CONTENTS
Friday, February 17, 1995
Bill C-59. Motion for third reading. 9765
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9769
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9774
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9774
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9776
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9776
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9776
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9776
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9777
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9777
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9777
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9777
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9777
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9777
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9777
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 9778
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 9778
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9778
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9778
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9779
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9779
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9779
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9779
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9779
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9780
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9780
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9781
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9782
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9782
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9783
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9784
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9786
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9786
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9786
Bill C-59. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 9787
Division on motion deferred 9790
Division on motion deferred. 9790
9765
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 17, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and
the Income Tax Application Rules, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to begin the third reading debate on
Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. Hon. members
will recall that C-59 will put into law several measures
announced in the 1994 budget.
That budget was a first step in a historic two stage process to
bring government finances under control. This is essential if we
are to sustain the conditions for continued economic growth,
especially easing an important source of pressure on interest
rates. The budget set out a concrete interim budget to cut the
deficit to 3 per cent of our GNP in three years. It made clear our
ultimate goal to eliminate the deficit completely.
But last February's budget did more than establish a target.
The previous government had deficit targets galore. Instead, this
budget took hard fiscal action to set a real deficit cutting process
in motion by reducing spending more than any other budget in a
decade.
(1005)
However, given the dimensions of our deficit and debt
dilemma, spending cuts alone would not have been enough to
meet our target and restore confidence in the fiscal commitment
of government. That is why revenue increases were also
necessary.
I should also remind my hon. colleagues that for every $1 in
revenue gains, we took $5 in action to reduce government
spending. We did not take the decision to increase revenues
lightly. There is no member of this government who does not
recognize the tax fatigue and resentment felt by so many
Canadians. That is why our government refused to hike tax
rates.
Instead, we felt the better way to raise the necessary revenue
was to broaden the tax base and increase fairness within the tax
system. This is what Bill C-59 does. In particular, it also makes
the corporate tax system fairer and better targets the tax
assistance available to certain businesses.
Because C-59 increases the fairness of Canada's tax system in
a number of areas, I believe the bill deserves the non-partisan
support of all sides of the House. Let me deal briefly with some
of the measures in this bill.
Bill C-59 eliminates the $100,000 lifetime capital gains
exemption. This action addresses a growing body of criticism
concerning the exemption that it distorts the tax system by
totally exempting certain gains while taxing others, that it is
essentially of benefit to high income Canadians, and that it
makes the tax system more complex.
In 1992 thanks to a wide range of allowable tax deductions
and credits, some 12,000 Canadians who earned $50,000 or
more paid no income tax. Of this group, over 4,700 people used
their lifetime capital gains deduction to help eliminate their tax
payable. These people did nothing wrong, but at a time when
most Canadians feel overtaxed there is little tolerance for
measures that help well off individuals avoid taxes completely.
Eliminating the exemption will mean a system of taxing
capital gains which will be fairer, simpler and more sustainable.
I should point out that the exemptions will be withdrawn only
for a gains occurring after February 22, 1994, the last budget
day.
Another fairer measure in C-59 is the provision to tax the full
value of employer paid life insurance premiums. This will
improve tax equity. There is simply no justification why
employees with employer paid life insurance should receive a
tax benefit while self-employed Canadians who have to buy
their own life insurance must pay with after tax dollars.
Currently only the portion of coverage over $25,000 is a
taxable benefit. By basing the benefit on the full amount the tax
system will be fairer, treating all Canadians equitably. The
impact on group plan members will not be harsh. On average,
employees under such plans receive about $125 of benefits a
9766
year as a result of employers paying insurance premiums for the
first $25,000 of coverage. Under this proposal the combined
federal and provincial taxes will increase by some $30 to $50 a
year and the increase for 1994 will be half of this amount.
In another personal income tax measure, Bill C-59 will
subject the age credit to an income test. Canada's debt and the
burden of high taxes and interest rates it imposes on all
Canadians, including seniors, demands that government
spending be both fair and effective. This measure meets that test
by ensuring that assistance goes to seniors who need it, but not
to those who have annual incomes hitting $50,000.
(1010)
Under the current tax system all Canadians 65 and over are
eligible for the age credit. It delivers a combined
federal-provincial tax credit of about $950 per year. Under this
proposed legislation, individuals with net incomes below
$25,921 will retain their full credit. For people with net incomes
above the threshold, the credit will be reduced at a rate of 15 per
cent of their net incomes exceeding $25,921 and the threshold
will be indexed.
Let me make clear that fully 75 per cent of seniors, which is
2.6 million individuals, will not be affected. Moreover, most of
those who will be affected will continue to receive partial
benefits. Only 6 per cent of seniors will no longer receive
benefits because their income exceeds $49,134, the threshold at
which benefits are exhausted.
I should also point out that the reduction will be phased in
over two years. For 1994 the reduction will be one-half of the
amount otherwise determined. As well, the age credit will
remain transferable to a spouse.
A further measure in C-59 extends on an ongoing basis a
program that has become an important part of our social
infrastructure, the RRSP based homebuyers plan. First time
homebuyers can withdraw up to $20,000 tax free from their own
RRSPs and repay the money over 15 years. By last February
about 234,000 people had already participated in the plan with
an additional 30,000 participants expected each year.
Moving on, Canadians will be encouraged to give more to
charities because Bill C-59 enhances the charitable tax credit. It
used to be that taxpayers gained 17 per cent on the first $250 of
their total charitable donations and 29 per cent on the remaining
donations. Now the threshold for the higher credit rate will be
$200, not $250. The fact that individuals will now receive a
greater benefit when they give more than $200 in a year will
further encourage charitable giving.
I would now like to remind the House of the measures in C-59
relating to the corporate sector. There is a perception among
many Canadians that businesses receive preferential tax
treatment compared to individual taxpayers.
The fact is often overlooked that businesses, while paying
corporate income tax, must also pay many other taxes such as
provincial corporate income taxes, capital and insurance
premium taxes, payroll levies and municipal property taxes. In
fact, the total corporate tax bill last year was about $44 billion.
However, Bill C-59 does take steps to reduce deductions and
eliminate some existing loopholes.
For example, the tax deduction for eligible business meals
and entertainment expenses is reduced from 80 per cent to 50 per
cent. All businesses large and small will now pay an appropriate
share of tax, making the tax system fair.
The element of personal consumption will also be better
reflected in these expenses. This measure is consistent with
business meals and entertainment expense deductions in
Ontario, Quebec and the United States. It will apply to expenses
incurred after February 21, 1994.
Another measure in C-59 restricts the use of certain tax
shelters where investors in partnership could claim tax
deductible losses and/or receive cash contributions which
actually exceed the cost of their investment. The amount of
losses that may be flowed out to an investor will now be
restricted. This will help to limit the erosion of the tax base,
ensuring that business pays a fair share in the national deficit
battle. As well, to prevent further erosion of the tax base, the use
of the purchase butterfly tax avoidance technique will be
curtailed.
(1015)
The Income Tax Act allows for corporate property to be
divided pro rata among its shareholders on a tax deferred basis.
This helps in dividing up a corporation so that shareholders can
carry on separately the corporation's business.
Unfortunately the rules have been used to avoid or defer tax
on the sale of corporate assets. As a result the government
introduced rules in May 1993 restricting cross-border purchase
butterfly transactions. Bill C-59 extends these rules to all
purchase butterflies. The tax advantage of structuring a
corporate asset sale for this purchase will no longer exist.
The next measure I want to discuss is the elimination or
reduction of the regional investment tax credit, known as ITC. It
has become evident that regional ITCs are not a cost effective
means of attracting incremental investments, nor do they help to
reduce economic disparity. Bill C-59 eliminates a special
investment tax credit and the regional component of the
scientific research and experimental development tax credit.
The Atlantic investment tax credit rate will be reduced from 15
per cent to 10 per cent.
9767
While these changes will come into effect after 1994 they
will not apply to property acquired after 1994 that relates to
a project which was under construction before the last budget
date, nor will they apply to property acquired at any time under
a written agreement entered into before the budget date.
Another fair tax measure in Bill C-59 makes large private
corporations ineligible for the small business deduction. Relief
will be targeted where it is intended, just to small business. The
small business deduction lowers the tax rate, thereby providing
small corporations with more after tax income for reinvestment
and expansion.
However, under the current rules some very large
corporations are obtaining this benefit. Large corporations with
taxable capital of $15 million or more will no longer be eligible
for the small business deduction. As well, the rule changes will
reduce the deduction for corporations having taxable capital of
between $10 million and $15 million.
The last measure in Bill C-59 that I want to discuss allows for
a deduction for contributions into government mandated mine
reclamation trust funds in the year in which they are made.
Under the current income tax rules mine reclamation expenses
are deductible only in the year in which they are incurred. This
addresses the concerns of Canada's mining industry.
In conclusion, Bill C-59 takes progressive measures to
broaden the tax base for fiscal renewal and to improve the
fairness and efficiency of the tax system. Those are goals that we
can all accept and this legislation deserves the full support of the
House.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to the
income tax bill before the House today. This legislation
implements measures announced by the minister in his budget
on February 22, 1994, almost a year ago.
The Bloc Quebecois was opposed to the bill on second reading
and in committee, and its position has not changed. Granted, we
did find a number of positive measures in the bill. These
include, for instance, the decision to extend provisions allowing
first-time homebuyers to use their RRSP funds; measures to
increase the value of the charitable donations tax credit; and
incentives for mining companies to engage in mine reclamation,
although at this level, the government is not exactly applying the
principle ``the polluter pays''.
(1020)
The Bloc also welcomed the proposal to reduce the percentage
of meal expenses recognized for tax purposes from 80 per cent
to 50 per cent. As you know, companies may deduct meals as
part of the cost of doing business, and reducing the percentage of
such expenses from 80 per cent to 50 per cent is at least a first
step. These are some of the positive aspects we see in the bill,
but there are negative aspects the Bloc cannot accept.
This morning, I will focus on three specific points. The first
one is the reduction in value of the age tax credit; the second
concerns the reduction or elimination of tax credits for regional
investment; and the third concerns the inadequacy of measures
aimed at curtailing certain tax avoidance techniques.
