36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 51
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 3, 1998
1005
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Natural Heritage Day
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
1010
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Stoney Reserve
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-28. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1025
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1030
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1035
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1100
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1105
1110
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1125
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1130
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1145
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1200
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1205
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1300
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1305
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1310
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1345
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR LABRADOR
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Serré |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAIRY INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1400
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1405
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM BYELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
1410
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOOSE BAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE SENATOR GERALD OTTENHEIMER
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
1415
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC'S FUTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1425
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC'S FUTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1440
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1455
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HELICOPTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1500
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000 PROBLEM
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
1505
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Justice Louis Marcel Joyal
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1510
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1515
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
1520
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1525
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1530
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1535
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-28. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1550
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1605
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1720
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-211. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1755
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1800
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1825
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Airport Safety
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1835
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1840
![V](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 51
![](/web/20061116193334im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 3, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
The Speaker: Before we begin our session today I want
to draw to your attention the wooden mace that is on the table.
We put it here every February 3 in commemoration of when our
House of Commons, that is to say all of our House of Commons for
all Canadians, was destroyed in the fire. The wooden mace of
course will still be our symbol. In case some of you are
wondering, it is absolutely legal. I wanted you to notice it as
it is a part of our tradition.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 18th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
and associate membership of some standing and standing joint
committees.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the 18th report be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
NATURAL HERITAGE DAY
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure today to table a petition on behalf of the
residents of my riding of Bruce—Grey and in particular the
Wiarton area.
The petition reads as follows: “We, the undersigned residents
of Canada, draw attention to the following: That our nation
honours our common legacies through national holidays. That our
natural heritage is of paramount importance to all Canadians.
That our long Canadian winter is in need of a mid-winter
celebration. That in many of our composite cultures February 2,
the midpoint between the solstice and the vernal equinox is a
traditional mid-winter festival. Therefore, your petitioners
call upon Parliament to enact legislation declaring February 2 as
a national holiday, to be known as Natural Heritage Day”.
1010
STONEY RESERVE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to table two petitions today from natives,
grassroots people from the Stoney reserve in Morley, Alberta.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to enact legislation
to remove employees who are non-native being paid approximately
$300,000 from the tribal affairs. They feel that the financial
mismanagement is contributing a great deal to the problems that
are occurring on the reserve and their state of affairs. They
feel that the removal of these individuals and a reduction in the
cost of this thing would be of value to them.
In the second petition, the petitioners are calling on
Parliament to conduct a thorough internal investigation including
an extended forensic audit going back to the 1980s on the
illegal, immoral and corrupt political practices and injustices
which are being committed by some Nakoda Stony tribal leaders on
the reserve population, especially those who have dominated since
the 1960s.
The petitioners state that this assistance would be appreciated
and would help immensely in initiating remedial actions and
measures into the dismal affairs that exist on the Stoney reserve
in Morley.
I am pleased to table these petitions this morning on behalf of
these grassroots people.
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the first
petition I have the honour to present is from a number of
petitioners from various communities throughout British Columbia
who are concerned about their future retirement. These are
people who are not yet at the retirement age but who are
concerned about what they are hearing about the government's
intention to change the pension system. They are simply asking
that a thorough review is done which I understand is now
basically in the works.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition signed by petitioners from various communities
throughout Alberta and British Columbia who point out a whole
variety of concerns with Canada's tax system. They have some
specific recommendations which I will table. By and large the
petitioners are calling for a complete examination of our tax
system and are proposing a major overhaul.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians including many Canadians from my
own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession that has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also share the view that the gravest
social injustice of all time has to be the abandonment of the
political system and taxation system for parents who provide care
in the home.
The petitioners also agree with the National Forum on Health
report stating that the Income Tax Act does not take into account
the real cost of raising children even when one does it at home
by oneself.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives such as caregiver tax credits or income splitting to
assist families who choose to provide care in the home to
preschool children.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 61 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien:
Regarding the recent relocation of the Lake Megantic Human
Resources Development Centre, can the government: (a) describe
the bidding procedure; (b) specify the number of bidders; and
(c) indicate the amounts covered in each of the bids, including
the services offered and the costs involved in occupying the
premises concerned?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services): (a) For this requirement, a partnership with the
Centre Travail Québec was considered as well as one with the
Société d'aide au développement de la collectivité, SADC, of
Lac-Mégantic, a partner of Human Resources Development Canada,
HRDC. On October 24, 1997 it was decided that the Human Resource
Centre of Canada would relocate with the SADC. Public Works and
Government Services Canada, PWGSC, then began a direct negotiation
with the lessor of the building at 5127 Frontenac Street,
Lac-Mégantic, SADC offices.
On December 12, 1997 the Human Resource Centre of Canada moved
to its new address, 5127 Frontenac Street, Lac-Mégantic, where
the offices of the SADC-Lac-Mégantic are located.
No tender process was held in view of the client department's
requirements and the short time delay for project delivery.
(b) See answer to (a).
(c) Once it had been decided that HRDC would co-locate with SADC
fit-up plans were drawn up and the landlord was informed of its
responsibilities for the lease as well as for the fit-up phase of
the project. Rates were discussed. However no formal offer to
lease has been remitted.
A meeting will take place between the landlord's representative
for the Lac-Mégantic office and the PWGSC project manager to
discuss the rental rate for the premises as well as the cost of
the fit-up work. Once these negotiations are completed a
recommendation with the final rental rate will be submitted for
approval.
In the interim HRDC is occupying the premises based on an
agreement with the landlord that once the lease negotiations are
completed a formal lease agreement will be drawn up and all
arrears for rental payments will be made at that time.
The lease start date was January 1, 1998 for a three year term for 75
rentable square metres, 65 square metres.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import
Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance
Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age
Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate
Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain
Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to rise on this second day since our return to
the House to speak on this bill which will, among other things,
make changes to transfer payments to the provinces.
1015
What I propose to do in this address to the House is to
attempt to set out the facts relating to federal government support
for health, social assistance and education.
The Liberals have made much of the announced new CHST cash
floor, as it is called, the $12.5 billion to be paid to the
provinces for health, social assistance and education under the
Canada Health and Social Transfer.
In a press release dated December 8, 1997, the Minister of
Finance stated as follows: “Governing is about choices, priorities
and values.
Our choice is clear: health care is a priority for this
Government”.
Mr. Martin has said nothing about the fact that, since 1993,
the Liberals have reduced the amount of cash transfers for health,
education and social assistance by some $6.3 billion, that is, from
$18.8 billion to $12.5 billion.
He is also not mentioning the fact that the Liberals reduced
cash transfers to 1984 levels. These transfers, which the
Conservatives had increased by $6 billion, have dropped by almost
the same amount since the arrival of the Liberals.
Furthermore, Mr. Martin also neglected to say that, for seven
of the ten provinces, cash transfers will continue to decrease over
the next five years.
Yes, you have understood correctly. Every province, except
Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, will be receiving less money
under these changes.
Finally, the announcement of a new floor simply means that all
cash transfers to the provinces will not be further reduced. As
payments are proportional to a province's population, all
provinces, except Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, will be
getting less over the years. In other words, the seven less well
off provinces will be getting $384 million less annually between
now and 2002.
Let us look back for a moment at the context in which transfer
payments are made. Prior to 1996, Ottawa helped the provinces pay
for health care and education under the established programs
financing or EPF arrangement. Payments were proportional to the
population of a province less the tax point value.
The tax points were exchanged in 1977, when Ottawa agreed to reduce
its tax rates to allow the provinces to increase theirs. This formula
replaced part of the cash transfers.
The per capita payments under the EPF were frozen for a five-year
period that was to end in 1995. Otherwise, these payments would have
increased by an amount equal to the growth of the nominal gross domestic
product, less 3%. Ottawa was also helping the provinces to fund social
assistance programs, through the Canada Assistance Plan, or CAP.
Payments made under the CAP program amounted to 50% of eligible
provincial expenditures. The increase in payments made to the richest
provinces, namely Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, was capped at
5% per year, for a five-year period that was to end in 1995.
These restrictions curtailed the increase in payments, but they did
not reduce their volume.
Total transfers increased every year, without exception, while the
Conservative Party was in office.
In 1993, the Liberals pledged to renegotiate the financial
arrangements to improve funding stability. They never said
anything about reducing payments by one-third before stabilizing
them. In its 1994 budget, the Liberal government announced that,
in 1996-97, total payments paid under the CAP and EPF programs
would not exceed the 1993-94 level. This cut would replace the
social reforms that were to be negotiated with the provinces.
1020
The reforms in question never saw the light of day. The green
paper was finally published after several delays and was quickly
forgotten.
In the 1995 budget, the Liberal government announced that EPF
and CAP would be replaced by the Canada Health and Social Transfer,
or CHST, starting in 1996-97. By 1997, total payments under CHST
would be cut by just under $5 billion with respect to 1995 levels.
The amount to be paid each province would be announced in the 1996
budget, following discussions with the provinces.
The 1996 budget contains funding levels by province up until
2002.
The calculation formula irritates the poorer provinces, because it
forces them to shoulder a greater share of cuts per inhabitant.
It was also announced in the budget that the cash portion of
payments would not drop below the $11 billion mark, which
represents almost $8 billion less than the cash payments in effect
when the government tabled its green paper.
We believe there is a better solution. We believe that health
care is one of Canadians' fundamental values. It is too important
a part of our way of life to be held hostage to the political and
budgetary imperatives of the hour. We must adopt an approach that
will ensure the future of our health care system.
First, the federal government should relinquish part of its
taxation power to the provinces and territories so that they can
fund their own health systems.
Second, the federal government should recognize that it is
quite possible to exercise leadership with respect to health care
without being paternalistic. The federal government's role should
never again be linked with taxation power. We need an approach
that emphasizes co-ordination and co-operation. This can be done
by replacing the $12.5 billion the federal government now pays the
provinces with tax points, which would be subject to equalization.
Transferring tax points simply means that the federal
government will relinquish part of its taxation power to the
provinces. This approach would not change the total taxes paid by
Canadian taxpayers.
Instead, the portion of taxes necessary to fund health care would
be collected directly by the provinces and territories rather than
by the federal government.
Since the value of tax points is tied to provincial economies,
we would establish an equalization fund ensuring that all regions
of the country are able to provide care and services of comparable
quality.
We propose that there be a Canadian pact for the purpose of
creating a new framework promoting health and education. As part
of this pact, the federal and provincial governments would agree on
common health care standards.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member may be aware of the National Forum on Health in which
eminent Canadians in the health and other professional fields
reviewed Canada's health care system.
The report delivered to parliament indicated that the $11.5
billion level of funding was an adequate and appropriate amount
for health care funding and that the issue was not so much the
amount of dollars but rather how we were spending our health care
dollars. I would point that out to the member.
1025
The member should also know or may be aware that in the province
of Ontario the amount of reduction in transfers under the Canada
health and social transfer was in the range of about $1.2
billion. Also the government concurrently cut personal income
taxes to the tune of about $4.3 billion, a little more than three
times the amount of reduction in health care funding.
Does the member believe that it is appropriate for the provinces
to declare that the federal government has somehow impinged upon
its ability to deliver on the health care system and at the same
time reduce taxes or spend in other areas substantially more than
the amounts we are talking about in terms of the reduction of
transfers to the provinces?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's
question, we visited constituents specifically in my riding who
have faced the drastic cuts imposed because of the cuts in
transfers.
People are on long extended waiting lists to get basic essential
services, or people are dying because the health care system has
been cut to a point where this type of problem exists. I have to
say the cuts that have been made are drastic, are not acceptable
and should not continue.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
comments this morning, but I have somewhat of a disagreement with
respect to the approach he is taking.
The finance committee went across the country and consulted
Canadians on what type of role the federal government should play
specifically in health care and other such programs.
Overwhelmingly Canadians said they wanted a strong role for the
federal government.
The program being proposing to eliminate the cash component and
go with tax points would remove the ability of the federal
government to enforce the Canada Health Act. In fact we could
use the word paternalistic. I would tend to disagree.
Canadians want to ensure levers are in place so that the federal
government can ensure the Canada Health Act is enforced. I go
back to the example of Alberta. When Alberta attempted to put in
place user fees in private clinics the government held back those
transfers.
The proposal the member is promoting would eliminate the role of
the federal government. If the member were to put that to his
constituents they would respond by saying “We want to ensure
that there is a federal government to enforce the Canada Health
Act”. The program the member is proposing, as was the case in
the last election campaign, does not resonate with Canadians. It
really has no place with respect to the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my hon.
colleague across the floor.
We agree with cutting excesses to the system. The necessities
should be kept there and certainly those necessities have not
been kept. I cannot agree with the hon. member's comments.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member
would agree with the fact that the finances of the country are
now somewhat in order. We inherited a $42 billion deficit from
the last government.
Canadians said that we should put our house in order. That is
what we did. Had we not taken the measures we did, perhaps we
would have been here today asking the House for further cuts. In
fact today we are hoping the House will support a bill that will
reinvest in the priorities of Canadians.
The member's province along with the rest of the country will
begin to receive additional moneys with respect to the Canada
health transfer.
Surely the hon. member, for the sake of his constituents, would
support the fact that there is a reinvestment in the Canada
Health Act.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the
way has a very selective memory when it comes to pointing out the
last government's shortfall.
1030
I would like to point out to him that the last government was
the Liberal government. Come on, do not throw it back. The hon.
member mentioned that now that we have a balanced budget or close
to it, they are going to be reviewing. Is the hon. member saying
that they will be spending more money to transfers?
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to my hon. colleague's presentation and I could not
help but cast back my recollection to when the Conservatives were
in government and introduced the massive transfer cuts. At that
time it seemed to me that if the cuts were allowed to continue as
the government had planned, we would reach a point soon where
there would be actually no more transfers financially at all and
there would be no opportunity for a federal government to request
or expect any federal standards in health care whatsoever.
Can my hon. friend tell me if my memory is correct and that was
the case and, if so, does he now stand by his previous
government's decision to curtail transfers to the point where at
one point in the near future there would be no financial transfer
of money from Ottawa to the provinces for health care at all?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is totally
incorrect.
Cuts were needed. The hon. member from across the way just said
that when the previous government was there spending was
rampant. I think there is disagreement between both parties
here and I am not sure where they are coming from. But I would
like to ask the hon. member what the NDP stand would be. Excess
spending seems to be the order of the day for the NDP.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to comment on the transfer of tax points
that was undertaken in massive form by the previous Conservative
government. That is a singular erosion of national unity because
when you give federal tax points to the provinces, you lose
control. I think that the Conservatives played right into the
hands of the separatist Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois
when they transferred tax points to the provinces, and this is
something this government stands firmly against.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, we are just debating bill
C-28 and health care, not the national unity issue. I will leave
it at that.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will try another
tack with my hon. friends. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance yesterday in his presentation went on at some
length about the value of the transfer of tax points, which seems
to be quite contradictory to the previous speaker's question. The
parliamentary secretary went on to say this was good for enabling
the provinces to fund health care.
Does my hon. friend acknowledge that when you look for funding
health care through a transfer of tax points it benefits have
provinces, those which obviously have a much better opportunity
to generate wealth through their economies, and really penalizes
have not provinces?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the
hon. member does not fully understand the tax point system. It
does not give the advantage to the provinces that have more. It
gives the appropriate amount to the provinces and it gives them
the control where, at the present time, basically they do not
have that control.
1035
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
really is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-28. I can recall not
very long ago that we were debating what we had to cut, how we
had to cut these programs, where we were going in the future, and
everything looked dim and abysmal.
We are in a very different position financially in this country
today than we were eight years ago, seven years ago, six years
ago. It has been a very difficult struggle for all Canadians,
for everyone in this House and for the government. By putting the
information that we had to work for Canadians and by working with
our finances we have been able to change the direction of this
country.
There is absolutely no question when we look at financial
institutions around the world and we hear other countries comment
on Canada's move forward, we know that we as Canadians have done
a tremendous task. We have brought the fiscal order of this
country into a much better condition.
Granted, we have a very large debt. That debt is the next major
struggle that this government is going to have to handle. There
is no question that we have to look at business operations in
this country. We have to look at all social programs and social
transfers as we are doing in this bill. We have to look at the
whole operation of this country and monitor it on a very regular
and steady basis.
It is very good though that we can stand here today and not
argue about what is to be cut and what we have to do to alter the
development of our programs. We can say yes, we are moving in
the right direction and now we need adjustments to those
directions. That is what this debate today is about.
We are talking about Canada social transfers, transfers for
health payments and moneys that we are going to move from the
federal coffers to support provincial programs which are most
important for all Canadians.
I do not believe there is one person in this House who opposes
that the federal government must do what it can to help provinces
carry out their plans for social assistance and health. I
believe every member of the House is consistent on that, but I
guess we all have differences on how it should be done. The
outline that has been placed here is clearly the government's
position on how these transfers should occur.
We have set a floor for the cash transfers to the provinces by
the federal government this year and for the next five years of
$12.5 billion. We have also suggested that there are going to be
other transfers to the provinces of tax points. Those tax point
transfers will be in the neighbourhood of $12.7 billion. The
total transfers from the federal government to provincial
governments will be over $25 billion.
People have to understand what tax point transfers are before
they can understand how that money is sent to the provinces. When
we talk about social programs we realize that those programs are
supported by provincial and federal coffers. Provincial
governments and the federal government have worked together on
personal and corporate income taxes since this country was
founded.
If the federal government decides that it will lower its tax
revenue and allow the provinces to increase their tax revenue, at
a percentage point, the provinces actually get more of our income
tax, with the federal government getting less.
A balance occurs to the taxpayer, but the number of dollars going
to the provincial governments is higher and the number of dollars
going to the federal government is lower.
1040
We have always maintained that we will support the provincial
governments through tax point transfers, allowing an adjustment
at income tax time for the provinces to get more dollars and the
federal government to get a few less.
At the same time, we have looked on the cash transfers as an
additional balance. We have suggested to the province that they
are going to be guaranteed over the next few years $25 billion in
health and social transfers.
In the campaign we heard time after time from the Reform Party
and from the Conservative Party that we have cut the cash
transfers to the provinces. They never once talked about the tax
point credits that were maintained, the tax point credits that
the provincial government got.
They took one side of the story and one side only and did not
deal with it in a fair and reasonable way, which I find has been
the case by both those parties over the years. They take one part
and dwell on it. They are very adamant about one part of the
whole equation without dealing with the whole issue, the total
number of dollars available to the provinces from the federal
government.
Quite frankly, that total number of dollars is there to make
sure that our health programs and our social transfers are there
for Canadian citizens.
There is no question that in the last while one of the major
issues in Ontario as well as in all the provinces of Canada has
been what is happening to our health care system, where are we
going with that health care system and where will we end up in
the future.
What we need to do and what we have done with this legislation
is make certain the provinces know what the funding will be for
the future. The provinces can plan and look exactly at where
they are going with that funding. They know the programs they
can carry out and they know the dollars that will be flowing in
for that program.
I have no question, when I start looking at making dollar
amounts, base levels there, that we are following the
recommendations that were brought forth by the national forum on
health. We are following the recommendation of health care
specialists across this country. We are following the
recommendations brought forward to the federal government and the
finance minister to make certain that the health care system
stands well in this country and will stand well in the next
several years.
We must also realize that when we come to looking at what we are
doing with setting a balance of floor value of $12.5 billion on
the base, that does not mean those transfer payments may not
increase.
Quite different from that, it is saying that there will be a
base level. There may well be increases to those programs as
required. There may well be increased funding. We are
projecting at this point in time a 2.5% per annum increase from
present day until the year 2002.
When we look at transfer payments to the provinces, I think it
is important to understand what I am talking about with regard to
these tax points. I have an estimate of the transfers that would
go to the provinces. The province of Ontario would receive tax
credits under this legislation of $5 billion. They would also
receive cash transfers of $4 billion which, to the province of
Ontario, gives a total of just over $9 billion for health and
social programs.
1045
That is quite a sum of money. It is there to make sure that
those programs are maintained at the highest level. All
Canadians can be assured we will have programs today and in the
future that will meet the needs of each and every Canadian.
Our health care system, as it is administered today, does not
make differences in Canadians. It does not act in the same way
that we might find the system doing in the United States or in
other countries where those with a lot of money are able to
access the services and those who are less fortunate, less
wealthy, are unable to access the services.
Our system is blind to wealth. It is blind to other factors
outside the risk of the patient. The more the need of the
patient for an operation, the more the need of the patient for
service, those are the patients who are treated first. It is a
priority list of the health needs of Canadians.
We certainly feel as a federal government that it is the only
way to go about making certain that Canadians have services
available to them.
There are other issues with regard to the bill which may have
been neglected. Charitable donations is one area that has been
included. There are amendments in the legislation to help with
gifts and donations that will help more charitable organizations
and other groups which need cash.
We can think about what just happened in this region of Canada
when tremendous problems were caused by the ice storm of recent
weeks. There are people who contributed gifts to those areas.
The increase in support for those who make charitable donations
is very important to the operation not only of disaster funds but
of the heart association and all other groups that go to the
public on a regular basis to support the people who need extra
support in our communities. There is thought given to helping
those individuals.
As well, proposals have been made in the area of registered
educational savings plans to help the families who wish to send
their children to school. They know the costs of education will
be going up astronomically over the years. There is an
opportunity for families to put more money into educational
savings plans which will over time help society to better educate
young people. It certainly will help families to send their
children to school. It will help to finance education.
I have heard young people complain a great deal about the costs
of education today and the future costs of education. In a small
way the bill will help young people to cope.
There are key important points in the bill that will help the
underprivileged and people requiring health care and that will
improve our social programs. I would like to make certain that
each and every Canadian understands that the bill is doing a
great deal to bolster our funding to the provinces and to make
certain the provinces are able to handle those most important
costs, those most important programs of the future.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary talked about how the government inherited
such a problem and did such a good job at managing to bring down
the deficit. I remind the parliamentary secretary that a good
deal of the so-called good management was as a result of the
growth in the economy.
He will recognize that over $25 billion of new revenue came into
the government per year over the last several years, largely due
to exports and a very rapidly expanding economy in the United
States, our major trading partner.
When that is coupled with the $6 billion in cuts to transfer
payments to the provinces it goes a long way toward contributing
to the difference between the current position we have
financially and the deficit the Liberals inherited.
1050
The parliamentary secretary talks about how they will restore
funding in the areas of health care, advanced education and
welfare, the so-called capped block funding to the provinces.
They will restore funding from $11.5 billion to $12.5 billion. I
remind him that it was his government that cut those transfers to
the provinces from $18.5 billion down to $11.5 billion, a cut of
some 35%. Now the Liberals will restore funding by $1 billion,
bringing the level up to $12.5 billion. There is still a $6
billion difference.
Many people blame the provinces for the difficulties they have
had during the last few years with programs such as health care,
in particular the cost of health care. They could not deliver
services as adequately as they would have liked. Those problems
have mostly been associated with the provinces balancing their
own budgets. I remind people watching the debate today that a
good portion of the pain suffered was due to cuts made by the
federal government to transfer payments.
Does the parliamentary secretary recognize there is still only
one taxpayer in the country? Provinces have the job of
administering health care but the federal government has been
steadily reducing its commitment from the time the Canada Health
Act came into effect some 30 years ago. The federal government
commitment has gone from about 67% down to a low of 18%. The
provinces administer the health care system largely on the basis
of raising revenue themselves for funding. Several provinces
like my home province of Alberta still have premiums.
How are the provinces to handle this problem if the federal
government commitment continues to be less and less every year?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question. Many facets of it have been brought forward and need
some response. I said we were getting our fiscal house in order.
I talked about the direction we have taken as a Canadian
government. Those remarks were well reflected in my colleague's
comments. He suggested that the growth of the economy has been
very good.
How did growth of the economy occur? We have to stop and think
about the trade missions the prime minister put in place. He has
involved the provincial premiers and the business community of
Canada. He did whatever he could to make sure Canadian companies
could expand, become stronger, make more profit and pay higher
taxes. All these things were actual accomplishments of the
direction of the government. For someone to complain about the
growth of the economy bringing in more funding to the federal
government seems a little ludicrous to me. It seems a little off
base.
However, we all know we have not increased personal income tax.
We have not made the increases that these folks thrived on year
after year.
I sat here in 1988 and I watched taxes go up and up. We stopped
that. I watched how they went about with programs they were
putting in place. Now they are complaining that we have made the
economy grow, that we have held interest rates down, and that we
have done things that have principally put Canadian business in a
very competitive position worldwide. We have increased our trade
dramatically. There has been a one-third total increase in trade
over the last few years, thanks to good government.
How does that affect taxes? Without increases we have increased
the dollar flow coming in. Most Canadians would respect that is
the best way to go about this issue.
1055
He also mentioned that there were some cuts in dollar transfer
payments to the provinces. Yes, that is true, but he did not
mention the fact that the tax points the provincial governments
were getting were increasing because of the increase in the
economy. We cut some of the tax dollar transfers but we also
increased our economic value which meant that more dollars were
coming in to the provinces through tax points.
As a result I think everyone in this room has to fundamentally
agree that we have taken a tremendous direction. It is a very
positive step for Canadians. It is a positive step for Canadian
businesses. It has been a positive step for governments and it
will definitely be a positive step for the programs we are
carrying out.
Had we followed the right wing agenda over there, the difficulty
we would be in today would be further slash and burn policies and
further increases in taxes.
I remember Michael Wilson saying year after year after year “We
missed the target by $10 billion this year. We missed it by $8
billion last year”.
The Reform Party is trying to say “Now that you guys have
straightened out a lot of the economy in the country we are going
to tell you how to spend your profits”. All I have heard the
leader of that party say in the last six months is how he would
manage the new situation. That is pretty ludicrous.
I listened to where the Reform Party is going now and how it is
going to give tax cuts. It is going to give this and it is going
to give that. Giveaways do not work. Getting the basics right
is the important thing to do. The Reform Party has missed the
basis of getting the fundamentals right. It would love to take
credit for it all. As a matter of fact its members say that
because they have pushed us hard we have done a good job. That
is kind of a sidestep.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I specifically asked the parliamentary
secretary a question about transfers to provinces and what is
their intent—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows
that is not a point of order.
If by asking a question he has set off a minefield, those are
the breaks we take under questions and comments. It is clear
that in this case he has stirred the parliamentary secretary to
his depths. He is in the midst of an answer. Perhaps he is
finished now and we can move on to another question. Or, does
the parliamentary secretary still have something to say in answer
to the question?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I will quickly wrap up.
It was not a specific question. He went through the growth of
the economy as a problem that we are putting more dollars into.
He laid that whole agenda open to be questioned. Quite frankly
this is a pretty bad approach to take.
The government has done a great job. I believe that is the
basis under which my response came.
The Deputy Speaker: There is time for one more brief
question. I caution that the answer as well as the question will
have to be brief.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member in his remarks spoke about assistance to families to
help with education through the changes to the RESPs. While this
may be a laudable move, I remind the hon. member that many
families cannot afford to have RESPs. There are many families in
Canada who are living at a subsistence level, yet their children
are worthy of education as well.
Has the government considered anything very substantial in terms
of transfer payments to assist many young people who are in need
of help with their education?
We heard earlier and it is well known that many young people are
coming out of university with a debtload of $25,000 or more
before they even have the opportunity of obtaining a job. We are
very concerned about this and we feel that the recent cuts in the
transfer payments have seriously affected education and have
caused a lot of problems for young people.
Is there anything more substantial that the government plans to
assist with education other than helping those who are already
able to help themselves?
1100
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious
question which has been raised by my colleague. It requires a
proper response in light of the fact that he is correct.
When we talk about people putting money away, there are folks in
this country who really do not have that extra capital to put
away for educational funding. How do we deal with that?
We do have millennium funding that is being put in place to help
those low income families pay for educational programs on the
basis of need. I will have either the parliamentary secretary or
someone from the department comment on that. That would be an
important area for the member to raise.
When we look at student loans, there is no question that student
loans are in place to help students. Some students are
graduating with astronomical debts. I believe that we do have to
look carefully at what we can do to help students in the best
possible way to overcome the tremendous debt load they have.
One of the key issues is getting the fundamentals in place and
keeping interest rates as low as we possibly can. Remember that
interest on student loans does not start until a minimum of six
months after the student graduates and if the student does not
get a job, that time period can be extended. But with the large
debt students have, it is important we make certain that we
fundamentally handle this correctly. When people are young that
is the time when they need a relatively good amount of income to
purchase the basics they have not been able to have as students.
In the workforce they have to see those benefits come about.
I agree that the issues the member has raised are important.
They are ones this government is looking at.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to rise to speak on Bill C-28, amendments to
the Income Tax Act.
As I have said many times before, we have here a very complex
income tax bill which is 464 pages in length. It deals with nine
particular subjects according to the preamble. Is it any wonder
that Canadians are losing faith with their tax system and the
complexity of the Income Tax Act when it takes 464 pages of
amendments to deal with some changes the Minister of Finance has
announced to nine particular areas of the act.
These are the types of things that Canadians throw up their
hands about and say “We have no idea how the Income Tax Act is
administered, we do not understand it, all we know is we are
getting taxed to death”. This type of bill and the complexity
of it add credence to their argument.
I have also quoted before some of the paragraphs in these
amendments. Let me quote paragraph 196(1) which deals with
subparagraph 181.3(3)(d)(i) of the act. This is how it reads:
(i) the amount that is the greater of
(A) the amount, if any, by which
(I) the corporation's surplus funds derived from operations (as
defined in subsection 138(12)) as of the end of the year,
computed as if no tax were payable under this part or part VI for
the year.
It goes on and on. That kind of gobbledegook loses the taxpayer
completely.
If we are ever to regain the confidence of the Canadian public
when it comes to income tax and their faith in the system and
that they are being treated fairly and properly, we have to
realize that a complete rewrite of the Income Tax Act is long
overdue. Its simplification and understanding by the ordinary
person has to take precedence over this type of complexity that
even challenges the best minds in the accounting and legal
professions.
This is why of course we have tax cases and tax courts wrangling
over issues ad infinitum.
1105
I remember too the famous case about two years ago where $2
billion left this country without taxes. The Department of
Finance and the Department of National Revenue flip-flopped on
advance tax rulings. They gave out misleading information to one
person and gave a favourable tax ruling to somebody else.
Hundreds of millions of dollars escaped taxation. As a result,
people again lost confidence in the system.
The Minister of Finance should seriously think about
simplification rather than adding more and more complexity.
I was listening to the speech of the parliamentary secretary,
the previous speaker. Not all of it was really focused on the
the details of the Income Tax Act. He got more on to the
government's record and I would like to respond to the issues he
raised.
He was taking great pride in the Team Canada approach whereby
the federal government took trade missions around the world at
great expense to the Canadian taxpayer. And sunscreen too. The
premier of Alberta left his at home at great pain to himself. At
great expense to the taxpayer, the trade missions went to
different parts of the world to drum up business.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance would
have us believe that these trade missions added significantly to
the economic growth of this country, to the well-being and to the
fact that we have dug ourselves out of the fiscal mess by
balancing the budget. He failed to tell us that the countries
they visited with Team Canada, the total exports to those
countries, not the ones that Team Canada generated, but the total
exports to those countries represented only 5% of the exports of
our country.
If we say that our exports represent only 40% of our gross
domestic product, then the total exports to those countries would
represent at best 2% of our gross domestic product. Team Canada
may have increased that 2% to 2.1% or maybe 2.05%. However, for
the parliamentary secretary to stand up here and claim that these
trade missions were the formula for success and have caused this
country to be able to dig itself out of the debt hole it was in
and to balance the budget is absolutely false and misleading. The
$42 billion deficit which was number one in this country when the
government took over in 1993 is significantly in excess of the
exports we generated by these Team Canada junkets abroad.
I do hope that the government will evaluate the benefits of
these Team Canada junkets, even if they do not take the sunscreen
along with them. They will find that many of these junkets are
not worth the effort when it comes to a return on taxpayers'
dollars and investment. I do hope that the parliamentary
secretary will refrain from the hype that carried him away to
make these extraordinary claims about the benefits of the Team
Canada junkets abroad.
I would also like to talk about health care. He talked about
health care. He talked about how the Liberal government said
that it was protecting health care with the cash transfers. He
said the fact was that they were putting more money back into
Health Canada and into health for Canadians by putting in a floor
of $12.5 billion in cash investments.
This floor, as my hon. colleague from Peace River pointed out,
is 30% less than the cash that was going to the provinces when
this government took over in 1993. They had intended to reduce it
to $11.5 billion.
In the last election in order to counter the lack of faith
Canadians had in what the government was saying, I remember not
just the Minister of Health but the Prime Minister saying there
was going to be an absolute guarantee that the government would
put $12.5 billion cash into health care. Unfortunately the
Canadian public bought that line.
1110
Late in the fall of 1997 the Liberal government tabled the
supplementary estimates (A). On page 48 under
“Statutory—Canada Health and Social Transfer” it states that
it has been reduced from $12.5 billion to $12.328 billion. That
is a reduction of $172 million below the fundamental floor.
This Prime Minister and this government committed to Canadians
that they would not under any circumstances transfer less than
$12.5 billion to the provinces to pay for health care. Within a
few months in the supplementary estimates, where the government
normally asks for more money, we find out it is taking money away
from Health Canada, from the transfers to the provinces, and is
using that money in other areas.
The Canadian public have been misled. The Canadian public have
been sold down the drain. Obviously a commitment by the Prime
Minister and the Liberal government to Canadians at election time
is meaningless and worthless. We have the proof here. The $12.5
billion was a commitment that Canadians could take to the bank. A
very short few months later it was reduced by $171 million as per
the supplementary estimates (A) which were tabled in the fall.
It is an absolute disgrace that this government should deceive
the Canadian public in this way.
The Minister of Health and the Prime Minister should be standing
in the House to explain to Canadians how their unconditional
guarantee of $12.5 billion has already been eroded. And we can
expect to see it being eroded even more.
Health care is an important issue. As my colleague from Peace
River has said, while Canadians have talked about the erosion of
health care and blamed the provinces because they are in charge
of delivering health care, it is a fact that the federal
government has cut and cut and continues to cut the amount of
money that is put into health care. That is the major cause of
the crisis in health care today. It has to change.
That is what the Reform Party has said it would change. We said
during the election campaign that we would put money back into
health care and would not surreptitiously cut beyond the floor
which we committed ourselves to.
Let Canadians be warned that what they hear from this government
is not necessarily what they get. There is proof in the pudding.
Bill C-28 in part deals with education by the fact that it
allows for contributions to registered education savings plans to
be increased from $2,000 to $4,000 per beneficiary. This is an
acknowledgement that education is becoming more and more
expensive.
Yes, education is expensive. Demonstrations were held across
the country last week by students who told us they are being
buried under a mountain of debt. By the time they get their
degree and find a job they are mortgaged to the hilt. Their
capacity to start building a life of their own by starting
families, acquiring houses, cars and so on is seriously
compromised by virtue of the fact that they have a mountain of
debt. Some of them are $20,000, $30,000 and even $40,000 in debt
by the time they graduate from university.
The answer is not necessarily to just give another $2,000 to
those who can put money into an education fund for their
children.
Many families cannot afford to save that money in advance or in
anticipation of their children going to university.
1115
This government has to take a serious look at the cost of
education in this country and the way money is being spent in
this country. It needs to ensure we are getting some kind of
value for the education dollars we spend. Surely when we spend
money on education the concept is that an educated child will be
produced, that when a child goes to school for grades one through
twelve, by the end of twelve years we will have an educated child
who meets a minimum standard. When that child goes on to
university he should be capable of meeting the challenges of the
university because the prior school education has provided him
with the tools necessary to survive and to thrive at university
rather than the opposite.
This past weekend I read an article in the Globe and Mail
about the fact that one university in Ontario was having severe
financial problems in paying its bills. Therefore it reduced the
minimum standard for eligibility into the university. It
accepted a large number of students who were guaranteed to fail,
and they were failing. We were giving these people a false hope,
we were wasting a year of their time, we were spending money on
education they could not absorb because they had not acquired the
skills from school. This was all because the university needed
the bodies on the student roll in order to generate the finds to
flow from the province and the federal government so it could pay
its bills.
That is a funny methodology for ensuring you can balance your
books. It guarantees waste of millions of dollars of university
education because it accomplishes nothing except that it turns
people away and shows they cannot be a success in this world.
This government can rethink the way education is done in this
country. It is time we started to put the onus on the
educational industry.
