young enough. The problem with Bill C-68 is that it leaves this
concept up to a variety of jurisdictions, a lot of them
overlapping, and it includes no money to encourage a system of
diversionary programs.
We are all in favour of civil rights and no one wants to see
anyone victimized by overzealous authorities. Unfortunately what
we too often see these days is the concept of human rights being
twisted and reinterpreted to what is more acceptable to special
interest groups and their particular needs rather than the
acceptance of everyone as being equal under the law. This
undermines the job of the police which is to keep the general
peace and apply the law equally to anyone who breaks it.
Young criminals see that concept operating and lose respect for
the law while they take advantage of the loopholes. I realize
these are qualifications. There is such a thing as diminished
capacity that suggests younger people cannot frame the moral
implications of what they are doing with the same sophistication
as a mature adult, but this does not mean there should be no
consequences, only different ones. I would hope the young people
of the country still have enough respect for the police to listen
and alter their behaviour when a man or a woman in blue comes
calling.
In rural areas, allowing police to use discretion and deal
openly with the young offender and his parents may save a lot of
time and trouble. The problem then becomes whether we can be
assured there will be enough officers to go around. With the
financial abuse suffered by the RCMP at the hands of the
government it is not a hopeful picture. Bill C-68 does not
promise any relief for hard pressed police forces in this
respect, or community programs for that matter.
It is ironic that the justice minister would choose to number
this bill with the same designation as the previous gun control
bill. We see over $200 million being wasted there when it could
certainly help prevent crime by being invested in our youth.
I congratulate my colleague from Crowfoot for his excellent work
in bringing forward the perspective of frontline police officers.
His name is not on the bill but his ideas are certainly stamped
there. Maybe in his lifetime we will see real change in the
country, in the words of the minister, “in a timely fashion”.
I notice in section 8 the crown prosecutors may likewise be
authorized to issue cautions rather than proceed with court
action. This can be different from province to province
according to the whims of each attorney general and can undermine
the work of the police. I realize that criminal cases cannot go
forward on the exclusive say-so of the police, but we do see
instances where overworked crown attorneys trade off low profile
cases for higher ones to the frustration of the frontline
officers.
I also note there is a great deal in the bill about diversion or,
as the government terms it, extra judicial measures.
1800
Contrary to government spin, I do not believe that any of the
Reformers or the two million Canadians who voted for us are
interested in filling our jails with young people. That is not
the answer. We had the unfortunate spectacle of the justice
minister claiming we want to jail 10 year olds and I am sure even
she regrets playing these political games in order to score
points.
The entire justice committee heard and put forward in the report
the need for action expressed by Canadians. My constituents said
that 16 and 17 year old repeat violent offenders should be
treated as near adults rather than near children. I will repeat
that. We are talking about repeat violent offenders being
treated as near adults rather than near children.
Young children are being targeted for participation in criminal
activities by older youth offenders and career criminal adults
who believe they are untouchable and maybe will remain so under
this redecorated bill. Unless 10 year olds are taken under wing
by the justice system, especially a stronger system than we see
today, they will be headed for future problems that all of
society ends up paying for.
The member for Surrey North has logged countless hours with
diversion programs that work. Every clear-thinking Canadian
would like to see young people corrected before their
misbehaviour leads to serious jail time.
The Liberal version of extra judicial measures has enough holes
in it to drive a stolen car through. The definition of offenders
who will be eligible for diversionary programs can include those
very car thieves, drug traffickers and break and enter criminals
as long as they do not “cause or create a substantial risk of
causing bodily harm”. That is a loose term.
Like so many other statutes in law, this is open to
interpretation. I can imagine courts taking up time defining
what has happened before ever getting around to deciding what to
do about it.
I wonder if teenagers out on a joy ride in a stolen car
represent a substantial risk of causing bodily harm or an
insubstantial one. I guess it depends on whether they run over
anyone or not. Does whacking another fellow on the head with a
lead pipe constitute more of a risk causing bodily harm than
whacking him on the knee? I guess it all comes down to
interpretation.