As far as the age tax credit is concerned, the Bloc Quebecois
presented an amendment that was defeated in the House, an
amendment rejecting a provision in the bill that reduces the
value of the age tax credit for persons 65 and over. The reduction
concerns people with net incomes between $25,000 and
$50,000. The age tax credit for these people will be reduced. For
some people these amounts mean a lot, since it works out to a
federal tax reduction of $610, while at the provincial level, it
adds up to $950. That is a substantial reduction.
Of course, our friends across the way told us this would not
affect seniors in need, those with an income of $25,000 or less.
In fact, this hits the middle class. Once again, the government is
hitting the middle class, and that is why the Bloc Quebecois
objects to this provision.
So who is affected? People who worked all their lives and
accumulated a pension fund and did everything they could to
provide for decent incomes for their retirement. These people
had a deduction. It was a form of recognition. It was like saying:
You are people who helped to build Canada or Quebec, people
who worked all their lives to enjoy decent incomes for their
retirement. They were entitled to a tax credit of $3,482, and 17
per cent of that worked out to the amounts I mentioned earlier.
As a result of the bill before the House today, this tax credit will
be eliminated.
Certainly, in the case of people with incomes of perhaps
$60,000, $70,000 or $80,000, we could understand abolishing
the tax credit. However, in the case of people earning $28,000,
$30,000, or $35,000, we do not believe it is right to reduce the
benefits they enjoyed under the old legislation. Certainly the
government is saving money with this measure. It is expected to
save $170 million in 1995-96, but this is $170 million once
again saved on the backs of the middle class. At some point, the
Canadian middle class will have had enough of always paying
taxes and not always getting the necessary benefit or the
necessary recognition from society.
As we have already spoken at length on this matter, I am going
now to deal primarily, in the second part of my remarks, with the
disappearance of the regional investment tax credit. You know
that Canada used to offer benefits in the form of tax credits to
people who invested in certain parts of the country, primarily the
Atlantic provinces, the Gaspé Peninsula, and certain northern
regions.
9768
There was a special investment tax credit. It was a 30 per
cent tax credit for eligible investments in machinery, buildings,
and new equipment for manufacturing and production purposes.
This tax credit has been eliminated. Another tax credit is also
affected. It is the Atlantic/Gaspé tax credit. It was a tax credit
of 15 per cent, again for buildings, machinery, and equipment
to be used in resource development. This tax credit has been
reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. The third tax credit
affected is the scientific research and experimental
development investment tax credit. It is a 30 per cent tax credit,
again in the Atlantic region and the Gaspé, and has been
reduced to 20 per cent, the level for all the other regions. This
means that the Atlantic region and the Gaspé have lost the
benefits they enjoyed under the last budget.
(1025)
These measures affecting tax credits will mean a saving of
$90 million for the government in 1995-96 and of $95 million in
1996-97. The most ironic part of all of this is the reason given
by the finance minister in his budget plan of last February and in
the budget document entitled ``Tax measures: Supplementary
Information''. His budget plan indicates, and I quote, ``These
credits have not been effective in attracting new investments to
designated regions or reducing economic disparity''. The
document entitled ``Supplementary Information'' states in
regard to the budget: ``Regional investment tax credits have not
generally been considered to be cost effective''.
Basically, it says that these tax credits did not have a very high
level of effectiveness and are not an effective means of
attracting investments. So we would have expected the minister
to completely eliminate these tax credits because they are not
effective, but this has not happened. One tax credit has been
eliminated, the tax credit for investment in the Atlantic region,
and the tax credit for investment in scientific research has
simply been reduced. In other words, the minister admits that he
will still offer tax credits in certain regions of Canada. The
minister is aware of their lack of effectiveness, but goes ahead
all the same.
The Bloc Quebecois has denounced this measure and has
asked that moneys earmarked for regional investment be
redistributed to the provinces instead as a tax percentage. Why?
It is because in Quebec, we think that decision making and
regional investments should be decentralized so that local
decision makers and people in the regions can identify their
needs and take measures suited to their regions.
The Canadian government does not do this. It refused to
redistribute these amounts among the provinces and maintained
national standards, giving the credit to everyone while
admitting that all this is inefficient. This is yet another
illustration of the Canadian problem, that is, putting everyone,
every citizen and every province on the same footing and
ensuring uniform distribution everywhere before realizing that
this is very costly and inefficient but continuing to do so
anyway. One does not have to look very far to see that this is the
reason why Canada does not work.
The third reason why we oppose this bill is the measures
designed to counteract some tax avoidance strategies. This bill
proposes measures to ensure that some individuals and
corporations can no longer avoid taxes. These measures are
quite timid. There are measures intended to eliminate
preferential tax rates for large corporations, to make corporate
taxes more equitable, to provide special rules for taxing foreign
corporation shareholders.
Looking at all this, we ask ourselves are they trying to catch
those who do not pay taxes in Canada, who establish phoney
companies abroad and who, through various tax schemes,
manage to avoid taxes. Reading this, we might think that such is
the case, but we would be mistaken. These measures do not
affect family trusts or the use of tax havens and are not designed
in any way to institute a minimum corporate tax.
A lot has been said about family trusts. What are they exactly?
A family trust is a tax measure allowing great wealthy families
to avoid paying taxes on capital gains on assets.
(1030)
It is money on which no taxes are collected because it was put
in a trust. And this remains the case for a long time. An
amendment to that provision was proposed in 1992 by the
Conservative government. Under that legislation, the money in
a trust was exempt from taxes until the death of the last
beneficiary of that trust. In some cases, that could take up to 80
years.
The Bloc Quebecois pledged to fight for the elimination of
that provision, which allows tax avoidance. We discussed the
issue at length in this House. We do not see, in the current
budget, any step to abolish that tax loophole.
We are talking about hundreds of millions every year. We do
not know exactly how much money is involved. To find that out,
we would need a special bill to allow Revenue Canada officials
to tell us exactly how much money is involved. What is the
government waiting for to pass such legislation and to abolish
that provision in the Income Tax Act?
Let us now look at tax havens. We have an idea of what goes
on. The auditor general raised that issue in 1992. This is not a
figment of the imagination of a demagogic opposition party. The
auditor general himself told us that several major Canadian
corporations somehow manage to avoid paying taxes in Canada.
The losses in tax revenues are said to be in the hundreds of
millions.
9769
We know the process. Some companies establish or use
subsidiaries in countries where tax rates are much lower than
in Canada. They can do so because Canada signed tax
conventions to avoid double taxation for corporations and
individuals conducting business in those countries.
The auditor general is strongly opposed to such tax treaties.
Currently, 16 such conventions are said to be in effect. There is
nothing wrong with these countries, but we wonder why Canada
signed such treaties, if not to promote the self-interests of
people who want to avoid the payment of taxes. These countries
include Cyprus, Malta and Papua New Guinea. It is not a
foregone conclusion that Canada's trade with these countries
justifies the signing of such conventions, but these treaties were
concluded.
The auditor general also denounced another more subtle
process. Some companies can deduct, from their payable taxes,
the interest on loans contracted in Canada for foreign
investment purposes. In other words, Revenue Canada is
financing investments abroad. This is unbelievable.
Another provision regarding tax havens that must be revisited
is tax avoidance. In 1992 the auditor general again asked the
government to amend the act to prevent Canadian companies
with subsidiaries abroad from using these subsidiaries' annual
losses to reduce their taxable income in Canada. They lose
money outside of Canada and can deduct these losses in Canada.
How could a Canadian company or a multinational that is in
the slightest way on the ball not be tempted to create bogus
companies outside of the country? How can these companies
resist the temptation to reduce their Canadian taxes, to make
foreign investments and to claim a deduction for the interest on
those investments? It is an open invitation that the Bloc
Quebecois decries. The Bloc denounces such things and would
like to see all countries treated equally.
The Bloc Quebecois calls for an end to flags of convenience,
to freebies for big business that allow them to avoid paying tax.
Many large businesses pay no taxes. Indeed, a Liberal member,
the member for Gander-Grand Falls, told us last October that
according to his research, 77 companies with over $25 million in
profits did not pay any tax in Canada.
They do not pay any tax because they can make deductions,
they can make money out of the country, they can search for
deductions. What do you think people over 65 years of age who
earn $30,000 and are seeing their age credit taken from them
have to say when they see big multinationals and prosperous
companies that turn a profit get away without paying any tax?
(1035)
They say that honest taxpayers are being picked on again, and
that those with means, who are rich, who can make
representations and can lobby have access to provisions in
income tax laws which allow them to avoid paying their fair
share. The Bloc will not stand for this.
I would like to add, before closing, not to take advantage of
your kindness, that the budget and perhaps this bill should have
contained other measures regarding the whole issue of business
subsidies.
Everybody tells us that their economic effectiveness is
debateable. The Bloc Quebecois has demanded that a good part
of these business subsidies, which amount to approximately
$3.3 billion in Canada, be cut. We asked for a reduction in
defence spending totalling $3.2 billion over two years. We asked
the government to stop investing in the Hibernia group in
Newfoundland. We asked for a real minimum tax on the profits
of large corporations, because the strategy of these corporations
is to reduce their profits for the current fiscal year by subtracting
any losses they may have incurred in previous years, so they do
not have to pay taxes on those profits.
In fact, we asked Revenue Canada to do what it has to do to get
the $6.6 billion owed to the federal treasury. The auditor general
said in his report that a large percentage of this money could be
recovered. In other words, before reducing the incomes of senior
citizens and cutting social programs, the government should go
out and get the money owed to the treasury. To put it bluntly, that
is part of the mandate of the Minister of National Revenue.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against
Bill C-59, because it contains measures that are inadequate and
do not deal with the real problems of tax collection in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-59.
Bill C-59 is sort of a remnant, a leftover or a bad memory
about the last budget that was brought into this House, the
1994-95 budget, a most disgusting type of document that was
ever presented to Canadians. It was a document that was not
prepared, not thought through and had nothing to do with the
real economy of this country. That is one of the disgusting things
that I think about this morning.
The other disgusting thing that I think about is the fact that the
Liberal members, many of them who sit in the front row today,
sat for eight years on this side of the House and never prepared
themselves for government. The reason that a party is in the
official opposition is that it prepares itself to be the government.
They did not do that. For eight years the Liberals played politics,
surface politics. They tried to think about how they could go on a
power trip or manipulate the government to get back into power
and sit on the front benches on that side.
By accident the Liberals did. By accident they became the
government. When they became government they did not have
any plans. They did not know why they were government. They
9770
were like a dog that caught a car and did not know what to do
with it, that traditional, proverbial story.
