36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 199
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 18, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM
|
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-75. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1010
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-489. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT
|
| Bill S-23. First reading
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PETITIONS
|
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Rights of Grandparents
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Justice
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1015
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1020
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-72. Second reading
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1025
1030
1035
1040
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1045
1050
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1055
1100
1105
1110
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1115
1120
1125
1130
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1135
1140
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1145
1150
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1155
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1200
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1220
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1225
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1230
1235
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1240
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1245
1250
1255
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1300
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1305
1310
1315
1320
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1325
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1330
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1335
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1355
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| YOUTH
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1400
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| CANADIAN FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| CANADIAN WOMEN IN COMMUNICATIONS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| CANADIAN FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| THE LIBERAL PARTY
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1405
| CATHERINE GIRARDIN
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| PARTY QUEBECOIS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| CANADIAN FARMERS
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| THE REFORM PARTY
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1410
| CANADIAN FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| FRENCH LANGUAGE
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| THE REFORM PARTY
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| YEAR OF THE FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| RACISM
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. John Manley |
1420
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. John Manley |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1430
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. John Manley |
1435
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL FORUMS
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL FORUMS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1445
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| EQUALIZATION
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1450
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1455
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| PRODUCTIVITY
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PRODUCTIVITY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITIES
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1500
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments of Minister
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| The Speaker |
1510
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1515
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-72. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1520
1525
1530
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1535
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-72. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1540
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1545
1550
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1555
1600
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1605
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1610
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1615
1620
1625
1630
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1635
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. John Williams |
1640
| Mr. John Finlay |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1645
1650
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1655
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1700
| Mr. John Williams |
1705
1710
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1715
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1720
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| AN ACT TO AMEND THE ACT OF INCORPORATION OF THE ROMAN
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Motion
|
| Bill S-20
|
| Second reading
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1735
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1740
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| MOVEMENT OF GRAIN
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Motion
|
1745
1750
1755
1800
1805
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
1810
1815
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1820
1825
1830
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1835
1840
1845
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1850
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1855
1900
1905
1910
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1915
1920
1925
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1930
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1935
1940
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1945
1950
1955
2000
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
2005
| Mr. John Bryden |
2010
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
2015
2020
2025
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
2030
2035
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
2040
2045
2050
2055
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
2100
2105
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
2110
2115
2120
2125
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 199
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 18, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3(3) of the
Employment Insurance Act, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, two copies of the second monitoring and
assessment report on the employment insurance program, the 1998
report.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
Hon. Paul Martin (for the Minister of Industry, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-75, an act to establish the
Canadian Tourism Commission.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(forfeiture).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to
introduce my first private member's bill on behalf of the
citizens of Lethbridge and indeed of the children of Canada.
My bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow
courts that convict a person of an offence under the child
pornography provisions of the Criminal Code to order the
forfeiture of anything used in the commission of an offence under
this provision.
This amendment, once passed, would give courts and law
enforcement officials one more tool to use in their fight against
child pornography.
It is my hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will
join with me in supporting the bill. The bill gives courts the
same authority to deal with child pornographers that they have
under 55 other federal statutes, giving children protection that
is long overdue.
I want to close by recognizing the efforts of our law
enforcement officials who fight the spread of child pornography
and who have been instrumental in developing the bill. I would
especially like to recognize Detective Inspector Robert Matthews
of the Ontario Provincial Police, Project P, the OPP Child
Pornography Unit, and to all those who continue the fight against
child pornography I say keep up the good work.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that Bill S-23, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act to
give effect to a protocol to amend the convention for the
unification of certain rules relating to international carriage
by air and to give effect to the convention, supplementary to the
Warsaw convention, for the unification of certain rules relating
to international carriage by air performed by a person other than
the contracting carrier, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of
Mississauga South, on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in countries such as Indonesia. They also point out that Canada
continues to be internationally recognized as the champion of
human rights.
Therefore the petitioners ask parliament to continue to speak
out against human rights abuses around the world and to seek to
bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents asking parliament to amend
the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported in Bill
C-340, regarding the right of spouses' parents or grandparents to
have access to or custody of the children or the child.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition on behalf of the citizens of
Peterborough who signed the petition on behalf of the 18,000
Canadians who suffer from end stage kidney disease.
The petitioners support research into the bioartificial kidney.
They point out that kidney dialysis and transplantation are
important lifesaving treatments, but there is difficulty in
providing adequate dialysis service and the rates of organ
donation are not sufficient to meet the need.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to work in
support of the bioartificial kidney which will eventually
eliminate the need for both dialysis or transplantation for those
suffering from kidney disease.
JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition this morning
which is signed by over 100 residents of my constituency of
Burnaby—Douglas.
It draws to the attention of the House that volume discounts for
rapists and murderers, which is the law in Canada today, cheapen
life, that an average one murder per month in Canada is committed
by a released person on parole, that the lives of individual
victims are erased from the sentencing equation and that the
suffering, the pain and the death of the second, third or
eleventh victim is of no consequence to the courts.
1015
Therefore the petitioners call on parliament to enact
legislation to reduce the inhumanity to families of victims,
restore truth in sentencing and to enact Bill C-251 to prevent
multiple murderers and rapists from getting one sentence for
multiple offences and to narrow the gap between justice and our
justice system.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 135 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 135—Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien:
With respect to the Thetford Mines regional industrial
development fund incorporated: (a) on what date the fund was
created; (b) how much money has the federal government put
into it; and (c) how are its directors appointed?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): (a) April 15,
1988.
(b) Grants of $1 million in April 1988 and $504,805 in April
1993.
(c) At the time the fund was created, all the directors, six, were
to be appointed by the minister of industry, science and
technology of the Government of Canada. However, the fund was
released from this obligation in the year following its creation
once it had complied with the conditions of incorporation and
only once the grant had been paid. In April 1993, as the
$504,805 granting conditions, the minister had to appoint two
directors. The other directors, for a total of nine, are
appointed through the usual nomination and election procedure.
The link between the fund and the agency ceased on September 30,
1998.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed
to stand.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order.
I have three questions on the order paper, Question No. 166 and
Question No. 167, which have been in for 120 days. Question No.
183 has been in for 100 days today. They deal with asking the
government for information on the clean-up of the contaminated
DEW line site in northern Canada and also deal with distribution
of funds by the environment minister.
I would like these questions answered. I do not know why it has
been taking so long.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I note again the member's
interest in Questions Nos. 166, 167 and 183.
I know it is difficult for members who are very interested in
topics like this, but I have pointed out on a number of occasions
that some questions involve many of our ministries and the
question has to go from one to the other. Sometimes after it has
been to one it then has to go back to one of the others.
In this case there are a number of jurisdictions involved, but I
assure the member I will look into this very important matter.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
AGRICULTURE
The Speaker: I have an application for an emergency
debate from the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
I understand that a similar motion was brought up the other day.
I would ask him to be very succinct in his explanation.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, precisely what is happening is nothing. There has been
an impasse in the negotiations and the government has given us no
indication of how it will move this forward.
The union and the government are at loggerheads. I think the
financial harm, the loss of productivity, the drastic economic
conditions in agriculture all make it incumbent on us as elected
members in the House of Commons to debate this issue and show a
consensus or a full airing of all the issues involved in this
strike action and the repercussions on Canada as a whole.
I believe that would be very beneficial in moving this strike
along. The government and the unions have known since 1993 that
the wage freeze that was in place was to end and that it has
ended. Why there could not have been something in place I do not
know.
I am not here asking for this emergency debate to determine why
things happened or why things are not moving ahead so much as
reinforcing that this is an emergency to the Canadian economy. It
is an emergency to farmers and their families, to the union
people and their families. It is the duty of the House of
Commons to do everything possible. I believe this is an
emergency.
The Speaker: The request for an emergency debate was
received yesterday at 3 p.m. I have instructed my officials to
get further information to me and I will make this decision some
time before question period. I will return to the House.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1020
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to
implement measures that are consequential on changes to the
Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax
Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War
Veterans Allowance Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, members opposite should be
keen to support Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act,
the 1998 budget and technical measures. In doing so they will
support broad based and fair tax relief for low and middle income
Canadians and their families as well as targeted relief for those
Canadians who need it most.
I suspect that, as in the past, they will deny Canadians once
again and go on to criticize and make wild projections to achieve
objectives that would put Canadians' recent success in
eliminating the deficit in jeopardy. A vote for Bill C-72
amounts to support for reducing taxes for 14 million Canadians,
support for removal of 400,000 Canadians from the tax rolls,
support for providing tax credits for interest payments on Canada
and provincial student loans, support for allowing Canadians to
make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs to fund full time
education and training, support for extending the education
credit to part time students, and support for providing a tax
credit to individuals providing in home care for an adult
relative, and certainly much more.
However, as I have said, I have grave doubts about my
colleagues' tax cutting credentials. My memory may be faulty but
I cannot recall their supporting a single tax cutting measure we
have brought forward during the last two parliaments.
Clearly with Bill C-72 my friends opposite can tangibly
demonstrate they truly want to reduce taxes in a sustainable
fashion.
I ask the hon. members opposite that when the division is
recorded for Bill C-72 they can vote yea for tax relief for
Canadian taxpayers and their families or they can vote nay. It
is really that simple.
As the finance minister noted when presenting the 1998 budget,
the measures in Bill C-72 represent the first steps toward
general income tax relief, the first steps on which this
government has already built with the 1999 budget. Together, the
two budgets provide $16.5 billion of tax relief over the next
three years. Moreover, as the minister recently noted, this is
only the beginning.
With the federal deficit behind us Canadians can now look
forward to tax relief in budget after budget in the foreseeable
future. Of course at the outset, given that the financial
dividend that allows broad based tax relief is modest, so too
must be the initial relief itself.
We must not provide unaffordable relief that would jeopardize
our regained financial health and impinge on Canadian priorities
such as health care and education. Accordingly and in keeping
with the nation's priorities, the measures in Bill C-72 act first
to reduce taxes for those who can least afford to pay them, low
and middle income Canadians.
The legislation before us contains two measures providing
general tax relief. The first is a proposal to increase the
amount of income that low income Canadians can earn on a tax free
basis. As my colleagues know, personal tax credits ensure no tax
is paid on the basic amount of income. This helps to make
Canada's tax system fair.
1025
Prior to the 1998 budget the basic personal amount that
Canadians could earn tax free was set at $6,456 while the spousal
and equivalent to spouse amounts were a maximum of $5,380.
Effective July 1, 1998, Bill C-72 proposed to increase these
amounts by $500 for low income Canadians. This will effectively
increase the amount of tax free income by a maximum of $500 for
single taxpayers with income under $20,000 and by $1,000 for a
family with income under $40,000. As a result of this measure
some 400,000 low income individuals will be removed from the tax
rolls and another 4.6 million taxpayers will pay less income tax.
The House will also know that the 1999 budget proposes to build
on this measure by extending the $500 increase in the basic
amount to all Canadian taxpayers and increasing it by a further
$175 for a total increase in the basic amount of $675. This
would mean that effective July 1, 1999 the basic amount of income
that all Canadians can earn annually on a tax free basis would
rise to $7,131. Effective the same date, the maximum spousal and
equivalent to spouse amounts will increase to $6,055. This will
more than offset the effects of inflation on these amounts since
1992.
In the interest of fairness the largest proportionate benefit of
these measures will accrue to low income Canadians. On top of
the 400,000 lower income Canadians who will no longer pay any
federal income taxes due to the measures in Bill C-72, the 1999
budget would remove 200,000 more Canadians from the tax rolls for
a total of 600,000.
To continue with the measures to provide broad based relief,
Bill C-72 proposes to eliminate the 3% general surtax for those
with incomes up to about $50,000 and to reduce it for those with
incomes between $50,000 and $65,000. As my colleagues will
recall, the previous government introduced the general surtax as
a measure to help fight the deficit. Accordingly, having
eliminated the deficit, it is time for us to eliminate the
surtax. This measure eliminates the 3% surtax for almost 13
million tax filers and another 1 million taxpayers will pay
significantly less surtax.
Having begun the process of eliminating the 3% surtax in the
1998 budget, the 1999 budget proposes to complete the process and
eliminate the general surtax for each and every Canadian
taxpayer. This action will bring an end to this surtax for the
2.7 million Canadian taxpayers who continued to pay it in whole
or in part following the 1998 budget. As a result, effective
July 1, 1999 the 3% surtax will have been eliminated for all 15.1
million Canadian taxpayers.
Before I turn to some of the targeted measures included in the
legislation I underline that these two measures in Bill C-72
provide very progressive tax relief. That is because as a
percentage of current tax, the tax reductions are highest at
lower incomes.
In each budget since we have taken office, including the 1998
budget, our government has provided targeted tax relief where the
need was greatest and the benefits were substantial. Reflecting
this fact, Bill C-72 contains several targeted measures,
particularly those related to the Canadian opportunities
strategy. Canada operates in a fast changing, competitive and
interdependent world economy, an economy that is increasingly
knowledge based.
The facts speak for themselves. Since 1981 the number of
available jobs for Canadians with a high school education or less
dropped by some two million while more than five million jobs
were created for those with higher qualifications.
1030
Unfortunately, as all members in this House realize, not all
Canadians are in a position to access the knowledge and skills
they will need throughout their lifetime to find and keep good
jobs in a changing labour market.
Barriers, most often financial barriers, reduce access to
post-secondary education for many. Accordingly, the 1998 budget
and Bill C-72 propose several tax measures to provide financial
assistance for students.
Student debt has become a heavy burden for many Canadians. In
1990 a graduate completing four years of post-secondary education
paid an average student debt load of about $13,000. This year the
same graduate's average debt will almost double to about $25,000.
Moreover at the beginning of the decade, fewer than 8% of student
borrowers had debts larger than $15,000. Now almost 40% are in
that boat.
The financial burden on students must and will be reduced. To
that end, Bill C-72 contains measures to provide all students
with tax relief for interest paid on their Canada and provincial
student loans. This will take the form of a 17% federal tax
credit that will apply to both federal and provincial student
loan programs.
In terms of dollars and cents, for a student with a loan of
$25,000, it will mean a reduction in federal and provincial taxes
of $530 in the first year alone. Over a 10 year paydown of a
student loan, the new tax credit could mean as much as $3,200 in
tax relief. This measure will benefit about one million
Canadians.
The 1998 budget contains several other measures to help manage
student debt. While they are not included in this piece of
legislation, I will take a brief moment to remind my colleagues
of these important measures.
For example, besides the tax credit, we increased the income
threshold used to qualify for interest relief on Canada student
loans by 9%. We introduced graduated interest relief which will
extend assistance to more graduates farther up the income scale.
We have asked that lending institutions extend the loan
repayment period to 15 years for individuals who have used the 30
months of interest relief. Moreover if after extending that
repayment period to 15 years a borrower remains in financial
difficulty, there will be an extended interest relief period. For
the minority of graduates who still remain in financial
difficulties after taking advantage of these relief measures, we
will reduce their student loan principal by as much as half.
Together, these new interest relief measures will help up to
100,000 more borrowers.
To keep a job or to get a new one, many Canadians who are
already in the workforce want to take time from work to upgrade
their skills through full time study. There are many of them and
we hear from them in our constituencies.
Individuals are looking to upgrade their skills and need the
time away from work to do so. They often lack the resources to
pay for these types of programs and courses. The legislation
before the House includes several new measures to improve
Canadians' access to learning throughout their lives.
The first of these measures is the proposed tax free registered
retirement savings plan withdrawals for lifelong learning. An
individual who has an RRSP and is enrolled in full time training
or higher education for at least three months during the year
will be eligible to withdraw up to $10,000 from their RRSPs, up
to a maximum of $20,000 in furtherance of their education.
Of course to preserve the role of RRSPs in providing retirement
income, the amounts withdrawn will have to be repaid over a 10
year period. In many respects, what we are proposing in Bill
C-72 resembles the very successful home buyer's plan where
Canadians can access their RRSPs when they are purchasing a home.
There is no doubt that every member in this House and all
Canadians would agree that there is a need to continually upgrade
knowledge and skills.
That can be particularly hard for the growing number of Canadians
studying part time while trying to manage the difficult balance
of work and family. Therefore, we are proposing to extend the
education credit to part time students.
1035
Under the proposal, part time students will be able to claim an
amount of $60 for each month they are enrolled in a qualified
course lasting at least three weeks and including a minimum of 12
hours of course work per month. This measure will lessen the
expense of education and facilitate lifelong learning for over
250,000 part time students.
As well, members will recall that to help parents save for their
children's future, the 1998 budget introduced the Canada
education savings grant to make registered education savings
plans even more attractive. The government will provide a 20%
grant on the first $2,000 deposited in annual RESP contributions
for children up to age 18, up to a maximum annual grant of $400
per child. This truly makes RESPs among the most attractive
savings vehicles available to Canadians for their children's
education.
Over the past year we have already seen the impact of this
particular initiative with the success that RESPs are having by
increasing the pool from what was $2.5 billion before this
initiative to approximately $4 billion just over this past short
while.
Educational assistance payments are for students enrolled in
full time education. However, taking into consideration the
special needs of disabled individuals, Bill C-72 proposes to
allow disabled part time students to qualify to receive
educational assistance payments.
As well, the bill proposes to assist income constrained families
by increasing the amounts they can transfer out of their RESPs
into their RRSPs in the event their children do not pursue higher
education. Specifically, the amount will be increased to $50,000
from $40,000.
Bill C-72 also contains several other targeted measures that are
worthy of support by the House. Among them is the proposed new
caregiver credit. The credit would reduce the combined
federal-provincial tax by up to $600 for those Canadians caring
for an elderly parent or disabled family member. It would
provide assistance to about 450,000 caregivers that normally
would not qualify for the infirm dependant credit.
To improve equity in the treatment of self-employed and
incorporated businesses—and I know hon. members across the way
would want to support this measure—Bill C-72 proposes that
self-employed Canadians be able to deduct health and dental
insurance premiums from their business income.
I am sure hon. members would also want to support this
initiative. To support communities and the thousands of Canadian
volunteers who provide essential emergency services, the
legislation before us proposes that the tax free amount for
volunteer firefighters be doubled from $500 to $1,000. This
measure will also be extended to other emergency service
volunteers.
Time constraints preclude me from addressing at length the many
other contents of the bill. I trust that my colleagues will
address these matters either in debate or at committee.
While the view from this side and the view from the other side
do not always mesh, I trust on this occasion we will see eye to
eye, given that Bill C-72 contains tax relief measures for
Canadians, tax relief upon which the government built in the 1999
budget.
I trust members opposite can put aside the usual rhetoric and
support the beginnings of what we on this side of the House see
as a plan to continue to provide broad based tax relief in each
and every budget, year after year. I call upon the members in the
opposition parties to support Bill C-72.
1040
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-72. I
would like at this time to seek unanimous consent to split my
time with the member for Lakeland.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Madam Speaker, I thank the members of the
House for that consideration.
Today we are studying Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act, to implement measures that are consequential on changes to
the Canada-U.S. tax convention, and its full title is quite a
mouthful. Quite frankly this bill has a loaded title to go along
with all the clauses and subclauses which make it up, a lot of
rhetoric and a lot of grey areas. This government should be
ashamed of itself.
This is the same government that is in such a rush to get
through its legislative agenda that it has invoked closure 49
times to date. It is so worried about shutting down the
opposition that it has cut off debate on bill after bill, but for
what?
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have been listening now for a couple of minutes and I
hear discussion of closure and various things—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member has
just started his speech. I am sure he is just about to make his
comments relevant.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Madam Speaker, I am just getting warmed
up here. All of this is relevant because now we can send it to a
Liberal controlled committee where debate is also curtailed by
the heavy-handed democracy there.
Our day is so filled with crucial legislation that everyone
awaits with eager anticipation to see what new pearl of wisdom
will come out of this administration. My constituents tell me
day after day that they would meet the suggestion with a few rude
comments which I really cannot explain here.
It seems our days are going to be filled with sloppy bills that
are badly designed and which go mere inches toward what the
Canadian people are most in need of: real tax relief. Canada
has miles to go to make up for decades of neglect and
mismanagement. We can still vaguely remember the days when the
dollar was at par or even above the U.S. dollar and when it was a
real tragedy when unemployment rose above 5% or 6%.
The Liberals become masters at taking the proposals made by
other parties, watering them down and offering the struggles of
average Canadians as proof that their administrations were good
for this country. That is not so. We have never had more proof
than now in that Canadians are struggling to overcome the
suffocating, self-righteous intrusions of this government. What
success we enjoy as individuals or as small businesses is in
spite of this government, not because of its misguided programs.
That is not to say the government cannot have a good idea once
in a while. Bill C-72 has a clause that restores the previous
$5,000 credit for investment in labour sponsored venture capital
funds. Some of these funds are quite active and really serve a
need.
Quite a few people lobbied hard for that inclusion last year and
now we see it takes the finance minister only 12 months to get on
board with the idea. This gives us hope that perhaps he will
wise up to other proposals that interest Canadians.
The child care expense deduction has been raised to $7,000. That
is a good start. We are always in favour of allowing Canadians
to keep their own money. But this deduction is not available to
all parents and that is a tragedy.
We have heard ministers opposite plant their Florsheims in their
dental work time after time and spend precious days in this House
arguing over what they really meant and who they meant to offend
or not offend. We have wasted time arguing over who cares and
does not care in this House. I suspect we have succeeded in
showing the majority of Canadians that this place is more about
playing politics than shaping public policy. That is a travesty.
The truth of the matter is that there are clauses in this bill
that can be commended in principle. The life learning plan
allows Canadian residents to take money out of their RRSPs, if
they can afford to have any, to pay for full time training for
themselves or their spouses. That is a great idea. I do not
know if everyone in that situation can afford full time training
as opposed to something a little more flexible, but the intent is
a noble effort.
We are aware that RRSP contributions have fallen off in the last
two years as well. There is something like $126 billion in
unused contribution room outstanding. As I said, it is a noble
effort and let us hope there are a few Canadians out there who
can actually afford to get retrained and plan on using that
retraining here in Canada rather than being forced to go to other
countries by our high taxes.
I suggest the same analysis applies to another program
concerning part time education. Eligible part time students can
use education tax credits and child care expense deductions to go
back to school. I presume that helps young single mothers in
particular. There is a lot of merit in doing that.
I wish I could be more specific with these measures but the fact
is that this government has pulled a fast one on all of us. The
Library of Parliament was caught flat footed with this bill and
it expressed extreme frustration that there was no time to
properly analyze the clauses in this bill.
Even though Bill C-72 was supposedly printed on March 9, the
date on the folder, the library had no access to a copy of it
until March 17. The researcher complained that this omnibus bill
was just too thick to get through and really understand it in
less than a week.
Yet we are expected to speak to it with two days' notice. What
on earth is this government up to? Are we on a fast track again?
The calendar is not crowded enough with significant legislation
to justify this kind of bullying and arm twisting.
1045
On top of that we are dealing with the tax code, probably the
most thick-headed and misguided document in the English language.
It is convoluted, complex, and all of those great terminologies.
Lawyers have written in their own secret codes, 1,600 pages of
every possible definition of every possible object, and they
still have to take people to court to apply the statutes. It
seems that Quebec can have plain language legislation to make
legal documents truly available to the people they apply to, but
this government shows no interest in that.
In thousands of cases every year, thousands of Canadians
citizens and businesses are put through a wringer to get them to
conform to an incomprehensible juggernaut of legalise and secret
passwords that even Revenue Canada has to admit it gets wrong on
occasion. However, it does not do that often because in the way
of this government it has taken on the corporate culture of
self-righteousness and the attitude that big government knows
best.
What we do not see in Bill C-72 is any admission by the finance
minister, his bureaucrats or any of the Liberal members on the
finance committee that this system is out of control. We cannot
afford it. We see a clause that reduces the individual surtax by
a few more dollars. That is a good idea, but who on the
government side would dare to stand to defend putting taxes on
taxes in the first place? Yet this goes on year after year.
Canadians are still waiting for this government and the previous
government to wake up and straighten out the mess they have made.
The 5% surcharge which remains untouched for now falls on
incomes as low as $60,000. There are thousands of workers in
high tech industries or specialized manufacturing who can make
that much. What do they do? They take their skills and their
incomes and they maximize them south of the border. Brain drain
is a common phenomenon. The Liberals maintain their punitive tax
structures and wonder why Canadian artists, entrepreneurs,
doctors and scientists head for a friendly climate. We could add
hockey players to that list too.
It is not like they cannot see it coming. My home province of
Saskatchewan started driving out opportunity and entrepreneurship
years ago. It has been rewarded as being a have not province by
the government in Ottawa. No wonder Roy Romanow and the Prime
Minister get along so well. They have the same tax philosophy.
We have a government that sees nothing wrong with discriminating
against single income families and that perpetuates applying
taxes on taxes, punishing the very people it relies on to pay the
bills through taxes.
This government really has nothing important to contribute so it
keeps its head down, trying really hard not to upset anybody,
while it rushes half-baked legislation through the House. It
hides behind self-fulfilling opinion polls and paid for studies
that tell it what it wants to think. It only adds to the pile
that makes up the tax code, never thinking that there might be
something worthwhile underneath or another way to approach the
subject.
It has been proven that lower taxation leads to higher revenues.
Alberta and Ontario are certain proof of that. Ireland has just
reduced its tax regime and it is booming. Why can we not catch
on to that ideology?
Worst of all, it tables bills like this which announce all over
again what Canadians have already heard and paid for in the
previous budget.
The government is hungry for any positive PR spin. We heard the
finance minister claim that the country can only afford his style
of nickel and dime tax adjustments and that it costs the
government to give people their money back. What a ludicrous
idea. We have a new program to help farmers in the prairies; $85
million to top up their NISA accounts. The unfortunate part is
that it is an insult. One very seldom qualifies for NISA. It is
a net income thing. So the $85 million is really a teaser.
We know what it costs because year after year the finance
minister announces that his programs will cost the treasury so
many billions of dollars. He goes ahead and subtracts that
amount from the nation's books. He takes it right out of the
taxpayers' pockets.
I do not know if Canadians are picking up on this yet, but the
day is rapidly approaching when they will finally put their
finger on what bugs them about this government. The auditor
general has done a great job of painting a picture of what the
minister and his finance cronies are up to. Maybe Canadians view
public accounting in much the same way as they do the tax code.
It is very convoluted and complex. Nobody really understands it.
But this practice is pretty easy to follow.
The minister makes an announcement of, say, $2.5 billion. Then,
without parliamentary approval, he charges that to the
expenditure side. The government says “Look we would like to
give you that tax break, but you can see that there is no money
left on the bottom line”. The money has taken wings and flown
off to pay for a scholarship fund that nobody asked for. Few
will enjoy it and it will not even come into existence for
another full year. The way our Canadian dollar is shrinking the
students may get 50 cents on the dollar by then. According to
our tax code anyone who tried to run a business booking expenses
that way would find themselves in deep trouble with Revenue
Canada.
We are hiding it very well in this country, with our low
productivity and so on, because of the strength of the American
economy south of us, but we cannot count on that forever. We
need to stand alone.
The bills will come due and then everyone will see where these
years of Liberal mismanagement have led us.
1050
We are really lagging behind in our productivity against our
American counterpart and others in the G-7. We have a low
dollar, very high taxes and low productivity. The polls show us
that no one really identifies with this concept of productivity.
Maybe that is because it has been so long since we have had any
that nobody recognizes it any more.
The Minister of Industry made several comments to that extent,
which I would like to quote. He was addressing the issue of the
standard of living in this country. He pointed out that since
1987, just a mere decade ago, Canada's standard of living has
increased by only 7%. The standard of living of our counterpart
to the south has increased by 17%. That is a 10% difference.
According to the slide that he was showing, the income gap
between the U.S. and Canada is 30%, and growing at a rate of
about a $9,000 difference in income between Canada and the United
States. That correlates into about $28,000 for a family of four.
Those are Statistics Canada's numbers.
With respect to the impact on Canada's productivity, the
industry minister went on to say “Canada has the lowest growth
rate in productivity in the G-7”. We are 17th in the world,
which is certainly not good enough. Why? It is because of high
taxes and the low dollar. We are paying more and getting less.
It is very unfortunate.
The industry minister also pointed out that we have much higher
taxes in Canada than they do in the United States. Our tax rate
is 130% of that of the United States. If we couple that tax rate
with the low dollar, we are on a downhill slide. We see omnibus
bills like this which continue to shove Canadians farther down in
that sinkhole of despair.
I would like to present an amendment at this time. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-72, an act
to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are
consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980)
and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the
Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain
acts related to the Income Tax Act since the principle of the
bill fails to address the federal tax system to end
discrimination against single income families with children.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
amendment is receivable.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased today to speak to this bill, a budget implementation
bill. Many comments have been made on this bill and I am sure
there will be many more.
I will speak in a very general way about what the implementation
of the parts of the budget that this involves will do and the
impact it will or will not have on families across the country.
In the last couple of months, since the discussion and the
anticipation of the finance minister's budget really started to
heat up, and even over the five years that I have been a member
of parliament, I have heard more and more from people who say
they feel guilty as parents or as small business people who want
to pass their business on to their children because they are not
saving the amount of money they should be saving in order to pass
the business on or to allow them to help their children as they
raise their families or as they go on to pursue further
education.
I have heard people express the guilt they feel because they are
just not doing what they should be doing to help their children
and to help pass the business on. That has really been a concern
for me. The guilt should not be felt by most of the people that
I have heard from because, clearly, the money is just not there
for them to save.
1055
We have heard a lot of talk recently, talk backed up by chief
bank economists and by the government's own pollsters, which
indicates that productivity in Canada has been dropping steadily.
If we ask most Canadians they probably will not understand in
detail what productivity means. However, what they do understand
is that their standard of living is getting lower and lower all
the time. It is a key thing to remember that over the past 10
years and more, each year Canadians have had less to live on.
Their standard of living has been dropping.
When I hear these people say they feel guilty because they are
not saving what they should be saving to help their children with
their education or to help pass their farms on to the next
generation, I think it is important for me to tell them now that
it really, in most cases, is not their fault.
I think it is important to note whose fault it is. It is
clearly the fault of the government, for what it has done and
has not done over the past five years. It is the fault of the
Conservative Party, which was in office for nine years and which
kept jacking up taxes. I cannot even remember how many tax
increases there were, but dozens and dozens of times the
Conservative Party raised taxes in various ways. It is the fault
of the Conservative Party and it is the fault of previous Liberal
governments, many members of which are still in the House
today. They raised taxes and went on their spending sprees, and
we are seeing that develop again. By doing that they have denied
Canadian families; parents of children who have decided they want
to further their education and farmers who want to pass the farm
on to the next generation. It is very difficult. It is the
fault of government which has denied these people through high
taxation and low growth.
It is the fault of governments and I want people to know that. I
want the people who have been talking to me and saying that they
feel guilt to know that they should not feel guilty, because I
know that most of the people who have talked to me about this
have done everything they possibly could to save money. They are
cautious in their businesses. They spend very little and live on
very little in many cases, yet they just do not have money to
save.
I hear members opposite hollering that that is not fair and not
right. Look at the statistics. The fact is that the savings of
Canadian families have been dropping on a regular basis. That
happened again this year. It is happening right now. Savings
this year will be lower than they were last year. This is a
trend that has been taking place for some time. It is a real
serious concern that has not been dealt with by the budget. It
certainly has not been dealt with by the parts of the budget that
we are talking about implementing here. For that reason I cannot
possibly support this piece of legislation.
When I have people come to me and say they feel guilt because
they are just not saving what they should be saving for all of
these things that are so important to them, I have not thought of
telling them that it is not their fault and that they should look
at what has happened and the reality of how every year more and
more of what they earn is not left with them, is not left in
their pockets for them to spend as they see fit. Instead, it has
been taken away by governments more and more and spent by
governments on things that they somehow feel are more important
than the issues that the families themselves have determined are
most important.
1100
That attitude bothers me. I think it bothers most Canadians
when a government and a finance minister feel that they somehow
know better than the general Canadian population, than parents,
how they should spend their money and how they want to spend
their money and what is important to them.
Perhaps we could change that attitude and convince the finance
minister and the Prime Minister that Canadians themselves,
mothers and fathers who are desperately trying to put money
together to pay for university or technical school education for
their children or for something that will help them get good
jobs, know best how they want to spend their money. Perhaps we
could convince governments to leave more money in the pockets of
the people who earn it.
I want to make clear that I am not against taxation. I am not
proposing that we eliminate income tax completely. I am not
proposing that we eliminate all the other taxes, although I
certainly believe we should eliminate some of them. I believe
the level of tax now is completely out of line. When we see
about half of what we earn being taken away from us by
government, we know taxes are too high.
Instead of 50% it would be far more reasonable to move the total
tax package down to between 20% and 30%. I think issues like
health care are important to people. People do not object to the
money being spent on health care if it is spent wisely. That is
part of the problem with health care. Even the money that is
being spent is not being spent wisely.
Another part of the problem is that the government has cut back
on transfers to the provinces by almost $7 billion a year. These
transfers are to pay for health care and advanced education and
the funding has been reduced dramatically.
The member across the floor is saying that in the budget a small
part of that was given back. That is so true. They have given a
small part back and have said “Aren't we grand?” They have cut
somewhere near $20 billion—I forget the cumulative amount—over
the past five years and now they are to put back a billion or two
over the next couple of years. That is not good enough. That is
nothing to brag about. Part of the problem is that they cut back
on the amount transferred to the provinces for health care,
making it extremely difficult for the provinces to deal with the
health care issue.
Another part of the problem is that in many cases, partly due to
unreasonable restrictions on the part of the federal government,
the provinces are not allowed to do what they have to do to make
the system work well.
We have seen that attitude problem in this government, in the
Conservative government before it and in the Liberal government
before that. It has to change. If we could change that attitude
we could make some real progress. We could start leaving more
dollars in the pockets of the people who earn it. If there could
be a quick tax reduction right now, maybe five years from now I
would hear some people saying that they are finally starting to
be able to save a little more. Because they are saving a little
more they will be able to help the children a little with their
education.
I am from a farming community so I mention farming because it is
extremely important to me. I might hear people say they can save
a little more because they are not paying so much out in taxes.
Over half the cost of fuel is tax, which is completely out of
line. Farmers also pay a lot of income tax, although it will not
be much this year. They did not earn much because there is a
real mess in the industry. However over the years they have paid
a lot of income tax and a lot of other taxes. They are
overtaxed, no doubt.
On top of that and because of that we are seeing farm families
that in many cases will not be able to help the next generation
to purchase the farm business and to develop it.
This is a direct result of overtaxation and the complete lack of
willingness on the part of the government to do something about
it.
1105
We laid out a plan before the finance minister presented his
budget which would have given Canadians $25 billion a year in tax
relief. It was not an unreasonable plan. It was verified as
being very viable by some of the best economists in the country.
We know from the work we have done that it is a very viable plan.
In our plan we would make payments on the debt every year and
increase to some extent funding to health care and to other key
areas. That is a very reasonable expectation.
The finance minister had his chance. I do not know his motives,
but if he would have had his way maybe he would have gone further
toward our plan. Probably he was not allowed to do so by others
in cabinet. Do I fault the finance minister for that? Yes, I
do. I absolutely fault him for that because he has to be strong
enough and show enough leadership to make that happen. He has to
make that happen and he did not. He failed miserably.
I do not want to impute motive. I do not know the motive of the
finance minister, but this was pretty much a do-nothing budget in
reality. The government is talking about next year's budget
already. It is trying to forget this one. We have noticed that
in question period. It is talking about next year's budget and
has just gone beyond this year's budget. It is unbelievable.
Clearly it knows this year's budget was a failure on the part of
the finance minister and a failure on the part of the government.
I just have to ask why. Was it because the finance minister did
not want to do something? It may have been. The Prime Minister
will be stepping down within the next year or two. I think all
Canadians expect that. The finance minister will pretty much be
put in as leader of the Liberal Party. Because that leadership
race will be a little over a year from now, we have to think that
the finance minister will want to have a knockout budget next
year.
Maybe some people would say next year is good enough. There are
a couple of things wrong with that. First, Canadians who are
desperately trying to save to put their kids through college,
technical schools and whatever, or who are desperately trying to
save so they can somehow transfer their small businesses and
farms to others, just cannot do it. They need that relief now.
There are families struggling just to make ends meet. I am
talking about food and basic clothing. There are many families
in that position. They see virtually no help until next year.
What will happen next year? We have seen how cabinet has
influenced the finance minister already. He may have the best of
intentions to come out next year with a budget much like what we
proposed. Will cabinet allow that? All the heritage minister
thinks about is spend, spend, spend, and maybe put through some
dumb legislation like the split-run magazine legislation. That
is another issue and I will not get into it.
There are several other ministers like her. They want to spend.
They think elections are bought and won. They do not really
care, I guess. I should not really say that because I do not
know. I know they care about the country. They would not be
here if they did not. They clearly do not understand that what
is necessary is to limit spending and give Canadians money or
leave it in their pockets. It should not be taken from them and
given back. It should be left in their pockets as much as
possible. They did not do that this year. If they do not
understand that and if they are not willing to let the finance
minister do that, they probably will not let him go quite as far
as he would want next year.
We might get a budget next year of maybe $15 billion in tax
reduction. That is not good enough. Families need a reasonable
amount that leaves room in their budgets to deal with a downturn
in the economy and that type of thing.
Our plan does that. The room is there. We will not start
building up deficits again under any circumstances, yet we can
offer in our package $25 billion in tax relief.
1110
If the finance minister is willing to give $15 billion in relief
over the same period, it just is not good enough. He may think
it will help him win the leadership race. I think he will do
that anyway, but will he win the next election based on that? I
think not. It just will not happen with that kind of budget.
Canadians are starting to understand what is going on. Canadians
have always known they are overtaxed, but they are starting to
see exactly what the possibilities are. Finally they know too
much is being taken from them, that their standard of living has
dropped on a regular basis, that it is difficult to make ends
meet, and that they cannot save for things that are really
important to them. Now they are starting to see why. This is key
to what is happening right now. Canadians are looking in more
depth into the issue. They understand more and more. The
government could do a lot more but it has done very little with
the budget. Bill C-72 implements a budget that just does not do
what it should have done. That is of real concern to me.
I say to the people who have felt guilty because they cannot
save that the guilt should not be on their shoulders. The guilt
should be on the shoulders of government members for not acting.
They are the ones who had the opportunity to act very quickly on
this issue. They could have offered $2,500 in tax relief, for
example, to a family earning $30,000. That would have meant
$2,500 more in the pockets of taxpayers.
Then some families might be able to put a bit into a registered
retirement savings plan to further reduce their taxes. More
families would be able to save a bit more so that their children
could go on to a technical school, a college or a university
after secondary school.
That is what that would mean. It would also mean the health
care system could be improved so that waiting lines do not get
longer and longer as they have been for many years now. The
number of people waiting for health services in extremely serious
areas is becoming larger and larger on a regular basis due to
wrong actions taken by the government and lack of action by the
government.
I am very pleased that Canadians in a much broader or much more
in depth way have recognized that the government has failed
miserably. I can safely say that if people from the Lakeland
constituency or many others across the country were standing in
my spot in the House when the vote is taken, they would be saying
some of the things I am saying and would vote against the bill.
The bill implements parts of a budget that is totally inadequate.
It is a failure and I believe I am saying what they would say.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased today to speak to Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act and that implements certain other measures announced in
the 1998 budget.
I would mention right off that it is very difficult for the Bloc
Quebecois to support Bill C-72, because we realize once again
that the government's priorities are not in the right place.
There are certain aspects of it worth keeping, but the bill does
not resolve the situation of Quebeckers entirely.
Although I have been here only since June 1997, I realize that
the same thing happens all the time on the other side,
regardless whether the year is 1997, 1998 or 1999.
1115
Yesterday, I was invited to comment on the 1999 budget. Often
the agenda of the government across is hard to follow. They are
trying to bring us back to 1998 provisions, when the fact of the
matter is that, whether it be 1997, 1998 or 1999, it is always
the same thing.
This government used the money in the employment insurance fund,
cut transfers to the provinces and, through all sorts of little
indirect taxes, managed to bring its deficit down to zero.
However, if this government had wanted use the surpluses at its
disposal in a more logical way, not just now but also in the
1998 budget, we would find much more interesting measures for
Quebeckers and Canadians.
For example, last year, in 1998, the budget did not provide
anything for the unemployed, the students and the sick. These
people thought that this year, in 1999, the Minister of Finance
would announce measures that would be much more fair and just,
measures that would allow them to breathe a little more easily.
Last year, the unemployed, the sick, the young, the students and
the poor realized that, perhaps, one more effort was necessary
to enable this government to achieve a zero deficit.
Incidentally, it is difficult to understand how this government
plans its budgets. I do not know of any Quebec or Canadian
business that would remain in operation with such forecasts. It
is easy to predict a zero deficit in 1998, 1999, and again in
the year 2000. But then, what does the Minister of Finance do
with his officials? He fiddles with the figures. To fiddle with
the figures means to manipulate them on all fronts. First, the
government claims there is hardly any surplus in the employment
insurance fund. But this year, in 1999, surpluses will reach $26
billion.
Last year, they were also very high and I am almost certain
that, in the document tabled this morning by the Minister of
Human Resources Development on the current status of the
employment insurance program, we will find things that need to
be corrected.
Since it came to power, this government has been trying to
create two classes in Canadian society: the rich and the poor.
The worst of it is that the money of the least well off is being
used to benefit the most well off. For several years now,
whenever there have been tax breaks, the Bloc Quebecois has
asked that they be targeted so as to help those who have paid
down the deficit recover some of their money. But this is not
what has be happening. It is not what happened in 1997 and 1998
and it is certainly not what happened in 1999.
The EI fund belongs to unemployed workers and employers. This
government has not put one red cent into it. What is it doing
with the money in the EI fund? It is siphoning it into the
consolidated revenue fund, not just to be able to hand it over
to the richest members of society but also to use in its forays
into areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The examples are numerous.
Well we remember the September 1997 throne speech where it was
already apparent that this propagandist government was prepared
to interfere in provincial affairs.
1120
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs told the House that
our constitution was one of the most decentralized in the world.
They are working daily to take this increasingly unitary Canada
and use the constitution to centralize the government. Why?
Because they are going to negotiate internationally.
International law will play a role.
The people on the other side of the floor, and those in English
Canada, do not understand the globalization issue. But we know
very well that if they turn up at negotiations without having
remedied that lack of understanding, they may be told “Put your
own constitution in order; put your own affairs in order;
respect your partners and then we will start negotiating”.
Every day this government is involved in meddling into areas of
provincial jurisdiction, so that it can show internationally
that it is now a central government with a constitution that
allows it to do so.
This is how all of its actions are carried out, and this is why,
within the framework of a bill such as Bill C-72, we find only
minor measures, mere crumbs thrown at those who need help.
Getting back to employment insurance, is there anything more
distressing in life than losing one's job? With the
restructuring and readjustments that are going on in many
companies, people are losing their jobs and need retraining.
They need a chance to catch their breath. But when they turn up
at the Human Resources Development offices, they are not sure
whether they will get any EI benefits. The concerns of our
unemployed are increasing. We know that only 40% of workers who
pay into the plan are entitled to benefits. This is a matter of
concern.
What is even more disgusting is that the little people are
making sacrifices, the least well off, the unemployed, the
single mothers, the students, and now they are seeing the money
going instead into the Canadian government's consolidated fund,
from there the Minister of Finance can distribute it anywhere
and everywhere.
Bill C-72 is silent on the millennium scholarships. Yet, that
program was announced in the 1998 budget. We know it will soon
be implemented. What does that mean for students in Quebec and
in the rest of Canada?
In Quebec, we have a very good loans and scholarships program,
one of the best in North America. Now, the federal government
will get involved, through this scheme, in a provincial
jurisdiction. A student who will apply to the foundation will
have to make a report to be eligible to the loans and
scholarships program. Some young people may be penalized by this
administrative ambiguity, particularly since the Quebec
government already has an infrastructure, through its loans and
scholarships program, that provides very good services.
Who, at the federal level, will administer the foundation? It is
a private body headed by the president of Bell Canada. This is
worrisome. We do not know how much it will cost. We do not know
how it will work, but we do know that it will deprive Quebec
students from hundreds of millions of dollars.
Members will understand that, when the government came up with
its social union, when it negotiated with the other provinces,
the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, could not sign that
agreement. We saw what happened with the last budget.
1125
We can also see how this government is putting itself into the
position of being able to distribute gifts in all provinces and
especially to meddle in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
A business facing financial difficulties usually looks first
within the organization to see if it can cut expenses in order
to increase revenues.
I have sat on the public accounts committee, and I realized on
many occasions that the departments had not yet made the effort.
They did make the effort when it came to cutting personnel and
services to the public.
However, when it came to big salaries, managers and money that
could benefit those who make significant contributions to the
Liberal Party of Canada, the government has a very hard time
housekeeping.
What is the government doing to eliminate its deficit? It pumps
off the surpluses in employment insurance. It made draconian
cuts to transfer payments in health care, education and social
programs. In addition, this government has became expert at
adding little taxes to public services, such as passports,
national parks and so on.
Today the government has stopped providing services free of
charge. However, in a society such as ours, the government has
its share. We are having to keep paying for services paid for
by taxes that come out of the pockets of taxpayers and,
moreover, we are overtaxed.
I will not get back to Bill C-72. Another ploy the federal
government used to get more money into its coffers was to
harmonize the GST. In New Brunswick, it was smooth sailing, but
not in Quebec. Figures and statistics were trotted out.
The current Minister of Finance is a creative bookkeeping
artist. He is tops in his class. For the 1998 budget, the
difference between forecasts and the actual figures varied from
40% to 50%. How can we believe such a Minister of Finance? An
entire country does not know what to think.
The most important minister after the Prime Minister is the
Minister of Finance. However, his actions and the fact that his
forecasts are not more rigorous undermine the credibility of the
entire government.