Surely the objective is to produce an educated child. If we
start with that premise, then the focus for where the money
should flow will surely improve. In the private sector it is
only businesses that provide good quality products that will
prosper and thrive. This is because they know they have a market
that is prepared to buy their products. If they do not provide
quality products they will not continue to be around. Yet we
have universities and other schools that are not providing
anything close to a quality product and we keep them afloat and
continue to give them raises, increases, more money and bigger
budgets while we get nothing in return. Much can be done to
rethink how we spend education dollars in this country and
universities are a good place to start.
Take a look at Bill C-28 in its complexity and the way we are
trying to nickel and dime the Canadian taxpayer into paying more
taxes. The thrust of most of Bill C-28 is to close little
loopholes so we can get more tax from this person and more tax
from that corporation and so on.
However, now we have a balanced budget. The November Fiscal
Monitor showed that we have a fairly significant surplus so
far this year. I know the Minister of Finance will add on his
$800 million extra accounting charge, which really is not an
accounting charge but he will want to stick it on anyway as he
did it last year. The auditor general pointed that out. He did
that the year before with $960 million while the auditor general
said he could not. But the Minister of Finance said that he
wanted to do it anyway. After this kind of smoke and mirrors I
think the Minister of Finance will tell us that we have a
balanced budget.
The question now before Canadians is what to do with this
balanced budget or with any excess cash that is available.
1120
We already know that our hon. friends on the other side of the
House are just itching to get their hands on that money to spend
it on their own little pet projects.
Surely after 30 years of deficit financing, where we have run
our credit card up to $600 billion, $20,000 per Canadian, which
includes newborns, we should try to resist the concept of saying
my goodness, now it is my chance to buy some more goodies.
We have four simple choices for what to do with a balanced
budget and any excess. First, we can pay down the debt. Many
Canadians want to pay down the debt. Second, we can reduce
taxation. We are grossly overtaxed in this country and we can
reduce taxation. Third, there is a need for strategic
reinvestment in some areas. I can think of health care as being
one. Regardless of what the Minister of Health thinks about
taking more money out of health care, we in the Reform Party
think that health care needs some reinvestment. The fourth is to
invest in more goodies. Unfortunately this government feels that
buying more goodies, more things it can woo the voters with, is
more important than tax relief, debt reduction and strategic
reinvestment.
I do hope that in the next short little while this government
will come to its senses and not flagrantly waste the wonderful
opportunity that this country has to once and for all put
ourselves in a sound fiscal situation where we can get our
finances in order and ensure that this country continues to grow
to become one of the great countries in the world. Unfortunately
it will not be with this government at the helm.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and then
a couple of questions.
With respect to the point made by the hon. member pertaining to
the supplementary estimates, the $12.328 billion, that is what
the transfers would be in 1997-98 if the floor were not
established. With this floor and this bill going forward it will
be $12.5 billion. According to law we certainly must publish
what the entitlements will be. Now the law is changing with Bill
C-28 and the provinces know the amount will be topped up once the
law is in place. Therefore the rhetoric we heard on the other
side is nothing more than just that.
With respect to the comment about student debt and the
importance of dealing with the plight of students and that RESPs
are not good enough and that the cost of education is rising and
that governments need to look at education and the cost of
education, I find it somewhat ironic that the Reform Party, in
particular this member, is now saying the federal government
should be responsible for education and that we should control
curriculum. That is the only way we would be able to control the
outcome which is what the hon. member is talking about.
This is a party that puts forward the concept that we need to
weaken the federation, that the federal government does not need
to be in the face of Canadians or the provinces. Now we have the
comment that we should be responsible for education. I find that
somewhat ironic.
The member then talks about the tax aspect of this bill, that
this is nothing more than a tax grab. Is this hon. member then
saying he would support the practice going on out there by some
corporations with respect to transfer pricing? Is he saying the
legislation in front of us today would not allow corporations to
manipulate the tax system by setting prices within their
multinationals?
We are saying that the transfer price cannot be artificial or
arbitrary with this bill and he calls that a tax grab. He calls
a tax grab the fact that individuals will not be able to transfer
losses between unaffiliated companies. Companies are not in the
business of transferring losses. Companies should be in the
business of earning a profit and creating wealth, not
manipulating the tax system.
The bill is merely reflecting what professionals have said in
this country. Accounting professionals who have looked at these
things have said this is what is going on and it should be
tightened up, rules to apply when a corporation becomes or ceases
to become exempt from income tax.
1125
I am sure the hon. member would support this. A tax exempt crown
corporation is not able to store up tax deductions or credits it
does not need. When it does become commercialized, if that be
the case, it cannot use those tax credits and cannot store up
those tax credits so it could circumvent the tax system. That is
what this bill is all about. That is I think a reflection of what
Canadians talk about when they say they want a fair tax system.
I find the comments that are made somewhat ironic, but I
certainly hope the hon. member will answer the question with
respect to education and those particular changes to the tax
system.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member covered a
lot of ground in those few minutes, just as the government has
covered in 464 pages of this bill with complex wording that very
few Canadians can understand.
Let us look at the issues. The complexity of the Income Tax Act
makes it unintelligible to all but a few people. If the
government feels that is what Canadians want in the tax act, I
suggest that is not the case. Canadians cannot understand the
Income Tax Act. If people cannot understand the basis on which
they are being asked to pay taxes they lose confidence in the
system and that is what has happening. Not only are they losing
confidence in the system because they cannot understand it, they
are losing confidence in the system because every time they turn
around they are absolutely aghast at the amount of taxes they
have to pay. That is the centre core of the issue.
The hon. member may talk about tax losses and transfer pricing
and so on. He may have a legitimate point. But the fact that
Canadians cannot understand their own Income Tax Act is a greater
point and that is the point I am trying to make.
With regard to education yes, I said it is the responsibility of
the educational institutions and the educational industry to
produce educated people. That surely is not much to ask for. The
private sector produces goods and services. We provide minimum
regulations that say automobiles must meet safety requirements,
otherwise a company cannot produce these automobiles. If it does
not meet the safety requirements we shut the place down or we ask
it to recall its product.
We do not ask the educational industry to recall the defective
products it produces, students who cannot do math and who cannot
even read the certificate they are given in grade 12. The point
is we can ask for accountability. We do not have to set the
curriculum and so on, but surely we can ask for accountability.
That a university would bump up its student intake with people
it knows right off the bat have no hope of graduating or even
passing the exams just so it can fill its coffers with extra
money because it is paid on the number of students it accepts
surely is a false premise and false hope for the students and a
total and absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. It knows and we
know that many of these students who are accepted with less than
minimum requirements will not graduate.
If the hon. member cannot understand that, he has a serious
problem.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned hundreds of millions of dollars leaving our
country, escaping taxes and not being available to our economy.
I agree with him that it is happening. I think that points to the
need for tax reform.
This bill is really only scratching the surface when we talk
about tax reform. Although there are some good things in this
bill, in reality this bill is an attempt to cover over the
massive cuts that have been made affecting our social programs,
our educational programs and our health programs.
We need tax reform to meet the education and training needs of
our youth. When I say that I mean not just the youth in our
affluent societies but I am talking about rural youth and youth
in our small fishing villages. I am talking aboriginal youth who
through historical wrongs have not been able to obtain the
education required to compete in today's society.
Would the hon. member be in favour of tax reform that would
incorporate for example an excess profit tax that would get at
some of the astronomical profits that are being reaped by the
huge bank mergers that we see today and by the large
corporations, whereby some of that profit could be reinvested in
our communities in a way that would help our young people obtain
their education?
1130
Would the member be in support of a true tax reform which would
lessen the disparity that we see in society so that some of those
tax dollars he talked about that are leaving the country could be
reinvested in our youth?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon.
member's question, the NDP always seem to be envious of the
successful. That envy tends to cloud its judgment.
He talked about the banks. I am not sure if the member is aware
that banks actually earn money abroad. Over 50% of the profits
of some large Canadian banks are earned abroad and come to
Canada. Therefore they pay Canadian tax. That money is
distributed to Canadian shareholders. That money also reduces
the cost of banking in Canada.
I am not arguing for the banks; I am just setting out the facts.
To talk about an excess profits tax is a standard line of the
NDP, which is envious of the successful. It feels that by taking
from them and giving to the poor somehow we would resolve the
problem. In thousands of years we have yet to resolve the problem
and I do not think the NDP has the answer.
That does not absolve the education industry from its obligation
to produce an educated child. Surely that is what it is in
business to accomplish. If the industry cannot do it we should
ask serious questions about why. Why is it still in business if
it continues to produce children who cannot read or operate in a
complex world, as the member has so readily admitted?
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to advise hon. members that
the time for questions and comments has now expired. Also the
time for 20 minute speeches has now expired. We are now into 10
minute speeches without questions or comments.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, inasmuch as this is my first opportunity to speak to the
Chamber in 1998 I wish you and my colleagues in the House the
very best for 1998. I look forward to a very productive year in
parliament.
Bill C-28 is another example of a caring Liberal government. In
the measures included we see numerous initiatives to make our tax
system fairer. We agree we have a way to go, but it is under the
leadership of the prime minister and the government that we are
able to bring forward effective changes which little by little
will bring us to a point where Canadians will feel their tax
system is fair. All participants in the economy will be giving
what they can and receiving what they need.
The bigger message in the legislation is that the government is
prepared to show leadership despite some very mixed messages that
we hear from the opposition.
I could not help but notice, in listening to the previous
speaker, that on the one hand the Reform Party might want the
federal government to get out of many areas of jurisdiction in
which it has traditionally been involved.
For example, the social system, the health system and the
post-secondary education system as Canadians know are funded
partially by federal transfers to the provinces. The Reform
Party would begrudge any involvement by the federal government in
any of those areas.
It says that sometimes but I also hear that the federal
government should be involved. I happen to be one who believes
the federal government has a rightful place in the three great
pillars which constitute the social aspect and the social
democracy in which we live: education, the social welfare system
and health.
I would in fact rather see us more involved than less involved.
1135
Bill C-28, in exhibiting our desire to be fairer with all
Canadians, is an indication that we would like to be fairer in
our relationship with the provinces and ideally with
municipalities in delivering very important social programs.
Let us consider the announcement late last fall wherein the
federal government offered to the provinces an increase in what
is called the Canadian health and social transfer. The amount of
funds to be transferred under the cash transfer to the provinces
was to be increased to $12.5 billion. In combination with the
tax points the provinces have it would certainly give the
provinces the flexibility and the funds they need to deliver
effective health, education and social services.
I travel quite a bit across my large riding of
Algoma—Manitoulin. I know, speaking for a moment about the
health system, that great change is taking place in Ontario which
is being felt very graphically in rural Ontario. Small rural
hospitals of varying sizes in places like Elliot Lake, Thessalon,
Wawa, Hornepayne and elsewhere certainly need the province of
Ontario to come forward with a vision.
Without wanting to criticize any province, it is important that
the vision at the provincial level be guided by a national vision
so that Canadians from coast to coast can feel that they are
indeed Canadian regardless of where they live. The services to
which they have access should be the same regardless of income
level or the region in which they live.
Recently I had a chance to travel in central and northern
British Columbia. Some of the rural health issues there are
almost identical to the health issues faced by smaller
communities in rural northern Ontario.
Many of my colleagues and I believe the federal government
should have a stronger place in the areas of education, health
and social services.
I am not suggesting that we should take away any authority from
the provinces, but initiatives such as the prime minister's
millennium scholarship fund are examples of how the federal
government can show leadership in partnership with students in
this case and with the provinces.
Too many challenges are facing the country for us not to have a
national vision in such important areas as health, education and
social services. Citizens around the world look at Canada and
wish their countries were like Canada. First they see how we
have traditionally cared for each other.
We cannot stay still. We have to keep improving our nation. We
have to keep improving the place that each of our citizens has in
this great nation.
When any federal government in Canada looks to the future—and
in this case it is the Liberal government—it has to be a future
where the national vision is reflected appropriately throughout
the regions and the provinces.
In some cases there must be special recognition of particular
circumstances in a region. However no citizen, be they of Nova
Scotia or British Columbia, should feel they do not have adequate
and full access to the values and benefits of being Canadian.
1140
When we talk about health we must first talk about the health of
the economy. If it were not for the fact the government was
capable of dealing with a massive deficit that it inherited when
it was first elected in 1993, there would be no opportunity or
reason today to be debating what we can do with our health,
educational and social services systems.
We need to ground all these programs, all these values, in a
strong and healthy economy. The federal government at all times
must show leadership. In showing that leadership we have been
able, in partnership with Canadians who have joined in the
sacrifice, to turn an important corner in the history of our
economy.
When interest rates remain at historic lows it is a benefit to
citizens, to consumers. It is also a benefit to the provinces
which in their own right are dealing with their deficits. As my
colleague suggested, and rightly so, the best tax break we can
provide to Canadians is low interest rates. Those who need it
the most will benefit the most.
I emphasize the government has exhibited month in and month out
that it is a caring government. It displayed that throughout the
last parliament and will continue to do so throughout this
parliament as we approach the next millennium. A caring
government attempts to balance the needs of all citizens
regardless of their station in life.
I encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House as we enter
the first months of this new parliament to consider that
Canadians want a strong central government. My constituents have
told me that time and again. They do not want an overbearing
federal government which dictates to the provinces and to others
what it thinks is right. They want a strong central government
which is willing to lead, willing to listen, and willing to act
on a consensus when a consensus is reached. They do not want a
government which sits around, dithers, hems and haws, and waits
for something to happen.
Canada is the best country in the world because past
governments, mostly Liberal governments, have responded to the
best of what is Canada and to the very best of what it is to be
Canadian. We will continue to do that. Certainly there will be
a few bumps along the road. From time to time we will make
mistakes. I am sure we would all agree with that. By and large
the greatest thrust of our progress will be for the benefit of
all Canadians.
I certainly support the prime minister in his initiative on the
millennium scholarship fund. I believe we need to be directly
involved more and more with Canadians when it comes to health,
education and social services. I do not want to take anything
away from the provinces, but I believe the provinces need a
strong federal government that is willing to guide, lead and
preserve from coast to coast to coast the best of what is Canada.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate with the hon. member for
Témiscouata et cetera.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the name of my riding is indeed quite long.
It is Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. It is the
name of an area in the lower St. Lawrence region.
I am pleased to speak on Bill C-28. Since it deals with measures
announced in last year's budget, we are already in a position to assess
how effective this budget has been.
In Canada and Quebec today, I think that what matters most to taxpayers
in assessing their governments' effectiveness is whether the government
measures put in place to fight the pervasive spread of poverty in every
province are working.
1145
Because of some kind of arbitrary division, the gap is growing
between the higher income earners and the people left on the scrap heap
at the bottom of the income ladder, those who are affected by the
measures contained in this budget, those who must face the so-called
spring gap when EI benefits run out. Having decided that seasonal
workers become unemployed by choice, this good government figured that
cutting their benefits and benefit periods would automatically make them
find work and increase their availability for work.
But that has nothing to do with real life. In Quebec and Canada,
there are seasonal industries that will remain seasonal, and workers
whose expertise is in these industries are not necessarily prepared to
switch overnight.
In our society, if there is a way to fight poverty, it is through
employment. To say that this is the key does not mean much. Everyone
knows that it is the key. But to make things happen today, in our
society where a rather significant number of jobs are created for people
with the right education and training, who even take the jobs of their
less educated fellow citizens, we must admit that this creates a
shortfall of jobs for individuals with much less formal education.
On this point, we can say that clearly the current government
and its budgetary measures fail to meet people's needs. We have
all seen in our riding offices an increase in the number of people
coming to see us who have reached a point of desperation because of
the federal government's restraint programs. People are not always
aware that cuts to provincial programs are caused by provincial
transfer payments. However, we members of Parliament all know that
the fight against the deficit took place primarily on the backs of
the unemployed, low income earners and people who need the services
provided, such as health care.
The member preceding me cited the importance of respecting the
five criteria in the Canada Health Act, but there is no need to be
hypocritical about it.
One cannot ask that certain criteria be respected while
systematically cutting the funding available for such things.
The federal government had planned to cut over $48 billion in
all forms of transfer payments, from the early 1990s. Last year,
they decided to make a big deal of the fact that they would be
cutting only $42 billion. However, $42 billion in cuts is $42
billion in cuts. It means that the people who benefit from the
various forms of transfer payments will do so no longer. It means
that provincial governments are forced to make do with less money
and to make financial choices.
In judging the actions of the federal government, therefore,
one can say that, yes, the deficit must be attacked. Perhaps it
ought to have been done differently. Perhaps there are places
cuts could have been made in a far more worthwhile way. Looking at
decisions like the one on the helicopters, we how to wonder why, a
few years down the road, we have come back to solutions very
similar to the ones the Conservatives opted for. The taxpayers of
Quebec and of Canada end up footing the bill.
Again, looking at what it cost to buy silence in the Pearson
airport affair, we have expenses that could have been avoided if
more effective policy decisions had been made.
When money is spent like that to buy peace, for compensation, it
means that less is available to put into the marketplace, less of
the government's wealth is available to share around.
That function of our system is, unfortunately, very
complicated. If there is one shortcoming in the Canadian federal
system, this is it. Despite what may be said in Canada, the
federal government has always been a kind of distributor of wealth.
It has, particularly, been the one behind the deal giving Ontario
most of the industrial and manufacturing sector, while the Atlantic
provinces and Quebec had far more of the transfer payments.
A few years ago, this sort of tacit agreement that had been
maintained by the federal government for a number of years was no
longer able to stand up to financial pressures, and a solution to
the problem was found.
1150
Rather than deciding to boost regional economies by means of
transfer payments, they opted to simply pull the plug, leaving
people in the regions with the most primary industries in a crisis
situation.
Today, in the maritimes, people are wondering if they will
have enough money to get through the fall.
We have had to make representations, to the fisheries committee in
particular, to extend the TAGS, because what had been set up by the
federal government as a means to diversify the regional economy had
become nothing more than a subsistence program. Nobody is saying
that people do not need money to survive, but the federal
government has not yet looked into the solution of diversifying the
economy. The best way of doing so is for it to get out of areas of
jurisdiction that do not concern it and allow the governments with
responsibility in these sectors to take action.
I have one piece of advice to give the federal government for
the next budget, as a result of the prebudget consultation I did in
my riding. All told, 500 people responded to the survey I had
conducted.
A number of community groups representing various sectors came to see
us. A spokesperson for the KRTB community development corporation said:
“The danger after a period of economic restraint is that the government
will start spending again to please the electorate”.
In other words, we do not want the federal government to add new
programs to those already in place, merely to raise its profile, to get
exposure, or to look good. What we want is the money to be given back
through transfer payments, so that the provinces, which have
jurisdiction over education and health, can act efficiently.
We also heard the following comment from someone representing the
unemployed: “We ask that the EI benefit period and amount no longer
depend on the financial needs of the government but rather on those of
the workers, who pay for insurance in case they lose their jobs”.
People in our region clearly understood that the employment
insurance program has become the federal government's most effective
tool to collect money in order to reduce the deficit. This has nothing
to do with the program's objective. It is merely a way to collect money
through regular source deductions, which are great for raising funds.
The government has not yet taken measures to set up a separate account,
as asked by the Auditor General of Canada.
People who have to draw on employment insurance, who make
contributions to entitle them to do so, are asking that the plan
serve as it was intended. In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois made
a major contribution in the fall. It was very well received all
round and even received the support of the NDP, especially the NDP
members from the Atlantic region, where people are affected by this
problem.
We hope the Minister of Human Resources Development will
consider the six bills we introduced so that the reform may be
changed. It may have been appropriate to go from weeks to hours,
under the reform, but there are a lot of negative elements to the
reform, things that must be changed, including monitoring of the
fund in order to ensure that the money is really being used as
intended.
We are on the eve of a new budget, which will be presented at
the end of February.
The message from the people was clear during consultations. I
asked my constituents the following question in the survey: What
should the federal government do with the expected budget surplus?
Here is how they responded: 12% wanted lower employment insurance
premiums; 20% wanted improvement to the situation of seasonal
workers and those starting to work; 28% wanted funds transferred to
Quebec and the other provinces in Canada for health and education
and 18% wanted reduced taxes.
My constituents recommend, and I will conclude on this point,
that the budget surplus go primarily to those who contributed most
to the fight against the deficit for their efforts and that we
return as quickly and as best we can to fairness in the way
government distributes wealth within Canada.
1155
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
surprised by the comments of the previous speaker, my friend from
Riviere-du-Loup. I know the member quite well. We served on
several committees together and I know him to be very thoughtful
on policy. But he may have been mistaken when he came into the
House. The bill we are debating today is Bill C-28, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, not legislation referring to employment
insurance.
I would like to reflect a bit on the all of the debate I have
heard here. I was not necessarily going to speak on this bill
when it first came forward because I assumed that it would slip
through this House very quickly because of what it contains. I am
surprised by the speeches that have been made by the Reform Party
and the Bloc and the New Democrats when they look at this piece
of legislation.
The member for Riviere-du-Loup has just taken some time to tell
us about a series of other very important issues of concern to
him and his constituents. But I would ask him and I would ask
other members, when it comes to the substance of this piece of
legislation, exactly what part of it they are against. Are they
opposed to the increase in funding for health care and education
and social programs? Are they opposed to the improvements in the
registered education savings plan that allow people who can
contribute to registered education savings plans to have greater
ability and greater flexibility in the management of those plans?
It is not the only answer for education savings. There need to
be other strategies and other supports brought to bear, because
people in Canada have differing levels of ability or differing
levels of economic capacity. But for those who can save, the
registered education savings plan is a very legitimate strategy.
To make that more reflective of today's costs and to make that a
more efficient instrument strikes me as a very positive change.
Perhaps they are opposed to the changes in transfer
pricing. This has been an argument that as the economy has
globalized I have certainly heard raised by the New Democrats and
others in this House, the concern about companies being able
to shift their profits across borders by the way in which they
price internal services within their corporation. We have
changed that. Is that not an improvement? Is that not something
that if the member for Riviere-du-Loup went back to his 500
constituents and asked them what they thought about it that they
would support?
We have increased the tax credits for film and video production
services. We have introduced a new refundable 11% tax credit to
provide economic development assistance to film and video
productions produced in Canada. For those of us who are concerned
about our cultural industries in this country and for those of us
who see those industries as extremely important in terms of job
creation and skill development and in terms of the economic
strength they bring to this country and our ability to celebrate
our own culture, is that not a good thing? If the Reform Party
were doing what it claims to do, representing its constituents,
would the constituents who have asked about that not feel that
was a pretty positive move? Certainly the strength of the film
industry in British Columbia and Alberta is well known.
If we go down to the other major changes, they are all changes
designed to do something I have heard people on the other side of
the House talk about repeatedly: make the tax system more fair,
take out some of the inequities, prevent people from manipulating
the system to gain additional benefit they would not normally be
entitled to. That is what this bill talks about.
I wanted to stand up today in the end to thank and to
congratulate the Minister of Finance. I was part of the SSR
committee that first looked at changes in social service, as was
the member for Riviere-du-Loup. When the question of the CHST was
first raised, a lot of us were extremely concerned.
1200
We were concerned both about the cut and the reduction in
support for important and necessary social programs in Canada. We
were also concerned about the loss of control, the loss of
position, the loss of authority on the part of the Government of
Canada to set a framework for social services across the country.
At that time it was pointed out to us by others, including the
Minister of Finance, that we were in danger certainly in my
province and the province of Quebec and some others of seeing the
cash portions of our payments go to zero in health care and
losing all of our ability to enforce the principles of health
care. It was felt that by bringing all of these programs
together under one legislative umbrella it would give us more
strength to maintain a national presence and national standards
in these important services.
After a long argument in our caucus the Minister of Finance
agreed to set a floor of $11 billion. I am delighted to be able
to stand here today after four years of very, very tough
decisions by this government, courageous decisions. It is easy
to make the spending decisions but it is tough to make the
decisions to cut and this government has done that. It has taken
the tough decisions and tough action to get its spending under
control. Finally we are beginning to see some modest benefit
from that.
Mr. Ken Epp: You have got to be kidding.
Mr. Reg Alcock: The member across the floor says “you
have to be kidding”. Well of course he is not well known for
his ability to do math.
The fact is we had a $42 billion deficit. We are on the verge
of no deficit. We are on the verge of a balanced budget. For
the first time in more than two decades we are going to benefit
from that. For the first time we are going to see an increase,
an ability to put some strength back into our health care system
and put it on a firmer foundation. That is a direct result of
the actions of this government which was prepared to make the
tough decisions.
The government will have to be very careful, very cautious and
very judicious in the decisions that need to be made in this
coming budget. Everybody in this House has a list of the things
they would like to see the government spend on. My personal
advice to the minister is to be cautious. We have not seen that
surplus yet. We have not seen a balanced budget yet. We do not
know how long it is going to be balanced for. We want to make
sure that we have made that change absolutely solid. Then let us
make some judicious investments in our collective future.
The member for Rivière-du-Loup and I worked on a committee that
produced a report for the Minister of Finance on education
financing, particularly on the support for students. We have a
problem in this country that faces every student who attends
university now. It has reached the point that the costs and the
debt load students are having to take on in order to attend
university have simply become so large that many of them have to
contemplate postponing or not going ahead with post-secondary
education. That situation certainly is not in our best
interests. There are a number of programs like that.
I have concerns about research and development and the need to
strengthen the councils that fund the essential research that
builds the quality of life 20 years out. It is the core research
that is done today which our quality of life is built on, as we
reach the age of retirement in my case, or my children reach the
age of majority. I would like to see some more investment in
that. However they all have to be done in the context of fiscal
responsibility, something that this government knows about better
than any other party in this House.
I would simply like to close by thanking the Prime Minister and
the finance minister after four years of very hard work for this
first reinvestment in health and social programs.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
really tough to follow that stand up comedy act by the member for
Winnipeg South but I will try to do my best.
It is absolutely incredible. The Liberals have it down to an art
how to communicate that they are wonderful when in fact they are
doing exactly the opposite.
They say “We are the defenders of health care”, and at the same
time they cut and burn and slash the transfers to provinces.
1205
It is a simple strategy. I have to congratulate them. If we
were fighting a war, they would be on my team because they know
how to win a war by making everybody else take the hits. Their
own soldiers stand up and don't get touched at all because they
are somehow able to communicate that misinformation by saying
“We are not responsible, it was not us. We cut $7 billion out
of health care and transfers to the provinces for education and
welfare. We cut that but no, it was not us”.
The provincial governments landed up taking the heat for it.
Then the Liberals have the gall to stand up in this House and
criticize governments like the Harris government in Ontario
because of the cuts to health care and education that government
has found it necessary to make as a result of the fact that the
funds from the federal government have been drastically cut. Now
gingerly a little bit is being put back in.
Somehow the Liberals have the ability to spin it in such a way
that the Canadian people do not look to the real depth of the
message. They buy into it and say “Let us send those Liberals
back to Ottawa. They really know how to manage the economy”.
Let us look at the facts. This government claims to be so
wonderful and talks about having brought the deficit under
control. That is only one part. I will put it this way, it is
one leg of a four-legged stool. The stool is tottering but they
finally got that one leg and I will gingerly applaud them for
that.
I am glad the Liberals are borrowing less than the Conservatives
were borrowing. Had we still been borrowing at $42 billion per
year, our fiscal picture would be much more bleak than it is now.
Yes, they have slowed down the rate of borrowing to the pace
where they are now borrowing only about $9 billion a year instead
of $40 billion a year. While these Liberals have been in power
since 1993 our debt has gone up.
I started this political thing. I was one of those people who
was not involved in politics at all. I never belonged to a
political party until I joined Reform. But I got so
cotton-picking upset about the mismanagement of the Government of
Canada since Trudeau took power way back, spending more money
than we were taking in, adding to the debt and transferring the
taxpayers' hard earned dollars not into programs that were needed
by Canadians but to lending institutions because of the debt and
the interest payments on them.
I got involved. I remember when I first started. It was in the
fall of 1991. When I was first thinking of running as a
candidate I gave a speech and said that it was deplorable that
our debt was $420 billion. The Conservatives took it from the
$320 billion which the previous Liberals had left them to $420
billion. In nine years they added $100 billion to the debt.
The fact is that this government since 1993, in four and a half
years, has added almost $100 billion to the debt. The Liberals
are twice as good as the Conservatives. While they stand up and
say that they are wonderful, that they are not borrowing so much,
the fact of the matter is that still, because of the accumulated
debt and the large interest payments, the Government of Canada,
on behalf of the hard working taxpayer of this country, has
driven us into debt $100 billion in round figures more than when
the Liberals took office in 1993. And like I said, they have the
gall to stand up in front of Canadians and say “Vote for us
again because we are wonderful, we are really solving this
problem”. I find that unconscionable.
I am going to say something else about this whole system. We
are talking today about a tax bill. What are taxes? In the
olden days as we used to say, it was a king or a lord who had
power over the subjects in his little kingdom. He could say
“For me to have my castle, my gold and to run my armies and so
on, you will each pay a certain portion of what you earned, a
certain part of your crops, or whatever”. They gave it as a
law.
1210
It was a bit of a symbiotic relationship. Those subjects
benefited from the protection of the king or the lord. The
armies were really there to protect the king's or the lord's
investment in those people since they were the source of his
wealth.
In a democracy taxes are really a contribution made by hard
working, risk-taking workers and entrepreneurs. They are saying
that they will pay into a public purse the amount required to run
their governments. The taxes in this country are killing
families and poor people. It is incredible. The Liberal
government says over and over that it is wonderful and cares for
the poor people. There are people who make $18,000 or $20,000 a
year, some of whom are single moms, and they still have a tax
bill to pay.
During the last Parliament there was a big controversy over who
should pay the taxes on the child support paid by a supporting
spouse to a custodial parent. This government had the gall again
to increase the taxes when it said that the person paying the
money will pay the taxes instead of transferring the taxes to the
spouse.
The government could have had the person pay a deduction in
advance which the lower paying taxpayer could get back in the
case of an overpayment. Instead the government said no, that it
would just do it. The government ended up taking millions of
dollars away from the poorest in our society. Yet they stand up
and say “We are the Liberals who look after the needs of the
needy in this country”. Pardon me for being sarcastic but the
truth and what the message is are on opposite sides of the
spectrum.
I will be so bold as to suggest that taxation in this country
has become a form of legalized theft. If someone came into my
house and took half of everything I had in my house, including
the left speaker of my stereo system which is worth $20 and my
old black and white television, I would phone the RCMP and ask
them to get there tout de suite to arrest the guy who was taking
half of my stuff. Yet I allow the federal, provincial and
municipal governments to take from me by the coercion of
taxation, which I call a form of theft, 50% of my earnings every
year. If I do not co-operate with the system I am told by
government bigwigs that I am not a good citizen. Why should I?
I am certainly willing to help those in need, absolutely. I do
it voluntarily. On a number of occasions I have come across
people with needs. Whenever I am able to with my after tax
dollars I love to help people. But for me to send it to Ottawa,
have this government twirl it around in its centrifuge, have 70%
of the money I have contributed spill over in government waste
and inefficiency, have some of it doled out to its political
friends, and if there is some left over it may go to the poor, I
am not content with that. That is theft and it is wrong.
This is what I would like to see in a taxation system. We
should fix the tax system so Canadians get to keep some of their
hard earned money and use it the way they see fit, which includes
helping their neighbours and others who need help.
It is absolutely absurd the way this and other governments
impose tax upon tax upon tax. We get taxed with income tax and
we pay our municipal taxes with the money left over. My
municipal tax bill is around $2,500 a year and I have to earn
$4,000 to pay it because the federal and provincial governments
first take 35% or 40%. With the money I have left I write a
cheque to my municipality and my $4,000 is gone.
It goes on and on and on.
1215
This government can tinker with taxes, like it is doing with
this bill, for decades. We will never rest until it starts
lowering taxes, making the tax system fair and making it less
onerous.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise in support of Bill C-28. It is an axiom in government that
what you do right you do not sell to get credit for, yet when we
are giving $1.5 billion back to the system the opposition still
criticizes us.
We are receiving this fiscal dividend today because of good
fiscal management.
In the years 1993-94 the choice was to raise taxes or cut
programs and transfers. It was apparent then, as it is now, that
Canadians wanted a mature and balanced approach to government
finances. Balance addresses program spending, provincial
transfers, tax cuts and debt reduction.
In the fiscal year 1997-98 the Government of Canada reduced
market debt by approximately $16 billion. It also passed on a
tax cut of $1.4 billion with the reduction of EI payments,
approximately 1% of government revenues.
In addition, it added $850 million to a tax credit, which is
about a half-point in government revenues. For the first time in
30 years it actually reduced the GDP to debt ratio.
There was a tax cut, a tax credit and a paydown on the debt all
within one fiscal year. That is pretty good government which the
people of this country saw fit to re-elect.
The bill addresses the issue of continuing devolution of
authority under the CHST. It is clear that Canadians do not want
their bureaucrats falling all over each other to administer
programs. Surely we can agree that it is simply silly for a food
processing plant to have a federal meat inspector, a federal
health inspector and a federal fish inspector, not to mention the
provincial health inspector, the provincial food inspector, et
cetera, et cetera. Sometimes they even arrive on the same day.
What small business has not had the experience of the federal
income tax auditor, followed by the federal sales tax auditor,
followed by the retail sales tax auditor, et cetera, et cetera,
all asking for the same material, only organized in a different
way?
Canadians spoke about this sort of duplication and their message
was loud and clear. By withdrawing from a number of these
services in these overlapping jurisdictions the government put an
end to this kind of waste. It was a clear message from Canadians
to which this government responded.
In order to properly fund the devolution of authority and yet
still see that government services are provided, the government
entered into the CHST. Cash and tax points will approximate $25
billion this year. They are roughly equal. All the provinces
budgeted this year on the basis of $11 billion in cash. However,
with the passage of this legislation the provinces will
anticipate an additional $1.5 billion in cash. For the province
of Ontario, the impact of raising the cash floor will be
approximately $2.5 billion over the course of the next five
years.
In the fiscal year 1997-98 Ontario will receive about $9.1
billion, or 19% of its operating budget. For each man, woman and
child the federal government will send to the province of Ontario
$800.
However, the more sanguine question is can Canadians from
Ontario truly trust that the Government of Ontario will apply
this increased money to the needs of the vulnerable people in the
province of Ontario? Will the CHST go to the 7,000 homeless
people in the GTA? Will the money help those who need help and
those who are being removed from their beds in mental
institutions in the province?
1220
Can refugees expect that the settlement moneys will arrive while
they settle in our country? Or will we be surprised when the
money goes to fund the $5 billion deficit primarily created by
the ill advised tax cut of the province?
Ontario will have a greater fiscal deficit this year than the
entire federal government. Does this make sense? A tax cut for
someone earning $250,000 results in a $15,000 cheque coming back
from the province of Ontario. A tax cut for the average or
medium taxpayer in the province, that is $33,000, means $250 in
his or her pocket. In some respects this is a tail about how to
govern and how not to govern.
Ontario's government under Premier Mike Harris and its hand
maiden, the Reform Party in this House, would urge us to do a tax
cut in priority to all else. Mr. Harris has increased Ontario's
debt each year and I, if I were a member of the Reform Party,
would not be too enthusiastic about claiming credit while the
debt of Ontario goes up from $88 billion to $108 billion and is
expected to increase by $30 billion over the course of Mr.
Harris' mandate. If this is common sense, I for one would prefer
that we absent ourselves from a common sense revolution.
Two-thirds of the $30 billion debt increase will be attributed
to this ill advised tax cut. Mr. Harris has turned homelessness
into a growth industry in our province. Mayor Lastman has seen
fit to create a task force on homelessness but the premier,
feeling the political pressure no doubt, has also created his
task force on homelessness, which will be funded by and created
by parliamentary assistance. I will not be overly sanguine as to
the report itself as those lapdogs report to the premier.
In my own riding of Scarborough East homelessness is such an
exaggerated and exacerbated problem that we are now shipping
people off to St. Catharines and Peterborough.
As I was saying, the tax cut for a person in the province of
Ontario who earns $250,000 is $15,000. So Mr. Harris receives an
A+ for that tax credit from that individual. Mr. Harris'
perverse policies are putting Canada's largest province in the
debt hole faster than the Canadian government can get the rest of
the country out of it. Canada cuts debt and Ontario increases
debt. Canada restores necessary program financing and Ontario
turns program cutting into a fiscal mantra. Canada targets tax
cuts and Ontario targets tax cuts for the wealthy. Ontario is
trashing the best of times while this government struggles to
include everyone in the rising prosperity of the country.
Canadians have given a very clear message: apply this money to
health care and education. They are not asking for a tax cut.
