CONTENTS
Thursday, February 6, 1997
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 7747
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7747
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7747
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7747
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7747
Mr. O'Brien (Labrador) 7748
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of report stage 7749
Motions Nos. 68 to 86 7749
Motions Nos. 87 to 100 7749
Motions Nos. 102 to 109 7750
Motions No. 110 to 113 7751
Motions No. 114 and 115 7752
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 7759
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7765
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7769
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 7773
Motions Nos 118 and 119 7773
Motions Nos. 121 to 124 7773
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7776
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7777
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7779
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7781
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7781
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7781
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7782
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7782
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7784
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7784
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7785
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7785
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7786
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7786
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7788
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7789
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of report stage and ofthe motions in Group No. 3. 7789
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7797
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7801
Consideration resumed of motion 7810
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7810
7745
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 6, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2),
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the
annual report on the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism
Act for 1995-1996.
I will be making a statement shortly outlining my vision and the
government's new direction for multiculturalism.
* * *
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians are living
proof of this nation's commitment to offer opportunity to all of our
citizens. It is the role of multiculturalism to ensure that all
Canadians can participate fully and actively in the economic, social
and political life of this country.
It is therefore a pleasant responsibility to place before
Parliament the annual report of the operation of the Canadian
Multiculturalism Act.
1996 was a milestone for multiculturalism in three ways. First,
we commemorated the 25th anniversary of Canada becoming the
first country in the world to embrace the concept of
multiculturalism as a national policy.
[Translation]
That policy is an affirmation of Canadian values and vision, and
is a guide for pragmatic vision. It is a guide for reaping the social
and economic benefits offered by our cultural diversity.
It is the ability for one people to be formed out of diversity.
[English]
It is the ability to live together, sharing common and
fundamental values that are inherently Canadian, yet at the same
time it is also the ability to respect individuals and communities
which have chosen to maintain their uniqueness that is also
Canadian.
Second, 1996 was the year in which Canada revamped and
renewed its multiculturalism program to make it more
contemporary, more focused, more accountable and more open to
partnership with all Canadians. The renewed program is targeted
squarely at the objectives of advancing social justice, fostering
Canadian identity and enhancing civic participation.
Without leadership and direction over the past 25 years and into
the future, we would not have been able to build and maintain this
open and welcoming society that is a model to the world. We will
secure these goals by working in partnership across the federal
government and in harmony with other levels of government, the
private sector, community groups and Canadians from all walks of
life.
Third, during this year the Government of Canada followed
through on the Prime Minister's pledge to establish the Canadian
Race Relations Foundation. Under the leadership of the Hon.
Lincoln Alexander and a board of distinguished Canadians, the
foundation will be a linchpin for the sharing of information and
know-how in promoting even better race relations in Canada.
[Translation]
These milestones are markers of a country dedicated to fairness,
They are also markers of a country determined to use the full range
of its cultural diversity to tap new markets, build new trade, create
new jobs, promote new tourism and marshal our competitive
advantage.
7746
[English]
Team Canada works in part because we have citizens with
knowledge of the different languages, cultures and marketplace of
trading partners. It works in part because we are widely viewed as a
society that strives to tap the talents of all Canadians regardless of
their origins. In the eyes of the world Canada has become a model.
As we have strived to live together with respect for differences, we
have honed the skills of accommodation that has made us learn
how to find a peaceful resolution to conflict.
The success of the new direction set for multiculturalism in 1996
can and will be open for review by Parliament in the years ahead. I
welcome, and in fact encourage, the ongoing advice of all members
of Parliament as we continue the work of ensuring that a noble
Canadian idea provides opportunity for all Canadians and tangible
benefits for our nation.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
closely to the speech made by the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism as she tabled her annual report of the operation of
the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.
I am pleased that this important position is held by a woman
from a visible minority. Her multiculturalism policy, however, is a
complete failure.
(1010)
First of all, her government ignores the fact that there is a
Quebec culture, that there are two founding peoples, two founding
nations. She referred to tolerance as a basic value. But the fact is
that, last May, a senior minister of this government suggested that I
leave Canada and find another place to live because my views
diverge from those of the government, because I dared criticize its
immigration policy and because I am a sovereignist member from
an ethnic community.
The secretary of state also spoke of compassion. But in her own
riding of Vancouver Centre, there is a Salvadoran refugee by the
name of Maria Barahona who has had to seek refuge in a church
basement in 1995 and has been living there with her four children
for more than a year.