We have denounced this situation countless times in the House,
before the Standing Committee on Finance, and wherever we got
the chance. People are clearly having trouble understanding
what is going on and they are having particular difficulty
figuring out what this government is really trying to do.
In September 1997 we saw that it was getting ready to interfere
in provincial affairs, strengthen its Constitution and try to
show the rest of Canada that the country was a unitary state,
but fortunately Quebeckers saw through this. In fact, the Globe
and Mail recently published the results of a poll showing that,
if a referendum were held, 49.2% of the population would vote in
favour. This poll was taken before Bernard Landry, Quebec's
Minister of Finance, brought down his budget.
This same government sent its ministers, senators, secretaries
of state and private members to fan out through Quebec during
the break and still they dropped 4% in Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois now has 46% of voting intentions in Quebec.
1130
This proves that, even if the government is trying to pull the
wool over the eyes of the other provinces, Quebeckers can still
see clearly and understand that, if they want Quebec to take its
rightful place in the world market, there is but one solution:
Quebec sovereignty. It is the way we will be able to continue
to put forward the ideas of the great Quebeckers who have, since
the quiet revolution, seen things clearly and have seen that
Quebec no longer had a place within the present federal system.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot, therefore, give full support today to
these small amendments to the Income Tax Act, in the form of
Bill C-72.
Possibly we would like to see other provisions in the 1999
budget that would meet the needs of the least well off. There
could be targeted tax reductions, not the general ones that were
the result of taking money contributed by the unemployed and
their employers from the employment insurance fund. There would
have to be a general redistribution to everyone, starting with
the poorest members of society, who have paid for the richest.
My fears about this government, particularly with all that is
coming up to do with globalization, is that, despite all of the
economic upheavals there are going to be in the years to come,
this government is already taking steps to create two classes in
Canada, the rich and the poor.
We in the Bloc Quebecois, a party more open to the middle class,
hope that people, whether rich or poor, can be treated fairly
and equitably. This is not going to happen with what the
federal Liberal government is introducing this morning.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-72,
the income tax amendments act, 1998. I will be sharing my time
with my colleague, the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys.
I begin by drawing attention to the fact that the bill we are
debating today is as a result of the 1998 budget. Thinking of
that budget, what it contained and the amendments now before us
as a result of changes to the Income Tax Act, we remember this
budget as something that came from the government side of the
House being characterized as the education budget, the youth
budget.
As the spokesperson for the NDP on post-secondary education I
went through that budget and talked with students and student
organizations. It was to take stock of whether this so-called
education budget, and now the income tax amendments that flow
from it, contained measures that would really assist students in
Canada. Throughout 1998 as the impact of the budget began to
unfold it became very clear that although this was characterized
and held up by the Liberal government as the great education
budget, the reality was that very little had changed in daily
lives of students.
As someone who defends the interests of students, along with
other members of the House who have concerns about students in
Canada, I think there was one really despicable thing in that
budget. While we were told it was an education budget, secretly,
through the back door, there was something that was not announced
in the finance minister's speech. It was changes to the
Bankruptcy Act which impacted on students, changing the laws
affecting bankruptcy so that students could no longer declare
bankruptcy after having exhausted all other means.
They could not declare bankruptcy after two years but had to wait
ten years.
1135
A couple of weeks ago I attended a press conference held by the
Canadian Federation of Students where a test case was being
brought forward to challenge the bankruptcy changes made by the
Liberal government in 1998.
Ms. Annik Chenier is a young woman who attends Saint Paul
University here in Ottawa. She had a student debt of $63,000.
After some very modest interest relief and debt remission, Ms.
Chenier was still left with a debt of over $50,000. She had left
school and was now working and would be paying close to $700 a
month on her student loans. Ms. Chenier had tried to obtain a
reduction and a different type of payment plan but had reached
the end of the line. Because she had no other options available
to her she wanted to declare bankruptcy. She could not do so
because of the changes in last year's budget. I bring this up
because this really portrays what students are facing.
In this bill before us today there are some minor changes, a
kind of tinkering, that provide some relief to students. I will
go through them. The basic inequality and crisis being created
as a result of the retreat of public funding, the massive
increase in tuition fees, the increase in student debt, remains.
We have students like Ms. Chenier and other students across
Canada still facing very desperate circumstances and still facing
collection agencies that harass students. I have had phone calls
from students crying because they have been harassed by
collection agencies at work or school. Canada student loans have
been privatized, turned over to banks which get a premium on
student loans and if students go into default, through no fault
of their own, they are turned over to collection agencies.
I think it is very important to point out that with some
provisions in this bill, some debt reduction, Canada education
savings grants, the 17% federal tax credit, while they do provide
some minor relief, unfortunately the reality is they do not
fundamentally or substantially change the situation for students.
One good measure was included, assistance for students with
dependants. This, which was actually a Liberal red book promise,
provides grants of $3,000 a year. That was a good measure and
something I am glad to see the government acted on.
I was very disappointed, as I know students across the country
and Canadians in general were, that the relief promised in the
budget in terms of what was actually provided fell far short of
people's expectations.
One of the changes in this bill involves personal income tax.
If we look at the example of a one income family of four earning
$20,000, under these provisions that family would get a tax cut
of $165. It is certainly better than nothing but I have to
compare that to a letter I received a few days ago from a woman
in British Columbia.
She described her situation to me. She works in a fast food
outlet, making minimum wage. She is raising two children and
pays more than 50% of her income toward rent. She was writing to
me about housing because I have raised the issues of housing and
homelessness. With the measures we are debating today, would
that woman and her kids be better off?
1140
Would she have more money substantially to pay for her rent?
Would she have more money to put food on the table? Would she
have any money to put into savings for RRSPs for her kids'
education which is one of the provisions in this bill today? She
is struggling even to pay the rent, so any hope for her to put
money into an education plan is something way down on the agenda.
I came to the conclusion, as my colleagues in the NDP have, that
again this budget has failed in these amendments to the Income
Tax Act before us today. It has failed in terms of dealing with
the growing inequalities that face us in society. I hear some of
the debate from the members of the Bloc who are pointing out the
same kind of situation in terms of the constituents they
represent as well and their perspective on this matter.
I think we have a really serious problem in this country. We
have now had a succession of budgets. We had the education
budget. We had the budget this year that was a so-called health
budget. There is talk about the children's budget next year.
None of these budgets or the income tax amendments that flow from
them serve to substantially alter or change our tax system to
make it fairer and progressive and to make sure that for low
income Canadians, poor Canadians who have borne the brunt of
massive cutbacks and of inequalities in our tax system, it will
improve life in a meaningful way for those Canadians.
I think that is a real sad day for Canada. That is why my
colleagues and I in the NDP voted against the budget last year.
It failed to address those issues. Certainly in terms of the
income tax amendments before today us when we look at the
criteria of who this budget really helps, does it really help the
people who are most in need, we come up with the same answer,
that this budget and the legislation before us today have failed.
I guess we cannot escape the glaring facts that after tax
inequalities are increasing and that low income Canadians and
students are falling further and further behind.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's
comments with interest. It would be nice if all the debates in
the House of Commons were as thoughtful, well researched and
reflective as the one we just heard. Unfortunately that is not
the case. Too many people read from prepared texts and so on
that someone else has written.
Today we are talking about income tax. I suspect that when
people hear that term they get crinkly feelings up and down their
spine. There are probably hundreds of thousands, maybe millions,
of Canadians sitting in their offices, their homes, their
factories or plants just dreading the time when they have to go
home and get out all those little pieces of paper, T-4 slips and
so on and start filling out that bloody form.
The Constitution says we are not allowed to impose cruel and
unusual treatment on people. I suspect asking people to fill out
their tax returns is a form of cruel and unusual treatment. It
is a painful experience.
The other day I ran into some young people who are
self-employed. They are in the consulting business. They were
absolutely livid because they fill out their tax returns, work
very hard for all their money and have to send off cheques and
cheques, all this cash to the federal government. They felt
depressed. They were so frustrated. It is almost a form of
self-mutilation.
People sit down at a desk, with papers piled all over, trying to
figure out what the hell that form says. They read through the
explanations and that is complicated, step by step. There are
computer programs now. The laugh of the century was this elderly
woman came to my office in Kamloops the other day and said “I
just filled out my tax return and I do not understand parts of
it. I wonder if you could get me a copy of the tax act”.
She was thinking this was a little book, something like a little
handout.
1145
One would need a pickup truck to take home the tax act and all
the explanatory booklets that go with it. Madam Speaker, I know
how bright you are and some of my friends across the way, but I
can guarantee that no one could understand it. Nobody can
understand it. I will bet there is not a person in the world who
understands this pickup truck full of tax law.
Let us test the crowd. We have some very intelligent people
here. Let me pick up one of the little copies and I will
randomly choose an item. I must admit I have not looked at this
but I am going to read this and ask my friends, particularly my
Liberal friends across the way, to follow carefully, then there
will be a test afterward.
It goes like this. The minister may grant exemption from this
application of the provisions from this act, other than the
provisions set out in sections 14 to 19, or to any investment
company, if the minister is satisfied that (a) the business of
investment carried on by the company or a significant portion
thereof is of short duration and incidental to the principle
carried out by it, or (b) the company, although incorporated
after January 1, 1972, primarily for the purpose of carrying on
the business of investment and it intends to remain a company
described in subparagraph 2(3), or subsequently from 5(2) to
5(17), or (c) it is not necessarily in the public interest that
this act apply to the company, having regard to the purpose of
the act and to any one or more of the following factors: (1) the
persons to whom the company is indebted in respect of money
borrowed by it, or (2) the amount of the indebtedness by the
company in respect to the money borrowed by it, or (3) the nature
of any security given by the company in respect of money borrowed
by it, and (4) the extent of the integration of the company's
activities with the activities of its subsidiaries, if any, and
with the activities of any corporation of which it is a
subsidiary and any other subsidiaries of that corporation.
Then we go to subsection 2. Here the minister, if he decides,
may revoke an exemption granted under subsection 4. If subsection
4 does not follow subsection 2(b) and the minister ceases to be
satisfied that any of the criteria referred to in that subsection
are met, then when exemption from this application is granted
under subsection 2 or subsection 15, following 2(b), then the
corporation, after January 1, 1972 that is, if it is primarily
for the purpose of carrying on the business of investment, then
this exemption shall not be revoked.
Mr. Ken Epp: Makes sense to me.
Mr. Nelson Riis: It is perfectly clear. It is simple. It
cannot be revoked after all of that.
A person would have to have 50 law degrees to figure out what on
earth that says. Let it be perfectly clear, this is what this is
all about. There is more gobbledegook in this piece of
legislation. There is more muffle buffle jumble bumble than we
can imagine. If one has a well paid tax lawyer or a very
experienced tax adviser, one can buffalo almost anybody into
saying this should be deducted, that should be deducted, and so
on. It is like I am reading from some sort of tragicomedy.
I could read tens of thousands of other pages, but I would
challenge every one of the bright MPs in this building to say
that they understand even one page of the tax act. I know nobody
here is able to. The ones who are not here today, maybe they are
the intelligent ones.
Those who have to deal with this tax act will be unanimous in
saying that no one knows what the hell it says.
An hon. member: Hire a tax lawyer.
Mr. Mac Harb: Come on, it is simple stuff.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, my Liberal friend says this
is simple stuff. Maybe to a certain kind of mind this is simple
stuff. But to an intelligent mind, it is gobbledegook. Look at
it. I know I cannot hold up a prop, but this really is not a
prop. Look at all of its pages. They are all grey. There is no
white, because if it is grey, it is open to interpretation.
Imagine those guys who work in Revenue Canada and have to deal
with this book day in and day out. It takes a special kind of
personality to handle that kind of stuff. Thank God they have it
because I know I do not have it.
There are no white pages, they are all grey. Everything is
grey. If one has a good tax lawyer, a good tax accountant or a
good tax adviser, one can probably get out of paying the kind of
taxes one ought to be paying. That is what it is all about.
1150
There are hits. Walk into any major bookstore today, and the
best-sellers are right at the front. What are they? Ways to avoid
paying taxes. Jacks tax adviser, Mary Jane's and so on,
everybody has a favourite tax book and it is updated every year
because these things change every year. That is what we are
doing today. They are mainly designed to show how to avoid paying
taxes. They are today's best-sellers. I am sure my Conservative
friend would agree.
Serious players probably have them for their night time reading.
People can go to seminars on how to avoid taxes altogether. It
is called a tax haven, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas or the Isle
of Man, all sorts of things. For a nice fee, these seminars will
lay it all out, how to avoid paying any income tax at all.
This is a depressing debate today. These
provisions by and large are probably fairly decent. There is a
tidbit here to help this group, a minor change to help that
group, but nothing will change. It is just more gobbledegook,
more complexity and more fuzziness in the tax system and people
will be happy for the little bone the Minister of Finance
has tossed them in this little change.
Canadians are demanding real tax reform. They want to change the
system. They want to toss out the pickup truck full of books and
start all over again. They want a real tax system, a progressive
tax system. They want to stop the use of the tax system to
achieve all these minute changes in today's society.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is here.
I value his judgment. I hope he asks me a question.
Is it not time that we sat down as a finance committee or as a
committee of the whole parliament and went through our tax act?
Let us identify the major exemptions in our tax act and apply a
cost benefit analysis to every single one. What is the cost of
this tax loophole, or tax exemption, and what do we get from it?
If it is not clear that we get more than it costs, then we should
toss it out the window.
An hon. member: Are you asking him a question?
Mr. Nelson Riis: I am asking him a question. I ask the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, why not go
through our tax act, do a cost benefit analysis on every single
major tax exemption and if it does not make financial sense, toss
it out?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always a
pleasure—
An hon. member: And a challenge.
Mr. Tony Valeri: And sometimes a challenge, I would
agree, to listen to the hon. member across the way.
I do have a
lot of respect for the member. He is a member of the finance
committee and does contribute substantially, I might add, to the
debate in the finance committee.
With respect to his suggestion about looking at the tax system, the hon.
member knows that the finance committee is the master of its
own destiny. If the finance committee would like to look at the
tax system, who am I to stand in the way?
We are all here to help
ensure that Canadians receive the best possible government
services. I would engage in any sort of debate
that would provide more value for tax dollars for Canadians. That
is certainly why I am here.
It is sometimes ironic to hear a member from the New
Democratic Party, although I sometimes feel that the
member does not quite fit that mould but nonetheless he is a member
of the New Democratic Party, talk about taxes and the need for
tax reform and the need to ensure that Canadians' tax paying
burden is alleviated.
We certainly have begun to do that on this side of the House beginning
with the 1998 budget and continuing in the 1999 budget.
Albeit it is a beginning and I do not think anyone here on this
side of the House thinks that this is the end of the work on the
tax file, but the hon. member should stand up and at least say
that he can support the measures in this bill. There is the
increase in the basic exemption, the elimination of the surtax,
the tax credit interest on student loans, the registered
education savings plan, the ability to withdraw money from
registered retired savings plans to finance part time education,
the child care expense deduction, the caregiver tax credit, and
the increase in the emergency volunteer tax credit.
1155
There are a number of issues. The hon. member is correct when
he says there needs to be additional work with respect to the tax
system. I grant him that. The member should acknowledge that the
work this government has started to do on that file is work he
should be able to support and continue to support as before.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I had a vision as my friend
was speaking. It was a vision from Hindu philosophy of a
multi-armed goddess. She has about 15 arms. I imagined these
arms going into every back pocket and every front pocket, picking
our pockets.
What my friend did not mention was the new tax collection
agency, a monster tax collection agency that not only will have
federal hands going into people's pockets but will also have
provincial hands tied in.
Somebody said it is like a drunken sailor taking taxes. It is
not like a drunken sailor spending money, because drunken sailors
spend their own money. These guys spend other people's money.
Again, to say that none of this is worthwhile would be folly. Of
course many of the provisions will be helpful. It is like the
situation of a young boy begging on a city street, obviously
living in a horrible situation. The boy stands there with a cup
and asks for a dime. Someone gives him a dime and thinks the kid
should be thankful, he should be happy with that. That is what
we are getting here, little dimes in the beggars' cups and we are
being asked to say is this not wonderful, thank you very much,
Mr. Minister of Finance. These changes are a mere a pittance.
My friend from Vancouver talked about the student debt load, the
horrible situation young people face trying to afford an
education. We are supposed to be up here leaping for glee
because they are now going to possibly deduct some interest from
$26,000 to $50,000 student loans. It is sad.
There are minute improvements to our tax system. But when we
have to back up a pickup truck for the piles and piles of this
stuff, this is not the way to approach real tax reform.
I welcome my hon. friend's suggestion that we raise this at the
finance committee. Perhaps one day we can initiate a real
process of tax reform coming out of this House of Commons.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
always with great pleasure that I listen to my hon. colleague
from the New Democratic Party, the member for Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys. We never know quite what we will hear
about.
The last time the member spoke on the budget, he was talking
about sex with bears. Today he was talking about multi-armed
Hindu goddesses. He is certainly a Renaissance member of
parliament who can describe things in ways which certainly can
connect not just with other members of parliament but with
Canadians, and probably with bears.
The hon. member described the government as a multi-armed Hindu
goddess. There is another kind of Hindu goddess, a
multi-breasted Hindu goddess. Sometimes the multi-armed Hindu
goddess looks at the taxpayer as a multi-breasted Hindu goddess.
She seeks with those arms to attach her hands to the collective
teat of the Canadian taxpayer. Her grip is so fervent and so
ferocious that ultimately the taxpayer and Canadians suffer.
It is important to keep abreast of tax issues both in the House
of Commons and with all Canadians. Tax issues are fundamentally
important.
Bill C-72, which implements some of the budget's proposed
changes to the tax act further complicates an already far too
complicated tax code. I think all members of the House agree
that the tax code is too complicated.
My colleague from the New Democratic Party was speaking of the
complicated tax code. One of the Liberal members suggested that
he hire a tax lawyer. It should not be necessary for a Canadian
to hire a tax lawyer to deal with his or her own government, to
effectively represent themselves.
1200
Over the past 20 years the tax code has become increasingly
complicated, increasingly Byzantine, to the extent now that in
every budget Canadians can expect the tax code to become further
complicated, more difficult to understand and to increase the
need for Canadians to hire tax accountants just to read some of
the books the hon. member from the New Democratic Party
described. There are also clinics for people to learn how to,
not evade taxes because that is illegal, but to avoid taxes or
pay less taxes. Canadians, in some cases, are investing abroad
in places like the Cayman Islands or looking for tax shelters in
other jurisdictions.
All Canadians would benefit not just from reduced levels of
taxation and more broadly based tax reduction but from a
simplified tax code. This is an area that I would argue is tied
in directly with productivity. One of the barriers to success,
to entry for entrepreneurs and to entry to the free market is a
complicated tax code. Currently the tax code is a barrier.
We need to ensure, relative to other jurisdictions, that
Canadians are not paying disproportionately more because they are
Canadians. Currently they are. The Mintz report on taxation,
which was presented to the House of Commons finance committee I
believe in early June, gave some very concrete examples of the
discrepancies between Canadian business taxes and the U.S.
business tax system, both in terms that we are paying more and in
terms of some fundamental differences in the tax code that should
be addressed so as not to disadvantage Canadian businesses and
therefore Canadians.
The government speaks of the fundamentals of the Canadian
economy and says the fundamentals are strong. I remind members
and Canadians of what those fundamentals are. We have seen
personal disposable income drop 9% in recent years. In the same
period we have seen U.S. personal disposable income increase by
11%. We have the lowest productivity growth of any G-7 country.
We have record high rates of personal bankruptcy.
We have a negative savings rate. Canadians are in fact going
behind a bit every year. They are not saving but falling behind.
They are digging into their pockets and into their savings in
order to make ends meet and stay ahead of the game.
There have been some enhancements which are laudable to RESP
flexibility for people to transfer funds to RESPs. Those types
of changes do not benefit Canadians if they cannot afford to
contribute to an RRSP in the first place. It is a difficult
challenge to invest in RRSPs. I know mutual fund sales are off
conservatively this year. I expect when the numbers are tabled
we will see that RRSP contributions are also down this year.
The unused portions of RRSPs is mammoth in Canada. Canadians
have not been able to exercise their RRSP contributions to the
full extent. Why? They are paying too much taxes.
In 1993 the total federal tax take of the government was, I
believe, $112 billion. This had risen to $150 billion by last
year. This growth of approximately 25% in federal taxes has come
directly from the pockets of Canadians at a time when they have
seen federal spending on health care decline dramatically by $16
billion in round figures, although some say it is as high as $18
billion. They also see that the provinces have received less in
transfers from the federal government.
There is one taxpayer and that taxpayer has borne the brunt of
deficit reduction over the last several years. They deserve, at
this time, an opportunity to reap some of the rewards for those
sacrifices they have made.
1205
It is no good for the government to be in the black if
individual taxpayers are in the red. That is currently the case.
We have the highest rate ever of personal bankruptcies. We have
the highest rates of personal debt ever. This is a frightening
statistic if we consider the impact for instance of global
deflation trends which some say are threatening.
Wealth is a relative concept. It is not really a singular
criterion. One's wealth or a country's wealth is a comparative
figure. We compare the wealth of a country and the wealth of
individuals in that country to the wealth of individuals in other
countries. We are at a time when we are telling Canadians they
have to invest more to save for their retirement, they have to
protect their own retirement funds because the CPP is rather
dubious in terms of its ability to provide the kinds of
retirement incomes Canadians will need in the future.
We are telling Canadians to invest more and to take greater
responsibility for their own retirements. At the same time we
are forcing Canadians to invest 80% of their RRSP investments
within Canada. This is perverse. The Dow Jones, which recently
cracked the 10,000 mark, has performed extraordinarily well in
recent years. Since 1993, when this government was elected, the
Dow Jones has increased by 172%. The Standard and Poor's, S & P,
is up by 180%, both U.S. markets of course.
The TSE is up only 60% since 1993. That may seem like a lot but
in a relative sense it is not. Our domestic equities markets are
grossly underperforming equities markets in the U.S. and
elsewhere. Canadians in a relative sense have become poorer.
This perverse policy of forcing Canadians to invest in one
jurisdiction or another and denying them the opportunity to
achieve geographic diversification is wrong.
At the same time we have seen the Canadian dollar decline by 16%
relative to the U.S. dollar. Not only are the government's
policies of reduced productivity, high taxes and disincentives
for success denying Canadians growth in their own economy but its
policy on RRSPs is actually denying Canadians growth for their
retirement incomes anywhere. This is perversely wrong. If the
government cannot get its act straight in terms of running this
economy to benefit Canadians, it should not force Canadians to
invest where they will not be able to maximize their returns
where there are opportunities and where there are governments
elsewhere that are doing a better job of creating opportunities.
The recent KPMG study commissioned by the government to study
the cost of doing business in Canada has been lauded by the
government and used as a tool to demonstrate its somehow good
economic management of the country. The KPMG study effectively
said that Canada is a cheap place to do business, that we have
low real estate costs, that our labour costs in a relative sense
are less. It said that basically doing business in Canada would
cost less than doing business in some other jurisdictions.
If our economy were clicking on all cylinders, as the Minister
of Finance has asserted in the House in recent weeks, the price
of doing business in Canada would be quite a bit higher. With
economic growth come economic cost increases and upward
pressures. The reason the cost factors are not growing
significantly in Canada is that we have not had the sustained
economic growth that has been enjoyed by other jurisdictions.
The KPMG study points to a fundamental flaw of this government's
policies and to the fact that we are not achieving that level of
economic growth Canadians would be capable of achieving if the
government were to make a significant step toward providing broad
based tax relief to Canadians and toward providing Canadians with
an opportunity to succeed in their own country.
1210
The reason why young Canadians seeking greater opportunities are
leaving Canada and going to the U.S. is that while they may
recognize there may be greater costs, there are greater
opportunities. They are willing to make that choice. Perhaps
members opposite should stand along the borders, waving the KPMG
report in the faces of Canadians as they leave and say please do
not go, it is cheaper here.
This is like the Kmart or Zellers or Wal-Mart approach to
economic development. We cannot get better in this country by
devaluing our way to prosperity. During the summer when our
dollar was hitting record lows the Prime Minister said it was
good for tourism. The logical corollary of his argument was that
if we reduced our dollar to zero we could give away all our goods
and become the greatest exporting nation in the world. This is
insane. We cannot devalue our way to prosperity. We need to
significantly invest in Canadian productivity initiatives to
ensure that Canadians have an opportunity to participate in the
economic growth and are not inhibited by government policies that
hold them back.
The government did not address some of those fundamental issues
I described. It is looking at different fundamentals than the
ones I see. When the government says fundamentals of the economy
are strong it reminds me of what expatriate Canadian economist
John Kenneth Galbraith said, to beware of governments that say
the fundamentals are strong. Galbraith had a point. Usually
when governments say the fundamentals are strong they are trying
to hide something.
It is like a government where the industry minister says the
productivity is very bad in Canada and we have to do something
about it. In the same speech the industry minister says Canadians
are paying 20% higher taxes than in the U.S. Then the finance
minister says that is not so bad. Productivity is not bad.
Canadians are not concerned about their standard of living.
Perhaps this is an intentional effort by the government to create
confusion, to try to distract Canadians from the real issues.
Canadians are concerned. Canadians are increasingly concerned
about productivity. Canadians are increasingly concerned about
their standard of living. That the dollar hit record lows this
summer is directly correlated to the fact that our productivity
growth has continued to underperform that of our trading
partners. The dollar is linked very closely to productivity.
There has be a secular decline in the dollar over the past 30
years. We need to do something now to avert further currency
crises in this country. The best way to approach that is through
productivity. The best way to approach productivity is through
addressing some of the impediments to productivity, the
structural impediments we have in the Canadian economy. Those
include the highest income taxes of the G-7 countries.
There are structural impediments like interprovincial trade
barriers which deny Canadians the ability to gain a competitive
or comparative advantage within their country, a regulatory
burden like a toll highway which is an interprovincial barrier in
New Brunswick. The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has
raised this point in the House. His interventions have taken a
toll on this government.
There are issues of regulation. We have suggested as part of
our prebudget submission that the government have a regulatory
budget whereby regulations are costed. We take into account
several costs, not just the cost to the government of introducing
and enforcing a regulation but the cost to society, the cost to
Canadians for complying with those regulations. Then those costs
are compared, particularly the cost of compliance which is
egregiously high for Canadians, to the actual dollar value of the
benefit of that regulation.
Having a regulatory budget and choosing some departments each
year to be scrutinized in this way would force governments to
make the same types of decisions with Canadians' money that they
make with their own in a fiscal budget. That would be one step
in addressing the regulatory burden we have which by all accounts
is excessive and does inhibit productivity and growth.
The government has no core industrial strategy. It has no
agenda on an area as important as industrial strategy at a time
when we are entering the 21st century. It is at a time when
change is occurring at an ever increasingly rapid pace. It is at
a time when we need government to take significant action on a
number of fronts and provide meaningful visionary leadership on a
number of issues, including tax reform. This government is on
cruise control.
It is a caretaker government.
1215
I said in the House before that we had a budget surplus and a
leadership deficit. I think in fact that is the case. It is a
perilous time for Canada to suffer from this leadership deficit.
At this time we need governments to make strong decisions. We
need the types of policies the previous government engaged in,
for instance, policies like free trade, policies like the
elimination of the manufacturers sales tax, and policies like
deregulation of financial services, transportation and industry.
Those were the types of visionary policies that were necessary
then and were brought into being by a legislatively active
government, not a government that would even consider proroguing
halfway through its term because it did not have anything to do.
In fact since that time the challenges have become greater for
Canadians. Since that time it has become even more important
that we have governments taking strong steps and doing the right
sorts of things.
The Economist magazine in its January edition last year
indicated that the elimination of the deficit in Canada was
largely due to structural changes made to the Canadian economy by
the previous government. Those were the types of visionary
changes I just described, whether it is free trade or elimination
of the manufacturers sales tax. Unfortunately these types of
policies are not forthcoming.
The government has seen fit to continue its huge tax grab on the
EI fund, taking $19 billion from workers and employers. At the
same time it is slashing benefits and punishing seasonal
employment. The government does not consider the law of
unintended consequences when it implements policies. It looked
at seasonal workers and said that it would cut benefits to them.
Many seasonal workers are not working at all now and are living
on provincial social assistance.
It took people who were contributing, who were working, and
denied them any opportunity to participate at all. Farms in the
Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia cannot find seasonal workers now
because if they do seasonal work they will lose their benefits.
Direct disincentives have been created for people to do what they
want to do, to go out and work. The government did not replace
it with a co-ordination effort to provide Canadians who were
employed in seasonal work with an opportunity to work in various
industry sectors.
There are serious issues. There are serious problems. A
further complicated tax code is not the answer. I have not had
one constituent ask me to complicate the tax code. Broad based
tax relief is part of the answer as well as an industrial
strategy which will make Canada a richer country, not a poorer
country, in the 21st century.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a
bit disappointed in my colleague's comments when he talked about
leadership. If anything, the government has provided the kind of
leadership that is required to move us into the next century.
We inherited a government with a very huge deficit and debt,
high interest rates and a high unemployment rate. We turned it
around in a matter of six years into one of the finest countries
in the world. We are leading the G-7 in terms of growth and we
have balanced the books.
My colleague talked about productivity. That is a very
important subject, but it can also be very subjective when one
gives his or her views on the question of productivity. If
productivity means the net worth of a society is a positive then
we are very productive. If a country is productive and the net
growth is more jobs being created than being lost then we are
productive. If we look at leading sectors of the economy such as
high technology, transportation and others to see what we are
doing on the international scene and in the regional market then
we are a productive society.
1220
Certainly looking at productivity in a very subjective way, like
looking at a flock of birds going after one worm, is not
productivity. There is not enough food to feed every one of
those birds. I would caution my colleague not to point a finger
and use labels that will create more confusion than
understanding.
I am sure my colleague will agree that overall the government
has provided Canadians with the necessary leadership. The
government has given us a stable environment for business and for
the economy to grow. Government does not create jobs. Government
creates the proper environment for job creation. The private
sector creates jobs. All government has to do is get out of the
way of the private sector so that it can create jobs.
This gentleman, from a party that has given us the worst ever
deficit in the history of the country, gives us a lecture in
terms of what is good for Canadians. He should stand and reverse
his speech to tell the public how good the government has been,
not only to his party or what is left of it but to people as a
whole.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his insightful and erudite intervention.
The fact is that the previous government, the Progressive
Conservative government, reduced the deficit as a percentage of
GDP from 9% when it took office to a little over 5% when it left
office. The PC government of Brian Mulroney inherited a $38
billion deficit in 1984. The Liberals know a lot about deficit
and debt because they built debts and deficits from the late
sixties and the seventies.
The types of visionary policies that were implemented by the
previous government resulted in this government's ability to
reduce the deficit. Many members opposite are the same members
who railed against the GST and against free trade. They then
embraced those policies because they recognized that those
policies would make a difference and that those were policies
Canada needed at a very important time. Once they were elected
they recognized those were the right policies.
Back in 1974 Trudeau threatened and scare mongered Canadians by
saying that wage and price controls would be a bad thing. After
the election he implemented Bob Stanfield's idea of wage and
price controls. Oil was 18 cents a gallon.
Some parties are talking about corporate reimaging and new
names. The Liberal Party of Canada should be called the
flip-flop party of Canada because that party will stand for
anything to get elected and, once elected, stand on any Canadian
to implement its agenda of high taxes and cuts to areas that are
important to Canadians like health care.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to address a couple of points raised by the member. He
talked about disposable income in Canada going down by 9%, but he
did not explain to Canadians why disposable income apparently
went down. He did not talk about the fact that disposable income
means net paycheque and how that has changed.
Let us look at the impact of contributions to RRSPs, reduced
taxable income which reduces the tax burden but also shows a
lower net pay. The former child exemption was taken out of the
tax act and became the child tax benefit and the national child
benefit program. Taxes went up but the benefit came from
outside. It was similar with the GST rebate and health spending.
If we want to compare ourselves with the U.S. we have to
understand that Canadians do not pay for health care. We have a
not for profit system whereas in the U.S. it is for profit. U.S.
incomes have gone up simply because their cost of health care is
going up astronomically relative to what it is in Canada.
The member has made a serious error. He should acknowledge it
and explain to the House that he was in error. He said that in
1993 the personal income tax revenue to the federal government
was $112 billion. He then went on to refer to more recent
numbers, I believe it was 1998, and say that the projection was
$150 billion.
He also said that was 25% more out of the pockets of Canadians.
He did not say that in 1993 the unemployment rate in Canada was
11.2%. Now it is 7.8%. There are 1.5 million more Canadians
working and paying taxes. The increase that he attributes to
Canadians is not the same Canadians paying more tax; it is more
Canadians paying tax.
1225
The member should correct the error or the impression he has
left with the House. It is very important to know that personal
income tax revenue has increased primarily and exclusively
because more Canadians are working.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I made some notes during
the hon. member's question. I am glad he asked me to explain why
personal disposable income has dropped in Canada. Despite his
assertions to the contrary, Canadians pay more taxes now than
they did in 1993. They pay a higher percentage individually of
their paycheques to taxes. Due to the fact that the government
has not even addressed the issue of bracket creep, two million
low income Canadians are paying taxes now that would not have
been paying taxes otherwise.
I am glad the member mentioned the unemployment rate. He is
quite right that recently the unemployment rate has decreased.
Anyone who knows anything about economics recognizes that it
takes approximately five years at a minimum for economic policies
to have the impact of reducing unemployment. He is quite right
in acknowledging that the policies of the previous government
were successful after having been implemented and with the
passage of time in achieving a declining unemployment rate.
Policies like free trade are largely responsible for the type of
economic growth enjoyed by Canada at this juncture.
I do not want to remind the hon. member again where his party
stood on issues like free trade and the GST, but they stood
against the types of policies that have resulted in the growth
they are now boasting about.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about
costing things out. In the prebudget submission by the
Conservative Party it did everything except cost out what the
measures cost.
Let me help the hon. member. He referred to a whole bunch of
tax initiatives. What did they cost? They cost the treasury $17
billion. If the government were to adopt what that party would
like, we would be back in deficit. I am sure it would be way
above the $42 billion where it left us.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I guess the parliamentary
secretary decided not to read the costing at the back of our
budget plan “Unlocking Canada's Potential”. Over three years
we would have liked to have provided Canadians with $18 billion
of tax savings. In the first year we would be looking at about
$8 billion.
The hon. member is using Liberal math in this regard. That is
typical of a member and a government that utilize Liberal focus
group economics. I would gladly send the hon. member a
calculator and a copy of “Unlocking Canada's Potential”. In
the future for the next budget I suggest that he and his
government take our plan very seriously because we want to unlock
Canada's future for the 21st century. I hope his party starts
sharing that value.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
just past noon on the day after celebrating St. Patrick's Day I
want to say that I made several contributions last night to the
tax system along with my colleagues. I will temper my remarks
with the realization that that occurred.
1230
I say to the member opposite that it is really quite mind
boggling to sit here and listen to a member of the Progressive
Conservative caucus spend almost his entire time defending the
Brian Mulroney government. I really would have thought it would
be in his best interest to distance himself from that memory.
The Canadian people passed judgment and reduced that caucus in
1993 to a group large enough to fit into a phone booth. There
were a few more elected in the last election, primarily from
eastern Canada, and one from Ontario. Anyone would have thought
that those members really would not want to revisit what happened
during the Mulroney years.
Let us realize something. The 1980s were absolutely the best 10
years this country has enjoyed in terms of revenue, and yet that
government managed to run overdrafts every year during times of
tremendous prosperity. It is only since 1993 that the country
has been put back on track. I do not know that we will see the
kinds of increases in real estate values that local communities
enjoyed in the 1980s, but we certainly have a much stronger
economy today.
It is very hard to understand why a government would
intentionally, at times of high revenue, spend its revenue to the
point of running a $42 billion deficit.
Let us be clear. A deficit is an overdraft. What the member
neglected to mention is that the $42 billion was not a one time
thing. It was every year. That government intentionally, every
year, during times of high revenue, overspent when it should not
have.
During those times municipalities across Canada realized what
was happening. Municipalities put their houses in order.
Municipalities paid down their debt. My own city of Mississauga
is debt free. Municipalities across the country realized that
they had an opportunity during times of high revenue to put some
money away, to pay down debt, to not run deficits.
We hear about the cuts which this government has made. What
choice was there? Do we continue to spend into oblivion? Do we
continue to run up the overdraft and increase the debt?
Madam Speaker, I should mention that I am splitting my time with
the member for Mississauga South.
The way a government deals with its finances is to run that
overdraft or deficit until it gets to the end of the budget year.
Then it takes that deficit and piles it on top of the debt.
That, in essence, is how we have arrived at such a large debt.
This government has made commitments. We have reduced the debt
by $20 billion. In two successive budgets we have reduced taxes.
Is it enough of a reduction? Of course not. I would like to see
more. My constituents would like to see more in the way of tax
reductions. I believe they will. That is a commitment that our
finance minister has made.
To stand and simply, in many instances, mislead people with some
of these statements and accusations about our tax system does an
injustice to the Canadian people. We should tell them the facts.
Is our tax system complicated? You bet it is. Should we review
it to see if we can smooth it out? I think we should. In fact
the federal government has negotiated harmonization agreements
with some provinces and attempted to do it with others.
Would harmonization mean that since there is only one taxpayer
that maybe we should have one tax collector instead of the very
complicated system that we have in this country?
This government would not be afraid to admit that the tax system
is complicated. It has been built, layer upon layer, over the
years, which makes it extremely difficult for the average
Canadian to understand or for the average member of parliament to
understand.
I want to pay tribute to a group which I think is doing some
very good work to help particularly low income Canadians
understand the tax system.
It is a group made up of volunteer chartered accountants and CA
students, sponsored by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of
Ontario, which runs free tax clinics to help thousands of low
income Canadians fill out their tax forms and pay their taxes.
1235
Just by way of a little commercial to the taxpayers, since we
are coming up to that time, the Institute of Chartered
Accountants can be reached at 1-800-387-0735, extension 462.
People can call them and get free advice on dealing with the very
complicated matter of filing their income tax.
I want to congratulate the institute. I think it is a very
positive thing and something from which the taxpayers will
clearly benefit.
I want to return to the issue of harmonization. I have said in
this place before that this country has a large number of taxes,
and people do pay a fair amount of money, so it seems to me that
there should be a way to streamline and reduce the collection
process.
We have done that in some parts of the country. I think we need
to continue talking about it, but the provinces tend not to want
to do that. They do not want to give up their fiefdoms. I guess
that is understandable, except that they know as well as we do
that there is only one taxpayer.
The bill that we are dealing with will amend the Income Tax Act.
Instead of talking about somebody's poor memory as to what went
on in the Mulroney years and the size of the deficit, I have not
heard anybody talking about the specific amendments, so I
researched some of them and I want to share them. I think they
are pretty good and Canadians should know about them.
This bill will introduce a new non-refundable tax credit for
individuals to an annual maximum of $500. Canadians need to know
that when they are filling out their tax forms. They should ask
their accountants about it. Or if they are going to the clinic
sponsored by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, they should
ask about it. It reduces the surtax, which is something we heard
many people calling for. This bill does that.
This measure I think is very important. The homebuyers plan
will be modified to allow for tax free withdrawals from RRSPs to
acquire homes for disabled individuals, whether or not they are
first time homebuyers. That is a very significant issue. It
shows that we recognize that the disabled community needs some
assistance in buying homes. Obviously, if their disability
inhibits their ability to earn income, they need help.
Therefore, not only first time homebuyers, but people who are
disabled will actually be able to draw from an RRSP to buy a
home. I think it is a terrific idea.
There is a tax credit for interest on student loans. We hear
about the debt burden of students. The one thing that we should
recognize when we do an analysis is that, if the taxes are high,
what is the other side of it? We have heard Reform members say
they would bring in user fees. The cost of university in this
country is substantially lower, probably four times lower than
the cost of a similar university program in the United States.
We know that the Reform Party believes in two tier health care.
We do not. We believe that should be funded through the tax
system. We are absolutely opposed to the two tier health system
that these folks talk about.
I have run out of time, but there are a lot of other areas which
I would like to mention. There is a tax credit for caregivers.
There is recognition of part time education and single moms.
There are all kinds of serious benefits for the taxpayer in this
bill. It is beyond me why everybody in the House would not
support it so that we could get the message out and concentrate
on communicating the facts instead of misleading the Canadian
public.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as usual I found the emissions from this member to be
rather interesting, particularly the commercial for the CA group,
when he himself, this Liberal of great high esteem, admitted very
freely that to file one's income tax is a complicated matter.
1240
He knows full well that this government has had opportunities to
simplify the tax system since 1993 and prior to the nine-year
sabbatical given to the Liberals by Brian Mulroney. Yet his
government has done nothing to simplify the tax system.
I found it very gratifying to hear this member freely admit that
the income tax system is so complicated that he was happy to give
out the 1-800 number to give people a hand. It would be nice if
he were to do his work and if the members of his party were to do
their work to simplify the tax system so that people would not
have to make that phone call.
I draw the attention of the House to the issue of the two tier
health care system which was created by the Liberals. People who
are desperate or people who have money can go to the United
States, thanks to this government, thanks to its $16.5 billion
gutting of the transfer payments to the provinces.
The hon. member and his Liberal colleagues are very proud of the
fact that supposedly we have a balanced budget. He fails to take
into account the rip-off of working people through the so-called
employment insurance fund. That is not a premium; it is a tax.
It is a tax because far more money goes into general revenue than
ever goes out in benefits. It is this government that has cut
back on the benefits, cut back on the benefit periods and cut
back on the benefit program so that it would end up with a
surplus. On the backs of employers and employees it has managed
to come up with this myth of having a balanced budget.
I know the hon. member comes from Ontario, which has the
excellent government of Mike Harris. That Conservative
government has decreased taxes, which is something the finance
minister and the Liberals do not understand. That has resulted
in the most vibrant economy in the entire Dominion of Canada.
Is it not about time for us to have some truth, some truth about
the fact that there is far more going into the employment
insurance fund than is coming out because of the cutting, hacking
and slashing of the Liberals? The fact is that they are managing
to talk about a balanced budget because they are ripping off the
employers and employees who are forced to pay into the employment
insurance system.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, the member of the
Reform Party typically talks about cuts to the provinces for
health care of $16 billion over the mandate. He does not talk
about the $11.5 billion in one budget, in one fell swoop, that
was put back into the system.
Reformers have actually said that they would take 50% of the
surplus to pay down the debt and 50% to reduce taxes. Then they
say that they will take another 50% to put into health care and
maybe another 50% for something else. Come on. Do they think
the Canadian people are stupid? They know the cuts the Reform
Party has proposed in its campaign documentation. It would slash
anything to do with heritage. It would cut the military. It
would introduce two tier health care. It would destroy the
relationships between the federal government and the provinces.
With regard to the EI fund, this government has balanced the
books of this country and the EI surplus exists because the
economy is strong, because we have created jobs. There are 1.6
million more Canadians working since this government took office.
Our facts are very clear. The Reform is just blowing smoke.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
today the House is debating the implementation of the 1998
budget; not the budget that was just delivered by the finance
minister, but matters relating to the budget of the prior year.
The parliamentary secretary has reviewed very well the many
important initiatives that were included in that budget.
I will spend my time replying to some of the comments made by
hon. members in this debate because I believe there is some
clarification necessary.
1245
The member from the Conservative Party talked about personal
income tax revenue to the federal government. He pointed out
that in 1993, when the government took office, personal income
tax revenue amounted to some $112 billion. He also said that in
1998 the amount of personal income tax revenue collected by the
federal government was some $150 billion. It is a $38 billion
increase in personal income tax revenue.
He went on to suggest that this represents a 25% increase in the
personal income tax burden of Canadians. To leave it like that
is not correct. It is an error to leave the impression that
somehow the personal income tax burden of Canadians actually
increased some 25%.
The truth is that in 1993 the unemployment rate in Canada was
11.2%. In 1998 the unemployment rate dropped to 8%. If the
unemployment rate goes down that must mean more people are
working in Canada, and indeed 1.6 million more Canadians are
working and they are paying their fair share of income taxes. It
adds to the personal tax revenue of the Government of Canada.
The increase does not have to do with rising rates of income
taxation or some sort of penalty by eliminating deductions that were
otherwise available to Canadians back in 1993. It has
exclusively to do with the fact that there are more Canadians
working.
I point that out because Canadians should understand that in
this place sometimes there is the tendency to provide a little
information but not all of it and it would tend to lead to one
conclusion when in fact the full story would lead to quite
another. That is part of the caution that anybody watching the
debates in the House of Commons should take. It comes to an
issue of credibility.
If in this place members debate and present information
principally by providing selective information rather than full
information, they put the credibility of themselves as well as
the credibility of this place on the line when they do not tell
the whole story.
The principal spokesman for the Reform Party, the member for
Lakeland, spoke for some 40 minutes and talked about income taxes
again. I wrote some notes from his comments about the level of
taxation. Certainly there is a lot of interest in Canada to have
lower income tax levels so that we can have more disposable
income. There is a ripple effect in terms of jobs creation, et
cetera.
The principal spokesman, the lead spokesman for the Reform Party
of Canada, spoke for 40 minutes. He was not subject to questions
and comments. He provided certain information to the House which
again was grossly in error and totally incomplete as far as what
the true facts are.
I have to put on the record what in fact the issue is with
regard to the taxation rates of Canadians. I sat down and in a
very general way and calculated the income tax burden of someone
who is making $60,000 a year in Canada. I used no general
deductions such as RRSPs or any other. It was simply done as an
employee who makes $60,000. We know they get a basic
non-refundable tax credit of $6,542.
1250
There are also tax credits for any amount they paid for EI
premiums and CPP premiums. When they deduct that approximate
$7,000 they get an amount of income of some $53,000. On $53,000
the taxpayer would pay 17% on the first $30,000, which is $5,100.