They want their health care systems and education systems
restored to being the best in the world. They want to be
confident that when they go to a doctor they will receive the
service in a timely fashion, accessible, publicly administered
and of the highest quality. They do not want to do a wallet
biopsy every time they need a medical service. They want to know
that their children will be the best educated children in the
world.
Even when this government reduces transfers those reductions
only represent 2% to 3% of provincial revenues. Even with these
reductions a number of provinces have been able to balance their
budgets. Sadly Ontario too would have had a balanced budget
except for this ill advised and foolish tax cut.
1225
Ontario does not have to be running a deficit. I am not at all
confident that this $1.5 billion increase, of which Ontario will
receive a substantial proportion, will be directed to the most
vulnerable in our society. Regrettably I believe this extra
money will go directly to fund this tax cut.
Mr. Harris, Canada just wrote you a cheque for—
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, on a point
of order, I regret to do this but I would like to plead the rule
of relevancy. We are talking about the federal government and
federal taxes. This member has spoken about nothing but
provincial systems to this point. I would like to ask you to
have him brought back on topic.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the
members that there is a rule of relevancy in our debate today, as
always.
The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, given the rule of relevance I will address the bill, but
I would like to begin by commenting some of the remarks of the
hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
He and other members of his party seem to have taken the
occasion of this debate on a technical tax bill to comment at
length on the fiscal policies of the Government of Ontario. And
well they should. The fiscal policies of the Government of
Ontario have been deeply affected by the fiscal policies of the
Government of Canada.
Many of the hon. members of the government have spoken about how
the government is now offering a cash floor for transfers under
the Canada health and social transfer to the provinces and what a
wonderful commitment this is to our social programs, to health
care, higher education, welfare and so forth. Rarely have I
heard such duplicity in this place from a government which has
just proceeded from four years of hacking and slashing those very
same transfer payments.
The government ran in 1993 on a commitment to increase those
transfers and proceeded to cut them from over $18 billion to
under $12 billion in cumulative annual cash transfers to the
provinces. These cuts had to be absorbed by the provinces without
forewarning and without adequate consultation. It was the worst
kind of downloading. For these Liberals to stand up in this
debate in this place and proceed to criticize the very
governments that had to absorb their cuts, the cuts they lied
about in the 1993 election, I find really quite offensive.
Of course I would not suggest that any particular member mislead
anybody. I am simply saying the Liberal party mislead Canadians
in the 1993 election. It is a matter of record.
The Ontario government had to absorb those cuts, as did my
province of Alberta. It is very interesting because this
government is going to have to see the chiropractor, it has been
slapping itself on the back so much about its fiscal policy, a
fiscal policy which saw the government cut transfers to the
provinces by nearly 35%, while cutting its Ottawa federal
government program spending by only 9.3% .
The government did not balance the budget, taxpayers balanced
the budget by working harder and paying more taxes while seeing
federal revenues grow by $26 billion in the last three fiscal
years. At least $8 billion or $9 billion of those new dollars
came about through tax increase imposed by this government in
this Parliament.
That does not include the huge hidden tax burden of deindexation
of the tax brackets which was imposed by the Mulroney government
in 1986 and which has been a destructive economic policy
continued by this government. The tax deindexation has sucked a
cumulative $13.4 billion out of taxpayers since 1993. It has
pushed tens of thousands of low income people on to the tax rolls
because we have not indexed the basic personal exemptions and the
marginal rates.
People who should not be paying any taxes are paying them today
because of the callous tax policy of the Mulroney Tories and the
Chrétien Liberals.
1230
I want to directly address the hon. member's assertions
regarding the fiscal policy of the Government of Ontario. He
criticized the Ontario government by saying that Canada was
cutting debt while Ontario was increasing its debt.
I do not know if the hon. member has ever seen the public
accounts of Canada or if he has read any of the budgets of his
Minister of Finance. I have and what I see is that since the
Liberal Party came to power in 1993 it has added nearly $100
billion to the stock of the national debt. The scandalous $500
billion left to us by the Tories is now nearly $600 billion. That
is not a subtraction but an addition.
Most Liberals should be assigned to a mandatory remedial math
course because they think adding to the debt means subtracting
from the debt. They added $100 billion to it, taking our debt
servicing cost up to $47 billion a year. They pontificate about
their commitment to social programs but they are spending more on
the interest on the debt, the equivalent in tax revenues of
$6,000 per family of four. That is how much they spend on debt
interest. That is the amount of money spent altogether in the
government on health care, education and old age security
combined. Just what the government is spending in interest on
the national debt, which it has increased by $100 billion, is
almost equivalent to the entire annual budget of the Government
of Ontario.
The greatest fraud in what we have heard in terms of the fiscal
policy of Ontario is that it has made cruel, hard hearted cuts to
social services for Ontarians to fund its tax giveaways to the
rich. The tax cuts supported by Ontarians and laid out in the
1995 election in Ontario are steeply progressive. People at the
bottom end of the tax brackets will feel the biggest proportional
impact of the tax relief.
I hope members will listen to me because this is the most
important fiscal lesson of the Harris miracle. The revenues in
the Government of Ontario have increased since 1995 faster than
they were projected to. Yes, it is true, the Ontario government
cut the tax rates but the revenues went up because more people
are working and paying taxes. The government has not had to cut
a dime from any program to finance the tax cuts because the tax
cuts have financed themselves through increased economic growth.
It is a Tory government in Ontario but it is unfortunate that
the Tory Party here, the red Tory Party here, has publicly
criticized Mike Harris' fiscal policy. The hon. member for
Markham has publicly said that if the Harris government continues
with its hard hearted policies it could affect the federal Tory
Party. Imagine a member whose party is at 12% in Ontario saying
that the Mike Harris' party at 35% might negatively affect their
electoral outcome.
The point is that Ontario government's revenues have gone up as
the taxes have gone down. That is why the fiscal policy of the
government is not working. As it pushes tax rates up it
continues to stagnate economic growth. We continue to see nearly
9% unemployment, 16% youth unemployment and shrinking family
incomes. Now we see that our GDP for the last quarter is down
for each of the last three months. We now see that our standard
of living has declined faster than that of any other country in
the OECD over the past 20 years. The government may call that a
fiscal record to be proud of but I call it a fiscal record to be
ashamed of.
If the government wants to emulate a fiscal record it should
look to the Government of Alberta which cut its own program
spending not by 9% but by 20% and did not complain one whit about
the transfer cuts, the hundreds of millions of dollars in
transfer cuts imposed on it by the Liberal government.
1235
It just absorbed those cuts and maintained what are by far the
lowest tax rates in Canada, allowing it to create the lowest
level of unemployment, the highest level of growth, a shrinking
level of poverty and a growing level of family income.
The moral of the story is that lower taxes mean more growth,
more revenues and better fiscal balances. That is a lesson that
I do not think this government will learn any time soon.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-28 today because
the bill is about the basic values of all Canadians. It is about
people helping other people. It is about Canadians helping
Canadians. It is about encouraging donations to registered
charities. It is about encouraging and facilitating further
investment in higher education. It is about the government's
commitment to move forward together as a society without leaving
anyone behind.
As Bill C-28 is a very lengthy and detailed bill touching many
aspects of the Canadian economy, I will briefly summarize each of
the major clauses of the bill before I focus my remarks on what I
consider to be the more notable components of the legislation.
Touching most Canadians are the provisions of the bill to
increase the cash floor for the Canada health and social transfer
to the province from $11 billion to $12.5 billion. This would
put close to $7 billion more over five years into the hands of
provincial governments that are tasked with administering key
social programs.
Bill C-28 also provides greater incentives to contribute to
registered charities, providing their donors with the same level
of tax relief as those who contribute to federal organizations
and crown corporations.
We are encouraging investment in education by increasing the
annual RESP contribution limit from $2,000 to $4,000 per
beneficiary. We are changing the rules to allow parents whose
children do not eventually pursue higher education to transfer
the money into RRSPs.
Also included in the bill is the introduction of a new 11% tax
credit for Canadian film and video production services. This
provision is designed to provide much needed assistance to the
Canadian film makers with labour costs associated with producing
a film or a video.
In the legislation the government is also providing a guarantee
that there will be no change in the income tax treatment of
recipients of disability benefits when the insurance company
paying the benefits becomes insolvent and employers take
responsibility for continuing the level of benefits.
Bill C-28 changes the rules regarding loss trading. It
eliminates the double deduction of personal tax credits for
bankrupt individuals in the year of bankruptcy. It provides
rules that apply when a corporation ceases to be exempt from
income tax. It implements earlier announced measures concerning
inventory held as an adventure of trade and how they must be
valued for income tax purposes.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I was truly pleased
to stand here in support of the bill today. The years of deficit
cutting were not easy for Canadians and they were not easy for
government.
We knew that we could not continue borrowing on the future of
our younger generations by spending beyond our means. Canadians
knew this well and supported our efforts to bring the deficit
under control. They knew there would be sacrifices but they also
knew that the deficit was destroying the future of the country
and that it had to be eliminated.
The NDP will argue that we gave up on the most vulnerable in our
society, that we broke the deficit on the backs of the poor and
the unemployed. The reality is that the deficit was destroying
our ability and our capacity to care for the very people about
whom the NDP says it is so concerned.
Today is a good day. Canadians are now beginning to see the
rewards of making that commitment, which brings me to what I
first considered to be the most important part of the bill.
As I noted earlier, Bill C-28 provides for an increase in the
cash floor to Canada health and social transfer to the province
to $12.5 billion from the $11 billion. The rise in the Canada
health and social transfer cash floor will put close to $7
billion in additional funding into the hands of the provinces
over the next five years to support key programs.
The CHST consists of a combination of cash and tax points. Tax
points are simply a reduction of federal tax rates, allowing
provinces to raise additional revenues without increasing the
overall tax burden. The value of tax points increases as the
economy grows. CHST transfers, a combination of cash transfers
and tax points, will total more than $25 billion in 1997-98. They
will grow by at least 2.5% a year to reach more than $28 billion
in 2002-03.
1240
The Canada health and social transfer was introduced in the 1995
budget to reform the system of federal transfers to the provinces
and territories as part of the Liberal government's efforts to
improve the effectiveness of the Canadian federation. The CHST
replaced federal transfers for social assistance and social
services under the Canada assistance plan and for health and
post-secondary education under established programs financing.
The CHST provides provinces with greater flexibility to develop
and administer programs of provincial responsibility. The end of
cost sharing rules has opened the door for provincial innovation
in service delivery. Provinces have the flexibility to tailor
services to their populations, allowing for more innovation such
as community health centres in Quebec, for extramural hospitals
or hospital services provided in homes in New Brunswick, and for
quick response medical teams in British Columbia.
Key protections remain. The federal government continues to
uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act with the power to
deduct from cash transfers if provinces fail to meet federal
criteria. Social assistance must continue to be accessible
without provincial residency requirements to ensure Canadians are
free to move unrestricted within the country.
Another advantage for the provinces of the CHST over its
predecessors is its stability and predictability. CHST levels
have been legislated over a five year period so that provincial
governments may plan their budgets accordingly. Cash transfers
are guaranteed not to fall below the $12.5 billion per year
level.
The CHST is also fair. In the first year CHST levels are
calculated based on provincial shares of former transfers. They
are gradually being adjusted to more accurately reflect the
population distribution among the provinces. By 2002-03 per
capita disparities will be reduced by about half. Equalization
transfers continue to be paid to provinces with greater need, to
ensure that comparable services are available to Canadians no
matter where they live.
In his last budget the Minister of Finance reminded us that a
government relieved of the deficit burden is not a government
relieved of its obligations. It is a government able to exercise
its obligations. We have an obligation to encourage
post-secondary education. Most business leaders will say that
the key to success is to identify what we do best and then do it
better than anyone else.
Canada has the capacity to turn out the world's most highly
trained workforce. We are already doing so in the area of
computer animation. Canada produces the best computer animators
in the world. In particular the program at Sheridan College in
Mississauga has been so successful that Walt Disney Studios has
decided to build an animation studio in the greater Toronto area.
We can realize similar successes in other areas such as the high
tech and telecommunications sectors, but we have to stress and
continue to encourage post-secondary education with a focus on
high technology areas.
The government recognizes this and I am pleased to see the
increase in the registered education savings plan contributions
contained in the bill. This is the second concrete move by the
government toward securing a world class education system, with
the creation of the millennium scholarship fund recently
announced in the Speech from the Throne.
I have listened to Reform Party members criticize the bill over
the course of the debate. It has been difficult to determine
exactly where the Reform Party stands. One member criticizes the
government for high taxes and high spending. Another Reform
member will tell us that we have to spend more on health and
education.
Because I wanted to know exactly where Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition stood on what I consider to be the general direction
of the government, I paid a visit to the official Reform Party of
Canada web site. I did not find anything there to help. In fact
it became more confusing.
In one press release the member for Yellowhead criticized the
government for not spending enough on education. In another the
Leader of the Opposition called for 100% of any surplus to be
spent on tax and debt reduction.
1245
Finally, in the Reform Party's “Beyond a Balanced Budget” the
party across the way says it will reduce government spending to
$94 billion. That is a $6 billion cut. The reality is the
Reform Party has no clear vision for Canada.
The provision in the bill encouraging contributions to
registered charities is further evidence of this government's
commitment to the core values of Canadians. Canadians want to
help others in times of need. It is, in fact, the sentiment
which unites us as a country, which results in the moving scenes
we witnessed when the Saguenay and Red River Valley were ravaged
by flooding or when so many communities were devastated in the
recent ice storms.
I know that the thousands of dollars and the many volunteers
from the riding of Whitby—Ajax helped and continue to help the
relief efforts in eastern Ontario and Quebec. I know that every
member can say the same about his or her constituency.
I urge all members to join me in supporting this piece of
legislation and in helping to continue to build a nation which is
the envy of the world.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-28 is a
rather large bill containing more than 300 clauses. It is a real grab
bag of provisions dealing with a variety of topics from employment
insurance to transfer payments to the Income Tax Act.
Regardless of what my government colleagues might think or say, it
is obvious that the Minister of Finance is trying to pull a fast one on
us.
During the 10 minutes allotted to me, I will focus on two main
points: the measures relating to federal transfer payments and certain
provisions regarding the Income Tax Act.
Hon. members will see for themselves how bad Bill C-28 is.
First of all, let us look at transfer payments to the provinces.
These past few years, the federal government saved huge amounts of money
at the expense of the provinces and the workers, both employed and
unemployed. Bill C-28 could have been an opportunity for the Liberals to
alleviate the sacrifices it has asked of them so far and for the coming
years.
By the end of its second mandate, the Liberal government will have
cut $42 billion in social transfers to the provinces. These transfers
would normally be used to fund hospitals, postsecondary education and
social assistance. These savings enable the federal government to play
the knight in shining armour, while the provinces have to do the dirty
job of implementing cutbacks.
The President of the Treasury Board spoke eloquently when he stated
in the March 8, 1996, edition of Le Soleil: “When Bouchard will have to
cut, we in Ottawa will be able to show that we can afford to preserve
social programs for the future”.
In 1993, cash transfers for social programs totalled $18.8 billion
a year. This year, even after including the changes proposed in Bill
C-28, they will amount to a mere $12.5 billion. This is small
consolation because the same calculation for Quebec alone shows a total
cut of approximately $13 billion instead of $15 billion between 1993 and
2003.
Now, let us take a look at how the Liberals have been dipping into
the EI fund. Besides making cuts, the federal government literally
steals from workers and employers who make contributions to the
employment insurance fund, claiming that the surpluses are used to
absorb the deficit, while the unemployed must contend with reduced
benefits.
In 1993, the unemployment insurance fund had a $1.2 billion
annual deficit, and a cumulative deficit of $5.9 billion. In 1997,
following the Liberal reforms, the fund posted a $7 billion annual
surplus and a cumulative surplus of close to $13 billion. Let us
keep in mind that there is not one cent of the government's money
in this program.
Meanwhile, the unemployed have less and less access to the
meagre benefits, even in a crisis situation, as was the case for
thousands of people in recent weeks.
The Minister of Finance has also presented us with highly
inflated deficit targets in order to dodge around the debates on
the necessity for cuts in transfers for health, education and
unemployment insurance.
1250
Last March, the hon. member for Roberval asked the following
question: “Today, after ten months, the cumulative deficit is
reported to be $7.3 billion, which could mean a real deficit of
$10 billion to $12 billion in 1996-97 instead of the $19 billion he
announced—Is the Minister of Finance sneaky or incompetent?”
The Minister of Finance's response to this: “But where does this
$12 billion figure come from? I do not know. I think it is a
figure pulled out of the air”.
Whether sneaky or incompetent, the question is a legitimate
one and, in all honesty, both answers may be right. One thing is
certain, he does not deserve any of the credit.
The provincial finance ministers were the ones who had to do the
dirty work for him. With Bill C-28, the minister is missing a
great opportunity to show a bit of gratitude toward those who have
really been the ones to make the sacrifices.
Let us speak of the taxation system. Honest citizens who pay
their taxes to Ottawa are asking, demanding, of the government that
everyone at least pay his fair share. That is the least that can
be asked, but it seems to me that it is already too much for this
government.
In his May 1996 report, the Auditor General indicated his
“serious concerns about the administration of the Income Tax Act
involving the movement out of Canada of at least $2 billion of
assets held in family trusts”.
On October 2, 1996, the Minister of Finance tabled a ways and
means motion intended, he said, to plug this loophole. Over a year
later, even with Bill C-28, we are still waiting.
If he is going to amend the tax rules with Bill C-28, the
Minister of Finance should have followed the lead of the Bloc
Quebecois, which, in the fall of 1996, introduced concrete
proposals with respect to corporate taxation, two of them
concerning the use of tax havens.
With respect to the deductibility of interest expenses—this
is the first measure we suggested to the government—when a
Canadian company has a subsidiary in a tax haven, first of all it
benefits from very low tax rates on profits realized outside the
country, but in addition it can deduct from its Canadian revenues
the interest on loans used to invest in its subsidiary. We think
that, in this particular case, the tax expenditure is too generous.
As for the deduction of intercorporate dividends, when a
Canadian company has a subsidiary in a country with which Canada
has a tax convention, the dividends paid by the subsidiary to head
office are not taxed in Canada, under certain conditions. This
Canadian rule is more generous than the practice in the United
States. We are asking the federal government to amend the Income
Tax Act so as to tax dividends from foreign subsidiaries in Canada
and to grant a credit for tax already paid by a foreign subsidiary.
These are proposals the government would do very well to bear in
mind for its next budget.
But, although they say they want to put
a stop to tax havens, the Liberals are in no hurry. Each year, the
government loses billions of dollars because of loopholes in the
present tax system.
These shameless tax avoidance schemes deprive the government of huge
amounts that could indirectly benefit Quebec and Canadian taxpayers.
Bill C-28 raises once again, but in a negative way, the infamous issue
of tax havens, particularly as regards the taxation of capital goods in
the context of the foreign accrual property income, or FAPI.
We are talking here about subsidiaries or companies whose primary
activity is to generate revenues from the ownership of goods or stocks.
These non-active ventures must pay taxes to Canada on the revenues
generated through their goods or stocks, unlike the companies that are
actually involved in and making profits from shipping operations.
Clause 241 of Bill C-28 would amend subsection 250(6) of the Income
Tax Act to allow a Canadian corporation that owns but does not operate
shipping subsidiaries to have these treated as the equivalent of an
actual shipping company.
1255
So, instead of telling companies involved in shipping activities
abroad that they will now have to pay taxes to Canada like any other
corporation, the government is saying to those currently paying taxes
that they will no longer have to do so. The minister has a rather
strange notion of fairness.
One has to wonder what is in it for ordinary taxpayers. The federal
government keeps asking them to tighten their belts and put up with the
savage cuts in transfers for health, education and social assistance,
but it makes it even easier to move capital abroad.
For these reasons, and for many others that will be raised by my
colleagues, I cannot support Bill C-28.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the government in
support of Bill C-28. This legislation has many components, but
they are all tied together in a way which is consistent with a
strong and dynamic economy and, by extension, a strong and
dynamic society.
As a government we committed ourselves to a historic turnaround
in Canada's federal finances because we understood that sustained
deficit reduction was a key to lower interest rates and higher
economic growth. We also understood and made it perfectly clear
that lower rates and higher growth are not ends in themselves.
Instead they are the best way to achieve the real bottom line
benefits which Canadians deserve, more jobs and the national
resources to make strategic social investments where and when
needed.
As we move into 1998 Canadians are close to the threshold of a
major change in our economic history, the day when the federal
government is deficit free. This progress, coming much faster
than we originally dared hope, is indeed delivering the benefits
we always expected and always wanted. It has created the
conditions for lower interest rates and sustained economic
growth, growth unheard of since the 1950s and 1960s.
In 1997, 363,000 new jobs were created. That is the best record
since 1994. In December the unemployment rate of 8.6% was the
lowest in seven years.
The government is now in a position to make key social
investments, investments which respond directly and concretely to
the concerns of Canadians. Just as important, we can make these
investments without jeopardizing our continued advance to a
balanced budget. That is an important consideration in Bill
C-28.
The most important and significant part of this legislation
clearly is the measure to increase the cash floor of funding to
the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. Bill
C-28 increases this guaranteed amount of federal cash funding for
health care, post-secondary education and social assistance and
services from $11 billion to $12.5 billion a year through to the
year 2002-2003. It starts applying this higher cash floor one
year earlier than was originally slated and planned.
This means the provinces will receive close to an extra $7
billion over six years. That is by far the largest new spending
commitment we have made since first coming to office.
The Canada health and social transfer measure represents by far
the most financially substantive measure in Bill C-28 and the one
ultimately which affects a great many, indeed most, Canadians.
The cash floor of $12.5 billion is the precise amount
recommended by the national forum on health and it is important
to note that.
There is another aspect to the Canada health and social transfer
which demonstrates our commitment to fairness and to positive
partnership with the provinces. In response to the provinces'
request for flexibility, we restructured the previous system with
its separate targeted components into a single Canada health and
social transfer. This addressed longstanding provincial concerns
that the inflexible conditions associated with the previous
transfer system did not allow them to meet specific regional
needs and opportunities. We instituted the Canada health and
social transfer to deliver greater flexibility, while still
firmly upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act.
This is legislation which guarantees that the future growth in
the tax point component of the Canada health and social transfer
will not see the cash portion decline below $12.5 billion over
the next five years.
1300
In other words at least $12.5 billion in federal funds will be
there each year every year. It will be there to help provinces
provide the national health care systems that Canadians cherish.
It will be there to support the post-secondary education that
gives young Canadians new opportunities in the future. It will
also be there to support social assistance so that Canadians in
need are not abandoned or betrayed.
There are two tax expenditure measures that reflect our
government's commitment to strengthening Canadian society.
First, C-28 follows through on our 1997 budget pledge to help
and encourage Canadians to save for the post-secondary education
of their children. Under this legislation we are increasing the
amount that Canadians can invest in a registered educational
savings plan from $2,000 to $4,000 a year for each student
beneficiary.
This is an important change because this government wants to
continue the task of improving access to post-secondary education
for our youth. Our youth need this access and they deserve this
access. This will help young Canadians to compete in a fast
paced economy as we move into the 21st century.
As well, C-28 will allow someone who has contributed to an RESP
but who then sees the intended student not go on to
post-secondary education to transfer the income from that plan
into an RRSP. This will reduce the risk and the disincentive
that parents may face that in fact the benefits of their RESP
investment could be completely forfeited if their child chooses
not to pursue higher education.
Using the resources of a strong economy to ensure a secure and
compassionate society is a key obligation of government. However,
we must not put aside our work to maintain and expand that
economic strength. We need to work harder all the time in that
area.
One of the foundations of a well-functioning economy is an
effective, fair and transparent tax system, a system that allows
companies and individuals to focus on the work of building and
growing their companies or personal endeavours through real value
added and not through the manipulation of tax rules. That is why
C-28 includes a range of technical tax measures to reflect that
reality.
The government did what it had to do and it did this when it had
to be done. We have now been able to help achieve the federal
fiscal success that is beginning to pay real dividends, dividends
of solid benefit to each province and to all Canadian citizens.
This seems to be something that the Reform Party either does not
understand or chooses to ignore.
Remember that it was a strong majority of Canadians who demanded
that the deficit problem had to be solved. They have supported
our action plan indeed in many, many numbers and it is gratifying
to see that. In fact without their support our success would not
have been possible.
Canada's solid fiscal and economic progress has been won by the
hard work and shared commitment of all Canadians. This progress
makes possible a renewed investment and commitment in key social
areas. It is necessary therefore to support Bill C-28. It
deserves the support of all members.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will explain today why I am opposed to Bill C-28.
This bill is an insult to the Canadian people. It consists of
nothing but rhetoric and serves only as a band-aid solution for
the mess that the Liberal government has created in this country.
It is so complex that even Canada's most respected taxation
experts have difficulty in understanding what it is the
government is trying to do. How insulting to Canadians.
This bill allocates $1.5 billion extra to the Canada health and
social transfer. The CHST goes from $11 billion to $12.5 billion
when in fact since September 1993 the Liberals have done nothing
but cut. There is a lot more needed in order to restore funding
to post-1993 levels.
What the Liberals have actually done, if I look at the rural
riding which I represent, they have created a mess. The
unemployment rate is extremely high and there have been no job
creation targets. We have hard working farmers who put in long
hours to make ends meet and fishing communities that once thrived
off their traditional trade. We also have a forestry industry in
this riding.
Nothing has been created to help these regions. My riding is full
of tiny communities that are homes to many small businesses. All
of the cuts over the past several years have directly affected
mostly the rural communities.
1305
Liberals seem to think this is a gift. They are trying to
portray themselves as the saviours of all Canadians when in
actuality they are the bandits who took the money out of the
hands of the people who needed it the most. This little increase
in spending proposed by the Liberals will do little to offset the
hardship faced each and every day by the people in my riding.
I call upon the government to increase funding in health care
and education, to put an end to poverty, to reinvest in social
programs and to carry through with the recommendations regarding
pay equity and the seasonal workers exemption.
What about the gentleman in St-Louis-de-Kent who had to undergo
a second triple bypass surgery because he could not afford his
medicine? What was the cost to keep that person four weeks in
hospital? What about the two students who are reported to have
student debts of $32,000 and $51,000? How can the Liberals be
proud of that? I am ashamed and so should they be. That is not
what Canada is all about. How will Bill C-28 help out those
individuals?
The federal government has been preoccupied with economic
development in foreign countries and with bailing out southeast
Asian markets with billions of Canadian tax dollars. Yet the
Liberals continue to neglect their own people, the very same
people who sent them a very clear message in June 1997 in case
they have forgotten. I am living proof.
What about economic development in Atlantic Canada? People are
not looking for handouts from the federal government. They are
looking for jobs, real jobs with results in real paycheques so
the people of Atlantic Canada can live real lives.
[Translation]
Let me say a few words about the reality in Atlantic Canada. There
were the cuts to employment insurance. Now we have people who no longer
qualify for employment insurance benefits. Only 37% of the unemployed
are eligible. Was the program really designed to help the unemployed? I
think not. Job creation is a major challenge and we must start setting
goals in this area.
The small and medium size businesses in our communities are in
trouble. That is the reality.
[English]
Creating opportunities for youth and preventing the brain drain
that is on the rise in Atlantic Canada. Sixteen thousand people
left Newfoundland in 1996. Let us think about it. I do not
think we can all move to the western part of the country.
It is also important to remember what the Reform Party wants in
terms of taxation. Reformers talk about how low income families
will pay less tax. It is very important for the low income
family to realize that, God forbid, if we did have a Reform
government not only would the low income family maybe pay a
little bit of tax but it would also pay for its children's
primary education and for health care.
Reformers do not talk about the tax breaks they would be giving
to their wealthy friends. Under a Reform government you would not
have a pension unless you were very wealthy. If you could not
work enough to save in the form of RRSPs, you would not have a
pension. It is very important to remember that.
Atlantic Canadians are very hard workers. They are not lazy.
[Translation]
My constituents are not lazy. They are proud people who work very
hard. However, in recent years, the Liberals have only taken advantage
of them, and this is not fair.
[English]
Until this government makes jobs its number one priority and
tackles the crisis in Atlantic Canada, the federal government
will not get my vote. I would not be representing my people if I
supported this bill.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to
agree with the comments of the previous speaker certainly as they
apply to the Reform Party.
We have been listening to a lot of innuendo about tax reform and
how the Reform members are the defenders of the poor and the
downtrodden. However most of their tax policies are to cover up
the real issue which is trying to give tax breaks to their
buddies and friends, the wealthy people of this country.
1310
This bill is very complex. It involves many sections of the
Income Tax Act, charitable donations, along with registered
education savings plans which I will touch on a little later,
transfer pricing and so on. It is a very large bill and affects
many aspects of the Income Tax Act.
I would like to talk about one aspect the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned yesterday. He talked about how
this bill changes the Canada Shipping Act. He then alluded that
somehow the Minister of Finance would have some kind of conflict
of interest. I would just like to refer to a number of issues
showing the history of these sections of the Canada Shipping Act
through the income tax system.
Since at least 1927 Canada has had special tax rules for
non-resident companies that earn income from international
shipping. The rule is that Canada will not tax that income
provided their home country does the same for Canadian companies.
Each country taxes its own residents, a fair application of
international trade and agreements I would think.
To apply this rule, it has to be known whether the company is a
non-resident or not. That was sometimes a problem because under
Canadian tax rule, residence is not always easy to decide in
advance. Canada was losing business because of this uncertainty.
In 1991 the previous government added a rule to clarify the
residency rules for foreign shippers. Basically a foreign
company that earns its income from international shipping is not
a resident in Canada.
The amendment in today's bill responds to the suggestion from
the non-profit International Marine Centre in Vancouver. It
simply improved the 1991 clarification rule. It says that it does
not matter whether a foreign company carries on its shipping
business directly or through subsidiaries.
Another amendment brings the 1927 exemption up to date,
including capital gains which were not taxable when the exemption
was introduced and so may not have been covered.
Again these are technical amendments. They are not new. They
were released in 1995 and were again released with some
modifications in 1996.
Through the office of the ethics commissioner, the government
has been informed by Canada Steamship Lines that it does not use
section 250 of the Income Tax Act for the purposes of offshore
operations. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not benefit
Canada Steamship Lines and the company has no intention of
utilizing this provision.
I would like to carry on with a very specific aspect of these
amendments which talk about the registered education savings
plan.
The Conference Board of Canada has stated so many times that
Canada's education system has somewhat fallen behind in the
world. Even though we invest many, many dollars in our education
system, it would seem that some of our proficiencies, certainly
in science and technology skills, have somewhat fallen behind the
norm. That is why this government set up a millennium fund. It
is also why we made this amendment to the income tax system.
The registered education savings plan is much like a registered
retirement savings plan. The difference is that it allows
parents to put money in a separate fund to get a tax deduction to
save for their children's future education.
The registered education savings plan has been around for a good
number of years but it has never been very effective. The reason
it has not been effective is that what happened in these plans is
that if your child did not attend a post-secondary education
institution, you forfeited your deposit. In other words, you
always ran the risk that if Johnny does not go on to university
or to college, the money is lost. Of course, most people thought
this was not a particularly good investment. This government
realized that it was important for families to save for the
education of their children and also to get young people access
to our educational institutions.
1315
We talk a lot in this House about the importance of access to
post-secondary education. This is a place where the government
is positively trying to accomplish that with partnerships and
with private families.
In addition it eliminates to a large extent the liability that
they are going to lose those deposits if Johnny or Mary does not
go on to post-secondary education. More important, it raises the
limits from $2,000 a year to $4,000 a year. It allows a tax
deduction so we can save for the education of children. As a
parent who has three children in post-secondary education, it is
an expensive proposition. I wish this program had been in place
20 or 30 years ago. I would be utilizing it.
Many families live in the fear that they will not be able to
provide for their children when it is time to go to school. This
is an excellent opportunity for them. It is a positive way that
governments can, together with the private sector, ensure there
is education for our young people.
I just came back from the National Research Institute. We talk
about brain drain. The member talked about people leaving her
province. Memorial University in Newfoundland is one of the
premier educators in Canada. These are the roots and the avenues
to the future for us. We talk in Canada about having tremendous
resources. We usually talk in terms of natural resources. We
talk about our petroleum industries. We talk about our
metallurgical industries and our forests and aluminium products,
but in reality the biggest resource we have in Canada is between
our own two ears. We have to do more to ensure that young people
have an adequate education and that they are going to engage in
those industries that will evolve and be the industries of the
future.
I am happy to support this bill and this specific aspect of it.
A very important aspect of it is what we are doing to make a
positive contribution for those children who may find it
difficult to get to school. It gives their parents planning
horizons to do that.
I have sat through this debate and I have listened to members of
the Reform Party get up and defend the province of Ontario. I
guess they are all part of the same material. It seems strange
to me that the province of Ontario came in with a program of
reducing taxes. At the same time it was going to cut
expenditures and do all kinds of wonderful things. Some of the
members of the Reform Party keep saying this government did this
and that government did that. The reality is most people know
their is only one taxpayer. Everybody in Canada has to try to
get their books to balance, whether it is the federal government
or the provinces.
One of the big things we do is transfer money to the provinces
in support of health care. We have created a base level of
funding there. Some of it had to be cut and the provinces had to
adjust to that.
It is amazing to me that at the same time that cuts to health
care and other aspects of our social structure in Ontario were
going on, the province of Ontario cut indirectly or reduced taxes
by $5 billion. When it made the announcement of the $5 billion,
it was running something like $8 billion deficits per year. In
other words, the province continued to run deficits on annual
rated basis, even though it was also in a program of tax
reductions. I heard the minister of finance of the province of
Ontario saying they cannot make their budget reductions by the
year 2000. They were to balance the books but now they cannot do
it. The difference or shortfall was $5 billion.
1320
I ask whether this is in the best interests of Canadians.
My constituents are telling me to continue with our deficit and
debt reduction targets, enhance our health care system but they
do not need tax cuts today because they think there are more
important things to do. I think most of the people in Ontario
have come to realize that.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today. It is
nice to be back in the House and fighting Liberals once again.
After listening to the previous Liberal speaker all of a sudden
we have had some good ammunition given to us. It was indicative of the
Liberal short term vision that the member just talked about the
tax cuts, the economy and the budget shortfall in Ontario.
Statistics will show that the economy, because of the tax cuts
put in by the provincial government in Ontario, is undergoing
tremendous growth. On a long term basis that will be of immense
benefit to the province of Ontario, as it was for the province of
Alberta which is now leading all the provinces in economic growth
and it certainly has some lessons for the federal Liberals.
This tax bill, Bill C-28, is all about a tax system that is
patently unfair to the Canadian people. The Liberals instead of
wanting to fix it are simply making changes that will make it
more confusing for Canadians to figure out this Canadian tax
system and how the Liberal government is able to wrench billions
of dollars out of their pockets, decreasing dramatically their
disposable income for their families, increasing dramatically the
tax levels on Canadian small businesses, the backbone of
our economy which are providing more jobs in this country than
any other sector, including the government sector.
This Liberal government likes to say it is creating all the
jobs. That is absolutely false. It is the private sector and
primarily the small business sector, but the Liberals do not
recognize that. In their tax system they seek only to penalize
small business.
Bill C-28 can best be described as a smoke and mirrors bill
designed to cover up the fiscal mismanagement of the Liberal
government. Some people have compared the Parliament of Canada to
a circus at times. Trickery, smoke and mirrors and sleight of
hand do belong in a circus. We are getting a good example of it
in Bill C-28. It does nothing but confuse Canadians about how
the tax system is working.
We are talking about the lack of substance in Bill C-28. The
government has managed to put together some 500 pages talking
about changing 20 different acts and regulations in the income
tax system. The Liberals certainly do not know how to make
anything simple. I think their motto is make it complicated,
convoluted and confusing and no one will see what they are
actually doing.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I
think we are short of a quorum, so I would appreciate if some of
the Liberals would come back and listen to this good debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the bells could be rung. I do
not see a quorum.
1325
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum. The hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley may resume his remarks.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate seeing so many
Liberals rush back into the House so they can take part in the
debate today. It will be a refreshing experience to hear some
real facts and substance coming from the official opposition
party rather than listening to the spin doctors and the backroom
boys who came up with Bill C-28. I thank the Liberals for
returning to the House.
One thing missing from the bill is any kind of tax relief for
Canadians. As we know, Canadians are the most overtaxed people
in the entire world. Mr. Speaker, every year when you fill out
your income tax form I am sure you must shed a few crocodile
tears over what this Liberal government has done to people just
like you.
