36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 40
CONTENTS
Friday, November 28, 1997
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-10. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1010
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1015
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1030
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1035
1040
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
1055
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1100
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOE BEELEN
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FEDERALISM
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1105
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD & YOUTH FRIENDLY OTTAWA
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INSTITUT DE PHARMACOLOGIE
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEAL HUNT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1110
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE JOHN SOPINKA
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHRISTMAS BASKET CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TFO TELEVISION NETWORK
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1115
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1120
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KYOTO SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1125
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1130
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCE-QUEBEC AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1135
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALGERIA
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1140
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1145
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVANTS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEBT REDUCTION
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1150
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THUNDER BAY
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1155
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAIRY INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1200
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-10. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1205
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
1230
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
1235
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CO-OPERATIVES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-5. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1240
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1245
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1250
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1305
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1310
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CO-OPERATIVES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-5. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1315
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1320
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1325
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1330
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2—Notice of time allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 93
|
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1350
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1355
1400
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1405
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1410
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1415
1420
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1425
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1430
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 40
![](/web/20061116174045im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 28, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, an act to
implement a convention between Canada and Sweden, a convention
between Canada and the Republic of Lithuania, a convention
between Canada and the Republic of Kazakhstan, a convention
between Canada and the Republic of Iceland and a convention
between Canada and the Kingdom of Denmark for the avoidance of
double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect
to taxes on income and to amend the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax
Convention Act, 1986 and the Canada-United States Tax Convention
Act, 1984, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When shall the bill
be read a third time? By leave now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, this involves tax
treaties with a number of countries including Denmark, Iceland,
Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Sweden and The Netherlands, but most
important or certainly most in the news has been the amendments
involving our treaty with the United States of America. This
important amendment is taking place in terms of social security
benefits which are paid by the American government to people
living in Canada.
The effects of this tax apply basically to about 60,000
Canadians. About one-third of these are low income residents of
Canada who are still in receipt of U.S. social security benefits.
Under the current law the Americans are entitled to withhold
25.5% of these social security payments they make to people
living in Canada. Where these recipients, approximately 20,000
of them, lose out is if they were taxed at ordinary Canadian
income tax rates on these benefits, their tax rates, because they
are in lower income brackets, would be much lower.
Therefore, this blanket withholding of 25.5% by the Americans is
a detriment to these particular residents of Canada.
1010
This is why we have undertaken on their behalf to renegotiate
this treaty to ensure that they can be taxed not by the source
country, the United States, by way of withholding, but in Canada
where they would be taxed on their net income. Many of these low
income residents of Canada will end up paying no taxes
whatsoever.
For recipients of U.S. social security benefits who are in
higher tax brackets, there will also be a relieving position
which comes about because only 85% of the benefits will go into
taxable incomes, rather than 100%. This is mirroring the way the
United States would tax its residents on this income.
This bill has gone through the House for second reading where it
received great support from all sides. It has gone to both
committees where they have sent it back unamended. It is of
course important that we enter into these new treaties with new
trading partners so that Canada can continue to be at the
forefront of avoiding double taxation and encouraging
international investment, international flows of currency,
international jobs, but particularly in terms of our provisions
dealing with the Americans.
It is very important that we make these relieving provisions so
that we can get on with the job of making sure that these people
are treated fairly by both the United States and Canada as it
relates to their social security benefits.
[Translation]
I would like to repeat what the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said about
getting the co-operation of all parties because the main purpose
of this bill is to remedy a fundamental inequity for low income
persons.
[English]
We expect that as soon as this passes—and we certainly hope to
have the unanimous support of all members of the House—that it
will be signed into law very quickly and receive royal assent. We
understand that the United States has done all that is necessary
except receive presidential signature on this bill. As soon as
it goes through, we would expect that within a few weeks, or in
as short a time as possible, refund cheques will be sent out.
Revenue Canada will be co-operating with the U.S. revenue
authorities to track down every person who might have been
unfairly prejudiced over the last two years by these provisions.
We expect, with the support of all members, to be able to
correct this inequity and to make sure that the taxpayers in
Canada who have been unfairly prejudiced are going to get their
refunds.
I thank all members of this House for their splendid
co-operation on this excellent bill.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to address
Bill C-10, an act to implement the convention between Canada and
Sweden, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Lithuania, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Kazakhstan, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Iceland and a convention between Canada and the Kingdom of
Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention
of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend
the 1986 Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention Act and the
Canada-U.S. Tax Convention Act of 1984.
I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the insatiable
snack-packer from Calgary West.
It is clear that the proposed conventions with Sweden,
Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Iceland and Denmark are important tax
treaties. Neither myself nor any member of the official
opposition would argue that these conventions are in and of
themselves bad fiscal policy.
The thought of unchecked tax duplication is enough to make any
of us a little uneasy. Much of Bill C-10 concerns simple—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
would forgive me, I think I heard that the hon. member would like
to share his time. At this particular point in the
interventions, we, without unanimous consent, cannot split his
time. I just wanted to make you aware of that.
1015
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Can I seek the unanimous consent of the
House?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, much of Bill C-10 concerns
simple parliamentary housekeeping. I think my hon. colleague
from Calgary West would agree with that.
However, as my hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast has pointed
out in past debates on this bill, part VII of this act concerning
tax treatment of social security payments from the U.S. social
security fund to Canadian residents reveals another Liberal tax
gouge.
I am losing track but I think this is tax hike number 38, what a
record.
Arguments have been made in this House and in committee that this
bill will make amendments to the 1995 third protocol that will
increase tax fairness and provide tax relief for lower income
Canadian seniors.
Tax relief and fairness for low income seniors is an important
and noble goal but unfortunately it is a goal that will not be
achieved through this legislation.
In fact, I find it difficult to belief that tax relief is the
goal of a Liberal government at all because the very tax treaty
that imposed a 25% flat withholding tax for U.S. social security
payments coming to Canadian residents was negotiated and agreed
on by this government, the very government whose members are
saying that it was an unfair agreement.
To fully understand this issue, I have to review the history of
public policy on social security payments and taxation. It has
given me a pretty clear idea of the low quality of the
legislation before us today.
The 1984 U.S.-Canada Income Tax Convention Act allowed 50% of
social security payments to Canadian residents to be included for
purposes of Canadian taxation. That made a lot of sense because
it was the same treatment that U.S. recipients of social security
have. That is to say 50% of their social security payments were
included for the purposes of taxation. With only 50% of their
social security payments included for taxation, many low and
middle income seniors avoided paying any taxes on their social
security income.
This policy was changed in 1995 when the government entered into
negotiations with the Americans to produce the third protocol
which imposed a 25% flat withholding tax on those payments being
made to American residents retiring in Canada.
For low income seniors, this meant 25% of their income
disappeared. After Canadian seniors let this government know
that their treatment under the third protocol was completely
unacceptable, the government went back to the table.
The fourth protocol, the results of which are included in Bill
C-10, would see the inclusion rate of U.S. social security
payments rise from 50%, as it was before 1985, to 85%. That is a
70% increase on the inclusion rate.
Every senior who pays taxes will now pay more under this
legislation. It is not just wealthy seniors, it is all taxpaying
seniors who will be hit by this tax grab. This very fact was
admitted in committee and, while I was not privy to the
discussions, it was a matter of public record. Section 7 of part
VII of Bill C-10 is clearly another Liberal tax grab.
When seniors suffering under the 1985 treaty asked for tax
fairness, when they asked the government to do something about
the 25% withholding tax, they were not looking for a 70% tax
increase.
What this policy will do is penalize any and all seniors who
have private savings that supplement their incomes so that they
are at least within the lowest tax bracket.
Middle income seniors who have made sacrifices and wise
financial choices about their retirements are being punished.
This is not exclusively the very rich. It is every senior who
pays taxes and who collects the U.S. seniors benefits, whether
they make $10,000 a year or $1 million.
I am sure that this point will be ignored and my colleagues from
across the way will remark that Reform is protecting the
interests of the wealthy. This is simply not true and I would
ask my colleagues to think about the facts before they perpetuate
misunderstandings and misinformation.
1020
Further to the issue of U.S. social security payments to
Canadian residents it must be known that unlike CPP payments that
are taxed only as income when they are withdrawn, U.S. social
security payments are taxed at the time they are made and not
when they are withdrawn. So Canadians receiving U.S. social
security benefits have already paid taxes on those benefits.
A Canadian working in the U.S. would pay taxes on his or her
premiums but would pay little or no taxes when he or she claimed
the benefits. This makes sense since seniors are less able to pay
the taxes when they are on a fixed income in their retirement
years.
If that worker who contributed to the U.S. social security
system moved back to Canada he or she would have to pay taxes on
85% of his or her social security income. They are being taxed
twice. This is not only unfair, it violates the intended goals of
our tax convention which is to eliminate any tax duplication.
I want to stress some key points before I conclude. First, this
legislation was rushed through the industry committee. The critic
for this bill, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, only
discovered that Bill C-10 would proceed through the industry by
chance at the last minute. This makes me pretty suspicious that
this legislation contains merely house cleaning matters.
Second, as I understand, the chair of the industry committee
disallowed the hon. member for Calgary Southeast to request that
seniors affected by Bill C-10 be allowed to testify before the
committee. If there were nothing offensive in the legislation,
the government would have nothing to fear from being transparent.
Another unfounded concern that came up in committee is that
Reform is trying to delay the issuance of cheques owed to seniors
by not allowing Bill C-10 to be fast tracked through the
committee. Bill C-10 provides for the partial or full refund to
some seniors of the IRS to a 25% withholding tax which occurred
because of the original Liberal bill that was flawed.
The government has also said that Reform is doing this in an
attempt to protect a small group of high income seniors from
taxes. This is not true. The facts are every senior who receives
U.S. social security and who pays taxes will pay more under this
legislation. The inclusion rate for calculating taxable income
moves from 50% under the pre-1996 convention to 85% under this
bill, the fourth protocol.
By suggesting that Reform somehow wants to protect its idle rich
supporters by supporting this bill, the government apparently
feels that any senior who pays taxes is a high income senior and
an idle rich supporter of the Reform Party.
For the record, let me remind the House that demographic studies
show that the Reform supporter on average is less wealthy than
the average Canadian. Our supporters are not very rich. They are
average Canadians who are hurt by the heavy burden of taxation.
However, I am not here today to speak exclusively on behalf of
Reform supporters. I am here to speak on behalf of Canadians.
I would like to bring the attention of the House to the fact
that the committee reports contain a clear statement by senior
tax bureaucrats that the inclusion rate would rise from 50% to
85% under Bill C-10, and that this rise would cost all taxpaying
seniors.
Reform resents the suggestion that we are responsible for
delaying Bill C-10. We did not create the problem in the first
place; the government did. Reform did not delay bringing forward
this legislation until after the election; the government did.
Reform did not wait three weeks since the debate to bring Bill
C-10 to committee; the government did. And Reform did not refuse
to hear witnesses explain the impact that this would have on
their livelihood; the government did.
I am not naive to the fact that government backbenchers followed
the lead of their cabinet. But an issue that involves raising
taxes of Canadian seniors is just the sort of issue that should
compel hon. members of the House to either change their
caucuses or defy their caucuses.
Canadian seniors need a unified voice in the House, a voice that
will speak resolutely whenever the government reaches its hands
into their pockets. I fear that they do not have this voice with
the government. This is not just about money, it is about seniors
with retirement dreams and it is about seniors who will face
their retirement years in government imposed poverty.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the benefit of
hon. members who were not here earlier, the hon. member for
Edmonton—Strathcona had asked that his time be split. There are
no questions and comments at this time.
1025
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was under the impression that the Reform Party was
going to put forward another speaker. However, I appreciate
having the opportunity to speak in support of this bill.
First, any attempt which this House makes to simplify the tax
acts of Canada is something which I support and celebrate.
Bill C-10 would organize tax treaties for efficiency and
fairness where there is a specific benefit to seniors in Canada.
However imperfect, I believe it should be supported by all
parties.
I would like to pick up from where the hon. member for
Edmonton—Strathcona left off in his remarks. He talked about
the fact that members on the government side of the House should
debate and challenge the tax system of this country. The fact of
the matter is we do. This party is not made up of lemmings. The
government is not asking members to suppress creativity on how to
improve or reform the tax acts. Quite frankly, I think the hon.
member for Edmonton—Strathcona knows that.
This is purely coincidental today. There is a book which a group
of us put together called “The Single Tax System” back in 1990.
When I look at the acknowledgements of the people who
contributed I notice the name “Rahim Jaffer, Ottawa”. I
acknowledged the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona as one of
the people who helped me put this effort at tax reform together.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona is here as a newly
elected member of Parliament. I celebrate his being here. He is
a creative, intelligent and thoughtful individual. However, I
think that the challenge for the opposition is not just to
criticize the flaws which exist in legislation, it is also the
responsibility of the opposition to put forward constructive
alternatives.
We listened attentively to the member's remarks during the last
10 minutes and all he did was criticize this piece of
legislation. I have never seen a piece of legislation which was
flawless, but not once did the member talk about a constructive
alternative. I am beginning to wonder if the hon. member for
Edmonton—Strathcona has gone soft on the notion of comprehensive
tax reform. He is in the index of this book as being one of the
strong supporters of a single tax system and comprehensive tax
reform, but not once during his remarks did he talk about what he
would put forward as his alternative or his party's alternative.
The day that the member was elected I was happy and hopeful that
when he came to this Parliament he would be a champion of
comprehensive tax reform. I thought that the member and the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast, the former head of the Canadian Tax
Foundation, were passionate supporters of the single tax system
before they were elected. We have been here for months and we
have heard barely a peep out of those members.
All they do is criticize. They do not talk about comprehensive
tax reform any more. They do not talk about the single tax
system.
1030
I listened attentively to the member's notice that there may be
a couple of flaws in Bill C-10. I repeat myself. There could be
areas requiring improvement in any piece of legislation, but I
think we need to hear from the opposition parties on an issue
like this one where they stand on comprehensive tax reform. Are
they going to whisper about it from time to time, or are they
going to get passionate in the House about real reform?
The time is right. We hear right now that not a day goes by in
the United States that Democrat and Republican senators and
congressmen are not looking at the notion of comprehensive tax
reform. If the United States government has a simplified tax act
because it flushed out and cleaned up many of the credits buried
in the tax act, we know that we must follow.
We should not avoid taking advantage of this opportunity. We
should get right into the debate, put our best creative minds
together and see if we can create some momentum and some
political will.
In the last 10 years I have watched our government and the
previous government cut, cut, cut, offload all direct grants; but
the fact of the matter is that the biggest or the largest grants
to individuals or corporations are buried in the Tax Act of
Canada. There is no accountability or very little accountability
in these tax preferences.
I stand here today appealing to the Reform Party to stand up for
comprehensive tax reform, the same way they did before they were
elected. I also say to the Reform Party that it is fair ball to
critique a flaw or two in a piece of legislation, but I appeal to
my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona to put forward a constructive
alternative.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, before
we go continue with the debate I should point out that the first
three speakers had 40 minutes. We are now going to our fourth
speaker, and it will be 20 minutes and 10 minutes for questions
and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am not sure I understood right. Do I have ten, or twenty, minutes
for my speech?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Twenty.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Very good, thank you.
I am pleased to rise in the House today, particularly after
the speech by the representative of the government, the hon. member
for Broadview—Greenwood. I trust he was not generalizing, when he
said that all the opposition did was criticize. I believe I am
very well placed to point out that this was a half-truth.
I trust that he was not generalizing and was referring
specifically to one, or all, Reform members.
Since the beginning of this Parliament, looking back to when the
government has presented bills, it has on a number of occasions had
the complete co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois because not only
were the rights and obligations of Canadians being advanced, but
Quebeckers were also demanding to be properly represented and
defended. That the Bloc has done. We have done it since June 2,
and even before that, since the 35th Parliament.
In justice, I have personally given 100% co-operation to the
new Minister of Justice and I have always offered constructive
debate to move legislation forward, to advance the law.
1035
I hope that the member was referring only to a member of the
Reform Party or to the Reform Party as a whole and not to the Bloc.
That said, Bill C-10 is another example of the Bloc's leading
the way in asking the Liberal government to act in this area, given
its importance for a number of Quebeckers and Canadians. This is
another area where Canadian and Quebec interests merge, and this
bill is a striking example.
What is this bill about and what does it contain? It
implements a series of tax conventions between Canada and other
countries in order to avoid double taxation.
Furthermore, Bill C-10 amends the 1984 tax convention between
Canada and the United States, resolving the problems of Quebec and
Canadian retirees receiving American pensions.
I am going to talk on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and
Quebeckers because I am in a good position to do so. A number of
Quebecers worked in the U.S. and decided, on their retirement, to
return to their homeland, the beautiful country of Quebec. They
returned to Quebec and received American pensions. Because they
had problems with taxation, these people were taxed in the United
States and what little they had left from their pension was then
taxed in Canada so they were doubly penalized and doubly taxed.
Something had to be done.
My riding of Berthier—Montcalm is not near the American
border, like other ridings along the Canadian border and the border
between Quebec and the States. Despite that, there is a
municipality in my riding called Rawdon where there are a number of
anglophones who have worked in the States. For a while in the 35th
Parliament, a number of my constituents in Berthier—Montcalm
contacted me to draw my attention to this tax inequity.
Other members of the Bloc were also contacted. We thus became
aware of the problem and rose on a number of occasions in this
House with questions and worked in committee to oblige the
government to act quickly. It did not act as quickly as we wanted,
but it did act. A sin confessed is half forgiven. At least the
government acted and introduced a bill.
You know how the Liberals across the way are. With them, nothing is ever
simple. You know how the many Liberals listening to my remarks today
are. They had to cloud the issue.
Mr. Bob Kilger: We are all here.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You are all here. Fine, they are all here
listening carefully to what I am saying. They should listen more
carefully, this way they would speak less nonsense than they have in the
past little while.
That having been said, more seriously, the government confused the
issue somewhat by putting together a bill containing a series of tax
treaties between Canada and various countries which we cannot all treat
equally because of their respective tax systems.
Around the world, there are countries with tax systems very similar to
that of Canada and countries with completely different tax systems.
We would have liked—this is admittedly a criticism I am making
this morning, but a constructive and very positive one—Bill C-10 to
deal exclusively with the American issue, a second bill to deal with
other countries with a tax system similar to ours and a third one to
deal with countries with a tax system completely different from ours.
1040
It seems to me that this would have been less confusing and,
particularly given the urgent, pressing need of many Quebeckers and
Canadians and the fact that the United States are withholding money, I
think that a tax convention, a bill dealing specifically with the U.S.
would have helped expedite matters. These people who have been waiting
for a cheque from the U.S. would have received it by now if we had
worked diligently on preparing separate bills to expedite the process.
But the Liberals crammed everything into a single bill. For
example, the purpose of parts 1 to 5 is to implement income tax
conventions that have been signed with Sweden, Lithuania, Kazakhstan,
Iceland and Denmark.
These are countries with taxation systems that are, by and large,
quite similar to Canada's.