They would pay 26% on the remaining $23,000, which is $5,980.
The approximate federal tax burden is $11,000. Provinces have
different rates. For discussion purposes, if we assume a
provincial income tax rate of 50% of the federal taxes payable
that means that the total federal-provincial tax bill to a
Canadian making $60,000 a year is $16,600. As a per cent of the
gross income of $60,000 that is 27.7%. A single person making
$60,000 pays an income tax rate of 27.7%.
I went further and looked at what the tax burden was for someone
who was making $35,000 a year. Similarly they get the basic
non-refundable tax credit and a couple of notional tax credits
for CPP and EI premiums paid. When we take that roughly $7,000
off the $35,000, it means that the first amount of $30,000 at a
rate of 17% is $5,100 and the balance of the $5,000 is taxed at
26%. If we do a quick calculation, including the gross up for
the provincial tax payable, we will find that the effective tax
rate for someone making about $30,000 is a little over 20%.
I went even further. I looked at somebody making $20,000 a
year. With the notional reductions, et cetera, their tax rate is
less than that still. We go from 27% to 20%.
When I looked at these things I understood the actual burden of
taxes. I have seen articles in newspapers where parliamentary
journalists who have been here a long time continue to talk about
Canadians paying a 50% tax rate, which is the highest marginal
rate they would pay on taxable income over $59,180. Ninety per
cent of all Canadians pay a rate of taxation somewhere between
20% and 30%.
Here is the point. The principal spokesman for the Reform Party
on this said we need tax relief in Canada. What we need to do is
bring down the income tax burden on Canadians to between 20% and
30%. If we look at what I just laid out in terms of the tax
burden on Canadians, it ranges from 20% to 30% for those who are
making $60,000 or less. The only conclusion I can reach is that
the Reform Party is calling for lowering the income tax burden
for Canadians who are making more than $60,000 a year. That
represents about 10% of all income tax payers. It is effectively
a call based on the true reported results of Revenue Canada on
who pays how much taxes and at what rates. It is actually a
dedicated policy of the Reform Party to reduce taxes for the
highest 10% income earners.
This shows precisely why Canadians have to look very carefully
when people make representations such as the Reform Party and the
Conservative Party have made. They have provided very little
factual information. It has been more rhetoric than accuracy.
I hope all members will take to heart that in our income tax
system only 10% of Canadians make more than $60,000 a year.
Across the board tax increases, particularly those that affect
those at the highest marginal bracket, are not in the best
interests of all Canadians. That is why this government has
provided tax relief targeted directly and more specifically at
low and middle income Canadians.
1255
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the participation of the member opposite who is a
member of the finance committee. I believe he is a very astute
member of that committee and mostly does his math right.
I was very interested in his presentation of the facts. I
believe his characterization of our members is not accurately
portraying the facts and is probably a bit of stretch, if I can
be kind. We do have a deep desire on this side of the House to
deal with the facts, to debate the issues and to avoid personal
attacks such as we get from the member who spoke before him over
and over again to the point where it really does decrease the
respect people have for members of parliament.
He thought Reform's agenda was just to reduce the taxes for
those who make over $60,000. We know there are marginal tax
rates which are so very important to many Canadians, in
particular to poor Canadians. If we take into account moving out
of the income bracket where one is eligible for some of these
so-called benefits the Liberal government and the Conservative
government before it arranged in the tax system for people, when
we think of the loss of eligibility for those programs, as one's
income goes up the effective tax clawback or tax rate on that
marginal income is extremely high.
Unfortunately I do not have the numbers with me but one the
calculations I saw put that number at around 60%. I think the
income level was around $25,000 a year for a family. If it
earned more money because of the total impact not just in the tax
scheme but on the family budget, it meant that basically some 60%
of its additional earnings was lost. It was not effective to
give it more income.
With respect to the so-called rich, we know that many families
earning $60,000 and more are just ordinary families nowadays
trying to make ends meet. Both people are working because they
cannot live on one income. Many of them are forced into that. We
know that the marginal tax rate is around 50% when one combines
federal and the provincial taxes. I do not think that I have
ever heard of a person whose annual income is $1 million a year
paying anywhere near $500,000 in taxes. For the hon. member to
accuse us of wanting to give a tax break to the very wealthy is
perhaps empty because it seems to me that the very wealthy
already do avoid those taxes.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, again, these are two very
good examples of how the presentation of information would tend
to lead to one conclusion because it is explained in a very
selective way.
If someone has worked for some time during the year and would be
off due to layoff or for whatever reason and qualify for benefits
and receive those during the same taxation year, under our system
of employment insurance now Canadians who make over $48,000 and
also have received employment insurance benefits would be
required to repay a portion of that based on how much income they
earned over $48,000.
The Reform Party has just described a situation and talked about
60% tax rates and so on. Reformers are basically saying if
someone made $60,000 and part of that was employment insurance
benefits and they had to give it back to the government because
they made too much money, that would be effectively a 100% tax
rate. That is how they get these high numbers because they
assume if one has to give back what they should not have received
in the first place, it is equivalent to a 100% tax rate.
It is the exact argument that was used with regard to the
proposed seniors benefit.
1300
The member raised a second item with regard to whether a million
dollar taxpayer pays $500,000. He pays a 17% federal rate on the
first $30,000, 26% on the next $30,000 and 29% on anything in
excess of that plus 50% federal. If it is an employee with a T4
slip he or she will pay very close to $500,000 on a million
dollars of taxable income.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
interesting to debate this issue today. I remind all members
present, at least those who are awake and paying attention, that
we are debating Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and
to implement some of the measures announced in the budget not
this year but last year. I took note of the fact that it was on
February 24, 1998 that the budget speech was given which promoted
and put into effect the issues we are now debating.
I need to take the first few minutes of my speech to talk about
that process. I have high respect for the Government of Canada,
not necessarily the government that is currently in power but for
the concept of government in Canada. I have a high respect for
democracy and it is appropriate for us to be aware that there is
a serious flaw.
Traditionally budget measures are kept secret. There are some
valid reasons for that. It is possible that if people know in
advance of substantial changes in tax structures or government
benefits or programs they could either buy low and sell high or
make some other financial decisions that could benefit them at
lot personally. It has been a tradition that budget matters have
been confidential.
However, we have noticed in the last three or four years that
the budget is not confidential at all. I think the Liberals are
trying to deal with one of the problems arising from this fact.
They are getting a smaller and smaller kick from the budget
speech since most of the details are announced on Monday and the
speech is given on Tuesday. They selectively and incorrectly
leak information to the press.
Another thing that is rather inappropriate—and it is not that
people have a chance to talk about it before the budget is
announced, though that is a violation of a principle of
parliament—is that we have no way of influencing the budget.
There is no mechanism in Canada's parliament to actually change
these things because of the way it happens.
The finance minister, probably the Prime Minister and several
other bureaucrats sit in a small room somewhere and come up with
these schemes. It is no secret that a lot of these schemes are
based on political considerations in the hope of getting
re-elected. Besides that a great deal of attention is paid to
messaging and communicating.
I am in favour of good communication. Let us communicate the
truth to the people. The way they communicate is very important
because they want people to believe certain things about what
they are doing to maximize their chances of re-election. If I
can put it bluntly, they just want to look good. I suppose there
is nothing wrong with that. My colleague from Crowfoot and I
like to look good. There is nothing wrong with wanting to look
good but we need to be realistic.
Some 387 days after that budget was presented by the finance
minister we are now debating it. It is a farce because at the
end of this debate there will be a vote and there is no way we
will be able to reverse what the finance minister announced on
February 24, 1998. We know that, because government members are
forced to vote for these measures.
It has to do with the ridiculous notion that if we ever vote
against a government money measure it somehow shows lack of
confidence in the government and we therefore need to have an
election.
1305
While members stand to vote, presumably on Bill C-72, they will
actually be standing to declare their desire not to have an
election. That is totally absurd. One should not have to answer
one question when the result applies to something totally
different.
We in the House need the ability as individual members of
parliament to speak and to vote against measures that are to the
detriment of Canadian taxpayers. We need a way of amending and
actually altering legislation in a meaningful way so that the
Canadian citizen, the Canadian taxpayer, is represented in a
tangible way that protects his or her interests.
The NDP member from Kamloops actually stole part of my speech.
In preparation for speaking today I obtained a copy of Bill C-72.
I know, probably more than anyone in the House, that I cannot use
props. This is not a prop. It is just a copy of a 157 page
bill.
As an opposition member of parliament whose job it is to find
ways in which legislation can be improved and to give
alternatives to the Canadian people, I find it distressing that
the things announced by the Minister of Finance over a year ago
could be brought before the House in a bill that was tabled on
March 16, 1999. Today is March 18. The bill was first
introduced a scant two days ago. As I have said it is 157 pages
long in both official languages. We could cut it in half in
terms of functional reading in either one of the languages.
The member from Kamloops read a part of the Income Tax Act and
we all just about broke up. It was a comedy act. It was an
endless stream of incomprehensible gibberish. I did not even
look at the Income Tax Act. I looked at the bill which amends
the act and other acts. The bill amends the Canada-U.S. Tax
Convention Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act,
the Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowances Act and
certain acts related to the Income Tax Act.
I did the same as the member. I opened Bill C-72 and began to
read it. I will not perform the same act he did because it would
look as if I were copying him. However, when preparing for my
speech I thought I should just read some of the bill so Canadians
would know how convoluted it is. Let me read from page 104:
—if the completion date in respect of an eligible amount
received by the individual was in the preceding tax year, the
total of all amounts each of which is designated under subsection
(3) by the individual for the particular year or any preceding
taxation year included in the particular period, and
(b) in any other case, the amount designated under subsection (3)
by the individual for the particular year.
That is only one of the sections. I suppose if we really worked
we could understand it, but it is very complicated. There are
also formulas that apply in the Income Tax Act. It goes on and
on. It is totally convoluted.
1310
We need a debate on the issue before us which gives us the
ability to look at the bill in detail and to propose amendments.
We need a mechanism in parliament whereby we could say that an
amendment was necessary. If we are able by debate to persuade
the majority of members in the House, regardless of what their
whips tell them, that collectively in our wisdom something should
be changed, then it should be changed. It should not involve a
vote of confidence in the government. It should not involve the
question of having another election. It should be that we are
making a law for the people and should do it better. There is no
mechanism to improve anything.
We are debating a bill over a year after the budget was
presented. In the end we will go through a robot-like vote and
it will be passed. It will go to the Senate and will be passed.
Everything is done in lock-step. It is just absolutely
ridiculous.
I have a quote which I have used in the House before. It will
read it again because it is appropriate. There are endless
convoluted rules. We need tax lawyers to compute one page of it.
I suppose one could say it is a classic. It is by Alexis de
Tocqueville, a very famous historian and politician who visited
America and wrote a four volume book called Democracy in
America. He observed how democracy works. I am a defender of
democracy, but I am also not so naive as to think we have reached
the apex of what it can be. There are a lot of areas to improve.
It reads:
—after having thus successfully taken each member of the
community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the
supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It
covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated
rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds
and the most energetic characters cannot perpetrate to rise above
the crowd. The will of man is not shattered but softened, bent
and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are
constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not
destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it
compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till
each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid
and industrial animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and
gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more
easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms
of freedom and that it might even establish itself under the wing
of the sovereignty of the people.
I believe that is what is happening here. I am amazed at the
amendments in the bill with respect to deducting RRSP money from
tax when used to educate children. On the surface it looks like
a wonderful idea because one can avoid paying taxes on some
income. I ask a fundamental question. What business is it of
any government to so minutely control all my financial decisions
by having such a high tax rate that the most important decision I
can make is how to avoid paying taxes?
The government, through pages and pages and pages of Income Tax
Act and amendments thereto, controls every minutia of my life and
the life of taxpayers out there. They have to decide to do one
thing instead of another. If they do not they cannot survive
because the government confiscates the money. That is a wrong
basis on which to govern.
1315
It is time that we got some economic freedom. We always talk
about freedom. We are economic slaves to the government. Half
or more of our income is confiscated by the different levels of
government which totally takes our freedom away from us.
It is to the point where families have to make decisions against
their initial will that both parents will enter the workplace to
provide for their own needs of life and for their family. People
are crunched into the corner. Who looks after the children while
both parents are working? The government imposes so many high
taxes on them that it is a necessity to go to work. Meanwhile
they are taxed to death. Half of what they earn goes to taxes.
I mentioned the example before. We have municipal taxes. We
have provincial taxes. We have income taxes. We have excise
taxes. We have import taxes. We have sin taxes. GST, HST. It
goes on and on and on. Every penny of GST we pay we have already
paid income tax on and the government takes more of the money
that has already been taxed and taxes it some more.
The same thing is true for my property tax. In Canada, I cannot
reduce my taxable income by the amount I use to pay my property
tax. I can if I am in business. Then there is a different rule,
another minute rule that controls our lives.
I am a husband with my wife trying to provide a place for my
family and I have to pay taxes to provide the basic services in
my community. I would venture to say I get a much more
substantial tax kick out of my municipal taxes than I do out of
my federal taxes in the amount paid and in what I personally
receive in benefits for myself and my family in terms of
services.
Every time I pay those taxes, say they are $2,400 a year, I have
to earn $4,000. I earn $4,000. The federal and provincial
governments take 40% of it. I am left with $2,400. I write a
cheque to the county where I reside and my $4,000 of earnings is
gone. Bingo, just like that. Zip. There is not a thing I can
do about it.
Meanwhile, we have all the minute details in this budget that
say “We want you to do this and we want you to do that”. The
tax code is arranged so that the government controls to the
smallest detail how a person spends the money they earn. I do not
believe it is entitled to do that to the degree it is done in
this country. It has gone completely overboard, totally.
I do not know if we will ever be able to achieve the system we
had when I was a student. This bill has some new rules on
interest payments on student loans. The Liberals in this
government and the Conservatives before them, have arranged for
the financing of students by putting a burden of debt on their
backs that crushes them.
They not only have their share of the federal debt and the
respective provincial debts which is $20,000 or $25,000 per
person. Students, our pages here, each one of them without having
lifted a finger already probably owes $20,000 of federal debt and
at least another $10,000 of provincial debt. There they are with
a $30,000 debt on their backs and they have not graduated from
school yet.
What does this government and the government before it do? They
arrange for these students to be able to get student loans while
the costs of education are rising exponentially. As a result, we
are told that many students now have student loans of $50,000 or
$60,000 when they graduate.
It sounds so wonderful. Bill C-72 says “We are going to make
it nicer for these students. We are going to allow them maybe
even to get forgiveness for part of their loan. We are going to
allow them to reduce their taxable income by the amount of their
loan”. That sounds wonderful, but it is a crock. It is a shame.
It is a crime that they have that debt load in the first place.
Why are citizens of this country. Why can we not provide a means
of education that students can afford?
1320
I am almost embarrassed about the fact that when I was a student
I earned more money in the summer than what I needed to live all
year. That included my housing, my food—I did not eat much, one
can tell—my tuition, my books, everything, and I had money left
over.
Students nowadays are lucky if they get a job and they are
burdened with debt. That has to end. Bill C-72 is more of this
nitpicking changing of little rules to control our lives. It
does not address the big problem at all.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask my colleague about one of the saddest things I
have seen since being elected to the House of Commons.
Mr. Unger, a constituent of mine, came into my office. He had
trouble with regard to a disability payment. He was having some
clawback with regard to his CPP and OAS. We looked into Mr.
Unger's case to see if we could help him out.
It was one of the saddest things. This man had been married to
his wife for over 30 years. He came in with his wife, they sat
down and told me that they had divorced because there were tax
advantages in their being two separate entities. They had ended
over 30 years of wedded bliss just so they could take advantage
of those tax incentives by being separate on their tax forms.
My hon. colleague has referred to some of these rules and
regulations. I would like him to speak on the matter of rules,
regulations, clauses and all the rest of these little details in
the tax act.
The Ungers are not the only ones to have come into my office.
The saddest thing about the Unger case and the reason it stands
out in my mind is that Mr. Unger died before we could rectify his
case. It was a crying shame. I have had several people come into
my office who have divorced after tens of years of marriage to
take advantage of those tax loopholes.
I would like the hon. member to comment on tax rules that
advocate and force people into those types of situations.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, it is really sad. If we stop
to think about it, this is incredibly sad. I used the quotation
from Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the words is “tyranny”. We
can use these tax rules to tyrannize our population, our
citizens.
The member has obviously brought forward an example that all of
us have encountered as members of parliament. People say “If I
did this or if I did that, if I got divorced instead of staying
together with my wife or my husband, I would actually gain in the
tax code”. If we in this place cannot arrange for a tax code to
be neutral on those decisions, then we are not doing our jobs
here.
I would like to see the government resign over this and call an
election. I know that might hit the news tonight but it is so
serious and that is what should happen. We should have an
opportunity as Canadian citizens to say to our government, “You
do not have the right to put that kind of minute rule into the
tax code that will affect that very important decision”. We are
living in an age when so many decisions are made based on tax
rules.
I remember not long ago I went to a one day seminar on
retirement planning. I came out shaking my head. About 85% or
90% of the time was spent on how to avoid and defer taxes. Only
about 10% was spent on how to make wise decisions and how to set
up plans, what is the best vehicle to provide for a retirement.
Of course, I am interested in this because having opted out of
the MP pension plan I am looking after myself and my wife. There
again, I cannot use the RRSP deduction for my wife who is
dependent on me. We made that choice. She does not directly
earn my income. She definitely shares in the work of earning the
money we have as a family but I cannot use it. If we were to make
another decision on how we run our lifestyle, then this would be
available. The tax code ought to stay out of my life.
1325
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to
hear the Reform Party. It is the opposition party so its job is
to oppose regardless of what provisions come before it.
The Reform Party did provide a prebudget submission. It called
for some $25 billion in cuts which essentially would have to be
paid for through program and service cuts. We already know the
Reform Party would cut $3.5 billion out of the CHST. The hon.
member talks about a concern for health care. The CHST goes to
support provincial governments in their pursuit of funding
post-secondary education. Would he cut research and development
or is it the child tax benefit?
It is easy to stand up in this House and say everything the
government is doing is wrong and that they can do it better. The
challenge comes—
An hon. member: That is what you used to do.
Mr. Tony Valeri: The hon. member across the way said that
is what we used to do. Canadians expect something more than that
kind of heckling from the member opposite. Canadians are looking
for progress and the ability to enter the next millennium on a
solid basis.
We have balanced the budget. I only point to the member for
Medicine Hat, the Reform Party's finance critic, who commented on
the 1998 budget which is the bill we are discussing. Perhaps the
member opposite could stand up and comment on the comment made by
the member for Medicine Hat who said “It does make it hard to
criticize. It is a significant financial accomplishment”. That
was said by the member for Medicine Hat, the finance critic for
the Reform Party.
At least the members opposite could stand up and say although
they may not agree with every measure, there are measures in the
bill which they feel they can support, and that they can support
the general direction of the government which is to ensure that
Canadians have a better future.
The member cannot question the ability or the intentions that we
as a government and as members on this side of the House will
continue to represent constituents in the best possible manner we
can. There are elements in this bill that support where
Canadians want to go and we will make sure they get there.
Mr. Ken Epp: Certainly, Madam Speaker, all my life I have
been a positive person. I have always said there is a little bad
in the best of us and a lot of good in the worst of us.
Yes, there are some things in this bill which are good and which
are commendable. If the hon. member opposite requires the ego
trip of having a Reformer commend him, I would say I commend him.
I commend him for making some of these changes because they are
in the right direction but fundamentally the whole philosophy is
still wrong.
If $1,000 has been taken away from a family every year, why
should the government be patted on the back because now only $500
will be taken? I know it is taxation and it is legitimate. It
is legitimate to have a level of taxation but what we have here
is the government intruding into the minute details of our lives
and I would like to just get the government out of my face.
In terms of financial positions, our overall philosophy is very
clear. We believe in leaving more of the money that individual
taxpayers have earned in their own hands. That is the overriding
philosophy. I believe in that very strongly.
I do not believe we should coerce Canadian citizens into an act
of submission and say to the government that they will give it
half of their earnings.
Members may want to check Hansard for one of my previous
member's statements where I talked about a theft. A guy came
into my house and took half of everything I had. I phoned the
police but they would not help me because the guy who took half
of everything I had was the taxman. I would be the one who would
get into trouble if I did not help him load. That is what is
happening here.
The taxation levels are way too high. That is why families are
in financial distress. Their total family income is adequate but
the total tax bite is so large that they cannot make ends meet.
That is a reality. I think it is time that this government woke
up to it. At the same time there are some measures here which
will slightly lessen that onerous load. For that I guess we
ought to get down on our knees and say we are grateful.
1330
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate at second reading of Bill
C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and to implement various
measures announced in the 1998 Liberal budget.
Members will remember—and I will be pleased to remind it to those
who do not—that, in 1998, when the Minister of Finance tabled his
budget, we strongly criticized it. We particularly condemned the
unfairness and the injustices contained in that budget, such as
the fact that the Liberal government was using funds—and I am
referring to the employment insurance fund—that belonged to
workers and employers to finance inadequate measures, given what
the Minister of Finance could do, in 1998 and this year, to help
improve the well-being of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers.
That basic criticism still applies. What we had against the 1998
budget still holds true today.
At the same time, the Bloc Quebecois said there were certain
measures in the budget that represented an improvement, given
the unfairness and flaws of the tax system. Some of the measures
announced in the 1998 budget had been promoted by the Bloc
Quebecois since the 1993 election.
The bill to implement the 1998 budget, namely Bill C-72, which is
before us today, does provide measures that are improvements.
Take for example the $500 increase for the personal tax credit,
the reduction in the personal income surtax, the home buyers
plan, the RRAP for the disabled, and the tax credit for interest
on student loans.
This was one of the first measures the Bloc Quebecois proposed
to the government as a way to help students in a general reform
of personal income tax. It has taken some time coming, but at
least the government is vindicating the Bloc Quebecois.
There are also measures such as the educational tax credit and
the child care deductions available to eligible part time
students. We also encouraged this sort of measure, and it
appeared in the 1998 budget.
The Bloc Quebecois also advocated deductions for child care
costs in general terms. Although in Quebec, with its
government's excellent policy on $5 daycare, the importance of
the deduction will decrease. But Quebeckers and Canadians still
currently benefit from this measure.
On the maximum $1,000 deduction for volunteer firefighters, we
supported this measure following representations by volunteer
fire brigades.
On the subject of raising the ceiling on investment in labour
sponsored venture capital firms from $3,500 to $5,000, we would
have had a hard time opposing it.
Let us render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The Bloc Quebecois
had proposed these measures as a step in the right direction.
In general terms, however, and I will provide reasons later in
my remarks, we found that the Minister of Finance did not do his
job well and could have done a lot better had he not so brazenly
hidden since 1994 the true picture of public finances and
especially the operations surplus he could have used on measures
much more consistent than these.
Nevertheless, these little measures following one after the
other were positive and, in our opinion, remain so and therefore
we are a little hard pressed to reject the whole thing saying it
is a matter of the past, should be set aside, with the result
that taxpayers who should be benefiting cannot.
1335
We are not completely comfortable with the amendment moved by
the Reform Party, which reads as follows:
We agree with the Reform Party with respect to the content, but
not with respect to the political approach they wish to take.
Just because one fundamental unfairness in the tax system has
not been eliminated does not mean we should toss the whole bill
out, that we should decline to go to second reading, even though
the bill contains certain amendments.
If we were to support the Reform Party amendment, we would find
ourselves in the situation of creating more unfairness than the
Reform Party claims to be eliminating. This makes no sense.
If, for instance, we rejected the $500 increase in the basic
personal tax credit, if we rejected the elimination of the
surtax for individuals, if we rejected the tax credit for
interest on student loans, would we be helping people in any
way? Would we be helping single income or other families?
As to the content, an overhaul of the tax system is clearly in
order. The Bloc Quebecois was among those who supported the
Reform Party in its efforts to eliminate the astonishing spread
between the amount of tax paid by a single income family with
children and the amount paid by a two income family with
children whose total income was the same.
There are also other inequities in the tax system. We will do
what we can, as we have since 1993, to improve the situation.
But we cannot approve of the Reform Party amendment. We would
be shooting ourselves in the foot, and only increasing tax
inequities by rejecting Bill C-72.
That said, if this might have seemed to be bouquets for the
government, now I would like to add some brickbats. Exactly
like the 1999 budget, the 1998 one contained precisely the same
fundamental defects for which we criticized the Minister of
Finance when he brought down his latest budget.
The minister has hidden the true face of public finances. In so
doing, he is not presenting the real possibilities there might
have been for righting the injustices in the taxation system,
for example by ensuring that the employment insurance surplus
remains in the hands of employers and workers and goes to
benefit the unemployed.
He could have done far more for students, for the disabled.
Where the fault lies with this Minister of Finance, the same one
we have had since 1994, is that he presents budgets to us that
contain unreliable figures. He tells us that he done all he can
do within the opportunities and the leeway available to him.
The problem is that the leeway he refers to is false. He does
not give us all the possibilities.
I would remind the hon. members of what we in the Bloc Quebecois
said in 1998, before the 1998 budget, and again in 1999. We
said it in 1997 and 1996 as well. Every year, the minister was
out by about 60% in his predictions, between 60 and 150% in his
predictions of the deficit and surplus, within six to eight
months.
We gave him the right figures. As far back as 1998, we told him
this, a number of months before the budget “You have the
opportunity, all throughout fiscal year 1998-99, to solve a lot
of problems, if you just tell us the truth, if you give us the
right figures, if you give us the true range of possibilities
offered by the actual surplus”.
1340
At that point, members no doubt recall, barely a few months
previously, we had tabled an analysis by the Bloc Quebecois,
well received by the Minister of Finance, of ways to reform the
personal and corporate tax system.
We had told him that he could as of that point—in 1998—start
changing personal taxes over a 12 month fiscal year by fully
indexing tax tables. He could have done so.
In 1998-99, we had set the surplus he would realize in the fiscal
year at a minimum of $10 billion.
Here we are in March 1999 and we see that the surplus for this
fiscal year will indeed surpass $10 billion.
He could have corrected these basic injustices, but he did not,
and this is what we are criticizing today.
The measures set out in Bill C-72 represent some improvement, but
it is minimal compared with what the Minister of Finance could
have done, this minister who is too lazy and who lacks
imagination and transparency when he reveals the true picture of
public finances.
I will simply give the House an example of the unfairness of the
tax system at the moment because it is not indexed. Let us
take, for example, the basic personal exemption in federal
income tax.
In the 1998 budget, the minister proposed the figure of $6,706.
The amount that he proposed in 1999, in the last budget, is
$7,131. If the minister had fully indexed that basic personal
exemption, it would not be $7,131 but close to $8,100 per
taxpayer. This is not negligible. The total figure for all
taxpayers represents a significant shortfall for Quebec and
Canadian families.
The same goes for the spousal amount. Given the proposed amount
in the 1998 and 1999 budgets, there is a shortfall of about $700
in the basic personal exemption. Seven hundred dollars helps
make ends meet, particularly if you are in the middle or lower
income category and have made the greatest contribution to help
this government puts its fiscal house in order. That money would
be helpful.
But there is worse.
The Bloc Quebecois condemned the unfairness resulting from
having two different tax treatments, depending on whether there
is one or two incomes in a family, and the amendment proposed by
the Reform Party seeks to correct that situation. However, that
unfairness is exacerbated and made worse by the fact that tax
brackets are not fully indexed.
Take the case of single income family, which pays more taxes
than a two income family with the same total income.
Let us assume that a single income family makes $36,500. That
family pays $1,118 more in taxes than it would if tax brackets
were fully indexed.
If we take a two income family earning the same total amount,
$36,500, but with both spouses paying taxes, this family pays
$272 more in taxes than it would if there were full indexing.
There is a terrible imbalance here. Whether we are dealing with
a single income family or a two income family, the difference in
the taxes paid for an equivalent income no longer make any
sense.
If only the tax brackets were fully indexed, as we have been
proposing since 1994, since we first set foot in the House. We
went further still in our comprehensive review of personal and
corporate taxes, but indexing has always been a sort of mantra
for the Bloc Quebecois.
1345
An examination of the tax rates for the various brackets shows
how ridiculous this is. For instance, taxes are 17% on the
first $29,590. With full indexing, and not just on the basic
exemptions, the rate would have been 17% on the first $36,918.
Up to $36,918, the rate would be 17%, while right now, without
indexing, it is 17% only up to $29,590.
It is the same for everything up to $29,591, and then up to
$59,180. This second bracket is taxed at 26%.
If there had been full indexation on this income level, the 26%
tax rate would have kicked in at between $36,919 and $73,838,
before going up another 3% to 29%.
It makes no sense that, even today, with the means available to
the Minister of Finance and the government, we are still at the
stage of not having given a minute's thought to satisfying the
bulk of Canadian taxpayers by fully indexing income tax
brackets.
Merely by fully indexing the $29,590 tax bracket at the 17% tax
rate, taking it up to $36,918, 70% of Canadian taxpayers would
be affected. This general measure would have beneficial
results.
All taxpayers would benefit, yet the Minister of Finance has not
responded to our invitation to correct such an injustice,
despite our telling him in 1998 that the surplus for the 1998-99
fiscal year offered him real possibilities for doing so.
Later this week we will be addressing 1999, and again he has not
responded. He has preferred a few little measures relating to
taxation rather than any overhaul, any overall planning.
I am beginning to agree with an editorialist at the Globe and
Mail, who said the other day that the Minister of Finance was
perhaps what it took to bring the deficit to zero with measures
that were and are totally questionable. However, he may not be
the right person to manage growth and surpluses.
When we see over the past two years what this man has done, when
there are huge needs and wide open possibilities, I start
agreeing with the editorialist at the Globe and Mail.
Let us talk about the unemployed. We were saying the same thing
in 1998. Things are worse for the unemployed in 1999. In 1998,
we rejected the budget of the Minister of Finance for one of the
basic reasons we gave for the 1999 budget as well, which is that
the unemployed are the real losers. Bill C-72 does not resolve
this issue.
The unemployed should benefit from the huge surpluses
accumulating since 1996 in the employment insurance fund. They
will total over $25 billion at the end of this fiscal year.
Every year, the minister takes $6 billion that should go to help
those hit by the scourge of unemployment. As they are hit by
this scourge it is not the time to make them poorer than they
are.
Despite what the government said and the figures of the
Department of Human Resources Development, only 43% of the
unemployed benefit from the employment assistance plan. The CLC
cites 36%. He preferred to keep these surpluses, set them
aside, make himself look good, prepare his run for the
leadership rather than help the unemployed.
Our basic criticisms remain. The basic criticisms of the Reform
Party remain as well.
1350
Unfortunately, the amendment is drafted in such a say that, if
we agreed to it, we would be creating an even greater injustice
for people with a disability and for students, among others, and
we are not prepared to do that.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to tell my hon. colleague about a situation that
happened in my riding. I held a town hall meeting recently. A
fellow who is a long time resident fought for Canada during the
second world war and, if I remember correctly, Korea. He showed
up in my town hall meeting. He waited around until 9 p.m. and
stayed after just so he could get some of my time. His name is
Bob McPherson. Bob bought Canada savings bonds for each of
his grandchildren. He put them in a trust. He said “I don't
trust government. I have been around long enough and I have seen
all the problems, complications and everything else. I will get
you these bonds and that way you will have something for
yourselves when you get older, go to school and you will have a
way to be able to pay for it”.
I notice that Bill C-72 talks about the registered education
savings plans and lifelong learning plans. Bob as a dutiful
taxpayer filled out his tax returns and sent them off. As it
turns out he expected to get a refund. Lo and behold he did not.
It turns out the government said that he owed money.
Bob came to my town hall meeting and he was livid. He said “I
do not want to send them a single penny”. I had to tell Bob
that is not worth fighting RevCan for the amount of money it was.
It was about $47. I said “Go ahead and pay the $47 and do what
you can to fight them because they will hold it against you and
charge interest”. It was really sad. This man who bought bonds
for his grandchildren for their education was being taxed on that
even though it was held in trust. The money would never be
touched by him or his wife or anyone else.
It was an absolute shame that Bob McPherson was put in a
situation where he had to pay more tax to the government because
he was trying to help out his grandchildren. At the end of it
all when it was all said and done, Bob McPherson pulled the bonds
because he thought it was better to give the money to his
grandchildren directly than to let the government dig into his
pockets and eat into their education fund.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon. member
asked a question, but he provided good topics for discussion.
I do not know Bob McPherson's particular situation, what his
taxable income or his assets were. There are many circumstances
that may explain why, even while trying to help his
grandchildren, he ended up having to pay taxes.
What I do know is that, generally speaking, the Canadian tax
system is characterized by obvious unfairness and injustices.
The hon. member and his party pointed out some of them, and so
have we. We expect that, some day, the government will take
action because, since 1994, the Minister of Finance has tabled
many omnibus bills that were supposed to correct a number of tax
provisions.
But when we look at the overall picture, we realize that not
much has changed.
In fact, I intend to soon ask a question on this issue. Members
will recall the family trusts scandal, where $2 billion were
transferred to the United States without any taxes being paid.
At that time, the Minister of Finance promised to table a bill
in 1999, to eliminate this tax loophole. We are still waiting.
We do not remember him talking about that issue this year, and
nor do members from the Reform Party.
So, there is a lot to do.
The government could do a lot more about education savings
plans, so that middle income earners could benefit from them.
Right now, these plans benefit first and foremost the privileged
in our society, not the middle class, as should be the case,
since the objective is to improve access to education.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the previous questioner raised an issue about someone
contributing moneys to a trust and why should they be taxed.
1355
The member should be aware that under the Income Tax Act we have
income attribution rules where, if a parent gives money to
children under 21, the income from that transfer of asset must be
attributed to the parent. If that were not the case, they would
be splitting their total investment income with their children.
It is only to ensure that people with children do not get a
better tax advantage than those without children.
The member raised two issues I wanted to deal with. The last
point he made was with regard to RESPs. He stated very clearly
that RESPs benefit the more affluent. This is absolutely
incorrect. The current grant formula says that every Canadian,
regardless of income, who contributes to an RESP is eligible for
20% government grant on the first $2,000. This is not a
deduction on the tax return. It happens to be outside the tax
system. The member is absolutely wrong.
I know this member. He is a member of the finance committee. He
is an economist by profession and I have heard him speak very
well on a number of very complicated issues with regard to the
economic condition in Canada. He talked about bracket creep and
he laid out that if we had a situation where the income tax
brackets had been indexed over the period he was talking about,
the first bracket would rise from $29,590 up to, I believe,
$36,000, the member said.
The member is absolutely right. He should recognize that people
who make under $30,000 a year would not benefit from the bracket
creep adjustment. Also, the federal government itself is subject
to purchasing power erosion by inflation because we pay salaries
to our employees and we pay increased prices due to inflation for
our goods and services.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, briefly, what I said was that one
had to have money to be able to put any in a registered
education savings plan. The present ceilings are perhaps too
high for middle income earners, with the result that they are
not contributing as much as they should to these plans.
As for the other question, the point here is not to worry about
every little comma and period. The point is to recognize that
there are things that need changing in the current tax system.
My eminent colleague admits that there are inequities in the
federal tax system. What he should be doing is bringing all his
energy and intelligence to bear on eliminating these inequities.
As for taxpayers earning less than $30,000, there is certainly
work to do here in all categories. I gave the example of people
earning around $30,000, between $30,000 and $40,000, which is
the bracket into which 70% of Canadian taxpayers fall. That was
the example I gave, and it is quite a striking one.
[English]
The Speaker: We will take up the debate after question
period.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Before we get to Statements by Members I
would like to address myself to a letter submitted to me under
Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate this evening. This was
submitted by the member for Selkirk—Interlake. It was a request
for an emergency debate and I have given it very serious
consideration. It is with regard to the situation of grain
movement due to work stoppages in Vancouver.
I find that it meets the requirements of Standing Order 52 and
therefore an emergency debate will be held at 8 o'clock tonight.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
YOUTH
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was my pleasure recently to visit high school students in my
riding. I had the opportunity to speak to students at Charles
Tupper Secondary School with the Deputy Speaker.
We discussed the policy making process and the role of
parliamentarians in Ottawa. I believe it is important to
encourage young people to participate in public affairs.
I thank the Deputy Speaker for taking the time to meet with
those bright young citizens.
* * *
1400
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Albert
Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over again, expecting a different result. A person cannot
help but wonder what he would say to the minister of Indian
affairs as she sets out to create a new reserve for the Caldwell
band in southwestern Ontario.
For over 130 years Canadian aboriginals have been segregated
physically through the creation of reserves and legally through
the Indian Act.
Legislated segregation has been practised in a number of
countries around the world, always with disastrous results.
In Canada, the people who pay the biggest price for the folly of
segregationist thinking are the 400,000 aboriginal people living
on reserve, where residents often live far below the poverty
line, in substandard housing; where teen suicide is five times
higher than the national average; where infant mortality is twice
as high; and where youth are more likely to go to jail than to
university.
Two giants of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr. and
Nelson Mandela, devoted their entire lives to the abolition of
segregation in their countries. How long will Canadians have to
wait before our federal government will abandon its
segregationist policies?
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 16, as part of the celebrations marking the importance of
the Canadian francophone community, the Government of Alberta
announced the creation of a secretariat of francophone affairs,
which will put it in touch with its 60,000 francophones and
promote their interests.
Eight provinces and the two territories today recognize the
contribution of their francophone population and are making it
one of their priorities.
We may be confident that the example of Alberta will inspire
British Columbia to do the same and to take a more active part
in the development of the Canadian francophone community.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WOMEN IN COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian Women in Communications, a national
organization supporting the progress of women in the
communications and telecommunications industries, recently held
their annual awards gala in Ottawa.
Today I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate
three individuals who were honoured at this year's gala.
The CWC employer of the year award went to Rogers Broadcasting
Limited. The CWC woman of the year is Phyllis Yaffe, president
and CEO of Showcase and History Television. Mentor of the year
honours went to Suzanne Boyce, senior vice-president of
programming at CTV Inc.
Finally, congratulations to Dr. Veena Rawat, Deputy Director
General, Spectrum Engineering, Industry Canada, who was awarded
the CWC Trailblazer of the year award.
I would like to congratulate the CWC for its exceptional work in
advancing the role of women and recognizing these great
achievers. Canada's entire communications industry continues to
benefit from their efforts.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, some fifteen Canadian parliamentarians, including
four ministers, shared in the start of Year of the Francophonie
with MNAs from Quebec's national assembly.
The purpose of this action was to make people aware that there
are francophone legislators from the four corners of Canada.
Francophones outside Quebec and Quebeckers share a pride in
their language and a desire to preserve it.
These legislators gathered in order to highlight the vitality
and richness of French culture and to promote an interest in
sharing this linguistic heritage in Canada.
The meeting also provided a forum to discuss the francophone
situation in Canada.
Long live the francophone community in Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once
again the Liberals are talking the talk but will not walk the
walk.
We all remember that when it came time to help the victims of
hep C, the Liberals claimed to care and had widespread backbench
support for compassionate assistance to victims. Yet when it
came time to turn words into action, all the Liberals bent to the
whip and voted against helping all Canadians suffering from this
terrible disease.
More recently, when dealing with the child porn issue, many
Liberals signed a letter to the Prime Minister stating their
support for the use of the notwithstanding clause. However, we
all saw which notwithstanding clause they chose to use, the one
that states “Notwithstanding what Canadians think, we're only
going to do what we're told”.
On March 16 a petition with the names of 50 Liberal members was
presented at a press conference. This petition stated their
objection to the government's support of a nuclear reactor in
Romania. There is just one thing: not one Liberal had the
courage to show up at the press conference.
Are these Liberals really principled people or simply sheep?
* * *
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this weekend a Nunavut women's conference will be held in Rankin
Inlet.
Women from all over Nunavut will discuss current women's
programs, women's representation by and to government, and ways
to support and develop women in leadership roles. They will make
recommendations for consideration by the Nunavut legislative
assembly.
I am pleased to be a participant in this important event.
1405
April 1 is fast approaching and I know Nunavut residents are
excited about the new public government which will be in place.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke Inuktitut]
[English]
I look forward to working with the premier elect, Paul Okalik,
his cabinet elect and the new Nunavut legislature on the
challenges facing our residents.
* * *
[Translation]
CATHERINE GIRARDIN
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
proudly and enthusiastically extend my congratulations today to
Catherine Girardin, a young lady of 16, who has brought honour
to Quebec, to her culture, and to her language.
Last week she was named top young journalist by the Conseil
pédagogique interdisciplinaire du Québec, and awarded their prix
du Mérite du français en éducation.
Today, on the occasion of the Journée internationale de la
Francophonie, she has been named top young journalist by the
Association canadienne de l'éducation de langue française.
On behalf of the Francophonie, on behalf of Quebec, on behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois, and on my own behalf, I again offer
Catherine my congratulations and encourage her to continue to
strive for excellence, to promote the French language that is so
dear to our hearts, and to put her immense talents to the
service of the advancement and emancipation of Quebec.
* * *
PARTY QUEBECOIS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not the first time the Parti Quebecois has run
into political contradictions.
This morning we learned that the government of Quebec is
refusing to take part in the launching of the Year of the
Francophonie in Canada.
In justification of its refusal, it refers to the concept of
Quebec as a “historical focal point”. According to the PQ
government, “Quebec is a historical focal point of the French
language in North America”.
Yet, on April 17, 1996 Lucien Bouchard leapt at the throat of
the federal government. Why? Because he wanted to attack this
same notion of principal focal point, which our party had raised
a few days before.
This is a major contradiction.
According to Mr. Bouchard, the focal point concept was just one
more proof that renewed federalism is impossible within the
context of Quebec's fundamental aspirations.
The Parti Quebecois plan is to hobble Quebeckers and prevent
them from developing within Canada.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has failed farmers one more time.
It took the Liberals more than a year to acknowledge the farm
income crisis. Their lack of policy direction in grain
transportation has paralyzed reforms. Now their inability to
negotiate with their employees has shut down western Canada's
grain industry.
Grain farmers are facing one of the worst financial years in
decades. Every day of this strike $6 million worth of farmers'
grain is not reaching market.
The government was told for years that these workers are
essential to Canada's grain industry. It has been told that
final offer arbitration is the best way to resolve these
disputes. It refuses to listen. Now the grain trains have been
stopped one more time.
Farmers are innocent third parties of this labour dispute. They
cannot understand why this government is not committed to a
course of action to get the grain flowing. Many are wondering if
the government even cares.
I acknowledge the wisdom of the speaker in authorizing the
emergency debate on this issue tonight.
* * *
THE REFORM PARTY
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the last election Reform said that Canadians want an official
opposition that is loyal to Canada.
On the eve of the last Quebec referendum the Reform leader was
on the phone with the American ambassador negotiating the breakup
of Canada. Last summer the Reform leader told Asian investors
that the Canadian economy was on the verge of a crisis. In
recent days Reform has criticized independent studies which show
Canada as the best place to do business in the world. Not so
says Reform. Canada is horrible it says.
Now we learn that the Reform Party has been quietly providing
information to the Brazilian government to assist it in a trade
dispute with Canada. It should apologize to all Canadians for
its disgraceful actions and its attempts to sabotage our economy.
I know it is having trouble showing loyalty to its leader these
days, but it is high time—
The Speaker: Order. Colleagues, questions about loyalty
on one side or the other, I do not know whether they do us any
good. We are all Canadian members of parliament. I would ask
you, colleagues, since we have so much to talk, perhaps we could
steer away from that topic.
The hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
CANADIAN FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
linguistic duality is a value deeply rooted in all regions of
the country. It is a value fundamental to Canadian unity. 1999
is the Year of the Francophonie in Canada. From sea to sea, we
are celebrating the contribution made by millions of
French-speaking Canadians to our country.
I am proud that Canada's first francophone games will be held in
my riding of Memramcook from August 9 to 22. I congratulate the
inhabitants of Memramcook and urge all Canadians to come to the
games and pay a visit to the heart of Acadia.
Southeastern New Brunswick will also play host to francophones
from around the world at the Sommet international de la
Francophonie to be held in Moncton in September.
In this Year of the Francophonie, the NDP hopes that one of the
first things the government will do to demonstrate its
commitment to francophone communities will be to respect the
Official Languages Act.
On RDI this morning, journalist Rosaire L'Italien received only
an English copy of the kit announcing the year of the
Francophonie. How are we to take this government seriously?
* * *
FRENCH LANGUAGE
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
this week celebrating the French language, I wish to express my
pride in my mother tongue, a prestigious vehicle of freedom
since the start of the millennium.
Magna Carta, the cornerstone of English democracy, was signed in
1215 on an island in the Thames by a king and barons who spoke
French.
French was the language of the 18th century texts enshrining the
freedom of nations and of individuals: the Déclaration des
droits de l'homme et du citoyen and, earlier, the immortal works
of Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, and many others.
Quebec demands the right to defend the interests of this noble
language at all international forums.
If this right were not absurdly denied by this government, the
two founding nations of this country would work together
harmoniously for the international defence of the equally
prestigious French and English languages.
But that is obviously a pipe dream. Only through sovereignty
will we be able to fully exercise our right to defend our own
language throughout the world.
* * *
[English]
THE REFORM PARTY
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently the Reform Party called upon
francophone Canadians to cross political and linguistic lines to
join the united alternative.
It is clear that most Reform members are too hard-headed to ever
drop their anti-French stance.
Last week Reform members said that Canada is not a bilingual
country. This is news to me and I suspect it is news to most
Canadians across the country.
Now Reformers are complaining, as quoted in the Globe and
Mail today, “The country is being run by francophones. You
sigh and you whine and you snivel, and you get the money... and if
you say anything about it, you're a bigot”. That is what the
member for Yellowhead said. That is just rubbish.