In section 9 we see that evidence of an offender having received
extra judicial measures or special status on previous occasions
is not admissible for proving prior offending behaviour. Like the
closed file that we have now, the record of trouble with the law
cannot be entered as evidence that the person is a repeat
offender. The youth is safe again. This means that young
offenders and drug traffickers could be diverted from serving
jail time over and over again. They will not be called repeat
offenders, never having been designated as repeat offenders,
because each case will be or may be treated as a one time event.
We can hope that this will not happen in practice but the opening
is definitely there to be tested.
The definitions are all open to interpretation and challenge.
As I said, our clogged court system will spend more time chasing
its own tail and it will vary from province to province.
My constituents at the town hall meeting said that the central
concept of the youth justice system must be that actions have
consequences and that legal actions will bring swift and
appropriate punishment. Instead, Bill C-68 brings more arguments
between judges and lawyers. I guess that is a perverse Liberal
job creation.
It is in the area of definitions and interpretations that gets
us most in trouble. The justice minister has said that there are
competing visions for competing cultures in law. She seemed to
suggest there is a simplistic vision which wants to jail all
transgressors and a more compassionate vision which wants to be
flexible and helpful.
As every parent knows, there is room for both of these
approaches when bringing up our young people. Parents know that
sometimes we have to be firm and say no. When the line is drawn,
the consequences for crossing it must be immediate and relevant,
scaled up or down to fit the nature of the situation. My
constituents were clear on this very distinction.
It is ironic that a government that keeps claiming a role in
raising the next generation refuses to make the tough choices
that parents must do every day. We do not see clear lines drawn
in the bill so much as circles. We read about what may be done
or what should be happening in a variety of cases and in
different jurisdictions. This could be interpreted as
flexibility, but in light of the present state of underfunded,
overworked and handcuffed police forces in the country, I think
we can see it as an abdication of a government bent on being
politically correct and offending as few groups as possible while
turning the whole mess over to the courts. That is simplistic;
just pass the buck but not the money.
The old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,
certainly defines the direction we must entertain regarding our
youth justice.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this bill and to
remind the House that we are debating the amendment introduced
by the hon. member for Laval Centre.
1805
That amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-68, an Act in respect of criminal justice for young
persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be not now read a
second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn
and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights.
Why has the Bloc Quebecois introduced this amendment? Because,
basically, this bill is unacceptable.
It does not seek to improve the treatment given young offenders,
ensuring that they may be rehabilitated or reintegrated into
society. It has nothing to do with improving a system that
might not be working properly at the present time and might need
some improvement. What it does have to do with is vote seeking.
In western Canada, the mindset is more punitive. They would
like to see far more severe measures. It would seem that the
present government has decided to bow to the pressures from that
part of the country and to bring in changes to a system that is
already working very well. At least, it is working very well in
Quebec. We have a quite attractive record for our effectiveness
at rehabilitating young people and reintegrating them back into
society.
Quebeckers are not necessarily more peace minded than others but
we in Quebec have developed good tools to give young people a
second chance when their behaviour gets them in trouble with the
law.
We have put a lot of energy into this, spent money, put
structures in place and trained judges and lawyers. We have also
trained many stakeholders so that first offenders are more
generally dealt with at the community level, made to realize the
seriousness of their actions, and put in a context where they
are able to change their behaviour and not go back to their old
ways.
There are provisions of the existing legislation that run
contrary to this approach, and we find that totally
unacceptable. First there is the publication of names.
The bill provides for the publication of the names of young
persons having committed an indictable offence. This will be
counterproductive. Young people who commit crimes as part of a
gang are often looking for a way to gain recognition; to release
information would only reinforce the negative aspects of their
actions.
I believe this kind of attitude is more in keeping with the
promotion of a punitive approach. This is not a good model. It
has not yielded good results so far.
In Quebec we have developed our own approach.
Statistics show that we are successful in rehabilitating young
offenders. Most of them manage to find their place in society
and live a normal life. This should be the purpose of such an
act.
This purpose is not to make sure that we impose the harshest
possible penalty on someone who committed a reprehensible act,
but to make sure that the offender understands what he has done
and that conditions are created whereby he will not reoffend but
rather lead the life of a regular citizen.
In that sense, the existing legislation is effective. It fulfils
its objectives. However, there is a prerequisite, which is the
will to succeed. We must therefore invest the necessary energy
and resources.