The purpose of these conventions is to avoid double taxation
and prevent fiscal evasion. They are based largely on the OECD
model. It is not a case of reinventing the wheel. What is good is
retained and used in the conventions with these countries.
There are also other countries with taxation systems less
similar to ours, however, and a convention has also been produced
to help in these cases. There is a tax convention signed with
these countries. But many of them are considered to be countries
where the rich hide their money, so-called tax havens. It is
somewhat disappointing that they have all been lumped into one
bill, Bill C-10.
Let us compare Canada's taxation system with the taxation
systems of these countries. As I said earlier, a comparison of the
maximum corporate and individual income tax rates reveals some
differences and some similarities. For instance, the maximum
corporate rate in Canada is 30.74% and the maximum individual rate
is 52.94%.
In Sweden these percentages are similar. But in Lithuania,
while the maximum corporate tax rate is 29% instead of 30.74%, not
a major difference, the individual tax rate is 35% compared with
Canada's 53%. You can immediately see the clear advantage for
businessmen with a bit of money to pay their taxes in Lithuania
rather than in Canada.
There are rather significant differences at various levels. One
thing which is not really a concern, but which must be addressed is the
fact that, over the years, Canada has signed many treaties with other
countries. The figures I am quoting were given at a meeting of the
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, held on April
24, 1997. As of April 24, Canada had signed 57 tax treaties that were in
effect between Canada and various countries, while 34 other ones had yet
to be ratified.
As a member of the opposition, one wonders—again, this is not a
negative criticism, on the contrary—whether the government allocated
adequate resources to ensure a follow-up on all these conventions.
The tax treaties signed between countries are usually not for the
benefit of ordinary citizens. Ordinary people do not have bank accounts
in Switzerland or in Barbados, and they do not do business with
Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands or the United States.
Usually, the provisions of these treaties are used by multinationals, or
by very wealthy people who have accounts here and there, such as in
Switzerland or Barbados, and who travel frequently.
1045
As an opposition party, we are the keepers of this government's
sometimes deficient moral rectitude, and we have the right to wonder
whether there are sufficient resources. With 57 treaties already signed
and 34 other ones to be ratified—and more have probably been signed
since April 1997—we wonder how many public servants are following up
on all these conventions.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you are firmly seated in the Chair, because the
committee learned that only one public servant was conducting this
follow-up work. Thankfully, this person is working full time, which is
something, given the cuts made by the government.
We know there is an official monitoring this full time.
It is not being critical in a negative way to say that more than
one official would have been better, considering what has gone on in the
past and how people have been tricked in Canada and in Quebec. I think
taxpayers, Quebeckers and Canadians, have been had in the past,
including at roughly this time last year.
Of course, I am referring to the scandal of the family trusts.
Everyone knows that it is rather frightening when officials, just before
Christmas, can have a little meeting and decide to allow companies to
send money outside Canada without paying any taxes. We are not talking
here about $100, $1,000 or $100,000, we are talking about billions of
dollars.
I think that taxpayers, in these difficult times, could legitimately
expect that there would be fair treatment for these companies but that
they would be treated fairly too.
People who have means, who have two billion dollars in liquid
assets and who want to transfer this money can afford to pay for very
good legal advice, for good lawyers, but also for good tax experts. I am
not saying that what they did was illegal, but it was certainly immoral,
I want to state that very clearly, especially since everyone in Canada
and in Quebec has to pay taxes, their fair share of taxes. I do not
think it was proper for them to transfer this money without paying their
fair share.
There are also other examples, when tax treaties are applied, when
companies can afford good advisers, we see that certain people, certain
companies can sidestep the law and avoid paying their fair share of
taxes.
Briefly, I will give you a small example everyone knows about,
Canada Steamship Lines. Everyone knows what that company is. Everyone
knows that it is a Canadian company, but that its ships fly the flags of
other countries, including Barbados and various countries. But why is
that? It is to avoid paying their fair share of the taxes that they
should be paying in Canada. This is not normal, especially considering
who owns these ships. It is not normal that in Canada people should do
such things.
Is the Bloc's criticism negative? No, this is positive criticism.
We want as much as possible—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I do not understand why the Liberals
are not applauding me this morning, when what I am saying is a
self-evident truth.
I think it is normal for the opposition parties, including the
Bloc Quebecois, which are seeking the greatest equity for the
people of Quebec and Canada, to try to get legislation that is as
free of flaws as possible. We want to remedy those flaws. These
two examples, I think, are striking. What is involved here is not
to have huge quantities of international tax conventions. We just
want to have quality tax conventions so that there can be proper
follow-up and everyone can pay his or her fair share of tax.
Earlier, the government member, the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood, was criticizing Reform members. He was
accusing them of giving up on tax reform.
1050
I understand why he did not say this about the Bloc Quebecois,
because we have been talking about tax reform for a long time for
both corporations and individuals.
If we look more specifically at this morning's topic,
international tax conventions, I can refer you to two proposals
made by us in the fall of 1996 focusing on corporate taxation.
This could have been included in international treaties as
part of a mini-tax reform.
It did not have to be a major reform, but they could at least have
shown some degree of good faith in ensuring that it is not always
the same ones who have to pay. I believe that a certain equity
must be sought, and I can understand the taxpayers who are sitting
in their living rooms and watching the government members over
there. They are saying that the same ones always end up paying,
and I understand that.
The government has thus missed a great opportunity to show its
good faith with this bill. One of the proposals made by the Bloc
Quebecois in the fall of 1996 is the deductibility of interest
charges. When a Canadian company has a branch in a tax haven, not
only does it first of all take advantage of very low tax rates on
profits earned outside the country, but it can also deduct from its
income earned in Canada the interest on loans used to invest in
that offshore branch.
We think the tax system is too generous in this case.
We would also have liked the government to amend the Income
Tax Act to put a stop to this abuse. I think everyone has got the
point, but so people understand better, I will give you a specific
example. I have a company in Barbados; I borrow money in Canada to
invest in Barbados to increase my profits in Barbados; I pay
practically no taxes in Barbados, but, moreover, I deduct my
interest costs in Canada. This is a bit crazy. I think the
government could help people by putting a stop to these tax
shelters.
The other proposal—and I will be brief, because time is
passing quickly—concerns the deduction for intercorporate
dividends. When a Canadian company has a subsidiary in a country
Canada has a convention with, the dividends paid by the subsidiary
to the parent company are not taxed in Canada.
There are certain conditions, but they are easily met. This
Canadian rule is much more generous than what is done in the
States.
We asked the federal government to amend the Income Tax Act in
order to tax foreign subsidiaries in Canada and to give a credit to
them for tax already paid. That did not come about, but you know
how determined the Bloc is. When we have an idea we do not let go
of it, especially when it is a good idea like Quebec sovereignty
and income tax issues. We will continue, we will keep at the
government and perhaps soon, the government will concede as it did
with Bill C-10 on the tax convention between Canada and the United
States.
I repeat, and I conclude on this point, this was a real battle
horse for the Bloc.
We won. We were there for our constituents and we will be there
again, every day, until Quebec becomes a country.
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe
the hon. member has just mentioned the importance of this bill
and the time urgency of it as it affects Canadians receiving U.S.
social security. This includes all Canadians, not just seniors
but those who are disabled and spouses and children of those who
worked in the United States.
I believe the hon. member has already partially corrected the
record where the member for Edmonton—Strathcona earlier said
that it was rushed through the industry committee.
As chair of the industry committee I want to confirm that I
spoke to every member on the steering committee, including the
member who represents the Reform Party. It was agreed by all
parties that we would have no witnesses because of the urgency of
this bill and get it back to the House as quickly as possible for
debate. It was not that witnesses were disallowed.
For two years this bill has been debated. For two years this
issue has been out there. If the Reform Party wanted to do its
research, it would see that this has been going on for two years.
As the member for the Bloc said, it has been going on too long.
It is now before the House and we must deal with this as quickly
as possible.
I hope that all members will recognize the importance of getting
the refunds back to people as quickly as possible. We must
recognize the importance of this bill to put Canadians on parity
with their neighbours who live next to each other whether they
are seniors or not seniors, that those who receive income will
pay their taxes based on what they should pay.
We recognize that they pay tax on U.S. social security by the
fact that they are only going to include 85% and not 100% of
their income whereas their Canadian neighbours who worked in
Canada and receive only Canadian benefits will pay tax on 100% of
their income.
1055
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the member is right about
not hearing witnesses in order to speed up passage of the bill,
given the Bloc Quebecois' repeated demands, given that we
understood that we would not be getting separate bills, as I was
saying we would have preferred, but so as not to further delay
implementation, given that the government had not acted as quickly
as we would have liked.
The federal machine can only move so quickly, however. We
therefore did agree with the government not to hear witnesses.
These were issues the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal government
looked at very closely.
We therefore knew where we were headed. There were precedents:
Canada had signed several international treaties; that was also on
the agenda. There were also treaties with the OECD.
What it all boils down to is that we have this bill. It is
not what we would have liked, but I think that at this stage, in
the interest of speed, all parties, government and opposition
alike, should cooperate in order to ensure the speediest possible
passage of this bill, the purpose of which is to have everyone
paying their fair share of taxes.
This does not mean, however, that there is no need for
vigilance. It does not prevent the government from taking a very
close look at its tax system to ensure that corporations taking
advantage of tax havens are not encouraged but, on the contrary,
watched very closely.
We are therefore going to cooperate in ensuring that this bill is
passed as quickly as possible.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments. Hon. members, we have just a couple of minutes before
we go to statements by members. If we have enough of the members
in place, let us get started with statements and we will come
back to the hon. member for Churchill on debate because he would
have to be interrupted after about two minutes.
We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the Canadian War Museum moves forward with plans for a long
awaited expansion, I am very pleased that an advisory committee
has been established.
The war museum holds a special place in the hearts of many with
its mandate to stand as a memorial to those Canadians who
defended peace, freedom and democracy.
It is essential that Canadians of all ages as well as future
generations be informed and reminded of Canada's proud military
heritage. Those concerned with the future of the museum, such as
veterans groups should become actively involved in reviewing and
commenting on future policy proposals.
It is intended that the Canadian War Museum advisory committee
would work together with the war museum, the friends of the war
museum and many other organizations that care deeply about the
future of this institution.
Not everyone can make the pilgrimage to Vimy Ridge or Dieppe,
but by working together we can ensure that the war museum
explores new ways and continues to be a focal point for national
remembrance.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, two things happened this week to indicate that the
wheels are falling off the Liberals' gun control scheme.
In a brief presented to the justice committee, the Canadian
Police Association said the Liberal government misled them into
believing that police could get into the firearms computer system
when making emergency calls. After hearing this criticism the
Liberals now say that the police on call will have computer
access to the system.
We also learned this week that the justice department's mail-in
registration system will be so unreliable and unsafe that it will
actually endanger policemen into providing inaccurate
information. For example, justice officials claim that any
firearms serial number incorrectly recorded on a mail-in
application and then put on a registration certificate will still
make the certificate valid. This is ridiculous. This means
police will be unable to count on the accuracy of vital
information entered into the system.
Why do the Liberals not face it? Their gun registration system
is falling apart and must be scrapped immediately.
It is becoming obvious that this sloppy gun registration system
gives police no security but instead greater risk.
* * *
1100
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary wing of the Bloc Quebecois recently published a booklet
entitled “Quebec—on the road to nationhood”.
This booklet is designed to be a credible and intelligent response
to the world-wide disinformation campaign led by the federal government
and its henchmen around the world.
It sets out in factual, non partisan terms the real political
situation of Quebec and Canada, thereby giving its full meaning to the
unaltered commitment of many Quebeckers to taking their destiny into
their own hands.
On behalf of Quebec's sovereignists, I wish to congratulate my
colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois who sit on the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade on a job well done. They have
advanced Quebec's project to build a country of its own by the year
2000.
* * *
[English]
APEC
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and the Secretary
of State for the Asia Pacific on their important work during the
APEC summit in Vancouver.
Their leadership has brought together the heads of state and
senior officials of 18 countries to share their common concerns
and their financial goals.
Some have accused the government of dismissing human rights
issues. This is simply not true. Canada remains committed to
human rights. This commitment was demonstrated in the
government's support for the people's summit.
We make our voice heard through dialogue and co-operation, not
through confrontation and accusation.
* * *
[Translation]
JOE BEELEN
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to pay tribute to Joe Beelen, a resident of my riding of
Pierrefonds—Dollard returning from a voluntary assignment to Thailand
for the Canadian Executive Service Organization, CESO.
The purpose of this assignment was to provide assistance to a
pharmaceutical products laboratory. Joe Beelen used his skills and
experience to develop an exhaustive index of all standing operating
procedures as well as to provide technical information and assistance in
preparing the products.
Later, he developed a personnel training program and designed a
system for setting production standards to meet government requirements.
This first class volunteer is one of the many Canadians who go on
assignments outside the country for CESO.
We can be proud of the work accomplished by these volunteers who
represent Canada so well abroad.
Thank you, Mr. Beelen, and
congratulations on your involvement in this important project.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Edmonton was shocked this week by yet another failure of our
justice system. A man with a long history of abuse, including a
recent arrest for assault with a weapon and death threats against
his wife, was jailed and then released on bail. He then
proceeded to do exactly what he was arrested for threatening to
do. He killed his wife.
A victim of abuse in life, a victim of justice failure in death,
Jennifer's calls for help went unanswered. Two tragic deaths and
one orphaned child is the legacy of the failure of our justice
system. The law must ensure jail until trial for such obvious
threats to society.
A two year old girl now cries out alone.
* * *
TAXATION
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during our
November constituency week I held a very successful pre-budget
consultation meeting in my riding of Essex. Interestingly my
constituents did not find that a tax cut was desired or needed.
I say “interestingly” because it was reported in today's
Globe and Mail that a C. D. Howe Institute report, authored
by economist William Robson of the institute and William Searth
of McMaster University, recommends that the government hold off
on any tax cuts in favour of using budgetary surpluses to
aggressively pay down the national debt.
Although my constituents acknowledged our national debt as a
problem, and some felt it was a priority, they also have basic
concerns for our social programs, pension plans, health care and
education. Our 50:50 election promise is what they want.
I urge the finance minister to make careful consideration of the
advice being offered through the pre-budget consultation process.
I congratulate those Canadians who took the time and effort to
participate in the process.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FEDERALISM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
supposedly living in an brand new Canada that bears no relation with the
centralizing and domineering Canada of old. As evidence of that, we are
often told that the issues relating to forestry, tourism, mining and
social housing have been settled.
1105
However, in the last 60 days, the Liberal government announced that
it will develop a plan to ensure Canadians get appropriate education. It
also announced programs that will deal with young people, health, rural
communities, school adjustment, not to mention the social union, and
centralizing bills such as the legislation on drinking water.
In spite of the rhetoric, the Liberal government's attitude remains
the same. It is more centralizing and domineering than ever. When the
federal government takes a step forward, provincial governments take a
step backward. The only way for Quebeckers to move forward is to achieve
sovereignty and they will do so.
* * *
[English]
CHILD & YOUTH FRIENDLY OTTAWA
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Child &
Youth Friendly Ottawa is an organization dedicated to promoting
children and youth issues. By developing partnerships among
young people, business groups and political leaders, local youth
are able to experience a sense of citizenship and responsibility.
Founded by an outstanding community leader, Max Keeping, Child &
Youth Friendly Ottawa is run in partnership with young people.
Its successful work includes inspecting and assisting local
businesses in the area to become child and youth friendly. It
also promotes student arts, advises regional government on civic
issues affecting youth, and has established a youth volunteer
corps.
Children in every part of our country are Canada's promise for
the future. With the millennium just around the corner, Child &
Youth Friendly Ottawa is calling on all members of Parliament to
help organize their constituencies so that Canada will become the
first child and youth friendly country in the world.
I support its call and congratulate Max Keeping and everyone at
Child & Youth Friendly Ottawa on a job well done. Keep up the
excellent work.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me
read a little shopping list: over 6,000 bags of Humpty Dumpty
cheese popcorn, 12,600 bags of Hostess Cheezies, and 57,540 bags
of potato chips.
Some would think this is for the Reform snack pack caucus
meeting but it is not. Correctional Service Canada has ordered
89,493 bags of snacks for Canadian criminals from coast to coast
to coast. That is a convict snack bill of $45,000 that we are
sending to the Canadian taxpayers. Never mind stopping patronage
pork; we have to stop prison pork rinds.
It is time for the government to get the message. Prisons are
not convenience stores and taxpayers do not want to pick up the
tab for convicts' snacks. No more chips at the convict snack
shack while taxpayers take the dip.
* * *
[Translation]
INSTITUT DE PHARMACOLOGIE
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to mention another initiative of our government
that will promote the economic development of a strategic sector of the
Canadian economy.
On November 25, the Secretary of State responsible for the federal
office of regional development in Quebec inaugurated the new offices of
the Institut de pharmacologie, in Sherbrooke. This high-tech centre,
which specializes in medical chemistry and pharmacology, is the only one
of its kind in Canada.
Through its contribution of close to $4 million, the federal
government has recognized the expertise of the Eastern Townships in the
area of medical research.
It has also shown the confidence it has in partnerships with the private
sector and with educational institutions to develop a promising sector
for Canada.
* * *
[English]
SEAL HUNT
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
recent weeks my riding and others across Canada have been
contacted by very concerned Canadians about the seal hunt. There
are a couple of comments I would like to put on record because I
know there has been a lot of misinformation about the seal hunt.
There has been a televised advertising campaign put on by
Canadians Against the Commercial Seal Hunt. It has launched an
advertising campaign against Canadian sealers loaded with
inaccurate and misleading allegations.
CATCSH alleges that Canadians are subsidizing an industry that
kills baby seals. That is absolutely false.
CATCSH alleges that the seal harvest provides few economic
benefits. That is also false.
CATCSH alleges that Canadians paid $3.4 million in subsidies and
administrative costs in 1996 for a seal harvest that is
uneconomic. That is absolutely false.
1110
Contrary to the impression conveyed by this organization and
other anti-sealing zealots, the commercial harvesting of seals in
Canada is more tightly regulated now than at any other time in
our history.
* * *
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has
been quite a week in parliament. Reform members supported record
bank profits made from the service charges paid by Canadians.
Reform told Canadians that despite mounting evidence Canada need
not join the rest of the world to fight global warming.
Reform showed no respect for working men and women or for the
collective bargaining process.
Perhaps most disappointing, Reform spoiled its motion on the
future of Canada and the process of reaching a national consensus
through the Calgary declaration, a process we in the New
Democratic Party support, especially the idea of Canadians
finding common ground on unity, by moving an amendment that could
be interpreted to stand in the way of aboriginal treaty rights
and self-government.
The New Democratic Party supports the process which began in
Calgary. Shame on the official opposition.
* * *
THE LATE JOHN SOPINKA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to pay tribute to one of
Canada's greatest legal minds, the late Supreme Court Justice
John Sopinka.
Much has been said this week to describe the life and
accomplishments of Justice Sopinka. From modest beginnings he
attained stature as a professional football player, respected
criminal litigator and a member of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Whether catching a football or writing a thoughtful dissenting
judgment, he did so with a class and unique style all his own. In
his 64 years John Sopinka demonstrated numerous personal
qualities that one could not help but admire and wish to emulate.