Reformers should realize the benefits of being a member of both
the Commonwealth and la francophonie. Canada's diversity is its
strength, not something that should be wiped out as most Reform
members seem to think.
* * *
YEAR OF THE FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today as a proud western Canadian to pay tribute to Canada's
francophones on the Year of the Francophonie in Canada.
Yesterday's offensive comments by the member of the Reform Party
for Yellowhead further underline the need for Canadians to
proudly support our francophone population.
[Translation]
Unlike the Reform Party, the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada respects the linguistic duality of our country. We
understand the need to support and celebrate our participation
in any organization that can promote the French language.
[English]
I challenge the members and leadership of the Reform Party of
Canada to stand and be heard on this issue. If the Leader of the
Opposition agrees with the member for Yellowhead that the country
is being run by francophones, let him stand and be heard. If he
believes that Ottawa has been frenchified, let him stand and be
heard.
The Reform Party will never understand the history of this great
country because it refuses to accept Canada's linguistic duality.
That is also why the Reform Party will never form government.
* * *
[Translation]
RACISM
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday,
the whole world will celebrate the International Day for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Unfortunately, even though institutional racism has become much
less prevalent on our planet over the past several decades, it
still exists in some areas.
1415
On February 25, B'nai Brith Canada announced that, in 1998, the
number of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada had gone up 14%, even
though our country is among the most tolerant ones.
If we only take into account cases of harassment, the increase
is even greater, at 29%. It is all too easy to find scapegoats,
particularly among groups that have historically been subjected
to such treatment.
The laws have changed, but the battle has not yet been won. Just
think of the aboriginals and other visible minorities.
I call upon the members of this House to reaffirm—
The Speaker: We will now move on to oral question period. The
hon. leader of the official opposition.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's standard of living is falling. The government
gets richer but Canadians get poorer. According to the industry
minister, high taxes and high debt rob each Canadian of $7,000 a
year or $28,000—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, according to the
industry minister, high taxes and debt rob each Canadian of
$7,000 a year or $28,000 for a family of four.
How can the Prime Minister deny that his high tax, high debt
policies are hurting our standard of living and that the income
gap between Canadians and Americans is $7,000 per person and
growing?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
here in Canada six years ago we inherited a totally desperate
situation, a $42 billion deficit.
We have put this country's finances in order and have revived
the economy. Today, Canada's productivity is on the rise.
The Leader of the Opposition is using statistics that date back
to before the Liberals were in government, but the reality is
that 1.6 million jobs have been created since we took office.
Our budget is a balanced one and we have the lowest interest
rates that there has been for a long time.
These are all elements which impact heavily on Canada's
productivity.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is so embarrassing for the Prime Minister is that
while this decline in the standard of living started years ago,
it has become worse under his administration. It was falling in
1987, but according to the International Institute for Management
Development our overall standard of living was also falling in
1997.
How can the Prime Minister deny the fact that under his policies
the gap between the standard of living of Canadians and that of
Americans has become $7,000 per person and growing?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it saddens me to hear a serious topic like the issue of
Canada's productivity challenge distorted by the Leader of the
Opposition in this way.
I wish he would read the speech. I wish he would quote a few
other parts of it. For example, the federal deficit stood at $42
billion in 1993 and now it is the first budgetary surplus in 28
years. Our inflation rate has been the lowest in more than a
generation. In 1998, 453,000 jobs were created. Canada
experienced a bounce back in productivity in 1997. In 1994 we
ranked twentieth in the world economic forum's competitiveness
rankings and now we rank fifth.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): It
looks like somebody got to the industry minister, Mr. Speaker. I
do not need to quote from the industry minister's speech. I can
quote from the government's own Standing Committee on Finance.
In December it acknowledged our falling standard of living and
said it was an indication of a fundamental weakness in our
system. We agree. Seven thousand dollars a year may be nothing
to the Prime Minister, but it buys a lot of groceries and clothes
for ordinary Canadians.
Why can the Prime Minister not see that his high debt, high tax
policies are hurting Canadians and hurting them bad?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the bizarre, simplistic world in which members of the
Reform Party live things are never complicated. I understand
that. In this case they need to understand that meeting the
Canadian productivity challenge is a long term investment.
It means action on the part of government, action like bringing
down the deficit, action like bringing down the debt, action like
keeping interest rates low, action like giving confidence to our
international investors.
1420
At the same time it requires the private sector to invest. It
requires the private sector to invest in research and development
and in labour market training. These are the components of
productivity. That is where success lies for Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Oh, to be so
blessed with such complexity, Mr. Speaker. Let me quote from the
Minister of Industry's speech last month. He said “Our per
capita income would have been $7,000 a year higher. For a family
of four, this is a $28,000 shortfall”.
I will give him a few seconds to find that part in his speech
because I am sure he would like to refer to it. I believe the
Minister of Industry was telling the truth in that report, and he
knows it. Does the Prime Minister also think he was?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course I was telling the truth in the speech I gave.
I was saying exactly the point that the productivity challenge is
a real one for Canadians to face.
In the simplistic world in which members of the Reform Party
live the solutions are never complicated. They recognize that
productivity is part of the solution, but if we promote a program
to support research and development in the private sector they
are prepared to ignore the fact that it is an important component
of productivity. They vote against it. In fact, they do their
best to undermine programs that support research and development
in the private sector.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
now we have seen productivity challenged in the flesh. This is
just unbelievable.
The date of that speech was February 18 and it was using recent
statistics. The place was the Empire Club in Toronto. The topic
was Canada's falling standard of living. If it demanded a
speech, there must be something to it.
He said that we were poorer than states like Mississippi. He
said that we were $7,000 poorer for each Canadian or $28,000 for
a family of four. That is a chunk of change. Does he stand by
his speech, or have the finance minister and the Prime Minister—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Industry.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand by the speech and I deny categorically that it
says anything of the sort. It is astonishing.
Certainly I compared productivity rates and productivity growth
but everybody knows that only leads to standards of living in the
future. Again last year, for the fifth time in a row, Canada
topped the United Nations human development index. That is where
we measure the quality of life in this country.
If the country does not address the issue of productivity, we
will face problems with standard of living, but to this point we
have met the real challenges that have been impeding our
productivity growth for years.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
three years now the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for
employment insurance changes.
Once again this week the minister has thumbed his nose at the
plight of the unemployed and, full of self-importance, has
responded to our questions with “Your figures are wrong”.
Is the minister, who has had the real picture of his reform in
his hands since 1998, prepared to eat humble pie, to acknowledge
that the Bloc Quebecois was right, and to make changes in the
Employment Insurance Act as soon as possible?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have brought in
some very important changes with the employment insurance
reform, a reform that was necessary.
We were aware that this reform would have an impact, in some
cases a difficult one, on some Canadians. We included the
requirement of annual reports within our reform in order to
carry out a proper follow-up.
However, I would like to draw the attention of the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois, who claims to never make mistakes with figures,
to the fact that he has demonstrated the opposite today, showing
that in many areas there were major holes in the statements made
by the Bloc Quebecois, and today's report also demonstrates
this.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
the minister would be so kind as to crawl out of his hole and
point out where our mistakes were, I invite him to do so.
He is still keeping his eyes shut, however. This minister
continues to turn a blind eye to the sufferings of people, of
families, of the poor, of youth, most particularly of young
people and women.
He has had the figures since December 1998 and has given us
nothing but ridiculous answers ever since. He had the figures
before the budget was brought down.
1425
Why did he not stand up to the Minister of Finance? Why did he
let him dip into the employment insurance fund? Why did he
allow him to grab millions of dollars rather than change the
legislation, which penalized young people and women?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the suffering of the unemployed
affects us as much on this side of the House as on the other.
The opposition has no monopoly on compassion in this country of
Canada.
I can assure the hon. member of one thing. We have the same
compassion for the unemployed, which is precisely why we want to
give them the dignity of employment: we want to help them into
the work force, we have their good at heart and we do not simply
want to take the easy way out and keep them on employment
insurance, as the members opposite want to do.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, exactly three years ago today, the predecessor
of the current Minister of Human Resources Development, Doug
Young, gave me the following answer on the subject of employment
insurance, and I quote:
We believe that women and young people will benefit from this
system. If we see that the results are not in keeping with the
objectives of our program, we will obviously have to correct
them.
Will Doug Young's successor, the current Minister of Human
Resources Development, honour the word of his predecessor and
correct the enormous failings of the employment insurance plan,
which are hard on women and young people?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some claim the young should be
able to draw more employment insurance benefits. We think young
Canadians must have the opportunity to get a good education and
hold good jobs. That is what we are trying to do on this side
of the House.
Most young Canadians share these values with us. In fact,
143,000 new jobs were created for young people in 1998, the best
performance in 20 years. That is what young people expect from
good government.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, for three years now the unemployed have served
as guinea pigs for this government.
Does the minister not think that this has gone on long enough,
that the unemployed have done without long enough and that it is
high time the minister rolled up his sleeve and set to work on
improving the employment insurance plan, something the Bloc
Quebecois has been demanding for the past three years?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the best way we can
serve the unemployed is to give them real help to return to the
labour market. And that is what we have done: 450,000 new jobs
were created in the Canadian economy last year.
There are accordingly far fewer unemployed in Canada than there
were. And if we followed the policy the Bloc Quebecois wants us
to, we would simply go back to a system that served neither
Canadians nor the unemployed.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
labour market is changing dramatically but the human resources
development minister does not seem to understand the changes.
In the new economy more and more young people are working part
time. In the new economy women are faced with fewer available
hours or many are forced into self-employment, and yet these are
the very people who are being penalized by the Liberals EI
changes.
Why does the government think that attacking women and young
people helps them to adapt to the new economy?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, part time
workers were never insured by the employment insurance system.
We should first look at the reality. They were not covered
before.
What I can say is that indeed I am concerned about making sure
that EI treats women in a fair and equitable way. It is very
important. Why is it that fewer women have claimed EI in the
last year? Is it because 300,000 more women are working in the
labour market now, or is it because the system is squeezing them
out of it? I am concerned and we will look into it.
1430
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister
should read his report, which says that most of the results of
the reform were anticipated. The government knew that its reform
would hit women and young people harder.
Since the government knew, why did it implement changes that
discriminated against women and young people?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we definitely did not implement
such measures.
Some would want us to give EI benefits to young people. I say
that, on the contrary, young people want help to continue their
education. They want a good education in order to find good jobs
on the labour market.
As for women, we must sincerely be concerned about their
situation. Is the number of women who claimed EI benefits
primarily related to the fact that, in the past year, 300,000
jobs went to women? We have to ask ourselves that question.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the WTO ruled against Canada and said that its export
dairy pricing policy was illegal. Yesterday the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food stood before reporters and said that
this would not have any impact on our negotiations in the
upcoming WTO trade talks.
In Washington recently we were told time and time again that
supply managed systems and state trading enterprises were the
number one issue that Americans were going to put on the table.
Can the minister honestly say that this ruling will not have any
impact on our trade position?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ruling yesterday does not have any
impact on the domestic supply management system in Canada. That
was not what was before the panel as a challenge by the United
States and New Zealand. They did question some of the
administration of some of the export of Canadian milk products
out of Canada amounting to less than 5% of the milk production in
Canada.
We are reviewing the report with all of the partners. We will
be deciding on a response to that panel decision next week.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, if
the minister does not take the ruling very seriously, perhaps he
should take seriously the comments made recently by the chairman
of the U.S. federal reserve, Alan Greenspan. He said this week
that Canada and Australia were to blame for the farm commodity
crisis in the U.S. We all know that when Mr. Greenspan speaks,
America listens. Unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the Minister for International Trade are not
listening.
What is the Canadian government going to do to respond to Alan
Greenspan and the American producers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going to respond to Mr. Greenspan
and to the realities in the agriculture market today by abiding
by the international trading agreements to which we are
signatories. I am very surprised that the hon. member is not
standing up and supporting supply management rather than being a
scaremonger.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in a speech the industry minister has quickly forgotten,
and it was only one month ago in Toronto, he talked about
productivity in Canada and if it had grown 1.2% faster we would
not have the $7,000 gap we now have with the Americans leading to
a $7,000 per year per person shortfall in this country. Is he
denying that he actually said that?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker. In fact that is exactly what I said. Had productivity
grown 1.2% per year faster over 25 years, then the GDP per capita
would be $7,000 higher. But that is simple. Productivity leads
to economic growth. That in turn relates to output. Output per
capita would be higher if we produced more. That is not
complicated.
What is complicated is to determine what the factors are that
contribute to productivity growth and how can we improve Canada's
standing relative to other countries. That is what I was talking
about.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all through that speech he did talk about a productivity
growth challenge here in Canada. I guess he has to realize that
high taxes and high debt kill any kind of productivity that
Canadians care to put forward.
Has the industry minister changed his stance now that the PMO
writes his speeches?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be delighted to find someone else to write
speeches for me, I can assure you.
Sometimes I think that H. L. Mencken had the Reform Party in
mind when he said years ago before they had even thought of it
that for every problem there is a simple neat solution that is
wrong.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today the
Minister of Canadian Heritage launched the Year of the
Francophonie in Canada.
Considering that the minister spent the week telling us that the
federal government was doing a great job looking after the
interests of francophones outside Quebec, how does she explain
that a journalist from Radio-Canada, in Moncton, could only get a
press kit in English?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that clerical error was
made by a subcontractor and was corrected immediately.
It is disappointing to see that, while Bloc Quebecois members
have an opportunity to celebrate and to congratulate and
befriend other francophones in the country, they once again
choose to nitpick and to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In the end, despise us.
I find this very regrettable. They are our friends only when it
suits them.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the file
holder is bilingual, but the content is in English.
Does this not reflect, sadly, what bilingualism is all too often
about in Canada? Behind a nice bilingual facade to impress
people, things are done in English.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was there
this morning. She cannot say that it was conducted in English.
It was essentially conducted in French.
What is regrettable in all this is the attitude of the Reform
Party and of the Bloc Quebecois when we talk about the
Francophonie. Reformers say that French Canadians run
everything, when in fact French and English Canadians share the
responsibility of managing the affairs of the country.
As for the Government of Quebec, it claims, through its Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs, that “Quebec cannot, within the
Canadian Francophonie, be put on the same level as francophone
minorities in the rest of Canada”.
Again, they are our friends when it suits them.
* * *
[English]
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
transitional jobs fund is beginning to look like a Liberal slush
fund. First a Liberal bagman named Pierre Corbeil used these
grants to shake down companies to make donations to the Liberal
Party. Now we learn that just before the last election, the Prime
Minister's personal assistant, Denise Tremblay, sat in on a
meeting where a friend of the Prime Minister was applying for the
grants. The bureaucrats certainly got the message. They came
across with $164,000 in grant money for this guy.
Why did the Prime Minister use his influence to milk this fund
for his friends?
The Speaker: Again, I ask member to be
very judicious in their questions. The hon. Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very strength of the
transitional jobs fund is the local consultations that are
required to ensure that the community is advised of the
initiatives being proposed.
My department recommended this project for approval because it
met all the standard eligibility criteria under the transitional
jobs fund. Part of the criteria is to take the input of all MPs
in the areas that are eligible for the TJF.
The project continues to meet its contractual obligations and
has created the 19 jobs forecasted.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
sounds like the hon. member is paraphrasing another leader we
know, “I did not have personal relations with those bureaucrats;
I had my assistant do it”.
Who is this guy that government members went to bat for? His
name is Yvon Duhaime. He is a three time convicted criminal. Not
just that, but he is the guy who took that money losing property
off the Prime Minister's hands. It gets worse than that. The
Prime Minister's personal assistant actually sat in on the
steering committee where Duhaime got permission to get this
money.
The message to the bureaucrats was perfectly clear: This is a
friend of the Prime Minister's, so let us cough up with the cash.
That sounds awfully close to influence peddling.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL FORUMS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec's Minister of International Relations, Louise Beaudoin,
said she was waiting for the go-ahead from Ottawa before speaking
on behalf of Quebec at the Mexico meeting on cultural diversity,
which is a follow-up to the Ottawa meeting last June.
1440
Since the Prime Minister said yesterday that he was the one who
gave the floor to Quebec, does he intend to give that floor to
Quebec in Mexico, as opposed to what he did last year in Ottawa?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
any conference like this, when a representative from the
Government of Quebec or representatives from other provincial
governments are present, they can take part in the discussion.
The ministers and officials representing the government are very
happy to let them speak when they have something interesting to
say.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
year, Ms. Beaudoin did not wish to take part because she was
invited to listen but not to speak.
What explanation can the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs therefore give for both being even
more opposed to letting Quebec speak than ministers of a foreign
government such as France?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Pequists are now demanding the right to speak. When we
invite them to celebrate the Canadian Francophonie here in
Ottawa, for example, they are not interested. All that
interests them is trying to make political hay at the expense of
the fundamental rights of all French Canadians in this country.
* * *
[English]
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 9, 1997 the Minister for Human Resources
Development told this House “the Prime Minister has never
lobbied or influenced me”. How can he possibly say this when the
Prime Minister's special representative was sitting in the room
when a decision was made affecting his friend?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member is talking
about influence peddling or that kind of thing, I can tell her
that this is not at all what happened.
There is a large process in which all MPs, including the Reform
MPs, and I can give a list of them, are consulted for projects in
their ridings. All the Reform Party is saying now is that the
Prime Minister is a very good member for Saint-Maurice because he
looked after job creation in his riding, like all MPs who are
consulted. The transitional jobs fund is a very good program.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. We will go to the next question but
I think we should listen to the answers.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if there was absolutely no wrongdoing on this file, in
spite of all the smoking guns surrounding it, will the minister
undertake today to table all the documents relating to this grant
application without a gallon of whiteout spilled all over them?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can very clearly tell the
member, the House and Canadians one thing.
The Prime Minister's riding office did not intervene any more
than did the member for Prince George—Peace River when he was
consulted for the forestry project, no more than the Reform
member for Okanagan—Shuswap who was consulted for a project in
his riding, no more than the member for Nanaimo—Alberni who was
consulted for the Port Alberni marina. We create jobs in
regions—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member of Roberval.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL FORUMS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs for France has added his voice to that of his
colleague, the Minister of Culture, reaffirming Quebec's right
to express itself internationally.
The key spokesperson for the opposition in France has also made
the statement that all French politicians were unanimously in
favour of Quebec's having this right.
1445
With all these additional opinions being voiced, does the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs still maintain his
profound analysis of last week, which was that France's support
of Quebec was merely the result of the inexperience of its
Minister of Culture?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that he
did not believe that his colleague regretted her actions. That
is all he said.
The Government of Canada, which has a profound respect for the
political sovereignty and territorial integrity of the one
indivisible French Republic, always takes for granted that the
French government respects the political sovereignty of Canada.
And we would certainly not go stirring up separatism in
Guadeloupe.
* * *
EQUALIZATION
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
In its budget last month, the Government of Canada announced an
additional $1.4 billion would soon be paid to Quebec.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister what became of this money to
be paid to Quebec as part of the equalization payment program?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his very relevant question.
In fact, the $1.4 billion was transferred today to the
Government of Quebec, enabling it, for the first time—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: —to put more money into certain
programs. It has enabled the government to balance its budget
for the first time.
Unfortunately, it is the fault of the federal government.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because of the government's bungling of the growing PSAC strike,
millions of Canadians have seen their GST rebate cheques and
their tax refunds delayed and held up at tax centres across the
country.
This means that money that belongs to Canadians, not bureaucrats
or the union, is not available to pay the rent or buy the
groceries.
When those Canadians are late in filing their returns they get
fines, penalties or jail time. What will the government do to
ensure Canadians get the money that belongs to them immediately
so they do not have to wait any longer?
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated
earlier this week, we regret any disruption to services to
Canadians as a result of the rotating PSAC strike.
We are extremely concerned because we want to ensure that
refunds to which Canadians are entitled are delivered on time. We
are watching the situation very closely so we can meet our
responsibilities and obligations to taxpayers across the country.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
isn't that lovely. It simply is not adequate for the families
that are waiting to pay the rent or to buy their groceries with
their cheques held up at government tax centres.
It is fine that the government is watching and is concerned but
will it act? How will it act? When will act to ensure that
Canadians get the money that belongs to them, not to the
government or the union?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is very unfortunate that PSAC would take Canadians as hostages
in this kind of event. We regret it as much as the opposition
does. The union has the right to strike. We have done
everything we could to prevent it. We have come back to the
negotiating table. We have enriched our offer.
Unfortunately in our view the union's demands cannot be
satisfied. They are excessive. At present we are looking at all
possible options to deal with this problem.
* * *
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister,
Yvon Duhaime, the man who bought the hotel in Grand'Mére from
the Prime Minister and his partners, received a federal grant of
$164,000 and a federal loan for $650,000. At a meeting where
these applications were reviewed, a senior aide to the Prime
Minister was in attendance.
This is a clear violation of clause 7 of the conflict of
interest code for public office holders.
Can the Prime Minister explain to us why an aide from his office
was at that meeting in violation of the code?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the strengths of the
transitional job fund is to consult with local members of
parliament. It takes place with opposition members of parliament
as much as with government members of parliament.
It is also important to consult in the Saint-Maurice riding when
we invest money in the creation of jobs in areas of high
unemployment.
The very strength of that program is the consultation that is
very wisely done.
1450
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is no ordinary MP. The Prime
Minister also sold his hotel to this gentleman.
I want to know why the Prime Minister's assistant was there.
Was it because of Mr. Duhaime's dismal business record, because
he had three criminal convictions or simply because he made a
contribution to the Liberal Party? Why was the Prime Minister's
aide there?
The Prime Minister has to answer this question. He deserves to
answer it for the sake of the Canadian people. It was a
conflict. Answer the question, Mr. Prime Minister.
The Speaker: All your remarks, please, will be made to
the Chair and not to another member.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department recommended
this very project for approval because it met all the standard
eligibility under the transitional job fund.
This fund is providing money to create employment in a region
where unemployment is pretty high. This project continues to
meet its contractual obligation and has indeed created the 19
jobs forecasted.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will try
again since we are not getting answers to the question.
Canadian taxpayers deserve to know why would Yvon Duhaime, a guy
with a criminal record, poor credit, a bad tax history and a
failing business be able to get his hands on almost $900,000 in
government loans and grants.
Duhaime's Grand'Mère hotel had an excessive debt, was not paying
its bills and did not have an accountant or a budgeting system
when he applied for federal money. For some reason the Prime
Minister's staff took an active interest in this project.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Do all dubious
characters get $900,000 in grants and loans?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has of course inflated that number
beyond previous questions because he is including amounts that
were loaned on a commercial basis by the Business Development
Bank of Canada.
I point out to the hon. member that not only was there nobody in
attendance but that decision was made by the regional office in
Montreal, by a vice-president of the Business Development Bank,
on a commercial basis.
Not only that but our private sector lenders were also involved
in the same loan, including le Fonds de solidarité, which
contributed money on a commercial basis. Charges were taken.
Security was given. Everything in that loan was quite normal.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, Yvon Duhaime
is not just a constituent. He is the son-in-law of Robert
Cloutier, the Liberal Party supporter and untendered contractor
on the Prime Minister's cottage.
The running total is now more than $1 million to one family in
his own riding. Section 11 of the Auditor General Act allows the
auditor general, by order in council, to examine any person who
receives dollars from the federal government.
Will the Prime Minister stop hiding and refer this to the
auditor general for an independent investigation?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general
has all the authority necessary to audit any books, any
transaction of the Government of Canada. That is his job and as
a matter of fact he is almost full time in my department.
* * *
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when Canada entered the softwood lumber agreement with
the United States, it sold it to Canadian producers as a
guarantee that they would get five years of peaceful exports and
job security. Instead they got job losses and uncertainty. Now
the U.S. is threatening further restrictions by adding rough
headed products to this already set in stone quota.
What action will the government take to stop the constant
harassment by the United States with regard to our forest
industry?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the gentleman's question
is wrong.
Not only did the producers support the agreement but all the
four provinces agreed with entering the agreement. We have
already said that the American position lately on this new tariff
will not be accepted by Canada.
We are speaking to the very producers and stakeholders to
monitor the situation and to evaluate what best options are
available.
Certainly we are prepared to defend the softwood lumber industry
to the teeth.
* * *
1455
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, further to the PSAC strike on the west
coast, it has disrupted grain shipments from Vancouver and that
seriously affects Canada as a grain supplier and costs farmers
millions of dollars.
Could the minister of agriculture tell the House what long term
effect the strike might have on Canada's reputation as a reliable
supplier of quality grain?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, grain prices are low enough that Canadian
farmers do not need anything else reducing their income.
Unfortunately the Canadian Wheat Board has informed us that in
the last 48 hours it has lost a $9 million sale because the
reliability of our delivery system is in question. I had that
raised with me by some major purchasers last week.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is encouraging the parties to come
to the table. Premiers are encouraging people to come to the
table and even ministers of agriculture from provinces such as
Saskatchewan have phoned me and are encouraging us if necessary
to use legislation to get them back to the table.
* * *
[Translation]
PRODUCTIVITY
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Finance answered a question I asked by
saying that the OECD report predicting our standard of living
would be 15% below the average of the other countries dates from
the 1980s.
Are we surprised that the Minister of Finance has no real
solution to get us out of this mess, given that he is unaware
that the OECD report in question is not from the 1980s, but from
June 1998?
What does he have to say now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member misunderstands.
What I said was that it is a report
based on a problem that had its roots in the 1980s, 1990s.
It is a great pleasure for me to say that, as the result of
measures taken by our government, productivity is much higher in
the 1990s than it was in the 1980s.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. We all know conditions
are deplorable in first nation communities.
Now we have the Cross Lake First Nation in Manitoba declaring a
health care state of emergency. Conditions have reached a
critical point. There is a shortage of equipment, too few nurses
overworked to the point of burnout and infrequent doctor visits.
The community has called on the World Health Organization to
intervene. It is requesting a fully staffed field hospital from
the Department of National Defence.
Do aboriginal leaders have to call on the army or will the
Minister of Health provide immediate assistance?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have met on two occasions since January with the chiefs in
Manitoba to speak to them about the challenges we face in
delivering health services in those communities.
It is not just in aboriginal communities but it is in all rural
and remote communities that we have difficulties recruiting and
retaining health professionals, both doctors and nurses.
We formed a working group in Manitoba, as we have in northern
Ontario, to deal with these issues. Those efforts in common with
aboriginal communities themselves, taken together with the
additional moneys provided in the recent budget, will help us
toward solving these very difficult problems.
* * *
[Translation]
PRODUCTIVITY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, there is a major
split within cabinet.
The Minister of Industry said that Canada has the lowest
productivity level among G-7 countries. However, the Minister of
Finance stated that it is not a problem.
Is the government trying to confuse Canadians in order to hide
the facts regarding the decline of our standard of living?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is no split. Whether it is the caucus, the Standing Committee on
Finance, the Minister of Industry, the Prime Minister, the
Minister of Finance, we all know that our productivity must
increase.
This is why we eliminated the deficit. This is why we lowered
taxes. This is why we invested in research and development. This
is why we cleaned up the mess inherited from the Conservative
government.
* * *
FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITIES
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the separatists decided to boycott the launching of the Year of
the Francophonie. A Reformer accuses francophones of being
whiners and of getting preferential treatment.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage tell us how the International Year of the Francophonie
will help Canada's francophone communities?
1500
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the
hon. member for Brandon—Souris who, just before oral question
period, strongly criticized the disparaging and intolerant
comments made by the member for Yellowhead toward the Canadian
Francophonie.
As for the Year of the Francophonie, it will be full of events,
gatherings and celebrations, beginning with the Rendez-vous de la
Francophonie, the great train de la Francophonie, which will
travel across the country, the first Jeux de la Francophonie for
Canadian youth, sponsored by the Fédération de la jeunesse
canadienne-française and, of course, this summer's Sommet de la
Francophonie, in Moncton, which will welcome 52 heads of state.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the first Premier of our new
territory of Nunavut, Mr. Paul Okalik.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of this side of the House I would like to know from the
government House leader what the business of the House is for the
remainder of this week and for next week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the business of the House
between now and the adjournment at the end of next week for the
purpose of the Easter break would be as follows, to the extent
that we can determine it accurately at this time.
This afternoon the House shall continue with Bill C-72, the
income tax amendments. If we complete debate on that, we will
resume Bill C-71, the other budget bill. In any case, tomorrow
the House will consider Bill C-67, respecting foreign banks.
On Monday we shall commence with Bill C-68, the youth justice
bill. Tuesday we will call report stage of Bill C-27, the
fisheries bill. We hope, once that is complete, to resume debate
on Bill C-71 and hopefully complete the budget bill.
1505
The time remaining next week will also be used to complete third
reading of Bill C-27, the fisheries bill which I discussed
moments ago, as well as hopefully the second reading of Bill
C-69, the criminal records bill.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS OF MINISTER
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise with respect to a matter that occurred in yesterday's
question period, which I did not raise yesterday because I did
not hear the remark due to the noise in the House. However, I
see that it is reported in Hansard at page 13014. The hon.
Minister for International Trade said in speaking of myself: “I
think it rings hollow when the member can be so disloyal.”
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 481 states in part:
—it has been sanctioned by usage that a Member, while speaking,
must not:
(e) impute bad motives or motives different from those
acknowledged by a Member.
(f) make a personal charge against a Member.
Citation 486(1) reads:
It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to
injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular
Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not
contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and
intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to
whom the words are addressed, as, whether that person is a public
officer, or a private Member not in office, or whether the words
are meant to be applied to public conduct or to private
character; and sometimes upon the degree of provocation—
Many hot words have been exchanged between the opposition and
that minister in terms of questioning the loyalty of the official
opposition. I do not rise on a point of order about ascribing
motives to the opposition per se, but the record indicates that
the member did specifically say that I as a member of this place
was disloyal. I think that is a rather fundamental attack on my
integrity as a Canadian and as a member of this place. I
therefore rise to ask that the member retract and apologize for
these unparliamentary remarks.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I have ever heard a case of
the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. Today during
question period we had hon. members in this House accusing other
members of committing criminal acts, such as influence peddling,
and yet they rise to talk about imputing motive.
Some of the accusations that were made today are perhaps a
thousand times more severe, and would merit the admonition of the
Speaker, than something such as questioning whether someone is
loyal or disloyal to a particular cause. Language was used today
in the House by some hon. members accusing other members of
parliament of influence peddling. If it cannot be repeated
outside, it should not have been said at all and it should be
withdrawn.
The Speaker: Yesterday I heard when the
word “disloyal” was used in the House. Members will recall
that I immediately intervened.
No word in itself is unparliamentary. It depends on how it is
used. It depends on the tone. Yesterday in the course of the
give and take of question period I thought it was necessary to
admonish the hon. member. I did not think at that point that it
had reached the point of being unparliamentary.
Even today when another hon. member stood to make a statement,
and when we question the loyalty of any one of us, I think it is
bad for all of us. I appeal to hon. members. That is why I
asked members yesterday to please stay away from terms like
disloyalty of one person to an idea or to whatever. All it does
is incite us as we go along.
I ask you time and again to be very judicious in your choice of
words. I hope this will be the case from here on in. I know
that things get heated in here. I understand this place, as you
do. There are times when these words go back and forth. It is a
matter of seeing if we can conduct our business in an atmosphere
which many times becomes poisonous because of the words we use.
1510
In this particular case it was regrettable. I intervened. I
judged then and I judge now that it was not an unparliamentary
term and that I would let it sit there for that matter. However,
I would hope that hon. members would be very reflective on the
words and on the tone they use when either questioning or
answering questions and even in debate in the House.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to clear the record. My hon. colleague
from Fraser Valley did not accuse any hon. member in this House
of influence peddling. He said that there was an appearance that
it was close to influence peddling.
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in that same train of thought, I noticed during question
period today that the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier accused one
of my colleagues in the Reform Party of being intolerant. Since
he is here in the House, I would ask him to respectfully withdraw
that statement.
The Speaker: I do not know about the word “intolerant”
in and of itself. However, the member is here. He can tell us,
if he wishes, what he meant by it and hopefully we can put this
matter behind us.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I commended the member for Brandon—Souris for his criticism
which was directed to the member for Yellowhead for that member's
comments about francophones. I will quote the member as he is
quoted in an article in the Globe and Mail today. He said:
You sigh and you whine and you snivel, and you get the money...
Mr. Speaker, I do not retract my statement.
The Speaker: Now we are getting into a bit of a debate on
“he said, I said” and we are going to go around in circles.
Once again I appeal to you to be very judicious in your choice of
words because words such as “intolerant” and another word that
was used today in a quotation, but which I did not find it
unparliamentary, the word “bigot”, in this particular context,
just serve to inflame us as we go along. God knows, we have
enough to be excited about without that.
I appeal to you not to use these types of words and surely not
that tone of voice.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Speaker: Earlier today at about 1.55
p.m. I made the decision that there will be an emergency debate
this evening beginning at 8 p.m.
I have a note in my hand from the hon. government whip and the
government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that the Chair has ruled
on this issue and I do not dispute that.
However, in order to accommodate the House, instead of waiting
until eight o'clock this evening to commence the debate, and in
order to allow more members to participate, I wonder if there
would be a disposition to commence the debate immediately after
private members' hour so that members can speak either for or
against the emergency in question. It would allow more members
to speak.
The Speaker: I take it that you mean after the late show.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is a second issue,
but perhaps we could agree to defer or to have the late show some
other day so that members, given the importance of this issue,
could commence at precisely the end of private members' hour, at
or around 6.30 p.m., and we would not have the late show today,
because this is an adjournment debate.
The Speaker: All we are dealing with here is a motion
from one hon. member. He wants to put a motion on the floor that
we move up the debate time from 8 p.m. to an earlier time, 6.30
p.m., depending on when we finish private members' hour. It
might end earlier. That is why I am saying “earlier”.
I want to understand that everyone else understands.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
so that everyone is clear, I wish to ask the Leader of the
Government in the House if he intends to have a motion
introduced that no dilatory or other motion may be brought
during the debate, and let the debate proceed on automatic
pilot, so to speak, this evening.
1515
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker,
I have clearly understood the question of the hon. member
opposite. He is asking us whether a motion not to allow dilatory
motions will be introduced. I undertake to have one drafted and
submitted to the House within minutes.
Since this is an adjournment debate, very few dilatory motions
are possible in any event but, to reassure the House, we can put
a motion before the House in the next few minutes anyway.
In reply to his question, we are indeed prepared to do this.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
if I understand correctly, Private Members' Business today will
not take very long. I believe it is Bill S-20.
I think in fairness to members who may have lined up their late
show, and particularly given that Private Members' Business is
expected not to take very long, we could commence the emergency
debate immediately after the late show. Quite a lot of
scheduling goes into late shows. I do not know who is on the late
show, but in fairness to people who may have scheduled themselves
for this, particularly given the fact that Private Members'
Business is expected to collapse, we could go straight into the
late show after private members' hour and still begin the
emergency debate earlier than we normally might have begun it.
The Speaker: Let us see what we have here. Permission is
being sought by the hon. government House leader to put a motion,
and the motion is that we will advance the beginning of the
emergency debate which I have ordered from 8 p.m. to immediately
after the late show. That is what the motion is.
[Translation]
In reply to the question from our Bloc Quebecois colleague, I
think there will be something to add so that other motions are
not included in the motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, is it
also understood then that the late show will be moved up and
commence when Private Members' Business collapses, rather than
having the House suspended until such time as the late show would
regularly commence, so everything will run sequentially without
time in between.
The Speaker: That is my understanding.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps to assist, I think
there is an understanding in the House now. I will write a draft
order to that effect, bring it back to the House in a few minutes
and it will have all of that in it. I think the House has
understood and we all know what we want to do. In a few minutes
we will come back with all of this in a special order. Perhaps
that is the best way.
The Speaker: Then we will not deal with this motion at
this point and will now proceed to orders of the day. We will
come back to that if necessary.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-72, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are
consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980)
and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the
Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain
acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise on debate at second reading of Bill C-72, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act. This bill follows on several
policy and technical changes made by the government in last
year's budget, the 1998 budget, and which are now being fully
implemented in this bill.
The bill covers many different areas, including registered
education savings plans, provisions with respect to RRSPs, the
personal tax credit, the child care expense deduction, as well as
the caregiver tax credit.
1520
The official opposition will be opposing this bill on several
grounds. Whenever the government brings before us a tax bill of
this nature, which adds greater complexity to the tax code, we
must ask why. Why is it that this parliament and this government
cannot understand the fundamental need for root and branch tax
reform and tax simplification?
Today we have a tax code that is over 1,300 pages long. It has
thousands of associated pages of regulations, rulings and
interpretation bulletins issued by the Department of Finance and
the Department of National Revenue. This tax code which we are
proposing to amend constitutes an enormous, destructive and
wasteful burden on the productive capacity potential of our
economy.
The Department of National Revenue employs over 43,000 full time
personnel just to interpret, apply and enforce this Byzantine,
out of control, costly and burdensome tax code. Untold tens of
thousands of other Canadians are occupied full time in the
interpretation and compliance with the Income Tax Act. That is
to say that an enormous proportion of our national wealth is
misdirected into complying with a tax code which no single
individual can understand and which has grown beyond any
reasonable level for a tax code in a free and democratic country.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. It is an enormous
power with which we are entrusted in this parliament, the power
to confiscate legally the fruits of the labour of people who work
hard day in and day out to do better by themselves and their
families. We use this enormous power, this Income Tax Act, to
tell those families that they must give 10%, 20% or 30% of their
family or individual incomes to this government to spend on its
priorities rather than their own priorities.
Fundamentally, I want to make it clear that the official
opposition opposes the continuing growth in complexity and cost
of this destructive tax system.
This bill does precisely nothing to alleviate the enormous
complexity and burden of the Income Tax Act but rather adds to
it. I will refer to each of the provisions here that simply add
additional regulations and legislative language which will make
the code even more burdensome and more difficult to interpret and
even more difficult to comply with.
I refer in particular to the proposed increase in the personal
tax credit of $500 announced in the 1998 budget. The first half
of that $500 increase in the basic personal amount for some low
income taxpayers was implemented in legislation last year. The
bill before us today would complete that increase to $500.
Let me point to an example of how ridiculously complicated this
bill and the tax code are. This bill does not increase the basic
exemption for all Canadians, treating them equally across the
income spectrum; rather it will only be increased for incomes
under a certain amount based on a certain complicated formula,
all of which unnecessarily complicates what should be the
simplest part of the tax system, the basic personal exemption.
Based on any rational principle of taxation, the basic personal
exemption should be clear, straightforward, and ought not to
become a complex exemption, as has been done in this bill.
1525
Let me also say with respect to the provisions for RRSPs, this
bill permits Canadian residents to make tax free withdrawals to
pay for full time training, as they can for instance under the
status quo ante to pay for their mortgage on a principal
residence.
With respect to RRSPs, this bill does not address the
fundamental problem. This parliament has decided to allow
Canadians to direct a relatively small portion of their annual
income into a registered retirement savings plan, if they do not
qualify for a registered pension plan. That is a sensible policy.
We recognize that millions of Canadians do not and cannot rely on
government or their private sector employers to provide them with
retirement security.
The problem is that with the provision for RRSPs, we impose
unreasonable regulations, restrictions and limitations on how
much Canadians can save for the future in a tax sheltered vehicle
such as an RRSP. How do we do that?
First, we limit the amount of Canadian taxpayers' taxable income
which can be deferred through the RRSPs to 18% or $13,500,
whichever is less. This is to say that a self-employed young
Canadian, with no company pension plan and no real prospect of a
Canada pension plan benefit because of the actuarial instability
of the CPP, has to almost exclusively rely on the RRSP as his or
her source of future retirement income. Yet the government says
that it will limit quite severely the portion of the person's
income which he or she can direct into that RRSP. That is a
disincentive for self-employed Canadians to take full
responsibility for their financial future and for their
retirement.
This cap of $13,500 or 18%, whichever is less, has not increased
over the past several years. This is a reflection of the
government's pernicious policy of taxing people on inflation.
We have seen this government continue the Mulroney Conservative
government policy of partial deindexation of the tax code. We
have seen taxpayers having to pay about $12 billion in additional
taxes than they otherwise would have paid were it not for partial
deindexation and the consequent bracket creep.
So too we see the limit of $13,500 for maximum allowable RRSP
contributions not keeping pace with inflation. In other words,
had the RRSP maximum amount been held constant with inflation,
and if the maximum amount for RRSP contributions were equivalent
to the maximum amount that people can contribute to a registered
pension plan, then it would be about $15,000 that they could put
into their RRSP and not $13,500.
We should have seen an increase in the amount that people could
save and defer taxes on through the RRSP for each of the last
three or four years. However the government, through its nickel
and diming of people and its tax policies, decided to freeze the
maximum allowable contributions several years ago. Therefore,
many hundreds of thousands of Canadians have not been able to
defer taxation on their one and only source of future retirement
income, namely their private retirement savings plans.
For that reason we oppose the bill because it does not include
the kind of increase in the RRSP allowable contribution amount
which all people who are serious about their financial future
would like to see.
1530
I can say that I have not in my time as a member of parliament
received a single letter, phone call, fax, e-mail, comment at a
town hall or on an open line show suggesting that Canadians would
like to see their taxes increased, but I have received dozens
upon dozens asking that the maximum amount for RRSPs be
increased, which the bill does not do.
I have also received dozens of messages from constituents asking
that we allow Canadians to invest a larger portion of their RRSPs
into foreign held equities and investments. Under the current
law, which the bill fails to change, Canadian investors can only
contribute 20% of their tax deferred RRSP savings in foreign
investments. That means that at least 80% of their investments
are stuck in domestic Canadian equities and bonds. We are again
forcing Canadians to be irresponsible when it comes to their own
financial future. One of the basic fundamental principles of
sound investment is to diversify, which we do not allow Canadians
to do because of the restrictive 20% foreign content limit on
RRSPs.
Yet another one of the inadequacies in the Bill C-72 is its
failure to respond to the outcry among Canadians to allow them to
protect the value of their retirement savings and to generate
better returns, which would consequently benefit the Canadian
economy by raising the maximum allowable foreign content limit in
the RRSP.
Let me address an aspect of the bill which I really find the
most objectionable, that is the increase which it proposes in the
child care expense deduction. The bill completes a change begun
in legislation from last year's budget which increased the child
care expense deduction from $5,000 for children under seven to
$7,000, an increase of $2,000.
Let me explain what the child care tax deduction—
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let
me apologize first to the hon. member for interrupting his
discourse.
I believe there is unanimous consent for the motion that I am
about to propose pursuant to the consultations that have been
held, maybe somewhat unusually, including those in the Chamber. A
copy of the motion has been given to all parties in the House.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the present sitting, proceedings pursuant to Standing
Order 38 shall be taken up immediately following the completion
of Private Members' Business and, when such proceedings are
completed, the House shall proceed immediately to proceedings
pursuant to Standing Order 52, provided that during the
aforementioned proceedings the Chair shall not receive any quorum
calls or dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Could I ask for clarification from
the government House leader. The aforementioned proceedings
refer to which, all the proceedings mentioned in the motion, that
is the present sitting, or does it refer to the proceedings under
Standing Order 52?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it does not really change
much for us but, for greater clarity, if they apply to Standing
Order 52 that would suit us.
The Deputy Speaker: I just seek that clarification in
case there is a request for unanimous consent between now and the
commencement of Private Members' Business or during Private
Members' Business. You can understand the Chair's reluctance to
leave the matter quite so open. The understanding is that the
motion means that.
1535
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just to
be perfectly clear, that would only apply under Standing Order
52.
The Deputy Speaker: The request for consent, quorum calls
or dilatory motions.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: That is the way the Chair will now
interpret it, if that is what is agreed by the House.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when you refer to
Standing Order 52, does this mean that unanimous consent could
be called for for reasons other than the two that have been
given?
You have said that, during the emergency debate, there could be
no dilatory motion requesting consent, quorum call or—
Hon. Don Boudria: We will be on automatic pilot.
Mr. René Laurin: So it is not just on the two matters that there
can be no call for consent. No request for consent will be
authorized during the emergency debate. Is that what we are to
understand?
Hon. Don Boudria: That is how a debate under Standing Order 52
works.
Mr. René Laurin: Fine.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to propose this
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-72, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are
consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980)
and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the
Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain
acts related to the Income Tax Act; and of the amendment.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I was just beginning to address the issue of the proposed
increase in the bill for the child care tax deduction.
Let me explain what it is. We have had much debate in this
place over the past two or three weeks about the lack of fairness
toward single income families with children. One of the issues I
wanted to bring to attention of this place was the unfair,
unjustifiable discrimination against single income families that
decided to do what they believed was best by their kids and raise
them at home.
The child care tax deduction says to parents who have two
incomes that if they pay someone else, a third party, whether a
day care operator, a babysitter, a hockey summer camp or music
summer camp, to take care of their kids for a period of time and
are issued a receipt for the expenses incurred, the government
will allow the spouse with the lower of the two incomes in those
double income families to deduct the value of the child care
receipt from their taxes.
This says that families that give up the second income and have
the father or the mother stay at home full time to raise the
children and give up tens of thousands of dollars in potential
income are out of luck. They assume an enormous opportunity cost
and in so doing voluntarily reduce their standard of living. In
many instances they give up the second car, the larger house or
the three week vacation. Those families do not qualify for the
child care tax deduction, the value of which is increased in Bill
C-72. It says to those families that they will be forced through
the tax system to subsidize the day care choices of one kind of
family, that is to say the double income family that pays for
outside child care.
This deduction is absolutely, fundamentally unfair. We in the
official opposition attempted to bring the issue to a head in the
supply day motion on which we voted Tuesday last. Unfortunately,
because apparently government members who agreed with us were
whipped to vote against it, that motion did not pass.
However, at least we succeeded in having the government admit
there might be some kind of problem. Virtually every economist
and social scientist who has studied the matter agrees that there
is discrimination against single income families with children in
part due to the child care tax deduction in the bill.