There is nothing in the bill—zip, as my son would say—about
tax relief. There is no mention of the 73% CPP tax hike, the
payroll tax which will be applied to Canadian businesses and
individuals. There is no mention of the more than $5 billion in
extra EI premiums Canadians are paying and that is considered a
tax.
Every think tank in the country has concluded that high taxes
kill jobs. It is as simple as that, but the government just does
not get it. It refuses to look at the high tax regime of this
country and it continues its reckless spending.
We have in our party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the hon.
member for St. Albert. On a regular basis he puts out the waste
report. We have sent $2 million off to Brazil to promote
electrical energy. I believe they have had electricity down
there for quite some time and they realize the benefit of it, but
we sent them $2 million.
We have sent $450,000 to Lebanon for the Lebanese Parliamentary
Institute. I hope that $450,000 is not to teach it how to spend
money in a Liberal fashion. I do not think the people of Lebanon
would appreciate that.
Bill C-28 does not even consider the $600 billion debt hole that
this country is in, which this government and the Tories and
Liberals before it helped to create. It does not even mention
the $45 billion in service charges and interest payments every
year. Those service charges could pay the entire health care
bill in Canada for one year, plus educate every student in the
country for one or two years. This bill does not even talk about
that crisis.
Do the Liberals have a plan for this crushing debt? Not in this
housekeeping bill. They wanted to start off slow and maybe work
up to something.
Do the Liberals have a plan for tax relief to put more money in
the pockets of Canadians to give them the option of spending or
saving it? Not in this bill.
The minuscule changes to the bill are designed to make us forget
for a little while just how high the taxes are in this country.
Things could be so much simpler if the Liberals would just
listen to the Reform Party, the official opposition, which has
brought to this House a plan called “Securing Your Future”, a
plan which economists all across the country have said is right
on the mark. It is on the right track. But no, it clouds the
vision, the philosophy and the legacy of these tax and spend
Liberals. They have scales over their eyes. They cannot see the
truth.
1330
While the Reformers are calling for less taxes, less debt and
less interest charges on our $600 billion debt, the Liberals are
calling for more program spending in areas of little need,
forgetting the areas of great need that they gutted like health
care and education payments to the tune of $7 billion since they
came to power. They are now throwing back a paltry $1 billion
and saying they have fixed it. No, the arithmetic tells me that
they are $6 billion short.
We want the government for once to consider the average working
Canadian, to consider the students who are struggling to get
through university and college and ending up with huge student
loans, to consider the people who are living below the poverty
line, and to consider the people who are trying to raise families
and are having their pockets picked by the Liberal government
through high taxes.
If the government would for once consider all those people
instead of its own political tax and spend philosophy, maybe some
day we would get a bill in the House that our party could
support.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-28, an act which will allow our
government to implement the tax policies and provisions
introduced in the 1997 budget.
I cannot help but be continually amazed by the Reform Party's
flavour of the month. It was some time ago that it argued that
what the government should be doing was tackling the deficit.
When we tackled the deficit and started to win the fight and have
won the fight against the deficit, it switched to tax reductions.
Very recently it moved from tax reductions to eliminating the
federal debt. We will have to stay tuned to see what the next
flavour of the month will be.
As I said, Bill C-28 allows the government to implement the tax
changes that we brought in, in the 1997 budget. There are a
number of important provisions in the bill which facilitate a
number of detailed changes to the Income Tax Act. I will not go
into them today but I would like to address a few key areas. The
first area is the Canada health and social transfer, a critical
part of the bill.
We as a government have said that we will limit or put a floor
on the cash transfers to the provinces at $12.5 billion. This
responds directly to the recommendations of the National Forum on
Health which stated that we should increase the cash floor from
$11 billion to $12.5 billion. It would have triggered in, in
1997-98. It responds to the concerns expressed by Canadians
about the delicate nature of our health care system.
It is important for Canadians to understand the amount of
funding we are providing through the CHST. In addition to cash
payments there are tax points. In total in 1997-98 it will
amount to some $25 billion that we will be transferring to the
provinces to deal with health care, education and welfare.
Under the old system the funds and the tax points were
transferred under established programs financing or EPF and
through CAP which was the Canada assistance plan. Established
programs financing was meant to cover health care and education
and CAP was a cost shared program with the provinces to cover
welfare.
CAP was not a very efficient program at either the provincial or
federal level. For the provinces it was really using 50 cent
dollars. For every dollar the provinces spent they recovered 50
cents from the federal government. As a federal government we
did not have the kinds of controls that we desired in a program
where we were spending Canadian taxpayers' money. At the
provincial level CAP was sometimes not managed in a fiscally
prudent way, so moving away from CAP is a wise decision.
1335
As far as established programs financing is concerned, it has
always been a challenge in Canada to ascertain where the funding
is going directly, whether it is going to health or education.
Essentially it goes into the consolidated revenues of the
provinces and it is very difficult to establish that trail.
What we as a government are doing and will be doing more of is
ensuring that we set standards and guidelines in terms of the
delivery of health care, education and welfare. Some of those
are already enshrined in the Canada Health Act in terms of
accessibility of programs, the affordability of programs and
implicitly the quality of programs.
We need to do a better job of establishing those criteria
notwithstanding how difficult the task is. To measure outputs in
a health care system, an education system or a welfare system is
a challenge at the best of times because these systems are
changing constantly.
First we have health care, from acute care to community based
care. How is wellness measured? How do we measure whether people
are getting quality care? How do we measure whether people have
access to an affordable system?
It is these areas we need to focus on because the block funding
is transferring en bloc to the provinces not much differently
what than we did under EPF. We need to do a better job as
provinces begin to grapple with their fiscal positions.
Many of my colleagues and I are concerned that we do not erode
these very important programs within Canada. That is a very
important part of the bill. I am sure that most members will
support it.
I would like to touch on another key area of the bill, that is
the registered education savings plan where we increased the
limits from $2,000 to $4,000. This begins to make education more
affordable, more approachable for middle income or low income
Canadians. Money can be put away for the future education of
their children and they will be able to afford quality education
when they get to either school age, university age, or both.
That is a very progressive part of this undertaking. I am sure
it will be supported by members of the House.
There is another area I would like to touch on briefly. I will
come back to comments made yesterday in the House by the Bloc
finance critic, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He made
some assertions to which I am sure the finance minister will be
responding in much more detail as the days and hours ensue.
I would like to comment on them briefly because I think the
member has his facts in error. Before doing that I would like to
talk about another provision in the bill that is very important,
the provision to deal with transfer pricing.
As organizations become multinational and have companies and
subsidiaries around the world, they start to move products and
services within their own subsidiaries across national
boundaries. Corporations have the ability to transfer the
profits from high tax jurisdictions to low tax jurisdictions.
This happens all the time.
If a company, for example, is incorporated in the United Kingdom
and is selling products worldwide, it might set up a wholly owned
subsidiary and tax haven and move product through that tax haven
to companies around the world. It will essentially change and
adjust its pricing to ensure that most of the profit margin is
transferred to the low tax jurisdiction.
We have always had rules. Canada has had rules about transfer
pricing and fair market value pricing so that if a Canadian
company sets up a similar subsidiary in a place like Bermuda it
has to sell that product to the Bermudian subsidiary at a price
that approximates fair market value. We do not want the profit
margin sitting in a tax free jurisdiction based on some transfer
pricing decisions that are made at head office.
The difficulty has been that quite a range determines fair
market value. Tax authorities worldwide have been struggling
with this. It needs co-ordinated effort so that if companies in
the United Kingdom, Germany or in South America are selling
products through intermediaries in low tax jurisdictions they are
selling them at fair market value. This is a very positive aspect
of Bill C-28.
I turn very briefly to comments made yesterday in the House by
the Bloc member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot about international
shipping because I think he misrepresented the facts.
1340
The changes reflected in Bill C-28 are not creating any new
situation. They are basically reinforcing the fact that if a
company is shipping 90% internationally and 10% in Canada the
same rules would apply that have been agreed to countries around
the world.
Shipping really knows no boundaries. It is not like a mine in
Chile or an oil and gas pipeline in Russia. There is really no
national boundary for airlines and shipping. The rules have
always been that if a company is conducting 90% of it business
outside the country it is not considered to be a resident of the
country in which the head office might be. That facilitates the
fair taxation of shipping companies around the world.
Over the past few years companies have set up individual
corporations for individual ships not driven necessarily by tax
but by liability issues. The holding company would fail to
qualify for these agreed to international rules if it held 100%
of these subsidiary corporations. It would be perceived as an
investment company and would not qualify under the rules as being
an international shipping company in the primary business of
international shipping.
These rules had to be changed to maintain that level playing
field. Otherwise we could create a competitive disadvantage for
shipping companies that happen to be located in Canada.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have been listening with great interest to the debate on the
tax amendments contained in Bill C-28. I have listened to
government members heap praise upon themselves for all their
great accomplishments. I will focus my comments on the reality
and the truth of the matter regarding the government's direction.
A member from the other side earlier mentioned three great
pillars of Canada: health, education and social services. There
is no disagreement from members on this side, but the truth of
the matter and the facts are that the government cut funding to
all three of these areas. It cut transfers from $18 billion to
$11.5 billion per year and is now about to raise it and pat
itself on the back.
Members opposite keep talking about a stable floor of funding.
It is obviously doublespeak. They have cut drastically and now
they are adding a bit more funding which is significantly lower
than the amount of funding in existence before they took power.
The reality and the truth is that the government continues to
extract more money from hardworking Canadians. Its guiding
principle seems to be take a dollar and give a nickel.
Another member from the other side seemed to lack the
understanding that taxes can be reduced by making government
smaller and reinvesting money back into the priority areas of
health, education and social programs. She thinks the two are
mutually exclusive. Liberals cannot envision ever decreasing
their hold on Canadian tax dollars without taking from some other
area.
Let us talk about the $47 billion interest payment that
Canadians pay to service the $600 billion debt. That is eating
the heart out of social programs. The Liberals are directly
responsible for this situation. Let us make no mistake about
that.
The fact is that we have high debt and high taxes. Interest
rates are also on the increase. Foreign investors are concerned
about our economic climate. The Liberals fail to mention the
number of businesses and young professionals who are being driven
south by high taxes. The fact is all is not well with the
economy. The Liberals continue to spend more than they take in,
which is in many ways unbelievable given the amount of taxes paid
by hardworking Canadians.
We hear about numbers and statistics. The reality for Canadians
is that they are working harder and harder to see less and less
take home pay to care for their own families. There is less money
for mortgage payments and rent, less money for clothes for their
kids, less money to put food on the table, less money for them to
spend wisely in the areas they deem most important for themselves
and the well-being of their families.
1345
I would like to focus on the situation of one family in
particular, on one individual who decided to go public with her
struggles. Kim Hicks' life became a bit of a case study of
Reform's tax reduction plan. Her case was first mentioned in a
speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition in this House in
the prebudget debate. I will take a brief moment to summarize
his story.
Kim Hicks is a mother from New Brunswick who wrote to the
leaders of all parties seeking a bright light of encouragement
regarding her life, her situation. She and her husband worked
extremely hard to make ends meet and to provide for their
children. There was always more month left at the end of the
money. This letter struck a chord with the Leader of the
Opposition. He undertook a project and hired Mrs. Hicks and her
family to be a case study to implement Reform's economic plan.
Mrs. Hicks was paid the same amount of money she would save in
taxes under the Reform plan. She was to report what she would do
with the money for her family. Did she squander the money? No.
She paid off debts, first priority. She paid for medical
procedures her children needed. She put a portion of the money
in a savings account. The remainder was used on a modest outing
for some family entertainment.
There are thousands of families across Canada suffering under
this Liberal government. This exercise is one of the most
valuable case studies on Canadian taxation because it was run by
real Canadians making real life decisions. StatsCanada and the
finance department can run all the scenarios they want. However,
they cannot recreate the real human story that Kim Hicks
provided.
One would think that the finance minister would have taken a
keen interest in such a study. Then again, what does the finance
minister know about paying taxes? Instead of emphasizing with
the plight of average Canadians, the finance minister dismissed
this exercise as a publicity stunt. I would like to tell the
Hicks family, whose lives were made that much more bearable, that
their happiness is not a media stunt.
What we are opposed to, the underlying principles of this bill,
is that there are more and more complicated, convoluted and
confusing tax amendments being made which fly in the face of
commitment to a fair, simple and visible form of taxation,
something we have long called for on behalf of Canadians across
this country. It is high time that the Prime Minister, the
Minister of Finance and the rest of the Liberal caucus leave
cloud nine and take a hard look at the financial state of
Canadian families. Our we the best country in the world in which
to live because of this government or in spite of it? It is
definitely the later.
Canadian families want to see a reduction in their taxes. That
is what they are calling on from this government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill
C-28.
This is a bill to amend multiple acts. One really has to be a tax
expert or have a great deal of common sense to speak on such a complex
piece of legislation. Since I consider myself to have common sense, I
will make my remarks on that basis.
Last Monday, on the television program Salut, bonjour, Claude
Picher from La Presse had these wise words: “The Minister of
Finance should use the projected budget surplus as much as
possible to reduce” the debt and personal income tax, not to
fund new or existing programs. That is a statement that makes a
great deal of sense. It is also good advice for the Minister of
Finance.
Like me, he could have raised the issue of the GST and said that
the GST was originally introduced to dip in the pockets of taxpayers to
reduce the huge deficit the central government had at the time. The
deficit having been eliminated, common sense would dictate that the
government lower if not completely eliminate this tax, thereby making
good on an election promise made in their famous red book of 1993. Like
me, he could also have raised the issue of transfer payments.
1350
Everyone knows that, in an attempt to achieve zero deficit and even
surpluses, the government shamelessly cut billions of dollars in
transfer payments to the provinces. These cuts hurt the provinces,
which, in turn, had to manage crises in education, health and social
programs.
So, common sense would dictate that this government restore
transfer payments to their original level instead of talking about
implementing new programs that would allow them once again to interfere
in provincial jurisdictions. What is the logic in this government
implementing new post-secondary education programs when, as we know, the
cream of our young achievers trained at public expense in our
universities leave Canada for the United States or another country
because the tax system is better than in Canada? What would common sense
dictate, given that in this exodus of scientists, computer specialists
and other professionals, we are losing a large part of our capacity to
innovate and, ultimately, the capacity to create jobs in the future?
This is a worrisome situation on which no one, not even the
Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance or the Prime
Minister of Canada, can put an exact figure.
In economic terms, the loss of the most dynamic, the most talented
future members of our society is a disaster, an impoverishment of
our society. Where is the sense in that?
This brain drain is what has led to the need for taxation
reform. It is high time our governments seriously addressed an in-depth
reform of personal and small business income tax. If we are
to believe Canada's taxation statistics for the 1950s, individuals
and corporations accounted for the same percentage of federal
income tax revenues. In the decades since, fiscal policy has
changed increasingly in favour of big business, so much so that in
recent years individuals' contributions have increased eight fold.
Where is the sense in that?
It is worthwhile pointing out that the corporate share of
federal tax revenues dropped from about 43% in 1961 to a meagre 10%
in 1995.
The main explanation for this is the proliferation of tax
expenditures available to business, the major corporations in
particular. Where is the sense in that?
Is the Minister of National Revenue in agreement with the
Minister of Finance, his colleague, who claims to be able to solve
the deficit without increasing corporate income tax? Why do the
corporations manage to shelter income from tax by influencing
taxation legislation? Why are they allowed this legal strategy,
while the strategy of individuals who decide to do work under the
table without paying tax is deemed illegal? This situation
represents a serious threat to social equilibrium, Where is the
sense in that?
It is easy to understand why the disadvantaged, the people
with little or no income, try to get out of paying taxes by every
imaginable means. The Bloc Quebecois has long been calling for a
job-oriented Canadian corporate tax reform.
The Bloc Quebecois is keeping a close eye on the government and
will continue to do so in the area of taxation, particularly as
concerns the GST, tax shelters, and so on, to be sure that the tax
system becomes just and fair for all.
Let us talk about family trusts. There is a flaw in federal
legislation in this regard. The report of the auditor general and
pressure from the Bloc Quebecois have only partly succeeded in
eliciting a reaction from the Minister of Finance on the subject.
It is still possible to leave the country without paying taxes
owing to Revenue Canada, since an acceptable financial guarantee
need only be left. Furthermore, no deferral limit nor method of
interest collection is provided for this guarantee.
1355
Since the October 2 amendment to the Income Tax Act, the
minister has been unable to report the tax plans this change has
occasioned. Where is the sense in that?
The Liberal government should use Bill C-28, an omnibus bill,
to make the necessary changes to employment insurance
contributions. It is vital the government reform the current
employment insurance system in order to put an end to the
inequities it gives rise to and to better protect workers,
including the seasonally employed.
The Bloc Quebecois also wants the Minister of Finance to
substantially reduce the levels of contribution to the employment
insurance plan, conditional on the job creation performance of
business. The reduction in contributions could be 40 cents per
$100 of insurable payroll.
The Minister of Finance must also create an employment
insurance fund separate from the federal government's consolidated
fund, as the Auditor General of Canada proposed, to prevent money
belonging to workers and employers being used as a discretionary
fund of the federal government. That makes sense.
It would be a good idea for the government to move quickly to
pass anti-deficit legislation as did the Quebec National Assembly.
That makes good sense.
Instead of reaching into people's pockets, the government
should cut unnecessary expenditures and useless programs within its
own departments.
One example is the $30 million to change the Canada Post logo.
As my time is running out, I will move on a bit faster to
other examples.
It should also cut unnecessary expenditures, the tens of
millions of dollars spent by the Department of Canadian Heritage to
brainwash Canadians. We are entitled to ask whether this
government is acting wisely, whether the way it manages makes
sense. No, it does not make sense, because this government's
policies are widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and
adding to the tax burden of the middle class and our small
businesses.
A tax system that drives a nation to poverty definitely makes
no sense. For this reason, and in solidarity with members of the
Bloc Quebecois, I will energetically oppose passage of this bill.
My common sense tells me that it is urgent that the people of
Quebec stick together as they move towards sovereignty.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, our time is up. We will now
proceed to statements by members. The hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MEMBER FOR LABRADOR
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak about my wonderful friend and
colleague, the member for Labrador.
It was with great sadness that I learned he was diagnosed with a
serious illness. I know that his determination, stamina and
tremendous Labrador spirit will lead him to a speedy recovery.
His friends and colleagues miss him in the House. Rest assured
that our thoughts and prayers remain with him during this most
difficult time for him and his family.
On behalf of all of us in Ottawa, I wish to extend to him our
heartfelt and sincere wishes. We hope to see him among us very
soon. Good luck, Lawrence.
* * *
DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of dairy farmers in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan and
indeed dairy farmers all across Canada, I call on the ministers
of revenue, agriculture and international trade to get their act
together.
They have the power to put a halt to the importing of
butteroil-sugar blends which are replacing the use of domestic
ingredients in the production of Canadian dairy products.
Since 1995 the import of butteroil-sugar blends into Canada from
the United States, Europe and Mexico has doubled every year,
resulting in the loss of tens of millions of dollars to Canadian
farmers.
1400
The ministers of international trade and revenue will know that
the butteroil-sugar blend is created in a manner intended to
circumvent tariff agreements covering the importing of most dairy
products, yet this $50 million a year assault on the pockets of
Canadian dairy farmers is allowed to continue because the
ministers in question will not reclassify the butteroil-sugar
blend.
It is time the government ended its foot dragging and stepped
forward to protect the interests of Canadian dairy farmers.
* * *
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to inform the House that on January 12, 13 and 14, I
participated in the Nunavut leaders summit with the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This meeting was held in
Iqaluit, the future capital of Nunavut.
All parties involved in the Nunavut political accord left the
meeting confident that a great deal of work was accomplished.
Tough decisions were made, including the number of seats in the
legislative assembly, the number of education and health boards,
the creation of a single trial court and staffing of headquarter
positions for the new Nunavut government.
I congratulate the participants of that summit, particularly the
interim commissioner and his staff and the Nunavut implementation
commission for a productive and positive meeting.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the ice storm that hit the provinces of Ontario, New
Brunswick and primarily Quebec, Canadians the country over again
demonstrated their generosity and solidarity with their unfortunate
fellow citizens.
In addition to the untiring efforts of volunteers responsible
for emergency measures in my riding of Pierrefonds-Dollard, I would
also like to mention the invaluable contribution of our neighbours
to the south, particularly those of Connecticut Light and Power.
These people temporarily left their families, their state and their
country to come to our assistance.
John. D. Siclari, an engineer with the company, came to my
riding office in search of Canadian flags to put on their vehicles,
in order to demonstrate their pride in helping us, and in
particular to reaffirm the ties between our two countries. Having
gone through this ordeal, I can state that these ties are all the
stronger.
I would like, once again, to thank these linesmen, all these
workers whom we do not know by name but who are dear to our hearts.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ice storm
brought out the best in people.
On Monday, January 12, just a few minutes after hearing an
announcement on the radio, a woman stopped by my constituency office to
donate some extra blankets she was carrying in the trunk of her car.
After watching on television the damage caused by the storm, a
Quebec City grandmother decided to do something. She sent her
granddaughter, who lives in Ottawa, a cheque to buy baby food and items
for a shelter in eastern Ontario.
These are but two examples of the generosity displayed by
Canadians. In this difficult period, Canadians showed total and absolute
dedication toward one another. This is why Canada is said to be the best
country in the world.
On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank the residents of
Ottawa-Carleton for supporting their neighbours, and I congratulate
people from all over the country for demonstrating what it really means
to be Canadian.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to revisit a statement made by our Prime Minister:
“I, on the other hand, support Senate reform. If it is done
properly, a restructured and revitalized upper chamber can given
Albertans a voice in the governance of Canada. If elected Liberal
leader, I pledge to work for a Senate that is elected, that has
legislative powers of its own and contains strong representation
from all regions of Canada”.
These are the words and promises of our Prime Minister spoken at
the Liberal leadership convention on June 23, 1990. It would
appear the Prime Minister has forgotten his pledge to work for an
elected, representative Senate. Fortunately we in the official
opposition are delighted to assist the Prime Minister in
honouring his promise.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
recent ice storm gave the federal government an opportunity to show to
the whole country the know-how of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Justifiably so, the Quebec government recognized the ceaseless co-operation
between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec, who both
worked effectively to meet the needs of affected regions.
I must point out the excellent job done by the Canadian government.
Let us also not forget all those who worked very hard and who showed
great courage to make it through this most difficult period for over one
million people.
1405
The crisis will have made us realize how vulnerable we are in a
society as modern as ours, and how there is strength in unity.
I also want to congratulate the 24 mayors and the municipal
authorities in my riding, and particularly the hundreds of volunteers
who gave time, energy and support. You are an inspiration to all of us.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the recent ice
storm quickly turned into a nightmare for thousands of us.
It did however make us realize how incredibly courageous and
dedicated the mayors of the affected municipalities could be. Isolated
and with makeshift means, they kept their communities afloat for days on
end while relief efforts were being organized.
It also gave us an opportunity to witness the extraordinary
generosity of hundreds of volunteers and donors, who did all they could
and spared no effort to help alleviate the effects of the crisis on the
victims.
This large scale show of solidarity deserves the highest praise.
On my own behalf and that of all my fellow citizens who were affected by
this crisis, thank you.
* * *
[English]
ICE STORM
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to pay tribute to the people of the
greater Moncton area for donating over 5,000 tonnes of supplies
destined for St. Hubert, Quebec, a town badly hit by the
devastating ice storm.
[Translation]
Many people in the area came together to collect these donations.
They also contacted the Quebec volunteer bureau to let them know that
thirty or so people from the greater Moncton area were prepared to
travel to the areas affected by the storm.
[English]
I would also like to thank Radio Canada/CBC, the Times and
Transcript, Geldart Warehouse and Cartage Ltd. and the Moncton
Headstart for helping gather and deliver supplies to St. Hubert.
I am very proud that the people of the greater Moncton area came
together to help a community in need. Private enterprise, the
media, individuals and school children banded together and
demonstrated the strong commitment to community that exists in
our area.
Once again, thank you very much. Un gros merci à tous.
* * *
PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM BYELECTION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have uncovered the top 10 reasons why the Liberals have delayed
calling the byelection in Port Moody—Coquitlam.
Reason No. 10, they cannot find Port Moody—Coquitlam on the
map.
Reason No. 9, they cannot even find British Columbia on the map.
Reason No. 8, they think that the tri-cities are a place where
Liberals put in a token effort but they just cannot win.
Reason No. 7, the Liberal Party is $3 million in the hole and
even to a Liberal a million here, a million there and pretty soon
you're talking real change.
Reason No. 6, it is difficult to schedule a byelection that does
not interfere with the Prime Minister's golf game.
Reason No. 5, the Liberals pinned their hopes on Anna Terrana
and then mistakenly appointed her to the immigration board.
Reason No. 4, anything the fisheries minister is involved with.
Reason No. 3, current Liberal MPs realize that a byelection
means they need to talk about B.C. issues.
Reason No. 2, the Liberals are unsure about how to campaign in
British Columbia because they cannot be bought with their own
money.
And the No. 1 reason the Liberals have delayed calling the Port
Moody—Coquitlam byelection: the Liberals have not yet figured
out how to tax byelections.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the week of
February 1 to 7 has been declared International Development Week.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to take advantage of this
opportunity to draw grateful attention to the exceptional
contribution of the non-governmental organizations to improving the
living conditions of more than 250 million people in the developing
countries.
Unfortunately, the Minister of International Co-operation
seems to turn a blind and indifferent eye to the extraordinary work
being done by Canada's and Quebec's NGOs. In fact, the government
has slashed more than $617 million from the international aid
budget since 1993, thus compromising the future of a number of
NGOs.
I am calling upon the government to honour its commitment to
the UN to devote a minimum of 0.7% of its gross national product to
assisting development, in addition to cancelling the $150 million
in cuts planned for the 1998-99 fiscal year.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here in the
Outaouais region, while the devastation of the ice storm was no
doubt less severe than in some parts of Quebec, some people still
went several weeks without power.
My colleagues in the region and I would like to thank the
personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces, who worked unceasingly to
help all those who were hit hard by the disaster, supplying them
with the equipment needed for their safety and well-being.
1410
We would also like to draw attention to the contribution of
large numbers of volunteers, who helped the municipal authorities
in my riding and the neighbouring ones. Their concerted efforts
are evidence of their good citizenship and generosity.
Finally, a very special thank you to all those who helped,
each in his or her own way.
* * *
[English]
GOOSE BAY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is a
day of mourning in Goose Bay, Labrador. Everything is shut down
to bring attention to the fact that 119 workers will lose their
jobs at the Canadian forces base due to a government decision to
contract out non-military operations to a British firm.
Kitchen workers making $13.50 an hour have been cut to $7.50.
Senior clerical workers making over $20 an hour were offered jobs
as cleaners at $8 an hour.
In a community where a pound of potatoes costs $1.50, the impact
of these cuts is terrifying.
The people of Goose Bay now have to reconsider their future.
Fifty houses have gone up for sale in a week. Some people are in
hospital suffering from stress. Low paying jobs, zero security,
foreign control, fear for the future, this is the legacy facing
the young people of Goose Bay. There will be more communities
facing the same fate.
Is this the Liberal government's new world order?
We want the Minister of National Defence to go to Goose Bay,
tear up the deal with his British buddies and start making
decisions that will help communities, not destroy them.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the use the
Bloc is making of the ice storm is scandalous. Clearly, the Bloc
has some political catching up to do and it is trying deliberately
to score political points on the back of workers.
Either the Bloc does not know what it is talking about or it
is putting on an act with the obvious aim of muddling everyone up
in the matter of compensation to storm victims who were without
work for a number of days.
The conduct of the Government of Canada and the Minister of
Human Resources Development in the matter is beyond reproach.
We have put resources at Quebec's disposal which were appreciated
by both the people in the regions affected and by the Government of
Quebec. And the premier himself, Lucien Bouchard, noted the
excellent co-operation between the two levels of government.
Consequently, rather than make political hay on the backs of
the victims, rather than be nothing more than a vulgar source of
propaganda for the mother house in Quebec City in a sad and blatant
preprovincial election strategy, the Bloc should acknowledge and
pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of the people and the
Government of Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE SENATOR GERALD OTTENHEIMER
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to the late Senator Gerald Ottenheimer,
a proud Newfoundlander and a great Canadian.
In 1966 a Cambridge educated young lawyer named Gerald
Ottenheimer was one of three PCs elected to the Newfoundland
House of Assembly during the Joey Smallwood electoral sweep. He
went on to become party leader. He later served with distinction
in the cabinets of Premiers Frank Moores and Brian Peckford. He
served as Speaker of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. He was
elected Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
and was a member of the Francophone Parliamentary Association.
Appointed to the Senate of Canada in January of 1988, Gerry went
on to become Deputy Speaker of the Senate. Unfortunately he
succumbed to cancer in January of this year.
My colleagues, the hon. members for Burin—St. George's and St.
John's West, and I who served with him in cabinet salute the late
Gerry Ottenheimer, scholar, lawyer, linguistic and, above all, a
parliamentarian who will be sadly missed.
* * *
ICE STORM
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
great ice storm of 1998 affected millions of Canadians in eastern
Ontario and Quebec. For many of us it was an inconvenience that
demonstrated how greatly we rely on electricity just to function
in our homes. For others it meant real hardship and, tragically,
in some cases death.
Any time human beings are faced with a major crisis we learn
something about ourselves. As someone who witnessed firsthand
the reaction of people in the communities of my riding of
Lanark—Carleton, I can assure everyone that Canadians do care
about their neighbours.
While images of devastation will remain with me, I will, more
important, remember the selfless actions of people who rallied to
help those whose health, property and even lives were threatened.
Before the Canadian armed forces arrived and before we knew the
extent of the emergency, volunteer firefighters in every
community, on their own initiative, swung into action.
Mayors, reeves and councillors from each municipality reacted
swiftly.
The devastated townships around Carleton Place, Smiths Falls and
Perth will long remember how those small towns came to their aid.
We all owe a great debt to the soldiers—over 800 in Lanark
County alone—who demonstrated why Canadians can be justly proud
of our armed forces.
It will take years before the physical damage caused by the
storm is repaired.
1415
The Speaker: Colleagues, before we begin question period
today I would like to draw your attention to the Mace on the
table. I made a brief announcement this morning. It is the
wooden Mace which commemorates the fire of 1916 on this date,
February 3. This is part of the traditions of the House.
We will now go to question period.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if only we could light a fire under this government.
Yesterday the prime minister tried to ignore the fact of the
federal debt. Unfortunately Canadian families cannot ignore the
debt. A third of their taxes go to pay the interest on it. In
addition to the mortgages on their homes every Canadian family is
carrying a second $77,000 mortgage which represents their portion
of this government's debt.
Will the prime minister please tell Canadians when and how he
plans to pay down this Martin mortgage.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last year for the first time in a very long time the
government paid back $1 billion or $2 billion of the debt. This
was the first time in a long time in the history of market debt.
This year when the Minister of Finance communicates his budget to
the Canadian people, they will realize that this year the
government will pay more of the market debt.
As I said yesterday, the leader of the Reform Party has changed
his position many times. Sometimes it is tax reduction,
sometimes the debt. We had a clear position in our program.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if that statement had been made by the chairman of a
public company the prime minister would be sued. This government
is paying down market debt by borrowing from the federal public
service superannuation fund and from the Canada pension plan. It
is paying off its Visa card charges with its Mastercard.
Does the prime minister believe that paying off your Visa card
charges with your Mastercard is a responsible federal debt
reduction strategy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in national accounting there is the national account and
there is the public account. We are one of only two nations in
the world that have all the contingent liabilities included in
the government's debt system. We are the only ones.
On national accounts we had a surplus last year. Even the
provincial governments do not include contingent liabilities in
their debts. Only the federal government is doing that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the lights may be on in Montreal but they are not yet on
in the government benches.
The prime minister ignores the need to reduce the debt. He also
ignores the need to reduce high taxes. This government starts
taxing Canadians when they make $6,500 a year. The Americans do
not even start until you make $9,500. Our top tax rate cuts in
when people make $60,000 a year. The American top rate does not
cut in until you make $270,000.
Why does this Liberal government tax poor and middle income
Canadians more harshly than even the Americans do?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is one reality. In the United States if you are a
blue collar worker with two children you have to pay $5,000 to an
insurance company for your health care. In Canada it is paid for
by the Government of Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
industry department has confirmed what Canadians have long
suspected. They are worse off than when the Liberals came to
power. We know that incomes are down, taxes are up. We know
that productivity is down.
Debt is up. We are falling behind in our standard of living
relative to other countries around the world.
1420
My question is for the finance minister. When will the
government admit that its policy of spending more, of high debt
and of high taxes is causing Canadians tremendous difficulty?
When will it set some real targets for debt and tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the study the hon. member refers to is a study that
found its antecedence in the policies of the previous government.
What the hon. member wants to take a look at is pretty clear.
Four years ago the country had its back against the wall. Now we
are talking about paying down debt.
Four years ago the country was talking about how high the taxes
were going to go, and now we are talking about how low they are
going to go.
Four years ago the country was in a state of despair, and now
there is optimism throughout the land. That is because of this
government.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fact is that Canada's per capita income has fallen from third in
the world to twelfth in the world in the last decade. It has
fallen behind such economic powerhouses as Iceland, which is
built on the side of a volcano.
It is not good. It is time for the government over there to
wake up. Canadians are feeling tremendous pain and the
government is somehow consoling itself with the fact that we have
a balanced budget on the backs of Canadians.
My question is again for the finance minister. When will they
start to reduce debt and reduce taxes in real terms? When will
they start to help Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in previous budgets we already began to reduce taxes.
Let me say let us not engage ourselves in the kind of shell game
the Reform would play.
The Reform Party at the federal level says “Let us cut taxes”.
How would it do that? It would be by cutting equalization
payments.
What is the answer? The member for Selkirk said “Let the
province of Manitoba increase its taxes to compensate”. That is
a shell game. It is dishonest and we will not do it.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S FUTURE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal Party of Quebec has just adopted the position of Claude
Ryan, the former leader of the No camp in 1980, and is stating
beyond any doubt that the question of Quebec's future is a
political, not a legal, one.
Does the Prime Minister understand that the trap he has set up
to force the Supreme Court, in spite of itself, to rule on the
question of Quebec's future is an unacceptable strategy, and that
he must backtrack immediately?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are convinced, and have said so repeatedly, that democracy works
very well within a respected legal framework. It is the Parti
Quebecois that said it would respect the Constitution only when it
suited it to do so.
In a democracy, the Constitution is the principal law of the
land. But if he wants to quote Mr. Ryan, I would point out to him
that that gentleman also said that the question would have to be a
clear one, acceptable to the federal and provincial governments.
I would like the member to tell us whether he thinks they will
agree to a debate on the question here in the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister should have listened to all of what Mr. Ryan
said. Mr. Ryan specifically said that it is not up to the court to
impose its conditions on the government, that governments must
assume their responsibilities, and that, in politics and in a
democracy, it is ultimately up to the people to decide. It is not
up to judges appointed by Ottawa to decide for the people of
Quebec.
And federalists working in Quebec, who are responsible people,
democrats, think that the federal government's approach is
unacceptable and that it will result in an impasse.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he is in the process of
cutting himself off completely from Quebec, even from his main
allies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebecers have twice decided they wished to remain in Canada,
despite a question purposely designed to confuse. If the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have any respect for the people
of Quebec, they will agree to have a question that is clear and
acceptable to Quebeckers and to the rest of the country.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Quebec federalists are strongly condemning the federal strategy
calling on the Supreme Court of Canada to debate Quebec's future.
According to them, this is an essentially political issue.
1425
How can the Prime Minister convince all Quebeckers that his
strategy is legitimate, given that his own political and federalist
allies feel that this approach is dangerous and unacceptable and that it
will lead to an impasse?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is recognized in a democracy that major decisions must be made within a
legal framework.
I would ask the hon. member to give me one example of a major
collective decision made in a democracy outside a legal framework.
Since we are referring to Mr. Ryan, here is what he wrote on May 27
of last year: “The federal government will feel compelled, as it did in
1980 and 1995—even though this was not sufficiently pointed out—to
refuse to promise ahead of time to recognize a result obtained through
an equivocal question. It would be useless to try to deny the federal
government this power to reserve comment”. I could not agree more.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister and I hope he will rise to reply.