If we take a totally different approach and say that it is not
worth the effort, that it is pointless to invest in resources to
rehabilitate young offenders, that we can always rely on the
punitive approach, the model developed in Quebec cannot be
successful.
We currently find ourselves in a very difficult situation in
Canada. The government wants to change an act that works well.
It is fundamentally effective. It allows us to achieve good
results, but now they want to change it. We will find ourselves
in a situation where, in spite of the minister's claims, the
punitive approach, the negative approach will be prevalent all
across Canada.
When judges will have to make a ruling in certain circumstances,
the precedents will be such that, in the end, over the years,
the new act will have an impact that could undermine the
approach developed by Quebec.
1810
Another important point is that incarceration is not a solution,
and there is evidence of that everywhere in our society.
Incarceration of a young person has often turned prison into a
school of crime. A young person may have committed an offence
once, and there are two choices for him or her. The first choice
is to send that person to prison, where he or she can learn a
lot of things for the rest of his or her life, for example how
to engage in illegal activities or how to become part of the
underworld. The second choice, which avoids incarceration,
forces that young person to face the reality of our society,
teaches him or her how to become self-confident and how to use
the legal means that exist, and ultimately makes a responsible
citizen out of him or her. I think it is an interesting example
from that point of view.
I would invite the minister to take another look at the results
achieved in Quebec. The essence of the amendment brought forward
by the Bloc Quebecois is to say that it is simply impossible
today, with what we have, to make the changes the federal
government wants us to make because we would be destroying a
system that is working well.
There are enough things that need to be improved in our society
without making changes in this area. Maybe people will say, 10,
15 or 20 years from now, that Quebec had the right approach. If
we are very strict and if we put a lot of people in prison, we
will have results that will look more like the American model,
and I do not think that is what we want.
If some things need improving in the present legislation—no
legislation is perfect—they can perhaps be improved, but not the
way the bill has been drafted. As my colleague says, we must
not throw the baby out with the bath water. What is needed are
amendments that would let those provinces interested in adopting
a model similar to Quebec's do so, with appropriate funding.
The bill should have included provisions allowing those
governments who wish to do so to take a constructive approach
and invest in approaches like youth courts, youth homes, all
sorts of closed custody facilities, whatever is available. We
encourage them to explore these avenues. Provinces who try this
approach will see that it works. In Quebec, there are fewer
long term jail sentences and crime has been down for several
years now.
This must be allowed to continue and the American model, with
its increase in crime, avoided.
I have one final point. In the case of 14 and 15-year olds, the
bill also contains a provision allowing a judge to base his
decision directly on the Criminal Code, as though it were a case
involving an adult, rather than referring the case to an adult
court. There is a world of difference because, as things now
stand, when a judge wishes to have a young person sentenced on
an adult basis, he simply refers him to the other court. At
that point, a defence can be prepared accordingly, and judges
and stakeholders, who are accustomed to working with a more
community based model, the model developed by Quebec, take an
approach different from the one taken when a youth is referred
to another court.
The bill wanted to have these two models implemented in the same
way by the same court, which would not, in my opinion, be a
worthwhile solution.
In conclusion, then, we are faced here with a bill that needs
reworking as far as its very principles are concerned. I invite
the government and the entire Liberal deputation to influence
the minister and the cabinet so that it will not seek to win
votes at the expense of young offenders aged 13, 14 or 15, who
have lots of other things to worry about besides a punitive
approach that will follow them all their lives.
The Speaker: Allow me to congratulate the hon. member for
speaking without written notes. That was very good.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
1815
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is an old expression, the elephant laboured and
brought forth a mouse, except I think in this specific instance
perhaps one could say more accurately the mouse laboured and
brought forth a gnat.
What has the government actually accomplished after two long
years of labour? There is a new name. The YOA is now the YCJA.
That sounds like a song. From the government's point of view
that is probably a good thing because the YOA was a lightning rod
which attracted the anger of the Canadian people against the
justice system of this country. Everything that was, is and
probably will eternally be wrong, was indeed directed against
that one specific act. So it had to be changed. There had to be
a little sleight of hand, a little cosmetic surgery and it came
up with a brand new bill which is supposed to have us all very
excited.
There are some actual changes in the bill if one goes through
the reams and reams of paper. There appear to be some changes.
