CONTENTS
Monday, February 10, 1997
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.54 a.m.) 7868
The House resumed at 12.06 p.m. 7868
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 108; Nays, 50 7868
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7871
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7880
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 7881
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7882
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7883
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7883
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7883
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7883
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7884
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7884
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7884
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7885
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7886
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7886
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7886
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 7887
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7888
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7888
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7888
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7889
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7889
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7889
Bill C-369. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7891
Bill C-370. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7891
Motion for concurrence in 52nd report 7891
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7894
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of report stage andGroup No. 3 motions 7895
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7902
Division on Motion No. 118 deferred 7911
Division on Motion No. 125 deferred 7918
Motion No. 1 agreed to on division: Yeas, 114;Nays, 51 7918
Motions Nos. 4, 5, 63 and 120 agreed to 7919
Motion No. 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 30;Nays, 135 7919
Motion No. 3 negatived on division: Yeas, 51;Nays, 114 7920
Motions Nos. 114, 118 and 125 negatived on division:Yeas, 51; Nays; 114 7921
Motion for concurrence 7921
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7921
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 113; Nays, 52 7922
7861
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 10, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation to
protect public servants who report wasteful spending, illegal activities or any other
incidents which threaten the integrity of the government of Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Motion No. 263.
Given the importance of this issue and the need to hear from as
many members as possible, I ask for unanimous consent of the
House to share my 20 minutes with the member for Ottawa West.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to have in Canada
a public service which is the envy of the world. It is not overstating
the fact to say that our public service is of the highest calibre.
Despite the severe cutbacks and historic change that the public
service is currently enduring, Canadians continue to enjoy service
from among the best and the brightest. However, the public service
cannot maintain its tradition of excellence if the professionals who
make up this body are not empowered toward excellence.
This means not only providing the best training and support, it
means providing protection against those who do not aspire to the
high standards met daily by the majority of public servants. It is the
first step in the creation of a regime which empowers those
committed to excellence to have a method of dealing with those
who are not.
(1105 )
This motion is designed to address the absence of any legislated
protection for public servants who report any fraudulent activities,
suspected or otherwise. As members well know, public servants in
Canada do not enjoy any special protection from reprisals should
they report any fraudulent activity on the part of their superiors. We
lack the mechanisms necessary to ensure safe reporting of an
investigation of such activities.
All too often, the only course that public servants feel they have
open to them is to report their concerns to the media. Yet the media
is often unable to act until after an abuse of power has occurred
because it really is not news until it happens.
This is a problem that we need to address in a twofold manner.
First, we need to construct an investigative regime which will
protect the identity of the reporter. Second, we need to create a
climate where individuals who contemplate such activities know
they simply cannot get away with this kind of behaviour. The way
to achieve this second objective is to be very effective in our
treatment of the first.
I have worded this motion in very broad terms because
parliamentarians from all parties, academics, interested
organizations and, of course, public servants should have a say in
the creation of this legislation. It is particularly important to hear
from public servants to determine the shape this whistle blower
legislation should take. It is the public servants who must feel that
any such regime affords them the kind of protection to be effective.
The auditor general, in his 1995 annual report, stated that about
one-third of public servants believe that their job security would be
threatened if they were to report a conflict of interest involving a
superior or senior manager.
I have been approached on several occasions by constituents
who are public servants with reports of suspected abuse in their
departments. My action in these instances was to report the
suspected abuse while preserving the identity of my constituents. I
have done this and their concerns were investigated. However, I
was not happy with the process or lack of process to adequately
deal with these complaints. It appears that the fox minds the hen
house.
I am quite confident that my experience is not unique among
members of Parliament. The experiences of my constituents are
certainly not unique. We need whistle blower legislation.
There is a lack of balance in the current accountability regime.
Under the terms of the Financial Administration Act, public
servants are required to report any suspected fraud or face a fine of
up to $5,000 or five years in prison. However, there is no protection
for those who act in compliance with the Financial Administration
Act. We need to balance the requirement to report abuse with
7862
protection for whistle blowers who act in accordance with the law
and in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers.
The legislation which this motion proposes the government
introduce would serve two functions. First, it would provide
protection for public servants who feel reprisal if they report abuse
and it would function as an incentive for public servants to follow
the letter of the Financial Administration Act and report any
suspected fraud. It would also have an additional, very important
effect: to create a chilly climate for fraudulent behaviour.
Although it would be up to the government to create the
legislation, I would hope that process would include extensive
public hearings to ensure that we are able to create effective whistle
blower legislation.
The testimony that would come from these hearings would
greatly assist the government in creating an effective whistle
blower regime.
There has been some excellent work done in Canada on this
issue. Two initiatives in particular deserve mention. In 1986, the
Ontario Law Reform Commission released a position paper calling
for the creation of an office of special counsel whose purpose
would be to receive allegations of wrongdoing from public
servants. The OSC would launch an investigation, if warranted,
while ensuring the confidentiality of the complainant.
In 1994, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of
Canada released a series of recommendations as part of its
document entitled ``Lifting the Silence''. The institute
recommended the establishment of the office of the ombudsman
assigned to a function similar to that of the proposed OSC. The
office of the ombudsman would also have the authority to ensure
that corrective action is taken. We should draw on this work and
other initiatives in this area in creating the whistle blower regime.
(1110 )
My colleague, the member for Portneuf, has introduced Bill
C-318 on this issue. I appreciate his concern with this issue and I
know that he is sincere in his efforts to address the very serious lack
of whistle blower legislation. Unfortunately, I am not convinced
that his bill would create an adequate whistle blower regime. The
problem lies in the fact that he has prescribed a pivotal role to the
office of the auditor general.
Under his proposed legislation the auditor general would
investigate all complaints and the public servant in question would
be protected from reprisal by the auditor general. I raise this bill
because some would argue that this is a very natural role for the
auditor general. I think that we have to be very cautious in this
regard. If we were to review the literature on the auditor general
among academics and practitioners we would find a real concern
with the direction that office is currently taking.
We often forget that the office of the auditor general was initially
created for a very specific purpose, to conduct probity audits: that
is to ensure that government money is being spent the way the
government has said it is spending money. This has evolved into
what is known as a comprehensive audit where the auditor general
is making many value judgments on the manner in which the
government funding is spent. The function of the office has become
far more politicized and has gone far beyond its intended scope.
To assign a role to this office which includes investigating
allegations of fraudulent activity of all kinds and protecting whistle
blowers would represent a fundamental new responsibility. I am
not ruling out such a possibility in the future but I think that we
should consult with and examine the office of the auditor general
before assigning such a role.
Finally, as a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, I am
introducing this motion to ensure that the government fulfils a
1993 election commitment to introduce whistle blower legislation.
At an Ottawa press conference held on September 9, 1993, a one
page document was released which contained a commitment to
create an effective whistle blower regime. That document reads in
part: ``Public servants who blow the whistle on illegal or unethical
behaviour should be protected. A Liberal government will
introduce whistle blowing legislation''. It is important that this
commitment be kept. The legislation is long overdue.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent
to have the recorded divisions scheduled for this evening on the
amendment of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, and on
the motion of the official opposition tabled by the hon. member for
Shefford to be deferred until tomorrow, after Government Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the official opposition whip have
the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Could the hon. member succinctly
explain to the member for Brampton what this is about, or does the
member for Brampton now understand? It was explained to her?
Very well.
[English]
Is there unanimous consent to move the motion?
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what happened.
7863
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have just been made aware of
this motion. I would like an opportunity to confirm that
consultations have taken place. Would the member mind
withdrawing it for the moment and perhaps we could come back
to it after the debate proceeds, since I am the next speaker?
(1115 )
The Deputy Speaker: There are actually two parts to it. One,
there has to be unanimous consent to hear the motion and, second,
to pass it. We have basically gone through the first step but not the
second. We will get back to this question in 10 minutes.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on the motion tabled in the House
by the hon. member for Brampton.
The motion proposes that legislation be introduced to protect
public servants who report wasteful spending, illegal activities or
any other incidents which threaten the integrity of the government
of Canada.
This means that such legislation could include appropriate
sanctions against public service managers taking disciplinary
measures as a form of reprisal against employees who disclose
serious wrongdoing by their employer.
[English]
This proposal, like most legislation that comes before us,
particularly in the area of wrongdoing, is not intended for the 99
per cent of people affected by it who act properly, who look always
to do that which is right, fair and just and a responsible use of
taxpayer money. However, like all laws that come before us, they
are designed for those few who would choose to abuse a privilege,
to act with disrespect or harmfully or viciously toward other
members of society or toward their responsibilities.
A few years ago the previous auditor general suggested that we
should set up a snitch line so that public service employees could
call up and report abuses in their departments by other employees
or managers. I was not terribly in favour of that because it sounded
too much like repressive regimes around the world that have turned
their citizenry into a nation of spies against their friends, relatives
and co-workers.
However, I do think we want to encourage and, as my colleague
from Brampton has said, the Financial Administration Act
requires, members of the public to report any incident of abuse of
public resources and to suffer consequences if they do not. On the
other hand, employees are reluctant to do that because of fear of
suffering the consequences through loss of a job, through the lack
of opportunities for promotion and training. In other words, they
fear suffering real and significant consequences in their own
careers and advancement.
What the member for Brampton is trying to do is ask that we
look at legislation that would ensure that kind of punitive activity
cannot take place because a public service employee has exercised
his or her legal responsibility and duty to the country by reporting
wrongdoing.
It recognizes that whistleblowing can be in the public interest
and particularly if wasteful spending or illegal activities or even the
integrity of the government itself is at issue. We are all interested in
any proposal that would lead to improvements in the way
government programs are delivered. It would lead to greater
efficiencies and effectiveness and to the elimination of waste,
mismanagement or misconduct. That is why I had some regrets that
the motion before us is not votable. We want to try to foster that
attitude in the public service where employees feel free to suggest
better ways and feel free to come forward with knowledge about
how public money is being wasted or used illegally.
Right now there is no mechanism to protect them. There are a
number of measures in place that certainly provide opportunities.
The grievance process in the public service, as part of legislation, is
certainly one such mechanism whereby people who feel that they
have been wrongly denied opportunities, perhaps for doing
something that was their public duty to do, can certainly complain.
But that is a long, onerous and often damaging process. It is a very
confrontational process.
(1120 )
The harassment policy prevents an employer or manager from
treating employees in an abusive way. This would certainly be the
case if retaliation for the exposure of wrongdoing were involved.
The hon. member for Brampton is not alone in having dealt with
constituents who know of wrongdoing or who suspect wrongdoing
in the public service who are afraid to come forward to make a
complaint to correct the waste and abuse of public resources.
I do not believe that legislation such as this would be a blanket
answer. Legislation cannot protect against the bad will and
malicious nature of some people. I say that emphasizing that laws
such as this are written for a very small percentage of people who
do not behave in a proper manner, either in their personal lives or in
their work as public service employees. Legislation such as this
would be irrelevant to 99 per cent of public servants, perhaps more.
We have to look at how legislation such as this might affect other
obligations of employees. For instance, confidentiality is an
obligation of all federal public servants by virtue of the Official
Secrets Act and the oath or affirmation of secrecy taken by public
servants upon entering the service.
7864
It is not a simple matter. I do not pretend that legislation could
necessarily guarantee protection. However, it is an issue which
Parliament should look into. Can we ensure that our employees
feel perfectly comfortable when they identify serious faults and
perhaps illegalities in coming forward in the public interest and
making that information known? Unless the information is known,
nothing can be done to correct the situation.
A number of other jurisdictions have taken such measures. We
have a number of models which we could consider. This is
something which employees of the public service have been asking
of government for some time. I compliment the hon. member for
Brampton for bringing forward this motion today.
The Deputy Speaker: The opposition whip, I understand,
wishes to defer the two supply votes from today after Government
Orders to tomorrow after Government Orders.
Did I hear a no?
If I understand her correctly, the hon. member simply wishes to
defer the vote on the two supply motions scheduled for today to
tomorrow after Government Orders.
I realize that the hon. deputy whip has not had time to speak with
her colleagues. Does she wish a further deferral of the putting of
this question to the House?
Ms. Catterall: We are prepared to deal with it now, if you wish,
Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent in the House
for the hon. opposition whip's proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1125)
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as its name
indicates, Motion M-263, presented by the member for Brampton,
would protect public servants against reprisals for having,
confidentially and in good faith, reported certain abuses by federal
public servants.
This motion does not set a historic precedent as such. Our
neighbour to the south, the United States, is increasingly favouring
legal protection for employees who blow the whistle on unlawful
practices. Whistle blowers in the American civil service are
afforded some protection under the Civil Service Reform Act.
From state to state, in the U.S., protection varies considerably,
with some states having legislation that covers both private and
public sector employers, some having legislation that covers just
one of these sectors, and yet others having legislation aimed only at
certain specific problems or industries.
In many countries, particularly in the Commonwealth, there is
more specific legislation concerning such areas as employment,
health or the environment, that protect employees against reprisals
to which they might be subject for availing themselves of the rights
conferred on them under such legislation.
Ontario is the only province in Canada that has brought in
legislation to provide general protection for whistle blowers in the
public sector. The 1993 public service and staff relations amending
legislation contains a part IV dealing with protection for whistle
blowers. Although the bill received royal sanction on December
14, 1993, this part IV is not yet in effect, and since the
Conservatives came into power in that province, no one knows
when it will be.
All bills comparable to Motion M-263 presented to date in the
House of Commons have shared the objective of protecting federal
public servants who make allegations of wrongdoing by their
employers.
Since 1987, there have been four such legislative measures
debated in the House. I would like to list these: Bill C-229 by the
former Conservative member Bill Vankoughnet; Motion M-57, by
the former Solicitor General of Canada, the Hon. Bob Kaplan; the
motion by the former Conservative minister, the Hon. Alan
Redway, and finally Bill C-293 by former NDP member Joy
Langan.
In addition to these legislative measures in the House of
Commons, several organizations have made submissions, or
indicated their agreement in principle with a bill such as the one
proposed by today's motion. Those publicly stating the necessity of
such a measure include the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and the
Auditor General of Canada.
On the other hand, certain political parties have taken a stand in
this debate on ethics in the public service. The Liberal Party of
Canada, the New Democratic Party and, of course, the Bloc
Quebecois, have stated their intention to propose or support such a
measure. As for the Reform Party, they have been endlessly stating
since their election that they will support any measure aimed at
eliminating waste by government institutions.
The doggedness of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in
promoting such a legislative measure is certainly undisputable. On
a number of occasions, it has criticized the situation and
recommended passing a bill proposing the same objectives as
Motion M-263.
In November 1994, in its document ``In the public interest'', one
of the recommendations the Alliance made was:
That the Government of Canada pass legislation aimed at protecting members of
the Public Service who disclose government wrongdoing, reprehensible practices
and waste.
7865
(1130)
In a press release dated May 12, 1995, the Alliance stated that
speedy passage of the bill on whistle-blowers promised by the
Liberal government during the election campaign would go far
towards resolving the ethical dilemmas facing federal public
service employees.
On May 11, 1994, the Bloc member for Portneuf tabled Bill
C-248 in this House for first reading.
On June 19, 1996, the hon. member for Portneuf tabled Bill
C-318 for first reading.
We feel there are a number of reasons why the auditor general
should be allowed to receive and investigate complaints referred to
as whistle-blowing.
The auditor general is by law responsible for the internal audit of
the federal administrative apparatus. The auditor general is also
known for his professionalism and the relevance of his reports.
Finally, the auditor general's office operates at arm's length from
the government and politicians, which gives it a certain status and
impartiality.
Considering the number of bills tabled previously by members
of all parties; considering the election promises made by the Prime
Minister and his Liberal colleagues regarding the introduction of
such a measure; considering that all other political parties support
such a proposal; considering that the unions are unanimous in their
support for a tool including provisions that would allow
whistle-blowing; also considering the number of government
agencies that recommend this type of legislation and, finally, the
urgent need for increased transparency and integrity in federal
institutions, we should support Motion M-263.
For all the reasons just mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois will
support the motion tabled in the House by the hon. member for
Brampton.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address Motion No. M-263 brought forward by the
member from Brampton. Motion No. M-263 asks:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation to
protect public servants who report wasteful spending, illegal activities or any other
incidents which threaten the integrity of the government of Canada.
Clearly Canadians want and expect their government to conduct
their business openly and honestly and that is what this motion is
about.
The principles of this motion are similar to the principles of the
Reform Party. The Reform Party has always advocated
transparency in the federal government and the elimination of
waste in public funds. As a result, Reform members have asked this
government to introduce whistle blowing legislation in the past.
For example, the Reform member for St. Albert asked the
President of the Treasury Board to introduce legislation to protect
whistle blowers. We have yet to see this legislation introduced in
the House.
Public servants must not only be allowed but also encouraged to
report practices that would cause a specific and substantial danger
or prejudice to the public health, safety or welfare, or entail
wasteful or unjustified public spending. Employers should not be
allowed to discourage, suspend or impose financial penalties on
any employee who makes a disclosure. Public servants must be
protected against employer reprisals in retaliation for disclosures
that are made in good faith.
These measures were forward in the House before, as mentioned
by my colleagues both on the Liberal side and the Bloc side, by the
Bloc member for Portneuf as Bill C-248. The fact that this issue has
not been deemed votable both times it has been brought forward
before the House makes it rather clear that the government does not
want to see whistle blowing legislation before this House.
Before the last election the Liberals promised to introduce
whistle blowing legislation. In their approach to the public service
the Liberals promised: ``Public servants who blow the whistle on
illegal or unethical behaviour should be protected''. That is pretty
clear. ``A Liberal government will introduce whistle blowing
legislation in the first session of the new Parliament''. Well guess
what. The first session has past, we are into the second session and
there is still no whistle blowing legislation.
(1135 )
Many other countries are far ahead of Canada in this area. For
example in the United States they have the false claims act. Under
it whistle blowers receive 25 per cent of the savings of any whistle
blowing event that they unearth. Over the first six years of
operation of that act 407 lawsuits were filed and 37 were settled for
a total of about $147 million in savings. The average whistle
blower received $400,000. England has similar legislation. I
believe this is the crux of what we are talking about here, protection
at the same time as incentive.
The Americans saved $147 million by people within their
departments saying there was waste and showing that there was
waste. The incentive was there. Twenty-five per cent of the savings
that they identified went into their own pockets. It works very well.
The government saves on the one hand, the employee picks up on
the other hand and the protection is there. It would be worthwhile
to look at some of the practices followed in other countries to draft
a plan of our own.
We also have on the books existing legislation that makes it
necessary for this government to introduce whistle blowing
legislation. Such an act is necessary because at the same time that
our Financial Administration Act states that a public servant who
fails to report suspected fraud can be fined up to $5,000 or sent to
prison for up to five years, there is no corresponding protection for
whistle
7866
blowers who act in accordance with the law. Clearly we require a
balance.
The government knows full well that there is waste and abuse in
the public service and the introduction of such an act will bring
many of these wasteful practices under control. This type of bill
would help restore the credibility of the government and the
politicians who are, to a certain extent, responsible for public
service waste and abuse.
As my colleagues have mentioned before, the auditor general has
covered this. He emphasized the need for action on this issue in his
1995 report. The auditor general wrote: ``Canadians are concerned
about integrity in government and they have the right to expect the
highest ethical standards in their governments. Leadership by
members of Parliament, ministers and deputy ministers is critical
to maintaining ethical standards and performance in government''.
The auditor general went on to say: ``If Canadians do not trust
their governments to act ethically, governments will find that their
actions have less and less legitimacy and effectiveness. Thus we
believe that it is important to discuss the ethics in government and
to take action to maintain and promote ethics within government''.
The Liberals promised in their red book to restore honesty and
integrity to government yet their actions speak otherwise. If we had
honesty and integrity, we would not need Motion No. M-263. We
would not need to waste this House's time asking the government
to follow through on its election promise. However as it is, there is
a need to protect public servants whose efforts to ensure honesty
and integrity in our institutions are threatened by their government.
Thus we need this legislation.
It is ironic that on the one hand we have a Liberal backbencher
pushing to fulfil a Liberal promise yet on the other hand cabinet is
acting to undermine the Liberal member's efforts. This is not a
partisan issue. It is simply common sense. It is in the best interests
of Canadians and the federal government to introduce this
legislation.
In conclusion, I support Motion No. M-263. I believe that there
is broad support for this motion within the House. We have heard it
from the Liberal side, we have heard it from the Bloc and Reform.
As such I would ask for unanimous consent in this House that this
motion be deemed votable.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is seeking unanimous
consent that the matter be made votable. Is there unanimous
consent colleagues to have this matter made votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I hear a no and therefore it
cannot be made votable.
(1140 )
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in the debate today on the motion tabled by my
colleague, the hon. member for Brampton, advocating legislation
to protect public servants who report wasteful spending, illegal
activities or any other incidents that threaten the integrity of the
Government of Canada. The term whistle blowing has been used to
describe such activities.
While the matter of legislating whistle blowing protection has
been given a thorough airing in this House in the past, it is useful to
bring it forward on occasion to see if the issues are real, if there are
current mechanisms in place to assist public service employees
who are fulfilling the legitimate requirements of their jobs, and if
these mechanisms continue to provide the required degree of
comfort for employees. It is useful as well to look at the experience
of others in the area of whistle blower protection.
In Canada within the public service context, whistle blowing is
rather loosely defined as making public disclosure of practices or
actions related to fraud, mismanagement or waste. It is interesting
to note that the current motion also includes a reference to items
which threaten the integrity of the Government of Canada. It is
very important for employees within the public service and in the
private sector to have pride in their jobs and in their organization.
Also I feel strongly that employees want to identify in a positive
way with their employment and with their employer.
The issue which arises is what to do when an employee sees
situations involving potential waste or mismanagement, or from a
more positive perspective, when that employee sees a way for
improving job efficiency or effectiveness. The concern is with
those mechanisms that are available should the recommendations
or suggestions not be welcomed or addressed.
I looked at some of the United States experience in the area of
whistle blower protection legislation. As a bit of background,
whistle blowing protection was legislated in the United States with
the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act and in 1989 with the
Whistleblowing Protection Act. It was designed to provide
protection against adverse employment actions for employees who
blow the whistle.
The 1989 legislation allowed employees to appeal to the Merit
Systems Protection Board to seek redress for alleged acts of
retaliation such as reassignments and ratings. As a follow-up to
determine the effectiveness of the legislation, the United States
7867
government conducted employee surveys in 1983 and in 1992 with
a number of interesting findings.
Survey data showed that from 1983 to 1992 fewer employees
said they had personally observed or obtained direct evidence of
one or more illegal or wasteful activities involving their agencies.
However of these employees, an increased percentage said that
they had reported the illegal or wasteful activities. There was also
an increase in the percentage of employees who said they had
experienced reprisal or threat of reprisal for having reported an
illegal or wasteful activity, but there was a decline in the more
serious forms of reprisal.
From the perspective of increasing efficiency and effectiveness
it was noted that while a smaller percentage of employees reported
seeing examples of illegal or wasteful activities, of those who saw
them a much larger percentage were willing to report them. Some
employees chose not to report for a number of reasons, primarily
because they believed nothing would be done to correct the
activity, or they feared retaliation. Of course, when employees do
share information about problems they see, the receivers of this
information must be receptive to the information and must be
willing to work with the employees toward problem resolution.
The United States report reached the conclusion that agencies
need to focus their efforts on creating an atmosphere in which
employees and managers alike see the value both in identifying
problems and in working together to resolve them and that threats
associated with disclosing illegal or wasteful activities must be
diminished. The report concluded that this can be done only by
empowering employees with the control and the right to help make
changes in the workplace.
(1145 )
Suggestions for improvement included the following. Agencies
should emphasize organizational change and improvement.
Agencies should examine their processes for selecting supervisors
and managers to ensure that they are choosing management teams
with whom employees will feel comfortable sharing information
concerning illegal or wasteful activities. Agencies should ensure
that employees understand the kinds of problems about which they
should share information, how the information will be handled and
what safeguards there are against reprisals. Agencies should
actively solicit employees' views and give employees feedback
concerning those views.
This leads to an interesting comparison with the approach within
the Canadian public service. In terms of the Canadian approach, we
think it is important that the government of the day works with the
public service in a co-operative manner, and I feel a spirit of trust
must be felt as we look to ways of eliminating waste and achieving
effectiveness.
At this time there are mechanisms within the public service to
allow employees to bring to the attention of senior management
any concerns they may have regarding illegal activities which they
consider beyond the bounds of propriety. As well, there are a
variety of mechanisms to protect employees from arbitrary
disciplinary measures including the well established grievance and
adjudication process.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act allows employees to
grieve any perceived injustice or wrongdoing where there is no
recourse provided in law. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects
employees from discrimination and the Privacy Act provides a
measure of protection as well.
In addition to the legislation provisions, the harassment in the
workplace policy adopted by the Treasury Board for all public
service employees specifically forbids harassment for any reason
whatsoever, including specifically abuse of authority. It provides a
simple mechanism that allows employees to bring their concerns to
the attention of a neutral third party. In addition, the powers of the
press and the public service employee unions have been influenced.
The press and the unions have demonstrated a continuing interest
in keeping government employees and public organizations on the
straight and narrow, as we are all aware.
A fundamental principle of management in most successful
organizations is that the employees are accountable for their
performance to their senior managers. Fair play on the part of
employees and superiors is an equally important element. There are
in place remedial measures and available avenues of appeal that
work efficiently to deal with abuses of authority. There are also
sanctions in place to prevent, avert or penalize proven
dishonourable conduct, criminal actions, waste, extravagance,
discrimination or abuse of trust.
Employees are expected to inform their supervisors of any
seeming impropriety and to suggest ways of improving public
service actions. Recourse to internal channels where available and
likely to be effective is required so that problems may be resolved
internally.
The employee must consider whether that alternative is
appropriate, not because the truth should be hidden but because
internal remedy may be the most effective. There is an important
message for internal managers here. Employees, according to a
United States survey, are more likely to disclose issues in the
context of where the issue is likely to be addressed.
For all the complexity of the government, the incidents that put
employees in particular difficulties are remarkably few and far
between. Existing mechanisms have been shown to be capable of
dealing with them. New legislation in the area might well open a
gulf between the employees and management, one which does not
exist now.
7868
The Deputy Speaker: There are no further members wishing
to speak. The hon. member for Brampton is entitled under the
rules to give a short summary of the debate if she wishes to do
so.
(1150 )
Ms. Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate and I
think that all members are in general agreement that the legislation
is necessary. I am just hoping that the government will take this as
a lead to enact some sort of hearings for this legislation.
I have had a number of personal experiences with people
reporting abuses. I do not find that even for a member of
Parliament there is a satisfactory way to address these issues.
Public servants are intimidated by talking to members. Often in a
department one public servant will not even meet with a member
alone. They want someone else there with them as a witness to
protect themselves in case the member makes a complaint. They
want their own jobs protected.
I have been a public servant. We have some of the most
dedicated, hard working people in the public service of Canada.