He was passionate about his vision for the law, often able to
forge consensus over difficult issues at the Supreme Court of
Canada level. Justice Sopinka had the ability to build coalition
without watering down principles. He was unafraid to stand up to
the changing winds of public opinion in making a decision if he
felt that it was consistent with legal and social principles.
As an athlete, attorney, judge and family man, Justice Sopinka
set new standards for greatness. If the magnitude of one's loss
is the measure of life's gifts, this loss seems immeasurable.
His family and Canada mourn his departure for a higher court.
Our sincere condolences to Mrs. Sopinka and the Sopinka family.
* * *
[Translation]
CHRISTMAS BASKET CAMPAIGN
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as in previous
years, the Laval Volunteer Centre is organizing again this year the 13th
edition of its Christmas Basket Campaign, and has set as its goal to
collect 500 tonnes of food.
The purpose of this operation is to provide assistance to families
who are going through serious economic difficulties because, of illness,
bankruptcy or job loss, for example.
By enlisting the co-operation of 600 businesses and with the
commitment of 1,400 volunteers and the contributions of the population
of Laval, the centre expects to distribute 1,300 food baskets to about
4,000 persons on Sunday, December 21.
There are also in these families children and young people who,
unfortunately, cannot enjoy some of the simple pleasures they so justly
deserve.
Therefore, the Laval Volunteer Centre also organizes a large
campaign to collect new toys so that these children too can enjoy
Christmas.
In conclusion, I congratulate the organizers of this important
charitable event and I encourage Canadians everywhere in Canada to also
become involved in their own community.
* * *
TFO TELEVISION NETWORK
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to be negative, but I would like to point out that there seems to
be a contradiction between what our Bloc colleagues are preaching and
what their PQ counterparts in Quebec are doing.
Presently, TVO, the English language educational television network
in Ontario, is broadcast to certain regions in Quebec based on a monthly
wholesale pass-through rate. But in the case of TFO, the French channel
of that network, Télé Québec and the Government of Quebec refuse to
allow its broadcasting based on such a rate.
Instead of feeling sorry for French Canadians and throwing up their
hands in despair, as they unfortunately have a tendency to do sometimes,
my colleagues in the Bloc should pick up the phone, describe to their PQ
counterparts how great TFO is, and remind them of their own policy on
French Canadians outside Quebec.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1115
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government has had months to prepare for the Kyoto conference.
The environment minister has over 4,000 bureaucrats at her
disposal and a budget of $.5 billion. The conference starts on
Monday and she still does not even know what position she will be
arguing for or against.
For months this minister has said that she is taking the matter
very seriously. Canadians do not believe her any more. If she
really did take this seriously she would have released Canada's
position long ago.
What possible excuse does this minister have for not having a
position ready to take to Kyoto?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member said, Canada's position will be
stated publicly on Monday, but this will still be timely in terms
of discussions at the official level and it will be very timely
in terms of when the decisions are made by ministers. This will
be at the end of the conference and the ministerial portion does
not even begin until December 8.
Canada's position will be known well before that time. It will
be a clear position. It will be a good position, unlike the
Reform which has stated they do not know what they are talking
about at all on this subject.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this gets more and more curious.
When the Liberal government cancelled its announcement planned
for today it needed a pretty big excuse. It had already used up
all the little excuses along the way. What excuse did it tell us
all?
It said that a small detail had to be ironed out, an extremely
minor point. What could that detail be? Could it be perhaps how
much would this Kyoto deal cost Canadians or was it how much
would it cost and who would pay or perhaps how would this deal be
forced down the provinces' throats?
Just which minor point was it that caused such a cabinet split
and cancelled the announcement for today? What went wrong on the
way to Kyoto?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what has gone wrong with the Reform Party? When they
were asked their position they said our position does not count.
So what details are holding up the Reform Party in stating their
position?
They are the Official Opposition. They are there, they claim,
to be some day, and it will never happen, an alternative
government. They have just proven why they will never be a
government and they will not even be a party after the next
election.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously there is a hot air problem within cabinet at least.
We have asked this government nearly 100 times to detail its
position for Canadians. I think that is reasonable. One hundred
times it has said that Canadians are going to have to wait just a
little longer. We are sick of waiting.
The government promised again to release its position. Again,
today it failed to do so but it has not cancelled its trip to
Kyoto. Of course not, the government is going to go. It does
not have a position. Nobody knows what it is going to cost, but
it is going to go off and sign a deal, whatever the deal might
be.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment, if she would
care to answer this. How can she leave for Kyoto this weekend
when the government still does not have a made in Canada
position? Will the Minister of the Environment—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Deputy
Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): My friend
is totally wrong. The minister is leaving at the end of next
week as scheduled because the ministerial portion of the meeting
does not begin until December 8. Our position will be known
publicly well before that time and yet there will still be no
Reform position. They do not count. They do not care. Why do
they not take responsibility to come to the table with a
consensus to help Canada have a good deal? Where is the Reform
Party? Absolutely nowhere.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
just have to keep going. This Liberal saga on Kyoto just
continues. The Liberals have painted themselves into a corner.
For months they have been saying they would sign a deal in Kyoto,
before they had decided what Canada's position would be.
They agreed to a deal before they had seen it and worse still,
before they had even come up with their own policy. Now they
have fallen victim to those rash promises. They are boarding
planes and they are still writing their position.
How can this minister board the plane for Kyoto? How can she
sign a deal when she does not even know what the national
position is?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, guess what, this government does have a
position. We have been articulating it for months. The Reform
Party refuses to listen that this is a real and serious issue,
that this government is committed to legally binding targets in
Kyoto that are realistic, achievable, that will be applied
equitably in this country.
On Monday we will let Canadians know what the targets and time
lines are in order to go to Kyoto.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
delay after delay.
My question now is on behalf of the people that have been shut
out of this insane process. Two weeks ago the provinces agreed
in principle to emission deadlines by the year 2010, but last
week the federal government said it had unilaterally changed that
to 2007.
1120
Why has the government reneged on this deal with the provinces?
How can it possibly come up with a nationally agreed to plan in
the next 48 hours? This is too incredible.
Will the Minister of the Environment really get on that plane
without getting provincial agreement first?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has worked very closely
with all Canadians on this issue: provinces, territories,
business, industry, environmental groups, municipalities and
Canadian citizens.
Good environmentalists have a 3R background: reduce, recycle,
reuse. This Reform Party has refused, refused, refused: refused
the science, refused to know and acknowledge that Canadians are
concerned about this issue and refused to acknowledge that this
is a real issue.
* * *
[Translation]
KYOTO SUMMIT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The press conference scheduled for this morning prior to the
Kyoto summit was cancelled.
My question is a very simple one. Would the minister tell
this House why the government is hung up on the Kyoto summit, and
is unable to make its position public?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government was committed to making
our targets and time lines known in time for the Kyoto
conference. On Monday our targets and time lines will be made
public. At the moment we continue to negotiate in good faith,
not only with all of our partners in Canada but internationally
as well.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
hope the minister is aware of the time difference, and I trust that
she will go over there armed with the photocopier number, because
if things go on as they are, she is going to need it to communicate
the government position.
She tells us that she is negotiating in good faith, but what
credibility will she have on arrival in Kyoto if, right up until
then, she has been unable to make her government's position public?
How can her world partners take her seriously?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the international community the
Canadian government is very well respected for our efforts at
negotiating important consensus. It is more important that we
come out of Kyoto with a consensual agreement world-wide on how
we as an international community are going to reduce greenhouse
gases.
Canada continues to negotiate with other countries, some of whom
have put their targets on the table. We are trying to find a
consensual opinion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of the Environment.
For weeks now, the minister has been telling us she has all
the flexibility required to allow the government to take a bold
approach at the Kyoto summit.
Since the government obviously still has no position, is it
prepared to endorse the Quebec position, which suggests that it
should go beyond the objective set by Japan?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government does have a position. We
have had a position. I have explained what our negotiating
position is. Our targets and time lines will be made public on
Monday.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how does the
minister explain her government's inability to play the lead role
in this area that it has with anti-personnel mines?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 8 and 10 ministers from
around the world will be going to Kyoto and they will be making
decisions in that period of time on behalf of the global
community on how all citizens of this world can confront this
very real and serious issue.
Canada will be there. We will play our full role.
* * *
APEC
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with
the fact that many Canadians are embarrassed, and indeed many
Liberals are embarrassed, by the rather cryptic remarks of the
Prime Minister with respect to the pepper spraying of
demonstrators.
I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister would care to defend
the Prime Minister's remarks. I wonder if he would also at the
same time condemn the fact that peaceful demonstrators were asked
to sign pledges that they would not demonstrate against APEC or
countries at APEC on pain of being arrested. What is going on—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Deputy
Prime Minister.
1125
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada as host of the APEC conference has an obligation
under international law to defend the integrity of the precinct
where the meeting is taking place. With respect to the use of
pepper spray, the RCMP has announced that is under review. I
understand the concerns of Canadians about whether appropriate
procedures were followed.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has refused to condemn the
requiring of peaceful demonstrators to sign pledges not to do
things unpleasing to the government. The theory of the Liberals
is that trading with other countries helps them to adopt our
values. The government is not worried that what is actually
happening is that we are adopting their values. We are getting
more like them instead of them getting more like us.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question shows that his allegation
could not possibly be correct. The RCMP is reviewing the
appropriateness of the matter of signing these undertakings. I
am sure more will have to be said. I understand the concerns
this practice has created. I believe it should be fully looked
into and further reports should be made as a result
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
hope the report will include some information about instructions
given by the Prime Minister's Office.
My question is about Canadian retailers and small business who
will soon start one of the most important periods of the year,
the month of December. What is the government trying to
accomplish with policies of high payroll taxes, with an increase
of 70% in CPP premiums, with an increase in interest rates this
week and further increases in interest rates, and a postal strike
to add to business people's pain? What message are they sending
to Main Street business people in Canada who are trying to earn a
living?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
that our government was able to announce a 20¢ decrease in the EI
tax. This is a major breakthrough. It is a major concession
because it has cost us $1.4 billion. How can he say that this is
negligible?
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister must be out to lunch. Today he will probably find out
that a major union in this country is pursuing this government,
that it is bringing the government to court over the abuse of the
EI system in using it for the purpose of reducing the deficit.
Since this government seems to be encouraging further increases
in interest rates, is it really saying to Canadians that even if
the unemployment rate were at 8% that it is okay to have well
over a million Canadians out of work. It is fine with this
Liberal government. As long as it meets its deficit numbers it
does not actually care whether there are more poor children,
whether there are people out of work, or whether we have a lower
standard of living.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our record has
been to create over one million jobs since we have taken office.
We realize this is not enough and we want to see it go even
further. In terms of interest rates, Canada today as a result of
the sound economic policies we have pursued, has the lowest
five-year mortgage rate in history. We have the lowest 30-year
rate on our debt. These are sound accomplishments on behalf of
all Canadians.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we only
have three sleeps left before the Kyoto conference starts, and
still no plan from this government. This conference starts
Monday. Will the environment minister write her plan in the
plane on the back of an air sickness bag? Why will she not come
out from under her rock and tell us her plan now?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform needs to start listening,
listening to what this government's position is, which has been
articulated for weeks in this House of Commons. Reform needs to
start listening to the people of this country who in the vast
majority say that this is an important issue. They want the
government to do something about it and they are willing to take
their part. When will the Reform Party get serious about this
issue?
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot listen to a Liberal press conference that gets cancelled
because of internal caucus divisions. The environment minister
says that she only has a minor glitch in her plan. Never mind
the minor glitches, I am still concerned about the major glitches
of the plan like how much it will cost or how she will pay for
it.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps on Monday the Reform Party will
be around to hear what our targets and time lines are.
1130
In the meantime, over the weekend they might talk to their
constituents and come to understand how important this issue is
to them and the fact that they want this government to do
something about this serious issue.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
the Minister of Finance said that the surplus in the employment
insurance fund has a direct impact on the health and stability of public
finances.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development finally admit,
like his colleague from Finance, that the surplus is a form of deficit
insurance for the government and of poverty insurance for the
unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to contradict my
colleague, the Minister of Finance. Of course, I support his position.
What I can tell you is that, as minister—
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Yes, yes, you had no choice. We understand.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: No, I mentioned it because the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean had opened the door.
What I can tell you—
Hon. Jean J. Charest: We understand.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: I hear the Conservative leader, who
certainly does not want us to point out that he was a member of a
government where surpluses—
Hon. Jean J. Charest: It is other people's fault.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: —were unheard of. Our government
has surpluses, while the Conservatives had deficits. We manage
the employment insurance fund in a responsible way.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I remind
the minister that the fund is there to protect workers, should they
become unemployed.
When will the minister finally admit that it is not his money and
that he is using the surplus to reduce the government's deficit?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has lowered employment insurance
premiums four times in the past four years.
We implemented the largest employment insurance reform to modernize
the system and adapt it to today's labour market. We must maintain the
necessary flexibility to follow up on this reform and to react to any
demand with regard to the most important reform of the past 25 years.
That is responsible fiscal management.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a tired old cliché that the cheque is in the
mail. Instead of corporations, let us take a look at the effect
this postal strike is having on ordinary Canadians.
Let us take the case of Judy Gillespie from Union Bay, B.C. who
went to the unemployment office to get her cheque and was told
the cheque was in the mail. However it was not delivered. It is
lost somewhere in post office limbo. Amid tears she tells a tale
of two young children with nothing, I repeat nothing to eat.
What does the minister who has denied the urgency of this matter
have to say to this mother and her young children? Judy
Gillespie and thousands of others like her are listening to his
answer right now.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is never a good time for a strike and there is
never a good time for a lockout. There is also never a good time
to talk about legislation until it is introduced.
I have asked my mediator to meet with me this afternoon and I
will evaluate the situation.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has set up distribution centres for
government cheques but in sprawling rural areas that does not
work. Many communities are a long way from these centres and
people who cannot afford food, never mind gas, have no way to get
there. This is an overwhelming hardship on Canadians most in
need.
Why can the minister not understand the damage he is doing to
thousands of Canadians who count on this government and are being
let down? When is he going to legislate an end to this
devastating and harmful strike?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important for
Canadians to realize that this government is quite aware of the
hardship that this strike is creating. The government and my
department, Human Resources Development Canada, have set up 500
sites across the country for people to pick up their cheques. We
made an agreement with the postal people to deliver certain
government cheques and most of them have been.
Accommodations can also be made for hardship cases such as for
those for whom this system has failed. This is the best system
that we could provide during this difficult time.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCE-QUEBEC AGREEMENT
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, officials from Quebec and Canada had a meeting to try to
find a compromise solution regarding the judicial co-operation agreement
between France and Quebec. The federal government's stubbornness still
stands in the way of any progress being accomplished on this important
issue.
1135
Why is the Minister of Foreign Affairs maintaining an inflexible
position when Quebec is showing obvious openness and suggesting possible
compromises? Such a position prevents a mutually acceptable compromise.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a convention between Canada and France is required under French
law for an agreement between any Canadian province and France to have
force of law.
Unfortunately, the Government of Quebec will not recognize this
fact and reality and, as a result, Quebeckers have to do without
judicial assistance in relation to alimony and support. I would like to
have an agreement with Quebec, but it does not want to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Témiscamingue.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
minister should look in the mirror before pointing a finger.
On the one hand, the federal government passed a meaningless
resolution recognizing Quebec's specificity in terms of civil law but,
on the other hand, it wants Quebec's civil law to be subject to Canadian
law.
Does the minister recognize that he is speaking from both sides of
his mouth and that what he really wants to do is to
“Canadianize”
Quebec's civil law?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec's position is that Canadian conventions between France
and Canada do not apply to Quebec. We can go nowhere from there. It is
difficult to negotiate with the Government of Quebec when it will not
recognize conventions between Canada and France.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this postal
strike is making it impossible for charities to send out their
solicitations and for donors to respond at this most important
time of the year.
For example, the New Brunswick Lung Association in Fredericton
is stuck with 300,000 Christmas seal envelopes which now need to
be delivered by hand. With the mail not moving at Christmas, its
receipts from donors for this most worthy cause will just get
hammered.
What does the minister have to say to these charities and the
people who rely on them?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated previously, there is no good time for a
strike or a lockout. Also I have indicated quite clearly that I
have asked my mediator to meet with me. I will meet with him
after question period and evaluate the situation.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
evaluation should have been done months ago. Christmas is now
only weeks away and needy families will have a tough Christmas
because of this mail strike.
The Ottawa Food Bank for example is down to one-third of its
usual funding. Thousands of needy children will have a bleak
Christmas because of this do nothing government.
Surely this government can do better than merely watch from the
sidelines while this government authorized monopoly takes the joy
of Christmas away from thousands who need it.
Does the minister have any plans at all on solving this thing in
the long term?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, quite simply we call it the system. If hon. colleagues
would just listen, what I indicated to the hon. member previously
is that I am going to meet with my mediator following question
period, evaluate the situation. Then if there are any decisions
to be made, they will be made.
* * *
[Translation]
ALGERIA
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
More than 80,000 people have died since 1991 as a result of
the civil war in Algeria. This tragedy has people throughout
Quebec speaking out in support of the Algerian people and
expressing their indignation at the international community's
failure to act.
What specifically are Canadian diplomats doing to mobilize the
UN Commission on Human Rights with respect to Algeria?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern about the serious
situation in Algeria. We have held several discussions with
Algeria's Minister of Foreign Affairs. During my last visit to the
Middle East, I spoke with other ministers from that region.
I am happy to learn that European parliamentarians will be
going to Algeria next week. Canada is certainly prepared to
undertake—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Sault
Ste. Marie.
* * *
1140
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The United States has not yet declared whether Canadians will
receive an exemption to a new American entry law that threatens
to cause major delays at our borders which is an inconvenience to
Canadians.
Could the minister please inform the House of the status of
negotiations aimed at ensuring a Canadian exemption from this law
to allow continued easy access to the United States?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last weekend in Vancouver the Prime Minister in a
meeting with the President had the occasion to raise the issue,
as I did with the secretary of state.
The United States administration is very sympathetic to the
need. What is really happening is that a number of amendments
are now before the U.S. Congress which would obviate the
necessity for the kind of rules which exist.
We are working very closely with those congressmen and senators.
We are quite satisfied that the situation will be resolved
within the next several months.
* * *
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
absolutely shocking and sickening that Yves Richard, a pedophile
who forced 12 little girls to perform sadistic sexual acts
including a two year old, has been granted a weekend unescorted
pass into Ottawa.
The sentencing judge said that this was the worst case of sexual
abuse he has ever seen, yet the bleeding heart parole board has
granted this pedophile an unescorted weekend pass into this city.
I ask the solicitor general—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in effect, Mr. Richard
is on a day pass.
I want to state to the House that when these passes are awarded,
the risk that could be posed to the public is always assessed. In
this case I can assure the House that the inmate in question is
always under the supervision of a local parole officer.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
unescorted weekend pass was granted after serving less than two
years of an eight year sentence.