Does the Prime Minister realize that even his federalist allies in
Quebec feel that he is headed straight for a political impasse that will
have even more serious consequences than the mess he created in 1982?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
indicated the points on which we agree with Mr. Ryan. He, however,
believes the reference to the Supreme Court is ill-advised.
Some hon. members: Yes.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: That is his view, but we agree on the format.
It is normal for a political family to hold different views.
If the hon. member needs a course on international law, he should
ask his colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, provided the
latter is prepared to say the same things he wrote not so long ago.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
When the bank monster merger was unleashed the finance minister
actually talked tough. He even found the courage to challenge
the banks to guarantee no job loss. The banks' response was
“No, Mr. Minister, 9,000 jobs have got to go, maybe more”.
What can we do to help the minister find the courage to say no
to the monster merger?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has set out a process involving a task
force and ultimately public debate. We will not allow anybody to
jump the queue.
The real issue is why the NDP is playing the banks' game? Why
is it trying to hijack the process? Why will it not let
Canadians look at the total future of financial institutions? Why
does it want to focus on this merger and nothing else?
The NDP may be prepared to dance to the banks' music, but we are
going to let Canadians call the tune.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have
the minister once again hiding behind the task force.
The fact is the banks have already defied the minister's
challenge. This is no time for the minister to wimp out. It is
time for the minister to provide some leadership. Ten thousand
jobs are on the line.
Why does the minister not show some courage and say no thanks to
mbanx?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government began to deal with this issue in the
beginning of the last mandate. We have set up a task force. We
have task forces within our party.
The only thing that the NDP has been able to do is engage in
excessive rhetoric. What it is unable to do is to deal with the
fundamental issues. We will match the action of the government
against the verbal diarrhoea of the leader of the NDP any time.
The Speaker: Nice and easy. We are just getting back
into shape.
* * *
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the prime minister.
In 1995 the federal transport minister of the day, Doug Young,
signed on behalf of the Liberal government a $50 million cost
shared agreement with New Brunswick to provide funding to improve
the Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and Riverglade.
Since then the New Brunswick government has sold this highway to
the same Doug Young to put in a toll.
1430
Could the prime minister tell us whether or not this sale is
consistent with the cost shared agreement his government signed
in 1995?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government contributed $32 million to
this highway. Under the auspices of that agreement it certainly
did not envisage that tolls would be put on that road.
The hon. member for the Conservative Party from Colchester
raised some very valid points about the need, now that we are
going into private sector partnerships in highway building, to
make sure that this kind of situation is planned for in future
agreements.
As far as the government is concerned the agreement has been
executed faithfully and there is no particular problem in the way
it has been set up.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad the government acknowledges today that something is terribly
wrong about this deal.
We now know that a previous minister of transport who signed
over the money himself is now partly in charge of a highway that
he is going to toll.
I would like to know from the prime minister directly whether he
agrees with this highway robbery now put on by Doug Young.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. leader of the Conservative Party
should choose his words rather carefully.
The former minister of transport exercised his duties to the
best of his ability. The former minister of transport is now in
the private sector and has complied with all of the ethical
guidelines set out by the prime minister.
This agreement certainly raises questions with respect to the
general policy as to whether we should ensure if tolls are to be
put into agreements that other arrangements are made, but there
is nothing wrong with this agreement.
* * *
HELICOPTERS
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the people of the country have heard nothing but Liberal
flim-flam about the helicopter contract ever since the prime
minister made his cynical 1993 election promise.
The fact of the matter is that if we compare the bare bones
search and rescue helicopter of 1992 with the bare bones Liberal
chopper, the numbers speak for themselves. The government spent
$200 million more than it should have.
What possible excuse could the prime minister give for buying
the same choppers for $200 million more?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the bare bones are over in
the opposition because its research is not very good at all.
Its members are trying to compare a developmental helicopter
that was ordered by the Conservative government to be in an
incomplete form turned over to another company for further
development. They are taking the price to EH Industries at that
time which was not for a complete helicopter. What we are buying
today is a complete helicopter so there is absolutely no
comparison between the two.
We are still saving some 40% in costs from what the Conservative
government would have put us through.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): The list of
excuses, Mr. Speaker, grows on and on and on.
This minister and the prime minister have used every excuse in
the book. They have played politics with public safety and now
they are trying to weasel out of it.
The government documents, the original EH-101 contract, clearly
show that the government squandered $200 million more than it had
to. We know it. They know it.
What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, those figures are absolutely
wrong.
When we talk about this kind of service to Canadians let us bear
in mind we are talking about saving lives. We wanted to make
sure that we had a helicopter that was going to meet operational
needs and do it at a price that Canadians could afford.
We could not afford the $5.8 billion boondoggle the Conservative
government wanted to put us through. We had a heavy deficit at
that time. We could not afford it.
Today we are getting a helicopter that meets our needs and it is
a lot cheaper.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S FUTURE
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The minister stated this morning that, in a democracy, politics are
conducted within a legal framework.
Does the minister not realize that the Constitution comes from and
belongs to the people and that, through its reference to the Supreme
Court, the government is trying to reverse the situation, in that the
Constitution would have precedence over the will of the people?
1435
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will repeat once again what I wrote to just about every PQ minister
without ever hearing back from them, and that is that the Government of
Canada readily agrees and recognizes that it cannot force a people to
stay in Canada against its will, as this would make Canada into
something it is not.
The problem for the Bloc is that Quebeckers want to be Canadians as
well. That is why Bloc members reject what Claude Ryan has been asking
for since day one, and that is a simple, straightforward, clear,
unequivocal question without any catches.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the night
before the referendum, the Prime Minister said he understood the
question. If he understood, a great many Quebeckers did too.
Two weeks from now, the Supreme Court will fall against its will
into the political trap laid by the government. Time is running out.
Does the minister realize that he should see reason and bow to the
arguments of his federalist allies in Quebec, who cannot allow the
Supreme Court to take precedence over the will of the Quebec people?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
never asked the judges to rule on the appropriateness of secession. It
is up to the people to decide if they want to remain united or to break
away.
Whatever they decide, the people are entitled to legal protection.
They have the right to know how extensive their rights are, which is
what the Supreme Court has been asked to determine, without playing
politics as the hon. member has just done.
* * *
[English]
HELICOPTERS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister of defence just said that in 1992 they were looking
at an incomplete helicopter and now in 1998 the Liberals have
bought a complete helicopter. This may be a case of dumb and
dumber, but even the Tories when they signed that contract, I am
sure, were not dealing with billions of dollars on an incomplete
helicopter.
My question is for the minister of defence. For the incredible
expense that was incurred with buying these new helicopters when
our Canadian Armed Forces deserve excellent equipment, why the
flip-flop and why on earth is this based on politics rather than
on good equipment for our armed forces?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is based on good equipment for our
Canadian forces. We went through a very fair and rigorous
process. This is the helicopter that best meets our needs at an
affordable price.
What the hon. member's colleague was trying to do earlier in his
$200 million calculation or miscalculation was to compare apples
and oranges, to compare a contract with a company that was for an
incomplete helicopter versus the contract with that company today
which is for more of a complete, operational and certified
helicopter that meets our search and rescue needs.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are talking about helicopters here, not fruit. This whole
thing has been a total mess from the start and the government
knows it. The search and rescue helicopter saga from the
beginning has been an absolute nightmare. Today the government
tells us “Trust us. Now we are going shopping for shipbornes”.
Nobody in the country can trust the government.
I want the prime minister to stand right now and explain one of
the biggest botch-ups since he took office in 1993.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the botch-up clearly comes from the
previous Conservative government.
This government inherited a $5.8 billion contract that the
Canadian people could not afford. It was much more than we could
afford and much more than we needed.
We have reviewed the needs and have come back with 15 search and
rescue helicopters at a lot cheaper price and at a time when we
can better afford it.
With a $42 billion deficit we could not afford that $5.8 billion
boondoggle. The government has taken its position on this matter
in a very responsible fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last November
an Environment Canada study on climatic change predicted more
natural catastrophes, such as the Saguenay flood and the flooding
of the Red River in Saskatchewan, as well as the ice storm that has
just affected almost half the population of Quebec.
My question is for the prime minister. What concrete action
has the government taken to follow up on this study, whose
predictions were unfortunately accurate?
1440
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government considers the
issue of climate change to be very serious. Since our meeting in
Kyoto, Japan, I and the Minister of Natural Resources have spoken
on several occasions with our colleagues.
Last Friday in St. John's, Newfoundland I met with my
environmental counterparts from the provinces and territories. We
are working with them to develop a national plan to mitigate the
very worst effects of climate change. We believe that the
measures we can take together co-operatively will be good for
Canada, for our environment and for our economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if this
government is so concerned about recent events that have affected
Quebec and Ontario, how does it explain that it is devoting ten
times less per capita to renewable energies than the amount
announced by the President of the United States on the weekend?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is looking into
investing more in renewable energies both in research and
development and in our own energy consumption.
My own department, Environment Canada, has invested in renewable
energy for our facilities in Alberta. We will do more. We are
working very aggressively not only with our government
counterparts but with municipalities, business and industry.
We will have to do a lot of work to inform the Canadian public
about the measures we must take to mitigate the worst effects of
climate change.
* * *
BANKING
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the events of the last 10 days have given us the
impression that it is the finance minister's billionaire buddies
at the banks who are pushing the financial sector policy of this
country, so we would like to let him clear the air. We are going
to give him a chance.
Will the finance minister guarantee today to Canadians who are
concerned about less competition that not one bank merger will
take place until the government has changed the Bank Act to allow
an open skies, open competition policy in the banking business in
this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have already opened up Canadian borders to foreign
banking. We have done more in the last couple of years on this
issue than any government. We will continue to do that,
precisely because what we want is a great deal more competition.
In rural Canada we want competition for small and medium size
business. We have already made that very clear.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister knows very well the amendments
that are required to the act to create completely open
competition in the banking industry. He knows very well what I
am talking about.
Yes or no, will he guarantee that there will not be one bank
merger until we have a complete open skies competition type
banking industry in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what in heaven's name does the member think the purpose
was in setting up the task force on financial institutions? What
does he think the purpose was in having a great public debate?
What does he think the purpose was in negotiating at the WTO all
the changes in financial services?
Very clearly if there are going to be any changes in the
financial structure of this country, they are going to be ones
which will ensure that there are adequate services, low charges
and full competition available to Canadians. That is what it is
all about.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week,
Bloc Quebecois and Progressive-Conservative MPs from the Montérégie
and regions of central Quebec that were affected by the ice storm
sought an emergency meeting with the Minister of Human Resources
Development in order to discuss the qualifying period and
overpayment of unemployed workers who were victims of the storm.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to
follow up on this request as early as possible in order to meet the
glaring needs of storm victims?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak
with a great number of MPs in the Liberal caucus. I spoke with
several members of the Bloc Quebecois and with all the Conservative
MPs who asked to speak with me. I was extremely available.
The Department of Human Resources Development did an
exceptional job on the ground and I can say that I would still be
very pleased to meet with all members. But confusion must not be
spread about the issue of qualifying period. We were able to put
cheques directly into the hands of the unemployed in affected
regions two weeks ahead of time.
* * *
1445
[English]
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
On last week's tour of military bases in western Canada, the
defence committee heard shocking testimony about many of our
military personnel living in substandard housing, unable to
properly provide for their families.
To the sea of families who fear that the committee's report will
be shelved and forgotten, what assurances can the minister give
that the report will be taken seriously and acted upon in a
timely fashion?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this study that the committee is
conducting is a very high priority for me. I believe that our
armed forces personnel and their families are entitled to a
decent standard of living. Their social and economic needs
should be met.
They are people who put their lives on the line, people who gave
such exceptional service to their fellow Canadians in the ice
storm. We should ensure that they in fact have a standard of
living and a quality of life that is no different from the people
they serve in this country.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, less than a
year ago, the minister of Indian affairs invited aboriginal
Canadians to write her with their concerns. Bruce Starlight of
the Tsuu T'ina Nation took her at her word and wrote her a
letter. Within days that letter was in the hands of Chief Roy
Whitney, the very person Mr. Starlight had written to complain
about.
Mr. Whitney just happens to be a former Liberal candidate, a
well connected Liberal and a golfing buddy of the Prime Minister.
How in the name of all that is just and fair can this minister
justify this betrayal of Bruce Starlight?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear, it is
of great concern to me that this letter has been written and is
in the hands of Mr. Whitney. I made it clear that the letter was
not conveyed through any official means and that in fact we have
identified and I have requested that an investigation be done
to follow this letter through my department.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all we get
from this government is investigation after investigation and
excuse after excuse.
Can the minister tell aboriginal Canadians who have been
betrayed by this action why they should ever trust her or this
government again after this action has been taken against them?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly I would hope that
aboriginal people in this country do feel that they can trust
this government.
I have been very proud on behalf of this government to offer to
aboriginal people in Canada a statement of reconciliation, a very
broad response to the work of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples and to say to individual aboriginal people that for once
their voices are being heard. We are going to build a new
beginning together.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
This afternoon in the House in response to questions on bank
mergers, the minister played hide-and-seek behind his task force,
which studied the financial sector.
Is he now prepared to ask the task force and a parliamentary
committee as well to look specifically at the proposed merger
between the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal right
away before it becomes a fait accompli?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, there will be no fait accompli.
We asked a task force to look at the future of the financial
institutions and it intends to do so. Only after the task force
has made its recommendations and a debate is held here in the
House, a public debate with Canadians, will the government be
prepared to consider the merger.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
task force has not had a specific mandate to look at this merger.
I believe that this merger would be a first step toward the
sellout of Canadian financial institutions. The one thing that
keeps the institutions Canadian is that the banks now are
limited. There is a proposition where shareholders can only hold
about 10% of every chartered bank. I want to know if the
minister will guarantee to the House today that he will not give
away the 10% provision that prevents a complete surrender of
Canadian banks to foreign owners.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it clear on I do not know how many
occasions that the task force has been asked to look at all these
questions. When the task force reports, we will debate it.
The real issue is why is the NDP joining with the banks in
attempting to jump the queue? Why is the NDP attempting to
hijack the process? Why does the NDP refuse to let Canadians
deal with the broad issues?
1450
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you. We are not kowtowed by the banks
and we are not kowtowed by this merger. We are going to do our
job. We are going to set policy for all Canadians.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In September 1995 Doug Young as Minister of Transport signed a
government cheque for $25 million to pay for the cost of a
highway from Moncton to River Glade. Now Doug Young has switched
sides and runs a company that will be charging tolls on the very
same stretch of highway. The minister has stated in the media
that he is upset with this and he has instructed his deputy
minister to make sure it does not happen again. If it will be
wrong in the future, it is wrong now. Will the minister act now
to stop this deal?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the report in the newspaper took
great licence with what I said. I congratulate the hon. member
for bringing forward a genuine concern which is how we should
adapt our future highway agreements to take into account the
possibilities of partnerships with the private sector.
When this agreement was signed there were no such restrictions.
I have been assured by the Government of New Brunswick that the
federal contribution of $32 million will not be taken into
account with the toll pricing mechanism. All of the conditions
of the original agreement have faithfully been met.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the answer and the minister's concern that
he knows that something is wrong. By allowing the $32 million to
stay in the deal just reduces the capital cost to Doug Young's
company, Maritime Road Development Corporation. It makes it even
worse. We know this is wrong. He knows it is wrong. The people
know it is wrong. The minister has the power to stop this
ongoing multimillion dollar highway robbery. Will he act now and
cancel this deal?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have entered into an agreement with the province
of New Brunswick and that agreement will be respected.
There is a federal-provincial task force of deputy transport
ministers that is looking into the very question of the
application of tolls in private-public partnerships in our
highway rebuilding. I have asked that task force to examine this
very carefully to ensure that all of the concerns of the hon.
member and anyone else about tolls and these arrangements are
addressed.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my
riding of Laval West, I have heard nothing but praise for the work
of the military personnel who came from all parts of Canada to work
unflaggingly to assist the victims of the ice storm.
Can the Minister of National Defence give us a status report
on the situation in Quebec, and the role of the armed forces
personnel who will remain in place until the last light is back on?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the peak of this storm over three
million Canadians were affected by it. Life is returning to
normal for most of them. However there still are some 11,000
customers in Quebec, some 25,000 people without power. There are
some 600 Canadian forces members still there and they will stay
there until the lights come on to assist people who are still
suffering from this devastation.
At the peak of this storm, 15,800 military personnel were in
service to their fellow Canadians. I am sure everybody in this
House will agree with me when I say that they did an exceptional
job and we are very proud of them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week in Alberta a man was sentenced to 60 days for killing his
dog. At the same time two men in Montreal who were convicted of
raping a teenage girl were sentenced to 18 months to be served at
home.
They are walking free all because of a loophole called
conditional sentencing which the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada supports.
1455
How does the justice minister explain to the rape victim that
her life has less worth than that of a dog?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in response
to a question yesterday from one of the member's colleagues, it
is a very tragic and difficult circumstance. I have also
indicated it is a case of specifics of which I cannot address.
This is a matter that my colleague the attorney general of Quebec
has chosen to appeal. We must await the outcome of the appeal.
* * *
[Translation]
HELICOPTERS
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, part of the saga of the helicopters ended this past
January 5, when the Minister of National Defence had the
embarrassing task of revealing his government's choice to us: the
Cormorant, a perfect clone of the Conservatives' EH-101.
Does the prime minister not acknowledge that it would be
advantageous, for the next helicopter contract for replacements to
the Sea Kings, for a House committee to be mandated to hold public
hearings in order to ensure that the process is clear and
transparent?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this was a very open, very transparent,
very fair process. It was based upon what our search and rescue
needs are. We looked over five years of experience. We asked
the very people who operate the equipment, who operate our
services as to what their needs were. It was a very open
process. This government has taken its responsibility in a
proper fashion.
When we get to the next phase, when we deal with the navy
helicopters, once again we will look at that in a very
responsible fashion. I believe we will be saving the taxpayers a
lot more money in that particular case as well.
* * *
BANKING
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Finance. Considering what his
next job is possibly to be, he is very concerned about what
Canadians are likely thinking of him these days.
I was going to suggest that the Minister of Finance will know
that banking, bankers and the banking business touch the lives of
virtually every Canadian in this country. Would he do the right
thing, not necessarily wait for the task force to bring down a
report some months from now, but provide an opportunity for the
people of Canada to tell the Minister of Finance through the
finance committee hearings across the country what they think of
this proposed merger?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I as a minister of this government and in fact this
government are certainly open to hear from Canadians on any topic
at any time. We are certainly prepared to do so.
The fundamental point that we have made is that we are not going
to allow this process to be hijacked by anybody. We are going to
insist that the task force complete its schedule on time and that
there be a public debate. Only after that will we consider this
merger or any other similar merger.
As far as we are concerned, public policy will be made by the
government for the benefit and the interests of all Canadians,
not any particular institution.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The people of Canada want to know if the Trans-Canada Highway is
now up for sale from Victoria, B.C. to St. John's, Newfoundland
or is the recently announced toll highway in New Brunswick just
another attempt to barricade the maritimes from the rest of
Canada?
The recent Doug Young toll highway deal in New Brunswick is
highway robbery. Will the minister assure Canadians that this
deal will be opened up for debate in this House and if not, why
not?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once we cut through the hyperbole of the hon. member
for Saint John there is at least a decent question, which is what
is the future way to finance Canada's highways. There was a
report before the House of Commons a year or so ago. That report
is being looked at as to how the private sector can become
involved in the rebuilding of Canada's highway system.
* * *
BANKING
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it
regards the proposed bank merger.
The minister has given his assurance that a final decision will
not be taken until the task force reports and that there are full
parliamentary hearings on the matter.
That means a final decision might not be taken for at least a
year.
1500
In view of that delay and in view of the fact that delay and
uncertainty is not in anyone's best interest, will the minister
refer the specific issue of the proposed bank merger to a
parliamentary committee immediately so that the committee can
commence immediate hearings?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker, and the reason is very clear. We are not going to give
these two institutions a leg up on any other institutions. Nor
are we going to allow public policy to be determined by the
particular interests of these two institutions. Public policy is
going to be set by the public interest of Canadians as a whole.
* * *
YEAR 2000 PROBLEM
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Statistics Canada, his own agency, has found that SMEs, small
and medium size businesses, are unprepared to meet the challenge
of the year 2000 problem. What is the minister doing to ensure
that we do not have chaos in our small business sector in
slightly over 600 days from now?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today the task force on year 2000 issued its
report entitled “A Call For Action”. It has highlighted the
importance of this pressing issue as a national issue for
Canadian business, as an international issue as it affects
transactions across the border, and indeed as a global issue. It
has given a number of recommendations for business to follow.
I am going to ensure that this report is considered by the
Standing Committee on Industry at its earliest possible
convenience. I am making it available to my counterparts both
federally and provincially. Together we need to see that
Canadian industry is ready for January 1, 2000.
The Speaker: That would bring to a close our question
period for today.
I have notice of two points of privilege which I will hear now.
The first is from the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington and
the second one is from the hon. member for Prince George—Peace
River.
* * *
1505
PRIVILEGE
MR. JUSTICE LOUIS MARCEL JOYAL
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pertaining to what I
believe are circumstances or words leading to an act of contempt
of Parliament. My remarks relate to that.
Contempt of Parliament as you know, Mr. Speaker, is very
analogous to contempt of court. If you consult any authority you
will find that the definitions for contempt of Parliament and
contempt of court are very similar.
Just to give a very quick example, contempt of Parliament is an
offence against the authority and dignity of the House or an act
which offends against the authority and dignity of Parliament or
against its officers or members.
A contempt of court is any act calculated to embarrass the court
or lessens its authority or dignity. Contempt is that which is
expressly aimed against the dignity and authority of the court
itself in the person of its judges and its officers.
We take contempt of court and contempt of Parliament very
seriously and provision is made for severe penalties on those who
are found in contempt of court or contempt of Parliament. The
reason is that the courts and Parliament are two institutions
that must maintain the confidence of the people. The people must
believe that the judges act with integrity and that
parliamentarians act with integrity and honesty at all times.
Contempt provisions exist to make sure that the courts and
Parliament are not attacked in a malicious or unfounded fashion.
Indeed, severe penalties are available to judges when for
example a newspaper were to accuse a judge of being a hanging
judge because it did not agree with the findings of that court.
Indeed, jail terms are possible in this case.
So you may be very surprised to learn in that context, Mr.
Speaker, that my complaint of contempt of Parliament is aimed at
a justice, Mr. Justice Louis Marcel Joyal.
The context of that contempt of Parliament occurred because on
December 2 the Minister of Labour rose in this House and
announced that he was taking legal steps to fire the chairman of
the Canada Labour Relations Board. This entire House rose in
unanimous support, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of
the Opposition, indeed all members.
The chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board took his
situation to federal court. He was trying to get an injunction to
prevent the legal proceedings that would lead to his firing. His
case was heard in federal court before Mr. Justice Joyal.
The next day the Ottawa Citizen came out with a newspaper
headline across the front page. It was at the very top, a banner
headline. The headline read “Judge slams Weatherill firing”.
More interestingly the subheading read “Parliamentarians
compared to `people around guillotine' in French Revolution”.
The remarks that I complain about in my address to you as a
contempt of Parliament are contained in two paragraphs in this
story. I will read them as quickly as I can: “Yesterday, in
the Federal Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Louis Marcel Joyal
compared such behaviour”—that is the applauding of the decision
to take legal action against the chairman of the Canada Labour
Relations Board—“to the bloody actions of the French Revolution
and said it worried him”.
“I'm concerned as a citizen,” Judge Joyal said from the bench,
“that with immunity, a minister of the Crown can get up in the
House—on the basis of I don't know what—and say, `I'm going to
fire this guy,' and everybody is up and cheering. I was thinking
of these people around the guillotine. I don't know if I have a
right to intervene. But it left a bad taste in my mouth”.
This was not said in evidence. This was a justice musing from
the bench. For example, by suggesting that the Minister of Labour
uses parliamentary immunity to take an unfair action against a
person, he is implying that if he spoke outside the House of
Commons the Minister of Labour would be subject to some kind of
civil suit, so he is imputing motives to the Minister of Labour.
Not only that, he is comparing all of us, not one side or the
other side, not backbenchers or frontbenchers, but all of us to
the rabble of the French revolution, to people who are not in
control of our ability to make good judgments in this House,
people who are not in fact representatives of the people.
1510
Mr. Speaker, I feel there is a prima facie case of contempt of
Parliament in the judge's remarks. There seems to be three
possible courses of action in a situation like this. One is that
the House could decide to move a motion of censure. Second, the
House could decide to send the issue to committee where it could
be debated and appropriate action determined. Finally, the judge
could be called to the bar to explain the context and the
intention of his remarks. There is something to be said for that.
I did apply to the federal court to get the transcript of his
remarks so I could see the context of what he said and so I could
see what else he said. Unfortunately the transcripts are not
available. Apparently it is a case where the judge has control
over the transcripts and a parliamentarian like myself cannot
obtain them.
I do not want to suggest that we should be unfair to the judge
but I think we should look very seriously at this third option of
bringing him to the bar to explain himself. But Mr. Speaker,
this is subject to whether you feel there is a prima facie case
of contempt of Parliament in the circumstances I have just
described.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the concern of the hon. member who has read as we all
have the very disturbing comments in the paper. I agree with his
conclusions that something should be done. It should be sent to
committee or somehow investigated by this House, since this House
has been accused by a high court official while sitting on the
bench.
I also bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the genesis of
this and just a bit of the background is that another independent
officer of this House, a representative of the auditor general
was the person who originally brought this situation forward.
That person too was not openly criticized by the judge but I
suppose by inference is part of the rabble the judge refers to
since he is also highlighted.
I would also bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that members
of the official opposition asked questions during question period
which brought this to a head and highlighted this question. I
think it was the member for St. Albert who brought this question
forward. The Minister of Labour responded after a certain number
of questions with the solution that this man must be dismissed.
When motive is impugned, as has already been mentioned, not only
to the government but by inference to all of us including the
official opposition, including the auditor general who brought
forward the case of how ridiculous this situation was and how it
needed to be remedied and when the remedy was brought to bear on
it we have all been smeared with the comments that we are acting
somehow inappropriately.
I think the actions of the minister were appropriate, as were
the actions of the official opposition and the auditor general.
Certainly I concur with the member's conclusion that this must be
investigated and I believe a censure will be forthcoming
following that investigation.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Very briefly
I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take this question of privilege
very seriously. I am sure if the reverse obtained and members of
Parliament were reflecting on the decisions of a judge with a
similar looseness of lips, many people would have been very quick
to criticize us for blurring the line between the judiciary and
the legislative function, and properly so.
I think an equal requirement is laid upon the judiciary not to
make comments which express contempt for members of Parliament or
for this House. I would urge you to examine the record in this
case. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will be able to obtain what the
hon. member who raised the point of privilege was not able to
obtain.
1515
In any event, we already know enough of what was said for there
to be significant concern. I urge the Chair to reflect on this
and come back to the House with a ruling that enables Parliament
to protect itself against this kind of comment.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am generally supportive of the remarks of my friend
from Winnipeg—Transcona. However, I would not agree that the
same rules apply to parliamentarians in this place as apply to
judges.
I do not think there is a reciprocal rule at all. I think we in
this House are very free to comment on matters in front of the
bench as we see fit. We in this House have a historic immunity
that is there for the people of this country. It is there for a
reason. It may be correct that judges are restricted. I will
get into that in just a moment, but I do not agree we in the
House are.
In terms of the matter at hand, I suggest there are at least two
perspectives on this event on the remarks of the judge. The
first one is that the judge, in making his remarks, appears to
have embraced the role or mantle of a citizen and felt that it
was in order for him to pass comment.
Any citizen in this country is free to pass comment in words
such as those used by the judge outside the courtroom on this
House. We are a nation that embraces our freedom. Comments
about how we do our business in this place are most appropriate.
We love to hear it. Keep those cards and letters coming.
That is one perspective. The judge apparently, in my view,
respectfully forgot that he was on the bench. As a judge, he is
not free to meddle in the politics of this place. As I
understand it, he is not free to meddle in any of the politics of
the nation. He is there to do a job on the bench interpreting
the law and fact.
Others in here may stand corrected if the facts turn out to be
other than those reported. That meddling is worthy of rebuke and
I regret the apparently profound ignorance that judge has of the
purpose of this place and the role we fill as members of
Parliament.
That ignorance is reflected only in his remarks made perhaps by
the seat of the pants while on the bench, I do not know. However,
those limited back of the envelope comments were a disappointment
to me and certainly worthy of note on the record in the House
here.
In terms of how the House should respond, I realize this is a
matter of privilege. I realize before anything can go further we
have an obligation here to put in place a prima facie case that a
privilege of the House has been breached, in this case an alleged
contempt.
I regret this House would have to take the step of finding a
prima facie contempt on the part of a judge. If that were to be
the case, I am sure the judge would perhaps want to have looked
back and done it differently.
As an alternative to placing on Mr. Speaker the burden of
finding there was perhaps a contempt, perhaps it would be
appropriate—I offer this to colleagues in the House in the hope
that it may be viable—to unanimously agree that the issue is one
that has been brought to the attention of the House, is of
concern to members of the House, and we would ask the Clerk to
refer the matter to the Canadian Judicial Council for comment, if
any.
Should the matter be responded to by the council, that the Clerk
make the House aware through Mr. Speaker and, if so advised after
that, the House deal with the matter, if it is a matter of
contempt or otherwise as you may give us your advice on.
1520
I offer as an alternative to invite through the Canadian
Judicial Council the judge in question to clarify. If it is not
to be viewed as a matter of contempt, we will at least have taken
note of it and moved on to other important issues.
The Speaker: As always, a matter of privilege is
taken very seriously by me. I have some facts placed before me
now. Surely one of the alternatives that has been placed here
for my consideration, that this matter be brought before the
House, has been fulfilled in the sense that members have brought
it up and we have discussed it here.
I have been asked to judge whether or not there has been a
contempt of this parliament on which we should take some type of
action. This is the first time in my memory, having been here
some 20-odd years, that such a case has ever arisen.
I would like to get more information for myself. I appreciate
the advice and opinions that have been given to me by members
from all sides. Perhaps you would permit me to reflect on the
whole situation, considering the alternative brought up by the
hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River and considering what has
been asked of us by the hon. member who moved the question of
privilege a little earlier. I said the member for
Hamilton—Wentworth and I stand corrected on that.
I will come back to the House after due deliberation and after I
have satisfied myself as to the pertinent facts about this issue.
I will take it under advisement and I will return to the House if
necessary.
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset I would like to add my words of
appreciation that the member for Wentworth—Burlington raised
that question. Since he quite clearly described what constitutes
a contempt of the House I will not repeat what he has already
said.
I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the actions of
the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and his
officials which I believe constitute a contempt of the House and
a contempt of the office and authority of the Speaker. First I
will address the issue of contempt of the House.
On January 21, 1998 the minister met in Regina to discuss the
rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board's
board of directors as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4
tabled at report stage by opposition members had yet to be
debated in the House. While the House is still debating how many
directors should be farmer elected versus government appointees,
the minister was holding meetings as though his bill were already
law.
This sort of thing has been complained about in the House a
number of times in the past. Each time it is brought to the
Speaker's attention, the Speaker has declined to rule in favour
of a prima facie question of privilege. However he did leave the
door open since these actions are clearly insulting and offensive
to this institution and may constitute a contempt in the future.
On October 29, 1997 the member for Fraser Valley brought to the
Chair's attention a similar case regarding the Department of
Finance. The Chair ruled on the matter on November 6, 1997 and
made this statement:
—the Chair acknowledges that this matter is a matter of
potential importance since it touches the role of members as
legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from
this perspective that the actions of the Department are of some
concern. The dismissive view of the legislative process,
repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary
conventions and practices.
I agree with the Speaker that these actions repeated often
enough make a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and
practices. I suggest that making a mockery of parliament
diminishes the respect due to parliament.
On page 250 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's
Parliamentary Privilege in Canada the following is stated:
—there are actions that, while not directly in a physical way
obstructing the House of Commons or the Member, nevertheless
obstruct the House in the performance of its functions by
diminishing the respect due it.
1525
Accordingly, the actions of the minister and his officials
distinctly constitute a contempt of this House.
Further to my argument is the issue of the minister and his
officials knowingly and deliberately ignoring a warning from the
Speaker. In the ruling of November 6, 1997 the Speaker said: “I
trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th
Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his
officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by
it”.
I believe that these recent actions have reached a new level of
indignity, since a minister is no longer just snubbing his nose
at backbench members of Parliament but now is also snubbing the
Speaker's direction.
On March 21, 1978, at page 3978 of Hansard, the Speaker
ruled that in the final analysis, in the areas of doubt, the
Speaker asks simply: “Does the act complained of appear at
first sight to be a breach of privilege?—to put it shortly, has
the member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on
the question, he should—leave it to the House”.
The previous complaints against the government in these matters
were legitimate complaints. The question as to whether or not
they constituted a prima facie question of privilege may have
given the Speaker some doubt in the past. However, even if doubt
existed, there are precedents to support the Speaker's putting
the question to the House. You should also consider that this
time it is not just a matter of doubt. There has been an
additional complaint against a department and the department has
acted, despite the warning issued by the Speaker. The Speaker's
warning was direct, clear and deliberate. It could not have been
any clearer.
On page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in
Canada contempt is described as an offence against the
authority or dignity of the House. The minister and his
officials have gone further and brought the authority and dignity
of the Speaker into question.
I ask that you take the advice from the Speaker's ruling of
March 21, 1978 and leave this matter to the House because, at a
minimum, there must at least be doubt in your mind regarding this
issue.
If you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of
privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. I think
it is high time that this House demonstrate to the ministers and
their departments a little democracy over bureaucracy.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to support the arguments put forward by my colleague and
remind you that while there may not be any precedents for this
offence there is no reason why you cannot allow the member's
motion to be put to the House.
Erskine May's 21st edition at page 115 states that an offence
for contempt “may be treated as contempt even though there is no
precedent for the offence”.
Page 221 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in
Canada describes a prima facie case of privilege in the
parliamentary sense as one where the evidence on its face, as
outlined by the member, is sufficiently strong for the House to
be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to
investigate whether the privileges of the House have been
breached or a contempt has even occurred.
The member has demonstrated that the evidence in this case is
sufficiently strong.
It may be of help and interest to this House to understand what
led to this particular question of privilege.
The Speaker was asked to rule on a similar complaint on March 9,
1990 regarding a pamphlet put out by the government concerning
the GST. Again on March 25, 1991 another complaint was launched
on a similar matter. These complaints, while worthy of
discussion, were not ruled to be prima facie questions of
privilege.
A stronger case was made on October 28, 1997 by the hon. member
for Fraser Valley. In that instance the Department of Finance
went much further and actually started to take action before the
bill authorizing the department to act was passed by the House.
The member argued that these actions undercut the authority of
Parliament.
This led to the Speaker's ruling which contained what I
believed to be a strong statement and a strong warning. At that
point the Speaker made it clear that the tolerance for such
actions was wearing thin.
I argue that the case put forward by the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River represents another incremental affront to the
House and a case for a prima facie contempt of Parliament against
the ministers and their departments has reached the flashpoint.
1530
I do not want to question past rulings regarding complaints of
this nature. I recognize that Speakers must always be prudent in
determining a prima facie question of privilege. The seriousness
of the complaint brought to your attention by my colleague
concerns offences that have escalated to the point where inaction
will only serve to question the legitimacy of the House, its
members and the Speaker.
It is not a time to be prudent because this continued disrespect
has already cast a cloud of doubt over the role of this
institution. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we settle this matter
once and for all, and I urge you to allow the member to propose
his motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as you know I have been one of the people driving the
issue of making the wheat board accountable. When we were
interviewing witnesses before the standing committee on Bill C-4
they tried to rule me in conflict of interest because I was part
of a group of farmers holding the wheat board accountable before
the courts in Manitoba.
There was no court action at that time. I removed myself and
asked them to get a ruling whether I would be in conflict because
my lawyers had said that I was not in conflict. I was never
given a ruling on that and I did not mind that too much. I will
accept mistakes and things said in the heat of debate.
Shortly after I picked up the Western Producer and I was
astounded that the member for Simcoe—Grey at that time indicated
outside the House that “if he tries to get involved in a debate
when this bill is brought back before the full House this week, I
will demand that the Speaker remove him from that debate”.
I was elected to uphold the laws of the country. I had to take
the action of a civil route in the courts to try to get the wheat
board accountable. When as a member of Parliament I am not
allowed or threatened not to be allowed to participate in the
debate of something that is important to every resident of my
constituency, there is something wrong.