The Liberals talk about the fact that they put out a red book.
The fact of the matter is that red book has so many generalities
and political statements that are out of date and meaningless
today that it is like the ostrich that has his head in the sand and
does not look around at the true reality of life at a point in time.
They stand up over and over again and say to us as Canadians
that the red book states they are going to do this. They cannot
bring themselves beyond the red book to try to create another
idea or to recognize that the economy of Canada is something
different than it was four or five years ago when the red book
was written.
The minister of defence should certainly think about some of
these things and take his responsibility when these kinds of
things are before the House.
(1040 )
Here before us we have Bill C-59 which talks about tax
increases. Most likely these were designed in the red book as
well. Three or four years before they were introduced nobody
looked at whether they were contemporary in nature or not or fit
the circumstances. They do not.
Today in the 1994-95 budget there should not have been any
increases in taxes or a greater imposition on the business
community of this country which Bill C-59 does. It is the most
disgusting thing that I have ever seen.
Here today we hear this ghost of the 1994-95 budget being
brought into this House, the ghost that is going to haunt us as
Canadians.
What has been the result of that kind of planning and that kind
of responsibility that this Liberal Party has taken? What is the
response? Yesterday we had the response to Canadians by
Moody's from New York. It made a political interception into
the economy of Canada and said very clearly to Canadians, said
very clearly to the Minister of Finance, said very clearly to the
Prime Minister they are going to bring forward a budget in
1995-96 that is absolutely inadequate and that Moody's is going
to lower the credit rating of this country from an AAA to an AA.
This government is thinking five years ago about things it did
five years ago. This government does not recognize that you
cannot tax people more in this country. This government does
not recognize that this target of 3 per cent that was set out in the
red book is not a realistic figure in terms of the economy today.
It is a political target that was set up by this government three or
four years ago to move into an election. It cannot understand the
stupidity of that projection at that time is only more stupid
today. It is unrealistic in terms of this economy and the needs of
this economy.
The government does not understand. The Liberal Party does
not understand. The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance,
who are key to where we go in Canada, key to our economic
stability, key to job growth, key to economic growth, are blind to
the facts of the current circumstances. They do not realize that
they have to sit down with their colleagues in caucus and say that
this liberal approach to government, this kind of soft, fuzzy
decision making has to stop. They have to recognize that they
have to eliminate the deficit in the next three or four years. They
must do it within the term of this Parliament. They must say it in
the 1995-96 budget that is going to come before us in about a
month.
They have to say that to Canadians. They have to say that to
the investment community. If they do not, what is going to
happen? Yesterday was the best signal this government could
ever have. The government has time to revise its plans. It was
given a signal loud and clear. It has to come up with a plan to
balance its budget, to bring the deficit to zero within the term of
this Parliament. The dollar lowered yesterday some 47 points.
We saw it lower again this morning. We saw the bonds affected
significantly. We are going to see interest rates going up. They
have already. We know what interests rates do to the cost of
government.
Many of us have said this in this House and I feel it is a very
reliable figure. Every 1 per cent increase in interest rates over a
period of a year costs $7 billion to this government and to us as
Canadians. If we compound the interest into the second year it is
something like $2.3 billion with that 1 per cent interest rate. In
the third year that 1 per cent interest rate means something like
$3.5 billion. Government members do not understand that. They
were given a shock treatment yesterday that should have
provided them with the best advice or the best favour ever.
However what did they do? They do not listen.
(1045)
As the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister stand in
question period today they will say they are going to hit their
target in two years. Who cares? The target is stupid. The target is
out of gear. The target is not even realistic. It is the most
unrealistic thing I have ever heard in terms of today's
economies.
Moody's is telling the government that its target is out of gear
and inadequate. It is reported in the press. If all these people who
read the paper in the morning to get their political advice read
the Financial Post or the Globe and Mail this morning, they
would have received some good advice on the implications of
what the Liberals are doing or how they are acting.
I hope the government takes some time to listen. I hope it will
revise some of these fuzzy liberal expenditure reductions that
we will hear about at the end of the month. I hope it will
reconsider some of the taxes to be imposed.
9771
As I listen to members, not only in the House but in
interviews through the various media, I hear that the Liberals
are going to put a tax on lotteries. They are going to tax greater
the corporate sector. I am sure they will put a surtax on all
Canadians to pay for their bad management and the fact that
they cannot reduce expenditures in the country quickly.
They are setting up Canadians in the sense that they are
misinforming Canadians. They are telling Canadians that if they
reduce the size of government, lay off employees, pay them
severances and so on, they will not be able to bring the budget
down quickly. They are creating this image. They are saying that
they cannot bring it down quickly in the first two years so they
will put a surtax on us. It just does not work that way.
If expenditure reduction is done in the right way and some
grant programs and the overhead in some departments are cut
and employees are released as quickly as possible, there will be
an expenditure reduction.
All we have to do is look at what happened in Alberta. There
was a direct relationship between the reduction in the size of
government and the reduction in expenditures. The fallacy that
is being created that we will need a surtax on an interim basis is a
bunch of hogwash and I hope Canadians do not accept it. They
will react to that kind of thing.
The Liberals talk about other taxes such as an inheritance tax.
There are a few people in Canada who worked hard and saved
money, and they want to take from their pockets as well. They
also talk about the RRSPs. People know that the Canada pension
plan will not be sustainable under current circumstances. What
are they going to do there? I am sure it is part of the upcoming
budget. They will reduce the level and the amount of RRSPs
middle income people can put away for their future retirement.
The Liberal government is still living with its head in the
sand. It is living a the period of time about five years ago when
the red book was written. It has not adjusted to today. It is still
living this old traditional approach to politics, that is to tax the
people and not cut the money spent on inefficient and ineffective
social programs that have failed.
I have had the fortunate opportunity to have been in politics
for about 30 years. I observed in my early days that people were
more self-reliant. I recognize that this liberal attitude has
caused us to spend billions of dollars on what we thought were
social problems. Everybody in Canada were to be perfect
individuals. It has failed. Unemployment is greater. There are
more people on social programs, unemployment insurance and
public assistance today. There are three million Canadians on
public assistance. If that is a success story then we should spend
more money and improve it some way or another. However that
is not the way it is done. Those social programs have failed but
members of the government want to carry on because they think
that is the approach to making Canadians perfect.
(1050)
It is like their support for the CBC. I hear from some of them
that the CBC has to continue its rate of expenditure because it
creates the culture of Canada. That is the dumbest thing I have
ever heard.
Bill C-59 is a glimpse of the inadequacy of the government. It
is a glimpse of what is to come: more taxation in the 1995-96
budget because they want to take from the rich and supposedly
give to the poor. That is the philosophy but I do not know who is
on either end today.
It also indicates a soft fuzzy approach to expenditure
reduction to eliminate the deficit. Many of my colleagues have
asked over and over again in the House what will happen after
two years when we still have a $25 billion deficit. There most
likely will be a downturn in the economy that could immediately
put pressure on government borrowing and push our deficit
again up to $40 billion or $50 billion. It will be out of control.
We have a window at this time and the government does not
recognize that it is there.
Government members blame the debt on the Conservatives.
They say that the Conservatives did it. They have to remember
that Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Trudeau and others left $170 billion of
debt. Certainly the Conservatives boosted that up to $500
billion. Now it is at $550 billion. In two years it will be $600
billion with a $50 billion interest payment being made. Where
are social programs then?
We do not support Bill C-59 and the government has to wake
up and be realistic about its responsibility. It is unfortunate that
we have to sit here for another three years with a majority
government. It is going to be an unfortunate circumstance for
Canadians.
I urge everybody in the House to vote against Bill C-59.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair would ask the hon. member
for Lethbridge not to refer to sitting members of the House or
ministers by their proper names. As he knows we are expected to
refer to their ministries and so on.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
my hon. friend, the member who spoke on behalf of the Reform
Party on Bill C-59. I must say I always appreciate his
comments. I agree with hardly any of them but I nevertheless
appreciate them. He always presents them in a thoughtful and
articulate way.
9772
One point perplexed me about his comments. Canada is one
of the very few countries of the OECD that does not have an
inheritance tax; people inheriting $10 million or $20 million
are not required to pay any tax.
An hon. member: That is good.
Mr. Riis: I hear my friend in the Reform Party saying that is
good. They say that it is good, that people should inherit vast
amounts of money and pay no tax.
They support the notion that on income received from capital
gains tax is paid on only 75 per cent. They say that is good. They
say that certain people, particularly the wealthy people of the
country, should get as much as possible. They say that is good
because they work hard for it. That implies that other people do
not work hard for their money.
Why is it that Reformers feel average working people produce
the most if their are wages are low and they are hungry? Why do
they feel if we pay them very poorly they will be out there
working hard? Why do they feel the way to get working people
to work is to pay them as little as possible? However, they feel
that the way to get wealthy people working is to pay them the
most possible.
Is there not some inconsistency in the logic of rewarding the
wealthy so they will work but keep the wages of the poor and
average working person as low as possible to encourage them to
work? To me there is a bit of inconsistency in the argument of
my friends in the Reform Party.
(1055 )
Today we are talking about Bill C-59. The speaker for the
government went on at some length about how it was an effort to
make the tax system fairer. It might be a slight baby step in that
direction.
Let us take the whole issue of escort services. No one here
knows anything about escort services, but if we look in the
telephone book there are a number of pages listing escort
services. It is interesting that our tax system says that escort
services are tax deductible. I guess with some people it is a cost
of doing business. I am not sure what escorts cost, but whatever
the bill is it can be submitted as part of a tax return. It is called a
cost of conducting business.
When the question was recently put to national revenue
officials, they said they have to change it, it is getting a little
questionable in terms of a legitimate tax deduction. However if
the escort service is called a bodyguard or a tour guide it is
acceptable. We have some interesting concepts here in terms of
what a bodyguard or a tour guide might imply.
Nevertheless the reality is that simply by using a little
creative commenting on an income tax return, escort services
and entertainment of that type will be tax deductions. Is this
reasonable? Is this acceptable to the people of Canada? My
suspicion is that it is not.
My hon. friend talked about the business tax deduction
moving from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. Should we not
distinguish between various kinds of business costs? I do not
think anybody here would argue that business people getting
together over a dinner, lunch or breakfast to discuss a
transaction or a business arrangement is a legitimate cost of
doing business.