1540
The problem with the bill is that it raises the inequity. It
increases the unfairness. It moves the deduction from $5,000 to
$7,000. While we are trying to bring single income families in
line with or in parity with their double income counterparts, the
government is actually increasing the unfairness.
The government's own budget documents demonstrate this quite
clearly. The budget documents tabled by the hon. Minister of
Finance last month indicate that the tax inequity between single
and double income families ranges between 60% and 115%. That is
to say, single income families pay between 60% and 115% more. In
some cases they pay twice as much in federal income taxes as do
their double income counterparts.
This is for families that are generally on the lower end of the
income scale. This is for the single income families that
according to the Vanier Institute of the Family are 3.8 times
more likely to be poor. This is simply inexcusable. I will
vigorously oppose the bill because of the increase in the child
care tax deduction.
One provision in the bill allows for a deduction for children
between the ages of seven and sixteen. What does this mean? It
means that a double income family, theoretically a wealthy double
income family, could pay for a 15 or 16 year old child to go to
an expensive hockey school or music summer camp and claim a full
$4,000 tax deduction. At the same time the low income family,
the single income family on the other side of town that is
bringing in only $30,000 in income but has dad or mom full time
at home with the kids, gets no commensurate deduction.
We do not propose, by objecting to this issue, to remove the
deduction for child expenses completely. We propose to convert
it into a refundable credit that would be available to all
families regardless of their child care choice. Single income
families would have the full advantage of a refundable credit
equivalent to the maximum amount of the $7,000 deduction. This
would amount to $1,200. Every child under seven, under the
credit we are proposing, would benefit through their parents to
the amount of $1,200 a year. This would be an important step to
reducing the tax discrimination which was only increased in the
last budget.
In closing, we are disappointed that notwithstanding the debate
of the last couple of weeks the government is going precisely in
the wrong direction. Instead of levelling the playing field, it
is in fact increasing the inequity between these different kinds
of families. That is very disappointing indeed.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
find it passing strange that the member for Calgary Southeast
finds a whole range of issues with the 1998 budget but fails to
take into account that it was the first balanced budget since
1969-70, the first time the government had balanced the budget in
many years.
It was the beginning of tax relief for Canadians. It was $7
billion of tax relief for Canadians which was also extended in
the 1999 budget, amounting to a total of $16.5 billion in tax
relief for Canadians.
The member for Calgary Southeast spoke about simplifying the
Income Tax Act. I am sure all Canadians want to simplify the
Income Tax Act, but the hon. member failed to indicate how he
would simplify the Income Tax Act. I have a suspicion that the
way to simplify the act in his mind is the Alberta Reform
solution, the flat tax solution. A flat tax does not really
comply with the progressivity of the Canadian Income Tax Act.
Yes, it simplify things. It simplifies things very much, but it
means that the tax is not progressive. Higher income Canadians
now pay more income tax in percentage terms than lower income
Canadians. This seems to be an equitable way to arrange things.
A person who makes more income pays more income tax, not only in
absolute terms but in percentage terms. That is called a
progressive tax system.
1545
When we go to this simplified tax, yes, it would clean up a lot
of messy details in the Income Tax Act, but I am wondering what
it does to equity. How fair is it when we move to a tax system
like that?
Another feature of the 1998 budget which the member conveniently
forgot to mention was the Canadian opportunities strategy. It
provides a number of initiatives that give Canadians greater
access to the knowledge and skills needed as we move into the
next century.
We also began the process of paying down the debt which had not
been done for many years.
The member opposite gets into a lot of the details of the Income
Tax Act but he fails to acknowledge the very positive aspects of
the 1998 budget.
There is one aspect I would like to raise, and perhaps the
member could comment on it. He talks about the 20% foreign limit
for RRSPs. I think he is implying that it should be 25% or 30%.
I am wondering why the Canadian taxpaying public should be
subsidizing Canadians who want to invest more outside Canada.
Should we not be saying that if Canadians want to diversify their
portfolio and have 30% of their portfolio outside Canada, that is
fine, but why should the tax system subsidize that?
Mr. Jason Kenney: I thank the member from Etobicoke for
his thoughtful questions.
With respect to the last question, perhaps he should ask his
Liberal colleagues on the House of Commons finance committee who
voted to recommend that the foreign content limit be raised to
30%. This is not simply a Reform idea. Apparently the wisdom of
allowing Canadians greater flexibility in the management of their
retirement savings has even struck a chord with his own Liberal
colleagues. The answer to his question of why should we allow
people to do this, it is because it is their money. That is why.
The member's question reflects the premise that it really
belongs to the government and we allow Canadians to do what they
will with their own money. No, we start from a different premise
which is that it is their money and they have the prior right to
decide how to allocate it.
I would like to give further consideration to the private
member's bill put forward by my colleague from Medicine Hat which
would in fact eliminate any limit on the foreign content. But I
would at least go so far as to adopt the recommendation of the
House of Commons finance committee.
With respect to the purportedly balanced budget that the member
boasts about, I remind him that that budget came about because
75% of the deficit reduction came about because of increases in
revenue. Only 3% came about through real program spending cuts
in Ottawa's own budget. The balance was cuts to transfers to
persons and transfers to provinces, cutting health care, raising
taxes. That was the Liberal solution, not ours.
Finally, with respect to the brilliant, historic budget
introduced last week by Stockwell Day, the provincial treasurer
in Alberta, I was honoured to be in that legislature when that
budget came down. It was day one in a common sense revolution to
change and reform the tax system in Canada. That budget provides
a generous exemption of $11,500 per person, or $23,000 for a
family of two. It is not a flat tax because a family that earns
$23,000 in income will be zero rated. They will not pay a dime in
provincial income taxes.
Single moms are getting taxed by this government even if they
are below the poverty line because the exemptions are so low and
have not kept pace with inflation. But in Alberta a couple who
earns $23,000 under the brilliant tax reform strategy proposed by
the Alberta government will pay zero tax. On earnings of $46,000
they will pay 5.5% provincial tax, but on earnings of $92,000
they will pay 11% tax.
It has the advantage of being both progressive and simple. It
has the advantage of being family friendly. It removes the tax
discrimination against single income families perpetuated by this
federal government by delinking from the federal system. At the
same time it has the advantage of not penalizing people who are
successful and earn more revenue.
I thank the hon. member for bringing that to our attention
because the Alberta tax plan is an ideal model for federal tax
reform.
1550
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
happened to read a letter today from a lady who was talking about
the inequities in the Canadian Income Tax Act. She made the point
that she wanted the choice to stay at home and care for her
children during their critical years. She also said, “If I am in
the home, if I am in the kitchen, it is my own choice. If I am
pregnant, the Reform Party most assuredly had nothing to do with
it. If I am barefoot, however, the Liberal Party has made a
major contribution to my condition”.
I would like the member to respond to this whole issue,
particularly on the matter of the Reform proposal for an
increased spousal equivalent that would be allowed for a
dependent child of a single parent.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
that difficult question. I have received literally hundreds of
letters similar to the one to which the member referred which
appeared in today's Vancouver Sun where she indicated that
if she is homeless it is the Liberal Party that has made the
contribution to her condition because of the increases in the tax
burden.
This bill increases the inequity between single and double
income families. We see from this year's budget documents in
very concrete terms how that increase happens. The average
differential in the taxes paid by single and double income
families will go from 60% to 64% under this budget in large part
because of the provisions of this bill. It will do that by
raising the child care expense deduction without any commensurate
relief for single income families who provide their child care at
home.
I was doing a talk show on a Winnipeg station last week. A lady
called and said she was a qualified engineer who had given up her
$70,000 a year salary to stay at home full time and care for her
children. She said this was a decision she and her husband had
made because they felt it was best for their family. She said
she did not regret it.
She went on to say, “Please tell the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism that I gave up my entire paycheque for child
care, not just a portion of it, not just $7,000 or $8,000 which
is reflected in the child care expense deduction, I gave up my
whole paycheque to finance our child care at home”.
That is something we ought to keep in mind. That is why this
parliament ought to adopt at least a refundable credit available
to all parents, that does not discriminate against one family
model or another, that does not pit single income families
against double income families, but treats them all as being
equal under the law.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for some time now
the House has been addressing income tax, what can be done, and
what cannot. But I think that in a debate such as this one, a
retrospective might be necessary, to look at what is already in
place before making any changes to the Income Tax Act.
It has been some years since Canada had the opportunity to have
a royal commission into its taxation system. One was struck in
1962, and dubbed the Carter Commission.
That commission was chaired by a man named Kenneth Carter. Mr.
Carter worked for over four and a half years before putting
forward recommendations to correct our tax system and make it
fairer and more equitable.
What is interesting is what happened when the Carter report was
released. This truly was a revolutionary document on taxation.
The recommendations on our tax system were so well thought out
that Harvard University, in the United States, decided that this
program could be used in industrialized countries to show how
tax systems can be reformed so as to make them fairer and more
equitable.
1555
Unfortunately, for reasons that we do not know, it was decided
not to publish the commission's report. This was rather strange
but, for the first time in the history of our country, the
report of a royal commission was not published. Canadians were
not informed of the recommendations made by these economists.
People who might have wished to examine these recommendations to
improve our tax system were not able to do so.
Also, after the commission completed its Canadian tour, there
seemed to be a consensus that the report was an important
discussion paper. But this was completely ignored, until now.
Although the royal commission now dates back more than 30 years,
consideration was given to a number of the Carter Commission's
findings in 1992 or 1993, I think. While the recommendations
made at the time still hold true today, unfortunately, once
again, they were ignored.
Regardless of which party is in government, the problem has
never been faced that we need an in-depth reform before examining
any ideas, whether a single rate of 20% or tax deductions for
homemakers. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the
Income Tax Act. The reform must be done in detail.
I would just like to raise a few points to demonstrate the
distortions that have been introduced into our system over the
years. From 1984 to 1988, there was about a 10% increase in the
income tax paid by people of average income.
That was a substantial increase. At the same time, between 1984
and 1988, there was a barely 6% increase in the income tax paid
by those who were better off.
The distortion in the income tax system for these two categories
of taxpayers is immediately obvious. I am giving just a few
points. We are aware that there are many more. Four or five
years ago, witnesses appearing before the Finance Committee
indicated that there were 75 to 80 items needing correction in
the Income Tax Act.
One of the examples they gave was that of people earning in
excess of $100,000, who benefited most generously from capital
gains exemptions. In all, such persons had refunds of over
$1 billion.
Fifty one per cent of people with an income over $100,000
benefited. However, of those with an income of $50,000 or less,
only 8% benefited from capital gains.
That shows that the richest enjoy the greatest benefits. They
are more likely to pay less income tax and obviously to become
ever richer.
Without going into detail, I wanted just to point out a few
things. I have a lot here to show that, first and foremost, and
it must be repeated, we need an in depth reform, as we had in
1962, either through a royal commission or some other means, to
look thoroughly at ways to correct the gaps in our system. If
every year only adjustments are made, we will never have a fair
and equitable system.
1600
Over time, our fellow citizens must be convinced to tell their
representatives that we need a global solution to the problem,
that it is not enough to correct it one page at a time, given
that there are over 1,400 pages in the Income Tax Act.
Another matter that does not come directly under the Income Tax
Act is the fact that we have a money policy that proved to be
disastrous for us during the period starting in 1985. For a
number of years, the Bank of Canada set the interest rates at
four percentage points, sometimes five percentage points higher
than those in the United States. It caused our national debt to
grow by leaps and bounds.
In 1984, our national debt was $160 billion; nine years later,
it had reached $460 billion. The debt was increasing every year
and the government had to collect more and more taxes to pay the
interest on it.
Again, it is not simply a matter of amending minor provisions of
the Income Tax Act. We must consider all the components of our
national tax system. We need a comprehensive reform of our
monetary policy, which is a critical tool for the government.
Very few know how this policy works, or why it is in place.
Again, and I conclude on this note, the most important thing we
can do for our fellow Canadians is to urge this government, and
I have done it many times, to undertake a comprehensive tax
reform. We must not merely ask for changes here and there.
We must look at the overall picture and decide that we need
another commission such as the one we had in the past.
If, at the time, we had followed up on that revolutionary
document, perhaps we would have a solution to make our tax
system as fair and equitable as possible for all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, this country does
not need more studies, it needs action. The time for studying is
over. We know what the problem is, as my hon. friend articulated
very well in his short speech. Many solutions have been brought
forth not only in the House but by articulate individuals
from around the country and around the world. Those solutions are
eminently doable.
If we had a royal commission we know what would happen. The
royal commission would drag on for a month of Sundays. It would
cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and would only
force the House to engage in another series of studies to study
what we have already studied. That is what we tend to do in this
place. Rather than act we study.
I know my hon. colleague has a very big interest in this. Study
after study has shown that Canada is lacking in productivity.
Canada's competitiveness has been dropping for many years. What
we need to do is drop our tax rate fairly. We need to decrease
the rules and regulations that choke the private sector. We need
to invest in those pillars of our economy that are very
supportive and useful in getting people back to work and in
improving the lifestyles of Canadians, pillars like research and
development, education and many others.
If we are able to do that we will build a secure economy and we
will have a strong network of social programs to take care of
those individuals who cannot take care of themselves, a concern
of this hon. member and all hon. members.
1605
The erosion of our economy does more than hurt the rich. It
hurts primarily the poor and middle class. The rich can go
anywhere they want. The poor and middle class are stuck here
doing what they have to do. They do not have the choice. The
rich have a choice, the poor do not.
Would my hon. colleague plead with finance minister to bring in
the suggestions raised here, to lower the tax rate fairly,
increase the minimum allowance on a personal basis, immediately
call for rationalization of the rules and regulations, keep what
we need, eliminate what we do not, and give Canadians the power
to be the best they can become.
Mr. Mark Assad: Mr. Speaker, we all like to hear that we
should immediately get into action and take decisions. Most
Canadians think, and we have repeated it here, that we have had
enough study.
Nevertheless, when we are dealing with something like the tax
system we cannot do it without having profound knowledge of the
implications for everybody. That is why I wanted to bring up the
idea of a royal commission like we had in the past. Maybe we can
go back to the Carter commission of 1967. There was a review
some four or five years ago that showed that scholars at Harvard
recognized the Carter commission as a revolutionary document.
Scandinavian countries used part of the commission's report to
make reforms. The only country that never used any of the
commission's recommendations was our country.
To get back to what the member asked, I believe we have to
understand the implications of our tax system. We can go back to
the Carter commission but we cannot immediately jump in an cut
taxes. Like I pointed out, the whole income tax system is flawed
and detrimental to the middle class. We do not have to be
economists to realize this. That is what we have to look at and
it requires a lot.
The member mentioned that we have a lot of people in Canada who
are very knowledgeable. I could name a few I have met through
the years who came to the commission. Quite often they tell us
afterwards that their recommendations over the years have been
ignored. I believe it is not only the finance department that
has had a monopoly on brains through the years. We have had some
very qualified people. I have come to know individuals like
Pierre Fortin from Montreal. He is one of our foremost
economists and has written extensively. I have discussed this
with him on many occasions without going into any details. I do
not consider myself an expert, far from it.
The overall tax system has to be reformed. That is what we have
to realize. Everybody would like to have lower taxes. Everybody
would like to see changes whereby our taxes would go down and
they would have more disposable income. That would give us a
shot in the arm. Before we can start cutting or doing this we
have to know what the flaws are in our system. That will not be
easy. There are a lot of people in this country who are very
satisfied with the tax system. The richest 1% would rather it
not be touched.
Without going into more detail, before we can start one thing or
another with the tax system, we have to reform it.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for my hon. colleague and neighbor.
In 1962, the Carter Commission was set up. If memory serves,
the Prime Minister of Canada at the time was Mr. Diefenbaker.
So the commission was created by the Progressive Conservatives.
My colleague told me this commission completed its work four
years later when the Liberals were in power. Is what I am now
saying correct?
Mr. Mark Assad: Mr. Speaker, yes. The commission report was
made public in 1967, four and a half years later. It is true
that the government changed during that time.
1610
When the Carter Commission made its recommendations public, it
toured the country. This is a rather interesting story. Many
people in mining and other industries had interests to protect.
Various sectors of the economy wanted to have their say.
The minutes of this tour are a real mixed bag. Everyone came to
complain, to say what suited them best. They did not look at
the bigger picture of how all Canadians could be affected.
Whether it was the oil industry, the mining industry or others,
everybody was out to look after their own interests. There were
a lot of pressures at the time not to do this or that.
In a democratic system, it is only natural for the government to
be under pressure to do one thing or another. There were
pressures from everywhere. The building industry even threatened
to stop working. It feared the government might impose
recommendations made by the Carter commission.
As the result of all these pressures, the government more or
less decided to take its time, let things cool down and
gradually implement the Carter commission's recommendations.
It took a number of years, but the first attempt was made by
Allan MacEachen. In 1980, he made several recommendations.
There was a very heated debate in the House. When later I raised
the issue with the Hon. Allan MaEachen, I told him that the
recommendations put forward would have been beneficial. He
agreed. However, there were as usual so many outside pressures,
threats to shut down entire sectors of the economy, that he
withdrew his proposals. That is unfortunately how it went.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-72 on income
tax amendments.
Once again we have missed the boat. Once again the government
has not dealt in a profound and fundamental way with an issue
that is affecting Canadians across this country.
The Prime Minister has said in the last two weeks that Canada is
doing fine. Our productivity is fine. He says this based on one
study, the KPMG study, paid for by his government. This flies in
the face of every single other study, any other analysis I have
ever seen in and outside Canada.
The Canadian economy, our productivity and our competitiveness
are among the lowest in the industrialized world. Among all G-8
nations we are the bottom of the barrel. That is nothing to be
proud of because it is far less than what we can strive for as a
nation.
The government is telling the Canadian public, patting us on the
head, “Smile, be happy. Don't worry, we have social programs
that will take care of you”. What a bunch of nonsense. What a
pile of tripe. That is totally unacceptable. All we need to do
is speak to Canadians and ask what is bothering them. Are they
happy with the economy? Are they happy with their job
opportunities? Are they happy with the opportunities their
children have? Most of them are not. This is not a figment of
their imagination. This did not appear overnight. This is not
something that has been happening over the last few weeks. This
has been happening for years and it is not getting better. It is
getting worse.
We are not lacking in solutions. My colleague from the other
side articulated a number of them. He mentioned the problems.
Members from the Reform Party and other parties have articulated
solutions. There is much that binds us together and there is
much that is in agreement.
What we do not have is somebody to take the bull by the horns and
say that these are the best solutions we can find, these are the
reasons we are going to this and, by heaven, we are going to do
this.
1615
This country has seen a lot of studying; it has not seen a lot
of action. What Canadians are sick and tired of is the malady of
studyitis that we have in the House of Commons, an ailment that
causes intellectual gridlock. This whole place grinds to a halt.
It does not function well. It is a poor use of taxpayers' money
and does not serve the people of this country, who elect us to do
a job, to help them help themselves, and indeed to help those who
cannot help themselves. We have failed.
Let us look at some of the facts. Should we be happy with
unemployment? No. Our unemployment rate is much higher than
that of the country to the south of us. It is much higher than
many of the G-8 countries.
Our productivity is sliding. It is the lowest in the G-8.
Our competitiveness has been dropping too. Why? The primary
reason, and we all sound like broken records, is taxes. To take
into consideration the concern that members on all sides of the
House have, we do not want to introduce tax cuts that will
compromise anybody, particularly the poor and middle classes. We
want to make sure that the people of this country, regardless of
their income, have the power to be the best that they can become
and the power to take care of themselves.
Perhaps a fundamental difference between ourselves and the
traditional Liberal thinking is that we believe most Canadians
can take care of themselves better than governments can and we
want to give people the power to do that.
The other side of the coin is to make sure that Canadians who
cannot take care of themselves have a social network that can
provide for them.
Thank heavens we are not like the United States. Historically
we have had good social programs which have been there to take
care of those who cannot take care of themselves. However, we do
not speak about the current threat and future threats to those
programs. Pensions, health care, education and welfare programs
are all in jeopardy. They are in jeopardy because we do not have
a healthy economy. We cannot have strong social programs unless
we have a healthy economy.
By maintaining high tax levels, by not rationalizing the rules
and regulations that choke off the private sector, by not keeping
the rules that we need and removing those that we do not, we
compromise the very essence and the ability of our economy to
perform. Canadians cannot provide for themselves and pay the
taxes that will enable the government to provide the social
programs to provide for those people who cannot provide for
themselves.
It is all intertwined. The failure of this government to do
what we and others have been telling it to do for years is an
abrogation of its responsibility. It is a violation of its duty,
primarily to those people who are the most underprivileged
individuals in our society. It is an abrogation of its
responsibility to the beleaguered middle class, which is having
increasing difficulty being able to acquire the basics for
themselves and their families.
Government members like to talk about research and development.
They want to provide money for it and we applaud that. What is
the single most important factor in enabling research and
development to occur in this country? The most important thing
the government can do, and recent studies show this, is to give
companies the money to do the research and development
themselves. They do not necessarily want government handouts,
but they at least want the ability to do this. The way they can
do this is to have tax cuts, which will enable them to reinvest
in their companies and become more competitive.
One of the saddest things we often hear about is the brain
drain. The brain drain is a complex situation and is linked to
many factors. Many Canadians who go south do not want to go
south necessarily because they will make a little more money.
They want to go because they have the ability to work in
companies, work in universities, work in institutions where they
have the opportunity to put their skills to the best possible
use. The U.S. actually enables that to happen. That is
something which we in Canada need to take a cold hard look at.
1620
Let us consider tax rates and the money left in people's pockets
after taxes and compare that to the United States. A couple
working in the United States makes 44% more in after tax dollars
than the same couple in Canada. How can we justify that? How
can we be competitive?
Even the Prime Minister's own pollster, Mr. Marzolini, said very
clearly in the last month that it is the high tax rates in this
country which choke off the ability of the Canadian economy to
function properly.
The woeful neglect of this situation is a damning indignation on
this government which cannot be tolerated, let alone respected.
Governments will not provide money for education if they have a
poor economy. In my riding there are high schools in which
students have to write exams on paper that resembles toilet
paper. They have had to downgrade to paper that is pathetic.
Kids, even when they are trying to rub out their answers, rip
right through it because schools do not have enough money to buy
reasonable paper.
In British Columbia students are sharing textbooks. They do not
even have their own textbooks. The schools do not have the money
to teach our students who can then become employed in the future.
The government may take comfort in saying that we have the
social programs to provide welfare and employment insurance, but
that is no comfort to Canadians who want to work. Most Canadians
do not want to be on welfare or EI, they want to work.
The unemployment rates we talk about do not take into
consideration the underemployment rates we have in the country.
There are legions of university students who come out with good
training only to find that the job opportunities in their chosen
fields are few to non-existent. What kind of message are we
sending the youth of today? That after all their hard work they
will end up slinging hot dogs or burgers at McDonald's? That is
what is happening now. It is a waste to our economy and the
potential of our country. It cannot be allowed to happen.
My colleague spoke about the pension issue and how the Reform
Party has put together constructive solutions to rescue our
pensions. The CPP will not be there for the people of my
generation and subsequent generations because the amount of money
that will be required to fund the CPP will simply not be there.
In the next 20 years the number of people who will be over 65 years
of age will go from the 12% to 25%. The number of
people who will be working to provide the tax base to pay for the
CPP and other social programs will simply not be there. What do
we do? Will the government do what it recently did and jack up
CPP rates almost 50%? It certainly will not be able to do that
in the future because at some point in time there will be a
collapse. We cannot continue to raise taxes and the demands on
the individual without the system falling apart.
Let us talk about solutions. Let us talk about how to fix this
system. There is much we can do. One thing we talked about is
productivity. I have spoken about tax cuts. Let us increase the
minimum personal exemption. There are a number of innovative
things we have discussed today and in previous times concerning
education, in terms of enabling schools to have the money to do
what they have to do to train the kids of today. We should also
consider innovative projects like those in Europe which link up
the educational facilities with the private sector, enabling
students to get work experience early on. There are also
innovative ways of looking at tax credits to do that.
We could consider a flat tax or a flattened tax, which has just
been introduced in Alberta. Rather than having the complex tax
system we have now, by flattening it or by having a flat tax we
could simplify the system.
It would be a lot simpler and easier to employ. It would save
the individual and indeed the economy a lot of money. The proof
is in the pudding when we look at other countries.
1625
In the Nordic countries and other European countries people were
labouring under very, very high tax rates in the 1970s and 1980s.
For example, in the case of Sweden, its interest rates went up
to 500% overnight. There was a huge exodus of capital from the
country. Interest rates had to be jacked up to stop that.
In England, the tax rates jumped to almost 90%. All the best and
the brightest, and those with money to invest, create jobs and
build the companies within England left. There was an economic
collapse within England. The people who were hurt the most were
the poor and the middle class. They could not get jobs any more.
The jobs had left.
Furthermore, the resources that were required by the government
to provide social programs were not there. They saw the collapse
of their health institutions. Many people suffered needlessly as
a result of the high taxes.
The Nordic countries got smart; a lot smarter then we are. They
lowered their tax rates and simplified their tax system.
What has happened? England is a lion in Europe and indeed in
the world in terms of not only its economic performance, but more
important, the health and welfare of its citizens.
In the Nordic countries we have seen something similar
happening. The socialist mentality that was embedded within
those countries, which said that the government would be there to
take care of its people, is gradually being eroded. People are
now beginning to provide for themselves.
This is ending the culture of dependence that was ingrained into
that society; a culture of dependence that, sadly, is becoming
more ingrained in our society. That is lethal for any economy
and worse for the health and welfare of citizens.
With respect to the basic personal income tax exemption, there
is no reason, as the hon. member opposite mentioned, the
government could not do that tomorrow. The government could
bring a bill to the House. It could do it by order in council,
which is what it does 80% of the time on important decisions.
Cabinet just says “We are going to do this” and it is done. It
does not come to the House.
Twenty per cent of the decisions to be made are brought to the
House. Unfortunately, most of them are about as essential to the
workings of this country as a healthy dose of pabulum. It does a
huge disservice to the collective ability of members to bring
what they can to the debate in a meaningful way.
There are many people in this House from all political parties
who have an extraordinary amount of experience, intelligence and
energy to bring to important debates, if the Prime Minister and
his friends in the PMO would only allow that to happen. The
issue of democracy in this country and the lack thereof is
perhaps best spoken about in another very interesting debate.
With respect to the child care tax deduction, why do we not
treat families equally, those who choose to have one parent stay
at home to care for the children and those who choose to have
both parents work? Why do we not have equity in the tax system?
There is no reason that cannot happen.
I send this message to the government members who have spoken in
a disparaging way about parents who choose to stay at home to
care for their children. There is no more valuable job in this
country than a parent who stays at home to care for their
children.
It is not only the most valuable job, I would submit that it is
the most difficult job. I would not want to trade places with
those parents who stay at home to do the very difficult job of
bringing up children in the society we live in today, but it is
essential.
There have been medical studies and analyses done around the
world. The Minister of Labour will attest to this because of the
hard work which she and her husband have done on the head start
program in Moncton.
1630
The impact of a parent on the development of a child
particularly in the first eight years of life is unparalleled.
The positive and negative impact that can have is unlike anything
else that can take place in the development of that child toward
becoming an adolescent and after that an adult.
The positive impact of loving, caring parents in the development
of children through providing a secure environment and the basic
needs is far more important than any money they may have in their
pockets. It is far more important than any material goods that
can be given to children. Parents staying home and doing that
are not only contributing to society in the most valuable way
possible but they are contributing to the development of children
in a way that nothing else can compare to.
The last point is on pensions. Our party has put forth
constructive solutions to have super RRSPs, to increase the
amounts Canadians are allowed to invest in their RRSPs. Certainly
the CPP will not be there for them. Why the government does not
give Canadians an opportunity to take care of themselves is
beyond me.
If we have super RRSPs and increase the amounts Canadians can
invest in markets outside Canada, if we enable people to invest
in their own health and welfare and give them the tools to take
care of themselves, that is the greatest gift we can give to
Canadians. By doing that there will be more money to provide for
those people who are poor and middle class who cannot take care
of themselves. The solutions are out there. We do not need more
studies, we need action. I challenge the government to take up
that challenge today and to act now.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as
possible. I know the hon. member had a number of things to say
but I draw him back to the 1999 Reform budget plan which talks
about what the opposition would propose.
The Reform plan does not include any economic prudence. It
talks about surpluses of $30 billion to $35 billion. It talks
about average GDP growth over the next three years of 5.5%,
almost two times the private sector. Reformers want to cut taxes
by $9 billion a year. They want to reduce the debt by $9
billion. They want to cut EI premiums by $7 billion for a total
bill of $25 billion. It is very important that Reformers tell
Canadians and certainly members of the House how they would
finance it. We would go back into deficit. What would they cut?
Is it health care? Is it research? Is it education?
If we built budgets the way the Reform Party did we would have—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the proof in the pudding
is looking at the real world. If we look at provinces that have
cut taxes like Alberta and Ontario, we see booming economies. If
we look at my province of British Columbia which is running a
$500 million deficit and has the highest tax rates in the
country, do we see a good economy? We see a province that is the
worst place to do business in North America. That is not
success, that is failure. If we want to listen to success, I
implore the hon. member to look at the Reform budget, cut taxes
and enable to our economy to be the best it can become.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take
that to mean Calgary West. Calgary is a grand city. I would be
proud to be of any of the ridings in the city of Calgary. My
seatmate, the hon. member for Crowfoot, had a question. He has a
constituent who earns $11,600 a year, not a large sum of money.
Of that $11,600 this individual pays $700 in taxes, $800 in other
deductions and $130 on income from interest on an inheritance
system that constituent will be getting as part of a pension.
1635
The constituent is paying over $1,600 in taxes when making only
$11,600 a year. I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether he
thinks that type of Liberal taxation and Liberal fairness is
justice in taxation.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is called robbing the
poor to pay the government. That is what that is all about. How
anyone lives on $11,600 is beyond me. All of us in the House
have constituents who are in the same boat.
I have had constituents who are pensioners who come to me with
their income tax forms and say “Look at this. I am making
$20,000 a year and the government is making me pay thousands of
dollars of income tax. How can I and my wife survive on this?”
That is not a question for me to answer. That is a question on
the conscience of the government to answer because Reformers
would not tolerate that for a minute.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague from the Reform Party said earlier that what we need
is action, not more studies. I will point out to him that,
sometimes, a good understanding of what is going on can help us
be more coherent in our actions.
The Carter commission of 1962 was mentioned earlier. We heard
that it was an exemplary commission whose recommendations were
not followed up.
It may be good to see where this is all coming from. It has been
proven that in some countries, including Canada, the tax system
is no longer progressive.
It is no longer true that the poorer you are, the less tax you
pay, and vice versa. Middle class Canadians do pay a great
amount of tax.
In a study released in 1994, Mr. Mimoto, an economist, said,
with regard to—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time is
up.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
[English]
The hon. member mentioned something that is extremely important.
He is talking about studies. We need to study something when we
do not know what the answer is. There is a warehouse of studies
somewhere on the Hill collecting dust. We spend millions and
millions of dollars on studies. As the hon. member mentioned, we
do not use them. They get tossed on a shelf to collect dust.
There are oodles of studies done by the House, done outside the
House, done outside the country. We do not need more studies.
We need action. We do not get action
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to ask him a
question and to wish him well in his upcoming leadership
campaign.
I agree with the member completely with respect to the
importance of a fairer tax system. I want to ask a very
straightforward question. Under the proposed budget changes of
the Liberal government a millionaire will receive a tax cut of
$8,000 this year. A single mother with two children living in
Metrotown in my community struggling to get by on welfare will
receive not a penny. Under Reform taxation policies that same
millionaire who gets $8,000 from Liberals would get $70,000 in
Reform Party tax cuts.
Where is the fairness? Where is the justice when under Reform
Party tax proposals a millionaire gets a $70,000 tax cut and a
single mom in Esquimalt or in Metrotown, Burnaby gets not a
penny?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true.
The Reform Party's budget plan would take over 200,000 of the
poorest Canadians right off the tax rolls. They would not pay a
penny of tax.
We are equally appalled by any kind of changes to the tax system
which preferentially give tax breaks to the rich and not to the
poor. What we support is that the poor and middle class in
particular get the tax breaks they need. Our proposal explicitly
states how we would get 200,000 of the poorest people to pay no
tax at all.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
listening to the hon. member from Esquimalt talking about how
important it is for families to have a stay at home parent raise
their children.
1640
Prior to becoming a politician the member was a family
physician. Therefore he most definitely knows what he is talking
about. When he says something like that I think we should all
listen and whenever we can we should encourage parents to stay at
home to raise their children.
The Speaker: That is a pretty nice comment. I would say
thank you and then go to the next person.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, these are words of wisdom.
He is absolutely right. What we need is a fair tax system that
enables parents to have the choice to stay home rather than
penalizing them for staying at home, which is what is happening
now.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
put a little different slant on the last two speakers. My
colleague from Prince Albert seems to have bought into what the
member from Esquimalt said so passionately, that it is far better
for a parent to look after the children at home and so on.
I wonder whether that does not have something to do with the
parent's abilities. The member did say the positive impact of a
loving parent, which helps a little. There are societies that
believe care given by appropriate caregivers to allow both
parents to work or do what they like and need to do is a good
idea.
I refer the member to kibbutzim in Israel which do a wonderful
job of raising children. I think they have a very simple answer
to a complex question.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, children need a loving and
caring environment to grow up in. The best person to provide
that is a competent parent. What the Reform Party is trying to
do is give families the choice and not penalize them for staying
at home. Whichever way we cut this, a loving, caring and
competent parent is the best person to take care of the children.
The Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, employment insurance.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if anybody
needs any information on kibbutzim, the hon. Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration worked on a kibbutz for a number of
years before coming to the House.
It is important to focus the debate somewhat. It would be fair
for me to say that the biggest cohort in the House is the class
of 1993. When the Liberals formed the government at that time it
is important to remember what our position was as a nation.
During the previous nine years the debt grew from $208 billion
to $508 billion under the Progressive Conservatives and we had a
record annual deficit of $42 billion.
In 1993, 11.4% of Canadians were unemployed and we were told by
the former Tory prime minister that we should not expect anything
below 10% before the year 2000. Although it is still much too
high, the number right now is 7.8%.
In 1993 employment insurance premiums were scheduled to rise to
$3.30. Since then we have lowered them each and every year. We
are now at $2.55 for every $100 earned.
Our nation was falling into self-doubt and we were an economic
basket case among western countries.
1645
The reality is that we now have back to back balanced budgets
for the first time in almost half a century. As we have
recovered the fiscal integrity of our nation we must thank all
Canadians for their support in this effort. We must also
recognize and commend the leadership of the Minister of Finance
and the Prime Minister in this effort.
Who would have believed that this day would come? In order to
complete this first stage of the recovery plan and balancing the
budget we pursued a balanced program of a reduction in spending,
reducing transfer payments to the provinces and growing the
economy. The decisions made and the actions taken were not easy
for anyone, but they worked. We can once again look to the
future with optimism.
Governing is about bettering the lives of Canadians and
improving their standard of living. It is building today to
ensure for a better tomorrow. In order to do this and do it well
we as a government cannot work alone so we enlist the input of
Canadians.
The principal concern of Canadians and Ontarians across the
country is health care. We are making the largest single
investment of the government in health care. Under the budget
provinces will receive an additional $11.5 billion in transfers
for health care over the next five years. My province of Ontario
gets an additional $4.4 billion of that for a total of 38.2%.
This investment will bring the health component of the Canada
health and social transfer to the level it was before the 1990
cutbacks.
Because we are removing the equalization cap on British
Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and moving to a per capita
entitlement for equalization payments, Ontario will receive an
additional $900 million in transfer payments.
Health care is a priority for Canadians and continues to be for
the government. As the Minister of Health has said, and I am
paraphrasing, we must strive for a people centred system, one
that stresses transparency, sharing of information and the right
provider giving the right care at the right time in the right
place at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. This increasingly means
innovative ideas and the use of the newest technology.
My riding of Kitchener—Waterloo is well known for innovation
and research. The budget has tremendous gains in this area, both
in health specific research and research in general. I have just
spoken of the health research initiatives as a cornerstone of the
budget and will now continue to discuss other forms of research,
an issue near and dear to me and the people of
Kitchener—Waterloo.
I am very happy to have contributed to this process through the
post-secondary caucus of the Liberal Party. I was one of the
original members, along with the hon. member for Peterborough and
Dr. John English, the former member for Kitchener who has now
returned to teaching at the University of Waterloo.
Our universities are very pleased with the budget. Bob
Rosehart, president of Wilfrid Laurier University, stated:
The focus on health in Federal Budget '99 was great news for all
Canadians. The enhanced health research opportunities presented
to all universities...and the increased funding to the granting
councils was great news. Obviously the federal government has
been listening to the universities and WLU looks forward to
participating in these new initiatives.
The comments from the University of Waterloo were much the same.
I am very glad to be able to say that the Kitchener—Waterloo
area is very well served by the budget and by the government.
Having worked with the post-secondary education and research
community for a long time I knew that our caucus would help them
in putting their message across.
In the consultations before the last budget the post-secondary
education caucus helped to ensure that the future of
post-secondary institutions and hundreds of thousands of students
was given high priority. As a result, the last budget was good
news for post-secondary education. This year it continues.
That is why the budget works. The people had an influence on
its preparation through public opinion polling and through
different caucuses and committees. Canadians are working hard to
better themselves and improve their prospects. In so doing they
are enhancing Canada's economic strength and furthering Canada's
future prospects, enabling us as a nation to compete successfully
in the new economy.
Research and development are crucial to the economic well-being
as we compete in the new economy. It is more imperative now as
we are undergoing an information technology revolution and has a
greater impact on jobs than the industrial revolution.
1650
Millions of jobs across the country were lost in the old economy
and the millions of net new jobs created in the past four years
are a tribute to our ability to embrace the new economy, much of
it a new economy founded on research and development.
For example, my community in Kitchener—Waterloo was once a
manufacturing community and an insurance centre. Now its
manufacturing sector is reduced and it specializes in higher
education and high tech and is still an insurance centre. Under
this new budget there is an increase in funding for research and
research infrastructure that will be of great benefit to my
riding, to my province and to my country.
This increase in funding includes another $15 million over three
years for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council,
$15 million over three years for the National Research Council,
$75 million over three years for the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council, and $200 million for the Canada
Foundation for Innovation. This new funding is in addition to
the funding granted for health research.
The Canadian opportunities strategy increases our ability to
achieve our goals by giving every Canadian better access to
knowledge and skills. The 1999 budget builds on this strategy by
investing more than $1.8 billion for this year and the next three
years. This funding will go toward knowledge: creating
knowledge, disseminating knowledge, commercializing knowledge and
hence supporting employment.
The Canadian opportunities strategy includes Canadian millennium
scholarships averaging $3,000 a year up to $15,000 in total for
four years; Canada study grants averaging $2,225 per year to help
students with the greatest need; support for advanced research as
detailed earlier; and tax relief for interest on student loans in
the Canada student loan interest relief. The strategy also
encourages families to save for their children's education
through the Canada education savings grant announced last year.
The government contributes to RESPs.
The Canada opportunities strategy helps to disseminate knowledge
across the country through SchoolNet, a program to connect every
high school and library to the Internet before the millennium. It
is due to be completed by March 31, 1999. The community access
program will connect 10,000 rural and urban communities in two
years.
There is no question that my community of Kitchener—Waterloo is
part of the new economy. As Canada moves forward into the
knowledge based economy of the present and the future, we will
have a budget that helps us as a nation to prepare for that. We
have many challenges before us as Canadians. I think the budget
helps us in that direction.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it was a pleasure to be in the member's riding this week
and to talk to some of his constituents. They are telling a very
different story than the picture he just finished painting.
I spoke with students at Wilfred Laurier on Tuesday and I spoke
to others throughout his community. I can indicate what they are
saying about the government's actions, its high taxes, its high
debt, and the slash and burn approach that it has taken to health
care. It added $11.5 billion to health care, which did not make
up for the $20 billion that it slashed and burned from health
care. They are not happy about that situation. Individuals in
the member's community are not singing the same praises of the
government. In fact, they have hard questions for the member.
We heard today in question period the Minister of Industry talk
about the falling standard of living. The member was singing the
praises of the standard of living as though it was improving in
his riding. The minister counteracted that today.
I would like to ask the member a very specific question. How
can he justify saying that the standard of living is improving in
his community when his own Minister of Industry is saying that
there is a fall in the standard of living of up to $7,000 for
Canadians?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
welcome any time to come to my riding and see a community that
actually works.
If he actually talked to the people and listened to what they had
to say, the hon. member would understand why Reform support keeps
dropping and dropping from election to election.
1655
Let me say to the member very specifically how the quality of
life has improved in my community because of the government.
First, fewer people are unemployed. We have one of the lowest
unemployment rates in the country. It is below 6%. If the hon.
member looked around my community and studied what makes my
community tick, he would recognize that we made the
transformation from an old economy to a new economy. Previous
governments had the foresight to make the necessary investments
that are well represented by the University of Waterloo, Sir
Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga College.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to what my hon. colleague had to say, and I really had
the feeling he was from another planet.
Let me give you some figures: in 1995, the total poverty rate
reached 17.4%. The number of Canadians living in poverty had
increased to over 5 million. The poverty rate for Canadian
families was at 14%, or more than 1 million families. The poverty
rate for single Canadians was 36%. The poverty rate for single
mothers under 65, with children under 18, was 57%.
My hon. colleague just told us that his riding was heaven on
earth. Good for him, but he should come to my riding of
Matapédia—Matane and listen to what my constituents have to say.
I would like to ask him a question. What would he say to my
constituents?
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes, Mr. Speaker, too many Canadians
are poor. Certainly nobody in the House takes any joy in that.
Prior to coming to parliament I used to work with an
organization called Youth in Conflict with the Law. Many of the
people we worked with were before the courts due to poverty and
lack of opportunities.
What I said in my speech was that the situation is Canada has
improved greatly since 1993. All members of the House must work
together to make sure that trend continues. Child poverty is
very much an important concern of the government. If he examines
the budgets over the last number of years, he will see we have
spent $2 billion to fight in that endeavour. We will continue to
do more.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know
the hon. parliamentary secretary across the way has two
universities in his riding, Waterloo and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I visit campuses across the country and talk to students. I know
his campuses are no different from the others. Students have a
problem finding jobs when they get out. They face high taxes.
They have student debt loads. Many of them are reconsidering
whether or not they want to remain Canadians or go to the United
States to find work. I know of computer programmers, doctors and
nurses who are leaving this country. They get an education here
but because of tax differentials they go down to the United
States.
Even though the member across the way likes to brag about low
unemployment in his riding, is it because so many of the young
people out of his universities find employment elsewhere in that
the tax advantages are so much better in the States than they are
in Canada?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member
back to my riding—I know he has been there before—to continue
his study into what makes a community click.
He talked about nurses leaving the country. In the case of the
province of Ontario many nurses have left the country. It has
everything to do with the fact that the provincial government,
with which those members are so pleased, has fired 10,000 nurses.
The government flips and flops and is trying to hire them back,
bring them back from the United States. Poor planning.
1700
Let me be very clear. For the most part, people who come out of
Sir Wilfrid Laurier University go to very well paying jobs. Let
me also inform the member that the Conestoga graduates have the
highest employment rate of people going to community colleges in
the province of Ontario. I am sure the member opposite would
like to applaud that. The ranking was recently done and I believe
it is at 94%.
When criticizing things, sometimes we hear mention of a glass of
water. This glass of water happens to be 75% full. I would
rather look at it as being 75% full than be like the official
opposition and look at the glass of water and complain that it is
25% empty.
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert. Is the hon.
member going to split his time?
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think so but I will not take up the full amount of my time as
I have another commitment I have to go to.
I am pleased to rise on Bill C-72, a bill which makes amendments
to the Income Tax Act, perhaps not to raise taxes but to ensure
the Minister of Finance collects all the money he feels he needs.
I want to give a few highlights that were really not brought out
clearly in the budget.
I am looking at the budget plan 1999, page 55. A table points
out anticipated revenues for the year 2000-01 are $159.5 billion.
Back at the time when this government took office, revenues were
about $123 billion.
In the time the government has been here and the time I have
been here, we have seen a $37 billion increase in the amount of
money the government collects from Canadian taxpayers. There are
only 30 million people in Canada, including babies and babies are
not paying tax. I know the government would like them to pay
tax, but not yet, give them a few years. It works out to over
$1,200 or $1,300 more that the government is collecting from
every Canadian than it did when it took office five years ago.
This is the type of thing Canadians do not realize as we hear
these wonderful statements about a balanced budget and how the
government has done marvellous things. I do not think it is a
marvellous thing that the government has taken all this extra
money straight out of the pockets of Canadians.
The government has told us how much it has brought program
spending down and kept it under control. Again, looking at the
same table on page 55, from 1997-98 to 2000-01 the government is
projecting a $5 billion increase in program spending. Away it
goes. As soon as the budget is balanced, let the money flow.
Public debt is paramount in people's minds. Canadians know we
are in debt. It is time the debt was brought down. Not one
penny change is being proposed. By 2001 the debt will remain at
$580 billion. Today it is at $580 billion. The government does
not have the slightest intention of repaying any of the debt that
the Liberals and the Tory party accumulated over 30 years and
hung around the necks of Canadians.
These are the things we need to bring out. We have to let
Canadians know it was not the government that balanced the
budget. Canadians through extra taxes balanced the budget.
Let us look at the budget plan 1999 and personal income taxes on
page 61. What is happening to personal income taxes? The
government says it is going to cut them. Personal income tax for
1997-98 was $70.8 billion. For 2001 it is projected to rise to
$76.2 billion. That is almost a $6 billion increase in personal
income taxes.
What is going to happen with the hated GST? Look at the same
table. The goods and services tax at $19.5 billion is going to
rise to $22.4 billion.