Neither the secretary of state nor the minister of immigration has
done a thing to remedy the situation. Racism is on the rise in
Canada. But there is no word of any specific action, any action plan
to combat the social scourge of terrorism. There are cutbacks
everywhere, particularly in the services for which the Secretary of
State for Multiculturalism is responsible.
Ethnic groups are complaining about not getting any subsidies
any more. This government has stopped advertising in the ethnic
media, and several papers were forced to close down for lack of
subsidization and government ads. This is especially true in the
case of Latin Americans. This newly established community needs
the government's support to ensure its harmonious integration into
the host society.
The unemployment rate among visible minorities is alarming. It
is much higher than the Canadian average. This means there is an
employment equity act that has not been enforced by the federal
government. One of the target groups for positive action plans
should be visible minorities.
There is also a need for providing intercultural education to this
government's officials. Some newcomers to Canada complain
about abusive or discriminatory behaviour on the part of federal
officials, particularly citizenship and immigration officials.
In a nutshell, equality for all is far from having been achieved in
Canada in the social, economic, cultural and political areas.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask members to put themselves in the position of a
boatload of German Jewish refugees in June 1939. They were
turned away from our shores and ended up going back to Europe
where many died, ending up in the crematoria. At about the same
time Chinese people were prevented from coming to Canada. We
acknowledge that our country has not had a particularly welcoming
attitude to people of other colours, races and backgrounds.
If we are ever to be sure to never repeat the errors of the past, it is
particularly important when discussing and when considering
multiculturalism to remember the Canada we have today is one of
which the vast majority of people are very proud. We have a
deserved reputation around the world for being inviting and
accommodating.
As we use this as an opportunity to consider what
multiculturalism actually means to our country and its future,
based on the notion of a multicultural country, it behoves us to bear
in mind that it is the values we share in common as Canadians that
are the foundation of our country of the future. And as a rule, all of
us should live our lives as if we were members of a minority or
were refugees from some other part of the world.
(1015)
Even today there are blemishes on our record. For instance, we
now have a head tax on immigration, and while that may not be
very much to some people, for some it is a great deal of money. The
ability of a person to come to Canada based on their ability to buy
their way in, even if it is only a bit, is something we should really
look at and reconsider.
In Alberta we had, some time ago, a program of inclusion, to
make the notion of multiculturalism one of inclusion of all people
to celebrate it. The key that we had there was one heart, many
colours. I have yet to hear any description of what multiculturalism
7747
is about, better than that, that Canada is a country of people from
all over the world with one heart of many colours.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
petition is signed by many people from my constituency who are
calling on the House of Commons to ask the government to support
the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable for
the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present in the House
today some seven petitions from my constituents of
London-Middlesex and the surrounding area calling on
Parliament to work closely with the provinces of Canada, in this
case particularly Ontario, to upgrade the highway system of this
province and of this country.
They note very much the need for such upgrading. They speak to
the job creation potential of these programs. I am very pleased to
support these petitions, noting that our infrastructure programs
should address their concerns.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present four petitions
today from my riding of Simcoe Centre.
The first group of petitioners request that Parliament pass
legislation to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, including
publishing the names of young offenders, lowering the age of
application and transferring serious young offenders to adult court.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that
Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children
from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition concerns violent offenders. The petitioners ask that
Parliament enact two strikes legislation so that repeat offenders
will serve life in prison with no chance of parole.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition concerns national unity. The petitioners ask that
Parliament declare immediately that Canada is indivisible, except
if the majority of Canadians agree otherwise in a national
referendum or unless due to process of an amending formula in our
Constitution.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
present a petition to the House of Commons.
The petition is signed by residents of my constituency, including
residents of the town of Cut Knife, the city of North Battleford and
towns of Wilkie, Unity, Speers, Cando, Chitek Lake, Meota,
Jackfish Lake and other communities in my riding.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House of Commons
that 38 per cent of the national highway system is substandard, that
Mexico and the United States are upgrading their national highway
system and that the national highway policy study identify job
creation, economic development, national unity, saving lives and
avoiding injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicular operating
costs and better international competitiveness as benefits of the
proposed national highway program.
(1020 )
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I have
the privilege of presenting to the House petitions from concerned
citizens of my riding of Cambridge and southern Ontario.
The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House that 38
per cent of the national highway system is substandard. Our
NAFTA partners are currently upgrading their national highway
systems. Investment in Canada's national highway system would
create jobs, spur economic growth, contribute to national unity and
save lives.