Unfortunately, the only things ever reported in the news media are
the abuses long after they have occurred. I do not think it is fair to
the public service to be tarred with the same brush by the
perception being created out there by these odd stories.
I would like to encourage the government to proceed with
fulfilling its commitment.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is perhaps not aware of
the fact that the proposer can sum up only if nobody else wishes to
speak. Perhaps the hon. member could call it a point of order. He is
not entitled to speak once the proposer has made a final summary.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, my point of order would be a matter of
debate, and so I will sit down.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since no other member wishes to speak
and the motion is a non-votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the House be
suspended until noon.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we suspend the House
until noon?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.54 a.m.)
The House resumed at 12.06 p.m.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing
and Reduction Account Act and related acts, not more than one further sitting day
shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day
shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, and 15 minutes before the
expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the
consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of
the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for
the purpose of the order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the
stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively
without further debate or amendment.
Some hon. members: Shame.
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 of the motion 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1250)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 216)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
7869
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lee
Lincoln
Maloney
Manley
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Zed-108
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Gouk
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)-50
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Assadourian
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Canuel
Cauchon
Crête
Deshaies
Dubé
Dumas
Fillion
Finestone
Fry
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
MacAulay
Marleau
Ménard
Parrish
Payne
Pomerleau
Robillard
Rocheleau
Shepherd
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The House resumed from February 6, 1997 consideration of Bill
C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing
and Reduction Account Act and related Acts, and of the motions in
Group No. 3.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to the motions in Group No. 3 put forward
by the Bloc Quebecois concerning this part of Bill C-70. Because
this bill is very substantial, the amendments have had to be
grouped.
I am pleased to rise today to express my opposition to Bill C-70,
as my colleagues have done before me. As has already been said
repeatedly, this bill is a hodgepodge of amendments to the GST, a
rather thin and tasteless soup.
(1255)
One of the aims of this bill is to harmonize the GST and the
provincial sales tax of three maritime provinces in exchange for a
paltry compensation of $1 billion based on some particularly
obscure calculations.
First off, I would like to point out that there would have been no
debate on Bill C-70 had the Liberal government kept its election
promises. In the last election, the Prime Minister promised to
totally eliminate this federal sales tax. However, far from
eliminating it, the government now wants to harmonize it, as it puts
it, to better hide it. In addition to not fulfilling his election promise,
the Prime Minister told Canadians and Quebecers he had never
promised to eliminate the GST.
Canadians were probably not watching the right television
channel when the Prime Minister said: ``We want to scrap the GST;
we want to abolish it; we want to eliminate it''. Canadians were
probably not reading the right newspapers when they read, written
7870
in black and white, during the election campaign, statements made
by the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues saying: ``Yes, we
will scrap the GST''. Canadians were probably not tuning to the
right radio stations when the Prime Minister, his ministers and
other members opposite said: ``We will abolish the GST; we will
scrap it''.
Today, we are told: ``You misunderstood''. And we
misunderstood them in both official languages. This is all about
respect.
Now, we all know what to make of the Liberals' promises,
including future ones, because they will promise us the world
again. We have proof that the Liberals are unable to fulfil their
commitments. To make things worse, the Prime Minister was
disrespectful to a citizen on the national television network when
he told her: ``No, we did not lie; this is what we meant, but we did
not state it correctly''.
Not only did the Prime Minister and his government renege on
their word, they are now proposing a bill hastily thrown together, a
bill that will cost us one billion dollars in compensation to just
three maritime provinces. What a nice pre-election gift. They
probably need it badly in that part of the country.
I will not discuss in detail the technical aspects of Bill C-70, but
I have to point out the government's incompetence in this matter,
and its lack of respect for the opposition and for Maritimers, who
were not given an opportunity to be effectively consulted and
heard.
Before Christmas, the Minister of Finance tabled a bill that has
close to 300 pages. He tabled it just before the Christmas recess,
giving the opposition 24 hours to review this technical piece of
legislation and to prepare for debate at second reading. The purpose
was obviously to prevent the official opposition from finding flaws
in the bill. Unfortunately for the Liberals, there were flaws and
there are still many. In fact, the government botched its work to the
point that the Liberals themselves tabled over 100 amendments to
their own bill. Their excuse is that they worked so quickly and did
such a poor job that they did not have the time to read it over and so
they have come up with 100 amendments to remedy matters.
The government has been moving full steam ahead with Bill
C-70 so that the public will forget the GST fiasco before the next
federal election. It shows, because this is a bad bill and the
government is proving it by introducing so many amendments. Not
only is Bill C-70 bad, but it is unfair, because it makes no provision
for compensation to provinces that have already harmonized their
provincial sales tax with the federal tax.
Oddly enough, the only province that has already harmonized its
sales tax with the federal tax is Quebec. That is right, once again
the Liberal government is thumbing its nose at Quebecers, by
refusing to give them the money to which they are entitled. The
Government of Quebec calculates the amount at $2 billion. If you
work out fairly what Quebec should receive in light of what was
handed over to the maritimes, this is the amount owing. We are not
asking for a handout or anything extra, we are asking for what is
owed us.
(1300)
When the provincial premiers got together in Jasper last August,
they reached an agreement that all provinces should be treated
equitably by the federal government. All provinces including
Quebec, since it is still part of Canada for a few years to come, are
to benefit equally from the agreements regarding the
harmonization of sales taxes, which naturally includes
compensation.
On December 13, 1996, Quebec ministers Bernard Landry and
Jacques Brassard officially requested $2 billion in compensation
for having harmonized Quebec's sales tax with the federal sales
tax. Since that time, the Liberal government has refused to
compensate the Quebec government for this harmonization.
It is worth pointing out that Quebec harmonized its sales tax in
1991, on its own and without financial assistance. The costs of this
harmonization were considerable, and part of those costs were
borne by Quebec businesses. Moreover, Quebec businesses are still
paying the price, and are not even reaping the benefits the
harmonized tax will offer, as proposed in Bill C-70. The bill
neglects to even mention Quebec.
As for the three Maritime provinces, they will benefit fully and
considerably from the harmonization of their sales tax with the
federal tax. Unlike the Quebec businesses, those in the Maritimes
will be fully reimbursed for input taxes, without the increase in
taxes Quebec businesses had to absorb. One of the best proofs of
the Maritimes' new advantage is the poaching by New Brunswick's
Premier McKenna during Team Canada's latest trip to Asia. During
this trade mission, Premier McKenna approached Quebec and
Ontario businesses to get them to move to New Brunswick by
pointing out the advantages of harmonizing their sales tax with the
GST.
The federal government is therefore using some of the Quebec
taxpayers' money to finance unfair and unethical competition by
the Atlantic provinces. We are also paying for the tax cuts promised
by the Government of New Brunswick, while such a luxury is out
of reach for us in Quebec. Unfortunately, the harmonization of
sales taxes by the Maritime provinces will cost us more than just
the $1 billion over the next four years. The reduction in sales tax
from 19 per cent to 15 per cent will mean that Quebecers and all
Canadians will be contributing more in equalization payments to
the maritime provinces.
Furthermore, the federal government is guilty of a total lack of
transparency and fairness in this matter. There is no way at the
moment to justify the $1 billion the maritime provinces are going
to get. The reason is simple, unlike the practice, the standards and
method of calculation used to establish the amount of compensa-
7871
tion remain hidden and under wraps. This is unacceptable. The
government is being neither professional nor honest in this matter.
Now, a quick word in closing on Bill C-70's supposed
elimination of tax on books. Another snow job by the Liberal
government in an effort to hide its mistakes. Bill C-70 provides for
the elimination of taxation on books purchased by literacy and
teaching institutions only. This is a start, it is true. We recognize
that. However, it is thanks to the unrelenting demand of Quebec,
which, by the way, has eliminated sales tax on all books.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-70 and its plan
to harmonize the GST with the sales tax of the maritime provinces.
This bill is jerry-built and based on nothing more than political and
partisan considerations. The Liberal government is attempting to
mislead the public with this bill and make them forget the empty
promise of eliminating the GST, but people will not be fooled and
will still remember in a few months' time.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-70 and the third group of
amendments on harmonizing the sales tax in the maritimes.
We have hard much about how the harmonized sales tax is unfair
and complex. I am going to get into some solutions to the GST that
the government could employ in order to give all businesses a leg
up against competitors in other parts of the world.
The government had an enormous opportunity when it came into
office three and a half years ago to finally help Canadian businesses
to become competitive with their counterparts in the world. Instead
the government has taken an entirely different approach other than
business as usual. It has done the exact opposite and complicated
our tax structures.
(1305 )
The most recent example is the HST. This sales tax does not
make the taxation system simpler. It does not provide an impetus
for the private sector. It does not create more jobs. It will do the
exact opposite. It will cost jobs. There are some very sad examples
of this, particularly since this affects the maritimes. It is supposed
to help the maritimes but will actually have a devastating effect on
many businesses.
Who is this going to affect? It will cost more for children's
clothing, books, auto repairs, gasoline, home fuel. It is not the rich
who pay for this but the poor on fixed incomes who really pay. Let
us look at some real life examples of businesses on the east coast
that are going to be affected by this.
The Canadian Real Estate Association claims that the increasing
cost of a new house in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland will be over
three and a half thousand dollars. The GST harmonization in New
Brunswick will cost almost 80 jobs in Moncton and Buctouche.
There are other examples in New Brunswick. There is a 50:50
chance of other store closures in the Greenberg chain and a loss of
over 70 jobs in places such as Atholville, Shediac and Moncton.
This tax will not alleviate the strain and duress that Canadians from
coast to coast feel. It will make things worse.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses made it
very clear that harmonizing the sales tax is good but that it has to
conform to certain criteria. It stated that a properly harmonized tax
is good, but it has to be one sales tax across the country at a lower
rate than the present rate. It must have one set of rules, one set of
audit procedures, a single remittance requirement and one tax
collector.
The HST proposal that harmonizes the sales taxes will not do
that. It violates the principles put forward to the government by the
business community through the Canadian Federation of
Independent Businesses. It said to the government: ``Here are some
good solutions. Take them and use them''. What did the
government do? It ignored them and went in the opposite direction.
I am sure many members will empathize with me. Before I got
into this business, as a member of the public I often wondered why
in the world did governments continue to propose solutions that
have little or no relevance to what is actually going on in the
trenches? I am no closer to answering that question today after
three years in this House than I was before I got into this business,
and that is sad.
It is a disgrace and a shame that we have repeatedly failed the
Canadian public by not putting forward good, effective solutions to
the problems that affect us. In no other realm have we violated the
trust of the Canadian public more than in the field of economics.
This opportunity to harmonize the sales tax was a great chance but
a failed opportunity on the part of the government.
Some very good solutions could be put forward, but first I will
talk a bit about the GST. I will not discuss the fact that the
government violated the public's trust on this issue because that
has been spoken about before. Once again I plead with the
ministers of revenue and finance to please simplify this tax or
eliminate it. It is a complicated tax. I do not know if they really
understand the incredible stress and burden it places on the small
independent businesses that are trying their hardest to eke out an
existence. These businesses are getting it in the teeth and the
simplification or the elimination of the GST would be a welcome
respite for people who are the underpinning of our economy and
the true creators of jobs in Canada.
7872
This tax is not applied fairly. In the medical field, the GST is
not applied fairly at all. Physicians are actually singled out and
treated unfairly by this tax. I will show members how.
(1310 )
Medical services are designated as tax exempt under the Excise
Tax Act. Physicians, on the other hand, are denied the ability to
claim a GST refund for purchases such as medical equipment and
medical supplies that are necessary to deliver quality care.
Why did the government not support motions put forward by my
colleague from Medicine Hat to make that issue fair for all medical
personnel? Why are physicians being singled out? Only the
government knows that. It is unfair and discriminatory to this
group of individuals.
I would like to discuss some things we can do to try to improve
the economy in our country. The first thing is to look seriously at
introducing a simple, flat tax. The flat tax tells people that the
harder they work, the more they are going to keep. Our present
taxation system tells the Canadian public the more they make, the
more the government is going to take from them.
That is a very serious problem because it takes away the
incentive to go out and strive harder. A flat tax with a greater
margin of exemption at the bottom takes out the lowest
socioeconomic groups from paying taxes and puts more money in
their hands.
My colleagues in the Reform Party have proposed that and we
have the flat tax in our fresh start platform. It shows ways that the
government can actually put more money into the hands of all
Canadians, but in particular those who are poorest in our society. I
encourage the government, once again, to take a look at that.
Frankly, I am not very confident that it will take the initiative.
The complexity of the tax structure absolutely restrains, restricts
and compromises the ability of the private sector to go out and be
as aggressive as it can be.
Government regulation, in fact government over regulation,
must be diminished greatly. If I was a private business person
considering opening up a business, I would think very carefully
about not doing it because of the level of government over
regulation. Three levels of government are the hoops that many
business people have to jump through, and that acts as a huge
restraint on maximizing the great ideas that they have
economically.
We must also deal with education. We need a much stronger
education system and it needs to be brought into line with what is
taking place in the global economy and what the needs of our
country will be in the 21st century. Currently students, faced with
an over 20 per cent unemployment rate, are having great difficulty
earning the funds to get themselves through school. Almost two
years ago Reformers suggested an income contingent loan
replacement plan which would provide more funds to students
going to school.
Our educational system must reflect the needs of the 21st
century. Therefore, closer co-operation between the private sector
and the education system is essential if we are going to maximize
the needs of our country and the needs of our students. The ICLR
program would enable more money to be available for students to
get the training required. We also need a far greater input into job
training in the work force.
Much to my dismay, I have learned that our country is one of the
lowest in all developed countries in investing in their workers in
developing the trades and the educational systems they will require
along with the skills to be aggressive in the 21st century.
In closing, if the government was to have a flat tax, decrease the
complexity in our taxation system, have a strong educational
system, decrease the tax burden on Canadians and simplify the tax
structure, we could provide enormous input, incentive and impetus
to our private sector. As a result, we would create more jobs and
have a more secure future for all Canadians.
(1315 )
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to voice my opposition to Bill C-70. It is a
thinly veiled attempt by the government to fulfil a red book
promise to eliminate or redefine the GST.
I never fail to be amazed at the attitude of the government which
has changed from such a short time ago when it was in opposition. I
clearly remember the debate which went on in this place and in the
other place when the former Conservative government brought in
the GST. I remember the debate which went on in the other place
for hours and hours, day and night, and the Liberal outrage over the
proposed GST. The debate caused emotions which at times almost
led to physical violence. All sorts of strange manoeuvres were
employed to filibuster the bill, yet a couple of years later the
Liberals who now form the government have completely flip
flopped and seem to be defending this very unpopular and unfair
tax in the interests of all Canadians.
When we read some of the debates from the last Parliament we
see the Liberal comments which were voiced every time the
Conservatives invoked closure on a bill. The Liberals howled and
shouted their outrage. Now they are on the other side and they
invoke closure on a regular basis. It is almost a daily order of
business. There is a lot of hypocrisy in that kind of action.
The imposition of the GST had a lot to do with what happened to
the Conservative Party in the last election. It will probably have
somewhat the same effect on the Liberal members from Atlantic
Canada in the next election if they do not start speaking up and
representing the views of their constituents on the harmonized
version of the GST. It has all the same problems and faults which
the original GST had when it was imposed on Canadians, except
7873
those problems and faults are now magnified. Instead of a 7 per
cent tax we are looking at a 15 per cent tax.
The whole concept was sold to Atlantic Canadians on a bill of
goods which said they would be better off, that the provincial tax
would be lower and that it was the best thing since sliced bread.
Atlantic Canadians are quickly coming to realize that the picture is
not quite as rosy as the one they were sold.
The provincial sales tax was a tax on goods. Now it has become a
tax on goods and services. On top of the billion dollar incentive
which was given to the Atlantic provinces by the rest of the
Canadian taxpayers to induce them to enter this agreement, the
base of the tax will be hugely expanded compared to what was
covered by the provincial tax. It has become quite evident to
Atlantic Canadians that their cost of taxation will be substantially
higher than it was with the two tax system.
On top of that, there is the fundamental dishonesty about trying
to bury the GST in the price of the goods so that every time an
Atlantic Canadian buys a good or a service they will not be
reminded of the hated GST. That it is hidden in the price does not
seem to be a very upfront and honest way of trying to make this
whole controversy go away and make Canadians forget the most
hated tax in Canadian history.
(1320 )
On top of that, a number of well known organizations have
exposed the cost of this harmonized tax to Atlantic Canadians. It is
certainly going to kill jobs in a major way. It is going to put
expansion plans of a number of fairly major retail chains on hold. It
will not only cost in investments but it will also cost jobs for
Atlantic Canadians.
Of course we can go back to the whole issue that has been
plaguing this House for the last three and a half years, which is the
difference in what the Prime Minister and other Liberals promised
during the campaign and what they have delivered since the
election. The recent town hall meeting brought to light very clearly
the difference between the two. The expulsion of the member for
York South-Weston has certainly exposed the fraud in this whole
issue.
There is no doubt that the promise to eliminate the GST after the
election, because it has been such a very unpopular tax with
Canadians since its implementation, had a very major impact on
the number of seats the Liberal Party gained in the last election.
Doing a flip-flop and turning its back on that promise will have a
major impact on the next election. I do not even think this attempt
to harmonize the tax will cover the failure to fulfil that promise by
this government.
We in the west and even those in Ontario, the largest province in
Canada, have shown little interest in joining in this effort to
harmonize the tax for the same reasons that now, after the faults
have been exposed, Atlantic Canadians are rejecting it. In Alberta
where we have no provincial sales tax, the implication of a blended
tax is of little interest to Albertans and would do nothing but cost a
substantial amount of money.
Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia are the three provinces
that are not even willing to talk about the proposal. It appears that
even the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward
Island are quickly backing away from having any input into the
whole proposal. It is simply no better than the GST which
Canadians have been rejecting for so long.
It is understandable why the provincial governments of some of
the Atlantic provinces did fall into the trap set by the federal
government to get them into this scheme. It was simply because of
the billion dollars which was put up by all Canadians through their
tax dollars to bribe them into becoming part of the scheme. There is
also the very complicated issue of tax credits where one tax is
applied on top of another tax and the province receives a rebate in
those instances. One can see how it could be appealing to a
provincial government if in fact it is looking after its interests
instead of the interests of the people it represents, the people of the
Atlantic provinces.
While it might have more appeal to the governments in the
Atlantic provinces, certainly for the same reasons as for all other
Canadians it has little appeal to Atlantic Canadians. That is
probably one of the reasons the Liberal government refused to hold
public hearings on this issue in Atlantic Canada.
(1325 )
Certainly, considering the implications of this bill and the tax the
government is proposing, it would only be natural that the
committee would have travelled to Atlantic Canada to hold public
hearings and hear the opinions of all Atlantic Canadians but that
just was not to be. I find it quite curious that this government would
not have been willing to go there to hear the opinion of those most
affected.
We oppose the GST in its entirety and we oppose this bill to
harmonize the GST, but to somehow neutralize at least some of the
problems with it we introduced a number of amendments. It will be
realized that with the imposition of closure on the bill the Liberal
government is not interested in hearing any amendments to
improve the bill any more than it is interested in hearing any more
debate on the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to tell the hon. member that his
time has expired. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to stand before this House today as a
7874
member from the Atlantic region to talk about the Atlantic region. I
wish to clarify the point that some of the members from the third
party have referred to it as the maritime region when in fact we are
talking about the Atlantic region of Canada. The harmonized sales
tax is indeed an issue for intelligent discussion in this House.
The member indicated that members of the finance committee
did not go to the Atlantic region because we were afraid to hear
what the people might have had to say. That is not the case. We
were in the Atlantic region in November. We held hearings across
the country on the GST and we had open discussions. We even had
political leaders from other parties attend our hearings here in
Ottawa. It was the generous availability and the invitation of
members of the finance committee that brought them to Ottawa.
Some key points in the harmonized sales tax that are being
missed are really valuable. A point of fact is that on average, a
Canadian consumer and in fact a consumer in the Atlantic region
visits the grocery store approximately two times each week. In the
items the average consumer will buy, approximately 40 per cent of
them are taxable. What this means in the Atlantic region is a
reduction of that tax through a harmonized process. In Nova Scotia
alone that reduction is almost four percentage points. In the other
Atlantic provinces, such as Newfoundland, it goes down even
much further. In fact consumers at the grocery store will see a
benefit in a reduced tax of up to four percentage points at the
minimum in buying approximately 40 per cent of their goods on
average twice a week in the average consumer pattern.
There is another important point. I talked to farmers in Atlantic
Canada this very morning. The Nova Scotia Federation of
Agriculture and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are very
pleased with what this tax will do in the farm sector. Barns and new
silos are being built across my constituency already. This is in the
event that when the tax comes into place on April 1 these farmers
will get a rebate of 15 per cent on all capital expenditures.
Let me tell this House that Ontario farmers are now saying:
``Why can't we have this in Ontario?''. That is the message which
is coming from the farm sector in this country. They want what
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick are getting in the
farm sector. This 15 per cent tax credit looks a heck of a lot better
to the average farmer than does a 7 per cent GST rebate.
When we talk about the input tax credit, the 15 per cent input tax
credit that is available to all manufacturing sectors in the
harmonized zone is a benefit to the Atlantic region. Why is it a
benefit? Because it will sustain those who are manufacturing and
creating long term jobs in our area.
(1330)
This is the real benefit to our harmonized tax and the single tax
system. Why is it a benefit? People have been asking us what to do
in terms of simplifying tax. We have heard the hon. member speak
about a flat tax here today. This is not about a flat tax and this is not
part of this reform. It is about a harmonized tax.
In the Standing Committee on Finance we had companies in
Ontario that manufacture goods for this nation say to our
committee: ``We will be looking at the harmonized zone. There is
an incentive in that for us to even look at relocating to a
harmonized zone because a simplification of a single tax, no tax on
tax, is beneficial to the manufacturing sector and to the long term
sustainable sector of our society that will keep our economy
employing young people and generating an economy that will
sustain us as we move into the 21st century''.
A controversial point in this whole debate is a tax in pricing.
Those who are making the most noise regarding tax in pricing are
the multinationals and the internationals. When they come to
Atlantic Canada they have told us that they do not benefit from the
15 per cent input tax credit because they do very little
infrastructure in the harmonized zone. They have cashiers and
people who work at the front line who stock shelves but the money
for the most part is simply in employment wages and it leaves the
region in the benefits from the sales. My invitation to the
multinationals, if they really wanted to get the maximum benefits
from the harmonized sales tax, was to come to the Atlantic region,
to the harmonized tax zone and set up basic infrastructure, develop
the long term sustainable businesses that will generate our
economy.
For several decades now, maybe even a century, we have lost a
large part of our economy. We have been an underprivileged region
accepting large transfer payments. That is not because we want to,
that is not because we are hard workers and that we do not have
large numbers of entrepreneurs. I can give the history of my own
businesses. We had put money where our mouth was and started a
scientific company that has since went on to the stock exchange to
become a very successful international company. We wanted to
manufacture in the Atlantic region. We wanted to hire young
scientists to create jobs and to be sustainable so that we would not
have to be that have not province and have to take those transfer
payments that we have depended for so long.
Some of the hon. members are advocating that this is not good
news for the Atlantic region because they would like to continue
for us to be that transfer receiving province and dependent on the
provinces that are more sustainable economically. This is a chance
for us to change that pattern.
There are comments from APEC, the Atlantic Provinces
Economic Council, that this harmonized tax is good news for the
Atlantic region. There are comments from the CIBC this morning
saying the Nova Scotia resale sector was strong in 1996 and the
introduction of the harmonized sales tax is expected to further
increase sales.
7875
The harmonized tax does many things for our region but above
all it allows us as Atlantic Canadians to have a stronger resource
sector, a stronger manufacturing sector and to develop those jobs
that can be sustained through a modern global competitive
economy, and that is what we want. There will be some costs
associated with the transfer of new cash registers or change over
but these are minimal to the benefits of the overall 15 per cent
harmonized tax and that 15 per cent input tax credit.
I could go through sector by sector, whether it is fishing, farming
or manufacturing, but all those sectors in our economy, the
building supply sector, the grocery store sector, have invited us to
push forward with this harmonized tax and to make it forceful and
make it strong. As I indicated moments ago, talking to our farmers
this morning from the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, they
are pleased with this. They are being told from the Ontario farmers
they would like to have the same thing. I expect that farmers in
Ontario, a strong, vibrant part of our economy, will put the push on
the government there that it join in and get a harmonized tax as
well.
(1335 )
To display some of the myths about this whole tax is that it is a
two package deal. It is a harmonized tax at the manufacturing and
business level and it is a tax in pricing at the consumer level. The
reason it is a package deal is want the consumers of the Atlantic
Canada and of our nation to eventually receive this through put in
the reduction of prices of a tax in pricing. When we see a
commodity on a shelf, whether cat food, dog food, lumbering
supplies or whatever, we will know that the price which is marked
on the shelf is the price we will pay when we go through the cash
and exit the store. That is the benefit-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to address Bill C-70.
However, I would like to make a correction on the facts that were
just presented by the member from Cumberland-Colchester. She
indicated that the HST-BST committee had gone to Atlantic
Canada, when in fact it is not true. That was a prebudget
consultation hearing that went to Atlantic Canada. For her sake and
the sake of my colleague I would like to clarify that the Reform
Party member was correct when he said that the committee did not
go to Atlantic Canada, nor did it receive people from there at the
hearings.
I would like to refer to a document I got permission to quote
quite liberally, from Mr. Mitchel Gray who writes for the Canada
Taxpayers Federation, Alberta division. He calls this weekly
commentary paper ``Let's Talk Taxes''.
It is ironic that my little newsletter that I put out through the
House of Commons two or three times a year is called ``Let's
Talk''. I like the title. I will stray from time to time but I will give
him credit for the gist of the commentary on this issue.
The same people who told us they would scrap, kill and abolish
the GST are bringing in legislation now to harmonize the GST, to
include the GST in our lives forever with this harmonization in
three provinces of Atlantic Canada.
Harmonize is a nice word. Aside from its soothing musical
connotation it implies a sense of unity, togetherness and
co-operation. When applied to the GST, however, harmonization
means coercion, confusion, cost and cover-up. Here is how Mitchel
Gray describes these four words, and I concur with his views.
Coercion. Part of the harmonization plan would force businesses
to hide the new harmonized sales tax, HST, which our party prefers
to call the blended sales tax, the BST, in a price of the product or
services being sold.
Shopkeepers who make a mistake and sell a product without
including the tax in the price would face fines, jail sentences or a
permanent criminal record. That is right. It is off to the gulag. With
all these g words these days, between gonads and gulag, we are
getting an education in this House.
It is off to the gulag for those brave souls who would reveal how
much tax Canadian consumers are paying. When I say gulag I am
not kidding. While rapists and robbers can be granted conditional
or absolute discharge by a judge under sections 763 and 737 of the
Criminal Code, pops down at the corner store will be excluded
under these sections and will rot in jail for not including the
HST/BST in the price of a chocolate bar. We will need a
magnifying glass in case the tax inclusive price is not the right size
it is supposed to be. This gets very confusing.