What has the solicitor general to say to the victims and their
families who have been horrified by this news? What does he have
to say to them?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to
take an isolated exception or one case out of context.
In essence, if the member reviews all of the statistics, he will
understand that when it comes to escorted temporary passes and
other temporary passes the success rate is very high, in excess
of 98%.
One must realize that the majority of inmates eventually get out
into the public after serving their sentences. It is important
that the parole process is allowed to work so that we can
reintegrate these people who eventually get out into society.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
climate change is an international issue and we are also dealing
with an international deadline. Tomorrow the countries of the
world will be starting to negotiate the Kyoto draft agreement.
Today the front page news is that cabinet is divided, while the
rest of the world is ready to set targets from zero to 15%.
Beyond that embarrassment, this government has not stated which
department is the designated lead for Canada's role.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure Canadians he understands
that climate change is an environmental issue and that the
environment minister will be the lead negotiator in Kyoto and in
the post-Kyoto implementation process?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that Canada takes this
issue very seriously and that the environment minister will be
the chair of the Canadian delegation.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
one thing we have realized is that the government and the
official opposition have something in common. Neither of them
have a Kyoto position.
English is my second language, but now I understand the meaning
of ignorance.
1145
The Reform leader's primary concern has been his collection plate
and he cannot even acknowledge the impending disaster of our
existence on this planet.
Is the prime minister recognizing the Reform Party's interests,
or will he ensure that Canada will take a leadership role and
regain the lost respect we have had from the world as an
environmental leader and set reductions as a goal for this
nation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that we will take a
leadership role, quite the contrary to the non-approach of the
Reform Party.
My hon. friend would help if he would encourage the Saskatchewan
government, the province he is from, to be fully supportive and
co-operative with the federal government. Will he make that
commitment now?
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, after
last night's cabinet debacle and today's cancelled press
conference, the world community now knows how disorganized this
government is going into next week's negotiations.
I want to help. If the Minister of the Environment is
unsure of what should be our position beyond targets and
timelines, will she include the following economic instruments:
joint implementation, tradable permits of emissions, recognition
of Canada's carbon sink and a phased in plan for involvement of
emerging nations? Or is the Kyoto position lost in the mail?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He
raises some very important elements of our negotiations in Kyoto.
In fact, those are part of our negotiation position.
With regard to the targets and timelines, as I have said before,
we will let them be known on Monday.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to offer the government an opportunity to clarify for
the House its position on human rights and trade.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs will remember that a few years
ago the Prime Minister stated during a visit to his riding of
Shawinigan, when asked what our position was, that it depended on
the size of the country we are dealing with. In other words, name
me your country and I will name you my principles.
I would like to know what is the position of this government
with regard to trade and human rights.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think our position has been made very clear, that
they are both very clear objectives of the Government of Canada
to pursue in its international relations. Trade itself does not
bring about an improvement in human rights, but it does bring
access to many countries so that we can engage in that dialogue.
A good example is today when we were able to announce that both
ourselves and China are co-sponsoring a major symposium on human
rights that will be held in Canada early in the new year. That
is a sign of how engagement can work.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVANTS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of Treasury Board.
In Canada, we are free to practice the religion of our choice.
Is the minister planning to set aside areas in government buildings
where Muslim public servants can fulfil their religious obligations
on their own time?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
freedom to practice one's religion means, for our employees as
well, the right to be able to observe one's religious practices in
the prescribed places and at the prescribed times.
Government administration requires that we all make an effort
to facilitate the practice of all religions and make it possible
for individuals to observe the required religious practices.
* * *
DEBT REDUCTION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday, the Conseil du Patronat told the Minister of Finance that any
budget surplus should be devoted to reducing the debt and the tax
burden.
The Minister of Finance heard that same message from ordinary
citizens and from business groups.
Does the Minister of Finance have an excuse for not complying with
this request?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that we tried
to achieve balanced fiscal programs.
We are well aware that the tax burden is considerable. We know that
our debt has to be reduced, and we also have to maintain the social
programs that are very important to all Canadians.
* * *
1150
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of International Trade.
The federal government claims to be making every effort to save the
asbestos industry. Yet recently, we heard the press secretary to the
Minister for International Trade say that there was no action plan.
Are we to understand that there is no strategy to save the asbestos
industry and that the minister does not intend to raise this issue with
the World Trade Organization?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think when the hon. member quotes a
person she should do justice by quoting the entire paragraph.
Clearly the Government of Canada has been on the lead in
bringing together not only the Government of Quebec but the
industry in terms of asbestos. Yesterday my deputy minister with
government officials from Quebec and with the entire industry met
on the strategic plan to come forward. There was agreement
around the entire table.
The hon. member might want to say why her premier from Quebec
wanted during his visit to Quebec not for us proceed on the—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre.
* * *
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
government owns 50,000 buildings, many of which are outdated,
expensive to operate and waste energy. Yet today, unbelievably,
the government postponed an energy retrofit program that would
create thousands of jobs, save a fortune in operating costs and
reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
On the eve of Kyoto can the Minister of the Environment please
explain why in the world she would postpone an idea as good as job
creation through energy conservation.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the idea is by no means postponed.
The federal buildings initiative is an ongoing effort of the
government to encourage greater energy conservation in the
construction and the operation of federal government buildings.
Over the last number of years we made considerable progress in
achieving energy savings from a cost point of view and also
improvements in the greenhouse gas performance. That program is
ongoing and it will continue to be ongoing with announcements one
after the other.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees in Canada,
to which Canada is a signatory, states that contracting states
shall in particular make every effort to reduce as far as
possible all the charges and costs associated with the
assimilation and naturalisation of refugees.
My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
How does the minister square our international obligations under
the Geneva convention with a head tax of $970 per adult refugee?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to say to the hon. member that the loan program for immigrants
and refugees is a mechanism to assist those in need of financial
assistance to cover the costs of certain fees associated with
entering Canada.
Second, 95% of beneficiaries are refugees in need of assistance.
This program has been a major success story. In fact, I am
pleased to inform the House that over 92% of the loans have been
paid back.
This not only demonstrates this government's commitment to
helping immigrants and refugees enter Canada, it also speaks well
to the integrity of newcomers to our country.
* * *
THUNDER BAY
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for
the Ministry of Transport.
In the middle of the city of Thunder Bay a railway tanker car
containing volatile butane sprung a leak, thus possibly
endangering the lives of hundreds of nearby residents.
What has been done and what is now being done to protect the
citizens of my riding in this situation?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada's top priority
is public safety. Propane gas response specialists were on the
scene early to assist the local fire department—
An hon. member: How dare he answer this.
Hon. Don Boudria: I am sorry that the leader of the
Conservative Party is not concerned about public safety.
As a preventive measure some 100 households were evacuated. As
of today that number has been reduced to safety, and Transport
Canada will be seizing the tanker car in question for
investigation.
* * *
1155
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
we ask the government what commitments it is going to make on
behalf of Canadians in Kyoto we get things like manana, manana,
tomorrow. But tomorrow is here.
We would like to know what are the standards to which this
minister is going to oblige Canadians. Will she tell us today?
Manana is here.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I suggest the Reform
Party go home and study this issue, listen to its constituents
and come back on Monday. We will let those members know on
Monday what our targets and time lines are.
This is a real and serious issue. The hon. member's
constituents are concerned about it. The constituents of each
and every one of the members want them to take a responsible
position on this issue.
* * *
[Translation]
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
to the Minister of International Trade.
Last week, the Standing Committee on Agriculture reviewed the issue
of the importation of oil, butter and sugar mixtures.
Will the government finally accept the dairy industry's request
that oil, butter and sugar mixtures be reclassified under the proper
tariff line, as has already been successfully argued in a recent NAFTA
panel?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very important question. We have spoken with industry
representatives in Quebec and in Canada. I have had extensive
discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and other
ministers.
We are willing to review this matter and we are working very hard
on this. I hope to be able to provide more information in the near
future.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
At a time when 57% of the unemployed are not eligible for
unemployment insurance, the Liberal government is reducing the deficit
on the backs of the unemployed. Because the Liberals do not care what
happens to the unemployed in this country, the CSN had to submit a
petition to the Federal Court to seek an end to the government's raiding
of the employment insurance fund.
Have we really reached the point where it is necessary to go to
court so that the unemployed can receive what they are entitled to, that
is more generous benefits? Or is the minister willing to promise that in
the future, the surplus will benefit only the unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we have implemented a major
employment insurance reform. We feel that the reserve is absolutely
necessary. I believe it is important that there be such a reserve.
Before we came to office, when the Conservative government was in
power, the employment insurance fund went from a surplus to a deficit of
$6 billion. A reserve is necessary because it reduces the need to
increase premiums in a full-blown recession.
We must also see to it that we can provide benefits when they are
most needed—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for West Nova.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, depending on
what time of day it is the minister responsible for Canada Post
cannot decide whether or not he is going to privatize the
corporation. The government has also made it clear that it has
no plans to end this postal strike. In fact, the government has
no long term business strategy for the future of the crown
corporation.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that
small and medium size businesses are losing $200 million a day
while this government drags its feet about ending the strike.
Does the minister have any idea what he is going to do about
Canada Post and if so, when?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government since
last April has given a mandate to Canada Post to have universal
service to all Canadians, to commercialize operations so that it
can make profits and investments in the future and also to have
price stamps below inflation.
That is what we are doing and we hope the negotiations will be
completed as soon as possible so it can go on with its mandate.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
The government is being criticized because potential immigrants are
allegedly discouraged from coming to Canada because they cannot afford
the landing fees.
Can the parliamentary secretary explain to this House what steps
she is taking to help those people who cannot afford the landing fees?
1200
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has a loans program which is very effective. In fact,
it helps at least 95% of refugees and people come to this
country. We also have a very high payback, 92%. It is a program
that works very well for refugees and immigrants coming into this
country. It is very effective.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, this
would bring us to the end of Question Period.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to
inform the House that the following members have been appointed
as members of the Board of Internal Economy for the purposes and
under the provisions of an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act, Chapter 32, Statutes of Canada 1997, namely, the hon. member
for Winnipeg—Transcona and the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
[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 pleasure to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 448 constituents of my
riding of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford concerning women appearing
topless in public. These constituents request Parliament to
enact legislation prohibiting women from appearing topless in
public.
* * *
[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
question will be answered today: No. 7.
.[Text]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver):
What has the government determined to be the average annual
unemployment rates over the previous 5 years for persons 18-25
and 26-34 with regard to: (a) ethnic identification and (b)
gender?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): According to
Statistics Canada:
Unemployment rates by gender
persons aged 18-25
Both Sexes—Men—Women
1992—16.6—19.4—13.6
1993—16.5—19.1—13.6
1994—15.3—17.0—13.4
1995—14.0—15.4—12.6
1996—14.3—15.4—13.0
Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada
Unemployment rates by gender
persons aged 26-34
Both Sexes—Men—Women
1992—11.7—12.9—10.3
1993—11.6—12.2—10.8
1994—10.7—11.4— 9.8
1995— 9.7—10.0— 9.3
1996— 9.7—10.1— 9.3
Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada
The labour force survey, source of Canada's official unemployment
estimates, does not include data on ethnic origin.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an
act to implement a convention between Canada and Sweden, a
convention between Canada and the Republic of Lithuania, a
convention between Canada and the Republic of Kazakhstan, a
convention between Canada and the Republic of Iceland and a
convention between Canada and the Kingdom of Denmark for the
avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion
with respect to taxes on income and to amend the
Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention Act, 1986, and the
Canada-United States Income Tax Convention Act, 1984, be read the
third time and passed.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to speak at third reading on C-10 that implements the treaty from
tax conventions with a number of countries such as Sweden,
Lithuania, Denmark and Kazakhstan. It amends tax treaties or
conventions with the United States and the Netherlands.
Primarily a housekeeping bill, but a very lengthy and detailed
one, it prevents double taxation in many cases and it works to
prevent fiscal evasion by citizens. For the most part, we
support the direction of the bill.
1205
However, we have major concern with part VII of the bill. It is
the amendment with the United States and it concerns over 80,000
people who receive social security benefits from the U.S. but who
reside in Canada.
What is happening to them is unfair because it is done
retroactively. These problems resulted from Bill S-9 in the last
Parliament. Bill C-9 was layered with different taxation items.
The main thrust of our efforts in attacking the bill focused on
the tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations.
However, many seniors were taken off guard when they experienced
a drastic and unanticipated reduction in their social security
benefits.
Before 1996, as a Canadian citizen living in Canada and
receiving U.S. social security benefits, they had to report all
these benefits on their Canadian tax return. Fifty per cent of
these benefits were then deducted. Therefore one ended up paying
Canadian taxes on the other 50%. The benefits however were not
subject to any U.S. income tax.
Since Bill S-9 was ratified, U.S. social security benefits were
no longer subject to Canadian tax. One still had to report these
benefits as income on their Canadian tax returns, but could
deduct the entire amount under “other deductions”.
This convoluted calculation is done because the government still
needs to include benefits in total income for purposes of
calculating the GST credit, child tax benefit and the provincial
tax credits.
What was bad news for pensioners was that their U.S. benefits
were now subject to U.S. tax. The tax was taken right off the
top at 25.6% of the total benefit. This tax could not be
recovered because it is treated as non-resident withholding tax.
There was a lot of legitimate protest after the passage of the
bill because it unfairly attacked the incomes of some 80,000
Canadians who had done their retirement planning and had based
their livelihood on a set of rules in place when they were
working in the United States.
The protest continued for a fair amount of time. Last April the
government made the announcement that there would be change.
Indeed, that change has been made in the bill which is before the
House today.
Now, instead of the United States taking off the withholding tax
of 25.5%, the government and the country where the citizen
resides will be taxing the citizen on the social security
payment, the Canadian government in this case.
On the flip side of the coin, the American government will tax
American citizens receiving the Canada pension plan or the Quebec
pension plan.
What this government did not do was go back to the pre-1995
taxation level which was 50% of the social security payments.
Instead, the government will be taxing 85% of the social security
benefits, 85% instead of the previous 50%.
One could make the argument that in many cases this is better
than it was a year or so ago but is still not nearly as good as
it was prior to 1995. This is very unfair. This was done
without properly consulting the people who were affected.
An organization called the Canadian Association of Social
Security Seeking Equality is involved in this issue. It lobbied
on this issue, and it was an important one, particularly in the
Windsor area, for the election of June 2.
These citizens were not properly consulted. They certainly did
not approve the change. For these people, the change is not
good. They did their planning based on the rules and then the
rules change.
Why is it that this government and its twin in the official
opposition only push for tax reform that will benefit the very
wealthy. For this reason, for the reason that the bill does not
go far enough, we will be opposing Bill C-10.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-10, an act to implement tax conventions
between Canada and the states of Sweden, Denmark, Iceland,
Kazakhstan, Lithuania as well as amending income tax conventions
between Canada and the countries of the Netherlands and the
United States of America.
My party supports the agreements and the intent of this
legislation would ratify in terms of income tax conventions
between Lithuania, Sweden, Kazakhstan, Iceland and Denmark to
avoid double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion.
1210
However, the Progressive Conservative Party raised concerns
earlier in the House surrounding the retroactive charges this
legislation holds for the 1984 Canada-United States Tax
Convention Act that was amended in 1995 by this Liberal
government.
The facts in the matter are the following. Part VII of this
bill is intended to uphold the promise made by the finance
minister on April 9, 1997, a promise made during a host of
pledges laid out by his government just days before the federal
election was called.
Initially, the reaction by the affected groups to the
announcement was extremely positive. However, now that the
legislation has come forward, there are still some serious
problems that have yet to be dealt with.
First, let us take a look at how the Liberals came to this
point. Right off the top, I want to be on the record commending
the Liberals for admitting they made a mistake. However, the
Liberals, after changing the tax protocol in 1995 and setting the
legislation effective January 1996, have now conceded they were
wrong and are retroactively setting January 1, 1996 as the date
effective for the current legislation, giving credence to the
saying “if you do not succeed at first, try, try again”.
Although they are trying, unfortunately they have
unsatisfactorily succeeded here.
The proposed increase from 50% to 85% inclusion of social
security benefits is ambiguous because the government has stated,
more often than not, that under American tax protocol Americans
are taxed at 85%. However, that 85% is a maximum and in fact the
majority of the people who fall under this provision are still
taxed at a 50% inclusion rate in the United States. In fact, on
page 4 of the U.S. Social Security Publication 915, it states:
The taxable part of your benefits usually cannot be more than
50%. However, up to 85% of your benefits may be taxable, only if
the following situation applies to you: the total amount of
one-half your benefits and all other income is more than $34,000.
Those are American dollars not Canadian. I would never suggest
that we follow the American lead, but just for information it
would be interesting to know what the income tax bracket
threshold would be for people required to pay over 50%. When
asked in committee, the officials could not give an equivocal
answer.
Furthermore, this increase does not take into account that in
the United States social security premiums are taxed when earned
and not taxed deferred as is the CPP in Canada.
Second, the Minister of Finance has stated publicly to those
affected that the social security aspect of the third protocol
was revenue neutral. If this is the case, why is the new change
increasing the inclusion amount by 70%?
Third, I have noticed that the retroactive change would not
cause Canadians to pay back taxes to Revenue Canada and those
owed money would be paid dually. For this I congratulate the
government. However, it is unfortunate that a consistent policy
cannot be followed. The reason I mention this is that recently
caucus colleagues of mine have had calls from constituents
involving a very similar situation.
The situation involved contract buyout packages whereby a
mistake by the government—notice in both instances a mistake by
the government was the cause of the problem—miscalculating
Treasury Board's buyout of the formula caused hardships to
thousands of Canadians. However, unlike C-10, in this particular
incident the people were required to pay back the money to the
government.
The incident I am referring to is the forces reduction plan
carried out by the Department of National Defence. Why were
people adversely affected by this defence buyout when the
Department of Finance is capable of writing off debt? These
constituents were given just 30 days to make arrangements for
payment on debts ranging anywhere from $100 up to $1,500 before
interest started to accumulate.
The former defence minister applied to the Treasury Board to
have the debt remitted last January and that request was denied
in March. One month later, the Minister of Finance announces the
contents of C-10 and is able to find money to retroactively pay
these retirees.
I realize the two instances are separate and need to be handled
on their own merit. However in my opinion the same standards
should have been used for military service personnel.
1215
My party believes the avenue the finance minister has used to
rectify the third protocol mistake he initiated two years ago is
flawed. These retired individuals do not deserve a 70% tax grab
by the finance minister who, while wavering on tax cuts, seems to
have no problem with tax hikes for retired people, as evidenced
by Bill C-2 and Bill C-10.
Some constituents have even commented on the fact that 15% is
non-taxable. These constituents have asked for the bill to
included a minimum of 15%. I understand it is improper to make
any change to new legislation, but that is something the
government should revisit in the future.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, Bill
C-10 makes me angry for several reasons. First, the Liberals
tried to convince people this was merely a technical change. They
tried to hide the fact that it was a tax grab. Second, the
Liberals tried to force the bill through committee so that nobody
would be able to recognize it as the tax grab it was before it
was okayed in parliament.