When the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River raises this
question of privilege I think he is dead right. You should be
looking into this matter, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add my voice to those parliamentarians who feel
their job here has been jeopardized by the minister of
agriculture presupposing that the legislation would pass.
There are 40 some amendments to Bill C-4, all of which have not
had the opportunity of debate in the House of Commons at report
stage. I represent an agricultural riding. There is significant
resistance to the whole move to change the Canadian Wheat Board
under Bill C-4. Many of the amendments proposed are a direct
result of farmers in my riding asking that these changes not be
made.
I submit that I have been unable to do my job as a result of the
minister publicly stating that he wants the board of directors in
place before the legislation has been debated properly on the
floor of the House of Commons and passed.
Therefore it makes a mockery of our system. I believe, Mr.
Speaker, that you should investigate this matter because I think
there is still ample opportunity to defeat the legislation or
have amendments made that would significantly change the
legislation. What the minister is doing presupposes what the
House will do.
The Speaker: It is important that I know if members
either support or do not support, but it is more important for me
to have additional information if it is at all possible about the
particular case. I would ask hon. members—I presume if you
stand that you are in support—after we are past that to offer me
some concrete evidence which will help in my decision.
1535
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, you asked for some concrete evidence. I will be very
brief. The day after this meeting was held in Regina on January
21, I held a meeting in Yorkton with 300 farmers present.
Some of those farmers came up to me afterward and asked me this
direct question: “In light of what the minister is doing, he
has already assumed that the bill is passed. Why are we even
discussing these amendments?”
I will give a little background information. The 300 farmers
who assembled in Yorkton on January 22, the day after that, came
there with the intent of discussing three major amendments that I
had proposed. They asked me what the point was of even
discussing them if the minister had already assumed that the
legislation passed.
That shows the seriousness of this discussion. They see
parliament as being a useless exercise because of what the
minister has done. The amendments I put forward were viewed with
disdain, with being a useless exercise because they said that he
was already talking about putting in place the board of directors
as if the bill were passed.
As a member of Parliament I am wasting my time. That is how
serious the matter is. We really have been undermined by the
actions of the minister because they see us as not having any
effect in this place. I think it is very serious and I offer
that concrete evidence to you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Charlie Penson: I want to make a correction.
The Speaker: I will allow a correction.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, in my question of
privilege I referred to the minister as the minister of
agriculture. It is not the minister of agriculture but the
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to whom I
refer. He was formerly the minister of agriculture.
The Speaker: Again I thank members for bringing up
this question of privilege as fair minded people, all of you. We
have heard from five interveners. I for one would like to get
more information if we could.
The Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board was named by all five interveners. I
would like to hear from him, if it is at all possible, just what
transpired on the other side. In fairness, I am sure the House
would agree that the least we will do is hear from the minister.
He is the one who was directly named. I will withhold a
decision on this matter until I get more information from the
minister, at which time I will make my decision.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
agree you are limited in your ability to make a decision until
the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board reports to
you. Would the Speaker ask the minister to make that report in
parliament so that we could hear it as well? It would be nice to
hear his side of the story in a public forum.
The Speaker: It would be my intention to ask the minister
to speak here. This is our forum. I will ask the minister or
his representative. I would hope we would have a response at the
earliest possible time. I will make that request, yes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application
Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension
Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment
Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act,
the Old Age Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax
Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the
Western Grain Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to
the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-28 today. It is a rather lengthy bill
as are a lot of finance bills. Its intent is to amend the Income
Tax Act and other acts. It goes on for some 400 pages to explain
why that will be done.
I am sure we will hear from the government side that it will
encourage charitable donations, that it will help people put a
little more money away or get some more money out of registered
retirement, and that some tax shelter abuses might be shut down.
1540
This reminds me a little bit of when British Columbia had a long
serving premier by the name of W. A. C. Bennett. What was said
of Mr. Bennett during his heyday was that he would fill your
shoes full of rocks. Then every once in a while he would take
one of the rocks out and expect you to say “Thank you for the
relief. Thank you for taking away all the pain”. In many cases
he had shoved the rocks in the shoes to begin with. I see
exactly the same thing happening with the Income Tax Act.
We have a glossing over of the political and economic reality of
the country. We are the most highly taxed group of people in the
industrialized world. Tax freedom day comes later and later each
year. Now we work a full six months of the year to pay our
different taxes.
It reminds me again of another famous quote. I wish the
Liberals would read it. It is from Winston Churchill who said
that the idea a nation could tax itself into prosperity was one
of the cruelest delusions which had ever befuddled the human
mind. That is exactly what has happened with the bill.
The government has filled our boots full of rocks. It is going
to take out a couple of little pebbles and say “Now don't you
feel better for this?” I do not feel any better for this, not a
bit better. The idea that all these taxes will make me a
prosperous person and that the constituents I represent will
suddenly be rolling in the dough is one of the cruelest delusions
that has ever befuddled the human mind.
Let us just think of a few of these facts. The Liberal tax
policies mean that a single mother with one child and an income
of 15,000 lousy dollars will pay $1,364 in income tax. The bill
reinforces that by stating it is a good idea.
This lady is trying to raise a child on $15,000 a year. Imagine
trying to live on $15,000. I cannot even imagine it. Imagine a
single mom being forced to live on this amount. She has
pressures and stress, and the government comes along and says
“You know you were going to buy some winter coats for your kids.
I will take that $1,364 right off the top”. That is cruel.
What about those who are almost middle class, not quite but
almost? What if they make $30,000 a year? The bill states that
it is a good idea to take $11.2 billion from people who make
$30,000 a year and less. Indications in Bill C-28 are that this
is a good idea and people should be grateful.
As a matter of fact they will probably stand in their place over
there and say that the bill allows people to give more to
charity. People making $15,000 a year are charity cases
themselves. They do not have any money to give to charity. Any
money they might have had has been taken off the top by the
finance minister who slurped the top off this bit of money the
woman in my example has and said “If you had ever thought of
giving to charity I am going to make sure you cannot. Thank you
very much, that is mine”.
Churchill was right. It is a cruel delusion Liberals seem to
hold to that high taxes will bring prosperity for all. I do not
know why they do not just get right at it. Why do they not just
make the tax 100%? We would all be so fabulously wealthy we
would not know what to do with all the extra money. They could
just take it all.
Everyone knows the old story. I am surprised it is not in here.
The new income tax form would a very short form. On one line it
would say: “How much money did you make?” On the second line:
“Just send it all to me”. It would be signed by the Minister
of Finance. It would be much simpler and maybe we would be all
richer.
Imagine the gall over there with them saying that the Income Tax
Act and the tax system in Canada are for the benefit of all
Canadians. The Liberals have raised taxes 37 times since they
took office. I would be happy to table the list, but what is the
point? I do not imagine Liberals would read it. Every time we
turn around in income taxes they have failed to index basic
deductions. Imagine what that means.
It means that the average family in Canada has seen its income
drop by $3,000 since the Liberals took office. Real spending
money has dropped by $3,000. We now spend more to service the
debt which the Liberals seem happy with than we spend on food,
clothing and shelter.
1545
Why do they not take it all? We can all go over to the finance
minister's house and enjoy the wealth together, except those who
are rich enough to divert the funds somewhere where they do not
have to pay the taxes. The lady who is making $15,000 is not one
of those people, but there are plenty over there. That is a
shame.
What should be done? To begin with, there should not be 450 some
pages of gobbledegook in Bill C-28 that we have to try to wade
through to find some meat and potatoes for the average family.
We should be saying to these people, the single mother trying to
raise a child, a family trying to make $30,000, hardly wealthy,
we can offer you some help and here is how we are going to do it.
If I could only get the government to listen I would read it
something like this. Why not reduce the GST when it gets a
chance to help the family that has to pay GST on every little
thing it buys for its home? Why not increase the basic personal
amount?
In question period today the Leader of the Opposition pointed
out that in Canada we start paying taxes at $6,500 a year.
Unbelievable. The government asks people who make $6,500 to
support the national debt that it has run up. That is less than
$600 a month. I do not say I am going to emulate the United
States, but imagine if we could have $9,500 before the tax rate
cut in. What would you do with the extra $3,000 that is untaxed?
You might be able to buy shoes for your kids. That would be the
basics. You might be able to start to invest. You might be able
save for the future. You might do all kinds of good things.
What would happen if you raised the spousal amount equivalent to
the basic personal amount? What about the family making $30,000
who says just let me take home a little more of my money and I
will look after my kids. If you would just leave me some money, I
will look after quite a bit. But if you are going to take it
away you will have to replace it with massive national government
programs, where they take all your money, you send it to Ottawa,
they deduct 50% for handling and they send it back to you in
services you never asked for. They deduct a chunk all along the
way. Why not just leave the money with the people? What an
advantage that would be.
What if you eliminated the surtax the Tories brought in? What
if you said to somebody if you do manage to make $50,000 to
$60,000 a year, although that is not exactly rolling in the
Cayman Islands, we will not surtax you anymore? We will let you
invest in businesses. We will let you invest in your pension
plan. We will let you invest in your children's education and
their future. We will let you build prosperity in your home
town. Instead, if you happen to be a farmer, you happen to have a
good year, you make $60,000, you pay a surtax because you are
considered a bad asset for Canada and they take the money the
money away. That is a shame.
What if you reduced capital gains taxes? Capital gains taxes
kill initiative. What if they allowed students, people who we
saw protesting in the streets the other day, to claim a tax
deduction for interest payments on student loans? What if they
reduced job killing payroll taxes like CPP and EI? What if they
passed a taxpayer bill of rights so they could not hog the money
to finance the future and borrow on our children's future?
If they did all of that they would have adopted the Reform
Party's plan “Securing Your Future”. That is what they would
have done. Instead of a hopeless 455 page document that says the
future is ours because we are the government, it would have been
the future is yours and we are going to help you secure it. What
a difference if securing future were the aim of this document
instead of lining the bank vaults in Ottawa.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-28. As we come back from
our break newly minted, rested and enthusiastic, what red meat
does the government throw in front of Parliament to really do
something on behalf of the Canadian people?
1550
It throws in front of us a 464 page bill that was introduced
just before Parliament broke last time. To help us understand
this bill there are 578 pages of explanation that say things like
the individual is not entitled to deduct any amount under
division c, computation of taxable income over the year except
under section 111 of the act, lost carryovers. You get the
picture, Madam Speaker.
Here we are with the country facing some pretty major problems:
a falling dollar, unemployment, low incomes for Canadians,
problems with education, declining health care services. What do
we discuss here? Our first few days back with all the energy and
enthusiasm that we brought from meeting with our constituents and
talking to the people of Canada, we talk about changes to the
Income Tax Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada
pension plan, Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and
Import Act and at least 12 other acts and sets of regulations.
I challenge the government to get real about what is important
to Canadians. As many of my colleagues have said, it is not
housekeeping that we should be dealing with, it is the real meat
of Canadian life, and that is what this government is trying to
avoid.
Canadians care deeply about taxes because that is what eats in
to the resources they have available to build a life for
themselves and their families, to meet their needs and those of
their children and seniors in their families, and yet those
resources are being depleted.
What this act really says to Canadians is that the government
can decide how you should spend your money better than you can.
It gives a little here, it takes a little here, it adjusts a
little there, it nudges there, it puts up a carrot here, it puts
up a stick over there and whacks us and says do this, do that. We
will support this with your money. That is what this government
has done for so many years. It knows better. It can tell the rest
of us peasants who just earn the money how it should be spent.
I was just astounded with the government speakers, as this bill
was introduced into second reading, just praising this bill,
saying things like it is going to encourage charitable donations.
Out of what? We have families in this country whose income has
been steadily decreased because of Liberal taxes and bracket
creep and hidden tax measures. What are they going to do to have
charitable donations?
Yet here is the government saying it is going to encourage
charitable donations. It is the same government that cut back on
transfers to the provinces by 40% for social services to help the
needy and vulnerable in our society. Now it says it will
encourage charitable donations. Perhaps it does not know the
meaning of the word hypocrisy but it sure does demonstrate it in
its legislation.
Then the speakers opposite said we are going to increase the
contribution limit for registered education savings plans. Aren't
we wonderful? You can save more for your children's education.
Feel good about this.
The same government has cut funding for post-secondary education
by billions of dollars and now says but feel good, you can now
save a little more for your children's education. They are going
to have to because this government has cut funding for that
important resource, the training and education of our children in
the future workforce.
What are Canadians going to save with when family incomes are
declining and being eroded not only by taxes but by increased
service charges and every aspect of government is costing us more
and more?
Then speakers opposite said we are going to get rid of tax
shelter abuse. Goodness sake, it would be terrible if Canadians
tried to shelter some of their income from the tax man or the
finance minister, who of course knows nothing about sheltering
income.
Again, here we have a government just intent on getting every
single nickel out of Canadians possible, taxing everything that
moves through the grass. Do members know why? So the finance
minister can get up in three weeks and say aren't I great? We
are now living within our means. We don't have to borrow money. I
guess not, because he has gouged every nickel possible out of
hardworking Canadians.
1555
Their taxes have gone up billions and billions of dollars under
this finance minister's administration, $24 billion over the last
three years. That is why he does not have to borrow so much
money. He has taken it out of the pockets of Canadians rather
than getting his own house in order, cutting spending and having
program after program designed to tweak this, give a little extra
to this and encourage that and support this politically good
cause that the Liberals think is so important.
That is exactly why he is able to have some bragging rights. It
is on the backs of hardworking Canadians. We need to know that.
We do not need to let him get away with it.
We talk about promoting film video production in Canada. We do
not have health care. Our young people carry massive debt just
from trying to get training so that they can have a decent
living, if they can find a job in this country. Yet the
government has nothing better to do than to just continue to
tinker in industry when study after study has shown these
tax measures have unintended consequences that very often have
exactly the opposite effect and the government brags.
The last one is so amusing. We are going to make it easier
to facilitate transfers from registered retirement income funds.
We just had an Industry Canada study that showed that Canadian
saving rates have fallen from 12% to 2%. People are collapsing
their funds because they simply do not have enough to live on by
the time the finance minister's tax man gets off their doorstep.
We have retirement security in this country being cut time after
time by this government, yet here we have members opposite saying
they are going to do this little thing that will make it easier
for them.
It is hypocritical. It is contemptible to treat Canadian people
that way. That is just a sample of the kind of tinkering that
this bill does instead of really giving some meat and some real
substance and some real vision to the Canadian people.
I was struck in question period by the same kind of rhetoric and
hypocrisy that we had before where a question was asked to the
defence minister about the shabby treatment of our armed forces
and the low pay, where people at the lowest levels of our armed
forces actually are on welfare in many cases to support their
families. They live in substandard housing and have second jobs
delivering pizzas to meet the bills.
What did the minister do? He got up and said we really have to
support our armed forces who stand on the front lines and protect
us and who are there to help us in times of emergency. Rah, rah,
flying the flag.
He knows the actions of his government lead to the poverty and
to the strained circumstances in family after family in the armed
forced. Yet he has the nerve to stand up and say boy, these guys
deserve our support, and then not give it.
There is a saying that in America politicians can say whatever
they want as long as they do the right thing. In Canada they can
do whatever they want as long as they say the right thing. That
is exactly how the Liberals operate.
They always say the right thing. Everyone says boy, these guys
really have our interests at heart. They feel our pain. What do
they do? They continue to inflict the pain on us while saying
nice things.
It is time that we woke up and started doing what was right for
Canadians instead of just saying nice things, giving reassuring
words with no substance behind them. That is just another
example of what we have to fight here.
If we really want to help people in our country, if we really
want to give relief and a good living and bright futures to our
citizens, then we have to recognize that we cannot spend their
money better than they can.
We should take the minimum out of their pockets to give them
good services where it is important for them to do so and let
them decide how to spend the rest, what causes to support, how to
help others and how to care for their families' futures.
These made in Ottawa government managed programs are destroying
our future, our hope and our standard of living. I appeal to
this government to start recognizing that.
The government is like a running cafeteria. It has different
dishes laid out for people to choose from. Then it finally
decides that the people who are eating at the cafeteria are
malnourished. They are not getting good nourishment. What do
they do? They decide well, instead of having so much spaghetti
we will have more beans.
Instead of having lasagna maybe we will have bacon and eggs.
Instead of making a wholesale change in the way nourishment is
provided they are just changing the dishes around a bit.
1600
The Reform Party has a new and vibrant approach to giving real
hope to Canadians by getting rid of the mortgage on their future
and by letting them keep their own money to meet their own needs.
It is time we moved in a new direction for the country and that
is what we will be working toward.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, if I had closed my eyes for a moment I would have sworn
that was an NDP member of Parliament talking about education,
health care and workers. My God, something is happening to the
Reform Party.
I rise in opposition to Bill C-28. I find it rather amusing
when my Reform colleagues talk about people making $15,000 a year
and how difficult that would be. Yes, I agree. It is very
difficult for any worker who is looking after children and making
$15,000 a year to get by.
I also remind the House and all those who are listening that
under the Reform agenda every worker in the country would
probably make $15,000 or $20,000 a year. With its anti-union and
anti-worker bias everybody would be making that. The Reform
Party loves this global competition we are in.
Ever since free trade, the NAFTA and now that the MAI, which I
call NAFTA on steroids, have come into effect all that has
happened is that Canadian working standards have dropped and
dropped. They tell us that Mexican and third world standards are
supposed to rise, which we know is simply false.
I would like to talk about the taxation problems of a couple in
my riding, Mr. and Mrs. Fleming, who live in Grand Lake, Nova
Scotia. She has a plastic hip, plastic ankles and plastic
knuckles. She is severely arthritic and requires oxygen
cylinders to survive on a daily basis. She and her husband
wanted to look after themselves in their own home.
The government has suggested that because of her needs she
should be in a rehabilitation centre. That would cost the
average Nova Scotian or Canadian taxpayer anywhere from $150 to
$250 a day. All they are asking for from the government and from
Revenue Canada is to be able to write off the equipment she
requires so they can stay at home and look after themselves. I
find it disturbing that the government, through our
correspondence with Revenue Canada, will not even answer our
letters or respond in kind to that type of situation.
The government is saying that it will spend thousands and
thousands of dollars to look after them but these people want to
stay at home and look after themselves, which would only cost a
couple of thousand dollars. I find it absurd that the government
would try to pass the comprehensive bill before us without
thinking about the effect it will have on people.
Not once have I heard the Reform Party today speak about the GST
or the HST. It would be a real pleasure if a Reformer stood in
the House, especially for Atlantic Canadians, to say “If the
government really wanted to do something about tax relief it
would reduce the GST on essential home heating oils, electricity,
children's clothing and reading materials”. That would mean
broad tax relief for every Canadian, especially those in Atlantic
Canada, and not just for the very wealthy.
The Liberals talked about the RESP educational funds. I should
remind them that people need a job that pays well before they can
save any money to put away for their children's future. I should
remind them of what happened today in Goose Bay, Labrador. The
defence minister stood in the House today to talk about how great
the military is. I agree with him that we have one of the finest
military organizations in the world. Unfortunately a lot of the
civilian people who work in the military are being asked to make
major sacrifices in their pay and benefits. Some of them will go
from $13 an hour to $6.50 an hour. They will certainly not have
enough money left in their pockets to get RESPs to look after
their children's future education.
I have a question for Liberals and the Reformers especially.
They talked about more money for charities and bigger tax
deductions. My question is quite simple. Who is responsible for
the welfare of those less fortunate in society?
1605
I am speaking of the disabled, the infirm, people with no jobs,
students and so on. Should it be government that looks after the
welfare of those people, or should it be the responsibility of
charities? I will let the House ponder that question for a
while.
I also have a letter that a constituent in Nova Scotia wrote
which shows the complexity of the tax system. If it is this
complex how can we even trust the government to come up with
something that is new? It brings to my attention an article on
page 2 of Revenue Canada's winter 1997 GST-HST News, No. 27,
entitled “Tax Status on Salads'.
Each year the tangle of absurdity of Revenue Canada seems to get
worse and worse, but this surely is a masterpiece even by its
sorry standards. Let me offer a portion. Food containing
ingredients, whether mixed or not, such as chopped, shredded,
diced, sliced or pureed vegetables, meat, fish, eggs or other
food when supplied with a dressing and/or seasonings, whether or
not the dressing is mixed with other ingredients, is considered
to be a salad for the purposes of determining its GST-HST status.
A combination of one ingredient and a dressing of seasonings
which is sold or represented as a salad is also considered to be
a salad. All supplies of salads, except those that are canned or
vacuum sealed, are taxable at 7%, 15% in the participating
provinces. Generally if there is no dressing or seasoning
applied to the ingredients and no dressing or seasoning is
packaged separately with the ingredients, the package is not
considered to be a salad and is zero rated.
How many hours were spent trying to figure that one out? If
this were not happening in my own country I would be mildly
entertained. Sadly it is sand in the gears of commerce and
enterprise.
I could not agree more that the bill the government is
presenting is so complicated that even highly trained tax experts
are having difficulty trying to get through it all. I ask
members of the Liberal Party to send the bill back, to rethink
their options and to simplify it so that ordinary Canadians and
even many politicians here today could understand the
complexities of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
yesterday morning, Bill C-28 was introduced in this House. This is a
rather bulky document and it is clear from reading these 461 pages that
much of it is meaningless.
I would like to come back to the financial administration of this
country. Before the 1970s, at the end of every year, the Canadian
finance minister would report either a surplus or a small deficit and,
as a result, there was no Canadian debt.
Then, 1968 saw the election of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Thanks to
his delusions of grandeur and his lack of talent for public
administration, we started accumulating one deficit after the other.
During the Trudeau years, from 1968 to 1984, not counting of course the
nine-month Conservative interlude under Joe Clark, Trudeau and his
cabinet, in which, we will recall, the current Prime Minister served as
Minister of Finance for several years, managed to build a monstrous
$250-billion accumulated debt.
In 1984, we changed our red car for a blue one. The ideas put
forward then were those of the Conservatives, who reminded me at the
time of calves stampeding out of the barn for the first time in the
spring. Stir-crazy. You will no doubt recall that there was one spending
scandal a month and, in nine years, the accumulated deficit grew from
$250 billion to $500 billion.
1610
In 1993, we traded cars again and went back to a red one. Of
course, the deficits continued to rise, to the point where we now
collectively owe some $570 billion, with a zero deficit being
anticipated this year. We even expect a surplus, and the Liberals are
beginning to wheel and deal on how surpluses should be shared out.
Let me remind you that, year in year out, we currently pay $44
billion—and this will please former Social Credit members—in
interest alone.
The Minister of Finance, who is very astute, says “We will avoid having
to pay interest; we will reduce transfers to the provinces by the same
amount”. The same minister managed, over a three-year period, to reduce
by $42 billion the transfers to the provinces for hospitals, post-secondary
education and social assistance, so that it is not uncommon to
see a student saddled with a debt of $25,000 to $30,000 by the time he
or she gets his or her B.A.. Your child, and mine, has incurred that
kind of debt to get his or her B.A.. Again, the current Minister of
Finance is largely responsible for this situation.
The minister has some nerve. He is said to be a multimillionaire
and he owns Canada Steamship Lines. And he is very very familiar with
Canada's financial rules and also the rules of Revenue Canada.
Do you know what he does in order to avoid paying taxes, or in
order to pay as little as possible, in the country whose fiances he
directs? He registers his ships in tax havens, Barbados, Bermuda.
That is our Minister of Finance. We are sunk.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: That sure looks bad.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: That sure
look bad, as the hon. member for Longueuil so aptly puts it.
As the agriculture critic for my party, I would like to call
to mind a problem we are all facing at the moment with the
importing of butter oil, mainly from New Zealand and Australia, by
the big and well-known multinational, Unilever.
In late 1993, when we negotiated the GATT, later to become the
WTO, agreements, it was agreed that agriculture on which there were
quotas in Canada would be protected: dairy, eggs and poultry
production.
In order to protect those quotas, we set a very high duty, which to
all intents and purposes made it virtually impossible to import
dairy products, butter, poultry products and eggs.
This 461 page tome we are presented with here is full of
loopholes. When it has been weeded through, when experts like the
Minister of Finance have weeded through it, it will be found to be
full of loopholes. Some companies have discovered the trick of
importing butter oil at nearly zero duty, a mere 7% or 8%, so the
amount of butter oil has doubled year after year for the past five
years here in Canada, and you and I are now being served up second
class ice cream at the same price as before. Thus the dairy
farmers of Canada have had a 3% drop in quotas, which represents
close to $2,000 per dairy farm in Canada.
Since 47% of industrial milk produced in Canada is produced in
Quebec, the dairy farmers of Quebec are being penalized nearly 50%.
1615
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food insisted
on resolving the impasse. It involved dealing with the departments
of finance, revenue, agriculture, foreign trade and, of course, the
new food inspection agency because butter oil, which arrives by
ship, must be checked to ensure it does not contain BST. It also
must be checked to see that it is of good quality and edible.
So there is a loophole, an error. It can be imported under a
different tariff schedule, a number that was changed so that 49%
butter mixed with 51% sugar creates a mixture that, once in Canada,
can be processed to make ice cream.
Worse yet, the mixture can be put in a separator, the butter and
sugar switched around and butter made. So what cannot be done
legally can be done illegally.
Time is passing, and I wanted to speak to you of a loophole.
One of my constituents called me last week to tell me that she and
her husband had started a company to operate their farm at Saint-Ludger,
near Beauce. They have farmed for 30 years.
The Conservatives and not the Liberals were originally
responsible, but the Liberals have not corrected the injustice. I
was informed that there was an accounting void between November 21,
1985 and January 1, 1988 for farmers setting up a company within
that time period.
Before and after this period, the value of the milk quota can be
included in the company and when the company is sold, no tax is
paid on the value of this quota.
My constituent in Saint-Ludger is therefore penalized, but she
is not the only one. It is not encouraging, to be sure, but it is
estimated that there are 300 producers in Quebec and over 1,200
altogether in Canada penalized by this administrative oversight.
I asked the Minister of Finance to rectify this situation, but
it is taking a long time to get an answer. For the ships flying
the flag of Barbados, there is no problem. These matters are
quickly sorted out.
I would like to speak about employment insurance. The
Minister of Finance will soon achieve budget surpluses, but
unfortunately it will be at the expense of the most disadvantaged.
As we know, the gap between the rich and the poor is not getting
any smaller.
On the contrary, it is growing much wider. The proof is that the
government overtaxes workers on their EI premiums and has reduced
the size of the cheque they receive to 55%, with the result that
surpluses are accumulating that are expected to exceed $13 billion
this year.
In closing, I must say that I am going to vote with my
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois against Bill C-28, which leaves
much to be desired.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it has been an interesting afternoon. One would wonder
sometimes on which side of the fence one should really sit. When
I hear some of the hon. colleagues getting up and accusing the
Reform for all the problems that we have in this country, I
wonder whether I ran for the wrong party. Then after I listen to
that side, and those comments that well it is really the
Conservatives that were ahead of the Liberals and they are to
blame for all these bad policies.
1620
One day somebody said to me “You know, governments have blamed
everybody for the problems, even God”. Then the gentleman
pointed out that it was all due to Christopher Columbus. He said
that Christopher Columbus was the first Liberal to come to North
America. I asked him how he knew that Christopher Columbus was
the first Liberal and he said that when Christopher Columbus left
Spain for the new world he did not know where he was going and
when he arrived in North America he did not know where he was and
he did it all on borrowed money. Does that not sound about right
for our country?
Maybe if we keep on looking for excuses we will eventually find
somebody who will take the blame. However, it is going to be a
long time before that man arrives and does so.
I was astounded today to hear the government side say how good
things are here in Canada. It is refunding all these tax
credits. I was beginning to wonder where these credits came
from. As a farmer, before I go to the hen house to gather eggs I
have to put some work into getting the chickens to eat the grain
and produce the eggs. There had to be a source where the eggs
came from.
I am wondering where the Liberal government got all these funds
for refunds, tax credits and benefits as it claims to be doing
under Bill C-28. It seems to me that it had to come from some
borrowed money that it had in the past. When I look at the
ledger I think there is $600 billion of debt somewhere that
future generations owe. It also seems to me that there is a
Canada pension plan that has about a $560 billion unfunded
liability. That makes a trillion dollars plus of money that has
come into source somehow and has been distributed. We are now
redistributing and redistributing and things just do not add up.
When I heard the prime minister in question period say that his
government would pay back a billion dollars of debt or liability,
I quickly figured that out and found that on $600 billion and
$560 billion it would take about 1,100 years which will be the
next millennium. There is not much chance for me or my children
or my grandchildren to have any of those benefits.
What these people in government do not realize—and it does not
matter whether it is Liberal, Conservative or NDP as we have had
all three in provincial and federal governments—is that when
cuts are made in one place, it affects everybody right down the
line.
During the election in the fall of 1993 we heard that Reform was
the party that would slash, burn and destroy everything while
every day of that campaign we said that education and health care
would not be cut. We now know that the Liberals had a different
agenda. They were really the ones who cut, burned and slashed as
far as education and health care are concerned. If I am right,
about 40% of the funding has been cut back. Now they are slowly
starting to give a little bit of that back in order to get the
whole system back on track.
Farmers probably felt it more than anybody else. Not only did we
pay income tax on the farm, we also had to pay property taxes.
There were a lot of years where farmers had poor crops or prices
were poor and there was no taxable income. However, because
governments cut back on transfer payments for education and
health, the municipal governments still had to raise those funds
which came back on the property taxes. In order to make up for
those cutbacks and taxes, I would have to borrow from the banks
or the credit unions or privately the funds needed to pay my
property taxes or I would not be able to stay in production.
This is something that our governments do not seem to realize.
We have to create wealth before we can tax. We do not tax and
then create wealth. It does not work. It does not work in the
production of grain. It does not work in the production of
livestock.
It does not work in the production of machinery or manufacturing
of any sort. We have to have inputs. We have to create wealth
before we can tax that.
1625
What we have been doing is we have been borrowing money to more
or less give tax credits that should not have been given because
there was no wealth to counter balance that.
How long will it take governments to realize that this is the
way the system works. Whether we call it an NDP government,
Liberal or Conservative, the mathematics are there and they
function only in one direction. We can say one and one is three
but it does not matter how often we say it, we will only have
two.
That is exactly the way it works in farming. I could say to
those chickens, “I pay 25% more tax and now you have to lay 25%
more eggs”. It does not work that way. I have to either get
more chickens or I have to somehow manage them better so they can
produce more. That is what governments fail to realize. I do
not know when they will finally learn and change the system.
In the 1988 election when the GST was brought in we heard that
it was the vehicle that would finally get hold of the debt, that
the GST would be a fair tax. They called it the goods and
services tax so that if one had wealth to buy the goods and
services one could help to pay down the debt. We have never seen
a figure or an account where any of that debt has been paid back
by the GST. We can say that was the Conservatives and we have it
in black and white.
Then in the last election the Liberals all of sudden realized
that it was a bad tax and it could buy votes if they did away
with it. They came out strong and heavy saying “We will kill
the GST. We will eliminate it”, or something else. I forget
what it all was but we still have it. When I go home I have to
fill out the GST forms for a three month period. They are always
there waiting for me no matter whether I have anything to pay or
not. But it is still in the system.
This is the sad part. Once we have a tax in the system, to get
rid of that sucker is practically impossible no matter what
government takes over. It will have to be a government that does
not care about buying votes. That is the only way I can look at
it. By buying votes they do not get rid of taxes. They make
promises that do not have to be kept. That is the idea of
politics.
I was interested in the comment made by my colleague from
Calgary—Nose Hill about the difference between American politics
and Canadian politics. It makes sense that is probably what is
happening. When we look at the U.S. tax system it is about 30%
less than ours. It is not perfect but at least it is less. Its
production is more efficient. When we look at the value of the
American dollar today and the value of our dollar, we almost need
two of those little suckers that we call Canadian loonies
compared to the American buck. Why is it?
In 1976 I took my family on a little trip across the midwest. I
got $1.10 for that Canadian loonie. That is how we were running
our country at that time. Our farmers and businessmen were
producing well, but we have thrown so many taxes on these people
that we have finally bled them to death and we are all suffering
for it.
I hope that changes some day because, Madam Speaker, both you
and I will be better off.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, I appreciate
this opportunity to address Bill C-28 which, as you know, seeks to amend
numerous acts. Obviously, in order to speak on this complex issue, one
has to be a tax expert or else have some common sense. Since I feel I do
have some common sense, I will make my comments along those lines.
1630
On Monday, journalist Claude Picher from the daily La Presse made a
very sensible observation during the television program Salut Bonjour.
He said “The Minister of Finance should use the expected surpluses to
try to reduce the debt and individual income tax, and not pour money in
new or existing programs”. This is a statement that makes a lot of sense
and it is also sound advice to the Minister of Finance.
Like me, Mr. Picher could have pointed out that the GST was set up
to take money from the taxpayers' pockets and use it to reduce the huge
deficits of the central government. Since there is no longer a deficit,
common sense should tell the government to reduce, if not abolish, the
GST, and thus fulfil one of the promises made in the infamous red book
of 1993.
Like me, he could also have talked about the transfers to the
provinces. Everyone knows that the government, in an effort to reach a
zero deficit and even generate surpluses, shamelessly cut billions of
dollars in transfers to the provinces. These cuts hurt the provinces,
which have had to deal with crises in the sectors of education, health
and social programs.
So, common sense would dictate that this government restore
transfer payments to their original level instead of talking about
implementing new programs that would allow them once again to interfere
in provincial jurisdictions.
What is the logic in this government implementing new postsecondary
education programs when, as we know, the cream of our young achievers
university-trained at public expense are leaving for the United States
or other countries because the Canadian tax system is inadequate? What
would common sense dictate, given that this drain of scientists,
computer specialists and other professionals leads to the drain of a
large part of our capacity to innovate and, ultimately, our capacity to
create jobs in the future?
This is a worrisome situation on which no one, not even the
Minister of Revenue, the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister of
Canada, can put an exact figure.
In economic terms, the loss of the most dynamic, the most talented
future members of our society is a disaster, an impoverishment of our
society. Where is the sense in that?
This brain drain makes taxation reform all the more important. It
is high time our governments seriously addressed an in-depth reform of
personal and small business income tax.
According to Canada's taxation statistics, in the 1950s,
individuals and corporations accounted for the same percentage of
federal income tax revenues. In the decades since, fiscal policy has
changed increasingly in favour of big business, so much so that in
recent years individuals' contributions have increased eightfold. Where
is the sense in that?
It is worthwhile pointing out that the corporate share of
federal tax revenues dropped from about 43% in 1961 to a meagre 10%
in 1995.
The main explanation for this is the proliferation of tax
expenditures available to business, the major corporations in
particular. Where is the sense in that?
Is the Minister of Revenue in agreement with the Minister of
Finance, his colleague, who claims to be able to solve the deficit
without increasing corporate income tax? Why do the corporations
manage to shelter income from tax by influencing taxation
legislation? Why are they allowed this legal strategy, while the
strategy of individuals who decide to do work under the table
without paying tax is deemed illegal? This situation represents a
serious threat to social equilibrium, Where is the sense in that?
It is easy to understand why the disadvantaged, the people
with little or no income, try to get out of paying taxes by every
imaginable means.
The Bloc Quebecois has long been calling for a job-oriented
Canadian corporate tax reform. The Bloc Quebecois has long been after
the federal government about its taxation policy, and will continue
to do so, particularly where family trusts, the GST, tax havens
etc. are concerned, so that this taxation system becomes fair and
equitable for all.
Let us speak of family trusts. This is a shortcoming in the
federal legislation.
1635
The auditor general's report and pressure from the Bloc
Quebecois have only partly succeeded in eliciting a reaction from
the Minister of Finance on the subject. It is still possible to
leave the country without paying taxes owing to Revenue Canada,
since an acceptable financial guarantee is sufficient.
Furthermore, no reporting limit nor method of interest collection
is provided for this guarantee.
Since the October 2 amendment to the Income Tax Act, the
minister has been unable to report the tax plans this change has
occasioned. Where is good old common sense?
The Liberal government should use the grab bag that is Bill
C-28 to make the necessary changes to employment insurance
contributions.
It is vital the government reform the current employment insurance
system in order to put an end to the inequities it gives rise to
and to better protect workers, including seasonal workers.
The Bloc Quebecois also wants the Minister of Finance to
substantially reduce the levels of contribution to the employment
insurance plan, conditional on the job creation performance of
business. The reduction in contributions could be 40 cents per
$100 of insurable payroll.