The age of responsibility with respect to sentencing for certain
violent crimes has ostensibly been lowered to 14 years of age.
Superficially this addresses a major public concern. There has
been a lot of outcry about that over the last few years, but what
has actually been done is merely to create a treasure trove for
lawyers.
In order to get the 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds into the adult
justice system for sentencing, there has to be a court battle, a
trial within a trial because any young person so charged can,
through his or her lawyer, apply to the court to have his or her
sentencing done in youth court. Naturally nobody will pass up
the opportunity, so there will be eternal legal battles as to who
will be sentenced as an adult and who will be sentenced as a
youth.
This is an act written by lawyers for lawyers. Of course we all
know that lawyers do look after their own. The justice minister
recently found $83,000 in her stocking to reward a lawyer who
also just happens to be a Liberal hack for three months of work.
What a great example to set for the kids.
I had a letter from a constituent who said he wished we could
pass a law making it illegal for lawyers to sit in parliament. I
do not know how far that would go but perhaps it is worthy of
some consideration.
Bill C-68 fails to address the major public complaint against
the Young Offenders Act. That is the lack of accountability for
repeat or serious offenders who happen to be less than 12 years
old. The minister babbles interminably and incoherently that
inclusion of 10 and 11 year olds within the youth justice system
process would be “barbaric”. However she refuses to accept the
reality that these children desperately need help, help that they
are clearly not getting from the provincial child welfare and
mental health systems on which they are dumped by the justice
system because there are no alternatives.
Hundreds of kids are reoffending and laughing at the
powerlessness of their social workers while feeling deeply hurt
by the disinterest of their parents. By the time they reach
their teens, they are hardened little criminals. We have to do
something for these youngsters.
Most proponents of the idea that there should not be any
legislation governing 11 and 12 year olds have the curious idea
that young children cannot make reasoned decisions, that they are
incapable of being judgmental. Those people certainly have not
raised any kids. They have never been confronted with the guile
of even the most benign and sensitive 11 year old.
1820
On the good side, this bill will permit publication of names of
young offenders more than 14 years old who qualify for adult
sentences or who received a youth sentence for a particularly
heinous crime. But again there is no certainty, again there is
room for dispute, so let us call that initiative half good.
Alternative sentencing for first time non-violent offenders is,
in my opinion, only common sense, as long as it is indeed limited
to such offenders and not extended to young thugs who cause
bodily harm. Similarly it should not be extended to old thugs
who cause bodily harm and it sometimes is.
Diversion programs are also a very good idea, very laudable, but
as my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster pointed out, the
provision as written is wide open for abuse. There has to be
some certainty in the law. This is all so wishy-washy, so poorly
tied together. Again it is written by lawyers for lawyers. They
can probably figure it out. They can find all the loopholes.
They know where to jump to get over the barriers.
However it does not improve the justice system in this country
by one iota. All it does is put a new coat of paint on the old
YOA, and I think this is not an exaggeration, which almost
everybody wanted to get rid of.
The government had the chance. It could have given us good law,
but we are right back almost where we started from.
[Translation]
Before concluding, I would like to voice my objections to the
string of insulting comments the Bloc Quebecois has been making
about the west and westerners.
Imagine the fuss there would be if we dared to make such
comments about la Belle Province. Attacks like these are
revolting.
The Speaker: I congratulate the hon. member on his speech.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise before the House today to debate the government's new
youth justice strategy.
For months, even years, Canadians from across the country have
been calling on government to get tougher with youth crime. The
recent highly publicized events that took place in Colorado and
Alberta and the murder of young Reena Virk in B.C. have pushed
this issue one step further. They are vicious acts which really
need to be addressed.
I believe all provinces were united in their belief that
immediate steps had to be taken to protect society against
individual youths who for whatever reason have chosen to follow
the path of hate and destruction. Calls from throughout Canada
could be heard in support of amending the Young Offenders Act to
more aptly respond to the more serious acts of violence that all
too often are threatening our friends and family.
[Translation]
There is no doubt that our justice system needs a major overhaul
as it concerns young offenders. Canadians have become tired of
hearing that young criminals do not pay enough for the error
they commit against our society.