Another $3 billion squeezed out of the pockets of the taxpayers
on top of the $6 billion. It is not much wonder the Minister of
Finance is awash with cash.
1705
What else is there? It says that employment insurance benefits
will rise. The announcement I heard today by, I think it was the
leader of the NDP, suggested the EI benefits were going down, not
going up. As the Minister of Finance is awash with cash, he is
cutting back on the payments to those who most need it.
Of course there are the public debt charges. The interest we
pay on this huge $580 billion debt, is projected to rise from
almost $41 billion to over $43 billion. The sum of $43 billion a
year means for example that we could multiply by four the cheques
we send out to people on employment insurance. Or we could
double the amount of Canada pension plan payments. Or we could
cut income taxes by more than $1,000 per Canadian.
That $40 billion is hanging around our necks. It is a noose
strangling the productivity and the standard of living of
Canadians. That is the legacy of the government and its
predecessor. That is why the Reform Party is here. That is why
we are saying lower taxes. That is why we are saying fairer
taxes.
We heard earlier from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, a
medical doctor, a physician who dealt with the sick every day
before he was elected. He told us that in his professional
opinion, stay at home parents provided the most valuable of
services to Canadians, to our young families and our next
generation, by providing the nurture, the love and support for
the most vulnerable of our people. Yet the Minister of Finance
and the government find that they have to penalize people who
want to do that.
I have heard it said so often that two income families have to
work whereas a single income family does not have work, that one
can provide enough money anyway. Let me relate a little incident
which happened when I was going back to my riding. Going through
the Ottawa airport, the security guard who checks the baggage and
ensures that our flights are safe noticed my member of parliament
pin. He stopped me and said, “I only make $23,000 on this job.
My wife and I have three children but my wife is a stay at home
parent because it is important for us that my wife raises our
three kids”. There he was with a $23,000 family income and
getting no assistance whatsoever from the Minister of Finance,
absolutely none.
There is someone who is absolutely dedicated and committed to
his family, someone who is obviously making great sacrifices
financially for his family. No doubt as a family they are
providing the nurture and the love to raise their kids to the
best of their ability.
Those are the types of things the Minister of Finance does not
tell us too much about. Another thing is he is salting some
money away for the next few years after the millennium. Right
after the millennium we might have an election and it seems that
the two might coincide.
What is the Minister of Finance doing? For example, last year he
took $2.5 billion, charged it against the public accounts and
said, “I am not going to spend this money now, I am going to
spend it after the millennium as a millennium scholarship fund. I
am going to have $2.5 billion to spend on students after the
millennium”. While students are crying and trying to pay for
their tuition today, last year the Minister of Finance tucked
$2.5 billion into a bank account. It is sitting there gathering
interest and he is not spending a penny of it until after the
millennium.
In the last budget he announced $3.5 billion that he will charge
to the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, a couple of weeks from
now. The provinces can draw that down over the next few years to
pay for their health care.
1710
Just those two items alone add up to $6 billion which he has
charged against the public accounts. And he has not spent a
penny.
On top of that, the year before there was $800 million for the
centre for innovation. The auditor general tripped him up saying
the finance minister could not do that but he said yes he would
anyway. They had a little spat. The auditor general called him
to account for it, the same way he called him to account on the
millennium scholarship fund. There is another $800 million that
the Minister of Finance tucked away two years ago and the money
has yet to be spent.
We are up to almost $7 billion that the Minister of Finance has
prepaid. He has the money sitting in bank accounts. It will be
after the millennium before Canadians see the benefit of this. In
the meantime he says, “All I have got is a balanced budget. I
cannot give you tax relief like you expect tax relief. I cannot
show a surplus”.
Why does he not show a surplus? Because he is tucking this
money away in other bank accounts and not spending it until he
feels it is appropriate for his particular agenda. We can only
speculate what his agenda may be. May be it is for the
leadership. It could be for the next election. Who knows?
The point is Canadians are paying. They could have tax relief.
They could have more money spent on health care this year. They
could have more money spent to help young kids with their tuition
this year, but the Minister of Finance said, “While you have
paid for it, you are not going to get the benefit until later”,
until it suits his agenda to give it.
That is the type of smoke and mirrors we are getting from the
Minister of Finance. While he makes these wonderful magnanimous
statements about how well he is doing, let us remember that the
budget has been balanced on the backs of Canadians. There is a
surplus that the finance minister has hidden away, $7 billion in
total so far, that could be spent on Canadians or to provide tax
relief which we have not seen. People need to know that.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the critique of the member for St. Albert. It
reminds me of the difficulty the Reform Party seems to have with
how government revenues are generated. It is a fairly simple
phenomenon that as the economy grows and expands, which Canada's
economy has been doing with great strength, and as new jobs are
created, which has been happening in Canada with more than 1.4
million new jobs since 1993, there is more income in the economy
and more income taxes are payable. It is a sign of a good
economy. It is not the sign of a bad economy.
The members opposite seem to be challenged with this very simple
concept. I want to remind the House that gross tax revenues are
up because the economy is growing.
I would like to briefly comment on one item and perhaps the
member opposite could answer. The member for St. Albert was in
Australia recently attending a conference on budget cutting and
expenditure reduction. Given the fact that our expenditure to
GDP is the lowest in about 30 or 40 years, what new ideas did he
come away with after his visit to that jurisdiction?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's
first point about lower unemployment, the Minister of Finance in
budget plan 1999 on page 64 projects that employment insurance
benefit payments will rise from $11.8 billion to $13.8 billion by
2000-01, an extra $2 billion for employment insurance payments.
I do not think the government is looking for reductions in
unemployment.
Getting to his other point, when I was talking to the senior
officials in the treasuries of Australia and New Zealand, I found
that they have a policy of focused program spending. They are
into what we call accrual accounting, double entry accounting and
budgeting.
The Canadian government made a commitment in 1989 to get into
accrual accounting. It is going to be 2004 before we get there.
It will have been 15 years before it gets there.
1715
In the meantime, for lack of clear, precise guidelines on how we
spend the money we have wasted billions. That is what I learned.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
really want to commend my hon. colleague for the lucid way in
which he projected forward and indicated clearly on what basis
the budget was really put into a balanced position.
I would like to give him the opportunity to correct the hon.
member opposite who seemed to indicate that the only way revenue
increased in Canada was simply because the GDP was rising, the
economy was generally healthy and therefore obviously the
revenues would increase.
What the hon. member earlier forgot to hear my hon. colleague
say had to do with the income the individual taxpayer in Canada
had to pay. It is not as a result of the GDP but simply because
the tax burden of each individual taxpayer has been increased.
The accumulated effect of that has been to increase the revenue
and to say for sure that the balanced budget is as a result of
payments by Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, he is perfectly correct.
The increase of $37 billion in tax revenue came from Canadians.
There was virtually no real increase in our population. That
works out to $1,300 to $1,400 per Canadian paid to the Minister
of Finance and this government. Canadians balanced the budget.
I do not care if he says it is because they went to work or
whatever methodology or rationale he uses, the point is Canadians
are paying a lot more. The Minister of Finance is hiding
surpluses and could provide more tax relief now.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague talked about some of the ways the government is raising
funds now and some of the ways it is spending it. Does he think
that corporate welfare, waste, patronage, dumb blonde joke books,
the canoe hall of fame, crown corporations, Senate budget
increases or section 745 appeals are a good way to spend taxpayer
dollars?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Calgary
West just pointed out, there is absolutely no end to the
innovative ways the government gets to spend money. It just
seems to keep on doing that.
When I was in Australia and New Zealand I found that they,
because New Zealand hit the wall and we almost hit the wall too,
had to focus their government spending and ensure that every
penny they spent was productive, focused and provided a benefit
for their citizens. On that basis, they created accrual
accounting, balance sheets, clear results and focused spending.
On that basis, if we were to apply the same rigour and
discipline to our spending, I am sure tens of billions of dollars
could be shaved from the government's spending with no real
impact on the economy.
It has taken 15 years from the time it made the decision in 1989
to move this way and 2004 before it is to implement phase I. It
will be 2025 before it gets it finished perhaps if it is still in
office. Of course it will be long gone by then. The point is
that every day we waste is money wasted too.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once
again that famous question gets asked. Why are we here? What are
we doing? We are here to debate Bill C-72, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act.
Right there there has to be a problem. Every time the
government has amended the Income Tax Act, take hold of your
wallet because something funny is about to happen. It is about
to get lighter. I can tell the House about all the ways our
wallets have become lighter as a result of this government. It
is wonderful at finding ways to lighten the Canadian taxpayer's
wallet.
1720
First it was life insurance premiums the government went after.
It lightened our wallets to the tune of $210 million last year.
That is a lot of lightening. It is not only last year, it
started off with $120 million in 1994. Add it all up and there
has been over $1 billion worth of wallet lightening. That is a
lot of lightening.
Then it went after lifetime capital gains exemptions. It did a
lot lightening there. Just this last year it lightened our
wallets again by $340 million. Then it did income testing for
age credits implementation. That was another $300 million. Then
there were the deductions with regard to meals. It got rid of
that. It changed the definition of income once again, like it is
doing today with Bill C-72. It has lightened our wallets by $275
million. Forget calling it lightening of the wallet, it took
$275 million.
Then corporations' tax rate increased. It took $160 million and
killed some jobs in the meantime. Then it went ahead with a
corporate surtax and that increased. That was another $120
million. It killed some more jobs. That is something this
government is good at. It is good at lightening the wallet and
killing a few jobs along the way. Then it came in with a tax on
gasoline. It took another $500 million. Then there was the tax
on tobacco. It cannot forget that one. That was another $65
million.
What about the pensions? The government went after that. That
was another $10 million. That was just on foreign pensions. Then
it went after RRSP withdrawals and took out $45 million. It
changed the time when people could put into it. Then look at EI
premiums, part time workers, people who cannot collect on EI
because they are not full time but they are paying in. It is a
tax. If they cannot collect on it and they are paying in it is
called a tax. In this last year it has been $1 billion.
When we look at these numbers it is ludicrous. In 1994 it was
$370 million. In 1995 it was $808 million. The year after that
it went to $1.15 billion. Add all these things up cumulatively.
Then look at the bracket creep. The Liberals have raised taxes
by billions upon billions of dollars. Any time I see Liberals
talk about amending the Income Tax Act I reach for my wallet and
I hold it dearly.
I will go on to a few other things these Liberals have been up
to. Let us talk about priorities. They are increasing taxes.
Liberals know how to do that better than anybody. I do not doubt
that. Of any of the parties in the House the Liberals know how
to whack at taxes better than anybody around.
We ask ourselves what they do with all this money. They raise
our taxes, these Liberals, these people with these grand
priorities, these big government schemes, these tax and spenders.
What do they spend it on? They discriminate against single
income families. That is what they do. They give money out in
corporate welfare, profitable businesses. They give out
subsidies. They give out grants. They give out tax concessions.
Shame on them. None of the competitors for those industries
want to see them get a break and get subsidized by the
government.
Then there is the waste. My goodness, I was in the human
resources development committee and a departmental official came
into that committee. The departmental official said there was
$200 million they were not going to use in a budgetary envelope.
All the Liberals across the way got glum. The Reform Party asked
if the departmental officials said there was no use for the
money, why not take it out of the budgetary envelope.
1725
All the Liberals lined up like little duckies in a row. They
said “It is a ministerial document. If the minister said this
was okay, we will not challenge the minister. The minister is
all knowing. The minister is all intelligent. The minister must
know what is going on”.
The $200 million the departmental official said they would not
use got used. Wow, the waste. Then I look at the patronage.
When I have people come into my riding office and tell me about
OAS clawbacks, when they tell me about being taxed on the money
they are setting aside for their children's educations, I have to
tell them the Liberals have a higher priority on patronage.
Shame on the Liberals.
This is insulting. This is above and beyond. It goes beyond
the pale, that they would fund a book on dumb blonde jokes. I
see a couple of blonde heads across the aisle. I wonder how they
feel about that. I see a couple of female MPs opposite. I
wonder what they think about the dumb blonde joke books their
government funds. I wonder whether they think that is a good
expenditure. Shame on them, and they do not even speak up about
it.
Then I look at the canoe hall of fame in the Prime Minister's
riding. By what stretch of the imagination is a canoe hall of
fame in the Prime Minister's riding more important than seniors
pensions or more important than health care or more important
than education? A person has to stretch pretty darn far to come
up with that type of Liberal logic.
I look at the subsidies they give to bad governments. I am
talking about some of the things they do with foreign aid around
this place. What do they do? They look at people like Mobutu in
Zaire. They gave money to this person who is well known for bad
government, for corruption and bad policies. They help to fund
weaponry and genocide and all the rest of these things.
Liberals love giving money overseas. I do not know by what
logic they do that when they have taxpayers at home who are
crying for tax cuts and crying for services they have been
cutting back for years.
They are funding roads overseas and yet we have problems with
roads in Canada. What a joke in the transportation committee.
We are studying intelligent transportation systems. How about
the cracks in the highways? Never mind intelligent
transportation. Get the noodle working on that.
What about crown corporations? We are giving money to CBC TV.
Why? The unions are killing it anyway. What are we doing? The
unions will finish off that company.
Then I look at Canada Post competing in e-mail with the private
sector, competing in couriers with companies like FedEx and UPS,
cutting out from competition companies like T2P overnight in
Calgary.
What are we doing taking taxpayer dollars to subsidize
businesses to put other people out of the play in the
marketplace? Shame on the Liberals.
The Liberals are funding Senate budget increases, an unelected,
unaccountable body with people who do not show up for work, with
criminal records, violating the law and the Constitution. Yet
they are giving them budget increases of 16% over two years. That
is where our hard earned tax dollars are going, to the Senate.
I look at section 745. Each appeal under section 745 is costing
us on average $500,000. Clifford Olson's appeal cost us over $1
million. That is where the money is going.
With all those tax increases the Liberals are bringing down,
every time they feel people's wallets and bring in amendments and
redefine what income means, watch out because this is the type of
stuff they are spending it on. That is a crying shame.
It would be better to burn that money than give it to the
Liberals. They use it against taxpayers. They fund the
competition. They put in worse legislation that works against
people. That is what they are doing.
It would be better to take that money and burn it than to give it
to a government which mismanages it and uses it against the
taxpayer. It would be better if it were buried. That is the
type of thing we have going on here.
1730
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member
but, as he knows, all good things must come to an end. I assure
him that the next time this matter comes up for debate he will
have nine minutes remaining to continue his speech.
The time for Government Orders having expired and it being 5.30
p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
AN ACT TO AMEND THE ACT OF INCORPORATION OF THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF MACKENZIE
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous
consent for the following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any standing order and the usual practices
of the House, Bill S-20, an act to amend the Act of incorporation
of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Mackenzie, be now
called for second reading; and that the House do proceed to
dispose of the bill at all stages, including committee of the
whole.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion, that we deal with all stages of this bill today?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
SECOND READING
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) moved that Bill
S-20, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the Roman
Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Mackenzie, be read the second
time and, by unanimous consent, referred to committee of the
whole.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to
Bill S-20. By way of background, the corporation of Mackenzie
was created in 1913 by an act of parliament. The corporation
takes in 38 Roman Catholic churches in the Northwest Territories,
northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Since 1913 the vicar and eventually the bishop have continued to
serve the social as well as the spiritual needs of Canada's
northern peoples. The presence of the Catholic church in the
western Arctic for over a century has contributed a visible and
important presence in the Canadian north that has significantly
served Canada's Arctic sovereignty.
In 1913 when the act of parliament was passed sections 4 and 6
placed certain restrictions upon the corporation including
limiting the value of the property and assets of the corporation
to $50,000 and the length of time the corporation may own land.
These limitations were no doubt at the time sensible and
appropriate. In the decades since that time, however, the
corporation has invested wisely and has received considerable
support from various benefactors resulting in holdings in today's
market which are considerably more than the legislated limit.
It is important to the continuing work of the corporation and
the financial well-being of the diocese that the limits upon its
holdings be removed so it may continue with its worthwhile
service to the northern community. I am pleased that Bill S-20
will bring the act into line with the modern reality of the
corporation.
There is also a proposed technical amendment to the French name
of the corporation. The amendment to the French name of the
corporation better translates the intention and context of the English
name of the corporation and brings the act into line with
current French drafting terminology.
[Translation]
I am confident that this bill will ensure that the Corporation
of Mackenzie is well managed and ready for the next century. It
is with great pleasure that I support the bill in the hope that
it will be passed in an expeditious manner.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1735
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in
committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and
passed)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on February 3,
1999, I asked a question to the House. I said that the
employment insurance system is an insurance scheme and I asked
the following:
When I toured around the country, I saw this is the way people
feel. It is important that the minister be aware of that. People
contribute to the employment insurance fund but each time they
ask for benefits, they are treated like criminals, like people
who are abusing the system. That is the way people feel all
around the country.
[English]
As I went across the country and met with people they told me
that when they apply for employment insurance the human resource
people are looking at them as though they are criminals. Surely
we do not want the government to treat Canadians that way. That
is why I raised the question at that time.
What will the government do about this? It is not right that
people across the country should be treated like this at the
human resources offices.
[Translation]
I asked a question. But what answers we do get. This is what the
minister answered:
This is not so. An employment insurance system is not an
industry to create employment, it is a system which pays
benefits to people who are out of work.
I do not want to go back to the 1970s. What I am saying is that
there is a program for which workers and employers are paying.
People all around the country tell us that this program belongs
to them, to the workers who lose their jobs.
It is unacceptable for the minister to rise in the House and say
to me that I am going back to the 1970s. That is not true. I
want to live in 1999, with a program built in such a way that
when people lose their job, they can receive benefits to support
their families, their children, get them something to eat and
send them to school.
1740
Canadians are not pleased to get such answers. On need only
look at the report by the Minister of Human Resources
Development which indicates that the percentage of women in
Canada who no longer qualify for employment insurance has risen
by 20%.
We must face up to reality. The program is no longer up to
doing what it was intended for in the beginning. This is the
reason I would like the minister to give us some answers in the
coming days, about what he is going to do with the employment
insurance program, because the people of Canada, the workers of
Canada, are not satisfied.
The people of Windsor are not satisfied when they fill out their
income tax returns and find that they have to again pay into
employment insurance. They phone us and write us to say so.
The situation is the same everywhere, not just in the Atlantic
provinces, but in Regina and in Edmonton, Alberta, as well. I
have said so on numerous occasions here in this House.
So, I hope the minister can tell us exactly what he is going to
do with the employment insurance program.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me
assure the hon. member that the department tries to treat all
clients with fairness, understanding and compassion. Each case
is assessed individually and all circumstances brought to light
are examined and considered in a compassionate manner.
The opposition member says that the people he met felt like they
were being treated as criminals. Perhaps this is attributable to
the fact that some people put in a claim for employment insurance
four or five years ago when the rules were different and received
benefits. It is possible they put in one recently with the new
rules and found they did not qualify.
Sometimes when people are told no, they take it very personally.
No one is trying to treat anyone like a criminal. However, the
employees of the Department of Human Resources Development in the
various Canada employment centres are obligated to implement the
law as it stands. It is unfortunate if some people are feeling
very sensitive and taking it personally.
The member also said that the rate of women who do not qualify
has risen by 20%. He is reversing a figure that is in today's
monitoring and assessment report. In fact it is not women who do
not qualify. It is that the rate of women who have applied for
employment insurance has dropped by 20%. That could mean that
many more women have jobs.
There are 300,000 more women working in the past year than were
working prior to that. That might account for the reason fewer
are putting in claims.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed withdrawn.
[English]
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now
proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for
the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter
requiring urgent consideration, namely the effect of a labour
dispute on the movement of grain in the port of Vancouver.
EMERGENCY DEBATE
[English]
MOVEMENT OF GRAIN
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 52, the
hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake has obtained leave to move a
motion.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.) moved:
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion being debated tonight is
outlined in my request under Standing Order 52. It involves the
emergency situation created by the Liberal government's inability
to reach a fair negotiated settlement with the Public Service
Alliance of Canada union, thereby causing immense financial harm
to the Canadian economy and to farmers specifically.
We gather tonight to engage in one of those historic debates
that arise in the life of a nation from time to time. The
emergency debate tonight will deal with the economic well-being
of a nation as judged by our collective productivity and
individual standard of living.
1745
It would be so simple to say this debate is directed solely to
the strike action being taken by members of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada. It would be simple to say this debate is
only about farm incomes hurt by the halted movement of grain to
our overseas customers. It is about these two issues, but they
are only the symptoms of a malaise in this country, a malaise
that includes the following diseases which, while not fatal,
seriously weaken every Canadian's physical, mental, spiritual and
cultural well-being.
I speak of high taxes, low farm commodity prices, high farm
input costs resulting in low net income, and an agriculture
sector asking what is the future for their farms, for their
children in agriculture. I speak of the thousands of Public
Service Alliance of Canada union members who have not had a wage
increase in the last six years.
Before being elected to parliament I was a member of the RCMP. I
had the same wage freeze these union members are currently
undergoing. These union members, farmers, many other workers in
both the public and private sector and I have made immense
sacrifices to eliminate our national budget deficit. I currently
own and operate a cattle ranch. Combined with my other life
experiences, I can say that I feel the pain of the farmer, the
rancher and the union worker in this matter.
The other diseases that make up this national malaise include a
monopoly government organization called the Canadian Wheat Board
and a highly regulated grain transportation system that stifles
innovation and investment. There are also world trade problems
including those with our closest neighbours and friends in the
United States.
My request for this emergency debate was granted by the Speaker
of the House and I appreciate his wisdom in doing so. I
requested the debate because the ministers responsible for
solving these national problems have failed in their tasks.
Recent statements by the Treasury Board minister indicate that
negotiations have reached an impasse. He has not divulged all of
the reasons that this situation has arisen, nor the options that
are available to him and his government to resolve the stalemate.
The various government ministers have not even explained to the
Canadian public, to union members, farmers or ranchers the extent
of the financial harm that is befalling this country and its
citizens.
I believe a full public hearing of the issues I have mentioned
along with many others I have not touched on will help us as a
nation to find our way out of this economic and social mess we
find ourselves in today.
I will speak on some of the details, the nuts and bolts, of this
emergency debate. I sent a letter to parliament dated March 17,
1999 requesting that an emergency debate pursuant to Standing
Order 52 be held to address the current labour dispute that has
terminated grain movement through the port of Vancouver.
As the House is well aware, the Public Service Alliance of
Canada is currently involved in a labour dispute with the
Government of Canada. Included in this dispute are approximately
70 grain weighers employed by the Canadian Grain Commission.
The functions performed by these 70 workers are mandated under
the Canada Grains Act and cannot be performed by non Canadian
Grain Commission personnel. Therefore, the withdrawal of these
services will prevent the unloading of grain hopper cars and the
loading of vessels for overseas customers.
1750
Until March 14, 1999 the Public Service Alliance of Canada had
structured its rotating strikes in such a way that grain
movement, while being inconvenienced, had continued near targeted
levels. However, this changed when the Public Service Alliance of
Canada grain weighers set up pickets at all five grain terminals
in Vancouver on March 15. Not only has this action removed the
legislated mandated service, other workers such as grain handlers
and longshoremen have refused to cross the picket lines.
Grain movement has been halted for the past three days. When I
speak of halted grain movement, I am talking about on the
prairies with the railways and off the ships that are heading
across the seas to our customers in Asia and other countries.
The escalation of action by the grain weighers follows a March
10 interview by the president of the Public Service Alliance of
Canada in which he stated that grain will become a primary
target. At this point, March 10, it would have seemed that the
urgency would have come home to the government to take the action
necessary at least to prevent that threat from happening and/or
to negotiate in good faith and come to a settlement. As we know,
this did not happen.
While we all hope this dispute will be resolved in a timely
fashion, we cannot allow an ongoing disruption of Canada's grain
flow as that would constitute a further attack on producers'
falling incomes.
I would like to mention a few of the dollar figures surrounding
this strike. Of course there are the union workers and their
wages which affects not only the workers themselves but their
families who are trying to meet mortgages and make payments to
their creditors. It would be easy to tell them to go back to
work and trust the government, but this government has
demonstrated through actions and words that it cannot be trusted
to work out satisfactory solutions.
I recall about a year and a half ago when this very House dealt
with the postal union workers. It is my understanding that after
having legislated them back to work with the promise of a
negotiated settlement, in fact that settlement has not been
achieved to this date. I imagine the grain workers and the other
public service alliance workers are saying to themselves, “If
this government simply legislates us back to work or if I simply
agree to go back to work with no settlement, will I be treated
the same as the postal workers?” From what we have seen so far,
they have a justified reason to be concerned and wary of the
government.
The Canadian Wheat Board announced today that it has lost one
sale of $9 million. It has also lost several smaller ones to Asia
and Latin America, in the neighbourhood of $2 million to $10
million. To a lot of people $2 million is not much of a sale, but
the world grain trade has changed. We no longer have the $1
billion sales to Russia and China. We have a grain industry with
small sales of $1 million to $2 million. While these dollar
figures may seem small, their cumulative effect is very large.
On grain leaving the port, I will only talk about wheat at this
time even though many other crops are being exported. In the
neighbourhood of $6 million a day in wheat exports are not
leaving the port. This is the capability of the port and that
represents actual losses.
1755
Spring is coming. We have to take note that this stoppage of
grain movement on the west coast will soon spread across the
country if this dispute is not resolved. We received information
today that it is expected that the seaway will open up around
March 22, 1999. The western grain elevators expect to begin
operations at that time with one terminal facility in Thunder
Bay.
Mr. Speaker, we considered and you agreed that this is a
national emergency that needs a debate in the House of Commons.
The fact is that it does affect more than western Canadians and
it does affect more than dock workers and grain handlers on the
west coast.
There is another item that the Canadian Wheat Board brought
forth in its press release today. The spokesman said that the
sales director for the wheat board said that we are forgoing
sales every day. What are these sales? Are they simply wheat and
canola leaving the ports and going to our customers?
What we get back is foreign currency, hard foreign currency that
goes to the wealth of this nation. It is not money we are
circulating within the country, passing from one to the other,
all of it eventually being taxed back by the government. It is
new money that we are earning from customers and people in other
lands which goes to make our country a wealthier nation. These
are very important considerations when we talk about grain and
its effect on the well-being of Canada.
The cumulative effect of this dispute has to be taken in the
context of other disputes and stoppages to the grain handling and
grain transportation business over the years. Since 1993 there
have been inland strikes involving grain terminal companies,
railway strikes and longshoremen strikes. There were the
terrible snowstorms that stopped grain transportation through the
Rocky Mountains.
This cumulative effect on the reliability of our exports is
hurting this country. It is hurting the western provinces in
particular. It is hurting the very families who live in those
provinces who eke out a very modest living from their toiling on
the land.
These are all issues that translate into dollar losses for the
economy of B.C. and for the farmers across the country. As of
March 18 there were 21 vessels at the Vancouver port. For the
weeks prior to the strike, there were about six vessels in port
which is a normal coming and going of ships at the port. We can
see that the vessels waiting to load are increasing in numbers on
a daily basis.
One of our customers was quoted in this recent dispute. I
believe the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food referred to
this customer. The Japanese food agency has raised concerns with
the minister over the reliability of Canadian grain shipments out
of Vancouver. Eleven per cent of Canadian agriculture exports go
to Japan.
It is this very issue of reliability that is of such importance
to this debate tonight. I am sure it will be expanded on by
other speakers from all parties after I am finished.
The other portion of the grain transportation system that needs
some mention is the railways.
1800
On March 18 the railways indicated that the allocation of cars
for the week of March 28 through April 3 is on hold. Let me
describe that. There are hopper cars sitting full of grain out
in Vancouver or at points in between. There is grain sitting in
the elevators and there is grain sitting on the farms.
The grain system also operates on a just in time type scenario
where the customer's ships arrive, the grain is put in and the
order from the farmer is placed. This all has to move in a very
time sensitive situation.
After this strike and this action stops it will take at least
three weeks to get the system up and rolling again. That is
because the grain handling system operates on a cycle. It will
take at least three weeks after the end of the strike to return
to normal operation. During this whole time vessels that have
been ordered by the Canadian Wheat Board and other exporters will
continue to arrive with no grain to pick up.
What happens when they arrive? If shippers do not load the
vessels within the specified times, usually a three to five day
window, companies are charged what is called demurrage fees.
These fees are for each extra day the vessel is in port without
being loaded. These charges are substantial and can range from
about $10,000 to $15,000 a day. Simply multiplying that out,
$15,000 per day times 21, it can be seen that over the course of
a week or two weeks, God forbid this should go on that long, we
are talking of hundreds of millions of dollars in total.
The other financial aspect to look at is late contract
penalties. In addition to vessel demurrage, exporters are
charged late fees by importing companies. In some cases, Japan
for example, importing companies have moved to a just in time
inventory management system and have paid a premium for
reliability. Built into these premium contracts are severe
penalties for unreliability.
I have already mentioned it but I would like to re-emphasize
that all this translates into a loss of confidence. Countries
that rely on Canada for a steady supply of grain may choose to go
elsewhere if this supply is interrupted.
From what the Canadian Wheat Board has indicated to the
government today and to the Canadian people, may is not an
accurate word to use. It will cause this financial damage.
The government is responsible for the solutions. The government
is responsible for the negotiations with the labour union. It
has more complete information than anyone else in the House, me
included. As a result it is difficult to stand here and say
exactly what the solutions are. Certainly the President of the
Treasury Board should declare that the work performed by these 70
grain weighers is an essential service and he should allow them
final offer arbitration.
I clearly point out that this issue is not a farmer and rancher
versus a union member, it is not even opposition parties versus
the government. It is about public discussion of the facts and
public discussion of the solutions. The government is in need of
our help and in that spirit I pray that our deliberations here
tonight will be fruitful and let all Canadians wake up to a
brighter future as the sun rises tomorrow morning.
1805
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
evening, we are holding an important debate, and I would like to
take this opportunity to review the negotiations between the
Government of Canada and its employees.
This House will recall that the Government of Canada has already
bargained in good faith and signed collective agreements with
over 87% of its employees. And, in this group, I include over
100,000 members affiliated with the Public Service Alliance of
Canada.
Furthermore, last week, some 10,000 technical employees,
represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and the
government reached and ratified a new collective agreement.
I have always held that it is by bargaining that two parties can
reach an agreement. Confrontation of any sort leads nowhere but
to frustration of both sides.
I agree we had a long salary freeze. It began with the
Conservative government. We continued it for a number of years
because it was essential to eliminate the deficit, which was
undermining our national fiscal and financial health. We did
that, and two years ago we reintroduced the right to negotiate
collective agreements. That is what we have done in the past
two years.
Again, we reached agreements with 26 of the 29 groups. We are
now at the point where over 85% of our unionized employees have
signed collective agreements with us, thus allowing both sides,
as employer and employees, to continue to provide necessary
services to Canadians, in a manner that reflects the agreements
reached by unionized employees and the government. We hope to be
able to continue to do that.
In the course of the negotiations with all these groups, we were
able to offer, on average, a basic salary increase of about 4.5%
over a two-year period. It is on that basis that we negotiated
and that we arrived at agreements with such a large proportion
of our unionized employees.
There are two groups left, including the blue collar workers,
with whom we have been trying in vain for two years to arrive at
a solution. At one point, we thought we were very close to an
agreement with one group, the correctional services people. In
fact, we did reach an agreement with the union leaders. We
arrived at an agreement with those who negotiate on behalf of
correctional services employees.
It is only when the time came to ratify the agreement that,
unfortunately, a small majority of employees refused to ratify
the agreement that had been reached with their negotiators and
that had been approved by their union leaders.
Despite all our goodwill and our desire to reach a conclusion,
we now find ourselves with two cases where the demands of
unionized workers do not correspond to the percentages offered
to and accepted by almost 90% of the public service in other
cases.
Instead of having basic demands of approximately 2.5% for the
first year and 2% in the second year, the basic demands are two,
three and, in one case, four times higher than what was approved
for the very great majority of other unionized workers.
1810
It is clear that, if we said we were ready to accept this kind
of demand, not only would we be creating an untenable situation
for the almost 90% of our employees who have already signed
contracts, but we would also be causing insurmountable problems
in future contract negotiations due to start up again in a few
months.
We would have established a percentage increase that was out of
line with what we gave most of our other employees and with what
the private sector got.
Right now, private sector increases in the last 18 months have
been approximately 2.1% a year. And this would also be out of
line with what Canadians can afford to pay, a salary that is
current in the market and fair to our employees.
That is why we find ourselves unable to reach agreement with a
very small number of our bargaining tables, particularly blue
collar workers, because of their excessive demands.
When the government negotiates, it has a basic goal in mind.
That goal is to try to find a balance between the interests and
priorities of Canadians and those of government workers.
All Canadians have made important sacrifices in recent years.
They recognized the need to put our financial house in order to
continue moving forward. Poll after poll, Canadians are telling
us they are proud of their federal government, which is making
the right decisions, although they are often very difficult
ones.
Throughout this process, we have had to compromise. We have made
offers the government could afford because we have a fiduciary
responsibility to the citizens of this country.
For example, in group 2, blue collar workers, the government
made all kinds of compromises. For instance, on the issue of
regional rates, we have accepted to reduce the number of regions
from ten to seven in spite of the fact that, in the interest of
fairness, the rate should not be national, but such that it
meets the needs of the local market and does not create
distortion on the local markets.
Specifically, when the cost of living is much higher in
Vancouver than in Fredericton, it is only fair that workers in
Vancouver be paid salaries taking into account the cost of
living there.
However, if, given local market conditions, we offer pay rates
significantly higher than local rates, we create an upward
pressure on the salaries of workers in the area.
Clearly this has been justified for years and condoned by all
kinds of commissions on public finances. Fairness demands
regional rates. In spite of this we have agreed with the union
to reduce the number of regions.
At the same table, with regard to salary increases, the offer we
made was higher than what we had offered most public servants.
We raised our offer to a 4.75% base rate increase because we
wanted to try to solve any problems with this group so we could
get on with the negotiations, reach a negotiated settlement and
keep the peace with the union and the employees. To achieve that
goal, we were convinced Canadians were willing to accept a rate
of increase that was slightly higher than what we had offered
most public servants.
But, unfortunately, not only were our employees not satisfied
with that, they are now asking twice the salary increase we gave
our other employees.
These demands are excessive, therefore, and we are convinced
Canadians are not willing to accept that.
1815
I still have hope that we will be able to reach a negotiated
settlement because, even though the right to strike is
recognized by all at this time, strikes have the effect of
taking Canadians hostage and cause considerable damage, for
example to the grain trade. There are also millions of Canadians
who may have to wait a long time before receiving their tax
refund.
Unfortunately, our employees, our blue collar workers, have
started using tactics that create problems for many Canadians.
They have taken Canadians hostage.
For example, I remind members that they stopped traffic at
Dorval airport, which is not even under federal jurisdiction
anymore. They forced many travellers, some of whom were not even
Canadians, to walk more than one kilometre to get to the
airport. Many of them missed their flight and were left
wondering, and rightly so, what the dispute was all about.
The right to strike exists because when employees withdraw the
offer of work they do, the services are not provided. But what
right have the employees to hold farmers hostage in the western
provinces, taxpayers hostage in the case of Revenue Canada or
travellers hostage at Dorval airport? What right have they to
hold them hostage and thus create such monumental inconvenience
for third parties that they create an atmosphere they think will
lead more easily to the conclusion of negotiations?
On the contrary, Canadians are reacting like the farmers in the
west, saying “Why are our means of livelihood being affected by
the union's taking third parties hostage, in this case the
western farmers?”
A strike is never easy, but it is even less so when it involves
the security and the health of Canadians.
We want to bargain in good faith and sign agreements with our
blue collar workers. We especially want Canadians to receive
the Government of Canada services they are entitled to and they
pay for.
However, in this strike, we can only conclude that our employees
at the two tables remaining, which I mentioned—specifically the
blue collar workers—are making excessive demands. Their demands
are not in keeping with the balance we must maintain, as a
government, between taxpayers and the salaries we pay our
employees.
At the moment, we have to consider that our employees,
unfortunately, in the case of these two tables, are taking
Canadians hostage and forcing us to consider the various options
at our disposal to protect Canadians' right to services they
elected a government for and they have paid for.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and as critic for
labour issues, to take part in this emergency debate requested
by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
The issue is the current labour conflict in Vancouver, which
opposes the Public Service Alliance and 70 of its members who
work for the Canadian Wheat Board. These people work in the
elevators that handle grain exports.
1820
The employees have been on strike since March 15, which means
for the past two or three working days. Based on our
information, this work stoppage has a major impact on the
region's economy.
Still, we must put the decision of these 70 employees to go on a
general strike in its proper context. It seems that, on March
10, a Public Service Alliance official did warn the employer,
that is the government and the Canadian Wheat Board, that if
there were no progress in negotiations, the union's strategy
would be to target wheat to put pressure on the employer.
Therefore, the message was rather clear.
On March 14, the union began a rotating strike which had the
merit of continuing wheat operations. It was not until the
following day that the unions put up a picket line, which was
respected by the other unions working near the export elevators.
Undoubtedly, therefore, the strike had a considerable impact and
achieved its goal, which was to establish a balance of power
between the two parties.
We have a strong suspicion that the Reform Party's strategy in
pushing for this emergency debate today is to set the stage for
the employer—in this case, the government—to introduce special
back-to-work legislation.
This is not the position of the Bloc Quebecois. This is not our
approach, because we think that, if there is a right to strike,
it should be respected.
It has to go on for a while at least, there has to be a deadline
after which, if negotiations have failed to resolve the
situation, public interest must be taken into account and a
decision can be made to settle the issue and move to other
things.
It is unthinkable that, because negotiations have gone nowhere
after three days, drastic action is in order. In the context of
the public service, it is too easy for the government, as both
employer and lawmaker, to find the situation too complicated and
the repercussions too serious and to turn around and use its
legislative authority to thwart the effects of the strike and
the strike itself. We find this excessive.
While we hope that negotiations will go on, there must be a true
power relationship and we must feel that there is no other way
to ensure the continuation of operations before bringing in
special back to work legislation. It must be a measure of last
resort.
We can see here the philosophy of the Reform Party, which does
not have much respect for labour legislation and for workers. As
the President of the Treasury Board said, it is not fun to
suffer the impacts of a strike. But it is not fun either—and we
tend to forget that—for those on strike or for their families. It
is not fun for those who are on the picket lines. These people
go through a period of serious insecurity and discomfort and,
may I add, strike action is legal in that industry.
The President of the Treasury Board spoke earlier about security
and health, two issues that are being ignored here. There is
some sort of an essential service in Canada, which has been
provided for in order to protect public health and security. We
are talking about economic impacts, which are very difficult to
assess. We should be careful not to go too far in that regard.
1825
Instead of hinting at the quick passage of a special act to put
an end to that kind of labour dispute, we would prefer to see
the parties negotiate in good faith, accept negotiation and
reach an agreement that will be well accepted and honoured.
The right to strike, the legal right to strike is a clear sign
of civilization. Why should a society invent such means to
provide working conditions? The right to strike was not given by
the employers, either in the public or private sectors. The
right to strike is a hard won right in the history of western
societies.
A strike always causes inconvenience.
The fate of farmers is of great concern to us. In Quebec also
farmers are hurting a lot because of the international economic
conditions, globalization and its harmful effects. Institutions
and individuals are paying the price. Western farmers are
feeling the pinch too, and we sympathize with them.
It would be too easy to say, as soon as we are slightly
inconvenienced, that we are going to pass special back-to-work
legislation to solve the problem. We are not ready to go along
with it.
We want the obviously difficult situation the parties have
arrived at to be settled through negotiations, negotiations
conducted in good faith recognizing what it means for the
regional economy.
One should not fall into the trap nor be tricked into using this
all too easy approach called back to work legislation.
I will sum up my thoughts and those of the Bloc on the matter:
our position is very clear. Freedom of association exists in
principle in Canada, and workers, when they have good reason to do
so, go on strike.
This is part of a fair balance of power, except when the employer,
which happens to be the government, abuses its legislative
power. Again, back to work
legislation should only be a last resort, until the government
gets back to the negotiating table with an offer acceptable to
workers and settles the dispute in a democratic and civilized
manner through negotiations.
When one speaks of good faith, when one speaks of the federal
government as employer, one is entitled to a few concerns.
Contrary to rumour, the federal government is a tough employer.
We know that it recently rejected a court decision on pay
equity. Really now, a judgment is a judgment. In its wisdom,
the government in its power and arrogance, has decided to appeal
the judgment rather than comply with it.
This is a government that has already obtained orphan clauses,
at Canada Post in particular, where working conditions vary
greatly depending on seniority. I know some postal workers
personally and I know that their conditions are truly
precarious.
When a person works a few hours a week, and cannot be guaranteed
more than 15 hours of work a month—if memory serves me
right—working conditions at Canada Post are far from enviable. In
the past, jobs at Canada Post were highly coveted, but now,
thanks to the interventionist attitude of this government as
employer, this is no longer the case.
This is a government which, in the latest revision of the Canada
Labour Code, refused to include an anti-scab provision. In
Quebec, this matter was settled a long time ago, to everyone's
satisfaction. The use of replacement workers during a strike is
forbidden. The Canada Labour Code does not contain any such
provision for Canada.
This government has refused to pass Part III of the Canada
Labour Code, which would give pregnant women better treatment,
through preventive leave to safeguard the health of women who
are soon to give birth by allowing them to stop working.
1830
The federal government will not allow it. It is not the highly
progressive and generous one people think. For example, we know
that it will not allow RCMP employees to unionize.
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick: You are stretching that a little
bit.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I like the remark by my colleague. When we
speak of bargaining in good faith, there is an element of doubt,
because we know whom we are dealing with. This is a nitpicking
government, that denies, for example, its employees in the RCMP—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: —the right to bargain, to have a union. It
is a company union we regularly get information from.
Arbitrariness reigns in management. That is what is promoted:
people are at the mercy of their immediate supervisors.
So, you have understood that the government does not want
special legislation in a labour dispute at this point at least.
It wants the rules of standard procedure to take the upper hand,
bargaining in good faith and agreement by the parties in order
to put a quick end to this labour dispute, with its
unfortunately rather significant consequences.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a good thing that we are having this debate tonight. The
hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake has done the House a service
by requesting and receiving the opportunity to have an emergency
debate on this subject.
No matter what our views are, and we may differ on how things
should be handled or what the origins of the problem are, it
certainly is a matter of great concern to Canadian farmers and
producers and is something that the House should be giving its
attention to.
I would like to go over some of the history of the dispute which
has led us to this debate. The Public Service Alliance of Canada
has been engaged in rotating strikes across the country for eight
weeks. It has been doing this as a result of what it sees and
what we see and what many other Canadians see as intransigence on
the part of the government in respect of the bargaining that the
government has been engaged in with the Public Service Alliance
of Canada.
Last Friday the government walked away from the table and
therefore the government has to take responsibility for what has
happened. If it had the will, the government could find a way
out of this impasse by going back to the table, by bargaining in
good faith and by showing respect for the collective bargaining
process instead of engaging in the sort of coded threats the
President of the Treasury Board was engaging in earlier when he
talked about examining all his options.
We know what that means. It is a code for back to work
legislation. Echoing what my colleague from the Bloc said about
the need to balance the very difficulty won right to strike, in
this case the right to strike of public servants against what may
or may not be in the public interest, this is a balance that
always has to be delicately sought.
I do not think that we have arrived at any situation which would
create any kind of moral imperative on the part of the government
to engage in this kind of threat at this time or to engage in
more concrete actions such as back to work legislation. However,
if it does, we will have to deal with that when it comes and in
the form in which it comes, because we know that back to work
legislation can come in many forms.
1835
I listened carefully to what the President of the Treasury Board
said. He kept talking about the people who are on strike taking
Canadians hostage. I think this is very strong language. It
begs a larger debate about who is taking whom hostage and why we
reserve this kind of language. The President of the Treasury
Board used the word hostage three, four or perhaps half a dozen
time in his speech, so I hope he is not taking umbrage at my
reminding people what he said when he spoke.
It is interesting that he should characterize what the striking
workers are doing in that way. He may want to disapprove of what
the striking workers are doing. That is fine. However I take
some exception to using the idea of taking hostages in this very
selective way.
I take objection to using the concept of taking hostages only
when workers are withdrawing their labour because in their
judgment they are not receiving the remuneration for their labour
that they feel is their just due. When workers do that, people
like the President of the Treasury Board say “This is hostage
taking. This is not serving the common good. This is hurting
the transportation and the delivery of grain”. All these
factors which have to do with the common good and the public
interest are immediately brought in, and perhaps appropriately so
when we are talking about the effect of a strike.
Do we hear this same kind of language when capital withdraws its
services, when it withdraws from whatever economic activity it
was in, in order to make a profit, because it is no longer making
the profit it used to make or because it is not able to make as
much profit as it would like to make or have the increase in
profit that it would like to have. When companies act in this
way, when corporations act in this way, when capital acts in this
way, we say they are just being good businessmen. They are just
saying “Either we get this or we don't deliver. We don't do
what we normally do”. We say they are being hardnosed, that
these are people who know how to stick up for themselves, that
these are people we have to reckon with.
However, when workers do it they are hostage takers. They are
people who have no concern for the Canadian economy. If I had a
dime for every time there was a corporate decision taken that was
not in the interest of the Canadian economy but was in the
interest of a particular corporation, I would be a very rich
person.
When that is done I do not hear people, with the possible
exception of New Democrats, saying in the House of Commons that
these people are terrible, that they put their own economic
interest ahead of the country. It is just regarded as the
marketplace taking its effect, as people acting like good little
Adam Smith disciples, acting according to the Zeitgeist, acting
according to the market ethic. They are not reprimanded.
Certainly the President of the Treasury Board does not get up
and call them hostage takers. He does not go after the railway
for taking farmers hostage by abandoning rail lines and leaving
them at the mercy of Cargill, truckers or whatever it is they are
left to the mercy of.