I will now talk about Mr. Farrel Mok. He receives a disability
pension from the United States. He is legally blind. He has
recently undergone a liver transplant and his medication costs
are very high. Prior to 1996 Mr. Mok's pension was treated as
tax exempt, but that is no longer the case. Under the third
protocol there was a 25.5% tax at source. He was totally
unprepared for the tax grab the government quickly imposed
without warning in the new fourth protocol.
Mr. Mok says the disability pension is his major source of
income and he is incapable of working. The imposition of the tax
on his revenue has caused “tremendous hardship” as described by
Mr. Mok. The fourth protocol will cause even greater hardship
since he now must include 85% of his pension in his taxable
personal income.
Mr. Mok says that although his situation is bad he knows that
others are much worse and that it will be even harder for persons
who receive disability pensions and are residents in health care
facilities. These people are in danger of being forced to leave
the facilities because they will no longer be able to afford the
cost of the care.
It basically goes to some of the tenets of what the Liberal
Party stands for in this regard. They are arrogant and out of
touch. They are elitist because they think they know better.
When it all comes to naught and we scratch below the surface,
they are tax and spend Liberals.
Under the second protocol Canada taxed about 50% of what was
coming in, in U.S. social security benefits. Then under the
third protocol it was split between the two governments. They
both had a crack at roughly 25% of the money that was coming in.
Now with the fourth protocol we have not only gone back to the
process whereby Canada has full jurisdiction on this taxation so
it can once tax 50% but the Liberals have upped it. The Liberal
government has upped it to 85%.
The taxman had the whole arm of seniors. Then that was changed
by the third protocol and the taxman shared the arm. The United
States got half of it and the Canadian tax man got the other
half. Under the fourth protocol the Canadian taxman has the
first part of the arm he had to begin with and the part the
United States used to have before. Since it has been tacked up
to 85% he is taking an extra share of what the seniors have left.
That demonstrates exactly what is going on with Bill C-10, the
tax protocol.
I have heard people across the way say that the bill has been
out there for two years. There is nobody to blame for the bill
being out there for two years but the Liberals. Liberal tax
increases have been out there since Confederation. I wish people
would finally realize what is going on.
I have some questions about legislation as it comes before the
House.
These are litmus tests which I believe can be applied to most
legislation that comes before the House. The first question is
who wants it. The 45,000 to 50,000 seniors who receive their
social security benefits from the United States do not want an
85% inclusion rate.
1220
Let us look at some of the other stakeholders. Is it the 50,000
people across the boarder in the United States who receive OAS
and some of our Canada pension plan benefits? No, they do not
want it either. If it affects people who collect social security
benefits in the United States, there is a good chance that it
will have impact on Canadians in the United States who are
collecting some of their benefits. That is a total of 100,000
people who do not want it.
The only other stakeholder in the group is the Canadian
government, the taxman, the finance minister and the revenue
minister. They are the only people who want it.
Then we have to ask who will pay for it. The American
government will not pay for it. The Canadian government will not
pay for it. The people who pay taxes are the seniors who planned
on receiving the benefit and not having it taxed at an 85%
inclusion rate. That is who will pay for it. It will be on the
backs of seniors.
Once again the Liberals have brought in 37 tax increases. The
Canada pension plan increase is the 38th. The government has a
record of tax increases since it took office in 1993. Once again
the taxpayer will pay for it.
This time it is particularly insidious because it is not hitting
all taxpayers. The government is going after a small group of
taxpayers, 50,000 senior citizens. They are the ones who will
pay the bill. Those people who have worked and helped build the
country are being taxed at an 85% rate of inclusion when it used
to be 50%. The Liberals have the audacity to claim it was
somehow a technical change and not a net tax grab. When taxes go
from 50% to 85% it is a huge tax grab, tax hike. Shame on the
Liberals for calling it a mere technical change.
Who will slip through the cracks? The Liberal said they would
give a tiggly-wiggly rebate to some people. What about the
people who moved? What about the people who die? What about
those people who were not on the government records for the
rebate? Those are the ones who will slip through the cracks.
The Liberals think that by putting through the legislation and
calling it a technical tax bill somehow they will be able to pull
the wool over the eyes of Canadians and slip this through. My
alternative is not to impose an 85% inclusion tax rate. That is
the Reform solution. The government does not need more money. It
spends it unwisely.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rob Anders: If the member across the way would like
to engage in a debate about how poorly his government spends tax
money, I would do it. I raise it now because it is relevant to
the debate.
Who slips through the cracks? The 50,000 seniors are the ones
who will get nailed by this measure. We should be concerned
about them and not the revenue minister or the technicalities.
Does it solve the problem it was intended to address? What was
the problem? There was a complication. Both the United States
and Canada had joint jurisdiction in taxing social security
benefits. Under the second protocol Canada had a crack at 50%.
Under the third protocol the United States and Canada both had
relatively equal cracks at roughly 25% each. That was complex
and proved to be too problematic so people were calling for a
change. They asked for it to be taken back to the time when
Canada had full jurisdiction.
Then the Liberals agreed to do that, but rather than moving back
to the 50% they had in the second protocol, they brought in a tax
hike and hit everybody with 85%. Does it solve the problem of
the complexity? Yes, it makes sure Canada has sole jurisdiction.
Only the Canadian taxman, the finance minister and the revenue
minister on the Liberal benches will get the money.
It no longer goes to the United States.
1225
However, they solve the problem by bringing in a tax hike, a
built-in 70% top up in terms of what was coming in before as
revenue. It is the 37th tax increase the government has
implemented since it took office in 1993.
Surely, if there are problems with a bill, the Liberals should
be running with their tails between their legs, realizing this is
a tax grab that they will be nailed for.
The list gets worse. Now it comes to how much it will cost. The
seniors affected say it will impact them to the tune of about
$2,000 each. It could be much more for many of them. If we take
that round number and multiply it by 50,000, we are talking about
millions of dollars which the government is milking from a small
select group of seniors. It applies to anybody who makes more
than $7,000 a year. This impacts a wide spectrum of seniors.
Of those 50,000 people collecting U.S. social security benefits,
those who make more than $7,000 per year will be impacted by the
Liberal tax grab. Anyone who makes beyond the basic tax
exemption will be nailed by members across the way.
They have the audacity to claim that this is a technical tax
hike. It is not. It is impacting on every person of the 50,000
who qualify for U.S. social security benefits above the basic tax
exemption of $7,000. It is tough for me to imagine how one would
be able to live on $7,000, but some seniors obviously do it.
Government members say that anybody who makes more than $7,000
will be taxed at an 85% rate of inclusion on their U.S. social
security benefits. Shame on them.
They did not have the courage to raise this issue before the
election. No, they dillied and they dallied. They brought it in
as one of their first measures after they formed the government.
Why did they bring it in right after they secured their mandate
in an election? Why did they raise CPP premiums? Why did they
do these things? It is because they know these things are
unpopular. It is a classic example of government reserving tax
hike decisions until after the election.
When they were campaigning in Windsor where it will impact a lot
of seniors I did not hear the Liberals talking about how they
would suck tax money out of seniors who live in that neck of the
woods. They did not have the courage to do it. They knew it
would impact on votes, the bottom line for Liberals. They left
the decision until after the election. Just like the CPP tax
hike, they are bringing it in right on the heels of the election.
They are hoping seniors will forget by the time it comes around
to the next election.
I speak on behalf of seniors in Windsor, for those people who
are being taxed beyond the second and third protocols. I hope
these people remember and take it out on the Liberals in Windsor
who did not stand up for them or talk about it previous to the
election. They brought it in on the heels of their mandate. I
hope they lose their seats for what they have done to seniors in
Windsor and across the country who will be taxed at an 85% rate
of inclusion, 70% higher than they were taxed under the second
protocol. Shame on the Liberals.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to
correct the record. The hon. member obviously does not have his
facts correct. The 85% inclusion policy was announced in April,
before the election.
As the member from Essex county, just outside Windsor, it was in
my campaign brochure for everyone to see. They knew exactly what
they were voting on. I wanted to ensure my constituents knew we
had gone to bat for them and that we had incurred a change they
wanted.
It does not only affect seniors. It also affects disabled
Canadians. On average they receive $6,000. Overall those
earning low incomes will pay less tax under the new proposal than
they did under the 25.5%. Some will pay no tax. The majority
will be better off.
I think Reform Party members should get their facts straight.
1230
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, once again I am going to
apply that litmus test question to that Liberal MP across the way
with the quavering voice because she knows exactly what she did
to those seniors.
The question is who wants it. I cannot personally believe that
she had seniors in her riding begging for an 85% inclusion rate.
I can believe that seniors in her riding were asking for a
simplification. There is no way they were asking for that rate
to be jumped from 50% to 85%. Shame on her.
That is a 70% jump in the rate and I bet my bottom dollar that
not a single senior went to her office or spoke in a town hall or
read her literature and said “by Jove, I want to see a jump in
the rate I pay on this”. Shame on her.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Madam Speaker, with all
due respect to the hon. member, I think he should be aware that I
have discussed this with thousands of people in my riding. I
have knocked on doors and talked about the issue. And no, no one
would like to see it go from 50% to 85%. However, we want to
treat all Canadians on parity.
All Canadians, especially those seniors he talked about who use
our health care system who live in Canada, should pay their fair
share of taxes. An 85% inclusion rate still recognizes that 15%
of it is not taxable. They live in Canada and they use our
health care system. So their neighbours are going to pay on 100%
of their income and they are going to pay on 85% because we are
recognizing that they paid tax dollars on that.
I believe that the majority of my constituents know and believe
they want to be treated fairly and equitably with their
neighbours. In case the hon. member is not aware, I have direct
family members who are affected by this. We have discussed this.
They have told me they want to pay their fair share of taxes.
They do not want special treatment. As well, some of my family
members are going to be under the amount that will have to pay
taxes and they do not deserve to pay taxes, disabled Canadians,
and they will be getting their money back, and the sooner the
better.
The longer the Reform Party holds this up, and that is exactly
what it is doing by delaying and delaying, these people will not
get their cheques. I say to the hon. members across the way
please support this bill and get it back on track.
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, I have just heard the
admission I need. She made it right here in the House. She said
no senior stood up and asked her for an 85% inclusion rate. Yet
we have the government bringing this bill forward.
That says to me, it screams it out loud, I asked the question in
the House but she just admitted it here, the only people who want
it are her, the revenue minister and the finance minister.
While she has consulted with seniors, and nobody asked for an
85% inclusion rate, she stands here with pride in the House today
and bellyaches about how she wants to see an 85% inclusion rate,
how it is fair, but that nobody asked for it, nobody demanded it,
nobody wanted it.
The only people who want are this Liberal MP and some of the
people she is defending in terms of the finance minister and the
revenue minister. In terms of equity, where is the equity when
those people in the United States were putting in their tax
money? They were being taxed at the point of source. They were
being taxed on putting money into this fund and now they get
taxed again on taking it out, but this time it is by the Canadian
government. They got taxed by the United States going into it
and they are getting taxed at an 85% inclusion rate by this
government, by the Liberals, on the way out.
Once again I just want to drive it home for the seniors in
Windsor. They said it in the House today. Nobody asked for an
85% inclusion rate but this government is doing it to them
anyhow.
Ms. Susan Whelan: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon.
member has confused the record once again. What the seniors in
Windsor and Essex County said, and very clearly at the meetings I
was at, is that they did not want a 25.5% withholding tax. They
wanted that system changed. We told them up front that they
cannot go back to the 50%. We have to do something new. We sat
down with them and worked out the numbers.
Originally the majority of the people from the case group
thought the 85% inclusion rate was fair because it benefited low
income and middle income seniors. The people who are going to be
affected or are going to have perhaps higher taxes than under the
25.5% are those who are in the upper income the hon. member
speaks on behalf of.
Anyone in the middle or lower income under an 85% inclusion rate
will pay little or no tax and will pay a lot less tax than under
the 25.5% withholding tax. We cannot go back three steps. We
have to move forward.
We were dealing with a 25.5% withholding tax. We have to go
into the future and that is what we are doing.
1235
I can guarantee we are fighting on behalf of low income and
middle income seniors and all seniors so they are on parity with
their Canadian neighbours, where as the Reform Party stands today
and the numbers will show that it is only fighting for the rich.
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, if that member across the
way has the audacity to say that people who make $7,000 a year
above the basic tax exemption or better are the idle rich, shame
on her.
Every person, every senior of those 50,000 who makes more than
the basic personal exemption of roughly $7,000 pays that 85%
inclusion rate; 85% if you make more than $7,000. Shame on her.
For somebody making $8,000 in a U.S. social security benefit,
for her to claim those people are the idle rich when they make
more than $7,000 on that and are going to pay 85% rate of
inclusion, when it was 50% before, shame on her. How dare she
stand before the House and call somebody who makes $8,000 the
idle rich.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday,
December 1, 1997 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
* * *
CANADA CO-OPERATIVES ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, an act
respecting co-operatives, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There are two motions
in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of
Bill C-5.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
I will now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Industry) moved:
Motion No. 1
That
Bill C-5, in Clause 85, be amended by replacing lines 28 to
30 on page 49 with the following:
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak at report stage
of Bill C-5, an act respecting cooperatives. I am also pleased to
report to the House on two supplementary amendments which came
after the adjournment of deliberations on Bill C-5 by the Standing
Committee on Industry.
[English]
The need for two more technical amendments became apparent just
after the committee adjourned its hearings. We would like to put
forward these amendments now.
1240
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
regret having to interrupt my colleague. There is one more
grouping. I wonder if we could seek unanimous consent that the
second motion be deemed read and seconded, while the ministers
who were just mentioned are still present in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I too am pleased to speak of the two additional amendments
in the House today, which were made following the adjournment of
the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Industry on Bill C-5.
[English]
The need for two more technical amendments became apparent just
after the committee adjourned its hearings. We would like to put
forward these amendments now.
The first relates to section 85 of the bill. The amendment is
required to correct the conflict regarding how long directors may
be appointed to fill an existing vacancy on a board.
Section 85(1)(b) states that an appointed director may fill a
vacancy until the next annual meeting. However, section 85(9)
states that the director may serve for the unexpired term of
their predecessor.
The amendment resolves the conflict by removing the time period
set out in section 85(1)(b). This ensures that the bill is
consistent with similar provisions of other federal corporate law
statutes.
[Translation]
Permit me to remind the House of the way Bill C-5 was drafted.
The bill is the result of an initiative by users, that is, the
co-operative sector. It comes from people who know best what it
takes to maintain the vitality and dynamism of the co-operative
movement.
The co-operatives sector in Canada sought a consensus among
its members on their needs in order to survive and prosper in a
competitive market. This bill is the outcome of hard work and
devotion by the members of the co-operative movement in an effort
to modernize legislation.
The bill was well received by all parties at second reading.
In addition, it received the general approval of the committee, not
only of the witnesses appearing before it but of the members
sitting on it.
The bill has three main objectives. The first consists in
revitalizing the rules for managing co-operatives. Accordingly,
the bill gives co-operatives access to tools other businesses
already have. Furthermore, it simplifies the process of
incorporation and reduces government intervention to a minimum.
The second objective is to give co-operatives access to new
forms of financing. For example, it authorizes them to issue
participating stock on the stock exchanges enabling them to borrow
on the financial market if they wish to do so.
The third objective is to reinforce the distinct character of
co-operatives, by ensuring that only those organizations
operating according to co-operative principles may be constituted
as co-operatives. The bill also reinforces the control exercised
by members and empowers them to decide on the structure of the
co-operative.
The new legislation will enable Canadian co-operatives to
operate effectively. It will help to stimulate investment,
economic growth and job creation in numerous communities throughout
Canada.
The co-operatives have been anxiously awaiting this reform.
They have done their part. They did all of the ground work
themselves. They have clearly pointed out what they wanted in this
bill, and worked hammer and tongs to attain that goal.
The work done by the co-operatives has considerably
facilitated the process of studying the bill.
The effects of this can be seen in the support it has received on
second reading and in committee.
[English]
The industry committee heard from several witnesses. It heard
from two national organizations representing co-operatives, the
Canadian Co-operative Association and the Conseil canadien de
la coopération.
Further, it heard from specific members of the co-operative
sector, the Alberta Wheat Pool and the Manitoba Pool Elevators.
Finally, it heard about the cross-country consultations on this
initiative with grassroots members of the co-operative sector.
1245
One substantive issue was raised at committee. It concerned the
ability of a co-operative to pay out a member who dissents on a
proposal for a fundamental change or a change to the articles.
Some members of the co-operative sector raised concerns that the
right of members to dissent and be paid out could potentially
jeopardize the capital base of a co-operative. These concerns
were expressed in committee by the Alberta Wheat Pool and the
Manitoba Pool Elevators.
In the true spirit of co-operation, a consensus was arrived at
within the co-operative sector itself to deal with this issue. An
amendment was proposed to allow a co-op to set out in its
articles a time period for payout to a dissenting member as long
as the time period does not exceed 10 years.
The amendment also ensures that the rights of members are
protected by stipulating that any payout made will accumulate
interest at rates set out in the regulations. This amendment was
passed in committee.
Five other amendments were passed in committee. These were all
technical in nature and did not raise any debate.
I wish to commend the hard work done by all committee members
from all parties to bring Bill C-5 to fruition.
[Translation]
I will be pleased to address the second amendment in a few
minutes.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
second reading, the Bloc Quebecois expressed its agreement in
principle with this bill.
It pointed out, in particular, certain concerns raised by the
bill. It is true that this bill started with a request from the
co-operatives, but it must be kept in mind that Canadian and Quebec
co-operatives, which, like the other co-operatives in the world,
have to adjust to economic changes, have been involved in serious
debate among themselves. They are torn between wanting to be
flexible enough for the new economy, and not straying too far away
from co-operative principles.
I know, and this is a finding I want to report, arising out of
the work of the committee, that the Conseil québécois des
coopératives, which encompasses all Quebec co-operatives, agreed
with the bill in the end, but only after negotiating and winning a
number of points it proposed.
At report stage, the Conseil québécois pointed out that one of the
points on which it had not won out related to the powers of the
general assembly of members.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the
first amendment, which suddenly popped up after this lengthy
process, which took two years, and after the end of the committee's
work at report stage, without our having heard a word about it
beforehand, is a new one. It must be pointed out as well that this
amendment diminishes the power of the general assembly of members
and confirms the concerns I have expressed.
At the report stage, in the light of the discussions going on
in the union movement, I said I still had some concerns about this
bill. The representative of the Conseil québécois des coopératives
did not say I was wrong to have concerns. He said he shared them,
but that out of solidarity he would agree with his Canadian
colleagues, pointing out that very few co-operatives in Quebec are
federally chartered. To my knowledge, there are only six of 2,900,
if we count all the co-operatives and 1,650 if we count the non-
financial ones.
The amendment is not insignificant. It eliminates the use of
general meetings to replace members who themselves were replaced by
the board of directors.
1250
I will try to make this a bit clearer. When a board member
appointed by the general meeting has to resign or be removed, one
of two things can happen: either they wait until the next general
meeting or they are replaced. The bill provided that a replacement
be found just until the next annual meeting. The first amendment
eliminates the “until the next annual meeting”.