However, as I said earlier, is an escort service deduction a
legitimate cost? Is the annual fee for a box in a sports stadium a
legitimate cost of doing business? Is purchasing a yacht to
entertain clients a legitimate cost of doing business? Is choosing
the Bali Hilton or the Waikiki Hilton as the place for an annual
meeting a legitimate cost of conducting a business?
I know a number of people who own large boats, sailboats,
launches and racing boats. They are business tax deductions and
are used for entertaining clients.
Is a hunting lodge or a fishing camp a legitimate business
deduction? I suppose we could say in some cases it is, but
enough is enough. My hon. friend stands and tries to say that
part of the changes to the Income Tax Act will be to bring
fairness back into the system by removing the deduction-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 11 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 30 (5), the House will now proceed to
Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
9772
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Monday's three by-elections confirmed Canadians'
continued faith in our federal system of government and in its
ability to adjust to new problems in Canadian society, problems
hardly dreamed of or imagined by those who established
Canada's constitution.
Canadian federalism has never been an abstract and inflexible
charter carved in stone in 1867. It is a dynamic process of
constitutional creation. It involves balancing differing social
interests in a spirit of pragmatism and cooperation. It is a new
federalism, a living, highly efficient and cooperative one.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
March 13, 1865, a majority in the Parliament of the Province of
Canada voted against holding a referendum on confederation.
The proposed referendum was defeated by a vote of 83 to 35.
9773
Canada was therefore born out of a bill adopted by a simple
majority.
The people of Canada had no say in this process, because a
simple vote in the House was deemed sufficient to legitimize the
process.
Unlike the act establishing Canada, the draft bill declaring
Quebec's sovereignty will not come into effect without the
support of the people of Quebec expressed in a referendum.
To all those Canadians with lofty democratic ideals, who
consider a vote of 50 per cent plus one insufficient to legitimize
the choice of Quebecers, I would suggest another look at their
Canadian history books.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since January 1 of this year I have received over 700
letters and 60 petitions from my constituents in
Cariboo-Chilcotin rightly protesting the government's
intention to introduce new firearms legislation. I would like to
quote from one letter:
Ignorance is the cause of fear and the fear of firearms now is caused by a
general lack of understanding of what a gun is, how it functions and how
extensive our existing gun laws currently are. If the public understood what an
honest citizen must currently go through to legally acquire a firearm, they
would realize that the new gun control legislation is nothing more than an
expensive publicity campaign designed to appear as if the government is
fighting crime. We, the people, need education about firearms, not gun laws that
attack honest gun owners and leave the criminals at the status quo.
I agree with my constituents. We do not need any more
firearms legislation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday the hon. member for Longueuil asserted in the House
that it is ridiculous to think that Canada ranks among the best
countries in the world in respect of standard of living because,
according to him, Canada is considered to be like a Third World
country because of the size of its debt. He even claimed that we
were trying to deceive people.
The comparison made by the Bloc Quebecois member is crude
and his reasoning very unsound. Here are the facts. The UN
world report on human development for 1992 and 1994 ranks
Canada as the best country in which to live.
The only ones trying to deceive people, and in particular the
population of Quebec, are the Bloc Quebecois members. It is
very easy to be a separatist if the effect of the worst scenario
they can imagine, that is losing the referendum, would be for
them to continue living in the best country in the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 2 the United States formally notified the federal
government that it considers our move toward tariffication of
supply managed commodities to be a violation of the NAFTA.
Let me state clearly that our tariffication is what was agreed to
at the GATT, including by the Americans. In reality our good
neighbour to the south is playing big bully games against the
very principles agreed to at the GATT.
On February 14 the Minister of International Trade made it
clear he will not make any concessions to the Americans on this
issue. I support that position. This government cannot make any
concessions on the supply managed commodities. Our legal
position is sound and the GATT takes precedence over the
NAFTA.
I would expect, therefore, that consultations with the
Americans will be short and the message will be clear: no
concessions on the tariff issue.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
has already been five years since the United Nations designated
1990 as the international year of literacy. It is the UN's goal to
liberate nearly a quarter of the world's population from the
bonds of illiteracy by the year 2000 and much of this work starts
at home.
It is estimated that 1.2 million adults in Ontario are
functionally illiterate. In my own riding of Parkdale-High
Park, librarian Rita Cox and the Parkdale Project Read are
beating the odds. Just ask two of Project Read's recent
graduates, Jerry Lee Miller and Ed Anable. They are individual
success stories and are shining examples that together we can
break the cycle of illiteracy.
I congratulate the minister responsible for literacy for doing
an excellent job in this field.
9774
(1105)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a study
made public yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages
said that francophone and Acadian communities in Canada have
good cause to complain.
Bilingualism in federal institutions has been a dismal failure,
in spite of the Official Languages Act which was passed 25 years
ago.
How can one explain that, in spite of the already very limited
number of federal offices outside of Quebec which are
designated bilingual, 28 per cent of them still do not provide
services in French? In all other offices, even though they are
designated bilingual, francophones have to kick up a fuss to be
served in their language.
In view of the worrisome rate of assimilation of francophones
outside Quebec, what precisely is the government waiting for to
assume its responsibilities and to respect the most fundamental
rights of the francophone minority?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
received a card from the Canada Council last week, as did all
MPs. It asked me to imagine Canada without musicians,
painters, writers and other artists. The card implies that without
the council Canada will lack culture and imagination.
Well I have news for the Canada Council. Canadians have
culture and imagination in spite of the Canada Council. Works
like those of the Group of Seven that are now hanging in our
National Gallery were examples of Canadian culture and
imagination long before the Canada Council was ever
conceived. No grants were needed to create these masterpieces
and many of today's artists work grant free.
Why not imagine a country with a balanced budget, a healthy
economy, a workplace free from government interference?
Speaking of balanced budgets, the debt clock this week passed
$550 billion. Shame, shame.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, did
you know that today is the last day for random acts of kindness
week?
Ten years ago author Anne Herbert scribbled a phrase on her
paper placemat: ``Practise random kindness and acts of
senseless beauty''. Since then her message has become the
slogan for people who believe in their ability to make the world
a better place.
This week then is an opportunity for Canadians to surprise
their fellow citizens with unselfish resplendent acts.
In these times of economic disparity it is important to bring to
the attention of this House and to all Canadians that a kindness
movement is sweeping through North America. As the
movement's organizers state, this week provides a common
focus for all Canadians who believe that a little kindness goes a
long way and that the greatest gift we can share with one another
is our spirit of hope and optimism.
Although the week is coming to a close, I would like to wish
all of my colleagues a day, a session and a year filled with
random kindness and acts of senseless beauty.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in January the Canadian Centre for Global Security
announced that it would be shutting down as a result of the
federal government's decision to terminate its funding.
For 12 years this centre provided independent and
non-partisan policy advice on a wide range of strategic issues.
Among them was the centre's work on the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty and peacekeeping reform.
By terminating its funding, the government has closed one of
the last independent centres of this type in Canada. This is of
further concern given that we are now celebrating the 50th
anniversary of the United Nations and the world is still plagued
by war, instability and injustice.
In opposition we were outraged when the previous
government shut down the Canadian Centre for International
Peace and Security in 1992.
I am extremely concerned that this decision will send a
negative message with respect to Canada's commitment to
peacemaking, peacekeeping and arms control. I ask the
government to reconsider.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on February 2 the Guelph Storm became the first
Ontario Hockey League team to secure a play-off berth.
The Storm has enjoyed a very successful year and is currently
fighting Sudbury for first place in the central division. It is in a
tight race with six other teams for first place overall.
9775
Coach Craig Hartsburg deserves much of the credit for the
team's success, along with every Storm player. Coach
Hartsburg stresses the philosophy of team work both on and off
the ice.
Guelph-Wellington fans look forward to the remaining
games in the chase for the Memorial Cup. Like everything else
we do, our hockey team has proven that Guelph-Wellington
takes its opponents by storm.
* * *
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's peculiar sense of
humour reached unexpected cynical heights when he said
yesterday in the House that Quebecers liked Mr. Trudeau's
speech so much that they voted no in the 1980 referendum.
How could the Prime Minister say such a thing and really
believe it? Between you and me, the Prime Minister certainly
could not have been serious. He has undoubtedly forgotten the
famous promise: ``We are putting our seats on the line to bring
about change; a no in the referendum will mean a yes to renewed
federalism''.
Quebecers remember that this promise was broken, and, for
this reason, have elected few Liberal members of Parliament
since 1984. The Prime Minister has once again demonstrated in
the House that he has absolutely no understanding of the hopes
and motivations of Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
every day in the House of Commons we are forced to witness a
humiliating spectacle as government backbenchers rise to ask
their own ministers the easy questions.
My heart goes out to these members as they perform their
odious duty. I wonder what fears must cross their minds. What if
they refuse? What if they make a mistake? What if the minister
eager for the planted question misplaces his briefing notes?
It is refreshing that one backbencher, the member for York
South-Weston, refuses to advise the front bench of his
questions in advance. It is unfortunate that more Liberal
backbenchers fail to place the interest of their constituents
ahead of the party line.
Have pity for the lowly backbenchers today as they rise to lob
beachballs at their political bosses. Pardon the ministers who
make a sham out of question period by delivering speeches
dressed up as answers. But most of all, pity the listening public
which graciously endures the public daily humiliation of
members who wish they could just say no.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
literacy week in Canada.
The ability to read and write empowers people. It enables
them to improve their position in an increasingly complex
economy, to avail themselves of their rights and fulfil their
duties in our country with its democratic privileges and
responsibilities and to better understand themselves and the
world around them.
[Translation]
Literacy is an essential element of every modern society and
we can be proud of the fact that this government has named a
minister responsible for literacy and has established a
secretariat with the mandate of eliminating illiteracy
nationwide.
[English]
Personally, I am very proud of Frontier College located in my
Toronto riding and the leadership it provides in this field. It and
other institutions like it and thousands of volunteers work on
literacy programs that make an important contribution to our
society.
If not addressed, illiteracy has heavy costs for Canada and for
those individuals who struggle with the problem every day of
their lives.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to indicate my outrage that Moody's
bond rating agency would place Canada's credit rating under
review only two weeks before the federal budget comes down.
Why did it not just place a horse's head in the Minister of
Finance's bed?