When the railway says “We are going to pull that line out of
there because we are not making enough money on it”, regardless
of what the consequences are for the local community or farmers I
do not hear the President of the Treasury Board saying that the
CNR are hostage takers, that they have no regard for the welfare
of the Canadian economy or western Canada or farmers. I do not
hear that kind of talk from the government when corporations act
in this way. Perhaps we should hear that kind of talk but we do
not.
What I am counselling here is if we are to be preached at by the
President of the Treasury Board with respect to the common good,
with respect to the well-being of the Canadian economy, with
respect to the well-being of Canadian farmers and their
communities, I would like to see a little more even-handedness on
the part of the government.
1840
I would like to see a government that was active in resisting
the ways in which the railways are hurting farmers. I would like
to see a government that was active in resisting the way that
some of the agribusiness corporations are impinging upon the
interests of farmers. I do not hear that.
I think it is a point that needs to be made because if through
back to work legislation, if that is what the government has in
mind, we can conscript labour, why is it still a sin to conscript
capital? Why do we live with the very idea, which was not always
regarded as quite as radical as it is today, that capital should
somehow be answerable to the common good, should be answerable to
the needs of the national economy, should be answerable to the
needs of communities? That idea is completely out of fashion. It
is not out of fashion as far as I am concerned but it is out of
fashion. Let us face it, that is not the prevailing wisdom, that
is not the conventional wisdom.
All I am saying to my colleagues is: what is sauce for the goose
is sauce for the gander. I object to an ethic which says
ordinary working people have to be responsible for or take into
account the effects of their actions on the Canadian economy and
in this case, with respect to what is happening in Vancouver,
their effect on farmers on their families. It is a very serious
concern. I am not trying to downplay that at all.
I am asking why we lay this moral imperative on them and yet we
do not do it when it comes to others, particularly much more
powerful actors in the Canadian economy than, let us face it, the
blue collar workers at the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
I make a plea for some moral symmetry which I do not often see
in this place. I see a tremendous moral imperative being laid on
workers when their actions or their withdrawal of their services
imperils in some way or another a part or the whole of the
Canadian economy. However, when this is done in the name of
corporate profit, corporate profit strategies, a good investment
climate or whatever we want to call it, it is just regarded as
business. It is just regarded as the way things are.
I do not think we can have it both ways. I encourage the
President of the Treasury Board to go back to the table, to stop
talking about hostage takers, unless he is interested in a little
Stockholm syndrome, and get down to business with the strikers. I
am sure that they are not anxious to be on strike.
I have been on many picket lines in my time as an MP and even
before that when members of my family were on strike. I can tell
the House that people who are on strike do not want to be on
strike. People who are on strike, especially if they have been
on strike for any length of time, are always looking for an
honourable way back to their jobs because they do not like being
without work. They do not like being without a regular pay
cheque. They do not enjoy being on the picket line. Whatever
excitement there is fades very quickly. To imagine that somehow
the alleged intransigence of the union comes from any desire to
have the strike prolonged in any way is very mistaken.
The President of the Treasury Board was listening to me at the
beginning, but I guess I must have either bothered him or
something because he is really involved now in talking to his
Liberal seatmate over there. Over here, President of the
Treasury Board; earth to the President of the Treasury Board.
There he is.
I was saying to the President of the Treasury Board through the
Chair, as I always do, that it is time for the President of the
Treasury Board to go back to the table. He knows what he has to
do to arrive at a settlement. He should stop using this
inappropriate language and do what he has to do, not just for the
sake of the strikers but for the sake of the country.
He has a responsibility, not just to the people who are on the
picket lines, to show leadership in this regard. I am sure he
could apply himself. He is no dummy. He is no slouch. He knows
how to get out of the mess he got himself and the rest of the
country into, if he wants to get out of it, and I encourage him
to do so.
1845
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to preface my comments on a few remarks on the comments by
the member for Winnipeg Transcona. As always, his comments are
enlightening and intelligent.
I would maybe beg to differ that there is a slightly different
angle we should be looking at here and it is not questioning
whether PSAC members have a right to vote. I would put the
emphasis on the shoulders of the government where it rightly
belongs because it has not settled this prolonged strike and has
allowed it to fester to the point where they are using and
threatening the livelihoods of other Canadians because they are
desperate and there has been no chance to arbitrate this dispute.
That blame lies solely on the shoulders of the government.
It is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of my hon. colleague,
the member for Brandon—Souris, to speak on the very important
issue facing Canadian grain farmers as a result of the current
public service strike. The both of us would like to congratulate
the member for Selkirk—Interlake for bringing this issue forward
in tonight's debate.
This is an issue that all parties in the House of Commons should
be concerned about, not only those from western Canada because it
has implications on Canada's reputation as an exporter of grain
and surely that would have implications on all Canadians.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada is currently involved in a
labour dispute with the Government of Canada. Included in this
dispute are approximately 70 grain weighers employed by the
Canadian Grain Commission. The functions performed by these 70
workers are mandated under the Canadian Grains Act and cannot be
performed by non-Canadian grain corporation staff. The
withdrawal of these services has prevented the unloading of grain
hopper cars and the loading of vessels.
On March 15, when PSAC grain weighers set up picket lines at
five grain terminals in Vancouver, it halted grain movement,
preventing 700 unionized grain handlers from going to work,
costing not only our producers but our international reputation
as a supplier of high quality grain capable of meeting important
and time sensitive delivery dates.
First and most important, this work stoppage has also hurt
Canadians through delays in income tax refunds. Almost one
million income tax returns are stuck in the system. Because of
grain delays, Canadian farmers and Canada's reputation as one of
the world's best suppliers of high quality grain are being hurt.
It needs to be mentioned that Canada exports around $18 billion
to $20 billion worth of food products every year and about
one-half of these grain exports are grains, oilseeds and related
products. These stoppages cause serious damage to the Canadian
grain export industry and the prairie economy they are based out
of.
I will illustrate how the failure of leadership on this issue is
part of a pattern of this government that is failing to serve
Canadians.
I want to contrast the government's lack of effectiveness on
this issue and how an earlier Conservative government dealt
competently with a potential strike situation back in 1991.
There can be no doubt by anyone who has read a newspaper,
listened to the radio or watched television in the last few weeks
that the public service strike has hurt not just the public
service but other sectors of the Canadian economy and, in the
area of concern tonight, Canadian grain transportation.
This is not the first time Canadian farmers have been affected
by grain delays. Delayed 1997 shipments to contracted
international customers, primarily in wheat, have resulted in
demurrage charges of $65 million paid for primarily by producers.
It has been estimated that an additional $35 million was lost in
potential sales because of Canada's inability to deliver. This
reflected poorly not only on western Canadian farmers but
Canadians as a whole in the international marketplace.
Again Canadian farmers are faced with these disruptions, this
time as a result of PSAC strike. Fortunately, farmers will not
face huge demurrage charges as they did back in 1997 because the
Vancouver Grain Exchange has declared the shutdown an event of
delay. This move by the industry body gives exporters 14 days
after the situation is cleared up before they face charges.
1850
It is a very time sensitive issue and it is timely to bring it
up in an emergency debate.
Another issue is indirect costs to farmers. That could cost
millions and the damage to Canada's reputation is immeasurable.
In the last 48 hours alone the Canadian Wheat Board stated that
it has lost $9 million in sales because of the reliability of our
delivery system. The government has dragged its feet on this
issue for over two years. It has failed to reach a settlement
with table two PSAC workers. I question what the government has
done over the past two years. Obviously very little.
Now the federal government has put our farmers in this situation
where they are being held hostage. I will use those words. Our
farmers are being held hostage because the strike has dragged on,
without resolution, at the negotiating table. Our farmers are not
being held hostage by PSAC workers, they are being held hostage
by the government. This could not have come at a worse time with
Canadian farmers suffering one of the most financial crunches
since the Great Depression.
On February 10 my hon. colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris
who is unfortunately unable to participate in tonight's debate,
wrote the President of the Treasury Board urging this government
to quickly resolve negotiations with PSAC members. He has yet to
hear a reply. The member for Brandon—Souris got up in the House
on February 17 and again urged the government to resolve the
dispute with the PSAC workers. Still no word from the minister
other than “do not worry, we are working on it”.
We must ask ourselves why this government chooses through its
own neglect to allow this strike to cause so much damage to the
Canadian economy, to agri-businesses and Canada's international
reputation. This is not an isolated incident but a pattern
within this government that shows a leadership vacuum beginning
at the top and a contempt for the legislative and democratic
process.
Whether it be the federal government dragging its heels on the
farm income crisis, Canada's delayed position on the Kyoto
environmental conference or the defence department's decision to
purchase EH-101 helicopters only after years delays and after
cancelling a previous which cost taxpayers $.5 billion, and the
list goes on, everywhere we turn the government chooses to
procrastination over leadership, the same kind of failed policy
that hurt so many Canadians with the PSAC strike.
Where can we look to for an example of real leadership? In
October 1991 there was a Progressive Conservative government in
power faced with a labour situation not much different from that
faced by the current government. Back then Canada Post was
negotiating to bring a number of unions, each with its own
collective agreements with CUPW, under one agreement. A series
of rotating strikes in August urged the government to do whatever
necessary to allow the two parties to come to successful
negotiation.
I urge the President of the Treasury Board to seek a quick and
speedy resolution to this strike. In the event that it appears
to be futile the Progressive Conservative Party would urge, but
only as a last resort, to legislate public service employees back
to work. If this is not resolved soon all Canadians stand to
lose, both PSAC members and farmers. It is time for the
government to stand up and show leadership which has obviously
been lacking for some time.
The government has a double responsibility here. It has a
responsibility with PSAC to settle this in an equitable and
timely manner. The government has a timely and important
responsibility to western Canadian farmers to enable them to meet
export commitments.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate. I thank my colleague from
Selkirk—Interlake for asking for this emergency debate. I
really believe this is an item that is emergent.
1855
To dispel a few myths before I really get into the text of what
I have to say tonight, I would like to reply to some accusations
by my friend from Trois-Rivières who said this is a veiled threat
for the Reform Party to try to get the government to bring in
back to work legislation. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
Back to work legislation does not do anything. All it does is
get the parties back on the job. It still does not do anything
to settle the labour dispute. The labour dispute will still be
there. That animosity will still be there. That intransigence
will still be there.
I do not believe for a minute that any union will strike on a
whim. It needs a pretty good reason. I am quite sure those
people on strike at the moment are wishing they could be at work.
There is a loss of pay. Everybody knows that when there is a
strike for any duration, they will never work long enough to make
up for the money they have lost. Those people have made that
decision and it has not been taken lightly, rest assured.
My friend from Trois-Rivières' allegations are absolutely false.
We do not advocate back to work legislation.
A year or so ago we had part I of the Canada Labour Code opened,
the industrial relations part. We made some changes in that
code. One of the things the government kept telling us was that
it wanted to put in a clause that applies to grain, clause 87.7.
Even some of my friends from the Liberal Party thought this
would be an excellent clause because it would ensure the flow of
grain from the farm gate to the port. Why is that so important?
It is important certainly for farm families. It is also
important to the Canadian economy. Every person in this place,
regardless of their party, would like to have close to complete
employment in this country. They would like to see the
unemployment rate near zero.
This is no way to go about it. This is no way to attain those
goals. The very fact that we have the spinoff effect from grain
sales, from agriculture, is a huge item.
This is an excellent thing. It is a very good thing that I am
not the kind of guy who would say I told you this would not work,
I told you so. If I were, right now I would be saying I told you
so.
Even my friends including some in the Liberal caucus thought
clause 87.7 would move grain right through to port. It will not
and the reason it will not is that there are still unions the
government refuses to come to agreement with that go on strike
out of frustration or out of necessity or for some reason.
Then the other unions will respect their picket lines and not
cross them. What happens then? There are granaries full of
grain on the farm. There are elevators full of grain in the
towns. There are trains loaded, sitting on the sidings at ports
and not moving. Instant constipation. Nothing moves. This is
certainly not a good picture. This has great detrimental spinoff
to the Canadian economy and this simply cannot be tolerated.
I listened with great interest to some of the strong language
the President of the Treasury Board used when he spoke about the
problem. He talked a lot about the history. What was missing
was talk about the solution.
I also listened to my friend from Winnipeg—Transcona talk about
the strong language used by the President of the Treasury Board.
Like the President of the Treasury Board, my friend from
Winnipeg—Transcona did not talk about the solution.
1900
We have pretty well covered the problem. We know the farmers
have the grain in the bins. We know they cannot move this grain
after breakup starts. After the frost starts to come out of the
ground, the municipalities put bans or load restrictions on their
roads. It is very important that this grain gets to port. The
people at the ports and the unions know this. The government
knows this.
It is not as though this were the first time this has happened.
This happens over and over again, and the government out of
desperation and political pressure brought to bear by the farming
community and others brings in back to work legislation, which
does not serve Canada well at all.
What kind of scale are we talking about here? My colleague said
about the movement of grain at the west coast port that there are
approximately 20 to 21 ships waiting out there. That represents
an awful lot of grain. It represents a lot of jobs and a lot of
transfer payments for this country.
It also represents an erosion of our reliable good name when it
comes to supplying grain. As everybody in this place knows, a
good reputation takes a long time to build but it can be lost in
a very short time. That is the danger we run every time we go
through what I call these futile exercises.
Unlike some of the previous speeches, I am going to talk about
what I think the solutions are. My friend from
Selkirk—Interlake spoke about what he thought was the solution.
By some strange coincidence I have the same feelings about the
possibility of a solution.
Stable labour relations are absolutely vital to the country. If
we have stable labour relations and we can be a reliable shipper
of goods, then we have a leg up on our competitors. That is very
important. Agriculture is still a very important and significant
employer of people in this country. This is not from the more or
less narrow viewpoint of strictly the farm community. We are
talking about a much broader spinoff area.
Final offer selection arbitration is a tool that can be used by
labour and by management equally well. I say that because I
think the very fact of making final offer selection arbitration
available to these parties will make them bargain very earnestly.
It is an incentive for them to come to an agreement.
We could even say that used to its ultimate, final offer
selection arbitration would not be used at all. In case that is
too much of a leap for some people to follow, the reason I say
that is that final offer selection arbitration does not meld the
final positions.
Labour presents its position and management presents its
position.
The arbitrator takes all of one position or all of the other
position. It is not a negotiated in between settlement at all.
It is all of one or all of the other. Both parties know that
when they go in, and therefore both parties come to their
absolute bottom line.
1905
Oftentimes when bottom lines are compared, there is no decision
for the arbitrator to make because they have come to a
conclusion. Oftentimes it never comes to presenting a final
position to the arbitrator because lo and beyond the sides sat
down, hammered things out and negotiated.
I would like to say this again lest there still be somebody in
this House who would like to accuse us of supporting back to work
legislation and removing the right to strike. Absolutely false
on both counts. We support the right to strike and the right to
organize. We also think the very best solution is a negotiated
solution.
We saw it in this House in the not too distant past when we had
a postal disruption. The government saw fit to legislate them
back to work. Lo and behold that was 16 months ago and still
there is no agreement in the post office. What is the point? Why
legislate them back to work if we are not going to come to an
agreement?
We should use final offer selection arbitration, get an
agreement, get everybody back to work on an amicable footing and
we will not have to face these situations again and again. Until
we do that, we are going to be back here in an emergency debate
again and again because of a situation where the national economy
is suffering or there is some kind of crisis.
The fact that we are here is that all parties have agreed that
this is an emergency. It is testament to the fact that this is an
emergency situation.
Some people will say that we Reform guys want to have final
offer selection for everything. That too is rubbish. Anybody
that would care to read the things I have said about final offer
selection need only go back to the debates on Bill C-19. We
explained it time and time again. As a matter of fact, I reached
the point where I thought I might be boring some people in the
House with my explanations of final offer selection. I know Mr.
Speaker would not be one of them because he listens intently to
virtually every word I say.
We think final offer selection is one of the tools that should
be used in cases where there is a monopoly situation, where there
is no alternative to the services provided or withdrawn and in a
situation where the national economy is going to suffer directly
and significantly.
I certainly do hope that clarifies the situation. I really hope
my friend from Trois-Rivières is listening. I am sure he is.
We want a fair and permanent resolution process. We think it
must be in place and it must be removed from the whims of
government. Back to work legislation is becoming so predictable
that the unions and management have come to rely on it. I do not
know why they would do that. It is a painful exercise for
everybody.
Some kind of permanent legislation that would provide for final
offer selection would provide both sides with something
predictable that has rules and a timetable for which to
negotiate. It would give a lot of incentive to negotiate and to
do so in earnest.
I do not think we should minimize the importance of the effect
on Canadian jobs and keeping Canadians employed.
1910
Our reputation as a reliable supplier of products is worth
defending and maintaining. As I said, it takes a long time to
develop a good reputation and a very short time to lose it.
Another aspect we have to be very aware of is that there are
ports in the United States that are not all that far from
Vancouver. They are probably just as good, ice free and
accessible to western Canada. Western Canada cannot afford to
lose any business to U.S. west coast ports. The jobs in British
Columbia as a result of that port and the vessel traffic coming
in from the sea are definitely worth defending.
This is also about individual farmers, about their towns and
their families. At this time of year their bins are full of
grain and they have to move it. They are already suffering from
low commodity prices. My friend from Selkirk—Interlake touched
on the fact that they have no control over their input costs.
Their costs for fuel, fertilizer, machinery, land rent, land
taxes and purchase price of land are escalating. It is getting
more and more difficult to get into the farming business. Indeed
it is getting more and more difficult to stay in the farming
business.
In case I had not mentioned it before, I have some knowledge
whereof I speak because I have spent the last 31 years in the
farming business. I still live in a farming community. I have
many neighbours who although they are primarily in the livestock
business, they still do ship canola, wheat, malting barley and
feed barley.
In the area where I live the vast majority of the grain is fed
to livestock. Having stated that, I am in no way trying to
minimize the importance of the grain shipment because we
certainly do have farmers in our area who grow grain and oilseeds
for export. It is absolutely vital to them in order to keep
their operations going that they have a reliable and affordable
transportation system that will get their product to the port and
out on to the high seas.
Whenever there is a work stoppage that has occurred in as far as
the national transportation of grain is concerned the government
of the day, and it does not seem to matter which government it
is, begins to wring its hands and worry. The first thing it
seems to think is the solution is to bring in back to work
legislation. That is no solution at all.
We have to look at innovative ways to come up with a solution
that will bring us a negotiated resolution to this problem. We
have to make sure that our grain travels to the port, on to the
seas and to our customers in a timely fashion.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the
opportunity to enter into this debate and outline the seriousness
of this situation, in particular for western Canadian farmers.
1915
I will be splitting my time with my colleague.
At the outset I would like to outline a bit of my own background
because I have had some involvement in this area. In fact I was
a farm leader for a decade and a half in the west. I have
marched in the streets with the Public Service Alliance of Canada
because I believe so strenuously in collective bargaining.
I will use the word “hostage”. Farmers on the prairies are
third party victims and have been held hostage by the Public
Service Alliance of Canada and the leadership of the Public
Service Alliance of Canada knows that. There were other options
open to them which they did not choose.
As far as the member for Winnipeg—Transcona talking about using
the word “hostage”, I would use the same word against a
capitalist or a corporation if they were using these kinds of
tactics.
Given the cash flow and the kind of year that farmers have had
in western Canada, and in northwestern Saskatchewan for four
years, they do not need this kind of problem, which is caused by
events beyond their control. With the cash crunch and the
disaster relief program we have had to put in place, it will be
difficult to attain the targets to actually get the amount of
money required to the farm community, which they do indeed need.
The actions of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, causing
disruptions to delivery times, can and will affect future sales.
I will quote what the minister of agriculture had to say today.
He said “Grain prices are low enough that Canadian farmers do
not need anything else reducing their incomes. Unfortunately, the
Canadian Wheat Board has informed us that in the last 48 hours it
has lost a $9 million sale because the reliability of our
delivery system is in question”.
I say again, the leadership of the Public Service Alliance of
Canada knows that. They knew it before they took these actions.
As well, there was a press release from the Canadian Wheat Board
itself, which stated: “The CWB lost a CDN $9 million sale to an
Asian buyer in the past 48 hours. It has also had to forgo sales
to several customers in other areas because timely delivery for
nearby shipment positions could not be guaranteed”.
This indeed is a serious matter.
How do we balance this with the collective bargaining process?
Were there other options available to the Public Service Alliance
of Canada? In fact the kind of action they took previously,
which we were able to work around, was putting pressure on the
government and was putting pressure on industry to come to a
negotiated settlement. There certainly were options.
I question the leadership. In fact I believe members of the
Public Service Alliance of Canada should be questioning the
leadership of that organization as a result of these actions
because they have put the government, which has a desire to
believe strongly in collective bargaining, in the position of
perhaps having to implement back to work legislation. I think
the leadership of that organization should be questioned for
these kinds of tactics which hold Canadian farmers hostage.
I am saying that the actions that were taken by PSAC in
Vancouver were unnecessary. They hurt the farm community and
they hurt the ability of the membership of PSAC to achieve a
settlement through negotiation. They have erred. They have
erred in targeting Vancouver as the pressure point for a complete
shutdown and have caused serious damage to our ability and our
reputation as a country to serve and supply grains to
international markets.
As it stands, there are 17 ships idle or waiting to load grain
and that number will grow. If these pickets continue for three
weeks or so there could be 35 ships in port waiting for grain,
grain worth $230 million.
That is a large sum of money in any context, but to Canadian
grain farmers it is more than a figure, it is their livelihood.
1920
I understand what some members have said in terms of income tax
returns being slowed down and, yes, that is serious. Those kinds
of actions are taking place in my own riding. However, that is a
slowdown in which income will eventually come. The situation in
Vancouver is specifically targeted at terminal elevators and is
jeopardizing livelihoods. It is not a delay in terms of income.
In ordinary times the work of the Canadian Grain Commission in
keeping the safe and orderly movement of grain across Canada is
easily recognized as important. The commission plays a very
vital role in support of the grain industry, in setting grain
standards, performing grain quality research, serving as official
inspectors and weighers, and regulating the system to ensure safe
and dependable grain delivery.
Under the current difficult conditions we have to congratulate
these people. The efforts of the commission to keep grain moving
despite the PSAC strike and other job actions are even more
important. The grain commission has monitored the situation and
responded with direct action to keep the grain moving as best it
can. That effort continues and I think all hon. members should
appreciate the work being done to make sure that Canadian farmers
will see their grain reach the markets that the markets so
clearly want to buy.
There have been rotating strikes affecting the movement of grain
since January 18. The first in the port of Vancouver occurred on
January 25. I think it is worth noting that the system was never
entirely shut down and, indeed, was operating thanks to grain
commission management which kept grain shipments moving as best
they could.
We are talking about a cross-country effort because some of
these Canadian Grain Commission managers are experienced
weighers. There are only seven of them in the country and they
manoeuvre to try to keep the flow of grain moving as best they
can under very difficult circumstances.
The pressure was on by the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
The grain was moving. Livelihoods were not seriously
jeopardized. That was a tactic that could have moved to
settlement by negotiation instead of, potentially down the road,
settlement by back to work legislation because of this action by
the leadership of PSAC.
Today my office in Prince Edward Island was occupied by about 25
PSAC workers who are on a rotating strike action. They outlined
their concerns in a very serious, deliberate and I think very
legitimate way. They brought their concerns forward.
One of their big concerns is regional rates of pay. I can
understand that. I speak to the President of the Treasury Board
when I say this. I believe the government, in and of itself, has
to seriously get back to the bargaining table and seriously
consider the regional rates of pay issue. I think it has been
doing a reasonable job in terms of those issues, but it takes two
to tango, and the government also might have to make a little
stronger effort in terms of settling this issue on the basis of
fairness and equity.
In the near future I will be raising with the President of the
Treasury Board the fact that PSAC workers have said to me in my
riding that 97% do have regional pay rates. I am not sure if
that is correct or not. If we are only dealing with 3%, why deny
those three? I will be raising that with the President of the
Treasury Board in a letter at a later date.
The issue indeed has to be solved. The bottom line is that the
actions which have led to this emergency debate tonight were
actions taken by the Public Service Alliance of Canada in
targeting and shutting down grain movement in the port of
Vancouver. There were other options available. The leadership
has jeopardized the ability to get a settlement at the
negotiating table.
I encourage the membership of the Public Service Alliance of
Canada to tell its leadership that we have to go back to the
table, that we have to negotiate in good faith and that we should
not take action that will jeopardize the livelihood of third
party victims.
1925
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to
participate this evening in this important debate on grain
movements and current disruptions at the port of Vancouver.
Like the members opposite, government members too recognize the
importance of bringing a speedy resolution to the labour dispute
because of the impact it is having on the grain movement.
Our country is a trading nation. This is particularly true of
the grain sector. Buyers around the world prefer Canadian grains
over those from most other countries because of the quality of
the product we have to offer. Those buyers trust us to provide a
quality product and they want assurance of supply.
In recent years this government has worked closely with the
entire Canadian grain industry to improve export performance and
to institute measures to limit disruptions in the export of
grains. We made amendments to the Canada Labour Code to ensure
that longshoremen continue to provide services during a strike or
lockout. More recently we received the Estey Report on grain
handling and transportation. Working with former Justice Estey's
report the government will continue to take steps to improve the
grain handling and transportation systems.
We take these initiatives to ensure that we can provide buyers
with a reliable source and supply of Canadian grain. We do not
want to jeopardize the gains that we have made. That is why, as
a government, we are deeply committed to bringing about an end to
the current disruptions.
We also recognize that our grain producers and others in the
grain industry are innocent third parties who are caught in this
dispute. We recognize the financial implications of lost sales
both now and in the long term. We previously heard about a
contract that we have already lost in the last 48 hours.
What Canadians as a whole may not recognize is the incredible
importance of the grains and the oilseed industry to the Canadian
economy. The sale of grains and oilseeds and related products
injects about $12 billion a year into our national finances. The
impact of this strike will be felt from sea to sea to sea.
In terms of exports, the value of Canada's sales in those
products was estimated at more than $6 billion in 1998. These
products are shipped around the world. The United Kingdom was
once our chief customer for exporting grain, but today it is
Asia. At the same time, we have developed products for very
specialized markets in countries such as France and Brazil.
I can assure members of this House that as we work our way
through this disruption and beyond we will be there working hand
in hand with the industry to maintain the confidence of grain
buyers. We will be reminding buyers that Canada's agriculture
and agri-food sector is a reliable supplier of safe and quality
products.
As our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has often said, our
red maple leaf is recognized around the world as a symbol of
quality. I am sure we are all proud of that maple leaf and we
want to do everything we can to support it.
Our annual exports of all agriculture and agri-food products
have been at $20 billion plus for the past two years. The
industry is keen to see this figure grow year after year. We
have set a goal of capturing 4% of the world's agriculture and
agri-food trade by the year 2005. This would be great for all
Canadians. This government is committed to helping industry meet
that goal. We are working hard to improve our export market
access and to help industry promote its products around the
world.
Going into the next round of World Trade Organization
negotiations at the end of this year, we will be pursuing a more
open, fair and market oriented agricultural trading system. A
successful outcome at the WTO is a prime goal of the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food. As recently as last week the minister
was in Japan and made that point to industry organizations,
governments and representatives alike. I know my hon. colleagues
from the PC Party and the Bloc will concur in the efforts made by
our minister last week because they were there to accompany the
minister and to see the great work that Canada is doing.
Our minister also met with several grain and oilseed buyers.
These buyers were aware of the current situation in Canada and
they sought our assurance with respect to reliability of supply.
1930
Since the minister's return to Canada he has been in contact
with the grain industry and his provincial counterparts. The
minister is fully aware of the impact of disruptions at the port
of Vancouver and no one is more anxious than he that this
situation be resolved quickly.
As a member of parliament I urge a speedy end to this picketing
and the disruptions affecting grain shipments through the port of
Vancouver.
We recognize there is a lot at stake not only for the grains and
oilseed industries but for the Canadian economy as a whole.
Tonight we are talking about one of the world's two most
important commodities. I am sure that someone would say water is
our most important commodity, and we are blessed with an ample
supply, but certainly number two in importance is food. What we
are discussing here tonight is the shipment of food. There are
people around the world waiting and counting on this food so they
can survive.
I know the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona would concur, I
believe, that grain movement is for the common good of all
people.
The HRD committee heard many witnesses when we were changing the
labour code so that grain would move on the prairies across this
great country and through the Rockies to the west coast. Many of
the witnesses said we could not treat grain any different from
any other commodity. However, grain is food and we have to treat
it a bit different than we do coal or sulphur or potash. It is
food and there is nothing more important.
I am glad, as I am sure the opposition is, to see our government
supporting our western farmers because no one works harder than
the producers of grain. On a daily basis our farmers are
confronted with various risks such as weather, pests, disease,
market fluctuations and cut throat competition.
I am ashamed when I see the prices our farmers are receiving for
this wonderful product, the best grain in the world. However,
this is not a local situation. It is a Canadian challenge but it
is not just here. Around the world grain prices are lower than
at any time during the dirty thirties and we have to work
together.
I am glad the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced
last month the details of the agricultural income disaster
assistance program. Our government is proud to support our
producers. We are proud to have the support of the other parties
here this evening. I know they have made a few comments about
what we have to do with the labour code in the future, but
tonight and tomorrow we have to work together to ensure this
grain gets moving so we can help feed the world.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
the emergency debate requested by the hon. member for
Selkirk—Interlake is to put pressure on the government to force a
return to work by the federal government blue collar workers
responsible for loading grain at the port of Vancouver.
The 70 employees in question are members of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada, which is currently in conflict with the
federal government in connection with the renewal of collective
agreements.
The duties of these employees are performed within the framework
of the Canada Grain Act, and the use of replacement workers is
banned in such cases.
Up until March 14, the PSAC members were striking on a rotating
basis and so the grain was still able to move.
This situation changed, however, when the grain export silo
workers set up picket lines around the five Vancouver grain
terminals on March 15. This led to the other terminal workers
refusing to cross the picket line, so now the grain can no
longer be loaded onto the ships. In other words, it can no
longer be moved, hence the crisis we are faced with at the
present time.
Quebec is involved little if at all in this local conflict
between the Canadian Wheat Board and the Public Service Alliance
of Canada. But we cannot be insensitive to the situation.
1935
This strike results in major costs to western farmers who, like
their Quebec and eastern counterparts, are going through a
serious income crisis.
I could repeat what the previous speaker said, namely that it is
a shame, given the quality of the grain and products that we
market in this country, to have such low prices right now.
This strike results in huge financial losses to the Canadian
Wheat Board, which said yesterday that it lost a $9 million
contract and had to cancel several other ones, because it could
not guarantee that the product would be available at the
specified location and in the required amounts.
The reputation of the Canadian Wheat Board and, indirectly, that
of western farmers suffer from that situation. In the case of
export sales, grain quality is not questioned, but our ability
to deliver the product with consistency is. The delivery date of
our sales contracts must be respected; our customers demand
reliability with regard to shipments.
During the recent trip made to Japan by the Minister of
Agriculture, one of the primary requirements mentioned by the
Japanese was the reliability of the shipments of wheat, barley
and any other product exported to their country.
The situation of western farmers is so tragic that the Minister
of Agriculture is introducing a special program to help them.
Could it be that his Treasury Board colleague is less sensitive?
The current crisis in Vancouver and in western Canada in general
might be less serious if Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes had
their fair share in the grain transportation sector. Indeed, in
his recent report based on a thorough review of the grain
industry, justice Estey shows that Quebec, Ontario and the
maritimes are discriminated against by the commission.
In this regard, the Estey report states, and I quote:
It is recommended that the federal government, in conjunction
with the Seaway authority, work to encourage the utilization of
the Seaway by two-way freight traffic into the North and South
Atlantic region and the central regions of Canada and the United
States. It is further recommended that the Board continue to
make every effort to promote sales of Board grains to markets
which can be economically served by the Seaway.
Diversifying means of transportation and routes lessens the
risks of tension and crisis. People in Quebec, Ontario and
eastern Canada would be more concerned about the grain issue if
they had their share of the transportation market.
Back to work legislation should only be a last recourse.
Have all the other options been exhausted? We believe they have
not. Striking is a worker's fundamental right and back to work
legislation would abolish this right.
Rather than demanding back to work legislation we must demand
that the government negotiate in good faith. Freedom of
association exists in principle in Canada and workers, when they
have good reason to do so, may go on strike. This is part of a
fair balance of power, except when the employer, which happens
to be the government, abuses its legislative power. Again, back
to work legislation should only be a last resort.
I was pleased to hear today that this was not necessarily the
purpose of the debate which was rather aimed at highlighting the
economic impact of the crisis, I would even say psychological
impact since both workers and farmers are feeling the
consequences.
In the opinion of our party, it is unacceptable for these
workers to be deprived of their right to express dissent by this
last resort solution of special legislation.
We are, therefore, opposed to special legislation and call upon
the government to negotiate in good faith and as promptly as
possible with its blue collar workers, who are on legal strike,
taking into account the negative impact of the present
situation, in which the farmers are once again the fall guys,
the hostages of a lethargic government with little concern for
the rights and interests of its citizens.
The negotiations must be carried to a conclusion, they must be
continued, before any use of the last resort solution of special
legislation. We all acknowledge that there is a crisis, and we
therefore want to see an agreement to end this strike reached as
quickly as possible.
1940
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are back on your favourite topic again, agriculture.
It is very important to me as well. It is very good to see you
hanging on every word being said tonight.
We as Reformers are raising this issue in this emergency debate.
The whole point of my speech is that innocent third parties such
as the farmers are being hurt by the strike that they have no
control over.
Farmers on the prairies are hurting already. Now they are being
hurt terribly by this. The government must accept responsibility
for allowing this situation to develop time after time. We have
done this before, déjà vu.
This situation must not continue. We have proposed solutions
for several years such as final offer arbitration. We cannot
blame any one party or person for all the problems. Some blame
the problems farmers are experiencing on the railways, the
Canadian Wheat Board, the grain companies or the unions.
The buck stops with government. It could have put in place a
solution. It did not do this. Government has the power to bring
all the players in the game together to solve our grain handling
and transportation problems.
It may not look like it on the outside but on the inside I am
jumping up and down and screaming. We have done this over and
over. There is a solution and we are not solving the problem.
Something must be done to solve the grain handling and
transportation problems we are experiencing on the prairies.
People have trouble hearing me when I get too excited therefore
I will remain calm in my speech. Really I cannot emphasize
enough how important this is to my constituents.
I will be dropping a bombshell a little later in my speech, so
members can be waiting for that. The minister responsible for
the Treasury Board said that this strike will begin to cause
problems for the grain trade on the prairies. I could hardly
believe my ears. They have been feeling the impact for a month.
I made some phone calls in my constituency today. My staff in
Yorkton contacted various people.
Here is what is happening today. In Foam Lake, the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool says the calls for the Canadian Wheat Board grains
have been completely stopped. For the last two weeks they have
not accepted any board grains. Their elevator is full. The
result is that producers are taking their grain to other
elevators like the ConAgra in Yorkton. He estimates this west
coast strike is costing his elevator 100 tonnes a day. They
cannot move it. That is happening already.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in Sturgis has not loaded a single
rail car since the start of January. He says the strike means
there is no way this elevator will be able to receive any grain
cars.
They move most of their grain out of the elevator by truck now.
However, with the road restrictions coming up very shortly they
will not have this option. The big trucks will not be able to
haul grain on the grid roads. This means a complete shutdown of
the operation unless they can get some rail cars.
In Kelvington the United Grain Growers said its contract calls
and car allocations slowly declined over the last couple of
weeks. Canadian Wheat Board grains have basically ground to a
halt.
They are not moving any canola. It goes to the west coast and
the strike has stopped sales altogether. He adds that they have
only 19 rail cars filled from their elevator since January. They
have moved 6,000 tonnes less grain than they did at this time
last year. This is all in relation to the slowdown in the
movement of grain and the strike that is occurring right now.
Many people listening across Canada do not realize the
ramifications of this strike, how far down the line the impact
goes when this occurs at the west coast.
1945
Here is a story of a trucker from Invermay in my riding who had
a week's worth of hauling grain lined up. Everything from oats,
barley, wheat and canola were all picked up at farmers' yards and
shipped to local elevators. The elevators have now called the
farmers and this trucker has been told to cancel his week's worth
of work.
The elevators do not have the room to take all the grain he has
to haul. This, however, has more than just the implication of a
lost work week. This trucker uses a large Super-Bee truck and
will soon not be able to haul this unit on secondary and grid
roads as a result of the road restrictions which come on every
spring. This means the farmers who want to get rid of their
grain will have to do so through smaller tandem trucks and
probably with half loads. It costs producers a fortune to truck
small amounts of grain back and forth from the farm to the
elevator. The large trucking companies have lost more than a
week's worth of work because they will be off the road soon and
will have no income for the next couple of weeks.
This grain strike is not just affecting farmers. It is
affecting transportation and many other people. I hope the
government is listening and will act immediately. I am very
upset the government does not resolve the problem of grain
movement stoppages. There are no ministers here right now—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I
listened to the minister's speech and there were no solutions
offered in that speech.
The government is perfectly aware. It quoted from a Canadian
Wheat Board news release that said the wheat board had lost $9
million in sales to Asian buyers in the last 48 hours. It has to
forgo sales to several more customers in other areas because
timely delivery for nearby shipment positions could not be
guaranteed.
The wheat board goes on to say either the two direct parties in
this dispute must find a solution or the government needs to take
action immediately. The strike action is affecting Canada's
reputation as a reliable supplier. As of today there are 11
ships waiting at the port for wheat from the Canadian Wheat
Board. That is a lot of grain, just for the wheat board.
The head of the wheat board also says the loss of customers is
costing not only western farmers but the Canadian economy as a
whole through direct revenue losses, uncertainty in the ocean
freight market, loss of shipping capacity and loss of customer
confidence. These things cannot be recovered easily. This is
serious. This affects all Canadians and they may not even be
aware of it.
I have some confidential sources. I will reveal some of the
things they have said regarding this matter. The first
withdrawal of services commenced at 11 p.m. on Sunday, January
24. I remind members that today is March 18. On January 24
there was already a withdrawal of services. On January 28, 1999,
the grain companies appeared before a Canada Industrial Relations
Board with Paul Lordon in the chair for a ruling on subclause
87(7) of part I of the Canada Labour Code.
We have been given the impression that this is just happening
now. The government had lots of notice about this a month and a
half ago. Also this source says that the Canadian Grain
Commission weighmen are on strike and picketing all five
terminals. These are just some facts. There are five vessels at
berth and eleven are waiting. The 16 vessels represent some
370,000 tonnes of grain that could be shipped. Of these boats,
two are at berth belonging to the wheat board and five are
waiting, belonging to the wheat board, and seven additional
vessels are due this week.
CP Rail will not spot empties in the country as of today and I
have given some examples already. It has cancelled all car
allocations for the next week. CN advises that it is only
spotting empties today in locations that do not already have cars
and CN will not be spotting empty cars next week.
CN has 19 trains built and staged in Vancouver that cannot be
moved forward. CN also has 3,400 cars under load near Vancouver
while CP has 2,300 cars waiting with grain. In Vancouver CN has
700 cars. CP has 850 loaded rail cars sitting in Vancouver at
the moment.
1950
Neither railway is lifting cars for Vancouver. To date 2,935
rail car unloads have been lost at Vancouver. The industry
expects to lose 4,200 rail car loadings this week and next if the
strike and picketing continue. Each week after that 2,750 cars
per week will be lost.
The losses are in the millions and most Canadians cannot
comprehend how much this affects prairie farmers. The
accumulated lost tonnes at this time equal some 642,150.
What are the ramifications? Canada's reputation as a reliable
supplier of grain will suffer immensely. The results of such
reputation loss may be lost sales in the future. That is very
serious. We will not just be affected for the short term. This
will affect us well into the future. This statement is made as a
result of conclusions drawn in a number of government reviews and
statistics. It is not just us or this source saying so. The
Sims task force, the Industrial Inquiry Commission and the
Western Grain Marketing Panel all made that very clear.
Currently grain companies are experiencing operational costs
considerably above normal in order to handle less tonnes. Some
50% of productivity was lost during rotating strikes. Some 700
third party employees, that is grain workers, stevedores and ship
pilots, are unable to earn a living at this time. This backup in
the rail system will plug primary elevators costing producers the
opportunity to deliver grain, which will adversely affect their
cash flows at a time of year when they need it to prepare for
spring seeding.
It is unreasonable for 70 employees as part of a much larger
group to be allowed to provide such a large negative impact on
100,000 grain producers, in excess of 700 company employees and
hundreds of rail employees. Seventy grain commission employees
should not be allowed to put third party grain producers,
farmers, sales contracts at risk well into the future.
The President of the Treasury Board has to be asked to consider
options that would allow or direct these employees to continue
working. The minister also needs to consider amending the Public
Service Act with regard to part 1, subclause 87(7).
I said I would drop a bombshell and here it is. Back in January
the minister knew in advance the result of these work stoppages,
that they would happen, and he could have done something six
weeks ago. In a letter dated January 27, 1999, he was informed,
as was the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of
Transport, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
and the Minister of International Trade. They were given in a
letter clear indications of this problem, and they did nothing.
The Canadian Grain Commission has provided six supervisory
personnel who are doing their best to cover a regular contingent
in excess of 70 weighmen. Even if no picketing action is taken
by weighmen, numbers this small have effectively closed port
operations. That was told to the ministers. The results of such
work stoppages have stopped the unloading of over 700 rail cars
per day, eliminating the loading of approximately 275,000 tonnes
of grain. The backup caused by not unloading rail cars will cost
Canadian grain producers millions of dollars and impact our
critical trading relationships with foreign buyers. This is all
from a letter that was sent on January 27.
The Canadian grain industry and in particular western farmers
are at the mercy of the weighmen. The minister was told this.
We are not suggesting that back to work legislation is the only
alternative. We are asking for the co-operation of all parties,
including the federal government, in ensuring that the impact on
western farmers is minimized during this time. To this end
members are committed to finding solutions to the present
situation.
The government knew well in advance and could have acted, and it
did nothing for six weeks.
1955
Indirect costs to farmers could mount to millions of dollars,
while the cost of the damage to Canada's competitive position is
really hard to determine. AgriCorp agreed several months ago to
send canola to China at prices that are $60 per tonne higher than
current values. The buyer might use this stoppage to break the
contract. Who will suffer? It will be farmers. Sixty dollars a
tonne is big bucks.
We may see a couple of million dollars loss on just one vessel.
One ship means several hundred million dollars. The customer
would be happy to break the contract that he had made.
Deanna Allen, spokeswoman for the Canadian Wheat Board, says:
If the dispute prevents the board from filling an order for high
protein wheat that fetches a premium, the cereal will go to lower
price contracts and reduce the netbacks to growers. We could be
looking at a direct revenue loss because of our inability to
execute our sales program.
Amendments to the labour code last year designated grain
shipments as an essential service, preventing most dock workers
from going on strike or being locked out. However, the changes
did not apply to the PSAC members who are in a legal strike
position and the 700 unionized employees who work at Vancouver's
five terminals refused to cross the picket lines.
If members need more examples and more facts to back up the
extent of this problem, Japanese buyers of canola have already
expressed concern about the build-up of ships in Vancouver.
Deanna Allen from the wheat board said that nine million sales
was only part of the picture. They are regularly losing sales in
the $2 million to $10 million range in Latin America and Asia.
These are very real dollars which are not making it to western
Canada or Canada as a whole.
There is obviously something wrong with our negotiating system.
“We are not part of that system but we pay the price. If the
people who do the negotiating were affected in their pockets they
would feel it differently”. Those are the words of a farmer
from Manitoba. He goes on to say: “The shutdown definitely
affects our reliability as suppliers. We could lose customers
forever”.
Deanna Allen from the Wheat Board said that there would not be
late shipment penalties known as demurrage. That will not apply
because the Vancouver Grain Exchange issued a declaration that
freezes the whole process because of the strike. “This means
demurrage cannot be levied until 14 days after a strike has ended
and no customer can cancel a contract”, she said, adding that
many people assume automatically it will be levied because that
happened a couple of years ago when there was a cause for delay
and it was not identified immediately. Just because demurrage
cannot be charged does not mean our customers will come back. We
will be losing grain sales and it will affect us greatly.
As Reformers we have proposed final offer selection arbitration
as a mechanism for settling outstanding issues in sectors where
continued service is essential to the national economy. We would
like to ensure that there is a continuous flow of grain to
market. There have been estimates that the grain handling and
transportation system in western Canada is at a disadvantage of
about $500 million in my province alone. This is one of the
problems which illustrates that something must be done.
I am very appreciative of the fact that I was able to address
this problem this evening. I am speaking on behalf of the
farmers in my area. We would like the government to do
something, not just solve this in the short term, not just do
something to get these workers back to work. We have to address
this in the long term so that we are not back here every few
months dealing with another aspect of the problem. We need to
solve the grain handling and transportation problems in the long
term. I urge the government to do that immediately.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This is very unfortunate. It certainly would be nice if
there were some ministers here to hear this important debate.
2000
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to join the debate. I will share my time
with my colleague, the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.
I wish to discuss the impact of the strike on grain shipment.
It is very unfortunate that a very small number of PSAC members
can hold the Canadian grain industry hostage and cause economic
hardship to Canadian grain producers who are already feeling the
effects of reduced grain prices on the world market. We are
nearing the end of the ninth week of the strike by the federal
blue collar workers.
For the first few weeks the grain weighers in British Columbia
and the lower St. Lawrence River in Quebec exercised their right
to strike by withdrawing their services. They have from time to
time stopped grain shipments out of Vancouver, but this was on a
rotational basis and they did not prevent longshoremen and
private grain elevator employees from reporting for work. This
caused some delays but allowed the loading of ships.