Quebec law, and I checked, very specifically provides that, in
such an instance, the vacancy is filled until the next annual
meeting, or—to put it another way—for the remainder of the
mandate.
So I feel quite justified in saying that it is deplorable that,
after this process, which must be commended, we end up reducing
members' powers.
I add that, for Quebec members, the powers of the members at
the general meeting had been reduced compared to what is provided
in Quebec legislation, because in this attempt at modernization,
non-members may hold capital. Under Quebec law, these non-members
may become board members, because they provide capital, but their
appointment must be approved by the annual general meeting. This
is what the Conseil wanted in the federal legislation, but it was
denied.
So, not only will there be members on the board of directors
who have not received the approval of the annual general meeting,
but, if a member is replaced, the bill does not say it is only
until the next annual general meeting.
For this reason, I am strongly opposed to this amendment and
once again I do not understand why a government that has boasted
about giving co-operatives what they wanted shows up with this
amendment at the last minute. It confirms the fears I had, because
co-operatives, of course, have to come up with the means to operate
as best they can.
This is an important sector of our economy.
It is a sector that is exceptional for the collective ownership
by the members, and for the corporate characteristic of putting
longevity ahead of short term profits, through transferability,
purchase, sale, and so forth. It is therefore an important
sector of the economy that needs to evolve, but it cannot do so
by abandoning its fundamental principles. One of these
principles is the power of the annual general meeting.
We therefore oppose this first amendment.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be speaking to the bill in general and certainly to the
amendment.
I have been encouraged by the whole process surrounding this
bill, particularly by the way it was handled by the committee and
the way the government listened to the concerns of the co-op
members. I think the co-op sets a good example for all of us. The
whole co-op structure is based on accountability to the members.
That is part of the reason why the whole process works so well.
The amendments proposed to the bill and the total bill really
were birthed out of concerns of the co-op management and members.
The co-operatives recognized there was a need for change. They
are in an increasingly competitive environment. They realized if
they did not make some changes their viability was at risk for
the long term.
1255
They realized they were competing against larger entities with
smaller management hierarchies and less bureaucracy. They
realized they had to be more customer focused and more efficient.
They realized that some investment dollars were needed in order
to sustain them for the long term. I thought it was interesting
that this realization caused them to actually bring forward the
legislation in this bill, even to the point in our committee of
fine tuning some of the amendments that we have here, to make
sure there was not one thing that was not addressed.
These amendments here today were not something that the
government so much brought forward as the members of the
co-operatives themselves did. The management of the
co-operatives brought them on themselves. This shows the
accountability back to the members and that the government is
listening to the needs of this industry and this group worked in
this case. It was quite encouraging to me.
What I would like to see as a take-out of this whole endeavour
is the lessons learned on the positive side. I encourage the
government also to deal with some of the realities that Canadians
are faced with and look at the model in this bill: a
responsiveness to membership, a responsiveness to the people that
put the directors of the co-operatives in place and the people
that put us here.
I have concerns as I look at this bill and I compare it to what
I see us in the House and the government doing. We talk about the
fact that there is no deficit outstanding, we are hoping, yet we
are sitting on a $600 billion debt and we see interest rates
threatening to creep up on us. We are sitting on an interest
rate time bomb. We pay $45 billion a year in interest. I was
doing a calculation on this and that is enough money to put four
million young people through a four year degree program at
university. That is a lot of money and we pay that in interest
every year.
These are all realities Canadians have to face. When I look at
the co-operative situation and I look at what is happening in our
government, I do not see the same kind of responsiveness here in
the House of Commons. When I look at the throne speech with 29
new spending initiatives and we have that reality as far as the
debt and the interest goes, it just does not line up for me and I
do not think it lines up for a lot of Canadians.
Canadians are looking for us to deal with the realities that are
needed in Canada today. Less government, not more. The
co-operatives have demonstrated this in the management of their
own operations. We do not seem to be able to do it in this
House. We need to consider allowing Canadians to be heard the
same way that members of the co-operatives were, to allow this
government to encourage an environment where Canadians can plan
for their future like the co-operatives have planned for theirs.
The problem is that we do not seem to be listening here and a
lot of Canadians are pretty frustrated about that. What we get
instead is what I have heard on and off in the debate in this
House in the last couple of days and actually over the last
several weeks.
There is a plan for the CPP that is going to bail it out they
say, but it has been there for 30 years and 30 years of
government management has left a $560 billion unfunded liability.
The money that goes in at one end pays for those who receive it
at the other. There really is no equity there to draw from, even
though we have been paying into it for 30 years. There was a
study done in Maclean's not long ago that 66% of Canadians
do not believe it will be there for them when it comes time for
them to collect. This is pretty tragic.
Instead of listening to some of the proposals we put forward and
some of the other strategies that are out there in the world that
have bailed out government funded pension plans and that are
working, the government's answer is to increase the premiums by
73%. It will keep grinding the old engine hoping it is going to
work one day. The fact is that it has not for 30 years and it is
very unlikely it will go forward. Ten percent of every
Canadian's paycheque is going to be going into a plan that has
not worked.
What is equally tragic about this whole thing is that we are not
listening. The government is not listening to the people,
especially when we consider that youth unemployment is sitting at
16.5% to 17%.
Here is our answer. We are going to hike up payroll taxes. We
are going to hike up CPP. It is a mistake on the government's
part. It will hurt the youth of this nation more than we can
fully comprehend. They are the people who are keen to get out
and apply their skills and energy. If that is cut off it will
have negative reverberations in our country for years to come.
The hope of our youth is being crushed with high payroll taxes.
1300
In hoping to make us feel better about it, the government
introduced a CPP investment board to manage the funds. Many of
us have seen the results of government appointed boards. It is
more of a concern than a consolation.
What Canadians really want is something like the co-operatives
are doing. They want the ability to manage their own affairs.
They want to manage their own money. We should remember that it
is, in fact, their money.
They could do it successfully. Many people have their own
investment plans, their own pension plans, which are available in
other countries. Those plans have worked three to four times
better than what we are seeing in government-run plans.
This would give Canadians a chance to plan for their future,
just like the co-operatives are attempting to do. They are
planning for their future in a very competitive marketplace.
There is another thing the co-operatives did with this very
interesting bill and these amendments. They looked for a way to
protect themselves and to survive for the long term. That seems
to be very wise in this day and age. Canadians want to have the
same opportunity to protect themselves and to establish security
for their families in the long term.
It is incumbent upon government, particularly the Government of
Canada, to do all it can to move that along. However, the
government is holding it up. It continually says that is what it
wants to do, but we are over-governed, we have a debt and
interest problem, we have the highest tax to GDP ratio of all the
G-7 countries. Twenty-nine new spending initiatives were
announced, even in the face of that. CPP has been increased 10%.
We have another government appointed board.
Those are not the answers that Canadians are looking for. We do
not need more bricks on the load, we need relief, especially in
the face of youth unemployment at 16.5% and using the EI surplus
to pay down the debt and balance the budget. These are not the
answers.
There is some hope. The hope is that the government was able to
listen to the co-operatives and is responding to the needs of the
co-operatives. That tells me that there is a ray of hope here.
When government is ready to listen and frees itself from
political patronage and influence and concerns itself with where
Canadians are at, there is hope. The co-operatives are allowed to
plan for their future.
We support this bill, not only for what it does for the
co-operatives but for what it represents. It represents the kind
of approach to government that is responsive to the voters and
will bring about resolutions and improvements to serve the needs
of Canadians.
Let us take this simple bill and use it as an example—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Churchill River.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
stand on behalf of my party to support Bill C-5, as amended.
The amendments up to now, until the recent amendment which was
moved quickly, were consistent with the co-operative way of doing
business. The co-operative movement during consultations was
challenged to support the bill as it was drafted, as well as the
amendments. It went two rounds in the co-operative sector before
it went one round in the federal sector. That shows great
respect for the co-operative movement.
These amendments seem to be all but technical issues. The
co-operative sector actively discussed the amendments as did
officials from Industry Canada, the co-op secretariat of
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and there was a representation
from the co-op of national organizations.
1305
With respect to the position that the co-op sector has had in
its gatherings as representatives, this bill seems to be a great
step for our country. I would like to talk to the whole
co-operative movement about how it will deal in light of the
increasingly globalized world.
There are many federated co-op activities in Canada in areas
related to fuel and food and many other items that meet the basic
economic needs of people in this country. There is one key
phrase among these items, “Truly Canadian”. That is probably
the most powerful message of the co-operative movement. That is
a unity message for us. Even our fellow representatives from
Quebec showed support for a co-operative movement in their
provinces. That co-op supports the idea that people should
combine their efforts, their resources and their visions in an
effort to create and support our economy. An entrepreneur from
downtown New York would never imagine helping someone in small
town Canada.
We have seen the Arctic co-ops shine. They are groups of
partisans and craftsmen who have gathered their crafts and their
marketing skills and have shown the world that as Inuit artists
they could not do it singlehandedly. An individual could not
create the energy or the economy or the resources, but many
individuals could create collectively. As a collective the Inuit
artists can be seen as a spotlight of this nation throughout the
world.
I draw the House's attention to some of the experiences the
co-ops have created in this country. In my neck of the woods,
the Boreal Forest, the fur industry was a major activity. It was
handled through Hudson's Bay and the Rupert's Land agreements of
the British North America Act. All of a sudden the fur trade
began to wither away. Nobody represented the trappers. All of a
sudden their whole economy was falling apart.
The fur marketing board started up in northern Saskatchewan and
the province of Saskatchewan through the CCF movement saw the
light that could empower the people to market their own product.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in regard to a leaked
report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Beauchesne's sixth
edition, citation 877 states:
No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has
been reported to the House. Upon this principle the House of
Commons of the United Kingdom, on April 21, 1937, resolved “That
the evidence taken by any select committee of this House and the
documents presented to such committee and which have not been
reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of
such committee or by any other person”. The publication of
proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of
reports of committees before they are available to Members will,
however, constitute a breach of privilege.
Today in an article written by Rob Carrick of the Globe and
Mail, a portion of the contents of the finance committee's
pre-budget report was revealed. The first two paragraphs state:
The foreign content on RRSPs and registered pension funds should
rise to 30 per cent from the current 20 per cent, the House of
Commons finance committee says. The limit should be raised by
two percentage points annually for five years, the committee says
in a pre-budget report to Finance Minister Paul Martin that will
be released Monday.
This morning at the finance committee members of the government
admitted they had talked to the press concerning some issues in
the matter of the work of the committee in preparing this report.
1310
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page
188 states:
A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is
one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the member is
sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to send it to a
committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have
been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House.
The evidence regarding this alleged leak of the pre-budget
finance report is more than sufficiently strong. The article in
the Globe and Mail would have us believe that the
journalists either had access to the report or was told in detail
of the report.
We are getting a little tired of the lack of respect this
government gives this House and, in particular, those matters
concerning finance and the Department of Finance.
Need I remind this House that only recently there was a
complaint in this House concerning the government with respect to
the setting up of the CPP board before the bill to authorize the
board was passed by Parliament. The Speaker commented on this on
November 6, 1997 on page 1006 of Hansard. He said:
This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often
enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and
practices. That it is the Department of Finance that is
complained of once again has not gone unnoticed.
Once again, it is the same group of people making a mockery of
our parliamentary conventions. They view Parliament as a
nuisance. They have little respect for Parliament and it is time
we take them to task.
Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of
privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is on the same point of order raised by the hon. member.
As a member of the finance committee and having been at the
meeting today and present at the consultations, I would like to
advise members of certain facts which maybe are not clear from
the intervention of the member who just spoke.
First, we are not talking about legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In the opinion of
the Chair, we are now getting into debate. I listened carefully
to the intervention by the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley. The Chair will take the point of privilege raised by the
member under advisement and the Speaker will rule as to whether
or not this is a point of privilege and the Speaker will rule as
to what further steps the House will make. However, we will not
get into debate on the merits at this time.
I assure the House that the Chair does appreciate the importance
of the member's potential point of privilege. The Speaker will
rule on the potential point of privilege.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA CO-OPERATIVES ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, an act respecting
co-operatives, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have heard stories from my parents and grandparents about the fur
trade and the creation of a co-operative movement to try to
market their furs. Unfortunately, we lived in the backwoods of
the Churchill River, far removed from the garment makers in
Montreal. In those days it was way beyond anyone's means to
transport or communicate in order to co-operatively market and
envision ourselves as a world leader in garment development in
fur.
The co-operatives have taken on challenges. They have made
mistakes by trying to develop economies through a collective
effort in the communities. We cannot blame them for that because
the effort was worth it. Individual markets and the
globalization of multinationals who take out of our markets and
economies is probably our nation's biggest fear.
1315
Look at the success of the agricultural co-ops, the pools in
marketing their grains and agricultural products worldwide. It
is a major success. We have a wealth of resources in this
country, resources in our people and our ideas. We have our
timber, mining, water and other natural resources and
non-renewable resources, all living resources.
I would like members to pay attention when they go to the
parliamentary restaurant and turn to the right as they enter.
They will see a picture highlighting the capital of this nation
and its pyramid load is on the land, the resources, the timber,
mining and fish. That image should be drawn up in a co-operative
measure as how to go forward into the next millennium.
Look at the crown corporations. We have been selling off our
railroads to American interests. All of a sudden Omnitrax owns
major tracks of railroads in western Canada. Why did we not give
the first option to Canadians? Maybe a Canadian co-operative
could have taken up the transportation sector. Why not challenge
ourselves in a co-operative perspective and give the first option
to truly Canadian people as opposed to outside offshore
interests?
I am very proud to speak on behalf of all the New Democrats and
support this growing process of the co-operative movement in our
nation. I encourage all Canadians to support their co-operatives
in their regions. We must keep the process of negotiating these
bills and amendments by taking it to the co-operative leaders and
representatives and let them design and structure the necessary
bills and legislation to come before the House.
The amendment which came in late, unfortunately may have missed
the opportunity. However, I think it is truly a technical
oversight on the part of legislators.
In closing, there are issues on the multilateral agreement on
investment that will impinge on our national ability to improve
the economy and the strength of our Canadian companies because
outside interests can actually test the favouritism of our
Canadian corporations and co-operatives.
The parties have united in supporting the co-operatives bill. We
are looking to the government and the collection of all
representatives of Canada to see the co-operatives flourish in
this nation.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-5, an act representing co-operatives.
Canada's history respecting co-operatives dates back to the
mid-1800s with the formation of the Farmers' Mutual Fire
Insurance Company. This was a result of the recognition by
farmers that they too could have the same security in producing
and marketing their products as seen by successful large
businesses. The farmers decided to band together to gain better
control over the marketing of their products and purchases. This
was the birth of co-operatives in Canada.
The PC Party is pleased to support this legislation. Let me
highlight some of the main characteristics of Bill C-5.
Bill C-5 redefines and widens the definition of co-operative
basis. The principles of co-operative basis date back to 1844 and
were set out by the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers in
England. These principles formed the basis of most Canadian
provincial legislation for over 50 years before they were adopted
by the federal government in the Co-operative Associations Act.
The new definition under Bill C-5 is in keeping with the 1995
statement on co-operative identity issued by the International
Co-operatives Alliance and sets the tone for all proposed changes
to the act. The new definition includes the principle of open
membership.
There is also some flexibility added to the one member, one vote
principle with regard to delegate voting.
1320
Furthermore the principle of member funded investment is
expanded under Bill C-5 in order to provide for co-ops issuing
investment shares. The principle of using surplus funds to
extend the operation of co-operative enterprises is also added.
Finally, the principle of education is included.
Bill C-5 makes changes to the rules governing incorporation. It
permits co-operatives to incorporate provided they operate on a
co-operative basis.
The act currently requires a memorandum of association for the
granting of incorporation status. This memorandum is submitted
to the minister. He then decides, provided the application meets
all technical requirements and conditions, to either grant or
deny the right of incorporation. This paternalistic approach
works against the co-operative philosophy of group decision
making.
With Bill C-5 they will be acting under the same principles of
the Business Corporations Act of incorporation as a right and not
at the discretion of the crown. The proposed system is simpler
and would streamline the administrative practices. This would
also reduce the costs currently associated with incorporation for
all parties.
Bill C-5 introduces the concept of natural person when
describing co-operatives. As a result, they are awarded the same
rights and privileges of a natural person. This is instead of
detailing the various rights, powers and privileges individually.
It is also in keeping with the same rights now awarded to
business corporations and mirrors the powers some provinces
already offer co-operatives.
Record keeping under Bill C-5 is simplified and streamlined.
This again is in keeping with similar rules found in the Business
Corporations Act.
Bill C-5 simplifies the rules governing amalgamations with other
co-operatives or corporations. For instance, Bill C-5 will allow
provincial co-operatives to merge with federal co-operatives
provided that the end result is a federal co-op.
Furthermore, co-operatives will have similar rights to those of
business corporations under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
When applying for an arrangement, the courts will have the power
to order an arrangement or reorganization and not the crown. This
is a change from the current situation where members apply
directly to the minister.
Bill C-5 also includes provisions specifically for worker and
housing co-operatives. Currently they are governed under general
rules in the existing act. The industry has identified several
gaps in the current legislation which does not address the needs
of these two types of co-operatives. Bill C-5 attempts to
resolve this problem.
In conclusion, I am pleased to support Bill C-5. I believe that
it will benefit co-operatives and in turn, millions of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, because I sit on
the industry committee, which considered this bill, and
particularly because I am the member for Lévis, I am pleased to
take part in this debate.
“Why Lévis?” you may ask. As all Quebeckers know, Lévis is
the cradle of the Mouvement Desjardins. The first Caisse populaire
Desjardins was founded on December 6, in 1900 I think. The
centenary is coming up. Over four million Quebeckers belong to the
Mouvement Desjardins.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: And Ontarians.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: And Ontarians. The member for
Carleton—Gloucester, who is involved in this movement, also
recognizes the importance of co-operatives for the survival of
the French language. It played a large role in the survival, and
I do mean survival, of the French language throughout Canada.
Lévis is the site of the Conseil de coopération du Québec. It
is also the site of the headquarters of the Federation des
coopératives en alimentation du Québec. There are several other
federations, service co-operatives, including the federation
interested in social economy, with headquarters in Lévis.
1325
All this to say that, with the presence of the Mouvement
Desjardins and the 2,000 employees working at the headquarters of
the various Mouvement Desjardins institutions, Lévis can lay claim
to being the co-operative capital of Quebec.
As the member for this riding, I therefore have no choice but
to speak to this bill. One aspect that struck me in committee,
because we are at report stage, was that, as the member for
Carleton—Gloucester mentioned, there is what I would describe as
a remarkable climate of co-operation among committee members,
thanks to those influenced by representatives of the co-operative
movement.
There are two large groups of co-operatives in Canada.
There is the Conseil canadien de la coopération, which covers the
francophone community and which has representatives in all the provinces
of Canada except Newfoundland. There is also an equivalent organization
for the anglophone community across Canada.