The Minister of Finance must also create an employment
insurance fund separate from the federal government's consolidated
fund, as the Auditor General of Canada proposed, to prevent money
belonging to workers and employers being used as a discretionary
fund by the federal government.
It would make sense for the government to move quickly to pass an
anti-deficit law like the one passed by the Quebec National
Assembly.
Instead of digging into the public's pockets, the government
should cut all unnecessary spending and programs in its own
departments. As an example, I could mention the many millions of
dollars spent to change Canada Post's logo. That was the
government's most recent stunt.
Other examples include the hundreds of millions of dollars
spent rerouting international flights from Mirabel to Dorval, the
purchase of helicopters deemed unacceptable by these same Liberals
when the Conservatives were in office, the many millions spent by
the Department of Canadian Heritage to brainwash the Canadian
public,
along with the millions of dollars spent on Option Canada, a bogus
corporation, during the last referendum.
I will stop here, because the examples go on and on. I hope
that the auditor general's recommendations will finally be
implemented and a stop put to this scandalous spending. We are
entitled to ask whether this government is acting wisely, whether
the way it manages makes sense.
No, it does not make sense, because this government's policies
are widening the gap between the rich and the poor. A tax system
that drives a nation to poverty definitely makes no sense. For
this reason, and in solidarity with my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois, I will energetically oppose passage of this bill.
My common sense tells me that it is urgent that the people of
Quebec stick together as they move towards sovereignty.
That is what really makes sense.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Mississauga West, Youth Employment; the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester, Airport Safety; the hon. member for
Wetaskiwin, Aboriginal Affairs.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise to talk about a subject that is rather dear to
my heart. Probably one of the reasons I got involved in politics
was a total disgust and disdain for governments over the last 30
or 40 years. They have increased taxes time and time again and
have totally mismanaged the way they have run the affairs of this
country.
To remind everyone, we stand up and give all kinds of reasons
why we got in but most of us are here because we want this
country to succeed. We want this country to stay as a number one
country.
1640
We have to work hard to do that. While we hear the Liberals
stand up and talk about how great we are and we are number one,
we are falling back. We do have to work hard. One of the
reasons is our tax system.
Our kids are going to be faced with a tax system that is even
worse than the one we are faced with if the government keeps
going the way it is. I also mention, before I get into some
details, the mismanagement.
In 1969 we had a zero debt. Then all of a sudden we decided
that we better start spending. By 1972 we were at $18 billion in
debt. From there we started that downhill slide. By 1984 we were
up to about $180 billion in debt. At that time most of us said
that is enough. A prime minister was elected who said we will
not let that grow one more dollar, a $180 billion is a disgrace
for a country like Canada to have as a debt. The rest is
history.
In 1988 we found that the figure was about $300 billion, from a
guy who said he would not let it grow another dollar. By 1993,
$489 billion and of course today, close to $600. That is total
mismanagement. That is government out of control. That is
irresponsibility. That is saddling our children with something
terrible over their head that they are going to pay for.
People out there say they cannot trust government. Government
says it is going to get rid of the GST and it does not do it.
Government says it is not going to let the debt grow and it
doubles and it triples. In the meantime government brags about
what a wonderful job it is doing. Government says that it was
fixing the tax system. What is it doing? It is tinkering with
the tax system. It changes a little bit here, it changes a
little bit there, but all of it adds up to increased dollars off
that pay cheque.
Whether we are talking about chickens or whether we are talking
about businesses or whatever we are talking about, there is
always a little more taken away. Whether it is one and a half
cents on a litre of gas that affects all of us, or whether it is
changing the RRSP from age 71 to age 69, every time we do
something like that the government squeezes a bit more out of the
people.
When the GST was there, the Liberals screamed and shouted they
will get rid of it. It is terrible. In 1991, wow, this is the
worst thing this government has ever done. The government did
pay the price. We see what the Liberals have done in turn and we
see what the people have done. The people have gone underground
because of that. There is that much less tax being collected
simply because that has happened.
Most recently we can talk about the CPP. That is one that is
really dear to my heart. We had a promise from government that
we would never let CPP premiums go beyond 5.5%. In 1966 when the
plan was designed, as early as 1967 bureaucrats were saying it
was not going to work and we will never be able to maintain this
with the demographics of this country. We will never maintain it
at 5.5% So why does the government fess up, fix the plan now?
Of course we waited 30 more years. We now are tinkering again.
We have now decided to raise the premiums 73%.
Now we are telling a young person who earns $38,000 as the
maximum instead of contributing $945 a year, you get to
contribute $1,635 a year and your employer matches it. What a
great deal that is, $3,300 a year.
If it is paid for 30, 35 or 40 years, $8,800 will be guaranteed
at the end of that time. What a wonderful investment that is.
How can we build confidence in government with that kind of an
investment? If that same amount of money were invested at 6% for
30 years there would $275,000 in capital and principal alone.
What kind of annuity could be bought with that?
1645
Since I believe in young people and in giving a country worth
having to my kids I conducted a lot of research. Last Christmas
I visited two countries that also have pension plans. Last year
I visited New Zealand which changed its pension plan and
Australia which changed its pension plan. Then I thought it
would be interesting to take a look at Chile and Argentina to see
what kind of pension plans they had.
Fifteen years ago Chile realized it had a problem with its
pension plan. It had an unfunded liability and it was going to
reach a point where the plan would be bankrupt and would not be
able to pay out people when they turned 65 years of age. Fifteen
years ago the Chileans decided to fix that problem. They
designed a private plan to replace the original plan.
Argentina followed the same principle four years ago. I thought
it would be interesting to talk to businessmen and to government
and opposition politicians. Then I tried a really interesting
thing and went door to door in Santiago, Chile, with an
interpreter. I said “I am a Canadian politician, a member of
Parliament. I would like to know what you think of your pension
plan because we have a pension plan that is in trouble”. What I
heard was fantastic.
They said they had a pension plan. They get a stub every three
months that listed the companies their pension was invested in.
They bought their groceries from the company they had a stake in.
There is pride in that system. Twenty-three per cent of the
people had savings accounts big enough to handle their
retirements, and that is only after 15 years. There is a
psychological pride among the people that they are taking care of
themselves which we do not have here.
We should ask our young people what they think of the CPP or
what kind of confidence they have that they will get anything
when they are 65 years of age. I know what the answer is. I
know what my kids tell me. They will certainly take care of
themselves and are not counting on anything from the government.
That is exactly what government is failing to do. When people
are disgusted with government, when people do not trust
government, it is because of that sort of mismanagement.
We have to simplify the tax system. We have to make it easier
for people to handle. We have to flatten it out. We have to get
government out of our lives. All these countries have downsized
to the point where they can now manage themselves. If it is good
enough for Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina and Britain,
it has to be good enough for Canada. Certainly the way we are
going will not be good enough.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, Shuswap is actually a great place to live other than
that we are being taxed to death out there, and I can say that
with confidence. That is one thing. No matter where we go
across Canada one of the main problems we are faced with in any
meeting is overtaxation to fill the appetite of this government
and previous governments for taxation.
I get a kick out of the concern I hear from the Liberals and the
Conservatives. All of a sudden they are concerned about the
people and taxation.
We should never forget that there have only basically been two
parties in power, the Liberal Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party. Who is responsible for the mess we are in
today? It has to be the Liberals and the Conservatives. Nobody
else has been in power.
1650
That is reality, no matter what people hear from them when they
knock on doors in upcoming elections. They get down on their
knees, they raise their hands and they swear that they have
learned their lessons. They have never learned their lessons.
They have never in the history of Canadian politics learned their
lessons.
They have learned how to expand on one and the other's failures.
That is what they have learned. That is what we are paying for
today. Unfortunately that is what our children will be paying
for in the future. The question today is what are we willing to
leave our children in future. With Bill C-28 we will not be
leaving them very much. The Liberals could go a long way toward
helping our people. They could give them a break so the people
could stand on their own.
I had the opportunity in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap to send
out a householder. I asked the voters questions. I know that
the Liberals, the Conservatives and the New Democrats laugh at us
when we send out householders to get input from the public. I
can hear them heckling me. That is the problem with the old line
politicians. They are afraid to put questions to the people who
pay their wages. That is a shame.
I would like to read a response which I received. It comes from
a woman named Debby Cook. She has given me permission to read
her letter today. Mrs. Cook wrote:
My husband and I supported you in the last election and so far we
are not disappointed.
Your questionnaire doesn't really let us voters define exactly
our opinions. Therefore I included this letter in hopes you will
read it, and maybe get a better understanding of how the average
income family feels.
To clarify average income, that's about $30,000 to $40,000 a
year. It may sound like a lot, but look at the figures. Our
income is already taxed to the max.
My husband has to work like a dog just to keep our heads above
water, and that's without children or anything for entertainment.
Even if I was working, the burden would be more. Sure during
the year it would work a little better, but without having me as
a tax write-off—
It is a shame when we have to start looking at ourselves as tax
write-offs. She continued:
We would wind up paying every year, and still have to have my
husband's cheques docked, with almost half of it going to a
government that I'm not sure I believe in any more.
We may have a democracy, but because of high taxes, and lavish
government spending, the government does indeed dictate the
outcome of every year.
There was a time that a person could plan for vacations every
year, which are so greatly needed, so you don't lose your mind.
My husband and I can't afford to go on vacations, so he works
and works and works, just so the government can live lavishly,
while we peons, at the bottom, go without any satisfaction or
restitution.
So, you may ask if we think taxes should be increased for the
pension?
No, absolutely not!
Instead, why not cut MPs large pensions and the gross amount of
their salaries?
Our forefathers did not create a working government so they
could line their pockets, but only so there was some form of
representation in a united Canada.
These values have long since been forgotten, or upheld since
Trudeau. He started it, and the rest followed. Now look what
we've become. Split and divided in every direction.
1655
In the next part I asked my constituents if they thought their
family could afford to pay more taxes. One of the examples I
gave was in order to cut emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Mrs. Cook also had some ideas on that kind of tax. She wrote:
You ask if there should be a tax added or an increase on our
gasoline to help cutting emissions. Okay, there is a problem
here but not one that can be rectified by raising costs.
More and more families are having to buy second hand cars that
are in the 1970s and 1980s. These cars are not as well protected
against these problems.
If the taxes on gas are driven even higher there will be no
help, only hindrance. We need taxes lowered so that we can
afford to buy new vehicles. What doesn't the government get?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
I then asked the voters in my riding how they thought the
government should spend the so-called fiscal dividend, presuming
there will be some money left from today's high taxes after the
books are balanced. Mrs. Cook wrote on that topic as follows:
You ask if Ottawa should use fiscal dividends. Why not spread it
out and treat people with some respect? Give back to the people
that which they have given for so long. Then maybe the question
on whether our government is out to screw us would be answered.
Show us how hard work and patience can pay off. Give us a break.
Mrs. Cook ended her letter as follows:
It was signed:
Just one of your concerned citizens,
Debby Cook.
That is one of hundreds of letters that I received as a result
of the questionnaire. This lady is not alone. Her concerns are
the concerns of average people, hard working people and honest
people across this land. They are fed up with governments
telling them to tighten their belts while governments seem to
increase three or four sizes every year.
When they work like they do they learn that they have very
little say in a country that is supposed to be run
democratically. We know that is no longer so. It may sound
cynical to the people out there when I say this, but I say in all
honesty that I have not seen the country run democratically for a
long time.
Let us look at the Income Tax Act. When it was introduced it
was a one time act. “Come to us. Believe in us”, said the
government of the day. It was only to enact it once but it
forget to say that it would be once a year. On and on it goes.
The government wonders why the people out there are so cynical
about politicians today. That is one of the main reasons. It is
time the government wakes up to that fact before it is too late.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am happy to take part in the debate today on Bill C-28.
Essentially Bill C-28 is an act implementing sections of the
1997-98 budget.
In fact the bill is before me here. I see it is 464 pages long.
It is a very legal document. Section 1 of the act is probably
the easiest part of the whole document. Section 1 might be cited
as the Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, but for the average
laymen trying to work their way through the act it would only add
to the difficulty that we already have with some 1,500 pages of
Income Tax Act.
There was a time when average Canadians could do their own
taxes. We have a farm in the Peace River country of Alberta and
for a number of years we did our own income taxes.
However over the years it became more and more difficult and we
found that it was important to hire an accountant.
1700
The accountants I know tell me that it is becoming more and more
difficult even for them. They tell me that one accountant in a
firm can phone for a ruling on a certain section of the act on a
Monday and get one answer from the department of revenue.
Another partner might phone on a Friday and get an entirely
different interpretation. We have 1,563 pages of income tax
which is added to every year by things like these amendments. In
addition to that, we have thousands of pages of precedents and
rulings.
I would like the prime minister, who says he can write zero with
his famous pen, to make an act that is very easy to understand
and easy for people to do their own tax. In fact we have talked
about the idea of introducing a flat tax. It makes a lot of
sense to me. Take the income of an average family, use whatever
the tax rate is, 20%, and send that in. The difficulty I guess
would be what to do with all the unemployed accountants. That is
what I tell my accounting friends. However, even they are having
difficulty these days fathoming these kinds of amendments that
are coming forward every year.
Today in the House the prime minister said that he is going to
start paying down the debt. At the rate that he has suggested it
is going to be a very long process. I think he said a billion
dollars a year. With a $583 billion debt it is going to be a
very long process.
This is a government that has an insatiable appetite for
taxpayers' money. Part of the reason why is that we have this
massive federal debt that takes debt servicing in the form of
interest. The interest on this debt last year was $46 billion.
Almost one-third of the taxes that the average family sends to
Ottawa every year goes to debt servicing retirement. It simply
is not good enough.
I heard a number of people on the other side of the House today
say that one of the things that is going to be changed as a
result of Bill C-28 is that it is going to allow for transfers to
the provinces through the CHST to be increased from $11.5 billion
to $12.5 billion. I would ask the question: When will this
Liberal government be ready to return the amount of money to the
Canadian health and social transfers that it took away in the
last Parliament? The funding was $18.5 billion a year. This is
the government that reduced it to $11.5 billion and then tells us
that by returning $1 billion it is doing a great service to the
country.
My home province of Alberta has gone through sizeable downsizing
in terms of government operations, including health care. We
have all faced it. The local attitude seems to be to blame the
provincial governments. What we have to remember is that a
sizeable part of the reason that downsizing was necessary was the
35% in cuts in transfers from the federal government to the
provinces. Now the government is telling us that it is going to
return $1 billion a year. I do not think it is good enough. It
has to share in the blame for some of the things that have
happened in that area.
We have seen some demonstrations by students in the last few
weeks in terms of tuition fees and the high cost of education in
this country. That was part of the $7 billion in cuts by this
government. I think the government has to do the honourable
thing and return this funding to the levels prior to the cuts
during the last Parliament.
Yes, we need to get government right in this country but it is
all about priorities. We have to get our priorities right.
What do we have in this country? We have the highest rate of
income tax among our industrial trading partners in the whole
world. We have Canada pension plan rates rising by 73% over the
next six years. We have unemployment figures that still hover in
the 9% range when our major trading partner just south of the
border, which we export some 80% of our product to, is almost
half of that.
That has been consistent for 30 years. We could put it on a
graph and chart it and that is the way it would go.
Good times and bad times, there is a 4% to 5% spread between
Canada and the United States in terms of unemployment rates. Why
is that?
1705
I suggest it has quite a bit to do with the poor performance of
our currency. We are at a 35 year low for the Canadian dollar.
We have a third world currency in this country. People looking
to invest in Canada have to look at that. Canadians wanting to
invest in countries like Chile, how much can they buy with this
low Canadian dollar? It simply is not good enough.
What else is happening? Our debt in this country as I mentioned
earlier is $583 billion. It is 73% of our total gross domestic
product per year. It simply is not good enough.
The foreign affairs and international trade committee in the
last Parliament did a study asking small and medium size
businesses why they were not in the export market. What they
told us was rather startling. There were a number of factors.
Too high a cost of doing business in Canada. Too high a cost in
payroll taxes and business taxes. They also told us that the
amount of regulation was hurting them greatly.
One company from Ontario even suggested that after moving to
Michigan it had a much better chance of doing business back in
Canada across provincial borders than it did working in Ontario.
We have more barriers to trade between our provinces in Canada
than all of the European Union combined. That is absolutely
absurd.
One of the things I noticed in this bill is that there are
amendments made to the act which would allow some provision for a
change of status for family farms in terms of income tax. I want
to take the opportunity to mention the amount of duress that
Canadian farmers are under these days. I know about it
personally. My riding is largely agricultural and people are
hurting greatly. What can we do about it? First we can get our
cost of business down and cost of inputs down, but we can do more
than that.
This government has an obligation to go to the next round of the
World Trade Organization talks on agriculture and make the case
that domestic subsidies in Europe are hurting us greatly. They
are hurting us although we are all on a phase down through the
last round of the GATT. The starting point for the phase down
was 1986, the highest levels of subsidies in the European Union
and the United States in the history of the world. When we get a
15% phase down from up here, we still have substantial subsidies
that are hurting our Canadian farmers.
People are hurting. They are hurting greatly. This government
has an obligation to go to those talks and make that case. Our
Canadian farmers in grains, oilseeds and beef are subsidy and
tariff free. We are leading the way. That is not the case among
our major trading partners. I suspect that this government will
not have the courage to do that.
On the other hand we have a supply managed farm industry that
has tariffs of over 300% in many areas. Three hundred per cent
on one side with a protectionist policy and an absolutely subsidy
free, tariff free side on the grains, oilseeds and beef sector
that I suggest is going to be traded off in the next trade rounds
by our own government.
We might do some tinkering with this bill to make it a little
easier to write off something on the farm. The big issue
affecting Canadian farmers is low prices that can be greatly
enhanced and improved if this government had the courage to go to
those trade talks and be honest with the public and say “We have
a sector that is subsidy free. We need some help in convincing
other countries to do the same”.
In conclusion, there is a lot of tinkering going on with this
bill. It is going to add a lot of pages to our Income Tax Act.
the real issue is getting the government debt down, getting our
businesses competitive and allowing Canadians to keep more money
in their pockets.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, if I should look happy, I am happy for the simple reason
I am very pleased to get into something which is bothering
Canadians, it is bothering me, and it is the future of this
country.
I would like to refer to hon. members of the Conservative Party.
One of them when speaking the other day referred to the lack of
funding for provincial health care and that Nova Scotia was being
forced into closing three hospitals.
Members should fasten their seatbelts to listen to this record.
1710
The premier of Saskatchewan knew what was coming in this
transfer. We were forced to close 52 hospitals in one day. That
is what happened. In my province because of the slashing of the
federal grants to health care, people like myself—and I figure I
am lucky—have to go 100 miles before they can get to emergency
care. This is the worst we have had since the province was
settled in 1905. That is what has happened.
This government has been riding on the backs of the people all
over North America. It should not take pride and it should not
brag about not being in a deficit position. It has done it on
the backs of ordinary people.
I will refer to what may be the worst tax grab for the people in
western Canada. We go to the gas pumps all across Canada and we
fill up our tanks. Let us say that we put in 50 litres of gas.
Bang, the federal government has got $5. Just like that, it has
$5. Page 100 of the October Reader's Digest lists how much
the federal government has put back into the highways of Canada.
On average it is a little more than 21 cents. That is why we
have toll roads in Nova Scotia. That is why in Saskatchewan we
do not have any roads left.
An hon. member: Tell that to Young.
Mr. Roy Bailey: I could get Mr. Young. Maybe he could
come and give us a hand.
Talk about highway robbery. This has been going on for years.
What is the government's response? “Oh but we give
infrastructure grants”. Infrastructure grants come from other
sources of taxation and the ministers have to admit that.
The straight 10 cents a litre the government takes out of the
pockets of the people from Saskatchewan in a country that has to
move grain 100 miles to get to a terminal, and this government
returns 21 cents on $5 taken. And the Liberals brag about the
fact that they do not have a deficit. They are taking it out of
the industries all over Canada.
I would like to inform the members of the NDP caucus down there
about this. Do they know what the provincial Liberals are doing
in Saskatchewan? They are going around Saskatchewan with a
petition to get the provincial government to spend more money on
highways. Maybe that is a good petition. The provincial
government in Saskatchewan has not been too kind but at least it
has spent 40% of what it has taken in. This government is
spending less than 4% at times. I hope the federal Liberals will
welcome the provincial Liberals from Saskatchewan so they can get
some help for Saskatchewan roads. I am sure nobody on this side
of the House would kick if the Liberals raised it to 20%.
For five years the Canadian Automobile Association and the truck
drivers association have pleaded with this government to give 20%
of the money it takes, just 20%. But no, we are getting
something like 4%. This government is riding on the shirttails
of people who have to make a living in the transportation
industry.
The railway located in my town is slated for closure. There are
people south of where I live whom I know extremely well. In two
years they will have to haul their grain 160 kilometres just to
get it to a terminal. And those people over there are wringing
their hands with delight because they will be able to tax that
industry even more and put farmers completely out of business.
This is the one tax that affects all of Canada and this
government steals every time we put the nozzle in the tank to
fill it with gas. It is a terrible terrible shame. It is a
disgrace. We are the only country of our size that does not have
a national highway policy, the only country in the world. And
they sit and say “Look what we are doing”.
We know what they are doing.
1715
I want to refer to just one other thing. In Saskatchewan we have
rural governments. Rural governments are called rural
municipalities. These rural municipalities were created at the
time Saskatchewan became a province. We have a large number of
Indian bands in Saskatchewan. When the previous Conservative
government in settling treaties, which took a 10 square section
out of a rural municipality, promised and acted that it would
give that rural government 25.5 times the assessment in
compensation for the tax base that was lost.
But at the same time that government promised that for any land
that was purchased by the natives, they would also get the same
amount. Now this rural government has gone to court with this
government opposite because all it wants to pay for the amount of
land purchased is a measly 5.5%.
Some of our rural governments in Saskatchewan have no tax base
left and they are holding this up in the court and watching them
completely disappear. I visited two RMs during the Christmas
break and they are just about finished because they have no money
left to provide the services because this government has held it
up.
When I said I was happy to talk about this, I really am because
I come from a province that is just teetering now in many areas
because of the taxation of this government. Heaven forbid, the
next tax it will raise will be a carbon tax on more fuel and
take great glory in spending 21 cents back to the highways for
every 5 dollar it takes. Then it can fire Doug Young at the same
time.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, when
I hear some of the members of the Reform caucus describe Canada
and the mess we are in, they never really seem to acknowledge the
achievements we have made in this great country of ours. I think
it is very important not to simply be sensationalist opposition
members. I think sometimes we have to take time to speak
positively about our country. If the hon. members want to always
be the nattering nabobs of negativism, that is their own choice,
but I think that will forever relegate them to being the armchair
quarterbacks for Canadian politics. That is indeed unfortunate
because among them there really is some talent.
Periodically I hear some. The member for Peace River had some
good comments that I appreciated, especially relative to trade
policy and the types of activist interventionist government
policy that are doing more to hurt Canadian trade and exports—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
member. I have just been advised that the member has already
spoken on this subject. Resuming debate, the hon. member for
West Kootenay—Okanagan.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have heard this bill referred to as a number of
housekeeping items. Before I became a member of Parliament for
quite some time I had a construction company. Most of my
construction was new housing, rather than existing, fixing up,
remodelling or, if you would, housekeeping.
But occasionally, either as a filler or as a favour to a friend,
we would do a bit of remodelling. But you do not go into a house
and redo the drywall in that house if the roof is leaking. You do
not do an expensive renovation inside if the foundation is rotten
and the house is going to fall down some time after you have
completed it.
The government is tinkering with the Income Tax Act which is so
rife with problems throughout. It seems absolutely foolish to be
putting in a bill the size of a mid size town's telephone book to
tinker with a problem that needs major reform.
In West Kootenay—Okanagan I hold town hall meetings throughout
the riding. This year I will be holding 15. Five I held in
January before we came back to Parliament. I do not know what
kind of statistics the Liberals claim they are getting, but in my
riding and in the ridings of a lot of my colleagues I have talked
to, the priorities for those people are tax reduction and debt
reduction.
1720
The government says it is going to put a little money into that
but a its priority is new spending. Right now it is patting
itself on the back rather vigorously for saying that it is
getting close at least to balancing the books, getting rid of the
deficit. When the government came in our interest rate was a lot
higher than it is right now. Under the previous Liberal
government in the early 1980s it hit the 20% mark. A one per
cent increase in interest rates would cost, based on our $600
billion worth of debt, $6 billion a year in extra interest
payments.
They like to make magic with figures on the other side but that
is a pretty simple figure. If you have $600 billion worth of
debt and you have to pay 1% a year more on that, that is $6
billion.
At one time our interest was 12% to 14% higher than it is right
now. In our economy right now we see incredible pressure to
increase the interest rates to look after our falling dollar.
Some people wonder why the Bank of Canada is holding back so much
instead of putting the interest rate up. There is part of the
reason. If the interest rate goes up, there goes the
government's deficit balancing plan.
Even if the government manages to hold it down there, it most
assuredly needs to start bringing that debt down. Sooner or
later in the evolution of things we are likely to see, at least
in the short term, an interest increase and that is going to
knock the government's deficit plan right off the tracks.
There should be new spending but this has to be in very targeted
areas. Those areas are health care, education and
technology. Even there any increase in spending must be smarter
spending than what we are doing right now.
At one time Canada considered itself central Canada, the area of
primarily Ontario and Quebec. They were in the areas where
development was taking place and we in the west were considered
the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. That is what the
west originally was and we accepted that. Now we are starting to
come into our own. The west is the new development. It is the
new frontier in terms of technology, in terms of the economy of
this country.
Yet right at the time that we are starting to come into our own,
we are seeing the entire nation go into decline. Things like
capital gains taxes are high in this country. Yet the government
has even taken away many of the exemptions for capital gains that
existed, while in the United States the capital gains taxes are
much lower and they are dropping. While they are investing in
vehicles to improve their economy, we are returning to being the
hewers of wood and the drawers of water on a national scale.
If the government has to roll back something, it should not be
the advancements in our economy that we have made in the last
hundred plus years. If it is going to roll something back, it
should be the taxes and it should be the debt.
This country needs tax reform. The government knows that. Just
like the skits on This Hour Has 22 Minutes and the Royal
Canadian Air Farce where they keep lampooning the leader of
the Reform Party saying “I just love the word reform”, maybe
that is what stops the Liberals because they know reform is
needed. It just galls them to think that they have to use that
word. We do need reform and we need genuine reform, not just
tinkering which is what this piece of legislation does.
We need to do things like end the discrimination between working
and non-working spouses which basically forces people out of the
house into a job in order to get a balanced income tax. Someone
making $60,000 a year where their spouse chooses to stay home and
raise the family pays a lot more income tax than two family
members making $30,000 each. The basic exemption needs to be
balanced and need to be increased so that we get rid of this
bracket creep.
The Minister of Finance keeps rising and saying no new taxes.
The reality is in the last term of the Liberals there were 37 tax
increases and the government still pats itself on the back.
We have this incredible system of tax in, tax out, the goods and
services tax. Aside from the fact that it is the most hated and
aside from the fact that the Liberals promised they were going to
get rid of it, if we have to have it, it should be done in a lot
more efficient manner. Right now the government taxes people
making $8,000 or $9,000 a year. Those people cannot afford taxes
and yet they get taxed in any event.
1725
The government says it knows they cannot afford it. That is why
it has programs to supplement their income. With the bit of
money they have left, they are charged GST on everything they
purchase. The government says it knows they cannot afford GST,
therefore it has a GST rebate program.
There is something inherently wrong with a system that taxes
away someone's money with one bureaucracy and creates another
bureaucracy to give some of it back, using up most of it in the
process.
We have payroll taxes. CPP is going up 73%; a 73% increase in a
pension plan that if they pay in for a generation it will give
them less than $9,000 a year back. In the meantime, the MPs
opposite gave themselves a 18% reduction in their pension plan
which will see them getting a much more generous pension.
The Liberals are going to take away the seniors tax exemption
and give them the seniors benefit, the old age pension and
guaranteed income supplement tax free.
Heaven help those people who are collecting that if they see fit
to go out and look after themselves by raising so much as an
extra dollar because the government is going to take 50 cents of
it away. It will take away the non-taxable part. They will have
to pay tax on the part that is left.
In terms of spending, we do need to spend money on health care.
When health care was first introduced, there was a 50:50
partnership. By 1993 in British Columbia it was down to a 28%
federal share. Since that time on the national level, the
Liberal government has taken another $7 billion away and at the
same time it ties the hands of the province in how to deal with
this.
We talk about health care. We do not have health care. We have
sickness care. When I said we have to start spending our money
more wisely, we have to start addressing keeping people healthy
instead of paying their bills after they get sick.
Likewise with education, if we are going to stick the next
generation with increased CPP, with ever escalating taxes and
with a $600 billion debt, we better make sure we provide it some
way to equip itself for dealing with the mess we have left.
There are a few good measures in this bill but basically it is
like getting a pat on the back while at the same time getting a
kick in the butt. If the Liberals want to do something, either
start doing some serious fixing of this tax act or else stop
kicking Canadians in the butt.
[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 of the
motion 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:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division on the
motion is deferred until Wednesday, February 4, 1998, at the beginning
of Government Orders.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest of
those in breach of condition of parole or statutory or temporary
release), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise in support of Bill C-211, the private member's bill
presented by my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford. His
amendment to the Criminal Code would permit peace officers to
arrest parolees who are found to be in breach of their conditions
of release.
One of the primary responsibilities of parliamentarians is to
enact laws to ensure the safety and security of our citizens. For
too long there has been a technicality or in essence a gaping
hole in our laws which the legislation attempts to address. It is
most distressful to be in this place and learn that it takes
years to solve a simple problem.
As we all know, Canada is a large and diverse country. We have
many large urban centres and we have many isolated communities.
In most cases criminal offenders are able to move with relative
freedom within the country once they have served their time and
are released from prison.
Throughout the country one of the primary means of security and
safety of our citizens comes with the presence and the skill of
our valued police officers. They are the individuals who protect
us 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in all parts of the land.
Because of concerns over public safety and because criminals are
known to often reoffend, our laws permit a series of steps toward
full freedom. Most offenders are released through a process of
escorted temporary absences, unescorted temporary absences and/or
statutory release.
These steps normally involve the offender being required to
abide by a number of specific conditions. Some must refrain from
attending alcoholic establishments because their past criminality
was often influenced by their inability to consume alcohol in a
responsible manner. Others must refrain from associating with
specified criminal elements or specified individuals, usually
because those elements or individuals are rationally seen to be a
bad influence on the offender. In other cases those individuals
may require the security of being isolated from the offender.
To the public at large it seems ridiculous that our police
cannot independently arrest, remove and detain persons found to
be in breach of release conditions. Supposedly the release
conditions have been rationally and extensively considered.
Supposedly the release conditions have been imposed to protect
law-abiding citizens. It makes no sense for us to require our
police to attempt to contact parole officials in order for a
warrant to be issued authorizing the arrest of an offender who is
clearly in breach of his or her conditions.
As many in this place are aware, I came here to advocate the
protection and interests of victims of crime. I become greatly
concerned when I can think of many examples whereby the present
legislation is so limited in scope as to inhibit the ability of
police to provide that protection. It complicates procedures to
the extent where additional crime is a very real possibility and
it provides an opportunity for further victimization.
We all are aware of the strain on our resources at this time.
Police officers and departments have for years been increasingly
required to do more with less.
I certainly can foresee the possible situation where a pedophile
is released back into society and quite reasonably as a condition
of release is prohibited from hanging around school yards and
playgrounds. He will almost surely also be prohibited from being
in the presence of children while unsupervised.
If the police become aware of a breach of one or more of these
conditions, what can they do? Up to this point there has been no
crime committed and there may not be sufficient evidence to
believe that one is about to be committed.
Under present law police are limited to reporting the incident
to the National Parole Board. We know National Parole Board
personnel are not readily available in all parts of the country.
These personnel will want to establish the bona fides of the
infraction because in most cases they will not be familiar with
the particular police officer. They may well require an
extensive report of just what is occurring. They may not always
be available at all hours of the day.
Is it reasonable to expect a police officer to remain on site
until some unknown bureaucrat or parole official approves the
arrest?
It is not as if the police have nothing else to do. What if the
officer has other priority calls to handle at the time? Are we
to put our children at risk because of technicalities and
procedure? Our police need the tools to protect us. They need
the power to arrest the individual found in breach of release
conditions. The parole officials can always decide later whether
to revoke the release or impose additional restrictions.
1735
I will provide another common example. It is most unfortunate
but many of our citizens run afoul of the law because of their
problems with alcohol. When they drink they drink to excess and
they commit crimes. In an attempt at rehabilitation we release
many criminals back into society with the condition to refrain
from using alcohol.
Our police come into contact with alcohol in many ways. They
are called to break up fights. They patrol bars and night clubs
and they patrol our highways and our back alleys. They may well
come across individuals who are violating their release
conditions regarding alcohol.
Are they to await direction from parole authorities which may
take hours or days, or are they to effect arrests in the
interests of the safety of all and leave it to be ironed out in
due course? Surely it is more desirable to err on the side of
caution.
The mere act of drinking does not provide the peace officer with
sufficient grounds to arrest without warrant. Workload demands
make it impractical to maintain surveillance for long periods of
time. Who will be to blame when the police officer moves on to
other responsibilities and the offender continues to drink, gets
behind the wheel and ends up killing innocent people in a car
accident? Who will be to blame when he staggers through the
front door and assaults his wife and children?
An additional example comes from Mr. Ian Russell, the chief of
police for the town of LaSalle in the Windsor, Ontario, area. He
has had an extensive career in law enforcement having retired
from the metro Toronto police department. He was quoted as
stating: “There is no power of arrest for a police officer who
finds a person in violation of a condition of their parole”.
He cited the example of a convicted wife beater who was released
from jail with the condition to stay at least 1,000 metres away
from the home of his victim. Nevertheless he goes to her home
and stands on the public sidewalk. The frantic victim calls the
police. Officers arrive but the man is not trespassing. His
behaviour cannot be called stalking. He is obviously violating
his parole conditions but the police cannot arrest him or remove
the apparent threat until the National Parole Board issues a
warrant.
Mr. Russell is frustrated. He is also concerned because the
criminal has now been put on notice that he may be reincarcerated
because he was seen to be breaking his parole conditions. Mr.
Russell is concerned the offender may decide to commit a serious
crime to make a return to jail worthwhile.
My concern is for the very real possibility that the offender
may retaliate against his victim for notifying the police in the
first place. Mr. Russell in his vast experience at one time
chaired parole board hearings. He is well aware of the limited
resources and capability of the parole board to assist the police
under the present legislation.
One previous argument opposing the legislation cited the lack of
statistical proof that the present system imposes unreasonable
time constraints on the police. Frankly this does not surprise
me. This is the old let us wait until somebody dies before we
decide if there is a problem attitude. It is so typically
Liberal it is reprehensible.
Another argument suggests that parole and release conditions are
intended to assist the reintegration of the offender into
society. Therefore it is argued that parole supervisors are
better situated to determine whether an offender's behaviour
warrants apprehension.
There we go again. Let us consider the best interests of the
offender and public safety be damned. What hogwash. The very
fact that a parolee wilfully breaches his conditions is a pretty
strong indicator that he is not responsible enough to be
entrusted with his freedom in the community. Who is in a better
position to assess the immediate situation? Is it the parole
officer wiping the sleep from his eyes at three o'clock in the
morning as he picks up his bedside phone or the cop confronting
the offender in an alleyway?
In order to highlight the fallacy of the laws as they currently
exist I ask the House to consider the following. A prostitute
found to be in breach of a court ordered condition of probation
by standing on a corner where she is not supposed to be is
subject to immediate arrest, removal and detention. A pedophile
violating his parole by lurking around children is not. Just who
are we trying to protect?
The safety of Canadians is at risk because of weaknesses in our
law. Canadians continue to be victimized, some again by the same
individuals, once on the initial charge and again on their
release from jail. Our police are available and ready to do the
job of protecting us. They need to be provided with the tools to
do so.
I urge hon. members of the House to seriously consider fulfilling
this need.
1740
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford has put forward a private
member's bill, Bill C-211, to amend the arrest without warrant
provisions of the Criminal Code.
I assure members of the House that public safety remains the
government's number one priority in the operation of our
corrections and conditional release system. To more fully
demonstrate the importance we attach to the issue, I would like
to mention a bit about our present system of conditional release.