Confusion. It is probably confusing enough to have a combined
provincial-federal sales tax in three of Canada's provinces, two
separate sales taxes in six provinces and one sales tax in one
province.
(1340)
If members need more confusion, how about this. The HST/BST
legislation will exempt some items from the hidden tax rule and
allow businesses to show both the tax inclusive and tax exclusive
prices as long as the former is displayed. I think people are
confused already. I will go real slow in the next part.
7876
Shoppers could conceivably be faced with four different prices
for the same marked down item. I will go real slow for the Liberal
members because I know this is intended to simplify, clarify and
make it a lot easier for people to understand-
An hon. member: Consumers are more intelligent.
Mr. Silye: -the original price with the tax, the original price
without the tax, the sales price with the tax and the sales price
without. The next point is cost.
An hon. member: Just to complicate it for the Reform.
Mr. Silye: At least this party does not go along like a herd of
sheep and follow the democratic dictatorship that we have elected.
When the backbenchers of this Liberal government go back and
face their constituents they will have to answer why they are
bringing in more taxes, new taxes in a region that is subsidized by
the rest of Canada after the finance minister calls it pan-Canadian.
We will see how pan-Canadian it is after this is fleshed is out in
about 10 or 12 months after this tax has been in place.
Companies will have to develop dual inventory. They will have
to have two pricing systems, computer and advertising systems in
order to accommodate this change. It will be confusing and it will
be costly. It is a shame that a government cannot look at a plan and
implement it all across Canada rather than just doing it piecemeal
in one part of the country only.
In addition to the direct costs there is the cost of lost jobs. A card
company and Woolworth, as my colleague has previously
mentioned, will be forced to lay off hundreds of people with this
increase in costs or pass it on to consumers. That is what we have
been arguing all along.
It makes no matter if someone can deduct this as input costs. It is
a 15 per cent deduction. Come and create the jobs. What matters is
whether this benefits the Canadian taxpayer, the Canadian
consumer. The answer is unequivocally no. Take a look at what is
being done here.
A tax is being increased on a lot of goods and services in these
provinces. Yes, the overall combined tax is lower in those
provinces, but Canadians have to pay $974 million to do that. It is a
prepayment to get a tax reduction in one part of the country at the
expense of the other part of the country. Then what happens to the
people in that part of the country?
Are they going to be better off at the end of the day? I submit no,
because when they buy their goods and services they will be paying
15 per cent on a lot of goods and services they were not paying on
before. Their out of pocket costs will go up and when those
consumers find out, the premiers, the politicians in those provinces
are going to be in deep goo-goo, sticking to the g alliteration.
The final word I have to say is cover-up. Hiding the HST and
BST will allow Ottawa to cover-up future rate hikes. That is the
danger in this legislation. Other countries have combined a value
added tax with a local sales tax to have just one tax. Governments
then go on and raise it from 5 per cent to 10, from 10 to 15, from 15
to 18. It just gets easier and easier to raise the tax.
This Liberal government, should it be so lucky to enforce a
harmonized sales tax all across Canada, will then be in a position to
raise this tax forever.
This cover-up is nothing more than trying to keep a promise that
it never intended to keep in the first place. Those members said
they would scrap the GST, abolish the GST, and now they have
done the very thing that they argued against in this House of
Commons when they were in opposition.
This is not about money. This is not about creating jobs. This is
about integrity and honesty in politics. I am embarrassed to have to
say the politicians on that side, now in government, especially the
cabinet ministers, are now saying things opposite to what they did
over here.
When the minister of defence was on this side he said the GST
should not be tax included, that tax should always be obvious and
clear. Now he is favouring a hidden tax.
When the finance minister was on this side he said if you
combine a provincial sales tax with a goods and services tax, you
will entrench the GST forever. For a party and two people who ran
on the platform to scrap, abolish and get rid of the GST, to entrench
it in our lives forever, to guarantee that it stays with us forever, is
hypocritical, duplicitous and is not serving the general public.
They should be ashamed of changing their minds and doing
exactly the opposite once they get over on the other side. This
piecemeal, ad hoc legislation is not good for Canada. It is not the
solution. If we are going to do something and we want to have one
tax, then let us just have one tax but have it as low as possible, have
it all across Canada and not force companies, businesses and
consumers to listen to this confusion all the time.
(1345 )
We oppose this legislation because it is being done for the wrong
reasons. It is being done just to keep a promise that has been long
broken and should be buried. The minister of heritage quit over
this. She admitted that the promise was broken. The finance
minister admitted the Liberals broke their GST promise. It is only
the Prime Minister who will not admit he broke his promise to
abolish the GST.
For political and not economic reasons the Liberal Party should
reconsider this bill. It should look at it and say: ``We should not go
ahead. Tax inclusive pricing is divisive, there is a lot confusion.
Let's back off on this. Let's wait and see if we can convince all the
other provinces to come on board''.
7877
I will leave the government and the Liberal backbenchers with
this thought. Answer this question: If the HST is so good, why
have the other provinces not jumped on board and proclaimed the
wonderful advantages and benefits of this ridiculous Bill C-70?
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify a
point. The hon. member for Calgary Centre indicated that we did
not go to the Atlantic region in January. That is a fact and true. The
finance committee was there in November. We invited anyone in
the region to come to Ottawa for the hearings and paid their-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is engaging in debate.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak again on Bill C-70 because I believe it is
good policy and good legislation. In the world of politics and
government we have to deal with the art of the possible. We often
are not fortunate enough to have perfect solutions to everything but
I believe the HST comes very close to that.
I would like to correct the member for Calgary Centre on one
point. The premier of Ontario is quoted as saying-I do not have it
in front of me now-that the harmonized sales tax would be the
best thing Ontario could ever do. It is on the record. However, in
the interim he has been involved in the politics of this issue and he
does not want to move on it. We are finding that with so many
issues.
Ms. Augustine: His Reform friends.
Mr. Cullen: Exactly. His Reform friends are influencing that
deliberation.
I am pleased the member for Calgary Centre acknowledged that
he got some material from someone who has to be respected.
Unfortunately we often hear a lot of rhetoric from the other
opposition party. We wonder if it would be attributed to the Fraser
Institute or to Newt Gingrich or if they would make the same kind
of attribution that the hon. member so rightly did.
I want to discuss tax included pricing. The opposition parties are
creating a lot of confusion and debate around this point about
which I will provide some clarification. At the time the GST was
first promulgated under the Conservative government, I thought if
they were going to bring it in they should have it out front and
centre so that people could see it. That was a reasonably
honourable thing to do.
However, if people opposite were frank with themselves they
would acknowledge what we are now hearing from Canadians,
myself included on this point. When Canadians go to the cash
register they are continually surprised when tax is added on to their
items. A $100 item becomes $115 dollars. Canadians are fed up
with that.
Contrary to what the member opposite says, the HST will not be
hidden. It will be on the receipt. If you travel to Europe or other
places you will see the taxes are included on the bill and also on the
sticker price. We are moving to what many other countries have
moved to, and the tax will be there and visible for all eyes to see.
In Atlantic Canada we are reducing the GST component of the
HST so why would we want to hide it? Why would we want to hide
a tax we are reducing? It makes no sense. It argues the point quite
well that we are not really trying to hide a tax; we are trying to
respond to what Canadians are asking for from sea to sea.
(1350 )
I would like to comment briefly on the origins of the HST. When
the GST was brought in, the manufacturers' sales tax was
eliminated. Many Canadians, myself included, did not factor that
in very heavily at the time. Independent surveys showed that the
manufacturers' sales tax on white goods and big appliances in most
cases was passed on to the consumer. We have lost the benefits of
the manufacturers' sales tax.
When we campaigned in 1993 we said that we would do
everything we could to replace the GST because it was not a
popular tax. We looked at a whole range of options. The red book
said that we would harmonize the GST and make it simpler and
more equitable. The HST will do that.
An aspect which is sometimes forgotten is the notion of the
embedded PST. That is a term which deserves an explanation.
When Atlantic Canada moves to the HST, the whole tax collection
and remittance system will become a value added type tax.
Those Canadians who have small businesses, medium sized
businesses or who work in the accounting offices of big companies
know how the GST works. They take all the GST they have paid on
the goods they have purchased, deduct that from the GST they have
charged to customers and remit the net. Essentially it is a value
added tax.
When the tax is harmonized in Atlantic Canada, the provincial
sales tax which is currently in the cost of goods that businesses buy
will be relieved. Therefore, the cost of the goods which are
produced by those companies will be reduced. The result will be
that the companies in those provinces will be more competitive.
Some of the Atlantic premiers, such as Frank McKenna of New
Brunswick, are very aggressive when it comes to developing and
attracting business. They know that the harmonized sales tax will
position their provinces very well. In fact, Quebec has moved along
a similar avenue.
7878
In Ontario the Harris government is doing nothing because it
likes to play politics. We have run into that on a whole range of
issues, such as CPP reform, but that is an issue for another day.
If we faced reality in Ontario, the taxes could be harmonized.
Instead of a 15 per cent tax there would be a 14 per cent tax.
Perhaps in the future it could be reduced even more. In doing so,
businesses would be more competitive. Things would be simpler
for businesses. Right now they fill in the GST forms and then they
fill in the PST forms. It is very complicated. People spend their
time filling in forms when they should be focusing on expanding
markets or developing new opportunities. When the tax is
harmonized there will be one form to complete and one cheque to
remit. With the new tax commission things will be simplified even
further.
Some Canadians might say: ``What does that do for me?'' If
businesses in Ontario and the other provinces are more
competitive, it is good for all of us. Their businesses will grow and
they will be able to hire more people. They will be able to expand
their markets. Some of those benefits will flow to consumers. We
have independent research which shows that happened after the
GST was implemented a number of years ago.
If we had the perfect solution we would eliminate all taxes. This
debate has gone on and on and we are left with looking at what are
the practical alternatives. The HST is a practical alternative. In
addition, it will create some real benefits for people in Atlantic
Canada. If other provinces would follow suit they would realize the
same benefits.
(1355 )
We all know that if the tax is harmonized in Ontario there will be
some difficulty because consumers will now have to pay this
harmonized tax on services at a higher rate than they paid before.
That is the reality.
What do we do? Do we go dig a hole and lose ourselves in some
of those facts? Or do we say that it will to be better for industry.
Businesses will be more competitive. They will be able to compete
better with Atlantic Canada and Quebec in world markets.
Exports are what it is all about. Growth in the economy has come
through exports. If businesses are not competitive, even within our
own provinces, then we are going to have some difficulties. I think
Ontario should take the lead of Atlantic Canada and Quebec and
harmonize the tax.
The member for Calgary Centre talked about the fact that people
who do not comply with this law would be sent to jail, debtor's
prison and all this sort of rhetoric. I do not think the hon. member
was around for the debate subsequent to that announcement. There
was some legitimate confusion among Canadians about people
being thrown in jail and the way in which people would be charged
under summary convictions or under various areas of the Criminal
Code. The fact is that people will not be thrown in jail.
I find it ironic that Reform Party members, who stand up and talk
about law and order and crime and punishment and who go on and
on about the underground economy, the minute the government
stands up and says: ``Look, if you are start fiddling around with
your HST, we are not going to throw you in jail but, yes, we are
going to take it very seriously. We are going to treat that as a pretty
serious-
The Speaker: As it is almost 2 p.m., we will proceed to
statements by members.
_____________________________________________
7878
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the House of a program called ``Encounters
with Canada''. The program was developed by the Council for
Canadian Unity, a non-profit organization, to give young
Canadians the opportunity to meet and get to know one another,
enhance their knowledge of Canada and to gain a greater awareness
of our country.
Each year Encounters with Canada welcomes over 3,000
Canadian high school students to Ottawa where a one-week
program of studies built around a central theme of Canadian
institutions and a sub-theme of their choice.
This week I have the pleasure of welcoming one of my young
constituents to Ottawa to participate in the program. James
Buchanan, or Jimmy as his friends like to call him, attends Sir
Winston Churchill Collegiate in my riding of Scarborough Centre.
Jimmy was picked by his school for his outstanding achievement in
both academics and extra-curricular activities.
I want to congratulate Mr. Buchanan on his accomplishments
and encourage him to take full advantage of the program being
offered to him this week. Congratulations, Jimmy.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like most other
MPs, I spent Christmas break travelling around my riding of
Skeena listening to the concerns of my constituents.
The majority of those concerns, as members may guess, deal
with their unjust treatment at the hands of this Liberal government.
7879
News of the day issues like silencing of the Somalia inquiry, the
mishandling of the Airbus affair, the blood scandal, the broken
GST promise and the bungling of the Pearson airport deal are all at
the top of their minds.
There are also a litany of concerns specific to my constituents.
Coast guard cutbacks, de-staffed light stations and DFO
mismanaged fisheries top the list in Prince Rupert. People living in
Terrace, Kitimat, Stewart and the Bulkley Valley seem incensed
with the government's cramming gun control, native land claims
and increasingly punitive taxes down their throats.
However, the most frequently asked question in Skeena is:
``When is the Prime Minister going to call an election?'' They and
Canadians right across the country want to start counting the days
until they can hold this government accountable for its broken
promises.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the
members of the Canadian forces currently serving in Haiti who just
this past weekend received a UN medal recognizing their
contribution to the United Nations support mission in that country.
The UN recognizes and honours personnel of member states who
participate in UN missions in support of its wider goal of
maintaining international peace and security. Canada has been a
stalwart support of the UN participating in nearly every UN
peacekeeping mission.
(1400 )
Canada has played a significant role in the international
community's efforts to build peace in Haiti. The Canadian forces
have done much to restore hope for those people.
Canada currently has 750 Canadian forces personnel deployed in
Haiti, including members from Canadian Forces Base Val Cartier
and personnel drawn from 427 Tactical Helicopter Squadron from
my own home community of Petawawa.
We congratulate them and we are proud of them. As Canadians
we wish them well.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past week Collingwood in my riding of
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe co-hosted the sixth Special
Olympics World Winter Games.
I was pleased to present medals to athletes and to witness
Collingwood events, including alpine skiing at Blue Mountain and
cross-country skiing and snowshoeing at Duntroon.
The mission of the special Olympics is to provide year round
sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic
type sports for children and adults with mental disabilities. Special
Olympics gives these athletes continuing opportunities to develop
physical fitness, to experience courage and joy and to participate in
sharing gifts, skills and friendship with other athletes from around
the world.
Everyone involved with the 1997 Special Olympics World
Winter Games should be proud of their success and inspired by the
courage and talent of the athletes. A great deal can be learned from
the special Olympics oath: ``Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me
be brave in the attempt''.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they are all winners, the more than 2,000 athletes from 76
countries who took part in the Special Olympics World Winter
Games last week.
Three cheers for Team Canada and especially for those athletes
who represented the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. All
three Newfoundlanders went home with medals from this major
multi-sport event.
For nordic skier Janet Hanham of Fortune, a gold and a bronze
medal; for snowshoer Louise Wall of Codroy Valley, a silver
medal; for Gordon Reddy of St. John's, two bronze medals in
nordic skiing. This is another fantastic accomplishment for our
athletes, for our province and for the country.
Congratulations to all, the Olympians, their coaches, their
families and all the volunteers who made dreams come true last
week.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on the weekend, the fifth ice sculpture festival in
Saint-Côme drew to a close.
This year again, the village of Saint-Côme was literally turned
into an ice sculpture museum, to the delight of tens of thousands of
visitors who came from all over Quebec and beyond to admire the
works of local artists.
This year again, the festival was a success, thanks to the
solidarity, co-operation and team work of the organizers, the
chamber of commerce, many volunteers and the sculptors
themselves.
After two weeks of outdoor events and games, I want to
congratulate all those who contributed to the immense success of
this young but promising festival.
7880
As honourary president of the fifth festival, I would like to
thank the people of Saint-Côme for their warm reception, a
tradition in this region.
Yes, Gilles Vigneault was right: ``Mon pays, ce n'est pas un
pays, c'est l'hiver''. In Saint-Côme, we are proud of that, and we
celebrate that pride.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this past
Saturday marked the end of an extremely successful and enjoyable
week for the athletes taking part in the Special Olympics as well as
those who attended the various events.
Special Olypians from around the world came to Collingwood
and Toronto to compete for medals in sports such as alpine skiing,
speed skating, figure skating and floor hockey.
As with any event of this size, the Special Olympics required an
enormous organizational effort and an army of volunteers. The
residents of both cities should be commended for their efforts on
behalf of the athletes, their coaches and their families.
Participants from around the globe return home this week with a
renewed sense of accomplishment both in view of their personal
successes and because of the efforts of the hundreds of volunteers
and organizers who made the event possible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
National Forum on Health cost taxpayers $12 million and made
unacceptable recommendations that would open the door to even
more federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction by
reducing the provinces to the rank of mere trustees.
However, the provincial governments did not wait for the federal
government before taking action. In Quebec, as was pointed out by
a member of the forum, Dr. Marc Renaud, we already have a head
start in areas like home health care, family policies and drug plans.
(1405)
The government poses as a champion of the existing health care
system while at the same time taking billions of dollars out of
health care budgets. Once again, this government is not practising
what it preaches. The Bloc will be glad to remind Quebecers of this
in the next election.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to invite all my colleagues to the attend the Voyageur
Festival this week in St. Boniface.
This festival, which takes pride in being known as the largest
winterfest in western Canada, celebrates the history, traditions and
culture of the French and Metis people.
This is a time when Manitobans, other Canadians and people
from all over the world come and visit Voyageur Park, Fort
Gibraltar and the winter promenades to honour the contribution of
the founding nations of Manitoba.
For two weeks, St. Boniface will host Franco-Manitoban,
Quebec, Acadian and Cajun performers who will act, sing and
dance, all in French.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, once again, I invite you to join us in
celebrating the tenacity of the Metis and French speaking
communities of western Canada. Have a great time.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Nepean has
once again distinguished itself as a home to leading edge
technology. On Friday, Computing Devices Canada was awarded a
high profile defence contract to develop integrated protective
clothing and equipment for soldiers.
A trailblazer in the Nepean high tech community, CDC has
nearly 50 years of experience as a defence supplier to over 20
nations. CDC will lead an industrial team of companies from
across Canada. Their task is the design, development, integration
and manufacture of enough prototypes for an infantry platoon to
extensively test the clothing and equipment in the field.
The project will draw from emerging technologies and systems
integration such as a satellite navigation system and a wearable
computer with a helmet mounted display.
I applaud CDC and other members of the industrial team. This
contract enhances CDC's already strong international reputation. It
is because of companies like CDC that Nepean and Canada are so
well respected in the high tech sector.
7881
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Denis Coderre was officially nominated as
the Liberal candidate for the riding of Bourassa in the next federal
election.
With the vast majority of the social and cultural associations in
his riding behind him, the new Liberal candidate for Bourassa can
also count on the formal support of the three provincial Liberal
members from his riding.
Joining him on the stage, Yvon Charbonneau, Jean-Claude Gobé
and Marcel Parent made a strong plea for unity within Liberal
ranks.
Mr. Charbonneau said that the provincial Liberals were fighting
the same battle as the federal Liberals to get rid of the Bloc
Quebecois.
Our pre-election campaign is under way in Quebec, and we will
wage a relentless battle against those who have nothing better to
propose than the separation of Quebec and the breakup of Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today,
the Quebec theatre industry mourns the loss of Georges Groulx,
who died at the age of 74.
Georges Groulx can be described as a great creator, an
extraordinary actor and stage director, as well as an outstanding
educator. During his career, this theatre personality deeply touched
those who worked with him: Gilles Pelletier, for one, spoke about
the humility and joviality of the man he considers the pillar of the
Nouvelle Compagnie théâtrale; as for Françoise Faucher, she
remembers him as an exceptional artist who was able to make fun
of his own fears.
Georges Groulx worked with a number of seasoned actors in the
Compagnons de Saint-Laurent company and helped train several
Quebec actors at the Théâtre du Nouveau-Monde and the
Conservatoire d'art dramatique. He was also a stage director at the
Rideau Vert and a Radio-Canada producer.
The Bloc Quebecois joins the artistic community in mourning
this great theatre personality, whose generosity was only matched
by his talent.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today is the beginning of National Citizenship
Week and it is a very special anniversary.
(1410 )
Prior to 1947 anyone who was born in Canada was not a
Canadian citizen but rather a British subject resident in Canada. It
is ironic that Canada has existed as a nation for almost 130 years,
yet Canadians as a people have existed for only 50 of those 130
years.
While Canadian citizenship is something to be proud of, it is
often difficult to celebrate. Just last year while filling out my
census form I had the option of marking my ethnic background as
Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Filipino. I could not say I was
Canadian unless I marked ``other''.
Canadian citizenship should be something we can be proud of
regardless of race, creed, colour, ethnicity or when our ancestors
came to this land. Maybe we will even be able to indicate this pride
during the census.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to offer my congratulations to the National Forum on
Health, which presented its report this week.
Our health care system is the pride of our country. The forum
reaffirmed the belief of Canadians that the single tier, publicly
funded health care system is the best model to deliver the best care
for the best results for the best price.
The forum produced some excellent recommendations. Among
some of the most interesting recommendations is that the
government examine publicly funded home care and medication.
The report also underlines the link between poverty and health,
especially in children.
I support these recommendations, as they clearly indicate that
health care as a prevention method is the best way to go.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
our government and the Alberta government signed an agreement
to extend the national infrastructure program until March 31, 1998.
7882
The minister responsible pointed out the very positive economic
and social benefits that resulted from the first infrastructure
program. He also stressed the increased competitiveness of the
communities that benefited from the program.
Our objective is to create more jobs during the 1997 construction
season. We believe that extending the national infrastructure
program should help create between 15,000 and 20,000 new jobs.
The program is a major success. To this day, it has helped create
over 100,000 new jobs. Our government sees this as further proof
that our federalist system is flexible and helps create jobs when the
various levels of government work together.
Alberta was the first province to sign. I hope that ``la belle
province'', the Province of Quebec, will not be the last one.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as part of the national action plan to combat smuggling,
the government in 1994 committed $315 million over three years to
help the RCMP, Revenue Canada and the Department of Justice to
increase border protection, close down smuggling operations,
dismantle organized crime networks and reaffirm the uniform
application of Canada's laws.
The plan has been very successful. That is why the government
recently announced it would renew the full range of enforcement
measures at a cost of $100 million.
As well, last Monday my colleague, the solicitor general,
announced in Washington after meeting with American Attorney
General Janet Reno that he will be creating a new, high level
anti-smuggling co-ordinating group to work with the counterpart
American group. The aim is to have an additional mechanism to
work on border enforcement issues of mutual interest, thereby
maximizing our activities against smuggling.
The anti-smuggling effort of this government is a prime example
of how we work daily to safeguard the safety and security of
Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform party has seen its future in the persons of 220 young people
who energized Ottawa this last weekend. They came here from all
10 provinces to meet right thinkers like Michael Coren, David
From and Ted Byfield. The young Reformers interacted with
Reform MPs, election strategists and, most important, with each
other.
Reformers call for balanced budgets and lower taxes that will
create jobs and put more money into the real economy. They
demand tax fairness for low income families and government
policies that will strengthen the family unit.
The young Reformers are going to work tirelessly for Canadian
unity, putting money back into the health care and education
system and a massive overhaul of Canada's criminal system.
(1415)
What impressed me the most about these Canadians was their
drive, determination and youthful enthusiasm. They have seen this
great nation's future and it not only includes them, it is going to be
built by them.
_____________________________________________
7882
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in an interview with the
Toronto Star, the Prime Minister
said he thought he had done everything possible on the national
unity front. He said, and I quote: ``I don't have to campaign on that,
it's not a big issue, we've done it''.
Since the Prime Minister claims he has delivered the goods, are
we to understand that, with the phoney resolution on distinct
society, a regional right of veto and still unresolved negotiations on
job training, the Prime Minister feels that the promises he made in
Verdun to Quebecers have been kept?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as promised, we passed a resolution in the House of
Commons in December of 1995 in favour of distinct society status
for Quebec, and everyone noted that the Bloc Quebecois does not
want Quebec recognized as a distinct society in Canada.
We passed a bill in the Parliament of Canada establishing
regional veto rights that gives the Province of Quebec a right of
veto. Once again, Bloc members do not want Parliament to give
Quebec a right of veto. All this could be entrenched in the Canadian
Constitution, as I have said, when the provinces give their
agreement.
We voted here in Parliament, but once again the leader of the
Quebec government, when he was leader of the Bloc Quebecois,
voted against both these measures. Still, we pursued it. In the
speech from the throne last year, we said that we were withdrawing
from a number of areas of activity in Canada.
We are no longer involved in mining or forestry. We have found
common ground with the provinces on tourism. We have
negotiated very useful clarifications on environmental matters and,
at this time, we have offered the provinces new arrangements with
respect to manpower training, a very important issue for Quebec.
7883
We have signed an agreement with the Government of Alberta,
another one with the Government of New Brunswick, and the
minister is now working on an agreement with the Government of
Quebec.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is not a question of what the present, past or future
leader of the Bloc Quebecois would like. We are talking about
promises made by the Prime Minister. We are talking about
promises made by the Prime Minister himself, on his own
initiative, before the referendum, in front of all Quebecers. Let us
not shift the blame.
I am going to put the following question to him: If his distinct
society resolution is so important, when has the government taken
it into account? What has it meant for Quebec since it was passed,
this resolution that is not worth the paper it is written on, this
meaningless resolution that has produced nothing, and that does
not absolve the Prime Minister from his promises?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal party and the government undertook to pass a
distinct society resolution and we have done so. We have taken it
into consideration, for, in the speech from the throne, we vowed to
work on improving the federation, one problem at a time, and I
have just given a fairly long list of what we have done.
What is fascinating in all this is that, while we are working daily
to improve the situation, the people across the way do not want
Quebec to be recognized as a distinct society. They do not want
Quebec to have a veto, because if they truly did, all they would
have to do is pass similar resolutions in the Quebec National
Assembly.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):Mr.
Speaker, it is too bad. We told Quebecers not to trust what the
Prime Minister said. We told all Quebecers. Unfortunately, there
are still some who trust the Prime Minister.
(1420)
When all is said and done, when the Prime Minister tells us
today there is nothing more he can do for Quebec, is he not just
confirming what we have always told Quebecers concerning him
and his promises: that there is nothing he can do for Quebec and
that Quebecers should certainly not expect anything from him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to repeat myself. We in this House, over which
this government does have some authority, passed a resolution
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and another one giving
that province a right of veto.
We have withdrawn from the mining and forestry sectors. We
have concluded agreements on tourism and the environment. We
are now in the process of working out the most important issue,
manpower training. We said we were going to find a solution to this
problem and we have done so with two provinces thus far. The
minister is working very hard to reach an agreement with Quebec.
We were hoping that they would sign an agreement in January, but
apparently the Government of Quebec is in no hurry to settle this
matter, as it was for-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Agreements were reached very
quickly with Alberta and New Brunswick. I do not see why the
same conditions could not be met in Quebec.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In an interview with the Toronto Star, the Prime Minister states
that he has ``kept all his promises to Quebec''. Let us not forget that
this is the same Prime Minister who claims he has kept his promise
on the GST.