We recognize that strong fiscal action is required. We are
determined to meet our financial targets stated in the red book.
Our deficit reduction target of 3 per cent of GDP is only an
interim target while our long term goal is to eliminate the deficit
in its entirety.
Canada's inflation is the lowest in the G-7. Our export growth
is strong. StatsCanada's composite leading indicator grew by .6
per cent in January and wage settlements only grew by .3 per
cent in 1994.
I think it is Moody's that should be watched.
9776
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third annual gala for child poverty will take place in
the capital tomorrow.
This successful event benefits needy children in the
Ottawa-Carleton region. It is sponsored by the Fund for the
New Generation, a group of active young people who represent
all parties in the House as well as the public, private and
university sectors. These young people strongly believe in
grassroots community support.
(1115 )
I would like to take this opportunity to thank local merchants,
retailers and national sponsors, such as Sun Life, Ryder Travel
and Merck Frosst. Additional support is also provided by the
Museum of Nature, the Ottawa Sun, KOOL-FM and the Hill
Times.
Honorary chairs are Mayor Holtzman and the Speaker of the
House of Commons. They have made the event possible, but
they cannot do it alone. I call on members and citizens in the
Ottawa-Hull area to go to the Museum of Nature tomorrow
night at eight o'clock.
_____________________________________________
9776
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after the dollar's wild ride last month and the recent
rise in interest rates, yesterday, the renowned rating agency
Moody's put Canada's credit rating under review.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since Moody's
explained that its warning was due to the unacceptable levels of
the federal and provincial deficits, does the Minister of Finance
admit that his strategy to shovel his deficit into the provinces'
backyards is making financial markets even more nervous?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker.
We indicated very clearly to the provinces that our intention was
not to shovel anything into their backyards but to work in close
co-operation with them to really solve our common problems by
putting our fiscal house in order at the federal and provincial
levels. I must say that, at our meeting with the provincial
finance ministers, they understood that very well.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, around this time last year, the Minister of Finance
announced that he would show his true colours in his 1995
budget. We learned this week that the real Martin budget will be
the 1996 budget.
Does the minister admit that Moody's warning is based on the
financial markets' fear of having to defer the real decisions for
another year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in our last budget,
we took more measures to solve Canada's financial problem
than in any other budget in the last decade.
We said that last year's budget was the first phase and that the
second phase would be this year's budget. And that is still our
strategy.
Now, am I to understand from the hon. member's comments
that he is against our intention to notify the provinces in order
not to cause any surprises and that he is trying to promote the
Conservative policy of causing surprises and offloading
responsibilities onto the provinces? Well, that is not our
intention.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as you know, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.
Since the finance minister's performance aimed at shaping
public opinion has gone on for too long and cost hundreds of
millions of dollars because of the rise in interest rates, can the
minister finally act responsibly and announce today the date of
his next budget in order to end speculations hurting the
Canadian economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I indicated
very clearly that we were following a timetable that was set a
long time ago. There is a budget every year and we intend to
table our budget in due course. At that time, I will be pleased to
respond to the hon. member's question regarding the date.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
In putting Canada's credit rating under review, the New York
firm Moody's based its decision partly on concerns that the next
budget will increase taxes.
Will the minister admit that his inability to target tax
iniquities as well as his refusal to pledge not to increase taxes in
the next budget are additional sources of concern for financial
markets?
(1120)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to
contradict the hon. member, but if you heard Moody's
announcement, you know that the decision has absolutely
nothing to do with the
9777
budget, nor with any assumptions regarding taxes. That decision
was prompted by a review of federal and provincial finances.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary. When the minister says that he
wants to target the tax shelters available to the rich, something
which we heard before in this House, is he thinking of people
who earn $26,000 a year, as was the case in the 1994 budget,
when he went after the tax credit for the elderly? Are these
people the rich Canadians to whom the minister is referring?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget,
we eliminated many tax loopholes, including butterfly
transactions, the $100,000 exemption on capital gains and the
benefits enjoyed by corporations with subsidiaries and affiliates
abroad.
I do not know how the hon. member defines the rich, but let
me tell you one thing: We, Liberal members, do not consider that
a person with an annual income of $26,000 is wealthy.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
He will know that despite his assurances, which are widely
believed, that the government will meet its short term targets, a
downgrade of Canada's credit rating now appears to be
inevitable. This will lead to higher interest rates, higher
borrowing rates and higher mortgage rates for all Canadians,
rates that have risen considerably since the government took
office.
Will the minister admit that his targets, whether or not they
are met, are totally inadequate? That is what the markets are
saying.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that on reflection, the
member would want to think about what he has just said.
I am sure that he does not want to stand in the House and
express to the world that the credit rating of this country will be
downgraded. I hope that in his supplementary question he will
pick up on that point.
A reading of the Moody's press release does not lead to the
conclusion that the member has just drawn. Let me reaffirm that
the 3 per cent target is an interim target. We are going to hit it
and that is a very substantial accomplishment. Our ultimate goal
is to eliminate the deficit.
Let me assure the member that we are going to hit our interim
target and we are also going to hit our ultimate target.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
money markets are judging the performance of the government
and they are not judging that performance favourably.
The minister must admit the 3 per cent target will add at least
$100 billion in debt over the short term. At best with current
growth rates and interest rates, the markets are discovering that
this means a likely continued deterioration in the debt-GDP
ratio.
Will the minister admit that the 3 per cent target is inadequate
and must be revised on more fundamentally sound economic
grounds?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
will admit that the reason for the increase in the debt is not the
target we have set but is the accumulation of the debt that we
have inherited.
Whether it is this target or whether it is a target set by the
Reform Party, a tail would exist. We have said very clearly that
the 3 per cent target is an interim target.
Interim means interim. We have set a series of short term
goals to make sure that we do not make the mistake of the
previous government, which was to have longer term goals and
allow people to postpone the day of decision.
We have set short term mileposts and we are going to hit them.
We are going to continue to hit them until the finances of the
country are put in a healthy state.
(1125 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
was the government's decision to ignore that advice and to lose
the valuable first year in office. It is irrelevant to the money
market whether the government hits a target of nearly $40
billion.
To help restore credibility to his fiscal policy in the budget,
will the minister set definite targets beyond 1996-97 and
specify the tough actions necessary to reach them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made it
very clear that we are going to operate on a set of rolling
two-year targets, that we are going to deal with the profound
structural changes of this economy and the government
spending needs.
As a result of the actions taken in this budget, and the actions
taken in the last budget, which was the most substantive in the
last 10 years, we are going to do what we have always said we
would do, put the country's finances in a sound state.
9778
I understand his advice. It is well taken. I have great respect
for the question. The only question I ask is: Why did he not
give the same advice when he was working for the Conservative
government and it allowed this debt?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is now defending its tariff on agricultural
products. The agriculture and international trade ministers have
repeatedly suggested that Canada's legal position would not be
strong enough to save its tariffs on yogurt and ice cream, most of
which is produced in Quebec, where producers stand to lose
more than $100 million if the government does not support
them.
My question is for the Minister of International Trade. Since
the GATT agreement provides that tariffs will replace all other
measures at the border to protect agricultural products, how can
the minister be so dubious about the strength of the Canadian
position on yogurt and ice cream?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I fully understood the
question. The Canadian government intends to defend the dairy
and poultry industries vigorously, as I said the other day. That of
course includes yogurt and ice cream.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is all very well, but the fact remains that Canada's
legal position is more or less supported by GATT and NAFTA.
So why is the minister negotiating another agreement, outside
GATT and NAFTA, with respect to ice cream and yogurt?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question of negotiating another
agreement, if I understood the question. Our position is
fundamentally, and has continued to be, that the protection
afforded the dairy and poultry industry under the new World
Trade Organization is the policy we are pursuing.
The United States has taken another view, that there is a
commitment under the NAFTA to go to zero tariffs on those
products. That is not our position. It may be the American
position. Our position is clear. It is entirely defensible. We
intend to pursue it vigorously, in the consultations which the
United States has requested.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Finance.
Everyone knows that social spending, broadly defined, takes
up about 70 per cent of all program spending. Therefore, budget
balancing requires social spending cuts, not as a matter of
Ideology but of simple arithmetic, to use the words of the
Minister of Finance.
Does the Minister of Finance agree that yesterday's
announcement by Moody's was caused by the absence of a clear
commitment to substantial social spending cuts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
(1130 )
If you read Moody's press release, it did not assign a cause for
blame in terms of social spending. It looked at the overall
financial condition of the federal government and the provinces.
There is no doubt as we approach the budget that it is going to
be important that we cut government spending. It is going to be
important that we cut government spending in each part of its
operation.
I would remind the hon. member that most studies in this area
have also indicated that short term cutting of social spending
hurts people's health, their ability to be trained and their ability
to get work in the long run. As a leading economist I am sure the
hon. member would agree that would add to the deficit. That is
the balance that we have to bring to this particular exercise.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very sorry to have that answer because I think the
capital markets will not like it.
A revenue increase in tax measures announced for the next
budget will drive more Canadian investment abroad. The way he
talks, the Minister of Finance will have a good shot at becoming
the man of the year for job creation in the United States.
Does the minister not agree that it is time to stop the tired
Liberal rhetoric about tax fairness, do what is right for Canada
and rule out tax increases in the next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in the next
budget going to deal with all levels of government spending in
all areas. There should be no doubt about this government's
determination to break the back of the deficit. We are going to do
that. We are going to do it fairly because fairness is the essence
of Canadians
9779
supporting a government's action in facing up to this burden. We
are going to do it that way. Taxation may or may not be part of it.
The debate that I continue to have with hon. members
opposite is the supposition that the current system is perfect,
that there is no need for further fairness to be built in, that there
is no need for further efficiency. That is wrong. The tax system
must evolve. The tax system must be improved. We intend to
make it happen.
In terms of job creation, 460,000-odd jobs have been created
in this country. It is the best job creation record of any country in
the G-7. I am damned proud of what we are doing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the agriculture minister. Milk producers in
Canada should be able to count on the government standing up
for their interests in respect of the Canadian customs tariffs
disputed by the United States. If its past record is any indication
of what is to come, one might fear that the government may give
in to pressure once again.