[English]
There is no question that the time has long since passed whereby
those youth who commit violent crimes finally pay their debt to
society. It is with this realization that the provincial justice
ministers met with the federal justice minister to discuss
appropriate ways of implementing changes to the Young Offenders
Act, changes that would reflect society's revulsion toward the
leniency the present system has been according to our young
offenders.
It was only natural that Canadians awaited the change to the
Young Offenders Act with great anticipation. Finally they
thought that this government was committed to cracking down on
young offenders.
Finally they thought that the government was going to take youth
crime seriously.
1825
Canadians from coast to coast were bitterly disappointed to
discover that the government was not serious in its commitment to
try to put an end to youth crime. They found out instead that the
government was only interested in providing cosmetic changes that
fell far short of what the provinces wanted and what the Canadian
electorate expected in terms of protection against youth crime.
One of our key recommendations put forth to the minister was the
lowering of the age of application for the Young Offenders Act
from the age of 12 to 10 years. It was a private member's bill
before the House. Although this request received wide ranging
support across the country, the minister chose to ignore this
recommendation. This was in spite of the fact that offenders
have progressively become younger. This begs the question why
the federal minister would ignore the advice of not only her
provincial counterparts but also of her experts who recommended
that this particular change be accepted.
[Translation]
The federal minister wants us to believe that young offenders
under 12 years of age will be better served in facilities for
youth than in prison.
How can that be possible, when the federal government first
refused to honour the agreements in the first bill on young
offenders? And now, in this new bill, it is not even offering
50% of the money needed to provide these programs to our young
offenders.
[English]
The government did not live up to the funding agreements
contained in the previous Young Offenders Act. This act does
nothing to restore the federal share of funding for youth
justice. The lack of financial resources contained within the
new youth criminal justice act can only result in more youth
falling through the cracks.
This piece of legislation specifically ignores provincial
demands for mandatory minimum sentences for weapons offences. I
think it is quite reasonable to expect that Canada's legal system
operate in uniformity when it comes to passing judgments against
our young offenders. The Liberal government could well have
provided some direction to our provincial justice ministers.
Instead it chose to once again ignore their requests.
The size and complexity of the clauses and subclauses contained
within this bill will invariably lead to confusion and further
backlog in our courts. Our judicial system is already struggling
with huge caseloads and serious lack of resources. This act will
serve only to further complicate crown prosecutors and judges
about their respective roles in the youth justice system and will
not adequately serve Canadian interests.
There have been many reasons associated with committing crime
among Canada's youth. It has often been suggested by some that
one of the reasons behind youth crime is that they find
themselves living in extreme poverty. Although I do not believe
that poverty in itself is a cause for youth crime, it certainly
can be a mitigating factor.
Like the Young Offenders Act, the government has also failed to
address poverty. Millions of Canadians continue to struggle to
survive while living in poverty. Over 1.5 million Canadian
children live in poverty. Our party has been working with
poverty for the last while. The government showed Canadians its
true commitment to Canada's poor when it voted against Bill S-11,
a bill that would help improve their lives by adding social
condition as a prohibited ground for discrimination.
The government had an opportunity to make a profound and lasting
impact on Canada's justice system that would serve all Canadians
for years to come. Instead the government chose to employ smoke
and mirrors in hopes of giving the appearance of strengthening
legislation when in fact its changes fall far short of what the
provinces expected and what Canadians demanded.
1830
Like most Canadians, I am disappointed with the contents of the
bill. It will not have the desired effect of helping our
judicial system combat youth crime in Canada. Therefore, I must
oppose this proposed legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
The House resumed, from May 6, consideration of the motion that
Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999, be read the third
time and passed.
The Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to
the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third
reading of Bill C-71.
Call in the members.
1855
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to vote
in favour of Bill C-71.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Williams – 77
|
PAIRED
Members
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Cardin
| Chan
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Redman
| St - Hilaire
| Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a
consequential amendment to another act, be read the third time
and passed.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on
the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-66.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote
just taken to the question now before the House.
1900
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to
vote against Bill C-66.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 141
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Venne
| Williams
– 78
|
PAIRED
Members
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Cardin
| Chan
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Redman
| St - Hilaire
| Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative
option marketing), be read the second time and referred to
committee.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on
the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-393 under
Private Members' Business.