Is the Prime Minister getting ready for his next election
campaign by telling Canadians and Quebecers that everything he
says during his campaign will be worth no more than what he said
during his 1993 election campaign and in his Verdun speech in
1995?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have discussed this. We would have liked to have done
more on the GST, but we have succeeded in doing as promised in
the red book, harmonizing it with three provinces, and the process
is almost complete in Quebec as well.
As for the resolutions on the distinct society, we voted in this
House, and the Bloc members, including the hon. member who has
just spoken, voted against Quebec being a distinct society. Her
constituents will remember that.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in that
same interview, the Prime Minister stated that, if he did not want to
speak of national unity during the next election campaign, this was
because the premiers of the other provinces were not prepared to
recognize Quebec's demands.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the promises he made in
Verdun were nothing but smoke and mirrors, and that we are still at
the point of no return from Charlottetown: that what is not enough
for Quebec is already too much for the rest of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has said on a
number of occasions, several provinces would be prepared to vote
for distinct society, but it is very difficult to force recognition on
the Government of Quebec, when it does not want such
recognition.
7884
If the hon. member wants the federal government to impose
distinct society against the will of the Government of Quebec, let
her say so. She should have done this when she had the chance
to vote in favour of distinct society. It is not very edifying to see
her rising to speak today, when she has voted against distinct
society. She should think about that.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to the Prime Minister, the next federal election
will be about jobs and he is willing to run on his record. Here is the
record: the worst string of jobless numbers since the great
depression; 76 months with the unemployment rate over 9 per cent;
1.5 million Canadians unemployed; two million to three million
underemployed; 700,000 Canadians moonlighting just to make
ends meet; 17 per cent of our young people out of work; one out of
four Canadians worried about losing their jobs. This is the jobs
record that the Liberal government will be running away from at
the next federal election.
Why should Canadians trust a Prime Minister who says he is
proud of the worst string of unemployment numbers since the great
depression?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said and I will repeat that I will never be satisfied with
the level of unemployment that we have in Canada. We are working
very hard to make sure it goes down.
The leader of the third party should recognize that 771,000 new
jobs have been created in the last three years in Canada. He should
be able to recognize that more jobs have been created in Canada
than have been created in Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy
combined. He should be able to recognize that in January 1994 we
were at 11.5 per cent and that at this moment we are at 9.7 per cent.
I will never be satisfied with the level as long as people want to
work.
He should be obliged to recognize that we have put the finances
of the nation in order. We have the lowest interest rate in 40 years
in Canada. That is why in the last few months all the indicators
have shown a new confidence among Canadians. They are buying
more cars and building and buying new houses because they know
this government is on the right track.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister repeats the numbers that his spin
doctors give to him and he conveniently ignores the other statistics.
He ignores the fact that our unemployment rate is higher than the
average of the G-7 countries; it is higher than all three of our major
trading partners: Japan, Great Britain and the United States. Our
unemployment rate is higher than that of New Zealand, higher than
that of Switzerland, higher than Sweden's, higher than Australia's,
higher than Austria's; it is even higher than the unemployment rate
in Mongolia.
Instead of trying to make an atrocious 9.7 per cent
unemployment rate sound good, why does the Prime Minister not
do something different? Why does he not unleash the job creating
power of consumers and businesses by balancing the federal
budget, making the government smaller and giving Canadians
much needed tax relief?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everybody recognizes this government has done better
than expected on the balancing of the budget.
Journalists came to Canada from Japan to interview me and
some ministers. They were wondering how we have managed to
reduce the deficit from 6.2 per cent of GDP to less than 3 per cent
in three years. They do not know how to do that and they are
coming to Canada to find the recipe.
We have to stay the course. The leader of the third party does not
want to reduce the deficit because he is trying to buy votes by
promising tax cuts before the books are balanced.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister would read our fresh start platform,
he would find that it balances the budget first and delivers tax relief
second.
Canada's unemployment situation is a human tragedy. Yet the
Prime Minister always responds to these questions in this House
with questionable statistics or political rhetoric. We never get a
response from the heart. It is the same attitude that was shown at
the town hall meeting on TV when he told that jobless woman
``some are lucky, some are unlucky, that is life''.
How can Canadians believe that the Prime Minister even cares
about the tragedy of unemployment when he has the nerve to tell a
jobless person that is life under a Liberal government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since we formed the government three years and a few
months ago, our main preoccupation has been jobs. We knew when
we formed the government that we had a deficit of $42 billion. We
knew that the entire international financial community had lost
faith in Canada. Some were comparing Canada to a third world
situation. Today everybody says that we will do better than any
other G-7 nation in 1997-98.
7885
(1430 )
We were also the government that was not afraid to tackle the
problem of the deficit and really do something about it. When a
government does that, it has to stay the course. We are not about to
try and buy the votes of the Canadian people the way the leader of
the Reform Party is trying to do with tax cuts before we have
reduced the deficit to zero. This is the only responsible way.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development told the young
Liberals that it was thanks to Ottawa that the French language was
preserved in Canada and Quebec and that the federal government
had protected the French fact against all odds.
The minister's statement is nonsense. The Minister of Human
Resources Development forgot to mention the billions of dollars
that a succession of Quebec governments have spent on developing
and preserving French language and culture.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development rise in the
House today and apologize to Quebecers for the incredible
nonsense he told the young Liberals in Drummondville?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise in the House today on behalf of the Minister
of Canadian Heritage and inform the hon. member opposite who
just asked this question that yes, during the sixties and seventies
and historically, the federal government invested and has always
invested in the cultural sphere and in promoting the French fact and
Quebec culture through instruments such as the CBC, the National
Film Board, the Canada Council, the Science Council, and so forth,
at a time when there were no similar instruments at the provincial
level.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
the answer is so straightforward, perhaps the minister would bother
to rise and answer this question: how can the minister honestly give
his own government credit for saving the French language in
Quebec, when its policy has speeded up the assimilation of
francophone and Acadian communities in Canada?
What explanation does he have for the fact that the same policy
by the same government can have the exact opposite effect?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member opposite who is a Franco-Ontarian like me would
certainly not say today in this House that he and I are assimilated.
We survived as a society in Canada thanks to the instruments of the
federal government.
And I would also like to say to the hon. member opposite who,
today, is criticizing cuts by the federal government that the Quebec
government itself did some downsizing at Radio-Quebec by getting
rid of nearly half the employees, so that now there are 329 instead
of 629. That is the government of the Parti Quebecois, his big
brother in Quebec City.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just so
the Prime Minister understands this, the Reform Party believes in
balancing the budget before we reduce taxes. I should point out that
when it comes to buying votes, the people at Bombardier and the
people who are benefiting from the infrastructure program know
that the Liberals are experts at it.
Canadians are really starting to wonder just how in touch the
Prime Minister is with what is going on in the real world. This
weekend he told the Toronto Star that from his privileged
perspective everything looks just fine. There is a 9.7 per cent
unemployment rate, record bankruptcies, record high levels of
personal debt and record levels of taxation.
When will the Prime Minister come out of his bubble and come
to the realization that his record is nothing to be proud of, nothing
to run an election on but instead is something he should be ashamed
of?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said I would be very comfortable to run the next
campaign in Alberta because in the last budget we gave big
incentives to ensure a huge tarsands development in the north of
the province. We were applauded by all the people in Calgary for
our energy policy. It has been a long time since we have had a
minister of energy in Alberta with as much acclaim as the present
minister of energy.
(1435)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
not going to buy any votes in Alberta. Just because someone is
running around and handing out money does not mean he can buy
votes. We remind the Prime Minister what happened to the last
energy minister from Alberta.
The Prime Minister really does not get it. This fall he said to the
media regarding across the board tax cuts: ``I do not think it is the
right thing to do in a society like Canada''.
Can the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why he thinks it is
okay to have 17 per cent unemployment for youth in this country,
to have unemployment rates of over 9 per cent for 76 months in a
7886
row, but somehow it is wrong or immoral to have low taxes that
create real jobs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know of one former minister of energy who travelled a
lot in Alberta and is now the Prime Minister of Canada. That means
some former Liberal ministers of energy have done pretty well.
We are very proud of what we have done in the hon. member's
province for the oil industry and the development of the tarsands.
There is not only one province in Canada. There are other
provinces in Canada that need some help. We are doing that across
Canada because we believe the federal government is there to
create opportunities everywhere in the country. That is why we are
happy to do things for Alberta, B.C., Quebec and Ontario. They are
all Canadians and they all want to have the good government we
are trying to provide to them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
seems to me that the Minister of Human Resources Development
was speaking much more forcefully in Drummondville on the
weekend than he is today in the House. In an arrogant and
condescending speech, he displayed his ignorance and self
importance for all to see by saying that the Quebec governments
from past to present, and I quote ``never spent a bloody cent on
culture''.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development treat
the various Quebec ministers of culture, including his own
colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, with such
disdain and ignorance, when the Quebec government is one of the
major investors in culture, contributing more than even Ontario and
the Government of Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I spoke these words in
Drummondville this week, where I addressed 150 young Liberals
as they get ready for the next elections. They were very
enthusiastic, and their enthusiasm was catching.
I was explaining to our young Liberals, who do not always have
the opportunity to hear all of the arguments in support of Liberal
Party policy, that everyone felt in Quebec that the Canadian
economic union was grand in all respects and served the interests
of Quebecers well. The vast majority recognized that Quebecers
benefit enormously from the Canadian social union.
I also showed that, in terms of political association, Quebecers
were proud of Canada's foreign policy and could identify therefore
with it. What I said was, that in cultural and linguistic terms, the
Liberal Party of Canada had set up institutions that have made an
exceptional contribution to the growth of the French language in
Canada and of culture in Quebec, and I gave as examples
Radio-Canada, the National Film Board and the Canada Council.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this government is suffering from the same malady as its Prime
Minister. On television, it is one thing and, in the House, it is
another.
In connection with the three institutions mentioned, I remember
the government's commitment to provide stable funding, whereas
they cut $414 million and 4,000 jobs from the CBC and $20 million
from the National Film Board and they moved the board of
directors of Telefilm Canada from Montreal to Toronto. That is
what this government is all about.
(1440)
Culture and the French language are the product of the efforts of
generations of artists and craftspeople. They were funded,
regardless of what the minister may think, by the taxpayers of
Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): We can feel the tension in
this government on the eve of an election.
The Speaker: Kindly put your question now.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): By giving Ottawa full credit
for culture in Quebec, is the minister not insulting the artists and
craftspeople who have produced it and have created the cultural
institutions that ensure its dissemination?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate Quebecers
on the extraordinary effort they have put into promoting culture. I
never said that they had not contributed to it.
What I did say is that the Government of Canada provided
Quebec creators, artists and actors with means they had never had
at their disposal. I was looking back to the years when the
nationalists, the forebears of the members opposite, saw culture as
useless piano players. That is what I was talking about.
No one is more exquisitely aware of the huge contribution
Quebecers have made to their own culture than I am. The means
given them was first and foremost Radio-Canada and the National
Film Board, and now Telefilm, and I am extremely proud of them.
Long live Quebecers and long live what Canada has done for them.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, kindly shorten your questions
and answers a little.
7887
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are embarrassed by the Liberal's
pathetic record in dealing with Nazi war criminals. Now they
appear to be taking the same attitude toward a new group of war
criminals.
At least 250 suspected war criminals from Afghanistan, Bosnia,
Iraq, Somalia and various Latin American countries have been
allowed to remain in Canada despite being denied refugee status
and having their appeals rejected.
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please explain
why the Liberal government is protecting war criminals?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada does
not protect war criminals. In fact, Canada is not a safe haven for
war criminals or persons who have committed heinous crimes.
As a matter of fact the CIC set up a specialized unit in April 1996
which is in the process of finalizing a report that contains the
inventory of modern war criminals now in Canada to assist
officials who are taking enforcement actions against them. Action
is being taken. These people will be removed. They will not be
allowed to stay in this country.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have heard this promise before from the
government and it has not done the job.
It has been reported that the backlog for refugee claims has
increased 75 per cent since the government took power, that
thousands of genuine refugees have to wait years to have their
cases heard because of bogus refugee claims made by war
criminals, convicted criminals and terrorists.
When is the government going to develop the fortitude to rid the
country of all undesirables starting with the 250 war criminals?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is
not true that the war criminals have not been identified. They have.
That is why they are being removed from the country. As soon as
they are identified and under which class they fall, they will be
deported.
Second, with the backlog in refugees some measures have
already been taken by the IRB which has total responsibility for
administering the refugee system and addressing the issues.
Furthermore, Bill C-49 which is in front of the House and with
which Parliament is dealing, contains provisions that will reduce
the refugee division panels from two to one member. This
legislation change will improve the efficiency of the IRB while
realizing efficiencies in that kind of a system.
(1445 )
If the hon. member would assist us in passing this bill, it would
go a long way in dealing with the issue.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The new foreign reporting requirements have generated
considerable concern in British Columbia. In response to these
concerns, the Minister of Finance recently announced that these
rules would not take effect until 1998.
Can the minister tell the House why the T-1 income tax form sent
to Canadians for the upcoming tax season contains three questions
relating to foreign property reporting?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify this important
point for the House and to say that for the 1996 tax filing year,
Canadians will not have to complete the section of the income tax
form dealing with the reporting of foreign assets.
As the House knows, Revenue Canada prints its forms in
advance, often in anticipation of legislation. In this case,
legislation was changed late in the year and Canadians will not
have to report on their foreign assets until April 30, 1998.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Employment is the number one concern of Quebecers and
Canadians. Despite the Prime Minister's fine promises, his
government's record on job creation is pitiful. We still have 1.5
million people out of work, almost as many as in 1993. The
unemployment rate has remained above 9 per cent for more than 76
consecutive months, the longest stretch since the Great Depression.
By telling us that he wants to run once again on a platform of job
creation, is the Prime Minister not in fact recognizing, admitting
that he failed to fulfil his 1993 promise of jobs, jobs, jobs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister said
and what we, on the government side, are saying is that we are
extremely concerned about the prolonged employment crisis. The
situation is the same almost everywhere in the western world, and
7888
it is extremely difficult to fight unemployment successfully right
now, with the new economy and technological changes.
We made a commitment to create jobs. We are not afraid to
admit that not enough jobs were created. But we are also saying
that we have done much better than most other western economies
and that, everywhere we go, we are praised for managing to create
more than 700,000 jobs in the Canadian economy while putting our
fiscal house in order. That is not enough, but we are saying it is a
very good start.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of
playing with statistics and comparing Canada with those nations
with the worst record in terms of job creation, the minister should
recognize that 15 of the 26 leading industrialized nations have a
lower unemployment rate than Canada.
Why does he claim that Canada is the best country in the world
by comparing it with countries that have achieved less?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why our
government is putting so much energy into doing even more for job
creation. I will be discussing this matter with several of my
colleagues in the near future, because we are indeed very
concerned about the unemployment situation, particularly among
young people. In the next few days, I hope to be able to outline our
government's concrete strategy for helping young people who are
unemployed.
My own department, Human Resources Development Canada,
has set up and spent millions of dollars on programs designed to
help the unemployed return to the labour force. These programs are
extremely effective and will hopefully produce even greater results
in the years to come.
* * *
(1450)
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The defence minister has reversed previous Liberal
commitments not to interfere with the Somalia inquiry, yet Justice
Letourneau has called the defence minister's interference in the
inquiry: ``a serious challenge to democratic institutions and to
democracy itself''.
The minister claims that he wants to see justice done. By
shutting down the inquiry he is making the junior ranks pay a price
while senior bureaucrats and Liberal insiders seem to go
untouched.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the analysis of Justice
Letourneau? Is this interference really a travesty of justice and an
interference with democratic institutions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as was requested by the leader of the third party, we are
making sure the inquiry is completed in time so it will not be going
on at the time of an election. I think the Minister of National
Defence explained his position extremely well and we are
supporting him.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister knows that he has another year and a half before he
has to call an election. There is plenty of time for a full
investigation.
The defence minister has been attacking the inquiry by
suggesting that Justice Letourneau can call any witness he wants.
Yet Justice Letourneau said last week: ``It is not true the inquiry has
plenty of time to call all the witnesses such as Mr. Fowler and Mr.
Anderson. Evidence on important matters presented without the
possibility of real or substantial testing risks producing a
whitewash of the alleged cover-up, rather than investigation of it''.
Why would the Prime Minister allow a whitewash of this
inquiry? Why would he allow that to happen when it is only the low
ranking officials now who have been under charge?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to realize that the hon. member is not keen to
go to the polls and would rather have an election in 18 months.
However, that is not a subject for discussion at this time.
When the Minister of National Defence announced that the
inquiry was to be terminated in June, it gave the commission three
more months because its mandate was that the inquiry be
completed in March. After he made the announcement the
commission had two and half months to call the witnesses it
wanted. Of course, it is up to the commission to choose which
witnesses it wants to hear. We have nothing to do with that.
We will see by the end of the inquiry to which witnesses the
commission decided to listen and to which it decided not to listen.
But there were two and a half months after the minister's decision
for the commission to call any witness to testify.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
On September 16, the Prime Minister formally pledged, in the
House, to discuss France's decision to ban asbestos with President
7889
Jacques Chirac. As you know, that industry accounts for thousands
of jobs in the asbestos region.
Following his official two day visit to Paris, on January 22 and
23, can the Prime Minister tell us the outcome of his efforts to
defend Quebec's asbestos industry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is aware that the issue was raised with
France's President and Prime Minister. In fact, during our joint
press conference, Prime Minister Juppé clearly indicated that
France had no intention of reconsidering its decision in that regard.
Moreover, during a reception with Prime Minister Juppé, I
introduced to him two residents of the asbestos region, Raymond
Setlakwe and his wife. Mr. Setlakwe had asbestos in his jacket to
prove that it is not a very dangerous product. The Prime Minister
found the whole episode quite funny.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
considering the Prime Minister's reply, I am inclined to think that
he did not get any concrete assurances for the asbestos region,
which includes the towns of Thetford and Asbestos.
(1455)
Given France's refusal to reconsider its decision to ban asbestos,
will the Prime Minister tell us why his government stubbornly
refuses to lodge a complaint to the World Trade Organization, so as
to stop the domino effect of France's decision in Europe?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during my visit to France, we had an opportunity to
discuss the issue with the French Prime Minister. We informed him
that the Royal Society of Canada had produced a very detailed
report showing that it is possible to use asbestos safely. I asked the
Prime Minister to have that document examined by his experts, and
he agreed to do that.
As for going before the international courts, the Minister for
International Trade is currently looking into the possibility and
when he has a public announcement to make he will do so,
hopefully in the near future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister for International Trade said that our cultural restrictions
may be costing us greater exports and foreign markets, yet the
Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to increase those restrictions.
That is her answer to cultural protection. The heritage minister has
said that Canadian culture should not be treated like pork bellies, it
is not a commodity. On the other hand, she boasts that Canadian
culture has created lots of jobs through exports.
When is she going to wake up and smell the Colombian coffee?
We live in a global economy. The heritage minister has said that
Canadian culture is a valuable export. Who speaks for the
government, the heritage minister or the Minister for International
Trade?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member is trying to show some division
between myself and the Minister of Canadian Heritage he is
barking up the wrong tree.
Both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and myself are strong
supporters of the Canadian cultural sector. We want to see it grow.
We want to see it prosper. That is what the government is solidly
behind.
We all recognize that these are changing times. There are
changing technologies and we need to keep our policies and our
programs on the leading edge. We have faced those kinds of
challenges before. The government is solidly behind the Canadian
cultural sector.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was very
pleased to see the international trade minister answer that question.
At least he is not an embarrassment to the government, as the
heritage minister was this morning when she said: ``Celine Dion
would not be where she is today if government policy did not
require that we play a certain number of Canadian songs on the
radio''. That is not only shameful, it is frightening. As far as she is
concerned the only way that our Canadian artists can get ahead is if
they are protected by the government.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is it not about time that he
turn over the culture portfolio from the heritage minister to the
trade minister because at least he is not an embarrassment?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada has done much to assist the cultural
sector in this country and we are very proud of our
accomplishments in that regard.
Canadian artists, Canadian musicians, are good. The fact that the
government has been able to contribute to their success is
something of which we should all be proud. I wish the hon.
member would join us in that pride.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Child poverty is a major problem in this country because parents
of poor children remain chronically unemployed. The NDP
governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan are addressing
child poverty by investing in programs to help these children and
their families. Meanwhile, the only investment the Liberal
government
7890
made was to pass Bill S-9 which gave millions of tax dollars to
wealthy Canadians through generous tax breaks.
When is the government going to make a committed investment
in the future of children living in poverty with a national child
benefit instead of giving huge tax breaks to the very wealthy of this
country?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is very
concerned with child poverty in the country. We have already done
a great deal. Over $5 billion has been invested in the child tax
credit and we have invested a lot of money in the working income
supplement to help low income families.
The member certainly knows that over the last four months, with
the provinces, we have negotiated and brought about a consensus
and both the provinces and the Government of Canada have agreed
to move toward an integrated national child benefit.
(1500)
This is going to greatly help the situation of kids living in low
income families. I hope very shortly the government will be able to
announce the way it will proceed. However, it will be designed
with the provinces over the next few months.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Industry.
The credit card interest rate situation has not improved despite
three parliamentary inquiries.
Mr. Minister, what has Industry Canada done to protect
consumers against high credit card interest rates?
The Speaker: Before I let my colleague answer the question, I
remind hon. members to please address the Chair.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be happy if that question went to the Chair.
I am sure my colleague shares the concern that I have expressed
about the fact that the rate of interest charged on consumer credit
cards has tended to drift higher in relation to the Bank of Canada
prime rate than it was historically. The concern the government has
is that those rates should be tracking one another.
On the positive side of the ledger, may I point out to him that
what we have undertaken to do in Industry Canada is ensure that
consumers are well informed about the variety of choices available
to them in credit cards and of the interest rates available. I point
out to him that the availability of a low interest card has become
much better known by Canadians in recent months. According to
an Angus Reid survey, as recently as last April only 30 per cent of
Canadians were aware of these cards. More recently that number is
up to 57 per cent.
I am sure the member will agree with me that an informed
consumer who is interested in ensuring that they get the best value
for their money is the best way to make sure that a market system
works.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the presence
in the gallery of Mr. René van der Linden and Mr. Ismail Cem,
Rapporteurs from the Council of Europe.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
7890
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in
council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts, I have the honour to present the fourth report of
this committee. This report deals with the 1996 auditor general's
report, chapter XI in particular, which addressed Revenue Canada's
battle against income tax evasion. This report includes some very
7891
important recommendations we hope the government will follow
up on.
(1505)
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to this report.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 52nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of some committees. If the House gives consent, I
intend to move concurrence in the 52nd report later this day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-369, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (gaming and betting).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to allow the
operation of casinos on board international cruise ships. As you
know, the configuration of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, its estuary in
particular, is such that it requires cruise ships to shut down their
casinos off Anticosti Island. They must remain closed for up to two
days.
This bill has been awaited for a number of years. It is a bill on
which not only all stakeholders involved in shipping in the Quebec
City area are unanimous, but also those in the greater region as
well. The bill has the support of the Corporation des pilotes du
Bas-Saint-Laurent, SODES, the Secrétariat à la mise en valeur du
Saint-Laurent, the Quebec Port Corporation, and many others.
In closing, I would like to point out that this is a bill which might
be of interest not only to MPs from the greater Quebec City region,
but also to all whose ridings lie along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and
even those along the Great Lakes, as far inland as Thunder Bay.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-370, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (income
deferral from forced destruction of livestock or natural disaster).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce this private
member's bill which has come about as a result of severe flooding
in my riding last summer which forced the sell-off of substantial
numbers of livestock. I discovered that although under conditions
of drought producers are allowed to defer income from the forced
sale of livestock, that does not extend to forced sale of livestock
under any other conditions. This bill would extend that provision
for deferment of income to other natural disasters and statutory
destruction of livestock.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 52nd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1510)
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to this
House petitions signed by residents of York North.
The first petition calls on Parliament to ensure that the
government creates opportunities for youth through internship
programs, information technology, improved Canada student
loans, summer student job programs and programs targeted directly
to youth at risk.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition deals with the security and safety of all Canadians.
We are fortunate that York region has the lowest crime rate in the
country.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to continue to take a
tough line on crime and enact laws that will provide Canadians
with safe homes and safe streets, which they so rightly deserve.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition calls on Parliament to ensure the government
continues to aggressively pursue and apply new technology with
the aim of creating opportunities for all Canadians.
7892
The Speaker: My colleagues, I point this out only so that you
will know. Usually two petitions is all right; three if you read them
very quickly.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
table a petition that concerns the federal excise tax on gas. This is
of course a petition in which the undersigned call upon Parliament
not to raise this tax, since, in the past 10 years, it has already been
increased by 566 per cent, so that taxes make up 52 per cent of the
price per litre.
I take pleasure in tabling this petition on behalf of these people.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have petitions here today which request that the federal
government join with the provincial governments to make the
national highway system truly a national system and dedicate fuel
tax revenue to that cause.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition with over 1,100 names. It sprang from a case in my
riding where a police dog was killed.
The petitioners ask that the Criminal Code of Canada be
amended to specifically include and protect police dogs, and to
include fines and/or imprisonment for the wrongful injury or
killing of police dogs.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
last petition now has a grand total of 29,500 names that I have
presented.
This petition is with regard to the release of sex offenders,
notification in the community, and to prohibit for life sex offenders
working in a position of trust and responsibility with children. That
has been an ongoing tirade of petitions that I have been able to
present for people.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of the
constituents of Lincoln.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canada's
future depends on giving our children the opportunity to be
productive citizens.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to ensure
that the federal government embark on a national strategy to tackle
youth employment.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition also comes from the constituents of Lincoln and it draws to
the attention of the House that Canadians of all ages view our
health care system as a defining element of Canadian society.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament continue to
uphold the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act so that
public health care remains accessible, comprehensive, portable,
universal and publicly administered.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to two petitions. The first petition opposes the sale
of CANDU reactors to China for several reasons, including China's
human rights violations. It says CANDU exports are irresponsible
given the health, environmental, economic and safety concerns
relating to nuclear power.
Therefore the petitioners request that Canada immediately
withdraw from all arrangements concerning financial and technical
assistance to China for nuclear reactor technology and ensure that
the Government of Canada does not finance or subsidize the sale of
CANDU reactors to China or any other country.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition, produced in English and French,
relates to our national highway safety system.
[Translation]
The petitioners point out that 38 per cent of the Canadian
highway system is not up to standard, and that Mexico and the
United States are now improving their national road systems.
(1515)
[English]
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with the provincial governments to make the
national system upgrading possible.
[Translation]
That the federal government join with the provincial
governments in making the national system upgrading possible.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The
first one is from residents of the Mankota district in my riding.
7893
The petitioners, looking forward to February 18, are calling on
the government not to increase the excise tax on gasoline in the
next budget.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): The next two petitions are identical in
form and content, both coming from the city of Swift Current and
bearing a total of 239 signatures.