Are we to understand from the remarks of his colleague for
international trade that Canada is preparing to drop yogurt and
ice cream, thereby creating a significant gap in the supply
management system?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. The answer given by the
Minister for International Trade was very clear. The Canadian
position through the last 16 months that we have been in office
has been absolute and unequivocal. We support the Canadian
supply management system. We are determined to defend that
system against all comers. If the United States has a different
point of view and wants to take a run at us, we obviously cannot
stop it from taking a run at us, but if it does we will defend
ourselves with everything we have.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question. Since the legal position in this
dispute is straightforward and clearly established by the
Uruguay Round and there is nothing to negotiate, are we to
understand that the government's weakness in this matter, which
affects Quebec in particular, is the price to be paid to Americans
for having resolved the conflict over western wheat last
summer?
(1135)
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. The position of
the Canadian government through all of these very difficult
trade issues with the United States has been first and foremost
that we will defend Canadian interest and every aspect of it and
that we will not in any way engage in any form of trade-off
between regions of the country or different groups of farmers or
different commodity groups.
Each one of these issues is separate and distinct and must be
dealt with individually on its own merits. We will not engage in
any form of trade-off.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened very carefully to the responses of the Minister of
Finance to my colleagues from Calgary West and
Capilano-Howe Sound.
The minister has confirmed in this House that the government
only has an interim target or goal and nothing beyond that.
Moody's has given a message and the business community has
given a message that there needs to be more.
Would he confirm that the government's target is a political
target but not a real target in terms of economic needs today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's
target, 3 per cent of GDP, is approximately at the level at which
the growth of the economy becomes greater than the growth of
the debt. The debt to GDP ratio will begin to stabilize and then
decline.
That is a very important target for a country. It is not a
political target. It is an economic target. I am sure the member
understands that. I am also sure the member understands when I
say that it is an interim target that our ultimate target is to
eliminate the deficit.
I am also sure the member will understand that a country does
not only live by targets, that it lives by success. If I might, as of
today the fact is Canada had its most impressive year ever for
trade. I want to congratulate my colleagues. Merchandise
exports, imports and the trade surplus over the year are at record
levels. I congratulate the minister.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
minister can laud those accomplishments all he wants. Was it
because of the government or despite the government that those
things happened?
Moody's and the business community are saying very clearly
to the government that it should work toward a balanced budget
and we could maintain our triple-A rating. That is not
happening.
Under the current circumstances would the minister consider
stopping the presses, revising his budget, increasing the
expenditure reduction and bringing in a more credible budget at
the
9780
end of this month, better than the one he has announced to the
business community?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last spring when
the House was sitting the members opposite kept standing up
and saying we are not going to hit our target, will we bring in a
new budget, that they are panic stricken and we have to do
something. About every second day there was a new cry of
gloom and doom from the other side.
At that time we said there was no necessity to bring in a new
budget for this year because we were going to hit our targets.
Now we are going to beat those targets by a great deal.
The hon. member is bringing in his budget next Tuesday. We
all look forward to it. I find it a little difficult that he stands in
this House and says that we must revise our budget, we must
bring in a more credible budget when he has not even seen it.
I can understand the necessity of practising and rehearsing his
lines for after we bring in the budget but I do not think he should
do it publicly.
* * *
(1140)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel, which
is studying a proposal to increase the number of low level flights
in Labrador, has not yet submitted its report to the government.
Is the Minister of the Environment aware of the negotiations
currently in progress between Canada and Italy, Belgium, and
the United States with a view to permitting new military training
flights, even before the impact on the environment, wildlife, and
people is known, and has the minister given her support for these
negotiations?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the minister explain her government's disregard for the
normal democratic process of consultation, by negotiating new
low level flights now, even before the assessment report has
been tabled?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we reject the hon.
member's allegation. The environmental assessment is
currently under way, and we will abide by the results of the
assessment, which have yet to be reported to cabinet.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last year this government announced its commitment to
return the site of Camp Ipperwash to the Kettle and Stoney Point
Band. I understand that DND and the band have had discussions
about a joint environmental assessment of the land before it is
turned over.
Will the minister please tell me what progress is being made
on returning the Camp Ipperwash land to the Kettle and Stoney
Point Band?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for her question. I know she is very concerned with
the future of those particular lands.
As she will know, we decided to close Camp Ipperwash in last
year's defence cuts because we believed that we could discharge
our obligations at other facilities in Ontario and also because we
wanted to facilitate the land being returned to the native
population.
We are prepared to engage in a study with the native
population of the area to decide on which approach should be
taken in terms of environmental clean-up. We will give equal
status to them on any particular study that is done.
Unfortunately we have yet to secure the agreement of local
native leaders in this process and we are most anxious to do so.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Last April the minister appointed Paul Fraser to report on
current labour issues in the rail sector affecting CN, CP and Via
Rail. This report has been pushed back a number of times now.
Where is the report and why has it not been able to prevent
what appears to be an inevitable strike?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed to
clarify the hon. member's assertions, we appointed Mr. Allan
Hope as the conciliation commissioner, not Mr. Paul Fraser. Mr.
Hope has
9781
already submitted his conciliation report which I received just
last week.
We are presently reviewing it. It is going forward for
translation. I expect to be able to table that report sometime next
week at which time I hope it will provide the basis for a good
negotiated settlement between the parties. I would not engage,
as the hon. member seems to do, in prophesying a strike. I think
the report can provide the basis for an agreement.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly hope that Mr. Hope's report does bring
hope to the situation.
In 1950, 1966, 1973 and 1987 the federal government
introduced back to work legislation within days of a railway
strike and had to appoint an arbitrator. Last year a grain handler
strike went through the same process.
Recognizing the devastation and the consequences of another
strike to industry in Canada, now that the minister expects to
receive this-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would hope the member
would get to the question, please.
Mr. McClelland: Will the minister introduce legislation that
would prevent a strike before the need for back to work
legislation?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at no time did we welcome
the need to use back to work legislation. The Canadian labour
code was built upon the basic principle of collective bargaining,
which means that parties to a dispute can arrive at a settlement
that meets their mutual interests. That is on what the labour
relations of the country have been built and have in fact served
us.
(1145)
Over the last year or so we have had a remarkable period of
labour peace in Canada which I think we would like to see
maintained. I would expect, once we table the report, that hope
will spring eternal for a settlement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the public works minister.
For a few weeks now, the people of Quebec and Canada have
been living under the threat of the next budget. People in need
fear that it might be worse than the last one in the area of new
social and co-op housing.
Given that since 1991, Quebec received only 19 per cent of the
total amount earmarked for social housing, when it has a quarter
of the population, which translates into a potential loss of $100
million per year, would the Minister of Public works commit
himself to correcting this unfair situation for the neediest part of
the Quebec population?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
hon. member's question. I am sure he is well aware that all
ministers of the crown have to participate in cutbacks in terms of
various expenditures in each of our departments.
The Minister of Finance has been extremely vigilant with
cabinet colleagues to make sure that every expenditure is given
due consideration.
I wish I could stand in the House today, and indeed in
subsequent weeks, and give all sorts of assurances that there will
be largess from the Government of Canada as it relates to
housing. Quite frankly I think that would be misleading the
House.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): That answer,
Mr. Speaker, comes from the mouth of a minister who is well
known for his patronage in the maritimes and who shells out
almost $400 million a year-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I ask the hon.
member to put his question.
Mr. Marchand: The $100 million Quebec has lost over the
past few years could be even higher if it were based on a
Canadian standard-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. A question, please.
Mr. Marchand: That is my question. Is he aware that the
$100 million is based on population and that if it were based on a
Canadian standard of need it would be much higher than $100
million a year?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can well
appreciate the concerns the hon. member is expressing, but he
should know that we are in a very difficult fiscal situation as the
Minister of Finance has told Canadians repeatedly.
I do not think it is accurate for the hon. member to suggest in
the House or to imply by his questioning that somehow we are
doing inappropriate things when it comes to the province of
Quebec.
I remind the hon. member that the government, in view of its
limited fiscal capacity, has provided $5 million over four years
in support of low income housing through the CREESOM
initiative. We have provided another $5 million in terms of the
RéparAction program and another $5 million in terms of
landlords to upgrade rental and rooming housing. We have
provided
9782
further assistance as it relates to assisting homeowners with
cracked foundations.
Given the fact that the Minister of Finance and other members
of cabinet have a limited capacity within which to operate, I
think we have done reasonably well under the guise of fairness
to provide that kind of assistance to the province of Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
months now we have been listening to the Liberal government
rail against two-tier health care and two-tier taxation.
Imagine my surprise when the Liberals floated a two-tier MP
pension: a reduced trough for the new MPs and the original pork
barrel for the Liberal frontbenches.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why does the
Liberal rhetoric of equality not apply to MP pensions? Why are
so many Liberal MPs reluctant to part with their gold plated
pensions?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon.
member's question is false.
(1150)
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
a price to pay for floating trial balloons and this one may be shot
down.
I have a supplementary question. Why will the government
not bring MPs' pensions into line with those in the private
sector, do it equally across the board and do it now?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister said it all, but let me
add that the government will acquit itself of its obligation with
respect to the reform of MPs' pensions and it will be doing it
mighty soon.
* * *
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians in general and my constituents in particular
have expressed great concern that overlap and duplication at all
levels of government are costly and unnecessary.
In his speech on Wednesday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
announced that from now on the federal government would
concentrate on areas of federal jurisdiction, recognizing that
overlap and duplication had become serious problems.
What is the government doing to reduce costly overlap and
duplication among all levels of government, particularly here in
Ontario?
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with
the hon. member and my colleagues opposite that overlap and
duplication seriously impair the efficiency of our federation.
Fortunately we are making some real progress.
We have concluded agreements with the provincial
government in 60 cases where we have made commitments. In
these 60 cases, we have eliminated the overlap and duplication
that raise costs for government in such areas as food inspection,
drug prosecution, environmental management and, the member
for Simcoe Centre will be glad to know, the Canada-Ontario
Business Centre. Canada works best when it works together.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance who in his pursuit for tax
fairness may or may not be aware that the business
entertainment tax deduction includes escort services as long as
the escort services are called being a bodyguard or a tour guide.
Again in an effort to bring sanity to our tax system, would the
minister indicate to the House and to the Canadian public
generally whether he feels it is an appropriate entertainment tax
deduction?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that the escort
services to which he has referred are not permitted.