We will take this vote as we usually do. The mover of the
motion, the member for Sarnia—Lambton to my right, will have the
first vote. Then we will have those in favour to my right,
coming down to the front row and those in favour to my left,
coming down from the fifth row to the front row.
1910
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 196
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Guay
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Marchand
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Rocheleau
| Turp
| Venne – 23
|
PAIRED
Members
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Cardin
| Chan
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Redman
| St - Hilaire
| Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-72, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are
consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980)
and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the
Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain
acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and
passed; and of the motion that the question be now put.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the
third reading stage of Bill C-72.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the first bill we voted on
this evening, Bill C-71, be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois
members will oppose the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no
to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
members present will vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this motion is
unparliamentary and undemocratic. On behalf of my constituents I
will vote against it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marchand
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Williams
– 77
|
PAIRED
Members
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Cardin
| Chan
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Redman
| St - Hilaire
| Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The next question
is on third reading of Bill C-72.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent in
the House to record the members who have just voted as voting on
the motion now before the House, with Liberals voting yes.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the taxes are too high. We are
voting no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois
members will vote in favour of the motion.
1915
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the taxes are unfair. The
NDP members vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members who are
present will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the government still has
to scrap the GST, so I vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 162
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Borotsik
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Duncan
| Epp
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Williams – 57
|
PAIRED
Members
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Cardin
| Chan
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duceppe
| Eggleton
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Marchi
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
|
Redman
| St - Hilaire
| Szabo
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part tonight in the adjournment
proceedings to discuss the upcoming negotiations on agriculture
within the World Trade Organization.
As I stated in the House on April 19, it is important that the
government be familiar with the views of all parts of the
agriculture sector that may be positively or adversely affected
by the trade talks.
In Canada, agricultural trade is more often than not a small
family business competing against the world's largest
corporations. In many ways it is like David versus Goliath,
which makes it vitally important that we have a strong,
consistent federal government looking out for the interests of
agriculture.
We need rules that let the small guy trade with the big. We are
all for world trade, but only if the rules are applied equally.
Let us look at the recent example of Canadian beef not being
allowed access to the European Union. I support our government's
efforts to get tough by using the rules already in place to take
action against the EU.
Trade rules applied equally and fairly are sentiments shared by
many groups, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
but also the Ontario wheat producers, Ontario pork producers and
Ontario dairy farmers to name but a few from my province.
Horticulture too is import sensitive but export dependent. This
sector is but one example of the great stake they hold in the
talks.
These negotiations, scheduled for November 30 to December 3 in
Seattle, are crucial to Canadian egg, dairy and poultry farmers.
They want the WTO to focus on eliminating subsidies, suggesting
that the United States and the European Union still continue to
subsidize their farmers while Canada has lived up to its previous
commitments.
It is great to be free traders in Canada, but the world also
must be fair traders.
1920
Tariff rate quotas must also be set realistically and not
artificially inflated according to the amount the importing
countries can actually accept or afford.
We have known for two years in advance that agriculture will be
on the bargaining table at the next WTO talks. For those years
meetings have been held by Agriculture Canada officials with a
cross section of producers groups. Meanwhile, our supply
management system has proven year in and year out its
effectiveness.
The new issues that should emerge in Seattle this fall will deal
with biotech products and single desk buying and selling. Canada
currently cannot send genetically altered canola to Europe any
longer because of their fear of genetics, based on Britain's mad
cow disease.
Members will know that there are no black and whites in trade,
just varying shades of grey. Thus it is important that Canada
stick to a position based on the views of all our agriculture
sectors and not trade one off against the other. It is a tough
row to hoe because of the very complicated issues that will
discussed.
I remain hopeful that the World Trade Organization negotiations
this fall will work toward implementing effective rules that will
be fairly enforced enabling our agricultural producers to compete
head on with a level playing field.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to thank the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for her
question. She is a strong member of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food. She has shown a great and abiding
interest in Canada's upcoming negotiations with our WTO partners.
These are crucial talks and the government has a firm commitment
to consult closely with the agriculture and food sector and with
provincial governments before its establishes an initial
negotiating position for the upcoming World Trade Organization
negotiations on agriculture.
Recently in Ottawa, people from all parts of the agriculture and
food sector and from all regions of the country came together to
provide their advice about the elements of an initial Canadian
position.