The undersigned residents of Canada draw to the attention of the
House that 38 per cent of the national highway system is
substandard, that Mexico and the United States are upgrading their
national highway systems, that the national highways policy study
identified job creation, economic development, national unity,
saving lives, avoiding injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicle
operating costs and better international competitiveness as benefits
of the proposed national highways program. Therefore the
petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal government to
join with provincial governments to make the national highway
system upgrading possible.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present on behalf of constituents and others
in Saskatchewan. The first one pertains to the excise tax on
gasoline which has risen by about 566 per cent over the last 10
years.
These petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition relates to the GST and the tax on reading
materials.
These petitioners from all parts of Saskatchewan ask Parliament
and provincial governments to zero rate reading materials under
the proposed harmonized sales tax and they are asking the Prime
Minister to carry out his party's repeated and unequivocal promise
to remove federal sales from tax brooks, magazines and
newspapers.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): The final
petition I have, Mr. Speaker, pertains the national highway system.
The petitioners request that Parliament urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading a reality as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I would also like to table a petition concerning
the excise tax.
[English]
The petitioners remind the government that in the last federal
budget there was an increase of 1.5 cents per litre and that another2 per cent seems to have been proposed by a parliamentary
committee.
Therefore the petitioners ask the federal government not to
increase the tax in the next upcoming budget, and I concur with
them.
The Speaker: You do not really have to concur one way or the
other. I know you know that.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, literacy
supporters want the government to ensure that books, magazines,
newspapers and other reading material are not subject to the tax
system that is proposed in terms of the provincial and federal
harmonized sales tax.
The petitioners are calling on the government to remove GST
from books and reading material.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present three petitions today. The first two
petitions, signed by thousands of my constituents, urge the
government to eliminate all sales tax on reading material, including
books, magazines and newspapers.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): The third
petition, which has also been signed by many constituents in
Annapolis Valley-Hants, calls on Parliament to support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention to set a binding timetable for the abolition
of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of the citizens
of Brandon-Souris. The first, signed by residents of Melita,
Killarney, Pierson and Virden, calls on Parliament to have our
present laws on obscenity strictly upheld.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): The second
petition, primarily from citizens in Brandon, calls on Parliament to
zero rate books, magazines and newspapers from the goods and
services tax.
(1520)
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have several petitions
from constituents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
These constituents call on Parliament to ensure dedicated AIDS
funding beyond March 1998 and to renew the national AIDS
strategy now. The national AIDS strategy, phase II, will expire on
7894
March 31, 1998 and there has been no commitment to renew or
extend it.
Canada's economy loses more than $1 billion each year because
of person years lost to AIDS.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition from lower mainland residents, many from my riding of
New Westminster-Burnaby, who are concerned that Canada's
national highway system is substandard.
These petitioners are calling on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a second petition from over 100 New
Westminster-Burnaby constituents and others from the
surrounding area who are greatly concerned with the price of
gasoline and the overall structure of our highways.
These petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider reallocating its current
revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national highways.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to
Standing Order 36 from residents of my constituency, virtually all
from the city of North Battleford, with a couple from Spiritwood,
Speers and Radisson.
The petitioners note that the availability of a low cost energy
source is the natural advantage Canadians have to set off the high
cost of transportation because of the great distances required to
reach markets, that Canadians are paying approximately 52 per
cent of the cost of a litre of gasoline at the pumps in the form of
government taxes, that over the past 10 years the excise tax on
gasoline has risen some 566 per cent.
The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions. The first comes from the city of Brantford, Ontario.
The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that the rights
and freedoms of all Canadians, including the freedom from
discrimination, is already protected by Canadian law.
Therefore the petitioners pray and call on Parliament to oppose
any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other
federal legislation that would provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from my riding and city of Mississauga
South.
Whereas Canada and all state parties in the 1969 United Nations
Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons reaffirm their
commitment May 1995 to undertake and to pursue negotiations in
good faith to the cessation of the nuclear arms race, the petitioners
pray and request that Parliament support an immediate initiation
and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention
which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all
nuclear weapons.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions to present. The first is from members of the
Andy Andras, the Westboro and the Dovercourt co-op areas in my
riding.
The petitioners draw to the attention of Parliament that
co-operative housing is one of Canada's great success stories, that
it brings people together to meet their housing needs and to create
safe and supportive communities.
They express their concerns about transferring the management
of this housing to the province of Ontario, calling on Parliament to
consider the proposal put forward by the Co-operative Housing
Federation to administer these housing communities.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from a number of residents of my riding who are
concerned Canada's financing the sale of CANDU reactors to
China and calling on Parliament to immediately withdraw from all
arrangements concerning financial and technical assistance to
China for nuclear reactor technology.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is requesting that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Mr. Speaker, finally-
(1525 )
The Speaker: I think we will have three strikes and you are out.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition on behalf of
citizens
7895
of northern British Columbia, many of whom reside in my riding of
Prince George-Peace River.
The petitioners note that our NAFTA partners, Mexico and the
U.S.A., are currently upgrading their national highways system.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal government
to join with provincial governments to upgrade our national
highway system as soon as possible because they note it is
substandard.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7895
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-70, an act to amend
the Excise Tax Act, the Federal Province Fiscal Arrangements Act,
the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account act
and related acts, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee; and of the motions in Group No. 3.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, usually we say it
is a pleasure to rise and enter into the debate. Frankly, I wish I did
not have to give this speech today because it is one of such distress
to Canadians. It is the one that turned the previous government on
its ear and turfed it out. Primarily it was the imposition of the GST
on the Canadian people that turned the people against the
government of the day.
I would like focus on what this means to business. In order to do
that, I have chosen to back into Hansard. It will be four years in
March that the GST was being debated in the House. There was a
bill brought forward which amended the GST rather substantially.
That generated a lot of debate.
At that time the Liberals were in opposition. I went to Hansard
to see what the Liberals said in the last Parliament about the GST,
particularly about how it affects business.
There were several members who spoke about this. There are
three people I would like to draw attention to. One is the Deputy
Minister, another is the member for Broadview-Greenwood and
the third is the member for York South-Weston.
I cannot help but have a great deal of sympathy for the voters of
this country when they feel cynical about government. These three
people very distinctly and explicitly gave the Liberal position on
the GST. In fact, every one of these people took action on the side
of the government when the GST had not been rescinded the way
they promised during the election campaign.
I do not know whether the logic escapes Canadian people but, for
example, the Deputy Prime Minister told the voters in her riding
that she would resign if the GST were not abolished. There are
really only two possibilities here. The first is that she, like millions
of other Canadians, did not read the red book and the fine print in it.
Therefore she actually fell into the group that really did not fully
understand the Liberal policy. In that case, I recommend that she be
considered quite incompetent because on such a major issue during
the election campaign she should have known her party's policy.
The second is she tried to deliberately deceive the voters in order to
gain their vote without telling them the actual truth. We do not want
to believe that but it is a possibility which should not escape our
consideration.
I would like to talk about the member for
Broadview-Greenwood who, previously in this Parliament,
actually left the Liberal fold for a short time to sit as a Liberal
independent, or whatever the name was that he chose, and then
later on returned. I challenge him personally and all Liberal
members to live up to what they committed themselves to in the
campaign on behalf of the Canadian people in order to restore the
trust and confidence that Canadians ought to have in this
institution.
(1530)
I will quote from Hansard of March 12, 1993, pages 16902 and
following. This what the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood
said: ``This whole GST operation by the government has been the
worst initiative that any government has ever perpetrated on a
people''. He said that the GST is ``a tax that has done a great deal to
dampen and suppress entrepreneurial spirit and consumer
confidence in this country. I know in my own riding it has
practically cut the restaurant business in half, not to mention what
it does to students who tend to work their way through either high
school or college by working in restaurants part time. They count
on not only this type of work in the restaurant-tourism business but
on the tips. It has just gutted the hopes for half-decent, part time
income for tens of thousands of university students right across
Canada''.
Earlier today in question period we were talking about jobs and
the jobless rate in Canada. The fact is that 17 per cent of our youth
are actively looking for jobs. I know what that means. I have a son
who for over a year has been looking for a job. He cannot find one.
The economy does not say to him to come and work because it is
7896
so depressed. Partially it is because of the pervasive effect the GST
has had on it.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said: ``It has
throttled people with this bureaucratic nightmare of a GST''. Those
are the words spoken by that member almost four years ago. The
hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood quoted the leader of the
Liberal Party of the day, the current Prime Minister, by saying:
``My leader three weeks ago said that this GST will be scrapped.
Make no mistake about it, the GST will be scrapped if we are given
the trust to run the Government of Canada''. That is a direct quote
from Hansard. Here is another one: ``This GST has done much
damage to the retail business in this country. It has done much
damage and caused much unemployment and welfare''.
When the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood was on this
side of the House, he identified the true implications of the GST.
He made a great point of expressing those sentiments. He went on
to say: ``If you developed a fair tax system in this country and if
you put 400,000 or 500,000 people back to work, you could find
$15 billion within four or five months, not to mention the fact that
we would start giving people back their dignity. We have to
understand that there are close to two million people in this country
who are out of work''.
Listen to these beautiful words from that member. I am happy to
quote him because he is right. It is unfortunate he has changed his
mind. He said: ``I cannot imagine a single member of Parliament in
any party in this House of Commons wanting to defend the status
quo in terms of tax law in this country. In fact I have not met a
member of Parliament who believes that the tax act of this country
is fair, simple or efficient. We all agree that this 2,400-page
document with its rules and regulations and its exceptions and its
exceptions to exceptions is no longer intelligible. This tax act
combined with the GST has caused an underground economy of
cash deals in this country. Experts estimate that right now there are
over $100 billion of cash transactions in this country''.
He continued: ``All kinds of schemes are going on in this country
right now. The underground cash economy is just out of control''.
He then went on to discuss this.
(1535)
It is very clear to me from this sample of three that there must
have been many other members of the Liberal Party, but
particularly these three, who said explicitly that they were going to
scrap the GST. The fact that they have not done so and have
changed their views, their words and their actions since they were
elected to government is unconscionable.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood said that the tax act is
so complex. He went on to say:
The GST has exacerbated that. No matter how many amendments or refinements
the government brings in on this bill it cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
The GST is a sow's ear and the Canadian public is never going to accept it.
I agree with that. I still continually hear complaints about the
GST, about its draining of much money from our economy, of its
preventing people from getting jobs and of the great complexity
and annoyance of having to file the rebate statements and all of the
administrative costs that are associated with it.
I will quote again from Hansard. At page 16906 the same
member said:
We have a situation today where the government wants us to support a bill to
refine the GST. I am totally opposed to the GST. It is an inefficient, unfair tax. Small
businessmen despise the GST. They want it replaced. They definitely want to make
sure we do it in a responsible way. We cannot just snap our fingers and pull
something out of the hat. There has to be a serious debate on tax reform, but they do
not want us to defend the status quo which the Conservative government wants to
defend. We are not going to defend the status quo. There is no way. There is
absolutely nothing that could ever make me change my attitude toward the GST.
Well it appears that being elected to the government side actually
did change his attitude to the GST. He of all the members made one
of the braver attempts to change it.
The Speaker: According to what I have hear the member's time
is up.
Mr. Epp: I am surprised.
The Speaker: I am surprised too because I was enjoying it so
much. I think we will pass on to the hon. member for Saint John.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to say that I am pleased to be able to speak to the report stage
of Bill C-70.
I would also like to inform my colleagues from the Reform
Party, notably the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley and
the member for Medicine Hat, that the member for Saint John has
spoken out against the HST on a number of occasions. I also
brought the Retail Council of Canada to my riding of Saint John,
New Brunswick for a luncheon with the board of trade and the
business community. I have spoken in this House several times and
have written several articles for the paper as well. I just wanted to
clarify a couple of statements that were made in this House.
The concept of harmonization is worthwhile, however not this
government's version. I cannot support a bill which will hide taxes,
shut down stores in Atlantic Canada and kill jobs for our people.
This bill is nothing more than a political solution to cover up the
Liberal failure to scrap the GST. Who is going to pay the price for a
promise made during the heat of an election? The people of
Atlantic Canada.
7897
The amendments made in committee and the amendments we
are debating today do not address the problems because the bill
is fundamentally flawed. This comes as no surprise when we have
a government rushing to live up to a poorly thought out campaign
promise before the election rolls around.
But it is more than just that. There were hearings up here on the
Hill and no one informed our people back home in New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that if they wanted to come and
make a presentation, the government would pay their way. No one
mentioned it to them. They did not know this because no one told
them. Is that because the government did not want to hear from
them?
(1540 )
It is ironic that the majority of those affected by the HST have
not had their say about this legislation. I am sure many Atlantic
Canadians would have been delighted to come here to make it clear
how much they oppose the legislation on this harmonized tax with
tax in pricing. One also has to question why hearings were not held,
as I have stated, in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland.
One of the biggest problems with this legislation is the tax
included pricing component. Retailers, businesses and restaurant
owners to name just a few have explained what it will cost in
dollars to switch to a tax in pricing system. More important, they
have also explained the cost in real terms, in terms of jobs, jobs,
jobs. Twelve stores have already stated that they will be closing
down because of the harmonized tax and the tax in pricing.
It is also ironic that while the government is trying to make
Canadians believe it has lived up to one campaign promise, it is
reneging on the other promise of jobs. A representative from K
Mart Canada said that the company will face an inevitable loss of
jobs as marginally profitable locations become unprofitable due to
increased costs.
One only has to look at the population of the area of Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick and Newfoundland. Take a look. As the Retail
Council of Canada stated, it is a much smaller population than
central Canada, Quebec, or out west. It said that the profit there is
very marginal and asked: ``What would you do if you were us?
Would you stay there or would you just stop? Would you pull out?''
This is a very serious situation. Those who have come to see me
up on the Hill are: the Hudson's Bay Company, Canadian Tire,
Sears, Eaton's, Shoppers Drug Mart. The list is long and they are
all saying that they may pull out of Atlantic Canada.
When the Liberal MPs from our area vote for this, they will be
going against the wishes of their people. How can they possibly do
that? How can any of the MPs from these provinces possibly vote
for this when, as the hon. member from the Reform Party just
quoted, they stated when in opposition that it was no good? They
said that this was wrong and that if they formed the government,
they would never do it.
The hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst, who is now Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, said: ``The sign
of the times is that so long as we have a tax that is hidden from the
consumer, we are going to have problems that are a lot more
serious than we understand''. He also stated: ``The whole idea of
visibility was seen by many Canadians as being a deterrent to
free-spending governments which would just raise the tax, get the
money it needs at election time for promises and spend it
foolishly''. These were statements in Hansard in 1990.
How are Canadians to hold this government accountable when
they do not know which position to believe because it changes from
year to year? Perhaps the government members opposite could
clarify their position and explain why it has changed so drastically
now that they are the government.
It has just been brought to our attention that Assumption Life in
New Brunswick must now charge HST on its management fees for
segregated funds. However companies headquartered outside the
harmonized zone do not have to charge the HST. If you were
someone in New Brunswick, would you go to Assumption Life
now knowing this? Any company selling mutual funds will choose
not to locate in our area of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland. Companies already in the harmonized zone would
be better off relocating to a non-harmonized province which is
what they are telling us every day.
This legislation will drive business away from the Atlantic
region. We do not want to be have not provinces. We want to
contribute to our country, but we cannot do this if this government
continues to cut off our legs from underneath us when it brings in a
tax such as this.
Representatives from One Voice, The Canadian Seniors Network
came to see me. They explained that seniors will be paying more.
One little senior called me and said: ``I have very little money but
when this new tax comes in, I must pay it on my heating bill, I must
pay it on my hydro bill''. She said further: ``I do not believe that I
will be able to go to the hair stylist any more to get my haircut. I
cannot afford any more, Elsie. I can barely meet the needs that I
have today with the money and income that I have. In addition,
some groceries and children's clothing will cost more''. This
legislation is not good for the people of Saint John, my riding. It is
not good for the people in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland.
(1545)
One must ask oneself why only New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland agreed to the HST. Would it be because these
three provinces are the only provinces left in Canada with Liberal
premiers? Would it be because all three provincial governments
received a substantial monetary gift from the federal government
on agreeing to implement the HST? Did they have any choice,
because of politics? Why would all other premiers across the nation
7898
say no and only the three Liberal premiers say yes? The answer is
quite obvious to all Canadians.
I will conclude by urging the government to rethink the
legislation. Please do not make Atlantic Canadians pay the price
for ill-conceived campaign promises and hasty attempts to live up
to them.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to join in the debate
on this most important topic.
For the benefit of the House we should take the opportunity to
review the famous GST and where it came from. As most members
are well aware it is derived from the former manufacturers' sales
tax. The previous administration decided that it would have a GST
at 7 per cent across the country. Of course the proposal was that the
government would use it to reduce the deficit.
We know the legacy that the Tories left us in paying the deficit,
that each and every goal and projection that was set went in the
opposition direction. For some reason instead of the deficit going
down, it continued to go up until this government assumed office
and assumed a $42 billion deficit at that time.
What happened to that $14 billion to $15 billion that was
projected as new revenue from the GST? It went into the general
revenue fund. The manufacturers' sales tax had disappeared. The
new GST was here. Contrary to what others have said, and I admit I
can only speak for myself, I know what the policy was of my party
when I was campaigning. People did ask me what I thought would
happen to the GST. Of course they loved it so much they wanted it
left completely alone.
I said it would be changed to a fairer and more equitable tax
system both for the small business people in our communities as
well as for the consumers. I pointed out very clearly and in many
cases said it twice: ``Hear me, it has to be replaced in order to
provide approximately the same amount of revenue''.
Originally we were told that the GST would provide enormous
additional dollars in revenue that would expedite paying down the
deficit and we would reach a balanced budget much faster in the
early 1990s.
(1550 )
It was projected that the $14 billion or $15 billion that came
from the manufacturers' tax which was replaced by the GST
actually came to approximately $28 billion. When the rebates and
the additional administration costs were taken off so we were back
to the the $14 billion or $15 billion figure which was the level of
income from the previous manufacturers' tax.
When the government looked at possible ways of replacing that
revenue, the finance committee travelled across the country from
one end to the other, including my home province of New
Brunswick of which I am very proud.
In New Brunswick I listened to presenter after presenter. Some
were from the business sector, some from the industry sector, some
from agriculture, some from the education sector and some from
the consumer sector. They said we had to have a simpler system.
We had to come up with a harmonized system that would reflect the
total of the taxes they are paying. I agree it has to be very up front
and very forward.
Following all of the presentations and hearings across the
country after some two and half years, the finance committee came
forward with its recommendation to harmonize the two taxes, the
provincial sales tax and the GST into a new harmonized sales tax.
The first three provinces that came on board, in addition to the
province of Quebec that had the harmonized sales tax, were the
provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Some have criticized and complained about the formula that was
arrived at, not for those three provinces, but for every province in
Canada to use. It is a formula that would be fair and equitable to all
provinces and treat each and every one in the same fashion.
What does harmonization do for the business sector and the
retail sector? I have talked to many business people. First of all it
means that they have to keep one set of books instead of the
previous two. It means that they have to issue one cheque instead of
the previous two. It means that one tax auditor will come in and
review their books instead of two. It is a much simpler system for
every business person throughout the communities that are
involved in the retail sector.
What does it do for the consumer? Report after report and survey
after survey have indicated that the consumer does not want any
more surprises when he or she arrives at the cash register and wants
to know exactly what amount must be paid.
There is no intent to hide the total amount of taxation that would
be paid on any product that is taxable at the cash register. As a
matter of fact the proposal stated very clearly that consumers want
it shown on the cash register tape the price of the product, the tax
that is included and the total. On the shelf the consumer will see the
price that is being paid which includes the taxes.
(1555)
It is not a hidden tax. It is a tax that is very up front. Right on the
cash register tape is everything that is purchased. Let me look at
some of the key elements.
7899
It says: ``Consumer in participating provinces will benefit from
the removal of the provincial retail sales tax from business inputs.
This advantage, combined with the benefit of a lower rate and
lower compliance costs for businesses, will lead to lower
consumer prices on many goods. Tax inclusive pricing rules will
ensure that consumers know the full price of the good or service
before paying for it while keeping the amount of the rate of sales
tax payable visible on the receipts''.
As I mentioned, it is simpler for the business community,
simpler for the consumer and it provides the revenue toward
decreasing the deficit that we know the government assumed at $42
billion plus. We know that Canadians want the government to put
its financial house in order. That is exactly what is being done.
We are not the first government ever to set goals. There have
been others. However, I suspect we are the first government in
recent time to have been able to achieve those goals, to meet or
exceed them in each and every instance and we will continue to do
so.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to join the debate on the report stage of Bill C-70.
Some members opposite would have us believe that the debate is
about harmonization of the GST with the provincial sales tax in the
Atlantic provinces. They would have us believe that the debate is
about doing taxation better. That is not what it is about.
I take my cue from a headline on the Saint John Telegraph
Journal editorial in January which said: ``Most people can hold
their breath longer than the Liberals can hold their principles''.
That is basically what the debate is about.
The debate we are having today is about integrity, about
responsibility and accountability; the lack of accountability of the
government to the Canadian people. The debate is about the
government's failure to keep its election promise to scrap, kill and
abolish the GST. It is about why Canadians cannot trust the
government.
Integrity is important to Canadians. When I travel around my
riding in British Columbia, people stop and tell me that they do not
expect miracles from their politicians, but they do have some
expectations. They expect politicians to show compassion, expect
them to care and to set an example and to keep their word. The
Government of Canada has fallen short of these expectations. It has
not kept its word. It has broken faith with those who trusted it.
Canadians cannot trust the government for three major reasons.
The first reason they cannot trust the government is because
during a CBC town hall on October 18, 1993 the Deputy Prime
Minister promised Canadians: ``I have already said personally and
very directly that if the GST is not abolished, I will resign''. The
Liberals refused to abolish the GST and it took months of denial,
cover-up and flip-flops before the Deputy Prime Minister finally
did resign to run again in a byelection. She resigned only after a
poll told her that she would win. This is not resigning. This is not
responsible action. This is not integrity.
(1600)
It is like saying ``you caught me this time, I will go through the
motions but I still don't have to be accountable''. Canadians do not
trust this government.
Let me share with members again the second reason why this is
the case. The finance minister said on April 4, 1990: ``I would
abolish the GST''. That is what he said. Instead of abolishing the
tax and keeping his word after being elected, the finance minister
tried to cover up his broken GST promise. He hid behind the
coat-tails of the new tax he created, the harmonized sales tax.
Yes, the finance minister, instead of keeping his word, bribed
three Atlantic provinces with about $1 billion cost to the rest of the
country to harmonize their provincial sales tax with the GST. This
is his way of saying that the GST has been abolished.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand
that debate does get a little hot, but the member has just imputed
motive to the Prime Minister, talking about bribing the electorate
with regard to the arrangements in the maritimes.
Would the Chair raise this matter with the member with the view
to withdrawing that comment?
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin would indicate what it was he said in the
context of what has been raised by the member for Mississauga
South.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the finance
minister, instead of keeping his word, bribed the three Atlantic
provinces with $1 billion to the cost of the rest of the country to
harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST and that this is his
way of saying that the GST has been abolished.
The Deputy Speaker: The dictionary is on the table and if we
look in it we will see that ``bribe'' means to give money to or
induce somebody to do an illegal act.
I realize that we cannot get into a definitional fight over every
word that is used, but I would ask the hon. member, if he accepts
that definition, if he might consider rephrasing that.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do that. The
Deputy Prime Minister used the money of the rest of Canadians to
enforce the GST, to entice the Atlantic provinces to accept this
GST.
Canadians cannot trust this government. That member is one of
the reasons why. Think for a moment about what $1 billion could
do for the hospitals that are closing down in this country and for the
7900
students who cannot go to school because their tuition is too high.
Such is the price of a broken promise.
I know the finance minister apologized about breaking his
GST-
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize
to stand on a point of order again, interrupting the speaker across
the way. That is not my intent.
However, he referred to an individual member. I am not certain
whether he is referring to my colleague who just spoke on a point
of order with regard to comments that were made or if he is
speaking about some other colleague. I would like to have
clarification.
The Deputy Speaker: Incidentally, this time will not come out
of the speaker's time. He will recapture the time that has been lost
with points of order.
I was listening carefully this time to the hon. member and I do
not think he was accusing the member for Mississauga South or
any other member of doing something that was beyond the pale. I
appreciate that the member for Carleton-Charlotte thinks he was
but I am sorry, your Speaker cannot find anything that was said that
is not within what happens here every day-the member may say
unfortunately-all day in debate.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, with perseverance we shall endure.
I know the finance minister apologized about breaking his GST
promise, but saying ``I am sorry'' does not pay the bills. It does not
help the sick. It does not help the most vulnerable in society.
The federal legislation for the harmonized sales tax is before this
House today, Bill C-70. It should not be called a harmonized sales
tax but perhaps a coat-tail tax or a tax that entices provinces with
other people's money.
Bill C-70 is a reminder to all Canadians that the Liberals cannot
be trusted to keep their word. Bill C-70 is a symbol of broken trust.
(1605 )
Why cannot Canadians trust this government? The Prime
Minister leaves us with a third and final reason. In October 1990,
during an interview with the Toronto Star, the Prime Minister said:
``The Liberals will scrap the goods and services tax if they win the
next election. I am opposed to the GST, I have always been
opposed to it and I will always be opposed to it''.
In October 1993, just before the election, the Prime Minister
spoke again about the GST: ``Yes, I will abolish it''. In May 1994,
after winning the election, he said about the GST: ``We hate it and
we will kill it''.
However, just yesterday in the Toronto Star, the Prime Minister
said: ``I have always said we want to replace the GST with a
harmonized tax''. Come on, let us speak the same language.
The Prime Minister not only told the Canadian public that he
would scrap, kill and abolish the GST, he told the Liberal caucus
the same thing. The member for York South-Weston told the
House on December 12, 1996, from page 7467 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I think what is compounding the problem is that the Prime Minister
refuses to recognize what his promise was. He has now had the opportunity to review
both the audio and video tapes. Not only did he promise Canadians that he would
scrap the GST, he also promised caucus on a number of occasions that he would
scrap the GST.
After being elected the Prime Minister changed his tune. He
started to say that he had always promised to replace and not
abolish the GST. This got him into big trouble at a CBC town hall
in December. When asked at the CBC town hall why he did not
scrap the GST, the Prime Minister said: ``That is not what we said
on that. We never said in the red book or directly that it was to be
scrapped''. It was clear to everyone that the Prime Minister broke
his word to Canadians.
Compounding the problem over the next couple of days, the
Prime Minister denied ever saying he would scrap, kill and abolish
the GST. He said: ``We have not lied. We have always said there
would be a replacement tax. I recognize that it is not always been
clear and has remained a problem in public opinion''. It seems the
Prime Minister at this point was trying to pass the blame for his
broken promise on to the Canadian public but it would not fall for
it. It knew he had broken his word.