However, if there is a situation where a bodyguard is required
or a tour guide is required, it might be considered a legitimate
business expense when entertaining a foreign client or someone
like that. An interpreter would be in the same position.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this may
put a new twist on the term bodyguard or tour around the world
guide or whatever.
Again in the pursuit of tax fairness, the Minister of Finance
will know full well that a number of years ago as a result of the
Carter commission, a study into Canada's taxation system, he
indicated that a buck should be considered a buck, a buck, a
buck, referring to the fact that a buck as capital gains is not equal
to a dollar earned by labour.
9783
Would the Minister of Finance recognize that this policy is
worth considering at this point, particularly when we
acknowledge that $1 billion is lost each year to the national
treasury as a result of this tax provision?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the
member and certain members on my side who continue in the
pursuit of tax fairness. It brings a very important element to the
debate.
I fully understand the member's question and think
everything should be on the table. Obviously everything should
be looked at, but I would say that one can make the distinction
especially at a time when one is looking to small and medium
sized business and to entrepreneurs to create jobs. We should
recognize that income derived from a certain degree of risk may
well be treated differently if we are going to create the capital in
the country to create more jobs.
* * *
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment. After
making important commitments during the election campaign to
reduce greenhouse gases, the government has been at a standstill
on the issue for 15 months. Worse yet, the federal Cabinet is
divided on the issue of whether punitive measures or only
incentives should be used.
Is the Minister of the Environment of the same opinion as her
counterpart from natural resources and the Prime Minister that
the only way to meet the red book's commitment of reducing
greenhouse gases is to implement voluntary measures and
incentives in the industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that
the hon. member has not yet had the chance to read the Liberal
government's commitment in the red book, because in the red
book, we promised a national action program that we will
present in Berlin, and we are continuing to work towards that
goal with all those concerned.
I am disappointed that, unfortunately, one government will
not be present at the meeting in Toronto, next Monday. All of the
action plans will be tabled at that meeting. And, unfortunately,
the one government which will not be present at the meeting on
the very important issue of the effect of greenhouse gases on all
Canadians is the government of Quebec. We want to work with
the government of Quebec and I hope that the member opposite
will do his best to bring Quebec to the negotiating table in
Toronto on Monday.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given the bad track record the oil industry has regarding
environmental protection, will the minister not concede that the
government is dreaming in technicolour if it believes that it can
reduce greenhouse gases by virtue of incentives only?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we
need stronger measures in addition to mere incentives. This was
the policy we adopted in Bathurst with all of ministers of the
environment and energy.
Unfortunately, I must reiterate that the Parti Quebecois and
the Bloc Quebecois will be the first to accuse us of stepping on
the provinces' toes if we were to regulate emissions that fall
under provincial jurisdiction. What we promised in the red book
was to get our house in order first and also to encourage all of the
provinces to put in place more than incentives. We expect the
government of Quebec to take part in discussions on this issue,
which transcends all politics. It concerns the health of
Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal.
Yesterday the government released part of its program review,
a review that took almost a year to complete. While a number of
patronage positions were reduced it was a drop in the bucket and
the old system of patronage is still intact.
Canadians are looking for a change in the process of
appointments and until the process is changed nothing is really
different.
Why did the minister not announce a change in the patronage
process during yesterday's announcement?
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his question.
The agency review announced yesterday that the number of
governor in council appointments were reduced greatly. To
clarify the situation, between November 1993 and the beginning
of February the Government of Canada appointed
approximately 700 persons to governor in council positions. It
was actually 100 less than that because 600 were new
appointments. The
9784
previous government had appointed 1,819 in the same period. In
effect we have reduced the appointments by two-thirds.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the patronage process has been in place in Canada for 100 years.
Yesterday's announcement did not change the process at all.
We need a more orderly, a more objective and a fairer process
so Canadians have faith in the appointments the government is
involved in.
(1200 )
Why did the minister not change the patronage appointment
process yesterday so that hundreds of these appointments do not
continue to be made behind closed doors by orders in council?
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
reiterate that it is a change of process where the numbers are
one-third of what they were before.
We are changing the acts to make the processes fairer. All
appointments are advertised in the Canada Gazette and we look
at competence and merit in our appointments.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The new firearms' legislation includes universal registration,
which is seen by many as a penalty to the responsible firearm
owner, sporting enthusiast, farmer, game hunter and collector.
Can the minister tell the House what benefits there are in
requiring responsible owners to register their firearms?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the
privilege of leading off debate on second reading of Bill C-68. I
commend to the hon. member Hansard, particularly pages 9707
to 9710 on this subject where I develop the reasons why
registration will enhance community safety.
Let me briefly mention three now. By the way, I met with
firearms' owners and groups in New Brunswick. I am well aware
of their concerns.
First, where someone has firearms which are in collections or
are of value to the owner, if they are lost or stolen, registration
will enable the police to return those firearms to the owners.
That is very helpful.
Second, the police want to have registration so when they are
responding to calls of domestic violence, for example, they
know what firearms are there before they arrive.
Third, police say that when courts make orders prohibiting
people from having firearms, they cannot enforce them unless
they have registration to make sure they have collected all the
firearms which the person in question might own.
I commend to the hon. member the views of the Catholic
Women's League of Canada, which has an important provincial
chapter in Oromocto, New Brunswick, which just wrote
endorsing universal registration and the balance of our firearms
package.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay
upon the Table some explanatory notes and a Notice of Ways and
Means Motion to amend the Income Tax Act.
This motion is part of the government's plan to raise, as of
midnight, the excise tax on cigarettes sold at the retail level in
Ontario and Quebec.
I ask that you designate an Order of the Day for the
consideration of the said motion.
_____________________________________________
9784
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table
officially, on behalf of constituents in
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, a petition with 253
signatures in which your petitioners call upon Parliament to
urge the government to drop its plan to introduce a voice mail
system for its services to senior citizens.
I agree with their position, and I think senior citizens are
entitled to personalized services that meet their needs.
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table three petitions signed by the
constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and duly certified by the
clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in
9785
any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same
sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination, the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
(1205 )
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure
of rising in the House today to present a petition on behalf of
some of my constituents who request that Parliament continue to
give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in marketing
wheat and barley for export.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of our hon. colleague, the member for
Calgary Southeast, I rise in the House on day 10 to present
petitions.
These petitions are being presented on behalf of constituents
who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul
Thompson. April 11, 1995 is the date set for the parole hearing.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making the
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that the streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, of presenting the first
of many petitions dealing with the cable industry.
The 114 petitioners represent people from across southern
Ontario who are requesting that the federal government
immediately launch an investigation by the CRTC into the way
in which cable companies have been raising prices inequitably.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is with pleasure that I
rise to present a petition with signatures from Beaverton,
Fenelon Falls, Woodville and Cannington in the riding of
Victoria-Haliburton.
The petition calls on Parliament to oppose any amendments to
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present to the House today. The first
petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, is on behalf of 150
constituents who pray and request that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
The second petition is on the same subject matter. Almost 100
constituents are calling on Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion
of the phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): My last
petition, Mr. Speaker, is from constituents who are very
concerned about the increase in youth crime in our country.
The petitioners request that the government review and revise
our laws concerning young offenders by empowering the courts
to prosecute and punish young lawbreakers who are terrorizing
our society by releasing their names and lowering the age limit
to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition draws the attention of the House to the fact
that Canada's investment climate is forcing its mineral industry
to look for new opportunities abroad.
The Canadian Mineral Industry Federation has prepared a
10-point program of action to be addressed by both the mineral
industry and the Government of Canada to keep mining in
Canada. The petition urges Parliament to take action to increase
employment in this sector, promote exploration, rebuild
Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining and keep mining in
Canada.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, prays that Parliament ensures that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in this law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or any activity designed to
terminate a life.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am
9786
presenting four petitions from my constituents from the riding
of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe.
The first petition contains 29 signatures and calls on the
government to amend the Criminal Code to extend protection to
unborn children the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition contains 32 names and calls on the
government not to amend the human rights code in relation to
the recognition of same sex relations.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition contains 42 signatures and calls on the
government to ensure that the present provisions in the Criminal
Code with regard to assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
make no changes to the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
(1210 )
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the fourth and final petition contains 100 signatures and asks the
House to oppose any legislation that increases child care
expenditures or attempts to regulate day care standards at the
federal level.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to present three petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre.
The first is on the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners request
that Parliament not sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or of euthanasia.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition requests the Government of Canada not to
amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual
orientation.
The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would indicate
societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The petitioners
believe that the government should not legitimize this behaviour
against the clear wishes of the majority.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition is about section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of
the Criminal Code so that those convicted of first degree murder
will have to serve their full 25-year sentence behind bars.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present four petitions to the
House today.
It gives me great pleasure to present the first one on behalf of
1,556 of my constituents who ask Parliament not to pass Bill
C-41, with section 718.2 as it is presently and not to include the
undefined phrase, sexual orientation, as this does not warrant
special consideration in Canadian law.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition. The petitioners
pray and request that Parliament recognize the social
commitment and dedication of all volunteer firefighters by
raising the tax exemption from $500 to $1,000.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from 275 people in
my constituency, who ask Parliament to amend the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code to allow
dangerous offender applications to be made just prior to the
expiration of the offender's sentence. Then if the court accepts
the application, the court could issue an order for continued
detention or supervision of the offender.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the last petition I would like to present today
on behalf of my constituents asks Parliament to reduce
government spending instead of increasing taxes and to
implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal government
spending.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have a point of order concerning questions that are placed on
the Order Paper.
This is the third time I have risen in the House to ask the status
of the answer to question 93 which I posed last October 19.
Normally these questions must be responded to by the
government within 45 days. It is now 122 days.
This is a flagrant show of disrespect for the rules of the House.
I have stood in the House three times to ask for an answer to my
question. ``Maybe next week some time'' I am going to get an
answer to Question 93.
9787
Is there a way to ask the Speaker of the House to force or
to at least demand that the government respect the rules and
give me the answer to Question 93, which is way overdue.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary
might deal with the hon. member's representations when he
makes his statement.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I intend to do exactly that. This is the third time the
hon. member has got up in the last seven or eight days on this
particular question.
I pointed out to him on the first occasion that when he looks at
the question, and he knows this perfectly well because he wrote
it, he has asked for a list that must be quite substantial.