It has only been in the last week that they have escalated their
activities by resorting to around the clock picketing. Because
of union solidarity, longshoremen and grain elevator employees
have refused to cross the picket lines and have paralyzed grain
shipments out of Vancouver. I am from Vancouver and it has
caused a lot of concern for us.
The impact of the strike by about 70 grain weighers is being
felt throughout the whole system. An increasing number of ships
are anchored in Vancouver. This weekend we will have over 20
ships waiting to load grain to transport to Asia. Thousands of
loaded grain cars are backed up on the railway all the way to
Manitoba.
Farmers are not getting paid for grain that cannot be delivered.
Our clients are starting to express concerns about the
reputation of Canadian grain exports. Grain shipments out of the
port of Vancouver are worth about $60 million per week. The cost
keeps mounting for every day the system is shut down.
We are having this emergency debate tonight because of the
action of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and its members.
They have turned down all the offers made to them by the
government. Just this morning it was announced that Ontario
public servants have accepted a deal that provides for a salary
increase of 4.2% over three years. In comparison, the last offer
made by the federal government when the talks ended Friday, March
12 was for salary increases of just less than 5% over two years.
It might not be appropriate to compare the salary offer made
last week to federal blue collar workers to that of the Ontario
government because the working conditions and other benefits
might not be the same. On the other hand, the offer turned down
by the PSAC bargaining team was very similar to what has already
been offered and accepted by 87% of unionized federal public
servants, but the bargaining team for blue collar workers
maintains that it is not enough.
I find it very difficult to understand why the union would turn
down a fair wage offer.
2005
For the sake of the future of the grain industry, Canadian
exports, Canadian farmers and all Canadians, we must reach a
settlement as soon as possible to avoid further job losses and
financial disaster. I urge the PSAC members to reach a
settlement soon.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this is not the 1980s. This is not the 1970s. This is
not the 1960s. This is the 1990s. In those other decades, it
was expected in the labour movement to seek the highest wages
possible that the company could afford to pay. Indeed, we saw in
those days some very high wages in the industrial sector.
In that same period, the federal government and provincial
governments negotiated very high rate with the public service
unions. In those days, it was felt that rather than have a
confrontation with the union, a government could dig deeply into
the pocket of the taxpayer and literally pay off the union to
avoid labour strife. This caused a lot of damage in the economy.
We know some of the examples.
Ontario Hydro Nuclear is a classic example. Because the Ontario
government was so unwilling to negotiate realistic settlements
with the union, we got an organization that ultimately came to a
point where it could no longer function.
Similarly, VIA Rail had the difficulty that the packages for the
employees were so beautiful, so perfect that it became impossible
to run passenger trains across the country.
At one time, I had a vision that we could have a cross Canada
train like the Orient Express. I was told that it was impossible
to do because even though we had the rolling stock, we did not
have the ability to deal with a union that had the opportunity to
charge double time, triple time and all kinds of things on a
train that was going across the country for two or three days.
What should have been a wonderful idea was impractical.
Previous governments had given away to public service unions the
right to give reasonable wages. Instead, they gave very high
wages to avoid labour strife. Those were the times when
governments had money to burn it would seem. The previous Tory
government ran up a deficit of $42 billion. Times have changed.
In the 1990s in my riding and anywhere in the country where
unions are a part of businesses that are in global competition,
the unions have had to face the reality that the wages they seek
have to be in line with the company's ability to survive
competitively.
As an example, in my immediate region there was a very lengthy
strike involving meat packers. It was ultimately settled. The
situation was very simple. There were changes in the global
economy and changes with respect to free trade with the United
States. The union could no longer enjoy the very high wages that
it had. There was a choice of either taking a rollback or not
having a job at all.
We have the same situation now in steel and in every sector of
the competitive industry. Things have changed.
In my riding, there is very little sympathy for unions that are
in a position to negotiate with a government that has unlimited
money behind it, taxpayers' money. People do not have much
sympathy any more for governments that would cave in to the
unions, rather than stand up to the unions' demands that are no
longer reasonable in the context of the 1990s.
We heard the Treasury Board president say that he wants to
settle with these unions but they are asking for twice the going
rate, twice the reasonable rate.
I think I can speak for most people in my riding when I say that
those people are behind the President of the Treasury Board. We
have passed the time, thank heavens, when governments should just
dig deeply in their pockets and give whatever the union demands.
2010
I am entirely in agreement with the President of the Treasury
Board. He must hold the line here because we can no longer
return to the past as governments and give whatever is demanded
of us. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer.
There is the other issue. The other issue is the fact that a
very small portion of the Public Service Alliance of Canada union
is holding at ransom the lives, the fortunes and the prospects of
other Canadians. I refer especially to the grain farmers.
Members will recall two years ago we had before this parliament
Bill C-66, which was to amend the Canada Labour Code. There were
many provisions in that bill but one key provision was that it
attempted to restrict the ability of third party unions to
interfere with the transportation of grain in the context of
labour strife.
I spoke to that bill way back in 1996, which eventually became
law. It was given royal assent just two months ago. I spoke,
though, in November 1996. I said:
I would like to add one other remark about a very positive aspect
of the legislation. It addresses a past problem involving grain
handling at our ports. Situations have arisen in the past where
the country was literally held to ransom when our ports were shut
down, not by the transportation unions alone, but by affiliated
unions, some very small unions on occasion, that have set up
picket lines. Of course, other union organizations respect these
picket lines and on occasion it led to the paralysis of our
ability to move our commodities.
The provision in the bill which limits the right to strike, to
paralyze ports, to those unions directly engaged in that form of
activity is a very positive one.
That is what I said. I regret those remarks because that
provision was only applicable to outside unions, third party
unions. We did not make it applicable to small public service
unions within the industry. So we have a situation where some 70
employees are holding to ransom tens, hundreds of millions of
dollars of the fortune of other Canadians, of their future, their
prospects. Seventy public service alliance union members.
Times have very much changed. We have to reconsider as
parliamentarians what exactly is the right to strike of union
employees who are paid by the taxpayer. What exactly is the
right that they have to interfere with the lives of other
Canadians when they are paid by the taxpayer? The taxpayer is
their employer. They are employed by the people of Canada.
The government should be considering very seriously taking
immediate measures to resolve this situation. I am a little bit
more direct than some of the Reform speakers are because I think
that in the interests of the Canadians who are very adversely
affected, we should move very quickly in this case. I see no
problem with back to work legislation. But we need to take it
one step further. We need to review the Canada Labour Code again
and consider whether that code needs another amendment that will
close the loophole that enables 70 unionized PSAC employees to
hold to ransom an entire nation.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
want to congratulate my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake, the
Reform critic for international trade—for agriculture, I am
sorry, although I know he has a keen interest in international
trade—to have sponsored this debate and raised the matter of
this severe emergency for western Canadian farmers.
When I rise to debate I usually say how happy I am to engage in
the debate, but unfortunately I cannot say that today.
2015
I am not happy at all. I am very disturbed. I am very
frustrated because we have seen this cycle over and over again.
I think it is important that we have some historical background
in order to put this into some kind of perspective. My background
is agriculture. We have a farm in Alberta. I have been farming
for over 30 years. In my other life I also was the chairman of a
canola crushing plant that had international sales, especially to
Japan. We faced this issue of labour management problems and the
fact that we could not deliver our product on time on a number of
occasions.
It was a matter of debate with the Chinese and Japanese buyers
of our product when we were in the crushing business. It has
hurt us very severely in the past. It has hurt us because Canada
has not been able to get our product to port on time. It has
hurt our international reputation and it hurt us financially in
the canola crushing industry when I was there.
I first started farming in 1968. This issue has been with us
for a long time, labour-management problems at the ports. There
is something like 20 labour management units that have the
ability to shut us down at any one time and we have seen all
kinds of disruption in the past.
I want to tell a story about going to Vancouver with a group of
farmers to tour the Alberta Wheat Pool terminal. That was back in
the early 1970s. We flew to Vancouver and we were to have a look
at the terminal in operation, our terminal. We owned it. It was
a co-op. What happened? There was a strike.
It is the exact same situation we have today. Guess who was on
strike? It was the official weighers and samplers. There were
only five at the Alberta Wheat Pool terminal. They shut that
terminal down.
It was raining, as it often does in Vancouver in the winter.
The five people were sitting in a car with their pickets leaning
up against the car. They shut down the terminal and backed up
grain right back to the farm gate. The reason? Other unions
would not cross that picket line.
This goes on and on. What government was in power at the time?
The same government. The same problems we see today. Nothing has
changed. Yet it has had a lot of opportunities to do that. Does
it really care at all about what happens to farmers in Western
Canada? I have to think not.
In my riding agriculture is the biggest industry. We have oil
and gas industries. We have a very strong forestry sector. The
bottom line is that agriculture is there day in and day out. It
pays the bills. When we get disruptions in the grain handling
system we pay very dearly because over 80% of what we produce is
shipped out of the country.
A lot of it is shipped out of the port of Vancouver and when
that goes down, we all go down and we pay very dearly. There was
over $60 million last year in demurrage charges. Who pays it?
It backs up to the farmers. They pay it. Ye, it is beyond their
control to do anything about it.
They are looking for leadership from government. It is one of
the reasons I got involved in running for parliament. We are
simply not getting it. It is a problem I am very concerned
about.
My role is the critic for the Reform Party for international
trade. The international trade committee is doing a study now
about what we should be trying to negotiate for Canada at the
upcoming round of the World Trade Organization, the hearings in
the so-called millennium round.
What good does it do getting market access for our products if
we cannot deliver them? It is frustrating beyond belief. We are
there trying to open up access into other markets, and here we
are stymied time and time again.
In the 1970s we had the second worst labour record to Italy.
Maybe it has improved in some areas but not in the area of grain
handling.
We had this problem before us last year. We were debating Bill
C-19. The Liberals told us all would be well and good. They
were to put in a provision in the labour bill that would allow
the terminals to keep on operating if there was a strike for 72
hours to load the ships.
We faced a great deal of pressure. I know I did in my riding
from some of the grain companies and farmers who were saying why
not support that bill. We said it is a half baked measure which
will come back to bite us. That is exactly what has happened.
2020
We said “Unless you address the whole issue of labour
management problems and some new process for handling that, you
have not solved anything. So you have loaded that one ship out
on the 72 hours. Unless you address the whole 20-some labour
management units that are involved with some kind of process to
resolve the longstanding situation we have had in this area of
strife and crisis, we really have not done anything at all”.
When we were at that port in Vancouver, the Alberta Wheat Pool
terminal at the time, I talked to a couple of workers from the
grain handlers who were sitting in the terminal doing nothing
except for providing security. That was in the early 1970s. The
same weighers and samplers were on strike at that time. The
grain handlers have a union of their own.
I talked to a grain handler and said that when we got past the
situation with the weighers, everything would be running smoothly
and we would be able to load out the grain. He said: “I am not
so sure. We have a two year contract. We were not able to
settle it until just a couple of months ago. Now there is only
about a year left and we will probably be going on strike
again”. It is not just them. It is the railway system workers,
the labour management units for the stevedores, and on and on.
We simply have to move to a better system. What is the use of
trying to get market access? What is the use of trying to put
$1.4 billion into emergency aid for farmers in the prairies if
all we really need to do is leave some money in their pockets by
lower taxes and allow for a system that is effective to get our
product to market on time so we can continue to have a good
reputation?
I suggest there has been a lot of distress in the farm industry
in the last several years. The Asian flu was just the last part
of that. We know commodity prices are off very badly. Farmers
are hurting. Western Canadian farmers are hurting. We also have
the severe subsidy-tariff situation, especially in the European
Union which spent $72 billion on agriculture subsidies last year,
effectively freezing us out of those markets.
It gets even worse. It freezes us out of the European Union
markets but it overproduces because it is getting $10 a bushel
for wheat. What does it do with that overproduction? It dumps it
on the world market at fire sale prices. Not only can we not
access the markets in the 15 countries that are members of the
European Union but we are frozen out of markets in third
countries because we face this unfair competition.
What is this government doing about it? What are its
priorities? It does not seem to be much in the area of
agriculture in terms of trade to try to open up those markets.
It tells us it has to have this so-called balanced position in
Canadian agriculture. We cannot ask for market access for grain,
oilseed and beef, those very industries that are essentially
subsidy and tariff free, because we have to be careful on the
other side. We might get hit on our supply-management, the same
supply-management that enjoys 300% tariffs on lots of our
products, butter for example, against products coming into
Canada. The so-called manage position is where the Liberals are.
They want to ride the fence on everything.
Where are the Liberals' priorities? Where are their priorities
these days on solving this strike? I do not see them. I see
them concentrating on things like gun registration with some $200
million already in that situation, blowing it out their ears.
Twenty years from now what will we have from gun registration?
People will say what a useless exercise.
What are their other priorities? Subsidizing Bombardier with
$1.2 billion over the last 10 years, and it goes on and on. Bill
C-55 is on protecting magazine publishers. Rogers cable, one of
the biggest importers of American culture into Canada, has a
division called Maclean Hunter which cannot function without that
protection. That is a real top priority for the Liberal
government, protecting the subsidized protected industries.
However, when it comes to fighting for our farmers for market
access, we cannot touch that, it is too hot. When it comes to
trying to solve some labour-management problems that have been
with us for over 30 years, we will leave that alone. We cannot do
anything there. We would not want to put in final offer
arbitration such as has been suggested by our member for
Wetaskiwin. It is a very good suggestion in order to move along
a process that is stagnated very badly.
2025
I see some movement coming. The President of the Treasury Board
tonight telegraphed his position, back to work legislation. Part
of the reason was in what he said. There were some real
difficulties at the Dorval airport the other day. PSAC workers
blocked the Dorval airport. Some people had to walk a whole
kilometre. They had to walk around and go a whole kilometre on
the tarmac to get to their plane.
Do not worry about the farmers who are losing millions and
millions of dollars in demurrage and lost sales, disrupting a $6
billion industry. That is not that important but when it comes
to disrupting travel at Dorval airport, that is pretty important.
I think we see the writing on the wall. We will see back to
work legislation but what has that solved? Yes, there is a
band-aid that will order these people back to work but why can
they not engage in some new thinking about the whole labour
management process? We have to move beyond this. We cannot
afford it.
I suggest that until the government is prepared to do that we
will see a whole series of band-aids into the future and I do not
think that is good enough.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank all my fellow members for the
opportunity to speak to them about the significant impact that
rotational strikes being waged by the Public Service Alliance are
having across the country.
More specifically, I will speak about how we arrived at the
serious issue we have before us today. Since this government
returned to the negotiating table with the public service union
nearly two years ago, I am pleased to report we have reached new
collective agreements with more than 87% of the unionized
workforce in the public service of Canada.
This includes reaching agreements with some 100,000 employees
represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada without work
stoppages. Our settlements have been fair and reasonable and now
thousands of our employees are seeing salary increases as a
result of reaching these new agreements as well as other
non-monetary benefits.
Unfortunately during these same two years and with the same
Public Service Alliance of Canada we have not been able to reach
a negotiated settlement for the 14,000 blue collar workers or 9%
of the government employees they represent. However, this has
not been for lack of effort on the government's part.
It has not been for a lack of willingness to be flexible at the
bargaining table. This has not been for our lack of capacity to
move from our original bargaining position. We have done all the
above and yet we are still without a settlement.
I am concerned that the union's inflexibility at the bargaining
table is beginning to affect many innocent, unrelated parties.
After nine weeks Canadians across the country and the government
that serves them continue to be subjected to disruptions,
inconveniences, significant losses of revenues and in some
instances acts of civil disobedience and violence.
It is the issue of regional pay rates that has led us to the
bargaining table to a position of not being able to deliver
important grain shipments, not being able to board airplanes, not
being able to file our income taxes, not being able to receive
our income tax refunds and not being able to receive a variety of
other government services.
Members should know that because of the union's position on
regional rates federal departments and agencies have been
subjected to rotating strikes week in and week out. These
strikes have closed federal buildings for periods of a day or
more in cities from Vancouver to Halifax. The results have been
temporary disruptions in the operations of the affected
departments and agencies, an inconvenience to Canadians who want
to do business with those institutions.
The picket lines are evident to all. Less clear, at least to
most people, is what this strike is all about.
It is in fact about regional rates of pay. To understand this
strike one must understand what regional rates of pay are, why
the government wants to maintain them and what would be the
implications of accepting the union's demand for uniform national
rates of pay.
2030
The short answer is that the government pays different rates in
different parts of the country because living costs and wages
vary across Canada.
As the largest employer in Canada we have a responsibility not
to act in a way that would distort the labour market, especially
the local market. Among other things, this means we should not
create conditions of employment so favourable for our own
employees that the private sector employees are unable to fill
their jobs in their enterprises. By the same token, if we want
people with the necessary skill and experience we know we must
pay wages high enough to be competitive in the local market.
This in a nutshell is why we have regional rates of pay.
It means we must pay a dock worker in Victoria more than one in
Halifax because living costs are higher on the west coast than on
the east coast and labour costs in the two regions reflect this.
Similar differences exist for other occupational groups, mostly
trades people such as carpenters and plumbers, but also for some
professionals.
If we do not pay more in the high cost areas we will not be able
to compete for the skills we need. If we pay too much in the low
cost areas we put pressure on the local employers to pay more for
the manpower they need, thus distorting the local labour market.
As a government we believe this approach is fair to our
employees, to employers and to workers in different parts of the
country, and to people in Canada who ultimately pay the
government's wage bill or have to pay for the professional
services they need from the private sector.
On the other side of the House we just heard someone say “Who
cares?” But many small business people across this country
cannot afford to pay the higher labour costs that the Government
of Canada might be able to afford, which at that point would
create undue hardships for many of those small business people.
I see a Reform member on the other side who I know is very
responsive to small business. I hope he has the opportunity to
communicate with the rest of his colleagues to express how
important small business is to this country.
The idea of paying wages that are determined in part by local
labour market conditions goes back many years in Canada. The
1962 Glassco royal commission, whose recommendations underpin
much of our modern public service, stated the issue very clearly.
The commission said: “We do not see why the most important
employer in the country should take no account of the local
labour market. If it refuses to take account, it will find itself
paying more or less than it should. This”, the commission
argued, “would serve neither economic growth nor
competitiveness”.
As the other side of the House, the Reform Party especially, has
been talking the last couple of days about competitiveness, I am
sure they understand the difference of the regional rates of pay
issue that we are dealing with today.
For more than 30 years the principle has been clear. The
government should pay regional rates for employee groups where
the labour market varies significantly across Canada. We should
pay the national rates where there is a national labour market.
That is what we do and we are not alone.
Consider the United States. Like Canada it is a country with
major regional economic differences. The American government
pays different rates to its blue collar workers that reflect
regional market conditions. The variations can run as high as
39% above local wage levels in the best paid zones to 16% below
them in the lowest paid zones.
I would like to point out this evening to all members who are
here because of their concern over the impact that this strike is
having on Canadians, on government operations and on farmers that
the system is not perfect. In any effort to define a regional
labour market specific local circumstances can vary to the
benefit or disadvantage of workers and/or the employer.
That is why in the recent rounds of collective bargaining, which
this government believes in, we have worked with the unions to
try to arrive at a system that is fair and effective for both
sides so that we can look at things on a long term basis and
continue supporting the collective bargaining rights of workers
with the employer.
2035
We have, for example, reduced the number of pay zones, to
simplify comparisons and to make pay administration easier, from
10 to 7.
Is there an alternative to regional rates of pay? The union
argues that there is. They are striking today because they are
seeking a single national rate for the affected occupational
groups, irrespective of regional circumstances. We do not think
such an approach would be fair or in the public interest.
Paying the same rate across the board would mean paying some
people too much and others too little. Neither is desirable.
Let me remind members of the House that as an elected government
responsible and accountable to Canadians we must balance and
abide by the rules of both the national and local markets. We
must pay wages high enough to attract and retain the quality of
labour that we require and are proud of, and not so high that we
cannot afford to maintain our operations.
However, at the end of the day the government, as the employer,
is not an employer like any other. Our obligation to act in the
public interest colours our approach to every issue, including
matters raised at the bargaining table.
This government does not like strikes any more than Canadians
who are prevented by picket lines from making a payment,
collecting a benefit or searching a job board.
I believe we have been more than tolerant for the past nine
weeks. We are prepared to maintain a system of pay rates for
public servants that is fair to all concerned.
Let me conclude by saying that as a government we are prepared
to examine all of the options. We must look at every possibility
to resolve this issue in an expedient manner. We must put an end
to the impasse that these rotational strikes are having on
Canadians who deserve to receive responsive service at a
reasonable cost.
We respect the collective bargaining process, as is shown by the
87% of workforce agreements that we have negotiated with the
unions. We have offered 9%, which is even more than the other
unions have received.
However, it is our ultimate commitment to the people of Canada
that a solution is needed at once so that the innocent parties
that continue to do trade and commerce are not affected, such as
the farmers of western Canada.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I cannot say that it is a pleasure to stand in this
House tonight to speak to this issue.
I want to congratulate my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake for
bringing this debate to the House to try and impress upon this
government that there is an emergency in the farm community.
What bothers me even more is that when I look at the government
today, there is not just an emergency, there is a crisis, a real
crisis.
This government was elected in 1993 to run the affairs of the
country, to govern 28 million inhabitants, and it is not capable
of addressing the problems of 70 weighmen who look after grain
weighing in Vancouver.
I cannot understand how it even considers that it should be
sitting on that side of the House when a little crisis like this
emergency cannot be addressed.
2040
These people have been in a legal strike position for 90 days. I
would like to see what these members of parliament would do if
for 90 days nobody sent them their cheques, put food on their
table or kept things the way they should be. The crisis is on
that side. The emergency is in Vancouver. Something has to
happen.
I remember back almost five years ago when we were debating the
railway strike. I happened to go through Hansard and I
picked up a question that was put to the government by my
colleague on this side of the House, the hon. member for
Wetaskiwin. This is what the member asked of the international
trade minister:
Mr. Speaker, the week long rail stoppage has cost Canada dearly.
Canada has lost over $5 billion, of which farmers have lost $100
million, exporters have lost $1 billion and $2 billion has been
added to the public debt. These are just the short term costs.
The total will climb even higher because our clients have lost
confidence in our transportation system.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. What
plan does this minister have to address these long term costs?
This was the reply: “Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood
the question”.
Five years later I do not think they understand the question. I
was astounded when my colleague from Yorkton—Melville read the
letter and expected government members to understand what it
meant. When they cannot understand a verbal question, how could
they read a letter and decipher what it means? That is the
problem. It astounds me that these things can continue. This is
a prime example of why other countries have lost confidence in
the affairs of this country. That is why we have a 65 cent
dollar.
When I started farming in 1957 through 1972 I remember that the
dollar was always pretty well par with the U.S. dollar. In 1976
it started falling. It had climbed to a height of 110 cents to
the U.S. dollar. It was 10% over par. The assets that I gained
up to 1976 are now only worth 65 cents of that value. How can a
country remain stable? How can a country be productive? How can
we protect the living standards of future generations if this is
what we are experiencing?
In the 26 years that I farmed we had at least 16 or 17 work
stoppages in the grain handling system. Every time we farmers
thought of harvesting a crop to get compensation for the input
costs we had for our labour, somebody along the line knew that we
were held hostage and they could force government or industry to
increase wages or do less work. We were supposed to become more
competitive and more productive. We were supposed to keep on
surviving. It has reached the point today that it is impossible.
I just happened to pick up one of the householders that my staff
was preparing. It says “Foreclosure”. I wondered what they
were talking about. I saw the costs that this government spent
on golf balls and tees during the last year. I looked down the
line and I saw that foreign affairs spent $2,500 on golf balls
and tees.
2045
Go to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, zero for
balls and $192 for tees. How can we can have a golf game when we
only have tees? That is the attitude the government takes toward
agriculture. It is astounding. That is the fact. How can we
deal and maintain an industry with that type of attitude?
When I hear my hon. colleague from Peace River saying he wonders
what has happened to the government and what it is doing, I
cannot help but think it is sleeping tonight. What else could it
be doing? Is there nobody here? The House should be full, should
it not? I think the spirits are there. We awoke one from the
dead. Isn't that a friendly disposition.
When we hear of 2,700 rail cars not being unloaded every day it
does not mean that it is just those workers at the port who are
not working. It means there are another couple of thousand
workers down the line, on the railroad, on the elevator, in the
trucking company who also are not working. Who will pay those
wages? Businesses have to keep these people on staff because
they are under contract. It all comes finally out of the
farmers' pockets. They are killing the industry completely.
For five years we have been in the House and we have seen it
continue year after year. We have come to the point now where it
is almost a sin to produce food because somebody will be in
trouble.
Young farmers today cannot survive. Even with either the
husband or the wife working outside the farm, they continue to
pay input costs. Taxes on farms have gone up on average from 8%,
9% to 10%.
I was in Regina two weeks ago at a farm rally and I started
talking to some of the Saskatchewan farmers. It is sad. It is
disastrous. Saskatchewan farmers have not paid at least 50% of
their property taxes for last year. We talked to one fuel dealer
who had 10 bankruptcies since Christmas.
Farmers are waiting for the aid promised by the Liberal
government. For almost a year we warned this government there
was a crisis. Maybe in June they will get some money. Maybe
there will not be any money because many people have had losses
over three years and will not qualify for that program.
One of the fuel dealers told me he had a fuel bill of $350,000
from one of the big operators. We have come to the point where a
10,000 acre farm is not big anymore. One of the farmers just
west of Regina was telling me that he put in 11,000 acres last
spring. He could have had another 7,000 acres from neighbours if
he had picked it up to farm it. He said “We have worked hard.
We have been entrepreneurs. We have a trucking company that my
daughter manages”. They run 17 Peterbilt trucks on the highway.
They have two private fertilizer companies. One of them is run
by the wife and the other one is run by the daughter-in-law.
This is a multimillion dollar operation. The gentleman told me
“If we do not get out of farming in the next year or two, we
will have lost all the assets that we worked for all our life”.
That is a disaster. That is not just an emergency. It is a
crime when people who produce the most important product in the
world cannot have a viable operation. This reminds me of a
country I was in in 1981; 20,000 hectares in a communal farm and
people are starving.
2050
One third of their food was produced on the little quarter acre
plots where the workers lived, not on the farms. We are becoming
a country with huge corporate farms that are so inefficient but
so productive that they are killing themselves. That has to
change.
This government has to start realizing that if we are supposed
to import our food instead of producing it ourselves, we will not
have a 65 cent dollar. We will probably have a Mexican peso. I
do not want to see that.
I go back about four years when I rose in the House on one of my
first speeches. I compared this government to the first
self-propelled red combine that I bought. I do not know how many
people remember that combine.
Today I see a big semi-truck sitting on that side, a government
that should be able to govern this country like nobody's
business. For some reason I see that semi-truck sitting there
and it is not moving. It is not doing what it was built for.
What has gone wrong with that truck? It ran out of gas. I have
seen it sitting for five years. The motor has ceased. It cannot
move. It cannot even be dragged out of there.
I see grass over the wheels. There are tires on that big semi
but they are all rotten. There is no rubber at the bottom. It
could not roll even if it were pulled. That is what I see across
the aisle today as far as the government is concerned.
I look a little further. There should be some value in that big
semi-truck. There is some value. The rats and the mice are in
it. They have been using the cushion seat for housing. If
someone wanted to get into that truck and drive it, those springs
would be very hard in some places, not to mention the smell.
The combine was a bad example but this truck really scares me.
If we have to get rid of that animal, there is sure going to be
some smell around this place.
How will we handle it? Will we have enough gas masks? Will we
have enough equipment to remove it? The job will have to be
done. It cannot continue like this. It may be comical but there
is a lot of truth to it.
We have one of the greatest countries in the world. We have
gone from zero debt to $600 billion. Tell me why. In 30 years,
three decades, this debt has built up not because this country
was not great but because the management by previous governments
during those three decades did not do their job.
They let the future generations of this country down. Someday
they will have to pay for it. They will have to give account of
what has happened. The pay day is coming.
I can see in the 21st century a change where we will forget what
type of politics was performed in the House for three decades.
We will try to bury it and start all over again. We will give
future generations hope, something to trust in, something they
can build on, a place where they can raise their families and be
proud of where they are.
Today when I see 70 workers shutting down the whole country and
a government sitting on that side not doing its job, it is
disastrous. It is criminal.
I do not know how this change will come but I can guarantee it
will come. It has come in every other country where this type of
situation has developed. I know we will not like it when it
comes.
If we are not prepared to tackle a little problem where 70 people
can stop a whole nation, what will we ever do if we have a
problem that is huge, a problem that needs courage and a problem
like our past generation had to deal with when foreign nations
attacked their freedom and their democracy?
2055
I hope government members will wake up tomorrow morning, take
the sleep out of their eyes, get to work and finally show this
country they were elected to do a job and do it.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, that is a tough act to follow from an hon. gentlemen I
regard as one of the most effective speakers of this place and a
true quintessential prairie gentlemen, the member for
Portage—Lisgar.
I am pleased to rise in debate on this emergency motion with
respect to the strikes we are facing in the ports in Vancouver.
I would like to broaden my comments to address the impact of the
strike on the delivery of services by Revenue Canada at tax
centres across the country.
We have heard plenty of evidence and testimony this evening
about the kind of debilitating impact this strike action is
having on the tens of thousands of Canadian grain farmers.
It truly amazes me, as somebody who grew up in a small prairie
farming town, to see that the more than 120,000 grain farms
across western Canada should be held hostage by 70 individuals
picketing the terminals at the ports of Vancouver.
It is beyond belief that we have allowed a system to continue
year after year and decade after decade which can see an entire
industry, hundreds of communities, tens of thousands of families
and an entire way of life, an entire regional economy, put at
risk and damaged by the irresponsible actions of a few and the
inaction of an irresponsible government.
Just by delaying the delivery of this grain to the ships waiting
in port by even a few days incurs an enormous cost that gets
passed on to prairie grain farmers, perhaps the people least
equipped to deal with this kind of economic difficulty at this
time. Prairie grain farmers are already suffering from the
losing end of an international grain war and historic lows in
commodity prices. Prairie grain farmers are suffering from
historic highs in input costs and who are suffering from historic
highs in government taxation.
Across the beautiful prairie provinces a sad story is unfolding
as we see once proud and vibrant farm communities shrinking
slowly and the lifeblood being sucked out of them as the
agricultural economy suffers year after year.
Why is it that in one area where government could make a
difference, by ensuring an unimpeded flow of goods to port and
abroad, it does not take responsibility to ensure that happens?
We clearly are limited in the authority we have to address the
depression in commodity prices caused by European and American
subsidies. There is one thing at least that we in parliament can
clearly do to prevent this from happening, to end the imminent
threat which is the cause of this motion tonight by whatever
means legally necessary but, more important, to remove from a
handful of union organizers the sword of Damocles which hangs
permanently over the entire western grain industry. That
solution would be to declare the jobs at these ports part of an
essential service and to require binding arbitration if
settlements cannot be reached so that we can never return to the
economic pain being caused day by day as this strike drags out.
2100
As other members of my caucus have remarked, this is not the
first time we have seen a strike of this nature. Unless the
government finds a more fundamental solution it will not be the
last.
While this is an emergency debate, it ought not to be a debate
just for the situation we face now. The solution the government
seems to be headed for of back to work legislation ought not to
be seen as a long term solution. It is a short term, knee-jerk
response to a short term problem. We need to fundamentally
change the nature of government labour relations when it comes to
critical government regulated industries of this nature.
I hearken back to 1980-81 when then President Ronald Reagan had
just assumed the office of the American presidency. He was faced
with a strike of air traffic controllers across that country who
refused to arbitrate or negotiate and who were clearly an
essential service. They had shut down the entire American
transportation infrastructure.
President Reagan made it very clear that they were in his view
an essential service and if they did not go back to work within
48 hours they would be let go. The union organizers called his
bluff, but ultimately President Reagan did what was best for
Americans, their economy and their transportation infrastructure.
He laid down the law and demonstrated what an essential service
really means by taking drastic action.
We do not see that kind of strike action happening now in the
United States because it has been declared an essential service.
We ought to do the same thing in Canada where we are talking
about small handfuls of people who can literally stop the
momentum of an entire regional economy.
I want now to turn my attention to another problem which is
growing in proportion. As we speak this evening there are
probably PSAC organizers across the country planning pickets
tomorrow for yet another day around regional tax centres operated
by the Department of National Revenue.
When they do this, what happens? The processing of tax returns,
tax rebates, the child tax benefit and all taxes and transfers
administered by Revenue Canada simply shut down. This is a
function that is absolutely essential to the operation of
government. We are talking today about nearly a million tax
returns being frozen in the system at Revenue Canada. This means
delays of days and probably weeks. If this carries on, who knows
how long the delays will be?
It is easy for us as parliamentarians to bemoan the frustration
felt by Canadians and the inconvenience of all this, but we ought
not to lose sight of the fact that hundreds of thousands of
Canadians rely on the cheques that are being held hostage in
those tax centres tonight. That is money that does not belong to
the government, to the union bosses or to the bureaucrats. It
belongs to the people to whom those cheques should have been
issued days ago, and should be issued tomorrow, but will not be
because this government refuses to act to ensure that those
Canadians have the financial resources that belong to them.
We are talking about low income people, among others, who quite
literally depend on the timely delivery of GST rebate cheques,
their income tax refund, the child tax benefit or any other
number of programs administered by the Department of National
Revenue. They depend on those cheques not as discretionary income
but as essential income. They depend on those cheques to pay the
rent and to buy groceries. We are talking about money that is
absolutely essential to the livelihood of many Canadian families.
We cannot allow this to continue unanswered. We cannot allow
rogue action by a certain handful of union organizers to threaten
the financial livelihood of vulnerable Canadians. I appeal to
the government not to continue to delay, to prevaricate and to
hope for a negotiated solution that apparently has not happened
and will not happen in the bargaining units we are talking about,
but to act with speed and with absolute dispatch.
2105
I assure the government that on behalf of my constituents I will
support any legal action to get those cheques moving out of those
tax centres where they are today held hostage.
It is simply not good enough to solve the problem with back to
work legislation and to find ourselves reliving this, repeating
history yet again three or four or five years down the road. It
is not good enough for the grain farmers who are hurting today.
It is not good enough for the low income people and the seniors
waiting for their cheques from Revenue Canada. We need a
fundamental top to bottom change in the relationship of
government to the essential services which we guarantee to
Canadian people.
We stand here as parliamentarians in a position of enormous
responsibility and authority. We have a fiduciary obligation to
ensure that the basic essential services necessary to the
peaceful conduct of the lives of private citizens are carried out
by the departments, by the apparatus of the federal government.
It simply is not good enough to let these things happen over and
over again. A great thinker once said that history repeats
itself the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. I
think we are well beyond the stage of farce. This is the fourth
or fifth time in my political lifetime that I recall points of
crisis in labour-government negotiations of this nature.
In closing, I simply reiterate on behalf of my constituents and
my colleagues in the opposition that it is time to get on the
ball. It is time to stop prevaricating on the part of the
government. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of National Revenue about the problem at the tax centres today
and she said “We are concerned and we are looking at it”.
I am glad to see that they are concerned and they are looking,
but that is not good enough for vulnerable Canadians. What they
need is not concern. What they need is not
looking. They need action, and we are here tonight demanding that
the government act.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, there
are two people I would like to recognize tonight before I get
into my remarks. The first is the Speaker who agreed when he
received the letter from the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake
that indeed there was an emergency, a crisis in Canada today. He
had sense enough to recognize that this was an important issue. I
congratulate him for allowing the emergency debate to take place
tonight.
The other person whom I would like to recognize is the
parliamentary secretary who is sitting here on behalf of the
President of the Treasury Board and who is listening to the
debate. I hope he listens very carefully to some of the things
that have been said and that will be said in the next few
minutes.
I do not have all the answers but I do have a couple of basic
fundamental principles that I have found to be true wherever I
go. As a businessman this gentleman knows only too well that
what I will say is exactly what he has practised and what has
made him a successful business person. I challenge him to apply
the same criteria that made his business succeed to what the
government is supposed to be doing in terms of its labour
relations and in terms of the management of the economy and the
finances of the country.
I will focus my remarks on two concepts. The first one is
leadership. The second one is management. I propose to the
Liberal government that at the present time the incidence before
us that has given rise to this debate is merely a symptom of a
lack of leadership in the government. It is an example. It is
symptomatic of a lack of management or the application of
management principles and the understanding of the operation of
those principles.
I will move into those two areas to try to show clearly how the
government is lacking vision. The number one characteristic of
good vision a leader must have is a vision about where we are
going as a nation, where we are going as a corporation, where we
are going as a business, what will benefit this business, what
will make it profitable, what will make us succeed as a
corporation in the environment within which we have decided to
set up business, what will serve our customers well, what will
give us the satisfaction, and what will give us a profitable
organization.
For that a leader needs a goal and a vision and a clear
articulation of that vision and of that goal.
2110
Where is the vision in terms of reviewing the issue today? There
is none. If there was one he would know that labour-management
principles must be exercised. We should have smooth and
co-operative labour-management relations. Do we have them? No.
We had a post office strike two years ago. It still has not
been resolved. The Minister of Labour has extended the deadlines
for the arbitrator again and again. I wonder if the hon.
parliamentary secretary will go to the Minister of Labour and ask
him to extend the deadline once again. March 31 is the deadline
for the arbitrator. Will it be extended once more?
It is not only vision that is lacking. A leader is also a
decision maker. He knows how to make decisions and does so. We
have had decisions made by the Prime Minister. We have had a
canoe museum built. We have had all kinds of interesting
diversionary tactics to focus attention on everything except the
solution of the things that we demand.
When will we come to the point where we recognize that we need
to attack a problem, look at the alternatives, examine the
implication of those alternatives, choose one, act and go down
that road? Have we seen that? No. We are lacking on two
counts: no vision and no decision making apparatus.
Let us examine how crises have been resolved? There was back to
work legislation in the most recent strike at Canada Post. Has
it resolved the crisis? The people are back at work, but what
has the result been? It has stymied the negotiations with other
unions that Canada Post is engaged with. It has brought about
the situation that is existing in Vancouver right now. It is
affecting all other negotiations. My hon. colleague from Calgary
just indicated that it is affecting national revenue and the
refunds that people are supposed to get.
These are all little crises. They are not of the proportion of
the one with the grain handlers, but they show that the
government is incapable of dealing effectively with its
labour-management problems.
An hon. member: Incompetent.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: That is the word. I was going to
leave that word until later but it is true. I am happy the hon.
member is so accurate in his perception. He recognizes that all
this is leading to incompetent management.
There is a fourth area in which we have no leadership. A good
leader anticipates problems. If there was ever an indication
there would be problems that could have been anticipated, this is
one. It was no secret. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville
referred to a letter. The problem was laid out in black and
white. What did they do? Nothing.
That is not the only thing. Did they know that the contract was
coming up with grain weighers? Of course they knew. Notice had
been given a long time ago. Did they know that there could be a
development and an escalation to the point where a strike could
occur? Of course they knew. Did they anticipate what would
happen if a strike took place? Did they anticipate what would
happen if it would shut down the whole system?
The only answer we received was the one this afternoon in
question period. On the eve of the emergency debate, what did
the President of the Treasury Board say? He said they had the
right to associate, the right to organize, and that means the
right to strike. Is that handling the problem? It is anything
but. Did they anticipate the problem? If they did, they
certainly did not do anything about it.
Leadership is lacking on at least those four dimensions. Let us
look at management. Management is the ability to apply scarce
resources—and we always have scarce resources—in such a way
that we get the desired results. Let us look at the way in which
the government has managed its scarce resources. We have a
balanced budget. Guess what?
2115
With great pride and pompous arrogance the Minister of Finance
says “We have balanced the budget. We have managed the
expenditures of the government. We have controlled and done all
these things and now we have a balanced budget”. Did he tell
the Canadian taxpayers that they are each paying $1,300 more so
the budget could be balanced? It is the increase in revenue that
made the difference.
Who balanced the budget? The Canadian taxpayer balanced the
budget. That is who balanced the budget. The government is
spending more money today than it did before. The management
here is on the part of the Canadian taxpayer who is paying more
dollars into the federal treasury and somehow still is able to
manage. That is where the good management is. It is not on the
part of the government.
Instead of managing effectively, the government and the
preceding government created at least four examples of intrusion
by crown corporations. We can talk about the Business
Development Bank of Canada, the Canada Post Corporation, the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Canadian mint.
There is a direct intervention into the marketplace, in direct
competition with other businesses. The government takes money out
of a successful businesses and brings it over to these
businesses. This government, which has unlimited resources
compared to corporations, pits its resources against them and
expects them to compete successfully. It does not work too well.
This is how the government intrudes. I will never forget the
day. I was a kid at the time. Our utilities bill was put in our
mailbox by a high school or university student who delivered the
bills on behalf of the utilities company. It was done at a very
low cost to the utilities company. All of a sudden this big
dictum came down that this was illegal. Canada Post must deliver
those and the company would have to pay 45 cents, or 50 cents,
whatever the rate was at that time in order to get those bills
delivered.
It was an immediate increase in the cost to the utilities
company to deliver its bills. The utilities company had to go to
the utilities commission to say that it would have to increase
its rates. The government had it worked out beautifully. Who
paid? The consumer paid. What kind of management is this? We
could get into all kinds of other examples.
The other area, which I think is the most fundamental of all of
these, is good labour-management relations. A good manager has
good labour-management relations. What seems to have happened
here is there is labour on one side and management on the other.
There seems to be this irony that surrounds these negotiations.
On the one hand management says it wants to run the corporation
at a profit. It wants to run the business efficiently. It wants
to deliver the services and goods in a timely fashion, in an
effective way and to do it smoothly and with a profit. On the
other hand those on the labour side want to frustrate management
in whatever way they can so that they can get the maximum out of
it for them, for their way of living and things of that sort.
After they have fought they come together and say that now they
have solved their problems they are going to work together.
Before that they fought like crazy. How is it possible that we
can have a situation where there should be co-operation and
smoothness when the system we use to determine salary levels and
working conditions is one of confrontation and antagonism? It is
a system that is not working very well.
We have a beautiful example of it right now. It broke down.
When it breaks down it hurts everybody. It hurts management. It
hurts the supplier. It hurts the workers. Those workers are not
going to recover what they are losing right now. It is to their
own detriment that they get into these situations.
I wonder sometimes where the logic is. I want to ask a couple
of questions of the Liberal backbenchers. Many people over
there, and I know a number of them personally, are good business
people. They have succeeded. They know what leadership is.
They know what good management is. They know what good
labour-management relations are.
2120
What in the world happened? What did they do to their business
sense? Did they dump it at the door when they walked in here?
What did they do with the good sound leadership and the vision
they had? Did they leave it somewhere? I do not understand how
it is possible for these highly professional, highly skilled,
well educated individuals, these highly successful business
people in a number of seats across the way. Somehow that ability
is not made part of the cabinet. It is not made part of the
Prime Minister's leadership in this House. How can it be?
It defies anything within me that they suddenly turn off
everything they know, everything they have experienced,
everything they know to be wrong, to simply turn that all off and
say, “Let us do whatever he says”. It is false, it is
misleading and it is an insult to the Canadian people. They
deserve better. We have leaders in this country. I do not
believe for a minute that there is not leadership on that side of
the House, but for some reason or another it is not being allowed
to surface.
How can it be that a solid strong professional and a strong
business person can allow himself to vote against compensating
the victims of hepatitis C from tainted blood? How can that
possibly be? How can it be when the logic of solid family
relations is defeated by saying that it is okay to have an
unequal situation with regard to those who work inside the home
and those who work outside the home? How can that be? But it
is.
What kind of a leader could not foresee the situation in
Vancouver? I do not believe he did not foresee it. I do not
believe the minister in charge of the Treasury Board did not
foresee it. I do not believe the parliamentary secretary did not
foresee it. They chose not to do anything. That is serious.
That makes them responsible for the situation we are in. It also
means they are responsible to solve it.
Is it possible to solve it? Absolutely. It can be done in a
number of ways. The government can use a patchwork approach as
it did before and legislate these people back to work, only to
defer the problem to rise again some other day. That is not a
solution. There are solutions.
Is the government going to choose the real solutions, or is it
going to choose again to do something so we can go through all
this rigmarole again and in the process hurt farmers, consumers,
the other people who are employed, the managers, the
transportation systems and the businesses involved? Does the
government want to do that all again? Why? Why can we not have
a Prime Minister, a cabinet and Liberal backbenchers who say that
it is time to use some common sense and manage the affairs of
this country in a manner that helps everybody? Why can we not do
that? I am sure we can.
Instead what we have from time to time is an absolute standoff
caused by the arrogance and pomposity that comes from
self-imposed self-sufficiency. It is a delusion of grandeur.
It can be done. I challenge the parliamentary secretary who led
his caucus on the banks so well. He did a wonderful job. He
knew how to work with the people. He showed leadership. We have
not seen that kind of leadership anywhere on the front bench of
that side of the House. Yet he is not the leader in that party
and he never will be the way things are going now because he has
too much common sense.
What are we going to do? I challenge us to apply common sense,
apply what we know to be true and get serious about the things
that really matter to us as people.
2125
This is no great big, heavy duty secret. It does not take a
rocket scientist to figure out what the mathematical formula is.
We have to simply do what is right, help people to work together
and make the conditions such that they can resolve their conflict
in such a way that everybody is helped, instead of confrontation
and an antagonism that builds which then takes years to heal and
in some instances never heals. Why can we not do that? We can.
All we have to is want to.
I challenge the parliamentary secretary, the President of the
Treasury Board and the Prime Minister. Do they want to solve the
problem in a permanent way or do they simply want to do another
piecemeal operation which will only arise again in a different
fashion and on another day?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am satisfied that
the debate has now been concluded. I therefore declare the
motion carried.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.26 p.m.)