Therefore the Prime Minister tried to set the record straight a
couple of days later by saying the following: ``If I and others left
the impression with anyone that we would be able to do away with
the tax without replacement, I want to tell them I am sorry''. Only
after experiencing incredible public pressure was the Prime
Minister willing to admit he was wrong. Canadians can no longer
trust this Prime Minister or believe his words.
This truth is reflected in public opinion today. Let me quote from
a letter sent to me earlier this year: ``The CBC town hall meeting
with the Prime Minister is the best of what CBC is all about. The
Prime Minister again was not honest with Canadians. I don't trust
the Prime Minister. I don't believe a word the man says''. This is
what average Canadians are saying about the Prime Minister.
Canadians cannot trust this government.
In closing, I want to say what a Reform government will give
Canadians. It will give four tools to keep its elected officials
accountable to their promises. These four tools are the following.
First, free votes in Parliament so that MPs ultimately take their
voting instructions from their electors, not the party whip. Second,
the right to binding referendums so that Canadians have a direct
say in issues affecting their interests. Third, the right to citizen
initiatives so that Canadians can force an issue on to the
referendum ballot if the government chooses to ignore it. Fourth
and most important of all, the right to recall, to fire MPs who fail to
keep their commitments to the people and lose their trust.
7901
The GST fiasco has taught Canadians that they cannot trust this
Liberal government. In fact, Canadians have learned that they can
only trust themselves. If we give Canadians the tools that I just
mentioned they will continue to build this great country. They will
build a strong country, built not only on the foundation of peace,
order and good government but on the foundation of integrity,
responsibility and accountability.
(1610 )
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-70. Despite
the diatribe that has been heard before me, this debate is really
about harmonization. This debate is about the new single
harmonized tax system. This debate is about a simpler, fairer and
more economically efficient harmonized tax system. This debate is
about benefits that would be realized by individuals, communities
and groups.
I will speak about five different areas in which the new single
harmonized tax system will benefit consumers and businesses. I
want to talk about the economic benefits it will have for all
Canadians. I want to talk about the lower administrative costs. I
want to talk about organizations such as colleges, schools,
hospitals, universities and the registered charities which will
benefit from this system.
My colleague spoke about consumers. He spoke about the
benefits which will be realized as a result of the tax inclusive
pricing rules inherent in Bill C-70. Those rules will ensure that
consumers know the full price of a good or a service before paying
for it, while keeping the rate of sales tax visible on receipts.
Another of my colleagues spoke about businesses which will
have to deal with only one set of sales tax forms. There will be one
set of operating rules. There will be one tax administration.
There is a business in my area run by Mr. Cinelli, a hairdressing
salon. He has spoken about the time and the effort which he has to
expend because of the GST. It is complicated and it affects his
business.
There are benefits for Atlantic Canada. Members of Parliament
from Atlantic Canada have spoken about the benefits the new
system will have for business.
Would we in Ontario have such benefits? All Ontario members
of Parliament are awaiting Premier Mike Harris' pledge to
harmonize the system. We appeal to him at this point in time to get
onboard and to consider the harmonized system which he knows
will benefit the province of Ontario. It will benefit the businesses
of Ontario, especially the businesses that currently have to deal
with so much administration.
We have also heard from members across the way a whole series
of difficulties they see with the system. They do not seem to
understand the intent of harmonization. Or maybe they refuse to
understand the benefits which a single, harmonized tax will
provide for businesses. Economic benefits will flow from the
removal of tax on business inputs. There will be lower
administration costs.
A lot of time has been spent talking about the Prime Minister and
individuals who spoke while in opposition without fully
considering the low administrative costs which businesses will
realize. The intent must surely be to ensure that Canadian
businesses survive and grow and that administrative and economic
benefits are provided to those businesses so they can provide jobs.
We have in Canada 73,000 to 75,000 registered charities. Four
thousand of them are comprised of hospitals, universities, public
colleges and schools. They are not for profit organizations engaged
in charitable activities.
In my riding there are several hundred registered charities. They
vary from small relief organizations, anti-poverty groups,
benevolent groups, the cancer society to others like the children's
aid society, the YMCA and YWCA. Those charities are small.
They have unsophisticated accounting systems and rely heavily on
volunteers. Those organizations will benefit from the harmonized
sales tax system. The administration of those organizations and the
workload of their volunteers will be simplified as a result of the
harmonized sales tax.
(1615 )
Bill C-70 is designed to significantly simplify that burden for
charities. What I consider to be the four or five important measures
that will assist those organizations-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, on a point of order.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's eloquence is
being wasted here. There are only nine people in the Chamber. I
call for a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, the hon. member is correct. Call in
the members.
And the bells having rung:
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since there are 20 members in the House,
we can proceed.
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-70, the new single
harmonized tax system is designed to significantly simplify the
sales tax rules for charities. The legislation includes measures to
streamline the definition of charity to make the application of sales
tax rules simpler. In speaking with several of the volunteer
organizations and charities in the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore,
those measures in Bill C-70 please them greatly.
The bill raises the existing small supplier thresholds applicable
to taxable supplies and gross revenue, reducing the number of
charities required to register for sales tax purposes. The measures
the small charities in my riding see of benefit consolidate and
simplify the rules governing the charities' taxable activities. These
7902
measures within Bill C-70 are designed to assist charities. They are
designed to ensure that volunteers can work productively within
those charities without spending administrative time. These are
benefits within Bill C-70. Another measure simplifies the
requirements for filing returns and claiming rebates. Again we
know the volunteer hours that are spent doing those two important
tasks.
The overall effect of the changes are really what we should be
focusing on; that is, simplifying the rules, reducing the workload
that volunteers give of their time and effort. All of this would seem
to be outside pure accounting and economic lines. Those are
reasons that Bill C-70 needs to be supported.
It is also important to note in this debate that Bill C-70 speaks
about efficiency, fairness and simplicity in the tax system. It calls
on every one of us in this House on behalf of our constituents to
ensure that we are providing them with the ways in which they are
able to respond to bureaucracy, government measures, revenue
issues and taxation. We are providing them with those measures.
(1620 )
It is important that this is supported. All members on all sides of
the House must realize the discussion is one that speaks to a
harmonized system that would benefit our entire country. They too
have spoken about a difficulty with the old GST, the difficulty in
the system, the labour intensity in the system and the fact that it is a
tax that stands in the way of businesses doing what they should do
and could do for all Canadians.
I call on all members on all sides of the House to recognize that
this debate is about harmonization. This debate is about a single
harmonized tax system. This debate is about simplicity, fairness
and an economically efficient tax system. I call on all members to
focus on the debate and support the bill.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Leeds-Grenville-national gun amnesty; the hon. member for
The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-agriculture.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate on the Group
No. 3 amendments to Bill C-70.
The issue here is not the GST or the HST in debating the
harmonization of the GST. The real issue here today in this House
is accountability, integrity and responsibility. The issue here is
damage control, damage to this Liberal government for a failed
broken promise.
Earlier today, and I think it is the 27th time, this Liberal
government brought in closure to cut off debate. Time allocation is
the nice term that is used but it is a violation of the democratic
process which would allow a full debate on an issue that is so
important as this one.
This is one of two major broken promises made by this
government. There may have been 170 or 180 promises in the red
book but there are only two promises in that red book that counted
heavily with about 90 per cent of Canadians who put their trust in
this government. One of course was jobs, jobs, jobs and the other
was the fact that the Liberals were going to scrap, abolish and get
rid of the GST. We do not have the jobs and we do have the GST.
We have the old campaign of say whatever to get elected and then
once elected do whatever.
Let us talk about jobs before I get back to the GST. This
government cannot run and hide from its failure in jobs. The UI
stats prove monthly its ongoing failure to create the jobs that our
children and grandchildren are looking for. The government cannot
avoid that.
Three years have been spent trying to deal with that problem and
with no success and still no understanding of what has to be done.
This Liberal government has still failed to connect the fact that
high taxes are what contribute to high levels of unemployment. The
Liberals ran on a $6 billion infrastructure program that was
supposed to kick start the economy and create the jobs that they had
promised in the red book and they failed.
As a matter of fact the auditor general has criticized the $6
billion infrastructure program as a waste of tax dollars and a failure
in creating the jobs. Unbelievably, the Liberals are looking at
another one, only this time instead of being $6 billion which failed,
apparently they believe that something less than that will be
successful. Is there no one in the government asking the question:
What we are doing is not working, why should we be looking for a
better way?
(1625 )
The Prime Minister got up in the House today and talked about
jobs. The only jobs that we can take credit for in this country right
now really have come about because of free trade and NAFTA, two
programs the Liberal government strongly opposed when in
opposition. As a matter of fact, another red book promise was that
the Liberals were going to rewrite NAFTA. Thank God they did not
because it is creating a few jobs in this country.
Let me come back to the GST, the other major broken promise. I
would like to quote the member for Mississauga South who in
debate in the House on February 6 said that the Liberals had
wrestled with this GST problem, debated it at great length, held
7903
hearings and lo and behold, what did they discover? They
discovered that the best replacement for the GST is the GST. Yes,
the best replacement for the GST is the GST, as far as the member
for Mississauga South is concerned.
The member for Mississauga South is a new member, like
myself, new to this place and new to the debate. However, I would
point out that there are 19 members in the cabinet of this
government who were here in opposition when the GST was
introduced. They knew what the chances were of harmonization.
As a matter of fact the current finance minister opposed
harmonization. He said it would be a terrible mistake.
We should look at some of the quotes from the Liberals when
they were in opposition. Here are some of the things they said. I do
not think we need to talk about the Deputy Prime Minister again.
Canadians from coast to coast know very well what she said and
then failed to keep her promise, or at least she failed to keep it until
a poll was taken to show that she would be re-elected if she did
keep her promise.
Back in 1990 the then finance critic, now the defence minister,
said the Liberal Party would scrap the GST. The Liberals pledged
that in a nationally televised debate with the then finance minister,
Michael Wilson. He went on to say: ``The goods and services tax is
a regressive tax that has to be scrapped and we will scrap it''. There
was nothing about harmonization. There were no weasel words in
there. It was very clear.
Here is a quote from the current Liberal House leader. Again
back in 1990 when in opposition he said: ``Not only do the Liberals
oppose the GST now, that opposition will continue even if the bill
is passed. We are not interested in tinkering with the GST. We do
not want it at all''. What is harmonization? Those are very strong
words. No weasel words there. It is very clear. Of course the
current finance minister said: ``I will abolish the GST''.
The leadership of that party when in opposition knew very well
the problems they were facing in dealing with the GST. Now that
we have heard quotes from the Liberals, let us look at what the
provinces are saying about harmonizing the GST. The member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore talked about support in Ontario, which I
have yet to identify.
Certainly the premier of Ontario has consistently claimed that
the federal harmonization plan will cost Ontario consumers
between $2 billion and $3 billion a year. With figures like that I do
not know how it is going help charities in Ontario with a $2 billion
to $3 billion tax increase because of harmonization. The premier of
Ontario also went to say that the subsidization package given to the
three Atlantic provinces represents a bribe and warned that more
and more provinces are going to be disenchanted by this kind of
bribery and this kind of government.
The finance minister of Ontario, Ernie Eves, said: ``It really
offloads about $3 billion annually from businesses to consumers.
This is not acceptable. I would say the issue is dead''.
(1630 )
Let us talk about the almost a billion dollars that was going to
flow to the provinces to encourage them to harmonize. The federal
government receives 41 per cent of its revenue from Ontario. One
could make the argument that 41 per cent of any amount of money
the federal government spends is Ontario taxpayers' money. It
could be argued that Ontario will be subsidizing the $961 million
bribe to the tune of $400 million. I do not think that is appropriate
and I do not think that is fair to the taxpayers of Ontario.
The cost of harmonization to the typical Ontario family that
earns $30,000 to $40,000 a year represents an additional $185 in
taxes. I do not know how the members from Ontario who sit in this
government can defend this very unfair tax grab.
This government was elected on restoring integrity. It knew the
problem. I am sure its members heard of it at the same doors I
knocked on. They even devoted a chapter in their red book to that
subject. I will quote from one paragraph on page 95 where they
recognized the problem and said they would deal with it by
appointing an ethics commissioner: ``In particular, a Liberal
government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor to advise
both public officials and lobbyists in the day to day application of
the code of conduct for public officials''. The ethics commissioners
was to report to Parliament.
That is what it says in the red book. In fact, the ethics
commissioner reports to the Prime Minister. What was to be a
watch dog has become a lap dog. From that point on the promises
in this red book went right down the drain.
This coming election will be about integrity. Canadians are
looking for a party with a vision for the future. They know the
government has no credibility, whatever it promises.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity to participate in the report stage debate on
Bill C-70. We are focusing on the harmonization of the provincial
sales taxes and the GST in most of the Atlantic provinces.
It is important at this time, in view of some of the comments we
are hearing from the other side, to review the big picture again. If
we step back we can understand why harmonization of the GST and
the provincial sales taxes where they exist is a laudable and
extremely important objective.
It was a very interesting experience for me as a member of the
Standing Committee on Finance to take part in the many weeks of
7904
study and hearings on options and alternatives to replace the GST.
This was in the spring of 1994.
The finance committee is an all-party committee. It listened to
Canadians from coast to coast, here in Ottawa and in each of the
provinces. They were asked some tough questions and in all cases
they gave very honest and frank responses to the challenge of what
was the best alternative to the GST.
Members of the other parties know that over 20 alternatives to
the GST were studied. The vast weight of the evidence provided by
the witnesses indicated that there was no other alternative that
could be better than harmonizing the provincial sales taxes with the
federal GST. The weight of that evidence was so great that even in
the provincial campaign of 1995, the then leader of the Ontario PC
party, now premier, Premier Harris, indicated his strong support for
harmonizing in Ontario the PST and GST. The story we hear from
Ontario now is a little different.
(1635 )
I do not want to impute motives, but the fact is I agree with its
campaign promise that harmonizing the PST and GST in Ontario
would have many benefits for small, medium and big businesses,
for consumers and for provincial and federal governments that I do
not know why we are hearing such a fuss from the opposition.
Among the many things we heard in the testimony, much had to
do with red tape. We all hear from taxpayers and businesses that
there is too much government red tape at all levels. Therefore, the
fact that the government has taken the initiative to tackle a
challenging problem, the harmonization of these two levels of sales
taxes, is something for which all Canadians will be grateful.
Certainly the witnesses we heard from at the finance committee
told us in no uncertain terms that it was the goal to aim for.
There was no question that there were going to be some
challenges along the way. As my colleague from
Carleton-Charlotte reminds me, when that finance committee,
ably led by the MP for Willowdale, reported, the Reform Party was
on record as supporting the notion of harmonizing the provincial
sales taxes and GST.
An hon. member: That was piecemeal, ad hoc bullshit and you
know it.
Mr. St. Denis: I am very sorry that he is leaving. I am very sorry
that he will not be with us after the next election by his own choice.
I have a great respect for him. However, his memory is as good as
mine. He knows what the minority report of the Reform Party
stated. It stated that Reformers supported the concept of
harmonization. However, one cannot believe in a concept if one
does not always believe that one has to go through tough steps to
get to that final resolution.
Mr. Silye: No subsidization in three provinces.
Mr. St. Denis: We cannot get from A to B all the time by
drawing a straight line. That is the simple way to look at problems.
Sometimes one has to go over hurdles and around obstacles. That is
what we are doing as a government. We are tackling the issues that
face us each step of the way as we move toward the goal of
harmonizing these two levels of taxes.
What are the benefits to Canadians? Let us start with the
business sector, particularly small and medium size business. Now
each of these businesses faces reporting both federal and provincial
sales taxes, two sets of records and the possibility of having to be
audited by two separate levels of government. Many businesses are
operated by one or two people. They are very small operations
where every hour spent on government red tape is an hour taken
away from productivity, an hour taken away from selling more
goods or providing service to their customers. To the extent that we
can reduce the time commitment that any business person,
especially the small business owner, has to government paperwork
is something that we are adding toward the productivity of this
country.
Therefore, I do not understand how the opposition can argue on
one side, as it said in its minority report, that we should get to a
harmonized situation, but on the other side it says that we should
not tackle each step along the way with bigger creativity and
determination. That is what leadership is all about and that is why I
believe Canadians give us their support in October 1993. I trust
when they look at the government closely again in the next election
campaign they will feel that our leadership is what this country
needs.
No government is perfect, there is no question about that. If we
were perfect it would be the first time, I am sure, that any
government in the world was perfect.
Besides the elimination of red tape, consumers will not only
benefit from the fact that the costs of running a business will be
reduced, but over time it will be reflected in the prices because the
small business operator will be able to cut down his or her costs.
(1640 )
I happen to be one who believes in tax included pricing at the
retail level, but tax included pricing with full disclosure on the
receipt at the cash register. We heard, over and over again, that the
concept of sticker shock or counter shock was hurting
consumption. Canadians will like the idea that they can see
something on the shelf that is priced at $10, go to the cash register,
put down $10 and know that they have paid the full amount due for
that commodity.
On the receipt will be disclosure of the amount of harmonized
GST and PST that is in the product. That is fair. It will have the
7905
positive impact on consumers that we need to have in this country
to ensure the fullest level of employment possible.
We have been accused of saying that we would totally abolish,
scrap the GST. I refer colleagues across the way to page 22 in what
I call the well read book. Page 22 says that we will move toward
harmonization of the provincial and federal sales taxes. That is
what I said in my campaign. That is what I said door to door. I
never varied from that commitment. As a member of the finance
committee, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, we
are taking steps in that direction.
It is the job of the opposition to try to divert attention but the fact
remains that a responsible government knows that people cannot
take $15, $16 or $17 billion of revenue and throw it out the
window. A responsible government also does not promise to have a
broad base tax cut that it knows cannot be afforded at this time-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am always amazed as I watch the government when it
gets itself into a sticky political situation. To find its way out, it
creates a scenario and then all members can unabashedly go out
with a straight face and sell that story line.
What we have with this legislation is reflective of a very
worrisome trend that we are seeing in legislation coming forward
from this administration. Some words that come to mind are:
responding to political events, balkanization, dividing the country,
willy-nilly, knee-jerk, no vision, no principles, ad hoc.
The reason I say that is because this is not the only bill where the
government is responding to a political situation, responding to a
half-baked promise, responding to special interests that are
promoting a particular point of view with the government.
I have been looking at two pieces of legislation that are going to
be coming before the House. They have both been tabled. We have
what has been called by some, Indian Act II. This is parallel
legislation, if members have ever heard of such a thing, where
people can opt in but they cannot opt out.
Mr. Fewchuk: What are you making fun of the aboriginals for?
Mr. Duncan: I am not sure what that comment was, but I am not
making fun of anybody. I am stating a fact about two pieces of
aboriginal legislation before the House.
The other bill before the House that has the same balkanization
trend is the First Nations Land Act. Once again, it is national
legislation from a national government that will deal with 14 bands
only.
(1645 )
What do we do the next time there are 12 or 14 bands that want
something different? We have over 600 bands in the country. Are
we going to have 35 pieces of legislation to deal with all of them?
This is a very worrisome trend.
We have had a whole set of negotiations in this country dealing
with an attempt to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers. In my
view this BST bill is actually contributing to interprovincial trade
barriers. It is adding to the cost of businesses in Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Newfoundland in doing business with other
provinces. Why we would want to go in this direction is absolutely
beyond me. There is only one overriding reason, and we know what
it is. The government got in trouble, it got hung on its own
statements and in order to extricate itself it entered into this special
agreement. Why else did the government have to come up with $1
billion to encourage people in those three provinces to participate?
The three provinces which are the net contributors to
equalization in the country are B.C., Alberta and Ontario. Those
three provinces do not want to have anything to do with this
proposal. That is interesting.
The minister of finance for the province of Ontario has said that
this way of arranging things would cost the province $3 billion in
extra taxes. It is comforting to see that there is someone who
cannot be bought.
There is a circumstance in the bill which would force federally
regulated industries like the airlines and the banks to bury GST in
their pricing across the country. I find that most interesting with the
current transparency of taxation.
I have relatives who live in the United States. They have looked
at ticketing from the United States through Canadian airspace to
Canadian destinations. Travel agents in the U.S. are absolutely
horrified at the level of taxation in Canadian air travel as compared
to U.S. air travel. At least they know it is taxation which is creating
the pricing. With this kind of provision no one will know. Is that
not wonderful for the government's agenda of out of sight, out of
mind?
There is another parallel. If they cannot blend it, then maybe
they can obfuscate it. We can always see in the actions of this
government where it is trying to maintain federal leverage but it
wants to obfuscate how it achieves the leverage because it wants to
do it at minimum cost. We have seen that in the blending of the
transfers to the provinces for health, education and welfare during
the term of this government. They were rolled into one transfer. It
is much harder to delineate what is going where. Then the $18
billion transfer was reduced by $7 billion, but it cannot be tracked
because it has a new name and it is blended. That is quite a parallel.
7906
We have the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the
Minister of Finance and scores of Liberal cabinet and caucus
members who all made election pledges to eliminate and not blend
the GST. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who said on this issue:
``A promise made by a politician seeking election is not really a
promise''. Is that not wonderful?
(1650 )
An hon. member: What is it then?
Mr. Duncan: I would like to know what it is also.
The Retail Council of Canada estimates that by forcing stores to
bury the tax the harmonization tax regime will cost retailers $100
million a year. What on earth is the government trying to do? I
heard Liberals in this House say it will make business more
competitive.
I will tell the House what will make businesses more
competitive. A $95 billion federal government, not a Liberal $110
billion government. The Reform Party proposes $95 billion
spending, excluding interest on the debt.
Ms. Clancy: What are you going to spend it on?
Mr. Duncan: Read our fresh start program and you will know
what we are going to spend it on.
The western world is moving in new directions. The public is
demanding balanced budgets and the provinces are getting there
much faster than the feds. There will be a reduced incentive for
provincial sales tax relief with the BST. There will be more
leverage from the federal government on the provinces.
We have seen 36 tax increases from this government, taking $24
billion more from the taxpayers. If the feds really want to come to
grips with a rational, focused, central government, they could
indeed contemplate the end of GST. At least let us not put
roadblocks in the way of eliminating the GST, and that is what the
BST does.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in this debate today. I want to speak a little
about some of the benefits that harmonizing the sales tax will
bring, in particular to consumers in Atlantic Canada.
It is very interesting to know that in polling and in otherwise
questioning consumers in the Atlantic provinces that have agreed
to harmonize the sales tax with the federal government, over 79 per
cent of persons polled-and I am happy to say that the major poll
was taken in the city of Halifax in my riding-were in favour of tax
inclusive pricing.
It is very important for people to realize, even some of the
people on the other side, and really understand what is happening
and what tax inclusive pricing means for consumers. It is
something all of us as legislators have heard of since the first time
the GST was brought in. The bottom line is that consumers want to
know how much they have to pay before they get to the cash
register.
Every single one of us has had the experience while shopping of
seeing something that we want to buy for ourselves, a family
member or whatever and thinking the price is reasonable and
within the realm of what we have decided we want to pay. We go to
the cash register only to discover that the tax bite has put it over the
top of where we want to be. That of course is something that
distresses consumers every day.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Are you saying that
your constituents cannot figure out what 7 per cent is?
Ms. Clancy: Actually it is 19 per cent, to the hon. member from
Kicking Horse Pass over there. I understand that he has always had
a little difficulty with arithmetic, which does not surprise me.
(1655 )
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Your constituents
cannot figure out 19 per cent either?
Ms. Clancy: The hon. gentleman appears to be making an
untoward amount of noise. I must say that I am a little leery of
making any comments that might in any way stir the beans on the
other side for fear someone might start to undress in the House of
Commons, which of course I would consider to be most
distressing, not to mention unsightly. But of course unsightly
premises are municipal law, not federal law.
At any rate, with regard to tax inclusive pricing, the participating
governments developed guidelines based on extensive
consultations with businesses and business associations.
In Halifax there have been long consultations with ever more
increasing consumers, retailers, the Chamber of Commerce in
Halifax. My colleague, the member for Halifax West, and I had a
long and most productive meeting with the Chamber of Commerce
in Halifax recently. As a result the word we heard most has become
a hallmark of this legislation. That is guidelines that provide
flexibility to ensure that businesses can comply without undue cost.
That, of course, is of paramount importance.
Mr. Silye: It is going to cost $90 million.
Ms. Clancy: I am really concerned about the outgoing member
for Calgary whatever over there. I am afraid that there may be a
problem and I wonder if we could ask the page to bring him a glass
of water. What he proceeds to do with the glass of water, of course,
will be his own decision. Pouring it over his head would have to be
a decision he took for himself.
His incredible response to the debate earlier today when I was in
the Chamber, all he could talk about was how glad he was that he
7907
would be out of here in a couple of months. I can only say that,
collegiality notwithstanding, we too on this side will be glad to
hasten his departure.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Not as glad as they
will be about yours.
Ms. Clancy: I am glad the hon. member for B.C. brought that
up.
Mr. Morrison: You are just trying to kill time. Why not speak to
the bill?
Ms. Clancy: I have to respond to my colleague. I am still
waiting to hear if a Reformer is going to run in my riding.
Apparently not.
Tax inclusive pricing will be confusing for consumers. That is a
myth. There is nothing confusing about tax inclusive pricing. Tax
inclusive price is what is paid at the cash register. Indeed, the
research that many of us have dealt with, those of us who
understand it, shows that consumers will not be confused. They
support tax in pricing and they support the options available to
retailers.
Some of those options are to post the tax inclusive price only, to
post the tax in and the tax out prices alongside each other, to use
shelf or bin pricing so they do not have to resticker prepriced goods
from the manufacturer, or use conversion charts so consumers can
look at the tax included price for prepriced magazines, greeting
cards, et cetera.
Many retailers already use these methods, particularly bin or
shelf pricing. All they have to do is apply this common practice to
tax inclusive pricing.
For goods priced individually by retailers business supply
companies are producing stickers with the words tax inclusive
price or tax exclusive price embossed right on the sticker. This will
make it clear which price includes tax and which does not.
The thing I think most consumer realize is that prices change all
the time in our retail establishments in this country. In fact, the idea
that confusion will result is not true. Indeed, it will make life less
confusing for those shoppers and consumers.
The second myth is that it will be difficult for consumer to
comparison shop given that retailers may follow different pricing
practices. I think with the greatest respect again there is a theory
here that the Canadian consumer is somehow less willing and able
to know what this is about. Most of these things are fairly easy to
handle. My personal belief, in spite of what our friends on the other
side will have us believe, is that the Canadian consumer is capable
of handling this. It may well be that our friends on the other side are
not capable of handling it. That I certainly believe. Again, I trust
none of them will start taking off their coats.
(1700 )
The reality on this supposed myth of difficulty is that what
matters to consumers is what they pay at the cash and not how
retailers display tax in prices. Consumers will know the difference
between a price that includes the tax and one that does not. They
will compare total prices and make their purchases accordingly.
That is effectively what I was talking about when I said that
consumers do not want surprises when they go to the cash register.