The question asked what contracts for services, supplies and
leasing have been awarded by Public Works and Government
Services since October 25, 1993 in all federal constituencies in
Quebec and what federal government properties are located in
those same constituencies? It will be an extremely substantial
list.
(1215)
In providing an answer to the hon. member, the government
wants to make sure it is accurate. I have no doubt great pains are
being taken to ensure a full, accurate response will be given to
the member.
The hon. member has asked for an answer within 45 days. It is
impossible to prepare such a lengthy reply in that time and he
knows that. We are doing our best to get the answer. I assure him
I am working on getting an answer for his question. I will
continue to work to get an answer for his question. I hope to be in
a position to table that answer soon.
In the meantime, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all the questions be allowed to
stand? The hon. member for Québec-Est will probably not
agree.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not agree. The
parliamentary secretary spoke of 45 adays, but it has now been
122 days, not 45.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. member for
Kamloops has a petition. I do not think anyone will object if we
revert to petitions.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Logan
Lake, Kamloops and Ashcroft, all in British Columbia, who
draw to the attention of the House the importance of Canada's
mining industry.
They make a number of very forceful points which I will not
repeat here. They are simply calling upon Parliament to take
action that will increase employment in the mining sector,
promote exploration for the mining sector, rebuild Canada's
mineral reserves, sustain our mining communities, and
essentially keep mining in Canada.
_____________________________________________
9787
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax
Application Rules, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate having an opportunity to speak on the tax legislation
at third reading. Essentially it is tax reform.
As my hon. friend from Vancouver South indicated in his
presentation, there is an effort here at tax simplification as well,
but we have a long way to go. This multi-volume treatise is an
effort at simplifying the tax system. Imagine the size of the Tax
Act of Canada and the appropriate regulations and
interpretations that would go with it. It would stand two or three
feet on the desk.
I am going to simply read a small portion to raise the question:
Does this actually simplify our tax system or not? I am reading
from page 46, number 7:
Subsections (1), (3) and (4) apply to dividends received after February 21,
1994 other than dividends received before 1995 in the course of a
reorganization that was required on February 22, 1994 to be carried out
pursuant to a written agreement entered into before February 22, 1994, except
that, in applying the act to dividends received before June 23, 1994 to which
subsections (1), (3) and (4) apply,
(a) Paragraph 55(3.1)(b) of the act, as enacted by subsection (4), shall be read as
follows:
It goes on:
(b) The act shall be read without reference to paragraphs 55(3.1)(c) and (d) and
(3.2)(c) and (e) as enacted by subsection 4.
Page 48, number 8:
9788
Subsections (2), (5) and (6) apply to dividends received after February 21, 1994,
other than dividends received as part of a transaction or event or a series of transactions
or events that was required on before February 22, 1994 to be carried out pursuant to a
written agreement entered into before February 22, 1994.
17.(1) Subsection 67.1(1) of the act is amended by replacing the reference to
80 per cent with a reference to 50 per cent.
(2) Subsection 1 applies to expenses incurred after February 21, 1994 in
respect of food and beverages consumed and entertainment enjoyed after
February 1994.
18.(1) Subparagraph 70(5.1)(d)(ii) 2 of the act is replaced-
I could go on. And this is an effort at simplification. I cannot
imagine anybody without some superhuman mind, with
multiple degrees in logic being able to even pretend that they
follow this.
(1220)
Is it any wonder our tax system is so abused? By abused I refer
to the many people who have lost complete faith in the tax
system as being any kind of a fair system, a just system, an
equitable system. They simply interpret every one of these
sections to their advantage in the hopes there will not be an
audit. Because of the cutbacks in Revenue Canada obviously
there are very few auditors auditing out there, and if you are
audited, you can challenge the interpretation.
When my friend from Vancouver South says the government
has taken major steps in clarifying and simplifying the tax
system, I am not certain what section he is reading because it is
certainly nothing I have ever read in this area.
The hon. member goes on today as a result of this legislation
to comment on the reduction of the business entertainment
deduction from 80 to 50 per cent. The Minister of National
Revenue confirmed today that escort services have traditionally
been included as a legitimate business expense under the act,
which raises a few questions just on its own terms. However,
that deductibility will be reduced from 80 per cent of the escort
service cost down to 50 per cent.
Because of the public furore the tax department has said it is
going to redefine that. The escort services that you see listed in a
telephone book will be disallowed. However if the escort service
is considered to be a bodyguard, a tour guide, or an interpreter as
the Minister of National Revenue confirmed today, of course
they would be legitimate deductions.
I can see accountants becoming quite creative in the use of
those terms to allow that business expense to continue. I could
go on and on with all sorts of illegitimate uses. They would not
be illegal because again, as long as an escort service is
considered to be an interpreter or a bodyguard, it is a legitimate
expense.
In the spirit of fairness, surely there must be some distinction
when it comes to business entertainment deductions. There is a
difference between a number of individuals getting together
over lunch or dinner to discuss a business transaction or some
aspect of carrying out their business, and some lavish
entertainment where folks are visiting a number of posh clubs
and wining and dining at extravagant prices. Again a certain
amount of that tab is being picked up by the general taxpayers of
the country. I simply point that out as one of the problems with a
section of this bill.
The member for Vancouver South gives us the impression that
major steps have been taken to bring fairness back into the
system. However, I do not think any step at all has been taken but
to put some difficulty on those individuals who are carrying out
a legitimate business transaction over a business lunch.
Other than that in Bill C-59, I want to also mention the
reference made by a number of speakers about the tax revolt
which is taking place and the fact that people are calling for,
predicting or suggesting there is bound to be a tax revolt if the
minister raises taxes. There already is a tax revolt under way.
That tax revolt has been in place for many years. It is called
the underground economy. People have simply said that they
have have lost faith in the tax system. They are going to conduct
as much business as possible underground, under the table
where it is then obviously unreported and by definition,
untaxed.
To what extent does this underground economy exist?
Obviously there is no accurate figure, but from my study of this
issue, the lowest amount I have ever come across is about $40
billion in annual business transactions and the highest has been
$120 billion. I am not here to say that either one of these
extremes is accurate. Regardless, it is a substantial amount of
money and my guess is that it is probably even higher than these
estimates would suggest.
Is there anyone in the country these days who in some form is
not participating in the underground economy? I say that not
suggesting anybody here or anywhere is willfully breaking the
law. I refer to our neighbours to the south. Whenever President
Clinton is trying to appoint someone to some official capacity
under the scrutiny of Congress eventually or inevitably it is
pointed out that they have participated in the underground
economy by paying a nanny cash or buying wood for cash from
somebody for their fireplace or participating in some barter
aspect. It has become almost a Canadian way of life.
(1225)
I notice that now when you walk into almost any book store in
Canada right, front and centre some of the best sellers are on
how to avoid tax. I noticed one the other day in which the person
said forget it, leave Canada and live in the Cayman Islands and
transfer everything right offshore. He has given up totally on
even trying to come to any realistic approach to the tax system.
9789
In the press today I thought were some very interesting
comments. Neville Nankivell, writing under the title of nation's
business for the Financial Post, reports that presently there are
about $6.6 billion owed in unpaid taxes. These are simply
individuals or companies that have agreed that they owe these
taxes and will pay them in due time and are presently paying
a penalty. There is another $2.7 billion tied up in tax appeals
before the courts.
There we have $9.3 billion sort of sitting there that probably
will end up one day in the treasury but this does not include all
those who are simply tax evaders. Unfortunately there are
increasing numbers of those folks.
For the under reporters, that is the underground economy, we
might be talking here if this were to be taxed at some nominal
rate at between $10 billion and $30 billion.
In other words, what this tells me, and perhaps I am naive in
this interpretation, is that if we had a decent, fair and just tax
system, and the economy were brought from underneath the
table on to the top of the table and taxed at some realistic level,
that would be the entire deficit paid down just from the
additional revenues from a fair and honest system of doing
business in the country.
That is a bit of a wish list but it does point out the incredible
extent of the underground economy and what that is doing in
terms of the future of the country regarding our debt and deficit
pay down.
In the last moment or two remaining I do want to mention one
aspect that I think is causing a great deal of concern to the public
generally and that is the possibility of taxing dental and health
plans that employers contribute to and so on.
I know this would generate a lot of money in terms of the
government. So many people now have access to decent health
care, I am thinking particularly of the preventative kind,
certainly decent dental care and the only way that is available to
them is as a result of these company plans. To tax those plans, as
so many people have indicated, would obviously mean that a
number of people, and unfortunately large numbers of people,
would simply have inappropriate dental and health care.
I cannot imagine any member standing up and suggesting that
a tax be levied on these kinds of health care plans and dental
plans.
I also want to draw the attention of the House to an article in
the paper the other day mentioning the whole matter of those
folks who are selling property in the United States and are going
to have a tax credit here in Canada. I raised this in the House
with the Minister of Finance. I said that if a person is selling
property in the United States over $600,000 in U.S. assets,
should we be providing tax credits for that here in Canada? In
other words, should we be encouraging people to buy and sell
property in the United States?
I know the Minister of Finance had an explanation for this. I
suppose he could have an explanation for even deducting escort
services on our tax and so on. The point is as we struggle to come
up with a reasonable tax system I notice in the press yesterday a
whole number of what I would call tax experts are saying that
this provision is simply wrong.
I am not referring to members of Parliament from most
political parties who have been critical of this. People who are
knowledgeable about the tax system are now saying that this
whole aspect of a tax arrangement between Canada and the
United States that allows Canadians selling their assets in the
United States over $600,000 to receive tax credits here in
Canada is simply wrong.
I would support that notion and raise this today to flag the
incident for the Minister of Finance as something to consider
when he introduces his budget in a few days.
While these changes in the bill before us do make the tax
system somewhat more equitable, we have a long way to go. In
terms of making it more simple so people have some hope of
understanding it, I would ask any member to sit down for five
minutes and pick any page out of this attempted simplification
to see if they can understand that page. If they can, I would have
to admit they are a better person than I when it comes to
understanding detailed tax matters.
In closing, a lot of work has yet to be done. I appreciate that
this is a small step toward improving the tax system but I would
emphasize that it is only a very small step. For that reason my
party will be voting against the bill at third reading.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
9790
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the
recorded division stands deferred until 6.30 p.m. on Monday,
February 20, 1995.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to further defer the vote until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to call it the time of adjournment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 12.33 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 12.33 p.m.)