What we noted, and I also want the House to know this, is that the
representatives of these two councils appeared together, side by side,
before the committee. They came to testify and to submit their briefs
while pursuing the same objectives. They showed solidarity, and I
concluded that it would be possible, with people who have an open mind,
to work co-operatively.
My colleague for Carleton—Gloucester might not like what I am
saying, but this is proof of the value of the idea that the Bloc
Quebecois and the sovereignists of Quebec are proposing to all of
Canada, that is an open hand.
It would be possible to have a partnership that would be useful for
everyone if each of the parties made the effort and if they were
confident in the efficacy of such a process.
I would like to point out that when people co-operate, francophones
and anglophones, they discuss on an equal footing. We have always
insisted on that.
So I wanted to take this opportunity to point out this example of
co-operation that these people are providing us. I consider it
unfortunate, at this stage, that there were two amendments introduced
this morning, especially Motion No. 1, which limits the role of board
members in relation to what can be decided at a meeting, as the member
for Mercier clearly explained.
Except for that, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates that it supports the
bill. We supported all the amendments that were proposed and the points
of view provided by the witnesses who appeared before us.
So we will continue to show co-operation by voting in favour of the bill
at third reading.
[English]
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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Carried.
(Motion No. 1 agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. government
House leader, on a point of order.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had understood during
negotiations with the House leaders that there would be an
agreement to terminate the report stage of this bill today so
that we could do the third reading next time.
1330
If that is the case, as I believe it is, I wonder if the House
would be prepared to ask for a division on the other amendment. I
understood there were two of them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the suggestion of the government House leader. Is it the
pleasure of the House to proceed as described by the government
House leader?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly,
pursuant to agreement made earlier this day, Motion No. 2 is
deemed to have been proposed and seconded.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-5, in Clause 302, be amended by replacing, in
the French version, paragraphs 302(24)(a) and (b) with the
following:
“a) soit cinq ans après ce jour;
b) soit à tout moment, mais au plus tard dix ans, après ce
jour, tel qu'il est mentionné dans les statuts de la
coopérative.”
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 2 agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria moved that Bill C-5, an act respecting
co-operatives, as amended, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
BILL C-2—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leaders of each party have consulted and I must
advise you that unfortunately it was impossible to reach an agreement
pursuant to Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning proceedings at the
report stage and at the third reading of Bill C-2, an act to establish
the Canada pension plan investment board and to amend the Canada Pension
Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice
that a minister of the crown will be presenting a motion on time
allocation at the next sitting of the House in order to assign a
specific number of days or hours for the debate at those stages and for
the decisions required to dispose of these stages.
Some hon. members: Shame.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.33 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of increasing literacy in Canada by
removing the Goods and Services Tax on all reading materials.
1335
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and privilege to rise
today to put forward Motion No. 93 which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should further
contribute to increasing literacy in Canada by removing the Goods
and Services Tax on all reading material.
Since the GST was introduced in 1990 under the Conservative
government of Brian Mulroney and implemented in 1991 the people
of Canada have been subjected to a 7% tax on all reading
material. That includes books, children's books, magazines
whether at the news stand or by subscription, and newspapers. In
fact all reading material.
The GST is the first federal tax on reading in Canada's history.
Provinces have never taxed books. Every time someone opens their
wallet to buy a magazine or a novel they pay an extra 7¢ on the
dollar to the federal government. Post-secondary students who
buy their own books must pay tax. Literacy learners who mostly
buy their own materials must pay tax. Tutors in literacy are
also affected. Canadians purchasing books for self-health
purposes and to further their knowledge must pay tax. Parents who
buy their children books must pay tax.
We recognize there are GST credits and other educational credits
for students, but these do not make up for the fact that we tax
textbooks. We are talking about a tax burden on a fundamental
activity which people the world over take part in and benefit
profoundly from, reading, something very simple, something very
intimate when shared.
I had the honour of attending the public readings of the
governor general literary award winners last week. It was a very
special event to be involved in a public reading. We all know
reading is something quiet and restorative. It helps us to
connect with ourselves and link up the outside with our inner
selves. It is a healthy, nurturing and calming pastime.
Unlike our national sport, fights never break out in groups of
readers. Reading is educational, sustainable, non-polluting and
non-violent, an A1 activity. Yet we are being taxed by the
federal government for the privilege of engaging in it.
I would even go so far as to put forward the radical idea that
reading is an important cornerstone of the country's culture. If
writing is so then reading must also be.
In 1960 the O'Leary royal commission asserted that magazines and
newspapers were the most important publications in creating a
Canadian culture and sense of identity:
So far as the written word is concerned it is left largely to our
periodical press, to our magazines, big and little, to make a
conscious appeal to the nation to try to interpret Canada to all
Canadians, to bring a sense of oneness to our scattered
communities.
One does not have to be reading a 400-page novel by Jane
Urquhart or David Adams Richards. One can be enjoying a
favourite column in the newspaper or the weekend funnies.
My children still love to pour over magazines which advertise
toys at Christmastime, reading every word about the toys they are
interested in over and over and over so that they can conjure up
a perfect picture in their minds of how wonderful that toy will
be when they finally see it under the Christmas tree.
Magazines and newspapers are the reading material of choice for
young Canadians and new learners. For someone young or old
trying to crack the barrier between the non-reading and the
reading world, magazines provide a colourful, picture filled
non-threatening and potentially successful journey into the world
of print.
Reading is thankfully something which Canadians continue to
engage in despite the barrage of audio visual images coming at us
at all hours of the day and night. Reading, however, like many
other good things in our cultural and physical environment is
somewhat on the endangered list and not helped along in the least
by the GST.
Canada has a very high illiteracy rate. One if five Canadians
tested in a recent international literacy survey could not
understand the label on a bottle of aspirin well enough to know
the safe dosage. When provided with a nutritional analysis, only
one out of four Canadians could calculate the percentage of
calories that came from fat in a Big Mac.
On September 12, 1997 the Globe and Mail quoted the
Minister of Finance as saying: “I can't see how taking the tax
off books is going to stimulate literacy”. The Minister of
Finance continues to contend that literacy is not a financial
issue and therefore, I guess, somehow not his responsibility.
1340
This kind of thinking is very disturbing because it indicates
that he either does not understand his own job or he is flailing
about for any excuse to denounce the Don't Tax Reading
Coalition's ongoing campaign.
I will try to take him through it step by step. The GST makes
reading material more expensive. Reading is the foundation of
literacy so literacy in this case is entirely the responsibility
of the minister.
Clearly the best way to promote literacy is to ensure no
obstacles are in the way of those who are trying to achieve it.
Anything that makes books more expensive, for example a 7%
federal tax, is certainly a large obstacle.
An international survey done in 1996 found that 97% of Canadians
who achieved the highest literacy levels had more than 25 books
in their homes. Only 50% of those in the lowest literacy levels
had more than 25 books in their homes.
The GST prices reading materials out of reach of low income
Canadians. It is truly regressive for that reason. Relatively
speaking, lower income Canadians spend a larger amount of their
income on reading materials than those of higher income
Canadians. The government's own data say so.
Why should the Minister of Finance care if we are a nation of
bookworms? After all, it is the age of the Internet and
computers. Why not toss out the idea of reading along with the
time honoured belief in universal health care and pension plans?
Why do we want to be literate? Because it is good for business.
Britain, Japan, Australia, Ireland and the United States do not
tax books. They know that strong literacy skills are essential
in the modern workforce. Strong literacy skills are even more
essential in this technologically driven era. Bear in mind, one
has to be able to read to use the Internet. Canada's ability to
train and redeploy its workforce to compete internationally is
hindered by inadequate literacy skills.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn opened an international policy
conference on adult literacy in November, saying on behalf of the
Minister for Human Resources and Development:
A highly skilled literate workforce is crucial to a strong and
internationally competitive economy as industrialized countries
around the world fight to maintain and expand their share of high
wage jobs.
Decision and policy makers have to take literacy seriously
because the information society and the global economy require
individuals and economies with high literacy and numeracy skills.
Today's new jobs require highly literate workers. Literate
adults and senior citizens will be far better equipped to
maintain their independence and quality of life in the future,
thus lessening the need for social services.
The percentage of unemployment decreases as the literacy level
decreases. The Minister of Finance and his government should
surely be interested in these facts. He should also be
interested in the stunning impact the GST has had on the Canadian
publishing industry.
Within the first three months the GST was introduced, book sales
dropped by 14% and the market has never really recovered. The
used book trade has dropped even more sharply from 15% to 20%.
Magazine sales are down 15%. Newspaper circulation is down 5%.
During the most recent recession of the early 1980s and every
previous recession in Canadian history sales of reading materials
have increased but not this time. It is astounding to think of
the revenues that have been lost because of this regressive tax.
Writers' royalty earnings dropped significantly due to the
imposition of the GST. We should think of the legions of
artists, printers, book sellers and publishers who are no longer
working because of the plummeting fate of the publishing
industry.
The Government of Ireland, incidentally, tried a tax on books 10
years ago and withdrew it after six months because it was having
such a negative impact on sales, but not our government.
Let us consider the astounding economics of book publishing. The
authors of children's books currently gets 5% royalties on the
sales of their creations. The government gets 7% in tax. Yes,
the government is earning more than the writer while the
publishing houses continue to tread water with the odd infusion
of funds from a beneficent government.
The impact on the magazine industry with the imposition of the
tax has been profound as well.
Many consumers simply would not remit the GST on their
subscription renewals. Magazine publishers have had to remit the
7% even if they have not collected it.
1345
All of this reminds me of a story in Jewish folklore found in a
letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail from a
Charlottetown reader. It is about a mythical town of fools. In
one story the citizens of the town discover that a storm has left
a wide crater in the middle of their main street and they fear
that passers-by will fall in and break their legs. After much
discussion they decide not to fill the hole but to build a
hospital beside it.
Rather than removing the GST from the sale of books Ottawa is
throwing life rafts to the publishing industry and the Canadian
literacy program. What we need to do is empower the consumer.
Take the 7% stranglehold off the book marketplace and then the
demands for and sales of books will rise. That is what is really
needed to benefit the publishing industry.
Finance claims that the general public has become accustomed to
GST on magazines and books. But the Don't Tax Reading Coalition
to this day gets hundreds of phone calls, letters and petitions
complaining about the GST. People hate the principle of paying
tax on reading. Books are for learning and improving. They are
not cash cows. Eighty-three per cent of Canadians are on record
as opposing a tax on reading.
I say to the Minister of Finance that it is time he filled that
hole caused by the devastating tax on books. It is time to do
the right thing, do what the Liberals promised before the 1993
election at a policy conference chaired by the Minister of
Finance. As well during the election and after the 1993 election
the Liberals promised to reaffirm the historic principles
embodied in the tax free status of the printed word and remove
the GST from reading materials. The prime minister said so
himself.
We recognize that the government has tried to reduce the impact
of GST on books by offering tax rebates to municipalities,
schools and qualifying literary organizations, but these rebates
are only for institutions. What about the individual consumer?
Taxing books deals a crippling blow to our fight against
illiteracy. If want to be a country that reads, then we must
eliminate the tax on books.
In closing, I would like to read from a well loved and respected
Canadian children's writer, Sheree Fitch, on the topic of GST:
On the road to Lunenburg
A village by the sea
I met some politicians
Here's what they said to me;
This is the road to Lunenburg
We're committed to literacy
I said I know you really care...
So...what about reading and the GST?
On the road to Heart's Content
In the middle of Newfoundland
I met a group of children
Here's what they said, off hand;
We really like your books miss,
We really like them a lot
Where do we go to get them?
Two dollars is all we got.
On the road to anywhere
In the middle of the galaxy,
I met a child who always smiled
Here's what she said to me;
Yesterday I saw the moon
It wasn't in the sky
It was in a book—it sounded round
The gold got in my eye.
You see—I learned to read, miss.
Isn't it grand?
I never knew it possible
To hold the moon in my hands
I never knew it possible
To hold the moon in my hands.
In closing, I believe it is time we tackled the problem of
literacy in our country by taking the tax off the printed word.
It is time we took the tax off our country's imagination.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward a request for unanimous
of the House to make this motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is firmly
committed to supporting literacy. The question has always been
how can we do this without jeopardizing the hard won progress
that we have made in getting the nation's finances in order.
It is quite clear that any measures taken must be effective and
in fact fiscally responsible. That is why the government has
introduced an initiative that rebates 100% of the GST paid on
books to public libraries, schools, universities, colleges and
other bodies which promote literacy.
1350
This means that there is no GST on any books distributed freely
for use in primary or secondary schools or other educational
settings. This also results in tax relief on books, not only for
structured learning in our schools and colleges but also for life
long learning through public libraries and front line literacy
groups.
The GST rebate on books recognizes the important role played by
educational institutions and community groups in helping
individuals get the tools they need to learn how to read. In
addition, it is an efficient and responsible investment.
Targeting assistance for front line literacy groups will
certainly ensure a greater impact for every dollar of
expenditure.
The special rebate complements government initiatives announced
in the 1997 budget to support learning and education in Canada.
And this year funding to the National Literacy Secretariat will
rise by 30% to $30.3 million, creating more opportunities for
individuals to improve their literacy and communication skills.
For students the education credit has been increased to
recognize the non-tuition costs of schooling and the tuition
credit has been expanded to cover not only tuition fees but also
mandatory fees imposed by post-secondary institutions for
educational purposes. In addition, students are now able to carry
forward any unused tuition and education credits to be applied to
future income.
Further, the annual contribution limit for registered education
savings plans has been doubled and parents are now able to
transfer that unused RESP into their registered retirement
savings plan. Furthermore, the Canada Council provides support to
Canadian authors and assistance is available to Canadian
publishers through the Department of Canadian Heritage.
There are a number of ways that the government has taken on the
initiative of literacy and is ensuring that the expenditures
being made are targeted to front line literacy groups so that we
can ensure that individuals who are most in need of literacy
assistance will get it through the tax and rebate that we have
provided through the GST.
Quite clearly the government does not claim that targeted tax
relief will answer all the challenges that we face with respect
to literacy and education. However, we are certainly convinced
that these measures will go a long toward supporting efforts to
improve literacy levels in communities across Canada. The Prime
Minister, the Minister of Finance and all members of the House
are committed to ensuring that literacy is a priority for the
government. It is a priority which is reflected when we speak
with Canadians.
I think the agreement in the House is perhaps how we will
achieve the goal of increasing literacy in this country. We feel
we have balanced that approach through our tax expenditure and
will continue on that track to ensure that Canadians are well
served by the expenditures the government makes.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House to speak on Motion No. 93, which
reads:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of increasing literacy in Canada by
removing the goods and services tax on all reading materials.
I applaud the member for Dartmouth for presenting this motion.
My constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona is home to the University
of Alberta, an institution that is poised to become one of the
finest in Canada. So I can appreciate how important it is to
address the question of taxes on reading materials.
In fact, I even support the argument presented by the hon.
member that the GST on books and other reading material works to
discourage reading. As the cost of books and reading materials
goes up, the demand goes down. That is the irrefutable law of
supply and demand.
I am surprised to learn, however, that the member from the New
Democratic Party has embraced such an important free market
concept. I wait eagerly for the day when the NDP caucus stands
in solidarity in the House and declares that taxes kill jobs. It
will be a great day for Canada.
At the heart of the motion is the claim that taxes can create
perverse incentives. In this case it is argued that taxes on
books discourage people from purchasing books. This was not the
intended purpose of the tax but the unintended and unseen
consequences of the tax.
This argument is completely valid and it is an argument that has
been made throughout history by many great scholars. It was an
argument made by 17th century satirist Frederick Bastiat in
his classic essay What is Seen, What is Not Seen, and it
is an argument that is being made today by Nobel prize winning
economists like James Buchannan and others.
1355
What I find curious, however, is that while the members of the
New Democratic Party understand the principle of supply and
demand when it applies to books, they do not understand this
principle in other applications.
For instance, when Reform argues that increases to the CPP
contributions are a tax on jobs, the members of the NDP seem
confused. However, when the cost of labour goes up, demand for
that labour goes down. Taxes kill jobs.
When the cost of books goes up, the demand goes down. It is a
very simple law of economics that has been proven over the course
of history.
Let me provide the House with another example. The Liberal
government taxes consumption at 15%. That means that when we
spend our money we are now paying about 15% in taxes on average.
When we save our money we are taxed at 54%.
This is another example of the perverse incentives which taxes
can create. The incentive in this case is not to save. With the
state of our CPP, encouraging Canadians not to save is a very bad
idea, and yet I have heard so many individuals on the ideological
left claiming that RRSP tax exemptions should be eliminated
because they are a tax avoidance measure employed by the wealthy.
There is also the question of capital gains tax. This is a tax
on productivity. When people are taxed for creating wealth,
disincentives are created for productivity. Yet those on the
ideological left are often heard calling for a higher capital
gains tax. That is a recipe for economic stagnation and
unemployment.
I could go on and on. For every tax and government regulation
created there is an unseen and unintended consequence. Overtaxed
cigarettes and liquor create underground, illegal black market
industries. Increased payroll taxes create unemployment.
It is simple. Big government is the very source of our economic
problems and not the source of the solutions. Big government is
a disease masquerading as its own cure. I wish the NDP could
come to appreciate this fact.
Having said all that, I regret that neither I nor the members of
my caucus can support the motion. Reformers believe in tax cuts
and we hate the dreaded GST, but it is our position that tax cuts
should be broad based so that one product or one industry is not
given preferential treatment.
I am sceptical of the merit of eliminating taxes on certain
products or even on certain industries while neglecting other
products or industries.
We subsidize Canadian book publishers to the tune of almost $20
million. Now the Liberals are adding another $15 million to this
subsidy in the interests of promoting Canadian culture. A GST
tax exemption would add to this preferential treatment.
Do not get me wrong. Canadian businesses are overtaxed.
Canadian consumers are overtaxed. However, a fair tax system is
one which provides for broad based tax relief.
Every Canadian business makes the claim that its product or
industry makes a vital contribution to Canadian society and
should be granted certain tax concessions. I am very sympathetic
to this claim. Canadian businesses are overtaxed and they are
looking for any way to get out from under the thumb of the
federal government, but we must be extremely careful when we
create tax concessions which give certain industries preferential
treatment.
My hon. colleague from the NDP will very likely point out the
many preferential tax concessions which are currently in place,
but I would counter that by promising that a Reform government
will implement a more simplified tax system which will be built
on the principles of equality and fairness.
Having said all this, I am not convinced that GST on books is
affecting literacy in Canada. Access to literature through
public libraries and public schools ensures that those who wish
to have access to books can do so. However, I would agree that
access to the latest information may be hampered as universities
and public schools try to find money in their budgets. But this
is not a threat to literacy in the country.
I can understand the frustration which the hon. member feels for
this issue. The Liberals broke their promise to scrap the GST as
it applies to books. The Reform Party has criticized the
government's lack of accountability in this House. Campaigning
promises should be kept.
We support the member of the NDP in so far as she is bringing
the question of accountability to the attention of this House. We
cannot, however, support the motion for the reasons I have
already stated.
In closing, I applaud the hon. member for the NDP for her clear
economic thinking and for bringing the issue of accountability to
this House.