Harmonization is something that will benefit both retailers and
consumers. Another myth is that tax inclusive pricing will be costly
for businesses that will pass on the increased costs to consumers in
the form of higher prices. In reality governments have developed a
flexible and simple set of options to ensure that businesses can
implement tax inclusive pricing at a minimum expense.
For example, the need to reticket inventory will be limited and
the need to reprogram cash registers will be minimal. Many of the
costs associated with implementing tax in pricing are one time
costs. Other expenses will be absorbed into the ongoing cost of
doing business.
Harmonization will also benefit retailers in several important
ways. It will permanently reduce their costs because they will no
longer have to pay sales tax on their business inputs. This will save
retailers in the participating provinces $30 million.
Harmonization will mean a substantial reduction in sales tax
rates, about 5 percentage points lower in Newfoundland and
Labrador and 4 points lower in the provinces of Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick. Both these factors will mean lower prices for
consumers, between 3.5 per cent and 5 per cent lower which will
translate in higher sales for retailers.
Another myth is tax inclusive pricing will result in a hidden tax.
With the tax clearly shown on the receipts the sales tax cannot be
hidden. Consumers believe that showing the tax on the sales receipt
is sufficient to ensure that they know how much tax they are
paying. Indeed, in polling done, 71 per cent agreed in a survey in
the participating provinces that this was both comprehensible and
an acceptable way to do it.
The harmonized sales tax is something that-
Mr. Silye: A blended sales tax.
Ms. Clancy: Here they go again attempting to correct my usage
in the House and suggesting that I use a term that is both
agricultural and faintly scatological.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to inform the hon. member that her
time has expired.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the
Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been busily
writing a new dictionary. I do not know whether it is going to have
a red cover or not but I suppose it will. It is going to be called ``The
Liberal Lexicon of Misinformation and Mendacity''. They have
come up
7908
with some new synonyms for scrap, kill and abolish. These are hide
deviously, infuriate citizens, kill jobs-not a tax but jobs.
This is supposed to be, or at least I thought it was when I came
down here, a place where we sit down and reason together. Boy, did
I get an education.
It is sad. The member for Calgary Centre is one of the few people
in this House who has the competence to understand the
ramifications of this bill and who actually looks at taxation from
the point of view of the victim. When he tried to make his points he
was subjected to the usual yahoo comments from the people in the
Liberal nosebleed section. However, when it comes to real debate
only three members from Atlantic Canada have been willing to
face the wrath of their constituents by speaking on behalf of hiding
the hated GST.
The members for Cumberland-Colchester,
Carleton-Charlotte and Halifax should be commended for
volunteering to commit political suicide. Their Atlantic colleagues
are wisely keeping their heads down.
(1705 )
Some place in the rubble I have an editorial which I would like to
share with the House. Believe it or not it is from the Saint John
Telegraph Journal. The last time I looked Saint John was in the
maritimes. It says: ``To keep the GST hidden from Canadians is
despicable,' said Robert Nault, a Liberal opposition MP to the
Conservative government in 1989. The government is telling
Canadians, `trust us'. There is no trust in this government and there
is no integrity in this government''. My, my, how things stay the
same.
``Seven years after Mr. Nault's righteous tirade against hidden
taxes, a principle championed by the Liberal opposition in those
days, the government of the Prime Minister is demanding that its
own sales tax be hidden in retail prices''. Imagine.
Consider this. The harmonized sales tax legislation would make
not hiding the tax a criminal offence. In spite of what one of the
members opposite said a while ago, it will still-even with the
amendments brought in at committee-make hiding the tax a
criminal act. The only difference is that now it will be possible to
get an absolute discharge if you do not remember to show the tax
when you sell a chocolate bar.
I quote again from the editorial: ``Any law that hides the tax
from those who are paying it is draconian and any government that
opposes such a law is practising deception. In the moments when
we all stop giggling at the government's silly contention that it only
wants to hide the HST in prices to make it easier for shoppers to
know how much things cost, it's clear that the only people who will
benefit from a hidden GST are the politicians who are doing the
hiding''.
I am really gratified that there are people in Atlantic Canada who
can speak so eloquently to this subject. They bring the views of
ordinary Atlantic Canadians to this House even though they have to
do it through a member from Saskatchewan. Of course their own
members do not have the fortitude-if I may use that
semi-parliamentary word-to stand up for their constituents. They
are too busy polishing the apple of the Prime Minister.
I return to this wonderful editorial: ``The government, which has
no proof that consumers are crying for a law to impose tax
inclusive pricing, cannot deny that Canadian business is uniformly
against a hidden HST''. The government should be listening to
people who think about these things, like the Canadian Federation
of Independent Business, the Canadian Labour Congress, the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, all of whom say that the hidden
tax should be withdrawn.
Is it not interesting that way back in 1990 the now minister of
defence rose in this House as a Liberal finance critic, attacked the
government's GST bill and said that this tax should be withdrawn.
How times do change. Apparently there is a big difference between
being here or over there. It is a sea change in attitudes; it is a sea
change in integrity.
Integrity is what we are talking about here. We are not talking
about taxation. We are talking about a government which cannot be
trusted, which does not stick to its principles and which does not
keep its word.
(1710 )
Getting back to the nitty-gritties, the Retail Council of Canada
has studied this BST-HST at great length. It states that forcing
stores to bury the new tax in prices will cost retailers at least $100
million a year. The Retail Council of Canada has no vested interest
in telling a government how it should collect its taxes. It has a very
large vested interest when the government's proposals are going to
crucify its members in Atlantic Canada by forcing all this new and
unnecessary bookwork on them. It is going to cost jobs. I do not
know how many people have brought this up today.
The Halifax Chamber of Commerce, which I believe is also from
Atlantic Canada, predicts that the harmonized sales tax will push
up the prices on new housing by 5.5 per cent. It will also force
municipalities to raise property taxes. The Canadian Real Estate
Association says that harmonization will increase the cost of a new
house by $4,000 in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and $3,374 in
New Brunswick.
To get all these wonderful benefits, we are going to send almost a
billion dollars of federal tax funds, taken out of the hides of the rest
of us, preferably western Canada I presume since we are the usual
whipping boy, to bribe, if you will, the premiers of those Atlantic
provinces to accept the fiat from Ottawa.
7909
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is
not God that is here. It is just the secretary of state.
I am delighted to speak on this subject. Having listened to my
colleagues, especially my colleague from Halifax who just recently
spoke, about the effect of this tax on consumers, I would like to see
if the opposition parties might think about the business aspect of
this.
I know the Reform Party would not be interested in the fact that
businesses are going to improve their efficiency with this thing,
that there will be one set of rules instead of two. No, the Reform
Party wants two set of rules.
Mr. Silye: Tell us about Carleton Cards.
Mr. Peters: I hear the Reform Party member telling me that he
does not want two sets of rules. He wants a provincial set of sales
tax rules and a federal set of sales tax rules. Instead of that, under a
harmonized sales tax rule we will have a single set of rules. A
single set of rules will be applied to all business.
I was in London, England where I walked into a store and bought
an article. I went to pay for it and it cost five pounds. I down my
five pounds and asked how much more I needed but that was all it
cost.
Mr. Silye: I'll bet you liked that.
Mr. Peters: I think a pack of yahoos have infiltrated the Reform
Party benches.
I asked the clerk: ``What do you know about the taxes?'' He said:
``I don't know anything. I don't have to know anything''. However,
if we go into any Canadian store and ask the clerk if they know
about the sales taxes, they will answer: ``Yes, there is 8 per cent and
7 per cent in Ontario. There is a different one in Newfoundland, a
different one in P.E.I. and a different one in Nova Scotia''.
This harmonized sales tax will be of serious benefit not just to
consumers, who will know when they see the price, but it will be of
real benefit to business. Businesses will not have to register for the
harmonized sales tax. It will be already registered. Everyone who
has registered for the GST will be registered again.
(1715 )
How will a new business be treated? Instead of having to register
for a provincial sales tax and a federal sales tax, it will have to
register for one sales tax.
Reform Party members have quoted a number of people. Here is
a GST quote. This is from The Atlantic Provinces Economic
Council: ``The potential benefits of harmonization can be easily
laid out. By broadening the base of taxation, harmonization will
make the system more equitable and reduce the incentive for tax
based consumption or investment decisions. Harmonization
should also simplify tax collection procedures, reducing the red
tape required to administer the sales tax for both business and
government. A common system among the three provinces with a
full system of input tax credits will also result in the removal of a
barrier to interprovincial trade and may reduce the amount of
activity in the underground economy''.
An hon. member: Give us a date.
Mr. Peters: Mr. Speaker, it seems that our friends over there are
not interested in reducing the underground economy. They are not
interested in efficiency. They are also not interested in being quiet.
The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has given a clear
indication of how favourable this harmonized sales tax would be.
Another quote comes from the Deveau family which owns Acadian
Seaplants in Dartmouth. It landed an order from Thailand recently
during the Team Canada sales mission. It told the law amendments
committee hearing on the BST that its competitors already have a
full refundable tax system for business: ``What the harmonized
sales tax does for us is to level the playing field when we compete
with the Europeans, who already have the advantages of a value
added tax system. The harmonized sales tax means we have lower
costs and that means we can have lower prices, win more contracts
and hire more people''. That is a quote from the material provided
by the Nova Scotia department of finance. It is obvious that the
harmonized sales tax will be a strong plus for business in the
Atlantic provinces. The Reform Party does not have any members
in the Atlantic provinces so it cannot be very interested in business
in the Atlantic provinces.
This government is to be commended for putting the harmonized
sales tax forward. It will have many advantages for business in
Atlantic Canada. It will return the structure of the sales tax system
to a proper order so that business in the Atlantic provinces will
have a serious advantage in selling their products, not just locally
and nationally, but internationally as well. The consumers will also
have a serious advantage. They will know the price of the goods
they are buying. It will be on the item. That will be what they will
pay at the cash register.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is February 1997 and we are still talking about the
GST. I remember when I first started taking interest in the federal
political system. It was during the beginning of the GST debate. I
got involved in Canada's political life about the time the GST was
beginning to be debated.
I remember attending anti-GST rallies. They were held across
Canada. I remember people from the various political parties
speaking about the GST. There were members from the Liberal
Party who spoke against the GST. I remember in particular a rally
in Saskatchewan. I believe it was in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. The
current Minister of Foreign Affairs was there. He was representing
the Liberal Party. At that time he was an opposition member. He
said ``I see they have named this rally after me''. It was the axe the
tax rally. He came in with a bluster and a flurry and said how
7910
terrible the tax was and how the government should not be
spending so much money. Of course, as Canadians know, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs is one of the biggest spenders we have
ever seen.
The public sentiment against the GST began to increase.
Canadians began to realize that this was not just a replacement tax
for the manufacturers' sales tax but that it was a plan of the
Conservative government to tax Canadians more intensely.
(1720)
It was an easier dial to turn to tax the hides off Canadians. They
also recognized and realized that the Conservative line that this was
a tax that would be applied against the deficit to reduce the deficit
was a bunch of baloney. They began to oppose the tax even more
strongly.
The Conservatives got into a lot of trouble over the GST. They
were having trouble in their riding associations. Their members
were coming back to find that they had rebellion in their riding
associations. There was talk of nominating new candidates to run in
the next election. There were defections even in the Conservative
caucus, members leaving to become independents or to join other
parties.
It was not a very happy time for the Conservatives but power at
any cost was the motto of the Progressive Conservative Party. It
decided it was going to get this thing through. It rammed it through
the Parliament of Canada. It rammed it through this House.
The Conservatives had a majority government, just like we have
a majority Liberal government today. It gets its way. It just forces
the MPs to vote in line with the Prime Minister's wishes, the
PMO's wishes.
The Conservatives got that GST through the House of
Commons. There was the filibustering. There was the indignation
and all the routine we see in the House of Commons. The
Conservatives had a pretty strong and pretty long whip. They
whipped their members into shape and got that bill, eventually,
through the House of Commons.
Then they sent it off to the Senate but the Conservatives had a bit
of a problem in the Senate, sort of like the Liberals have had in the
past two or three years where they were not always sure of getting
their legislation passed through the Senate.
The bill got stalled in the Senate. Mr. Mulroney had to have
power at any cost. He had to get this GST through. He had to have
the source of revenue. His pride was on the line. What did the
prime minister of the day do? He took a very arrogant step of
expanding the Senate by eight members. This was unprecedented
in Canadian history. He added eight extra seats. We call them the
stacking stools. The Senate went from 104 to 112 senators.
Just the other day one of those senators from Saskatchewan was
charged. I am sure members are aware of the charges that have
been laid against one of those stacked senators, Senator Berntson.
We do not know whether he is guilty or not. It just reminds
Canadians of that old Conservative air where power had to be had
and power had to be maintained at any cost. Tamper with
democracy. Tamper with the parliamentary system, but we have to
get this GST through. We cannot be stymied by Canadians. We
cannot listen to Canadians. We have to have our way.
We know what happened to the Mulroney Conservative
government. Those few Tories who are left today are still admiring
his government. I do not understand why even the current leader
today seems to think Mulroney was a great prime minister. I guess
he liked his heavy handed ways.
Nevertheless, the Tories were defeated in 1993 because another
party had come along. The official opposition said ``we're going to
scrap the GST, we'll kill it, we'll get rid of it for you''. We have
seen the video tapes. We know that is a fact. That is what happened.
Then the Liberals inherited the problem. They were not prepared
to reduce the size of government. They like to spend over $100
billion on government programs. They wanted to increase
revenues, not reduce revenues. They like big government. If there
is big government, there is control, power and maybe Canadians
can be manipulated.
The Liberals suddenly found themselves in a very awkward
position, having made a promise that they were not particularly
keen on keeping.
What did they do? They tried to avoid the problem. They
pretended that it was not a problem. They pretended they had not
said what they said. They tried to camouflage it with some wording
from the red book even though Canadians knew they had
campaigned and promised to scrap, abolish and kill the GST.
It finally got so bad they thought they would sacrifice one of
their own to try to appease Canadians and make them forget they
made this promise. The Deputy Prime Minister did some polling.
She figured she could get re-elected. After they had carefully
calculated everything, she tearfully resigned to keep her promise to
scrap and kill the GST.
Then she went stomping back in the by-election and was
re-elected and reinstated as the Deputy Prime Minister by the
current government.
7911
(1725 )
The problem did not go away. The government by this time is
bringing in Bill C-70 that we are debating today, this blended sales
tax. It does not eliminate or scrap or do anything with the GST
other than try to heap its many implications on the provinces in a
blended form with a provincial sales tax.
In Saskatchewan we have a provincial sales tax. It is far too high.
It is the old NDP motto you have to tax them hard and often. We
certainly pay in Saskatchewan with our provincial sales tax, but
this sales tax is not on everything. If we blend this sale tax with our
GST, suddenly our tax bill is going to go up substantially in
Saskatchewan and it is not going to sell very well.
It was not going to sell very well anywhere in the country. This is
becoming very embarrassing to the Liberal government, so it
decided: ``We have three friends in Atlantic Canada, three premiers
and perhaps we can strike a deal; how much is it going to cost us?''
That is the old Mulroney approach. ``Let's sit down and make a
deal. Is it going to be $200 million or $300 million or maybe $100
million a province to sign up for this blended sales tax''. They are
Atlantic premiers and they know how to wheel and deal. By the
time the dealing was done it turned about to be $1 billion for three
provinces to agree to a harmonized sales tax.
Where does this $1 billion come from? It happens to come from
taxpayers, some of whom are from Atlantic Canada. I understand
Atlantic Canadians are not very happy about this blended sales tax.
They realize now when they go to the cash register it is costing
them a lot of money. They also realize that federal taxes and federal
revenues have increased and government is still large. The
government is not only operating a blended sales tax but it is still
operating the non-blended sales tax where provinces are not
co-operating. The government has a mighty mess on its hands.
So what does the government do? Today here we are in the
House of Commons and it has moved closure. I do not know how
many times this federal government has moved closure but it is just
the same way the Mulroney government operated. Power at any
cost, control at any cost, to heck with Canadians, they do not
matter. All they are good for is writing the cheques. As long as we
can keep this big monster going, $115 billion government going
every year, borrow money if we have to, but we do not care what
we promise Canadians, we have to have this GST. We have to keep
it because we have an insatiable appetite for money.
The Mulroney government fell flat on its face because it failed to
listen to Canadians regarding the GST. I predict that the Liberal
government will be even damaged more than it already has been.
We know that its popularity is starting to sink like a stone in water
simply because Canadians recognize it has broken its promise
regarding the GST. Bill C-70 is as poor excuse for trying to keep a
promise that has been broken.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 118. 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 of the motion 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions
Nos. 119 and 121 to 124.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 125
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 270.
[
English]
Mr. Campbell: On a matter of clarification, Mr. Speaker, I am
not sure if this is correct. There is another motion, Motion No. 120,
and I want to make sure that we do not forget it because the
government is in favour of Motion No. 120. It is a government
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: On Motion No. 120 I believe that the vote
is necessary on that one only depending on the result of Motion No.
118. Depending on how the vote goes, we may have to go back and
vote on Motion No. 120.
(1730)
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, when it is a Liberal lawyer, it gets
even more complicated, you can be sure.
I am pleased to speak to the motions in Group No. 4 concerning
harmonization of provincial sales taxes in the maritimes with the
federal GST. Earlier, I was listening to my Liberal colleagues speak
to the motions in Group No. 3, which dealt with substantially the
same issue. They are living on another planet, I told myself. They
7912
spoke of harmony, and said that taxes must be harmonized in order
to promote trade and improve economic growth over what it is
right now, with the end result being job creation, that the taxation
system must be modernized, and that the agreement signed
between the federal government and the three maritime provinces
must become a model, imagine, a model for Canada as a whole.
They have no idea what they are talking about and they are living
on another planet. Right now, contrary to what they would have us
believe, the situation in the maritimes is chaotic. For three days
now, here in Ottawa, the finance committee has been hearing
witnesses from the maritimes. The chairman of the finance
committee and all the Liberal members were expecting praise for
the wonderful $1 billion paid as a reward for agreeing to a new
scheme to harmonize the GST with provincial sales taxes, but that
was not what they got.
They took it from all sides, and they richly deserved it
furthermore. Do you know why? This plan to harmonize the GST
with provincial sales taxes in the maritimes is half baked. It is half
baked on all counts: because of the harmonization process as such,
and because the government had credibility problems when
discussions first began with the governments of the maritime
provinces. Everyone was reminding it of its election campaign
promise to scrap the GST, and was asking why it was doing nothing
about it.
Rather than talk about scrapping it, rather than get the public and
the opposition riled all over again, they preferred this ruse, and
decided to offer up an agreement that was billed as the event of the
century as a replacement for the GST.
It is also half baked because, in order to come up with a
harmonization plan that is so appealing for business and Canada as
a whole, they had to dig into our pockets, dip into our money, for
the $1 billion they paid the governments of the three maritime
provinces who signed this agreement.
If this harmonization process was so wonderful, if it was going
to contribute to greater economic growth and boost job creation,
why was it necessary to pay the maritimes $1 billion? Why was it
necessary to take money from people in Quebec, Ontario,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia in order to
hand out compensation to the governments of three provinces,
including New Brunswick-more about that in a few minutes-so
that they would sign. Half baked, I tell you.
The picture is no better when it comes to the mechanisms for
introducing the new tax and having business implement it. The
political reality of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and
the Deputy Prime Minister, who had promised to scrap the GST,
and the economic reality which businesses have to face are two
completely different worlds.
This is the reason why I have just stated that, during the three
days of finance committee hearings, representatives of large and
respectable businesses, which have in the past made a consistent
contribution to economic growth and job creation, and continue to
do so-I am thinking of Sears Canada, Canadian Tire, all those big
businesses with nation-wide operations-came and told us that
application of this new system in the maritimes had to be
suspended. And why? For a number of reasons, but I shall go into
only some of them, since I have just a few minutes left to give an
overview of such a major issue.
Mr. Speaker, you indicate that I have five minutes left, and I just
happen to have five reasons.
(1735)
The first reason has to do with the implementation of this new
harmonization system which, let us not forget, is not a
Canada-wide operation as it only affects three small maritime
provinces. This new system will cost businesses in those three
maritime provinces $100 million to implement, a considerable
amount.
Second, not only will it cost $100 million to establish this new
taxation system, but in addition businesses like the ones I just
referred to, as well as the medium sized businesses which deal with
consumers across Canada, will have to pay some $90 million
yearly in recurring annual adjustment costs.
This means that, for as long as these companies continue to do
business, they will have to bear additional costs of $90 million
annually, costs they would not have had to bear if there had not
been that political agreement designed to help a Minister of
Finance with a taste for the limelight and a Prime Minister in
trouble because of his unkept promise to abolish the GST and make
them look good. Ninety million dollars a year.
One of these costs is fairly obvious. Take Sears Canada or
Canadian Tire, major companies which tend to have huge
centralized warehouses in some regions of Canada, where they put
price labels on merchandise before they send it out to retail stores.
In other words, these huge warehouses contain the tires, household
appliances and all the other products sold by Canadian Tire, Sears
or other stores, and this where the pricing is done.
The problem with the agreement with the maritimes is that the
products will have to be divided into two groups: one for all of
Canada, showing only the selling price to be used in the branch
stores of these major retailers and, on the other side of the
warehouse, the same products but with a label that will also show
the retail price of the product, but with the new sales tax, the
so-called harmonized tax, for the maritimes.
This is the sort of cost that the government did not assess. And I
will tell you that, when the representatives of these businesses
came to express their dissatisfaction to the Standing Committee on
Finance at a special meeting in January, the committee chair was
busy expecting accolades for the excellent work of his excellent
government in the matter of the GST, which is excellent for us, but
not for them. When people came to say the opposite, when they
said the bill made no sense, that it was hastily thrown together and
7913
costly and would generate annual adjustment costs, the Liberal
members of the committee were stunned. They then realized that
the Minister of Finance had done a job that looked good politically,
but appearances are what the Minister of Finance is about, always
looking good. However, in practical terms, he won nobody over
with this new agreement.
Mr. Speaker, you are giving me the peace and love sign? Oh, you
are indicating to me that I have two minutes left. So he won nobody
over with this new agreement. The fact that the Retail Council of
Canada, which represents 65 per cent of retail business in Canada,
appeared before the finance committee to say, and I am quoting
from their brief, that to include the tax in the sales tax in the
maritimes would increase costs and confusion. Instead of making
things more harmonious and easier for business, this so-called
harmonization policy increases confusion, uncertainty and costs.
I ask the government to reverse its decision and to put off
implementation of this senseless agreement, which is costing
Canadians and Quebecers $1 billion and which, in addition, will
cause disorder and discord in the maritimes, rather than improve
things. Perhaps it is time to take a better approach, to think and for
once set aside partisan politics so we can implement things that
make sense.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been debating these motions
for many hours.
(1740 )
A number of themes have been repeated over and over again
because they strike members of the opposition as good sound bites,
ways to attack the government. Who can fault them for that? That
is what they are here to do. The trouble is that it distracts this House
and people who may be viewing this debate from considering the
real issues at hand.
What we are doing in this harmonization agreement with the
provinces that are coming onboard now is we are moving to a
system of sales taxation that is coherent, is in the interests of
consumers, and is more efficient and easier for businesses. It is a
win all around.
It is interesting, particularly as I rise after a member of the
opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, to hear the unrelenting criticism of
harmonization from that side of the House. One has to ask why that
might be. Consider that in the province of Quebec we already have
harmonization. So how can it be that members of the official
opposition have been in this House day after day attacking
harmonization?
[Translation]
As I just said in English, Bloc members are against
harmonization, which is very odd because they have harmonization
in Quebec. Everyone knows that. Is it because they want to keep the
benefits of harmonization for themselves, for their own companies
and consumers?
[English]
Could it be that they want to preserve for their businesses and
their consumers the benefits of a more efficient harmonized sales
tax system? I looked at a map of Canada the other day, which one
should do from time to time, to remember that Quebec borders
New Brunswick. If New Brunswick goes to harmonization and has
the benefits of that, then Quebec loses some of the comparative
advantage it has had through harmonization. Those advantages will
now be available in Atlantic Canada and eventually throughout the
country. It is the right way to go for business and it is the right thing
for consumers.
I travelled across the country with the finance committee.
Members of all parties, even the third party, supported
harmonization, but we would hardly know it from listening to the
debate of the last few days. We travelled across this country and
Canadians said: ``While you are fixing the GST please do
something about this anomaly. We are the only country in the world
that has 10 sales taxes: nine provincial sales taxes and one federal
tax''. Travel anywhere in this world and try to find that. You will
not.
I will speak to one other misconception that has been advanced
in this Chamber, which is the issue of hiding tax. Consumers said to
us overwhelmingly-and I will have more to say about this in later
stages of the debate-that they wanted tax inclusive pricing. As for
those who said they did not want the tax to be buried, I asked them
if they had ever travelled outside North America and had looked at
a cash register receipt in almost any country of Europe or if they
had looked at a receipt from the gas pump, whether it was in
Alberta or Quebec City and had seen the amount of tax indicated on
the receipt. I did not hear a great hue and cry about hidden taxes in
gasoline prices in this country. And I have yet to run into anybody
in Europe who says: ``The Government of France is hiding the tax
from me''. It is right there on the receipt, as it will be in Atlantic
Canada.
I have taken these few minutes to come back to basics. I look
forward to hearing what the members opposite have to say,
particularly if it is something new and not something that has been
said over and over again without looking at the substance of what is
being done here, about the wishes of consumers and retailers in
Atlantic Canada about what makes sense for economic efficiency
in this country. It makes sense in Quebec where they have been
doing it for years. It must make sense for the rest of the country as
well, and indeed it does.
7914
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
this set of motions to add a few more arguments to this debate.
(1745 )
I understand the member who just spoke is the vice-chairman of
the finance committee and does a good job chairing the committee
meetings. However, I do sometimes question the ideas and
philosophy he supports because I do disagree with him.
First he says that if it is good enough for Quebec, it should be
good enough for the rest of the country. Let us put the Quebec issue
in perspective. With everything the federal government seems to do
and wants to run as a federal government, the provincial
governments of Quebec have always said: ``No, no, no. We will do
it. We will handle it. We can do it better than the federal
government. We will look after our own pensions. We will look
after our own sales tax and harmonization. We will do it
ourselves''. Quebec implemented a harmonized system right from
day one. Whether or not that tax is popular in that province I will
leave for Quebecers to decide.
One thing the members of the Bloc Quebecois are doing right
now in objecting to this bill is they are saying loud and clear that
the Bloc Quebecois representing Quebecers objects to the fact that
the Atlantic provinces received a lump sum payment of $964
million or $971 million, somewhere in there. Let us round it up to
$1 billion because by the time they exchange all these cheques that
is what it is going to cost. These three Atlantic provinces received a
$1 billion lump sum payment. Why? The government says it is in
order to make up for the shortfall in revenues the provincial
governments will have. Who pays for it? All taxpayers. And the
majority of taxes are paid outside those three Atlantic provinces.