Almost all offenders will return, by law, to the community one
day so the best long term protection for society is through the
gradual controlled release of offenders that helps them to
reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately
there are some, including some Reform Party members, who dwell on
this procedure to exploit the fears of Canadians about the
reintegration of offenders into society.
Protection of society is the primary consideration in the
decision to release any offender. Only those offenders whose
risk has been assessed as manageable in the community are
released on parole. The transition from confinement to freedom
can be difficult and offenders have a better chance of success if
they receive supervision, program opportunities, training and
support within the community to which they must readjust.
Offenders who are granted parole are not simply put back on the
street with no forethought. Regrettably this is a common
misconception that again is exploited by some, including Reform
members, for political gain.
Offenders must have a release plan. They must leave prison with
a place to live, a plan for gainful employment or education, and
a community support system that gives them a chance to change
their previous behaviour.
[Translation]
Before granting parole to an offender, board members review all the
pertinent information available to make a preliminary risk assessment,
namely the nature of the offence, the offender's criminal record, as
well as any social or mental problem. After reviewing all this
information and, in most cases, interviewing the offender, board members
decide whether or not to grant parole.
In order to make this decision, the board relies on a number of
partners.
The first one is the Correctional Service of Canada, which provides the
board with basic information, including the offender's criminal history,
his behaviour in prison, his participation in programs, and his parole
plan.
Community organizations, police forces, victims and other people
also provide information on the offender's ability to re-enter the
community.
[English]
When the board decides to release an offender into the community
a number of standard conditions apply, including reporting
regularly to a parole officer and to the police as instructed and
carrying at all times the release certificate or identity card.
The board can also impose additional conditions such as
abstaining from alcohol, staying away from known criminals and no
association with victims or their families.
Breaking one of these conditions is a serious matter because an
offender risks returning to prison. Offenders are still serving
their sentence and they are closely supervised by parole officers
employed by Correctional Service Canada working out of local
parole offices. These officers play a key role in helping and
encouraging the offender to successfully complete the transition
from prison to the community.
The parole officer whose powers are considerable can recommend
directly to the board that a treatment condition be imposed, for
instance for a drug or alcohol abuse problem, and if the offender
does not comply he or she can be sent immediately back to prison.
1745
I would like to stress that there are strict measures in place
for handling violations and prevention of breaches of parole,
statutory release and unescorted temporary absence conditions. In
the case of an offender on parole or statutory release a
suspension warrant can be issued at any time by Correctional
Services Canada and the National Parole Board when there has been
a breach of condition, to prevent a breach of condition or when
it is believed to be necessary and reasonable in order to protect
society.
Execution of this warrant provides sufficient authority to
return the offender to custody until the case can be reviewed by
the National Parole Board. A network of officers is on duty
round the clock to provide for immediate police action by
telephone and warrants can be transmitted by facsimile.
In the case of unescorted temporary absences a suspension
warrant can be issued for an offender where the grounds for
granting the absence have changed or no longer exist or when the
new information becomes available that would have altered the
original decision.
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides ample and
clear authority for an offender's conditional release to be
suspended by correction officers. This enables police to arrest
the offender and bring him or her into custody.
It is also important to realize that police already have full
authority to arrest an offender without warrant whenever they
find any conditional release offender committing a criminal
offence or whenever they have reasonable grounds to believe that
a conditionally released offender has committed or is about to
commit an indictable offence.
We must also bear in mind that roughly 80% of offenders released
on parole and statutory release do not commit any type of offence
while under supervision. About 11% are returned to prison
following a breach of conditions established at the time of their
release. These figures do not include offenders released on
unescorted temporary absences where the success rate is close to
99%.
[Translation]
New measures to improve communications between the correctional
service and police were taken to ensure better community management of
paroled offenders under federal jurisdiction. This includes notifying
police in advance every time an offender is released, whether on
temporary absence without escort, parole or statutory release, as well
as providing police with relevant information when correctional
authorities have reason to believe that an offender about to be released
at the end of his sentence may pose a threat to others.
More recently, the government passed new legislation to better
protect the public against high risk violent offenders, by creating a
long term offender designation for repeat sex offenders for supervision
and monitoring purposes and introducing indeterminate sentences.
There is also the judicial restraint order requiring anyone to keep
the peace or face a term of imprisonment.
[English]
Open discussion and debate on issues affecting public safety
deserve our foremost attention and utmost scrutiny. We also have
a responsibility to ensure that our energies are directed toward
implementing new measures that are well researched and well
founded and most of all needed. However, we must guard ourselves
against the political exploitation of those issues by members
such as the Reform Party members who have been interrupting my
speech here today.
I believe our current legislation and practices regarding
conditional release offenders provide for the right balance and
responsibility between police and correctional authorities and
that the system we have in place is a sound one.
1750
For those reasons I believe that our common goal of public
safety would not be enhanced by the adoption of the measures
outlined by Bill C-211.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today in the debate on Bill C-211, presented by
one of my Reform Party colleagues.
What does this bill contain? First, as presented, it amends
the Criminal Code by making a breach of a condition of parole or
statutory or temporary release a criminal offence.
Subsection 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code already states that
a peace officer may arrest without warrant a person who has
committed a criminal offence or whom he finds committing a criminal
offence.
The bill proposes that a peace officer may arrest without warrant
a person who is in breach of a condition of parole or release.
Second, the bill would amend the Criminal Code by giving a
parole board the power to release the person or to apply to a judge
to keep that person under supervision, once that person has been
arrested.
Thus clause 1 of the bill amends section 497 of the Criminal
Code. This section, which is already in the Code, stipulates that
a person may be detained in order to allow the board which granted
parole the possibility of requesting that he be detained until a
warrant is issued.
This same clause 1 would amend section 497 of the Criminal
Code by adding an exception to the release of a person who has been
arrested without warrant.
According to the Code as it now stands, a peace officer may
override the release provision if he has reasonable grounds to
believe it is in the public interest to do so to prevent “the
continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of
another offence”. The bill proposes to add an exception to the
release provision at the end of paragraph (g) of section 497.
Third, clause 2 of the bill proposes to amend subsection
733.1(1) of the Criminal Code. It proposes to include failure to
comply with a condition of parole, statutory release or temporary
release. In addition, the sentences imposed for such failure
remain the same.
Why then do we oppose this bill? For the following reasons.
First of all, some would say that this bill would prevent the
release of dangerous offenders and could resolve part of the
problem of recidivism.
This could be true, but only partially so. Why should we permit a
peace officer to supervise an offender who has failed to comply
with the conditions of his parole? Not all offenders fail to
comply with their parole conditions and constitute a threat to
society.
Next we must look at the interests involved in this bill. A
balance must be maintained between the protection of individual
rights and the protection of the community's interests. We have to
raise the issue, which is what I am doing here, of everyone's right
to protection against arbitrary detention or imprisonment as in
section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms and the
government's need to protect society against repeat offenders.
This balance is unfortunately disturbed in the Reform Party's bill.
The three kinds of parole, that is parole, and statutory and
temporary release, are not the result of a court order and are not
granted by the parole board or Correctional Services Canada. These
three types of parole are much more concerned with helping
offenders reintegrate society. Unfortunately, there is no
indication in the bill before us of any interest in reintegration
or eventual rehabilitation.
I will conclude very simply by saying that, in this bill
introduced by a Reform Party member, there is no mention of an
opportunity for the eventual rehabilitation or reintegration of
offenders, and the Bloc Quebecois deplores this. It is essential
that any amendment to the Criminal Code reflect this principle of
rehabilitation. That is how we will build a more just society.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill.
1755
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to speak on Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal
Code as it relates to the arrest of those in breach of condition
of parole, statutory or temporary release.
The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford has brought this piece
of legislation before the House in an attempt to improve public
protection. No one can disagree with the importance of this
objective. Indeed public protection in a criminal justice sense
is of primary importance and concern to all of us in this House
and to all Canadians.
Having sat on the Waterloo regional police services board for
the past 10 years as chairman of the police service, I know
firsthand the importance of public protection and the need for
law and order.
My comments will be directed to amendments in this bill which
propose changes to the way we deal with breaches of a federal
release condition. The thrust of the hon. member's proposal is
to make the failure to comply with the condition of parole,
statutory release, temporary absence a Criminal Code offence.
Thus police would have the authority under section 495 of the
Criminal Code to arrest without warrant offenders in breach of a
condition because such a violation would constitute a criminal
offence.
Previous comments by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford
lead us to believe that police work in isolation when dealing
with offenders who breach a condition of release.
Further, he has suggested that the process of bringing an
offender back into custody is difficult and time consuming. I
remind the House that there is a long established system in place
for handling such occurrences. Correctional Services Canada and
the National Parole Board already have the legislative authority
and processes required to intervene promptly when there is a
violation of a release condition.
Correctional Services Canada has a network of duty officers who
can issue a warrant on a 24 hour basis. The warrant can be
transmitted electronically anywhere in Canada where the need
arises.
Members may not be aware that under the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act police have the power to arrest an
offender without warrant on the knowledge that a warrant has been
issued against the offender.
In such cases the warrant is transmitted for execution within
48 hours from the time of the arrest. The hon. member has also
cited examples where he says a police office cannot take timely
action when he or she encounters an offender who is violating a
condition of release.
His comments fail to realize a very important reality, that in
these instances and circumstances police work in partnership with
correctional authorities to assess and respond quickly to these
situations.
Federal correctional authorities view the police role and the
enforcement of parole, statutory release or temporary absence
conditions as a joint process, as a collaborative process. There
is good reason for this.
When police provide information to correctional supervisors on
breaches of conditions the breaches vary in seriousness. It may
be that an offender has returned to a halfway house an hour past
curfew or failed to report to the police station on a designated
date.
In some instances, the correctional supervisor might deem that a
disciplinary interview is sufficient to deal with the matter. In
others, he or she may determine the suspension of a conditional
release and the arrest of the offender is necessary for the
protection of society.
All this is worthy of note. I fully understand the hon.
member's desire to have an effective law and procedures in place
especially when it comes to apprehending those who pose a danger
to others, including children and other vulnerable individuals.
The government shares this concern. That is why, in addition to
the authority and measures provided in the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, there have been amendments to the
Criminal Code to enable the police and the courts to better
intervene in situations where a person's conduct in the community
may be potentially threatening.
For example, the Criminal Code was amended in 1993 to permit the
court to make an order prohibiting an offender who has been
convicted of a sex offence including a child from being in the
vicinity of a school ground, a playground or a community centre.
This provision also allows a court to make an order prohibiting
that offender from seeking or continuing employment that involves
being in a position of trust with children.
Section 264 was also added to the Criminal Code in 1993 to deal
with the offence of criminal harassment to cover conduct such as
stalking which places another person in fear for his or her
safety.
Another provision makes it easier for those who are victims of
domestic abuse to seek conditions of recognizance to keep the
offender away and to make it more likely that the abuser, not the
victim, is removed from the home.
1800
Most recently a new long term offender designation was created
for high risk sex offenders to provide a period of long term
supervision for up to 10 years past their warrant expiry date. A
new judicial restraint provision was also created to permit
controls to be applied to any individual who poses a high threat
and risk of committing a serious personal injury offence.
As members of the House know, the government considers the
police to be an important partner in realizing our safe homes,
safe streets agenda. The last four years have probably seen the
most intense focus on criminal law issues ever in Canada. Let me
take a moment to discuss some of those initiatives.
Arguably one of the most important changes for police work has
been the new legislation on DNA. The first phase of this
initiative began in 1995 with the DNA warrant legislation which
allows police to get warrants to obtain DNA samples from
suspects. That legislation laid the groundwork for phase two, the
establishment of a national DNA data bank.
The DNA data bank legislation was reintroduced last September.
This legislation will greatly strengthen our efforts to solve
crimes more quickly by identifying repeat and violent offenders
and it will make it easier to link cases around police
jurisdictions. With the continuing advances in DNA technology,
the data bank will become ever more important to police work and
prosecutions.
This government also established a formal national program under
the Witness Protection Program Act giving police better tools to
fight organized crime by being able to ensure protection for
those who risk their lives to assist in investigations. In May of
last year a regulation under the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act gave police new powers to conduct reverse sting operations.
Amendments to the Criminal Code brought about by Bill C-17 last
May provided the legislative basis for the police to conduct
storefront operations.
This government has put measures in place to deal with real
issues of concern today, but having the foresight to prevent
crimes is equally important. Again the police community, in
particular the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has been
a pioneer in promoting police crime prevention programs and
victim services. This government has and will continue to work in
partnership with the police in a balanced but determined approach
to reducing and preventing crime.
In 1994 the National Crime Prevention Council was established as
part of the national strategy on community safety and crime
prevention. Together with the council, the Department of Justice
and the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada identify what
works and what is needed in crime prevention in our communities.
This includes programs focusing on young people.
The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada hope
to move quickly on the crime prevention front and to follow
through with the Speech from the Throne commitment to increase
levels of funding to $30 million each year in this area. Both
ministers are looking forward to working on renewing and
developing new partnerships within communities, the police and
all levels of government.
Canadians rely on the police for protection and security. This
government has put the appropriate tools in place for effective
police work through legislation and policies.
We in this House have an interest in ensuring that the concerns
of Canadians are addressed in a most effective and efficient
manner. I would ask that all members ensure that we proceed on
that basis.
I would like to reiterate my earlier comments that the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides police with
ample authority to intervene quickly where there is a breach of
parole, statutory release or temporary absence. The Correctional
Service Canada staff are available 24 hours a day to issue
warrants of suspension and apprehension against an offender who
has committed a breach.
Moreover police already have the power to arrest without warrant
an offender against whom they believe a warrant of apprehension
has been issued by the Correctional Service Canada or by the
National Parole Board. They may detain him or her for a 48 hour
period from the time of the arrest until the execution of a
warrant. The warrant can be electronically transmitted anywhere
in the country if need be.
After a process of careful consideration, I feel that this bill
would create a power that is duplicative, unnecessary and
probably inconsistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. I
would therefore urge members of the House to vote against it.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
indeed a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak on a
bill which would amend the Criminal Code with respect to the
arrest of those in breach of condition of parole, statutory or
temporary release.
1805
This bill introduced by the Reform member for
Langley—Abbotsford will do two things.
First it will amend the Criminal Code to make a breach of
condition of parole, statutory release or temporary absence a
criminal offence. As a consequence, this would under section 495
of the Criminal Code allow police officers to arrest without a
warrant an offender who is found in breach of his or her parole
or release conditions.
The second part of the proposed bill is to amend section 497 of
the Criminal Code. The amendment would grant arresting peace
officers the authority to detain an individual found in breach of
his or her conditions in custody until the National Parole Board
consents to or opposes the offender's release on bail.
Immediately I want to say that this would not constitute an
arbitrary detention. In fact we are talking about the rights of
an individual who had the benefit of due process and has been
convicted of a criminal offence. His conditional release was a
second chance and I do not see why we should give the individual
a third chance when he breaches his conditions. The individual
is still paying his debt to society and by breaching his
conditions he is breaking society's trust in his ability to
respect the law. Therefore it is my view that this would not be
an arbitrary detention.
Before I go any further I want to say that, like my colleague
from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said in this House in
November 1997, the Progressive Conservative Party supports this
bill. The intent of this bill is positive. It will provide our
law enforcement officers with an additional tool in their fight
against crime.
The changes that are proposed in this bill are constructive for
society and are very important. They give police officers who
observe individuals who have these conditions placed on them the
ability to act and to act quickly and decisively.
The problem with our Criminal Code and our laws is not that
police officers do not have the power to arrest but that they
have to get authorization to do so. Timing, as they say, is
everything. Such events often unfold quickly and officers do not
always have the time to get the necessary authorization. Police
officers do not always have the time to get a justice of the
peace or to contact the parole officer involved. That is even
more true in rural parts of our country.
In rural parts of our country police detachments are often
comprised of only two members and they are responsible for vast
territories. With justices of the peace not always being
available 24 hours a day, it becomes quite obvious that the
amendments proposed in this bill would be very helpful for our
police officers.
Bill C-211 is intended to enable police officers to act
immediately to arrest an individual who is found in breach of
release conditions without having either to seek a warrant from
the National Parole Board or justice of the peace or wait until
another crime is committed.
Let me give a practical example on how this bill could be
helpful. An offender subject to release conditions that require
him or her to stay away from a particular address, either in the
case of domestic violence or in cases where pedophiles are
involved, could be arrested immediately upon being found in a
forbidden area.
Another reason why I support this bill is that it will give
authority to police officers to keep in detention individuals who
are in breach of their parole conditions. This means that the
offender in breach of his or her conditions could not only be
arrested immediately but also detained until the National Parole
Board has been notified and given an opportunity to react.
Offenders who are breaking their terms of parole are, like I
said earlier, once again breaking society's trust in their
ability to respect the law. I do not favour any sort of special
treatment for such people. Being released under certain
conditions does not mean being free. It means that these
individuals are still paying their debt to society, a society
that has already given them the chance to rehabilitate. This is
why I believe that their detention would not be an arbitrary
detention.
In conclusion, I would ask all members of this House to ask
themselves the following questions. Will this bill improve the
present law? Will it allow police officers to more effectively
carry out their duties and to better protect society? The answer
to these two questions is yes. I ask this House to work together
in a non-partisan way to see that Bill C-211 is carried through.
1810
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to address the bill introduced by the hon.
member for Langley—Abbotsford.
As other speakers have pointed out, Bill C-211 seeks to amend the
Criminal Code so as to make any breach of a condition of parole or
statutory or temporary release an indictable offence. Therefore, a
police officer would have the power to arrest, without a warrant, an
offender under the federal legislation, if he has reasonable grounds to
believe that the person has breached or is about to breach a condition
of his parole.
Moreover, Bill C-211 would give a parole board the power, following
the arrest of an offender, to release him or to ask a judge to keep him
in custody until a warrant for his arrest is issued.
When we debated this legislation, on November 6, the hon. member
for Langley—Abbotsford suggested that the proposed amendments were
necessary, because police forces in Canada are currently unable to
obtain a warrant, or to obtain it quickly enough to act effectively when
offenders who come under federal jurisdiction fail to comply with the
conditions of their parole.
I want to reassure the members of this House. These allegations are
absolutely false. Again, I want to assure members opposite that these
allegations are absolutely false.
There are legislative provisions and mechanisms in place to allow our
police forces to act quickly and effectively in this type of situation.
As far as the breach of conditions of parole, statutory or
temporary release, as well as the prevention of such breaches, are
concerned, let me say that the legislative provisions currently in
effect already give correctional authorities all the powers, and I mean
all the powers, necessary to suspend an offender's parole. This makes it
possible for a police officer to arrest the offender and to place him in
custody.
As for an offender who has received permission for an unescorted
temporary release, a suspension warrant may be issued if the reasons for
which the permission was issued have changed or no longer exist, or if
there is fresh information which would have altered the initial decision
if available at the time it was made.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk: You don't know what you are talking about,
not on this issue.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: I always know what I am talking
about. My family said so.
[Translation]
With respect to offenders on parole or statutory release they
say I am always right.
With respect to offenders on parole or statutory release, the
Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board may issue
a suspension warrant any time they deem it necessary and reasonable to
protect society. Such a mandate would allow police to return the
offender to custody until his case can be examined by the National
Parole Board.
1815
Through a network of officers on duty 24 hours a day and the faxing
of warrants—yes, Canadians are now using modern technological equipment
like fax machines—police can act promptly without having to wait for
the actual warrant.
As I have just demonstrated, there is a quick and efficient
procedure allowing police to intervene promptly. Nothing in the act as
it now stands suggests that police should wait for hours for warrants to
be faxed. The act gives police sufficient powers to act as soon as they
know a warrant is on the way.
I would also like to stress that, for serious breaches, police have
the power to arrest without warrant any offender on parole who commits
or who police have reasonable grounds to believe has committed or is
about to commit a criminal offence.
However, we have heard about many hypothetical cases where police
had their hands tied. We have also heard that, in one case, police had
to wait for a judge to sign a warrant before arresting a pedophile on
parole spotted near a playground. If this were true, I would personally
and unconditionally support the proposed changes, but these examples are
completely misleading.
A judge's signature is not required to suspend the parole of a
federal offender. I repeat, a judge's signature is not required to
suspend the parole of a federal offender.
As I said earlier, the correctional service may, whenever and
wherever it sees fit, issue a warrant to immediately suspend the parole
of an offender who constitutes a threat to the community.
[English]
An hon. member: At 3 a.m. in an alley?
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Jennings: You were not listening. Officers on
duty work 24 hours straight.
If you stopped interrupting me, you might learn something. I
already said the duty officers work 24 hours straight. The
response to your question is therefore “Yes, even at 3 a.m.”
So, correctional officials can at any time and any place
deliver a warrant to immediately suspend the parole of an offender
who poses a public threat even though the person may not have
broken the law. I say it again, even though the person may not have
broken the law.
In the case of a convicted pedophile, the Criminal Code
already allows a court to issue an order preventing the individual
for a period that can last to the end of his life from being in a
place where children might reasonably be expected to be present.
The Criminal Code enables the police to arrest without a warrant an
offender on parole who contravenes such an order.
When an individual fears for his or her safety because an
offender on parole repeatedly follows or threatens that individual,
the Criminal Code already authorizes the police to arrest the
offender without a warrant.
[English]
I would like to completely dispel the false impression created
by Bill C-211 that the police have limited arrest powers under
the current legislation.
They have more than sufficient powers under the current
legislation, as does the National Parole Board, as does
Correctional Services Canada.
1820
An hon. member: Where are the police at 3:00 a.m. in
a rural community?
Ms. Marlene Jennings: The member is obviously not listening
again. They work 24 hours.
I will end by saying I do not support the proposed amendments to
the legislation. I call on all my colleagues on both sides of
the House to reject these proposed amendments.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today on behalf of our police officers. Across
the country and for many years they have been calling for the
reforms offered by Bill C-211. In fact, the police wrote this
bill, the government not being able to develop a concept as
simple and as common sense as this one. They had to do the work
for them. Why did they do it? To keep Canadians safer. I am
proud to do my part to see that police officers are given the
authority to arrest parolees caught in violation of release
conditions.
Specifically Bill C-211 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to
create a hybrid offence of breach of parole or conditions of
release. As a result, existing Criminal Code section 495 would
allow peace officers to arrest without warrant an offender who is
found to be in breach of his or her parole or release conditions.
This bill would also grant arresting peace officers the authority
to detain an individual charged with such an offence in order to
allow the National Parole Board time to consent to or to oppose
the continuation of his parole freedom.
As a new parliamentarian and a trusting Canadian citizen I was
shocked to discover that this gap in law existed at all. Like
most people I know, I would have presumed that a person on parole
had such a privilege only as long as he was living within the
conditions set at the time of his release. I would have also
presumed that breaking those rules immediately removed privilege
of parole. But that is not the case.
Chief of police Ian Russell said last month there is
no power of arrest for a police officer who finds a person in
violation of his parole. Ian Russell is the new police chief
for the Ontario community of LaSalle. His comment appeared in the
Windsor Star of January 17, 1998. Mr. Russell is a veteran
of this war to amend the Criminal Code and has illustrated the
problem clearly with the following story:
A convicted wife beater is released from jail but a condition of
his parole is he stay at least 1,000 metres from the home of his
victim. Nevertheless he goes to her home and stands on the
public sidewalk. The frantic victim calls the police.
Officers arrive but the man is not trespassing. His behaviour
cannot be called stalking. But he is violating the parole.
Can the police arrest him and remove the apparent threat. Not
unless, as Russell explains, the convicted wife beater breaks
another law on the spot. Because he is only in violation of a
condition of his parole the wife beater could remain there until
a police officer went to the parole officer and submitted a
report or contacted the parole officer to ascertain whether he
would issue a warrant to suspend the parole. Then and only then,
armed with the warrant, can the police officer return to try and
fine the parolee, arrest him and return him to custody.
The parole officer has no way of assessing an imminent risk and
must rely on the peace officer's assessment anyway. The step of
contacting a parole officer is pointless and potentially risky.
This makes no sense. In the time it takes to contact a parole
officer and convince him of the need to arrest the violator, he
can leave the scene and repeat the whole business over and over
again.
As Russell points out, if the violator has decided he will end
up back in jail anyway he may return to do something “really
worthwhile”.
What is achieved in this scenario? Nothing except for the
protection of the privileges of the former inmate. I point out
that a conditional release is a privilege. It must be earned on
the inside, monitored on the outside and be capable of being
enforced without needless bureaucratic red tape. That is why I
stand in support of Bill C-211.
It seems only natural and only right that the safety of
law-abiding Canadians should come before the privileges of a
convicted criminal who has not even completely repaid his debt to
society. I prefer to think of this as closing a loophole and not
the reinterpretation of fundamental rights in this country. Bill
C-211 is intended to return the balance of rights to law-abiding
Canadians. That is those who expect our police officers to
protect Canadians and their families from known dangers.
This bill has a three part upside which should make it
particularly easy for members from all sides of this House to
throw their support behind it.
1825
First, the bill's only purpose is to help police protect
society. That makes it non-partisan and nearly controversy free.
Why would we as elected members of Parliament not help police do
their jobs?
Second, it requires no money. How often can we say that about a
piece of helpful legislation?
Finally, it confers no inappropriate powers on police. In fact,
it clarifies a power most people would say should already exist.
I can only restate that it is unacceptable for police themselves
to be handcuffed by the inefficiencies of a pointless warrant
process.
I am fully aware of the mine field we walk through known as the
charter of rights and freedoms, or should I call it the
challenges to the charter, which test the patience of regular
Canadians such as me. One of the only criticisms of this bill is
that without proof that present system imposes unreasonable time
constraints on the police, broader police powers to arrest
parolees who have committed no new offence would be unlikely to
withstand a charter challenge.
I am in agreement that the charter should protect our individual
rights and freedoms. As a member of the Reform Party I am
committed to this philosophy and support our victims bill of
rights. It is the ridiculousness of criminals using these very
rights and freedoms they have themselves betrayed to shield
themselves from punishment or to endanger innocent citizens that
I disagree with.
Is it just me or are not convicted criminals supposed to lose
some rights as punishment for their crimes? Would not completely
fulfilling the conditions of one's parole be required before
those rights are fully returned?
In the unlikely event of such a charter challenge I would hope
common sense would prevail. I would also hope that the
consistent and persistent request for such amendments to the
Criminal Code by our police community, in addition to concerned,
law-abiding citizens, would be taken seriously as proof that such
a need exists.
After all, if we consider our peace officers to be
professionals, we owe them a fair hearing of what they say they
need and we owe them the tools they need to do their jobs.
Reconsider for a moment the scenario earlier where the
hypothetical police officer was called by a victim of wife
beating when her husband violated his parole by coming within
1,000 metres of her. Because he could do nothing the officer's
time was wasted and the woman's danger persisted.
Remember, in order to protect her that police officer would have
had to track down the parole officer, submit a report and have a
warrant issued. Imagine what all this costs in terms of time, in
terms of money and in lost opportunity to protect the person in
need. With the chances of catching the offender at slim to none,
any cost is too high.
Here we offer police officers, at their sincere urging, a no
cost solution with a potential for quicker, more effective
response to real life situations such as this. As for the price
of peace of mind, simply imagine your own loved one in any kind
of catch-22 situation like the ones these police officers deal
with every day and notice how invaluable it really is.
Even if the requirements of Bill C-211 did cost money, we would
be remiss in not passing this piece of legislation.
On the issue of prudence, what could be more reasonable than
extending to peace officers the powers they need to do their
jobs?
Ian Russell again says this best: “All we are asking is that
the officer have the authority to apprehend and secure the inmate
or parolee, take him to a facility, and forthwith contact the
duty officer to see whether or not the arrest will continue via a
parole suspension”.
This is reasonable and necessary. It is no more and no less than
what is needed. It is similar to the method with which those who
violate their probation conditions are treated. Police across
the country say it will work and I agree.
I will conclude with one more example. In 1988 a psychopathic
pedophile named Joseph Fredericks raped and murdered 11 year old
Christopher Stephenson. Joseph Fredericks was on parole at the
time and a condition of his parole was that he stay away from
children. No peace officer saw them but what would an officer's
options have been had he seen them? Arrest Fredericks? He has
not committed a crime by being with Christopher. Take down the
particulars and report to a parole officer and request a warrant?
Would that protect him? Not likely. How about arresting 11 year
old Christopher under the Child Welfare Act as a child in need of
protection? Arrest a child?
In this case none of the above happened. Christopher Stephenson
was murdered by Fredericks who was caught and returned to prison
where he was slain by a fellow inmate. This is unacceptable.
I appeal to this House to put a high priority on this amendment
to the Criminal Code and to equip our police departments with all
the tools they need to deal with breaches of parole.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence
on the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
AIRPORT SAFETY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Transport. It relates to airport safety as
related to the divestiture processes going on across the country
with cutbacks to NavCan and to other aspects of airport
facilities.
Today the minister announced an independent review of
firefighting issues. We are very pleased to hear that this
review will take place, especially in consideration of the events
that have taken place in Fredericton, Quebec, Sydney and Manitoba
lately.
My main concern today is the divestiture of the Halifax
International Airport and whether it will be equipped with
adequate firefighting facilities after the divestiture. I
believe I have reason to be concerned because other areas of
Halifax International Airport have been left with substandard
operational facilities.
I would like to compare Halifax with a couple of other airports
around the country that have exactly the same airport volume of
traffic, that is about 2.7 million passengers a year.
Halifax has clearly been shortchanged because it has only 44% of
the hold room space that an equivalent volume airport like Ottawa
has. Halifax has 69% less in baggage space and capacity than the
airport at Winnipeg. Halifax has 50% less out baggage space than
the airport at Ottawa. Halifax has 69% less check in space than
the airport at Ottawa. Again, these are all equivalent capacity
airports.
The overall worst statistic that really is kind of discomforting
is the fact that Halifax handles 750,000 more passengers than its
rated capacity. That fact alone raises safety questions that I
think should be addressed.
However, on November 18, the Minister of Transport unequivocally
guaranteed me in the House that Halifax would be treated the same
way as all other equivalent airports in these negotiations. I
ask today whether the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the
minister, will confirm that this commitment would not only
address the issues I have listed but would also ensure that
equivalent safety facilities to those of other airports with the
same capacity such as Ottawa and Winnipeg are available for
Halifax International Airport.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am in a bit of a quandary
because the order paper indicated that we would be dealing with
the question put by the hon. member on December 3 when he asked
about NavCan.
I am asking for a ruling. The response the government has
prepared is to the request by the hon. member for a late show
question arising from a question in the House regarding NavCan.
I am not sure if this situation puts the member out of order
with his late show question this evening. I can answer the
question put by the hon. member at this time or if you find,
Madam Speaker, that the question is out of order the member could
try to put the question again by reintroducing at another date
his late show question of this evening.
I will leave it to you, Madam Speaker, to make the judgment.
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I did not submit a
question to the hon. parliamentary secretary for him to answer.
This question relates to NavCan. It relates to the cutbacks. It
relates to aircraft safety. I really would ask that the
parliamentary secretary answer the question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There cannot be any
points of order during this stage of debate.
1835
The period allocated for this exercise is almost over. May I
suggest that perhaps the two members could get together and try
to come to some kind of arrangement.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Madam Speaker, if you would like to start
the clock with two minutes for a response from the government, I
can respond right now to the hon. member's question as he has put
it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will put the clock
back two minutes.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Madam Speaker, I will try to be as quick as
I can with the different questions arising from the member's
question this evening.
First, I remind the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester that
safety will always be the first priority of Transport Canada. As
most Canadians are aware, Transport Canada has operated the
country's air traffic control system safely for more than 50
years. We are very proud of that record.
On the issue of NavCan and its management over the past year,
the air navigation system continues to be safe and secure. The
managers there are intent on maintaining the good and positive
record and on enhancing it whenever possible. Air traffic
control staffing levels at airports across Canada have always
varied in accordance with changing traffic demands and training
lead times.
I hope the hon. member understands that at no time is the safety
of Canadians put at risk, whether it has to do with the
devolution of responsibilities of air traffic control to NavCan
or the firefighting and rescue capabilities at a particular
airport. I have an airport on the outreaches of Hamilton so I am
very cognizant of the member's concerns for the airport.
May I assure the hon. member opposite that again he can receive
the unequivocal guarantee he has received already from the
Minister of Transport that Halifax will be treated the same way
as all other cities in the country have been treated in the
negotiations. He will know the Minister of Transport has stood
in his place and has put into process the firefighting
regulations which are again being looked at by the commission. It
will report. In the meantime—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to
interrupt but I cannot allow the parliamentary secretary any more
time.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on
November 22 of last year I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development to act on the 1996 report given to her
and prepared for her department on first nations social
assistance.
The report confirms the findings of the auditor general, several
internal studies and the royal commission on aboriginal people
that the department is grossly mismanaging social assistance
funds.
The report concluded that on reserve welfare dependency is
increasing, costs are out of control and the department is
running out of money. This confirms the Reform Party's audit
which showed that 75% of DIAND's social affairs budget is
unaccounted for. All of this is despite the fact the 1997-98
estimates allocate $1.03 billion for on reserve social
assistance.
Judge Reilly of the Provincial Court of Alberta was so concerned
that he took the unprecedented step of ordering an investigation
into alleged political abuse, violence, drug dependency, suicide
and other social ills. The results were staggering.
Grassroots natives are not receiving the benefits that are
earmarked for them because of the government's inept approach to
native issues. It is causing serious problems on Canada's
reserves and nowhere is this more apparent than in my
constituency of Wetaskiwin.
The Hobbema reservation is home to four Cree bands: Samson,
Montana, Louis Bull and Ermineskin. Considered one of Canada's
wealthiest reserves, Hobbema receives huge payments for oil
royalties. The children receive about $100,000 in trust fund
payments on their 18th birthday, yet this reserve is plagued with
high unemployment, poverty and substance abuse.
It has been estimated that 80% of the people on the Hobbema
reserve live on welfare and in poverty. How can this be possible
in light of the royalties and the transfers from the federal
government?
1840
Members of the Samson Band asked the same question. When they
were not provided with any answers they staged a protest to draw
attention to what they consider to be mismanagement of funds by
the band council. Four concerned members travelled to Ottawa to
seek a meeting with the minister but they received the proverbial
brush off.
I asked the minister to clear the air and order a forensic audit
of the Samson Band's finances. The hon. member for Skeena,
Reform's Indian affairs critic, also asked the minister for an
independent audit. Our requests fell on deaf ears.
The reluctance of the minister and her officials to get involved
is another example of this government's determination to maintain
the status quo, to keep people in poverty and to perpetuate
dependency. One of Hobbema's respected elders, Norman
Yellowbird, wrote in the Wetaskiwin Times that “the
conditions outlined in Judge Reilly's report can be found on
almost every reserve in Alberta, if not Canada”.
It is increasingly obvious that there are bands operating
outside normal bounds of acceptable standards in terms of proper
fair management of their social assistance programs. The human
cost of this accountability crisis is both staggering and
appalling. An effective monitoring appeal process is urgently
required, preferably one run by the Indian people that is
designed to protect against excess and to ensure equity and
accountability.
Aboriginal people are clearly unhappy. Canadian taxpayers do
not want to see their hard earned dollars misspent. How many
more reports are needed? What kind of proof is required before
this government abandons its practice of following the course of
least resistance?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for
Wetaskiwin on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
Aboriginal inclusion in Canada's economic prosperity is
important not only for aboriginal people but for all Canadians.
The aboriginal labour force is young and is growing at twice the
national average. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
estimated that 300,000 jobs will be needed by the year 2016. A
major increase in the aboriginal economy and activity, both rural
and urban, is essential to meet the needs and aspirations of
aboriginal youth.
The government is committed to working in partnership with the
aboriginal leadership and business people, Canadian industry, the
provinces and the voluntary sector to take action that will
create the conditions to maximize economic activities and jobs in
aboriginal communities.
On January 7 this government announced our response to the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. This response includes a
commitment to change social assistance on reserves from passive
income maintenance toward more active measures such as training
and skills development to increase individual and community self
reliance.
As part of our aboriginal action plan we announced the creation
of an aboriginal human resources development council which will
bring together the public and private sectors to identify
employment opportunities for aboriginal people. The Regina
Leader Post welcomed this initiative and said that it is
encouraging that workable solutions are now being developed to
help native people help themselves.
The solution is not to cut almost a billion dollars out of
programs that support basic services for aboriginal people as the
Reform Party plans to do, nor is the solution assimilation or
Ottawa imposed paternalism. The solution is to work with
aboriginal communities and businesses to help them acquire the
tools they need to become full partners in Canada's future.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)