For these reasons the petitioners pray and request that the
Parliament of Canada join with the provincial governments to
make the upgrading of our national highway system a priority.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have four
petitions to present today.
The first petition which is signed by 106 people requests that the
House of Commons enact legislation to amend the existing
legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union for life of one
woman and one man to each other, to the exclusion of all others.
7748
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is signed by 50 residents of my riding and requests that
Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the
next federal budget.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last two
petitions which contain 27 signatures each call upon Parliament to
urge the federal government to join with provincial governments to
make the national highway upgrading system position.
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present. One is from Black Tickle, Labrador
having to do with the emergency state of the economy.
Five years ago Black Tickle had nearly 100 per cent employment
in the fisheries. Right now it is 6 per cent and the people of
Labrador and the community of Black Tickle are calling on the
Government of Canada and particularly the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans to do something about the allocation of
quotas so the fish plant may be reopened.
The second petition I wish to present is again to the department
of fisheries having to do with the adjacency issue of fisheries,
signed by hundreds of people of my riding from along the coast of
Labrador.
The petitioners call on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
and the Government of Canada to consider the adjacency issue and
give them a fair and decent allocation of fish.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the
following petition which comes from my riding of
Comox-Alberni.
The petitioners ask that Parliament enact Bill C-205 which
proposes to prohibit any criminal from profiting from the
commission of a crime.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition to
Parliament from a group of senior citizens who are very concerned
about the labelling practice in the marketing of generic drugs. They
call on Parliament to regulate the practice of keeping generic drugs
in the size, shape and colour which is similar to that of the brand
name equivalent. They are concerned about the safety of
consumers on this issue, especially senior citizens.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table a
petition signed by people from my riding and surrounding areas.
The petitioners are asking Parliament not to increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a number of petitioners to present.
The first one concerns Canadian unity. The petitioners pray that
the Prime Minister and Parliament will declare and confirm
immediately that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of
Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial waters, may be
modified only by a free vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed
in the charter of rights and freedoms. This petition comes from
Montreal, Quebec.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from Brantford, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that homosexuals already have the rights, excluding sexual
orientation, from the human rights act. It is not a question of
equality. All Canadians have the same legal protection and basic
rights under existing laws.
Therefore the petitioners pray that the term sexual orientation
not be included in the human rights act.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
next petition is from Chambly, Quebec.
(1025 )
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to establish a fund
known as a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit
of families of safety officers killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
next petition concerning the taxation of families comes from
Burlington, Ontario.
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives
to assist families that decide to provide care in the home for
preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged and the disabled.
7749
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition is from Dingwall, Nova Scotia. This petition has to do
with health warning labels on containers of alcoholic beverages.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
mandate the labelling of alcoholic products to warn pregnant
women and others of certain dangers associated with the
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because
of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended
by 11 minutes.
_____________________________________________
7749
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from February 5, 1997, consideration of Bill
C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing
and Reduction Account Act and related Acts, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee, and of motions in Group No. 2.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 209.
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 210.
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 211.
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 212.
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 213.
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 214.
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 215.
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 216.
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 217.
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 218.
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 219.
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 220.
Motion No. 80
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 221.
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 222.
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 223.
Motion No. 83
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 224.
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 225.
Motion No. 85
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 226.
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 227.
(1030)
He said: Mr. Speaker, could we ask the pages, as we did
yesterday, to sit while the motions are being read? You, Mr.
Speaker, are used to standing up.
The Deputy Speaker: This is an excellent idea. I thank the hon.
member.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 228.
Motion No. 88
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 229.
Motion No. 89
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 230.
Motion No. 90
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 231.
Motion No. 91
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 232.
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 233.
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 234.
7750
Motion No. 94
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 235.
Motion No. 95
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 236.
Motion No. 96
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 237.
Motion No. 97
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 238.
Motion No. 98
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 239.
Motion No. 99
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 240.
Motion No. 100
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 241.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance)
moved:
Motion No. 101
That Bill C-70, in Clause 241, be amended by
(a) replacing, in the English version, lines 12 to 14 on page 284 with the following:
``province means
(a) October 23, 1996 in the case of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Newfoundland;
and
(b) February 10, 1997 in the case of the Nova Scotia offshore area or the
Newfoundland offshore area.''
(b) replacing, in the French version, lines 14 and 15 on page 284 with the following:
``se, du Nouveau-Brunswick, Terre-Neuve, de la zone extracôtière de la
Nouvelle-Écosse et de la zone extracôtière de Terre-Neuve.''