The conference heard that Canada should seek to eliminate export
subsidies in the upcoming negotiations. Participants also
indicated that Canada should push to improve market access,
particularly with respect to minimum access commitments.
Industry participants called for clearer rules and stronger
disciplines on trade distorting domestic subsidies.
Finally, the industry indicated that Canada should continue to
insist that health and safety standards should be based on
science not emotion.
These are some of the main highlights of the discussion. The
government has listened carefully to all the views expressed at
the conference and they will be considered as we work to develop
a negotiating position.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial
counterparts will discuss the outcome of the consultations at
their meeting in Prince Albert this coming July. The government
will then take a decision on an initial agricultural negotiating
position that will truly reflect the needs and interests of
Canadian agriculture in the food sector.
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my four minute speech will not be a
love in like the one we just heard. The House is now going to
hear some real opposition.
The auditor general recently came out with his report. Chapter
4 discusses the incredible deficiencies within the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Recently I asked a question of the
minister and got an answer back from the parliamentary secretary
regarding shrimp discarding or high-grading.
About a year ago in committee, the member for Labrador asked if
there was massive high-grading of shrimp and discarding of small
pieces of broken shrimp going on within our 200 mile limit off
the coast of Labrador. A letter from industry addressed to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and copied for all members of
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans stated that
high-grading was extremely rare and does not happen as massively
or as proportionately as the member for Labrador had indicated.
In a recent meeting we had with the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans I asked if high-grading or discarding of shrimp happened
within our 200 mile limit off the coast of Labrador? The answer
was a very solid yes. The next question was how much of this was
happening? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated that
he did not know the answer.
It only leads us to believe that the member from Labrador, who
is in the government's own party, was correct when he said there
were very large amounts of high-grading and discarding of shrimp
going on within the 200 mile limit. That begs the question: How
can this happen?
The government has announced in its recent estimates for the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans a further cut of 17%,
totalling $54 million, to science and research over the next
three years. This is at a time when the world is clamouring for
more scientific information.
1925
We just heard the parliamentary secretary to the minister of
agriculture say that what we need is good science. The auditor
general has indicated, and I hope he is listening, that 5,000
scientists have been cut from the federal service. These are up
and coming scientists, scientists with basic knowledge and long
term knowledge of the various industries.
The government talks about needing better science. We cannot
have better science if it keeps laying them all off. There are
two things we can do to scientists to ruin their careers: take
away their funding and discredit their reports. That is what
happens here all the time.
We recently had a concern about seals. There were two prominent
scientists from Newfoundland, who indicated we have to have a
seal cull and the other indicated we cannot have a seal cull.
If the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not the final
source of good, solid, sound information, then where do the
fishermen and their communities get this information from?
I am asking the parliamentary secretary to answer the following
questions. How can the government justify a $54 million cut to
science? What is the government doing about the high-grading of
shrimp, that is the discarding of shrimp off our coastal waters?
Will the government put science back into the information so that
fishermen, plant workers, communities and the provinces can have
sound, long term management plans for the fisheries off our east
coast?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we would not expect
a love-in from the hon. member opposite but we certainly would
like him to get his facts straight. He is considerably wrong on
some of his facts this evening.
I will deal first with the high-grading of northern shrimp.
There is no question the department is concerned about this
practice which is illegal and wastes shrimp. As a result the
minister announced increased observer coverage and comparisons of
observed and unobserved catches in the inshore fishery. That is
a practice that has been going on. There is greater evidence
that kind of observer system works. It was talked about at
committee the other day, I believe, by the minister.
This will provide better data on what is happening on the water
and will allow the detection of violations. The auditor general,
and I hope he is listening as well, commented positively on these
measures as steps being taken by the department to better monitor
the fishery and to better use observer data. That is a step
forward.
The overriding concern of the minister is to conserve living
marine resources and to ensure they are used in a sustainable
manner. In all fisheries, decisions on quota levels are based on
the best scientific information available. It is not just
numbers of scientists. It is how that information is collected,
how it is tabulated and how decisions are made. If this
information is uncertain, we err on the side of caution, meaning
that quotas might be set lower and additional conservation
measures might be introduced.
Keep in mind that these are temporary allocations that are
recommended and can be withdrawn when the science dictates
otherwise.
The Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.28 p.m.)