1400
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Motion M-93 moved by my colleague from the NDP, the
hon. member for Dartmouth.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of increasing literacy in Canada by
removing the goods and services tax on all reading materials.
When Bill C-70 on harmonizing the GST was debated in the last
Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois made the same request: that the GST on
books be completely abolished.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore pleased to support this motion today.
Let us start with a little semantics, to be clear on the scope of
this motion.
In French, literacy translates as knowing how to read and write, or
the ability to understand and decode information to give it meaning.
Illiterate persons are those who do not know this code. Without this
code, they do not have the capacity to read or write, let alone the
knowledge to do so. Functional illiterates know the code but experience
various degrees of difficulty in understanding, using or interpreting it
to give it meaning.
That having been said, it is inappropriate to translate literacy by
“alphabétisme”. But semantics is not the topic of my remarks today, so
I will stick to the text of the motion as it stands.
Let us move to the topic of the motion asking that the government remove
the GST on all reading materials.
The federal government has been repeating ad nauseam that Canada is
the best country in the world. According to the government, illiteracy
is not a problem in Canada. Just look at the mind-boggling statistic
quoted in the 1997 edition of L'État du monde: the literacy rate in
Canada is estimated at 104%. Let us take a closer look at this statistic
which seems mind-boggling at first glance.
We will refer to Reading the Future: a Portrait of Literacy in
Canada, a document published jointly by Statistics Canada, the
Department of Human Resources Development and the National Literacy
Secretariat in 1996. This document is based on the International Adult
Literacy Survey.
In a chart illustrating the various levels of reading ability among
adults aged 16 to 65, Canada's rate is 101% for the category
“comprehension of narrative texts”. Does this means that every Canadian
knows how to read and write? Of course not.
Indeed, out of this 101%, 17% of the population only reach the
first level of reading. At this level, a person can read the directives
on a bottle of aspirin. Twenty-six per cent are at the second level. At
this level, a person can read, in an article, a short sequence of
information on the characteristics of a garden plant. Thirty-five per
cent are at the third level of reading. At this level, a person can read
movie reviews and select the least favourable one.
Finally, 23% of the population reach levels 4 and 5.
At these levels, people can read information on leaflets and integrate
them in an interview, or they can use an advertisement from the
Department of Human Resources Development to answer questions that use
different words from the ones in the add.
The percentages are similar for the other two categories that were
part of the test to evaluate reading ability, namely comprehension of
schematic texts and comprehension of texts with a quantitative content.
The International Adult Literacy Survey defines literacy as the
ability to use printed matter and written information to function in
society, reach one's objectives, improve one's knowledge and increase
one's potential.
The survey shows that an impressive number of Canadian adults have a
very low level of reading ability, which prevents them from fully
participating in Canada's economic and social life.
The survey also shows that the availability of reading material is
the primary factor in maintaining people's ability to read and
understand. A country whose people read less than those of another
country will be less productive and less competitive. This brings us to
the purpose of the motion, which is to remove the GST on all reading
materials.
1405
According to the International Association of Publishers, Canada is
the G-7 country that imposes the highest taxes on reading material. In
Canada, the tax is imposed only by the federal government. The United
States, Japan, England, Australia and Ireland are among the countries
that realized the importance of not taxing books.
This tax has had a very negative impact. Sales of new books dropped
by 10%, those of used books by 15% to 20%, and those of magazines by
15%. Newspapers' sales dropped by 5%, the first drop in 20 years in that
sector. These combined drops have hurt publishers and writers, as their
income also dropped.
The fact that the GST on reading material would have such an impact
was anticipated. Anyone in the country who wants to buy reading material
must pay a tax. Students who want to buy books must pay taxes.
Functionally illiterate people who want to learn to read must pay a tax.
Parents who want to buy books for their children must pay a tax. People
who want to improve their knowledge and learn new things must pay taxes.
I have something to tell members opposite. I am thinking of a word
which I cannot use in this House, because they would jump up from their
seats. Still, I have that word in mind to describe their attitude and
their behaviour regarding the GST on books. Let me explain.
At their 1992 convention, the Liberals adopted a resolution whereby
they pledged to abolish the GST on books and reading material.
In 1993, in a letter to the Don't Tax Reading Coalition, the Prime
Minister promised to implement his party's resolution.
I would like to remind the House of what some of our friends
across the way said when they were in opposition and the
Conservative government wanted to pass the GST bill.
In November 1990, the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that
charging the GST on books was akin to promoting ignorance. In
1991, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that it was harmful to
Canadian unity and identity. In 1990, the Minister of Industry
gave a 20-minute speech explaining in great detail why he was
opposed to the GST.
In December 1990, the member for Ottawa Centre tabled a pile
of petitions against the GST. The parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Transport tabled four petitions against the GST.
The government leader tabled a petition against taxing books and cared
about the functionally illiterate.
The Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible
for Francophonie tabled a petition against taxing books and magazines.
The member for Carleton—Gloucester also tabled a petition, saying it
was outrageous to tax newspapers and any reading material, whether it is
intended for educated people or, worse yet, for those learning to read.
The government does offer tax reductions on books purchased by some
libraries, educational institutions and organizations promoting
literacy. But that is not enough. The government is still pocketing $120
million in taxes on reading material.
The Minister of Human Resources Development wants to increase
training and development programs. He should know that, according to
international studies, a substantial number of applicants can be turned
down because of the fact that their limited reading skills in turn limit
their capacity to enrol in adult and continuing education.
To conclude, I urge the government and the members across the way
to stop behaving like tartuffes and to practice what they have always
preached, by abolishing the GST. If they were brave, all members,
including Reformers, would give unanimous consent to make this motion a
votable item, so that we can put an end to taxing ignorance.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to speak in favour of increasing literacy levels in our country
and in our communities.
As a father of two young girls, literacy is something that is
very important to me. We should never lose sight of the fact
that literacy skills are a key to learning. Many people think
that literacy begins when we go to school and ends when we finish
our formal education. However, studies have shown that the first
years or year of a child's life will have a significant impact on
their learning.
Reading to a child, whether it be when he or she is in the womb,
a newborn or a toddler, is an important first step in developing
a lifelong desire to learn.
1410
Whether students are headed for post-secondary education or
directly into the labour force, they need fundamental learning
skills and basic knowledge. These are essential if they are to
keep on learning, advance their careers and achieve their
personal goals.
In short, the future of our youth and of our economy depends on
whether today's students are being given a sound background in
primary and secondary schools.
We all have a role to play in promoting literacy in our homes
and communities. As to exempting books from the GST/HST, I would
be open to hearing more information on this.
The GST was designed to raise no more money than the hidden tax
it replaced. Special credits offset the impact of GST on low
income earners, schools, hospitals, municipalities and new homes,
Basic groceries, financial services and prescription drugs are
not taxed.
By law, GST revenues can only be used to service or reduce the
debt. In April 1996, Ottawa and Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
Newfoundland agreed to harmonize their sales taxes and to bury
the tax in the price.
At that time Progressive Conservative members and senators from
those three Atlantic provinces tried to expand the list of goods
and services that are exempt from GST or HST. Examples of the
proposed exemptions were books and funerals.
This being my first term, I was not part of the government that
implemented the GST but I was a member of the party that saw the
need to replace the hidden federal sales tax.
Unlike the Liberals who vowed to abolish the GST, the PC party
recognized from the beginning that the GST would have to be
fine-tuned after introduction. We see this as a continuing
process. As all members know, the Liberals did not scrap the
GST, much to the chagrin of certain members of this House.
During the Hamilton East by-election, the NDP leader for her
part promised to cut the GST to 5% from 7%. She said she would
eliminate the GST on new homes, children's shoes and clothing,
books, school supplies, furniture and other essential family
purchases.
She did not mention that the British Columbia NDP government
raised the sales tax to 7% from 6%. Nor did she mention that one
of the very first things that Saskatchewan's NDP government did
was to raise its rate to 9% from 7%. Having improved its
financial position, it has since lowered it back to 7%.
In closing, I want to reiterate my party's commitment to
improving literacy levels in this country. However, the
government must act with prudence. Before endorsing this motion,
we must weigh the benefits of any changes against the potential
cost. I would like to see hard data on the impact that taxing
books has on literacy in comparison with lost revenues.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak in support of literacy in our society. I thank my
colleague for putting her motion before the House of Commons. I
will be focusing on the problem of literacy.
As the member from Rimouski indicated, presently in Canada over
25% of the total population is considered to be illiterate.
Certainly if we were to look at the cost to society as a whole as
a result of that, it would be in the range of $15 billion to $20
billion annually.
To look at the source of it, we really have to go back to the
early days of schooling, to the primary level, to the secondary
level and to the graduate level. According to Statistics Canada,
many graduating university students are considered to be
functionally literate.
We have a problem here that is of a big magnitude. There is a
problem here that is not only a federal responsibility but a
responsibility of the provinces, school boards, the family and
society as a whole. What we need is a holistic approach to the
whole problem of illiteracy.
Personally, I congratulate the government and, in particular,
the Minister of Finance as well as the Prime Minister for
ensuring the continuation of funding to the secretariat in charge
of literacy in Canada.
The funding for that agency was due to end in 1993-94. Thanks to
the efforts of many of my colleagues on the government side that
funding has continued despite the fact that education is a
provincial responsibility.
1415
Many positive things are taking place in society. A council of
ministers is looking at the issue of education across the
country. Provincial ministers of education across the country
are looking at the whole notion of standards in the area of
education. I believe this is the essential element to finding a
solution to the problem of illiteracy in Canada.
It is very unpleasant that in the second richest country on
earth one out of every three students drop out before they reach
university. As one of the richest countries on earth, over 25%
of the population has difficulties reading or writing.
We spend per capita more than almost any other country in the
world. Next to Sweden we spend over $50 billion a year on
education. If someone turns around and says we need more funding
for education, my answer would be no, we need to look at the way
we are spending our resources.
I am not one of those people who says we need more school boards
across Canada. I am one of those people who says we should
eliminate every school board across the country from coast to
coast to coast. In every municipality we should have one
director of education that reports to a municipal or regional
government. These elected officials would have to go to the
public every three years in any event.
We would have democracy through the regional government. We
would be able to eliminate the different administrations from
coast to coast that cost millions and millions, if not billions
of dollars. Then we would be able to put that money back into
schools, into classrooms to provide necessary resources for
students. That would be the first step.
The second step would a revamp of the way we do things. We need
a national strategy for education and literacy. We need national
literacy and education standards. If I were to graduate from a
university or any educational institution in Newfoundland, I
should be able to obtain the equivalent education in British
Columbia or in Alberta. If I finished my education as an
engineer or as a technologist in New Brunswick, I should be able
to practise elsewhere in Canada.
We need transportability of education similar to what we have in
the national health act. We need an understanding across the
country that we live in the same nation. If I finish my first
year of university in western Canada I should be able to transfer
my credits to eastern Canada. Unfortunately we do not have that
now.
There are many complications in the system. Instead of creating
ways to help students at the provincial level progress in their
education, we are creating complications and walls in front of
them. Although education and literacy are provincial
responsibilities the government has made literacy a national
priority. I am delighted by that.
We need a co-operative approach among the municipal, provincial
and federal governments and the business community which has a
very important role to play.
We complain consistently that over 20% of students graduating
from university cannot find jobs. Part of the reason they cannot
find jobs is that some students are graduating in fields where
there are no jobs. Who is setting the priority? Who is telling
students in every university and community college in Canada
where the jobs are? Someone should tell them which fields to
consider if they want to find jobs in institutions, businesses or
government agencies.
1420
It certainly does not help anyone if every student across the
country wants to become a lawyer. It will not help everyone if
every student wants to be enrolled in history. There is no
national strategy by the provinces to address this issue.
As for the federal government, one by one our ministers have
consistently spoken about the need for a co-operative approach
among different levels of government. I hope one day soon, as
usual, the federal government will be open to the provinces
asking it to act, whether as a chair, a facilitator or whatever,
to develop those standards in education, standards in training
and standards in literacy. I also hope we will look at standards
in the environment, standards in every single sector.
We are a nation of different provinces. We all live under one
Confederation. We are diverse. We need at least a common
understanding that we require a minimum standard everyone across
the country agrees on.
To that extent education is a provincial responsibility. That
is fine, fair and square. The bottom line is an understanding
among the provinces that on an annual basis we need a national
testing standard in the core subjects. I am not talking about
geography or history but about core subjects such as math,
science, physics and chemistry.
We also need a strategy to provide the necessary tools to
teachers across the country. How often have we seen provincial
governments going to teachers at the university level, the
community college level or the high school level to ask what they
can do to help them do their jobs better and have a more educated
or far more prepared student population? It rarely happens.
Look at what happened in the province of Ontario, for example,
with Bill 160. The educational community was on one side and the
government was on the other. In between them we had the
population of Ontario shaking their heads. Rather than have an
abrasive approach among governments, educational institutions and
teachers we need a co-operative approach. That is what is
necessary. We need a co-operative approach in education and
literacy.
Looking at the wealth we have in the country and at the quality
of our institutions we can do it. There is no doubt in my mind.
The Speaker: I would inform the House that we have
approximately nine minutes left in debate and it is the custom to
give the last five minutes to the mover of the motion.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to be brief.
The motion asks for the government to consider removing GST on
books and reading material. This inhibits and puts up blockades
and barriers in people's journey down the road to literacy. The
worse effect is for the people who cannot afford it. That is
what my colleague pointed out. People who can barely afford to
buy a book have to also pay the 7% GST.
The Reform Party says that it supports tax incentives but not
GST on books. Liberal members on this side are telling us that
they appreciate the literacy issue but removing the GST from
books is not necessarily on their agenda.
The last Liberal member who spoke created an interesting debate,
and I have to take him on. He indicated that we do not need
school boards. That is a major debate.
1425
School boards, university senates and boards of directors of
community colleges are trying to create an ownership of their
communities and regions by representing parents and children to
try to envision the future of their education. At the moment,
there is no national vision on education as it has been
decentralized to the provinces.
A national vision creates a vision for the journey from
kindergarten to grade 12. After grade 12, when they graduate, we
drop them off. If the student survives, great. We congratulate
them if they find a career. If they do they will probably be
wealthy enough to buy a house or a vehicle and maybe some books
for their children, but there is no journey.
Our acts of education say that the provinces are responsible for
our children until they are 21 years old. In reality, the
majority of these graduates are 17 and 18. We are
short-circuiting our investment on our children.
Why not invest in our children regardless of what journey or
where they are at in high school, university, trade school,
community college, business school or any other school they are
in until they are 21 or 25 years old? Why not take this huge tax
grab that we call GST and invest it correctly?
Historically, the biggest tax incentives came after the second
world war. The country was ready to fight in a war against some
aggression in the world and suppress it. We won that war. Now
this tax incentive in money and resources is to make our lives
safe and peaceful in an international community. However, we
cannot do this without the betterment of our children and a
vision for our youth in this great country we call Canada from
coast to coast to coast.
The GST is a major test for the parties. The hon. member is
raising a major issue. The GST on the print media is a
disincentive for these children and does not give them the
opportunity to get their hands on books, magazines and a learning
stage. This is a simple test.
Other bigger debates will come into this House and I look
forward to being a big part of those debates if they enter the
House. In the meantime, let us take the GST off. That is all
the member is asking.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is only a little over a minute left in this
debate. I just want to make one point.
I think my colleagues who have spoken before have outlined a
number of initiatives that are being taken in the area of
literacy both to help very young children and right through to
university and so on, to help the libraries and schools that are
instrumental in helping young people to read and adults to learn
to read, often for the first time very late in life. They are
instrumental along with a number of community organizations that
are also supported by the funds that are raised in part through
the GST.
I have to ask a question of my colleagues on the opposite side
of the fence. One of the results of taking the GST off reading
materials would be to reduce the amount of revenue coming from
the GST. We have to ask ourselves who it benefits. Among
others, the people who benefit are the people who are buying
things like Hustler, Penthouse, Playboy and the
swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated.
Is it really important to help literacy by helping publications
that are doing quite well, thank you very much, and do not need
any help whatsoever from the taxpayer? Or, should we look in
fact at investing directly into literature and reading material
that is available to the general public as we do through schools,
libraries, universities and so on and through very directed
literacy programs delivered on the ground by community
organizations across this country?
I, frankly, prefer the latter.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
just add my two bits worth to this debate.
Being an educator all my life, I of course know the value of
books. I think it is unconscionable that students who, for the
most part these days, are having a great deal of trouble making
ends meet, are taxed to death by a government that has this
insatiable hunger for tax revenue.
With respect to what the hon. member from the Liberal Party
opposite said just a few moments ago, I have a tendency to agree
that there would be a loss of tax revenue obviously from some
printed materials that many would value not worthy of that
exemption from the GST.
On the other hand we find that taxpayers' money is being used via
Heritage Canada to subsidize equally offensive publications and
equally offensive productions. I have seen and heard them
myself. That is using taxpayers' money.
1430
Perhaps we should strike a deal. Let us say that we will not
take the tax away from books if at the same time we will stop
using that tax revenue for things which come into exactly the
same category.
To be very honest I feel that we need to reduce government
expenditures so that we can reduce the amount of debt and reduce
the amount of interest payable. Then we could reduce in total
the amount that Canadians have to pay in taxes.
If we get on to that and reduce the GST, say in stages to zero
on everything, in the end all Canadians will benefit, especially
those who are interested in promoting literacy in the country
which is the motive of this bill, but in other areas as well. It
would be a great boon to our economy if the government got its
cotton pickin' GST fingers out of our lives.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time for Private
Members' Business has expired. However as colleagues know, it is
a convention in the House on non-votable private members' motions
that the last few minutes are very often given to the mover of
the motion to sum up.
Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to give the mover
of the motion, the hon. member for Dartmouth, three minutes to
sum up?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is
about as much time as I am going to need.
I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker, how disappointed I am that I was
not able to get unanimous consent on this motion. I thought this
was something we might be able to come together on.
I am speaking on behalf of all the readers and the potential
readers in Canada who were negatively impacted by this decision
to not open this issue one more time for discussion. Given the
fact that 83% of Canadians would like to see the GST removed from
reading materials, I would say that it is a sad day for
democracy.
I would also say that it seemed to me that it should have been
possible for a dozen or so people left in this House on a Friday
afternoon to actually address the issue at hand, which was the
very direct relationship between the cost of books and literacy.
That was really the only issue we had to be discussing today. We
did not have to take each other down ideological paths around
labour, around school boards and around Hustler magazine. A
lot of red herrings were hauled out on to the floor this
afternoon. I am very disappointed at that. The people who were
hoping that this might be chance to discuss the GST again are
really going to be saddened by that.
I want to close with a request to the Liberals. Why will you
not keep the promise that you made many times over your reign and
before you were elected? Please, do what you said you were going
to do. In the words of your Minister of Canadian Heritage,
“Food is not subject to GST because it is a necessity. So are
books. They are needed for young minds to grow”. This is from
the heritage minister. I hope that at some point your party will
somehow get together on your ideas on this and you may in fact do
what people in Canada have been asking be done for many years.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 2.34 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.34 p.m.)