(c) replacing, in the French version, lines 16 to 19 on page 284 with the following:
``«date de mise en oeuvre anticipée»
a) Le 1er février 1997 dans le cas de la Nouvelle-Écosse, du Nouveau-Brunswick et
de Terre-Neuve;
b) le 10 février 1997 dans le cas de la zone extracôtière de la Nouvelle-Écosse et de la
zone extracôtière de Terre-Neuve.''
(d) replacing, in the English version, lines 17 and 18 on page 284 with the following:
``Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, the Nova Scotia offshore area or the
Newfoundland offshore area.''
(e) replacing, in the French version, lines 20 to 22 on page 284 with the following:
``«date de publication»
a) Le 23 octobre 1996 dans le cas de la Nouvelle-Écosse, du Nouveau-Brunswick et
de Terre-Neuve;
b) le 10 février 1997 dans le cas de la zone extracôtière de la Nouvelle-Écosse et de la
zone extracôtière de Terre-Neuve.''
(f) replacing, in the English version, lines 20 to 22 on page 284 with the following:
``participating province means
(a) February 1, 1997 in the case of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or
Newfoundland; and
(b) February 10, 1997 in the case of the Nova Scotia offshore area or the
Newfoundland offshore area.''
(1035)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 102
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 242.
Motion No. 103
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 243.
Motion No. 104
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 244.
Motion No. 105
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 245.
Motion No. 106
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 246.
Motion No. 107
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 247.
Motion No. 108
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 248.
Motion No. 109
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 249.
[
English]
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday
we indicated that we hoped to wring a concession out of the
government that if it would not move time allocation we would
agree to go along with the request not to read this entire set of
amendments into the record. The government did not give us that
assurance which is unfortunate because it has moved time
allocation dozens of times in this House.
Having said that, we feel it is not fair to the Speaker or to the
people of the country who are waiting to hear the debate on this
bill. If members on the other side and in the Bloc would go along
with it, we would be happy to give our concurrence to allow the
Speaker to dispense with the reading of the amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the
proposal made by the Reform Party member.
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as much as we are enjoying the
very fine job you are doing in reading these amendments, it is
putting a strain on you. I regret that as a result of the wishes of the
other parties opposite, that is what we had to do last night and this
morning, riveting television though it may be. I am sure we would
also be pleased to begin the debate on this group.
7751
May I ask my hon. colleagues opposite, does this mean we
would proceed to debating the motions in this group at this time?
To clarify, my understanding is that we would take all the motions
in this group as having been read and proceed to the debate.
(1040)
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the proposal made by the Reform
Party member is quite clear. The government was asked, as regards
the GST, an issue which is not at all to its credit, not to invoke
closure on Bill C-70 either today or later.
Mr. Speaker, we have nothing against you. We like you, but as
long as the government does not guarantee that it will not gag us,
each motion will have to be read.
Liberal members across the floor must stop displaying this
holier-than-thou attitude. After all, they are the ones to blame for
the many times closure was imposed on us over the last three and a
half years. This is their way of doing things and it is totally
undemocratic.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I might ask, colleagues, is it also implied
in what has been said that we are going to have the questions
deemed to be put or not deemed to be put on the motions in this
particular group?
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify it. I am
afraid the hon. member opposite has now changed what I
understood the member of the third party to have suggested. He
suggested that in light of the inconvenience of your having to read
through all of these amendments, we could take them as having
been read. I am saying on behalf of the government that we would
be agreeable with that and that is all I am saying.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to deem all
the motions in this group to have been read?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Then we must carry on.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 110
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 250.
Motion No. 111
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 251.
Motion No. 112
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 252.
Motion No. 113
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 253.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since we are keen to get on with the very
important debate that we must and are permitted to have in this
House regarding the GST scandal and this government, we will go
along with the government's arguments. We agree that these
motions are deemed to have been read so that we can debate the
motions in Group No. 2 dealing with the malfunctioning of this
government and the political agreement with the maritimes to
harmonize the GST, which is costing us $1 billion.
Canadians and Quebecers are entitled to have the full picture on
this government's bad management and its unacceptable
squandering of taxpayers' money.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to deem the motions
in this group to have been read and begin debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if in
this renewed spirit of co-operation I might also ask that all votes
could be deemed to have been taken as recorded divisions and put
over instead of done individually.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, could my hon. colleague on the
government side repeat his proposal? I did not quite catch it.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Finance could repeat what he just said. His
colleague did not catch everything he said.