Some people call it a bribe. I myself call it a bribe, an
inducement or an enticement to participate in something that looks
good on paper: ``We can lower your taxes from 18 or 19 per cent
down to 15 per cent and for the loss in revenue we will supply you
with $971 million to do that. You are in, you look great. How can
you argue against lower taxes? It is going to help your economy.
Harmonization, what a wonderful word. Everybody will be
co-operating. We will harmonize and have one tax. It will be easy
to administer. It will be a lower cost. It will just be wonderful. You
guys will be elected for years. You will be heroes. And you are
helping us as the federal government to keep our election promise
to abolish the GST. You will be helping us to keep our election
promise in the red book because we went door to door and said we
would harmonize the sales tax''.
The Liberals said they would get rid of the GST. They said they
would not take money out of the back pockets of Canadians with
the GST but out of their pockets with a harmonized sales tax. At the
door, the Liberals said that if in any province the combined tax was
higher than the 15 per cent, or whatever the combined tax rate is,
they would give them a lump sum to make up for that lost revenue.
Every Liberal in Ontario said they would do that. I know because
I have friends who live in Ontario. They know that the Liberals
promised to replace the GST with a harmonized sales tax and to
give lump sum payments to provinces to induce them to
participate. I know they said that. That is exactly what they said
and what they promised.
The Quebec representatives in the federal House here, the Bloc
Quebecois, are angry and upset. They are demanding their chunk of
the money that was given to the Atlantic provinces. Therefore, do
not stand here and tell us, as the member on the Standing
Committee of Finance just did, that if it is good enough for Quebec
it is good enough for everybody.
We have heard a number of times where the Reform Party
supported harmonization. Let us put this into context. This party
likes to have quotes in context. It does not like to have things
piecemeal, ad hoc and out of sync. When the Liberals said that we
supported harmonization, we were on a big committee reviewing
how to help this government get rid of the GST. We were actually
trying to help it keep a promise. We listened to all the people and a
lot of suggestions were made.
The first thing this government wanted to do was to bring in a
shoe box business transfer tax. That is what it was supporting. It
then came around to this other form of tax. It talked about a
national sales tax. In this context of a national sales tax, it does not
mean three provinces out of ten; that is not national but regional. A
national sales tax is where we could have just one tax at the lowest
possible rate. Yes, we do support that and every one of the
Reformers who are here today would support that.
(1750 )
Anytime we can eliminate taxes, get rid of one set of taxes and
replace it with another, especially if we replace it with one that is
lower, you bet we would support that. That is what is in our
minority report. If we had one blended sales tax, if it was a national
sales tax and not a regional piecemeal, ad hoc tax like this one, we
would support it. If it had the lowest single possible rate-single
possible rate, we were hinting at 9 per cent or 10 per cent-we
would support it, but not 15 per cent.
I was taunting the Liberals earlier today about why the Ontario
government is not supporting it. It is so obvious. For Ontario a 15
per cent combined sales tax, the GST and PST, would be revenue
neutral. Why would Ontario not support it? One tax, harmonized
and blended. Call it the HST or the BST, it does not matter. It has to
be good for Ontario business people. It has to be good for Ontario
because it will simplify the tax system.
7915
Why are all those arguments not being bought? It is quite
obvious. First of all, just to get the Atlantic provinces to play the
game it is going to cost Ontario taxpayers $400 million, their share
of the $1 billion bribe.
Second, yes you are making it easier for retailers. Yes, you are
making it a little bit easier for consumers not to get that shock price
at the wicket. But what you are doing is transferring the costs that
will now be on the goods and services that were not there before
with the provincial sales tax, on to the GST along with it. Now the
price of some goods and services will be raised that were only
taxed at 8 per cent. Now they will be taxed at 15 per cent.
Transferring that cost to the consumers of Ontario according to
their finance minister will cost $2 billion to $3 billion. That is what
is not in the cards for Ontario and that is what members of this
Liberal government cannot get through their thick heads as to why
Ontario will not take it.
Talk about something new and talk about something that is
despicable as far as I am concerned what frustrates me is they
introduce it at the last minute through their regulations. They have
this white paper and they introduce changes. It is always an excise
book, an excise act. It looks something like this one which relates
to alcohol and tobacco products. They have it for the GST. In the
fine print they put in that tax inclusive pricing is mandatory. Then
they say how and where it has to be done.
I am sure the committee went through hell. We read about it in
the newspaper all through January. There were complaints from the
Atlantic region and all these people who supported them. The
Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the retailers
association, they all turned on them and turned against them
because they did not want this tax included pricing the way the
Liberals wanted it. It hurts the most now.
I do not know if Canadians know this but every related agency
that gives a service from the federal government all across Canada
is going to have tax included pricing. This is going to confuse
airline tickets. It is going to confuse a lot of financial services
although they do not have much, just safety deposit boxes.
It is ridiculous to make all these businesses go through the high
cost of changing computers in order to have two prices all across
Canada, one in Atlantic Canada, especially national retailers such
as Eaton's or companies like Carleton Cards. They came before the
committee and said: ``We are going to lose money. It is going to
cost millions of dollars. We are not sure if we can pass along these
costs for this product because all we sell are cards''.
The government is not listening. For some strange reason the
Liberals insist on proceeding. They believe that if they get Atlantic
Canada to use the harmonized blended sales tax for a couple of
years-and this is where they are going to find it wrong-they
think that by forcing all government related agencies to also
include this tax included pricing across Canada, they will
embarrass, force, coerce or browbeat everybody into participating
with our own money, with our own tax dollars and then they will
have kept their promise to eliminate the GST.
What they have done is entrenched the GST according to the
finance minister, the master of myth, the minister who said one
thing on this side. He lost some integrity when he walked across to
the other side and now is saying another thing.
It is like the infrastructure spending. There is only one taxpayer
and darn it and damn it we are paying for everything all across this
country. For programs they say that this is federal and this is
provincial and it is not. Infrastructure comes out of our pockets. It
is ridiculous.
Even if the premiers of Alberta and Ontario, these people who
are in control of their budgets, support infrastructure-Alberta just
signed on-it is absolutely ridiculous. Alberta is making a mistake
because if Alberta with a surplus wants to improve its
infrastructure it has the money to do it. Taxpayers across this
country could be saved some money but no. It is all a fight over
budgets: ``This comes out of the federal budget, so we will take
some. This comes out of our budget and this comes out of the
municipal budget. Let us go one-third, one-third, one-third''.
(1755 )
We have to stop this kind of extravagance which is at the expense
of taxpayers.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today in the context that my hon. colleague for Calgary
Centre has just alluded to.
I do not know if he is an expert on the GST or matters of
taxation. I certainly did not believe that the hon. member was one
who felt it was important to recognize that there is one taxpayer
and at the same time not move toward something that is both
symbolically and realistically an attempt at addressing the fact that
the one taxpayer deserves a one tax system in this country.
It compels me to wonder and worry aloud about the hon. member
and the other member from the third party, the hon. member for
Simcoe Centre who spoke very passionately, although not
necessarily always accurately on this very important debate of
C-70 with respect to the harmonization of the GST. If the hon.
member and his colleague who spoke earlier believe in this issue so
strongly, it is unfortunate that they may not be able to join us here
in the next Parliament. I know there are problems in that party and
they are not just the problems evidenced by some of their policy
issues they have had in the past. I think it is abundantly evident
with this issue of the GST.
7916
The name of my riding, Ontario, is fitting certainly in the
context of the debate. I believe the hon. colleague who spoke
before me was completely wrong when he said that this is about
politics.
The record will show that the current premier of Ontario, Mike
Harris, was very emphatic the day before he was elected in June
1995, that he would work with the federal government to
harmonize and to make a better sales tax regime in this country. I
know that may be hard for my friends in the third party to
recognize. I see them shaking their heads, probably because they
are not sure whether the Harris government is a Conservative
government or a Reform government. Either way, we know it is a
hopeless government.
When discussing the issue of taxation there are very few
opportunities to discuss it in the context of virtue. Everybody has
their own idea on taxation. All of us in this country would not want
to pay taxes or would want to minimize them.
The experience in Ontario is a telling one that I want to relate to
my friends in the third party. Budget cuts based on the presumption
of reducing taxes are being made to the direct detriment of the
poor, the people who are the most defenceless in our society and
people who do not have an agenda to hurt other people.
There are politics and policies and there are dangerous politics
and dangerous policies. I suggest any party that wants to undertake
an ideological view of their politics with respect to taxation must
first take into account that one of the most symbolic, rallying
points of our nationhood is our ability to look out for the weak, the
defenceless and those in our society who through no fault of their
own find themselves at the low end of the scale. This consumption
tax, the tax to be blended in the maritime provinces, is a positive
step forward. It takes into account the recognition that there is
indeed one taxpayer.
A very important point is that it takes into account from an
international perspective examples of consumption taxes in those
countries with one single sales tax regime, one retail sales tax
regime. We have spoken to the chambers of commerce and the
boards of trade in my riding and across the country. We must make
sure that we do not have 13 or 14 different sales tax regimes such as
we currently have.
(1800 )
If members are truly interested in representing the interests of
their constituents they would be working beyond and above to
transcend the politics on which this debate seems to founder to one
of trying to find a co-operative, harmonious approach. I believe the
best way for us to do that is to follow through on taxation, but
taxation that permits individuals at the end of the day to have a
system that is far more efficient and that makes more sense for
business and consumer alike.
I have had over 46 public forums in my riding since I was
elected. That is virtually one for every month that I was elected. It
seems to me that while there are those who would like to make the
GST a big issue and certainly there is plenty of cannon fodder on
both sides for that, I do not think there is anyone in this House who
has not given that subject some consideration or who has not been
outspoken on that issue.
The far greater and more important problem is the one of getting
our financial house in order and at the same time making sure that
we can provide an environment that helps people get back to work.
Anything else in my view, and I think in the view of those in my
riding, is simply nonsense.
While it is important for a government to proceed with the
question of harmonizing these taxes, I think credit must be given
where credit is due. The Minister of Finance, in concert with the
people who worked on the committee on both sides, have tried to
hammer out the best of all worlds in a situation where we
understand that the current sales tax regime is not one that is
acceptable to people.
The hon. member just yelled something. I am not exactly sure
what it is he said but that is very consonant with the views of his
party.
The arguments in favour of a sales tax are one, we certainly
appreciate-
[Translation]
We could perhaps for the first time discuss getting rid of taxes in
this country. In a perfect world, people can always make that kind
of promise. In my opinion, however, a responsible government, a
government that wants to show leadership, has to manage its affairs
so that, at the end of the day, it can honour its commitments and be
accountable to the consumers we represent. It must do everything
in its power to build a tax system that protects the interests of both
consumers and entrepreneurs.
In the case of the Atlantic provinces, we are looking at both sides
of the question: will harmonization mean that a range of goods will
be taxed that would not be taxed without harmonization? I think we
have the ability to make arrangements to ensure that these people
will be protected.
We also have the ability to find a balance. This balance exists in
paying a tax which is not 7 per cent plus 8 per cent, that is 15 per
cent, but is somewhere around 12 or 13 per cent, as in the
maritimes.
[English]
This Parliament has undertaken many contentious issues. There
will be many more in the days to come. The GST, the
harmonization of the tax with provincial taxes is an excellent first
step, but I hope that the House and those who are seeking to make
political points and profiting from the rhetoric understand fully
that they are profiting at the direct expense of individuals, of
people in our constituencies across the country who expect
leadership and expect
7917
us at the end of the day to do what is right. Doing what is right is
trying to do what people expect you to do.
Harmonization is an excellent first step but it requires the
provinces to get on line. Let us not break down on the question and
the subject of partisanship. Mr. Harris, I am calling on you this
evening, as they have done in the province of Ontario to do the
same.
The Deputy Speaker: I ask the hon. member to please not call
on people other than the Speaker in this House.
Mr. McTeague: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was referring the
premier of the province of Ontario.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as this debate winds its way to a close, the member for St.
Paul's earlier said that this is an occasion for marvellous sound
bites and it is. It is an occasion for the Liberals opposite to rest
uncomfortably in their chairs as the odour of this particular piece of
legislation wafts through the country.
(1805)
The hon. member for Ontario, who just concluded his comments,
suggested that this is legislation that is really very good for the
country, that it has no detrimental effects and that the rest of the
provinces should get on with it and harmonize the GST.
As Canadians know, this bill will put the legislation through the
House to finalize the deal with the three Atlantic provinces. The
three Atlantic provinces are the barber shop trio. They are singing
in harmony with the federal government. They are singing in
harmony with the Liberal government because they have been
bribed, as earlier speakers have indicated, with our money.
The problem is this. The reason this issue raises the ire of
Canadians and has raised the ire of the opposition is that the Liberal
government has a majority. The majority is in good measure
because of the government's promise during the election campaign
to scrap and abolish the GST. The number of seats that the Liberals
were able to achieve during the last election and the number of
votes they were able to achieve, which may well have swayed some
of the other votes, which would have affected the official
opposition in the country, is the direct result of the Liberal promise
to scrap the GST.
The Liberals were very vocal about it in the 34th Parliament.
They knew full well when they made the promise to scrap the GST
that they could not. The country had to have that revenue. If they
went on the hustings and were elected on a promise to scrap the
GST, to abolish the GST, the hated tax, which they failed to do
while in opposition, then it logically follows that the government
was elected on a fraud. It should not be sitting here in the first
place.
Our responsibility is to ensure that Canadians understand full
well that the Liberal government did not tell the unvarnished truth
during the election campaign and it should not get away with it.
In politics in our country we should expect our politicians, when
they knock on the door, and our Prime Minister, when he looks us
in the eye on television, to tell the truth. Is it too much to ask that
our politicians, the highest elected officers in our land, tell us the
truth?
A few months ago I read an article in a newspaper which said
that Canadians do not really expect the people who they elect to tell
the truth. Therefore, why should we be surprised when they do not?
That article was written by a respected pundit of this country. It
went on to say that people should not expect politicians to keep
their promises because circumstances and situations change. The
situation and the circumstance of the GST did not change after the
election. The circumstances were exactly the same. That promise
should have been kept.
What kind of a country do we have when the end justifies the
means? Should we not go into an election prepared to tell the voters
exactly where we stand, exactly how we feel about an issue and
then be held accountable for it? That is what the real issue is. The
real issue is not the harmonization of the GST. It is the fact that the
Liberals were elected on a promise to scrap the GST. They did not,
and now they are trying to crawl out from under it.
(1810)
It will cost us roughly a billion dollars in a bribe to the Atlantic
provinces. It will cause untold grief, untold extra work all across
the country, but that does not matter. What matters to the Liberal
government is its ability to say that it kept a promise, to whitewash
this whole issue.
I would hope that when the Liberals come knocking on the door
asking for the support of Canadians in the next election, every
single Canadian will look them in the eye and say: ``Did you keep
your word? Did you do as you promised to do prior to the last
election?'' They will say: ``Oh yes, we harmonized the GST''.
Then, Mr. and Mrs. Canadian, look them in the eye and say:
``Where in your election platform did you say anything about
harmonize? You said scrap. You said abolish. You said get rid of.
You did not say harmonize''.
Every single Liberal should be taken to task, even the member
for Broadview-Greenwood who is certainly no friend of the GST,
whether harmonized or not. Even the member for Ontario who
spoke so recently is no friend of the GST and neither is the Deputy
Speaker who changed political parties because of the hated,
despised GST. Members can imagine how uncomfortable that hon.
gentleman feels as he stomachs that hated GST.
7918
There are two aspects to a consumption tax. Most people, in
fairness, will say that a consumption tax is not a bad way to tax.
It is incremental. It is broadly based. It means that everybody pays
on everything. People cannot get out from underneath paying the
tax. However, there are two aspects to it. There is the rate, that
is, whether 8 per cent or 7 per cent.
That was the problem with the old manufacturers' sales tax.
People were afraid to go to sleep at night because they knew the
federal government would raise the tax because it was hidden. That
is why it has to be visible.
There is the rate and there is the base. The base means to what is
the tax applied. This is never brought up. The problem is that the
base, the products to which the taxes are applied in the provincial
sales tax is quite a bit narrower. Not nearly as many products are
taxable under a provincial sales tax.
When the tax is harmonized, it becomes a question of applying it
on as broad a base as can possibly be done so that the rate is as low
as it can possibly be. It is a combination of low rates and wide base
that makes sense. To apply it on a narrow base but at a very high
rate is counter productive.
As this debate winds down-I recognize that I may be the last
person to speak on this-I want once again to make sure that all
Canadians are reminded of the hypocrisy, the duplicity, the outright
lie on which the Liberal government was elected. It should be
ashamed and ashamed for a long time to come.
(1815)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, it
is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now
before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 125. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill. The first question is on
Motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
[English]
During the taking of the vote:
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize. There
was a lot of up and down here and confusion on the yeas and nays.
We are voting nay at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: The problem was created by the hon.
member for Beauce. We were trying to fit him in. That is the
problem that was created and it is the fault of the Chair. I should not
have interrupted the vote. The hon. member is voting no.
(1845)
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 217)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
7919
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wood
Zed-114
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Chatters
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Robinson
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)-51
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Brien
Byrne
Canuel
Cauchon
Crête
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Finestone
Fry
Gauthier
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Ménard
Parrish
Payne
Pomerleau
Robillard
Rocheleau
Shepherd
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find consent to
apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 63 and
120.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 217.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 4, 5, 63 and 120
carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting no.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will clearly vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic members will vote
yes on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the PC members in the House will be
voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I vote no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 218)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Gagnon (Québec)
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
7920
Plamondon
Robinson
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Wayne -30
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grubel
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
White (North Vancouver)
Wood
Zed-135
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Brien
Byrne
Canuel
Cauchon
Crête
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Finestone
Fry
Gauthier
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Ménard
Parrish
Payne
Pomerleau
Robillard
Rocheleau
Shepherd
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
The Deputy Speaker: I declare motion No. 2 lost.
The next question is on motion No. 3.
(1850)
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting no.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members in the House tonight
will vote yes on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the PC member in the House tonight
will be voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): No, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 219)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Chatters
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Grubel
Guay
7921
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Robinson
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)-51
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wayne
Wood
Zed-114
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Brien
Byrne
Canuel
Cauchon
Crête
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Finestone
Fry
Gauthier
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Ménard
Parrish
Payne
Pomerleau
Robillard
Rocheleau
Shepherd
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 negatived. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 6 to 14, 16 to 53, 55 to 59, 61, 64 to
100, 102 to 113, 115 and 117 negatived.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House would give its
consent to applying the result of the vote just taken to the following
motions standing in the name of the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, in other words, report stage Motions
Nos. 114, 118 and 125.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 219.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 114, 118 and 125
negatived.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (for the Minister of Finance) moved:
That Bill C-70, as amended, be concurred in at Report stage (with
amendments).
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition
will vote no.
7922
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members
present this evening will vote no on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the members of the PC Party will be
voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): No, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 220)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wood
Zed-113
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Brien
Chatters
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Robinson
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)-52
PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand
Arseneault
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Brien
Byrne
Canuel
Cauchon
Crête
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Finestone
Fry
Gauthier
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacAulay
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Ménard
Parrish
Payne
Pomerleau
Robillard
Rocheleau
Shepherd
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
(1855)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
_____________________________________________
7922
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
7923
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been asking for the government to give some consideration for
some time now to a gun amnesty bill for the nation. I am back again
now to encourage the government to move on. I was led to believe
there was some provision in the new gun control bill for an
amnesty.
It would be rather simple to do. I would not require any new
legislation. There is already a provision there for a gun amnesty. It
would not require a lot of funding. Indeed, it might save some
money. It would save considerable money for people who have
guns they do not need and who would like to see them disposed of
in a systematic way.
A couple of experiences we have had in this country would
support the wisdom of a gun amnesty law at this time. Back in the
period of November 1 to December 15 in 1992 the minister of
justice announced a gun amnesty and 30,000 firearms, both
handguns and long guns, were surrendered in Canada.
A little later there was another gun amnesty. This quotation from
the Globe and Mail, which is always very accurate and precise. On
April 18, 1994 that paper reported the success of a gun amnesty in
metro Toronto. According to the Globe and Mail police said at that
time that most of the people turning in weapons were just average
Joes. They were people who just wanted to get rid of their guns, the
guns that were in their basements, behind kitchen doors and in the
attacks of their homes. They had some fear at that time, and the
situation would be prevalent today, that these guns might at some
point be stolen or misplaced or might fall into the wrong hands.
Gun amnesty has been very successful in this country and I
would like to see this government proceed with a national gun
amnesty. It is no good to announce that amnesties are permitted.
We need the government to put some national focus on gun
amnesty instead of depending on municipalities to do it
independently of one another. That would give the project some
thrust. They could suggest through various forms of media that
there was a national gun amnesty. If we got a few thousand more
guns out of our society we would have a safer society. It would be a
mark of progress to us as a society and as a culture to make this
effort.
(1900)
I am looking forward to the government response on this matter.
I know that municipalities could go ahead and do it, but that is not
what I am asking for. I am asking for a national focus and a national
thrust to this because of the successes we had when gun amnesties
were declared on a smaller scale.
That was my question to the minister several weeks ago. I am
back again at the late show tonight to emphasize it. I am
committed to this. Indeed, I will be the first one to turn in guns. I
have guns which I no longer have a use for and I would be glad to
be the first one to contribute a couple of rifles to a national gun
amnesty.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
amnesties could be declared as part of the implementation of the
firearms act and the new part of the Criminal Code. In 1992, for
instance, an amnesty was successful in removing over 28,000
firearms and 700,000 rounds of ammunition. The declaration of
amnesty, however, must be made with the support of provincial
authorities and local police. An amnesty would be costly, as it
would involve the manipulation of firearms and the issuance of
receipts.
In the past, the purpose of amnesties under the Criminal Code
was to encourage people to surrender unwanted firearms or
ammunition without liability, whether they were lawfully or
unlawfully held. The power to declare amnesties under the
Criminal Code may be used in the future in the implementation of
the new part of the code or the firearms act.
There are advantages and disadvantages to amnesties. The
advantages are that amnesties have resulted in the turnover of
numerous unwanted firearms. They allow people to turn over
unwanted and potentially dangerous firearms. They reduce the
number of unused firearms which could ultimately end up being
stolen and in criminal hands. The disadvantages are that they can
be expensive to administer and the guns must be carried manually.
They require the participation and co-operation of police services
and provincial authorities. The disposal of the firearms can be
costly and problematic.
The firearms initiative is planned on a cost recovery basis and
the impact of several factors, such as compensation, must be
carefully considered before an amnesty is declared.
The new legislation already provides for transitional periods for
individuals who will be able to apply for a licence and register their
firearms.
There is no immediate need for an amnesty and officials from
the department will monitor the implementation of the act and
advise the minister accordingly should the need arise for an
amnesty in the future.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am here tonight to raise again the question which I asked
on February 6. It is a question in which the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food is very interested because he has said that he is
interested in keeping grain moving. I do not think we have gone far
enough in getting the grain moving.
7924
The news last week had a number of people from the grain
industry, including representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board,
arguing that poor performance by the railroads is costing prairie
farmers tens of millions of dollars in lost revenues and upsetting
export customers. The Canadian Wheat Board has estimated that
about $65 million will be lost in demurrage costs while grain sits
on the prairies and ships sit in the ports because the grain is not
moving to the coast.
I asked my question last week, but since then I have had a chance
to look at CN Rail's numbers for 1996. I thought it important to put
them on the record tonight in the light of this question.
Grain traffic was down 5 per cent in 1996 over 1995. Despite that
drop in traffic, CN Rail reported a $1.2 billion improvement in net
income in 1996. In a press release the CN president and chief
executive officer, Paul Tellier, said at the end of the year that 1996
was the best year ever in the history of CN Rail. Revenues were up
1.5 per cent while operating expenses declined.
(1905)
In terms of movement of product, industrial products brought
$866 million to CN; forest products, $790 million; intermodal
traffic, $710 million; coal, sulphur and fertilizer, $622 million.
These are all more than grain and grain product traffic which
brought in $570 million.
It is very obvious that CN in particular did a very good job in
1996 of moving all the product except grain. Now we are
continuing to have difficulty in moving grain to port.
I first discovered the problem with grain movement around
December 1 after elevator agents throughout my constituency had
been phoning since mid-November to get cars spotted so that the
grain could be moved to port. That was before the major snowfalls,
before the major cold occurred. We were experiencing difficulty
getting cars spotted at the elevator points throughout my riding,
and I have since found out, throughout Saskatchewan.
Throughout November and December the railways were telling
the elevator agents that cars would be spotted the next day. They
would be told, tomorrow. The cars would never come. The agents
would phone. ``Tomorrow'' they were told. They would phone me.
I would be told the grain cars would be there tomorrow. They never
arrived. As a result, the Canadian Wheat Board is now estimating
$65 million in losses to farmers as a result of all of this.
Government policies over the last couple of years have
contributed greatly to the ability of the railways to run their own
show. Governments have lost the ability to put pressure on the
railways. Everything from the privatizing of CN, the deregulating
of the rail line industry, changing the car allocation policy,
allowing the abandonment of rail lines and condoning the
inappropriate downsizing within the railroads have all contributed
to the problem that keeps grain moving to port.
We heard over the weekend the announcement from Manitoba
that the CP double tracking from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay is being
torn up. This is, to my mind, an absolute abuse of the privileges
that we have given to the rail lines to move our product to port.
The minister and the government have the responsibility, indeed
the obligation, to ensure that grain moves from the farm to the port.
I would like to ask the minister to ensure that he exercises to the
full extent of his authority everything that he can to get that grain
moving again.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem
being faced by the prairie grain industry in getting grain to port
position this winter is a very serious one.
The Canadian Wheat Board now estimates that it will have to
roll 1.5 million tonnes from its January shipping program into the
February program. The Canadian Wheat Board estimates this
rollover may result in a deferred cash flow for prairie farmers of
$285 million and that selling the 1.5 million tonne shortfall outside
the premium old crop price months may result in a loss of
approximately $50 million in revenue to the 1996-97 pool
accounts.
This has been one of the worst winters in the last 100 years with
respect to snowfall in the Rockies and the extreme cold on the
prairies. While I agree that this has exacerbated the shipping
problem, it does not account for the entire delay being experienced.
It is my understanding the current problems relate to the
availability of locomotive power in the railway system.
Clearly this is a railroad responsibility and the railways have
indicated they are taking steps to increase the availability of
locomotives and to make the shipping of prairie grains a priority
for them.
Rather than finger pointing and laying blame to the industry, we
should take steps to working out this current problem and making
certain that we deal with it on an urgent strategic action base to
make sure that backlogs to not occur as they have in the past.
As members know, the legislative rule of the federal government
is limited. However, the federal government can have a role in
leading industry toward both a long and short term solution.
7925
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has already been in
touch with many of the key players in the western grains industry.
He is now pursuing further discussions on an urgent basis to get the
grain moving faster through the system.
Canada's customers and prairie farmers should not be subjected
to such recurring problems in our grain transportation system.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, the motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.11 p.m.)