(1045 )
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can be of assistance to
my colleagues.
I believe the parliamentary secretary is asking the House to
consider, over and above its co-operation as to the motions having
been read, that if votes are requested that they would be deemed
deferred as opposed to having to make the request each and every
time with the yeas and the nays and so on. I would ask the Chair,
can that be done?
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, it is much clearer when the
government whip tells us. Yes, we agree to have the divisions on
these motions deemed to have been deferred.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I think I get the sense of the
House that all of the motions in this grouping will be deemed to
have been moved, seconded and read. If a division is demanded it
will be deemed deferred. Is that agreeable?
7752
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you and the
hon. chief government whip for clarifying what I was trying to say.
Given how sensitive everyone is in the House these days, I want to
tell the hon. member opposite that I take no offence at what he said
a few moments ago about my earlier attempt to explain what the
government wanted to achieve.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I did not in any way wish to insult
my Liberal colleague. If I did not understand what he said, it was
because I had not put on my earphones to listen to the
interpretation.
The Deputy Speaker: Okay.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 114
That Bill C-70 be amended by adding after line 45 on page 336 the following:
``253.1 (1) Schedule VI of the Act is amended by adding the following after Part
VII:
Part VII.1
PRINTED BOOKS, AUDIO RECORDINGS OF PRINTED BOOKS AND
VERSIONS OF SCRIPTURES OF ANY RELIGION
1. In this Part, ``printed book'' does not include anything that is or the main
component of which is
(a) a newspaper;
(b) a magazine or periodical acquired otherwise than by way of subscription;
(c) a magazine or periodical in which the printed space devoted to advertising is
more than 5 per cent of the total printed space;
(d) a brochure or pamphlet;
(e) a sales catalogue, a price list or advertising material;
(f) a warranty booklet or an owner's manual;
(g) a book designed primarily for writing on;
(h) a colouring book or a book designed primarily for drawing on or affixing thereto,
or inserting therein, items such as clippings, pictures, coins, stamps or stickers;
(i) a cut-out book or a press-out book;
(j) a program relating to an event or performance;
(k) an agenda, calendar, syllabus or timetable;
(l) a directory, an assemblage of charts or an assemblage of street or road maps, but
not including
(i) a guidebook, or
(ii) an atlas that consists in whole or in part of maps, other than street or road
maps;
(m) a rate book;
(n) an assemblage of blueprints, patterns or stencils;
(o) prescribed property; or
(p) an assemblage or collection of, or any item similar to, items included in any of
paragraphs (a) to (o).
2. The supply of a printed book or an update of such a book.
3. The supply of an audio recording all or substantially all of which is a spoken
recording of a printed book.
4. The supply of a bound or unbound printed version of scripture of any religion.
(2) Subsection (1) comes into force on April 1, 1997.''
Motion No. 115
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 254.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (on behalf of the Minister of
Finance) moved:
Motion No. 116
That Bill C-70, in Clause 254, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 337 the
following:
``4. Nova Scotia offshore area 8 percent
5. Newfoundland offshore area 8 percent''
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 117
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 255.
The Speaker: We now proceed to debate on the motions in
Group No. 2.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which, according to the
motions tabled, deals with the GST harmonization process in three
Maritime provinces.
Where is the harmonization? What do they mean by
harmonization? There is no harmonization in this bill, in this
agreement with the Maritimes. It is a local agreement.
When it comes to harmony, we heard from witnesses in the
finance committee recently that they are far from having harmony
in the three Maritime provinces. This is particularly true for the
businessmen who are, at the present time, furious with the
government because of one of the so-called harmonization clauses,
which would include in the product price the 15 per cent tax rate
decreed by the government, which replaces the GST in these three
provinces and the numerous sales taxes that were in place until
now.
Imagine the terrible headache this represents for businesses
which distribute their products to other Canadian provinces, or
have branches in those provinces. It is already difficult for a
business to manage a price structure when a number of different
products are involved, so imagine managing not one price structure
but two, with all that this involves in the way of computer
programs, stock management plans and so on.
Businessmen in these three provinces have asked the
government to review this section of its bill in order not to include
the new tax in the price, because they no longer know which side is
up. This is the first point in any discussion of harmonization: that
there is no harmonization.
7753
Second, when we speak of harmonization, we must speak of true
harmonization. In 1991, Quebec harmonized its sales tax with the
federal GST. Quebec even collects the GST on behalf of the federal
government.
Quebec has never demanded, nor has it ever received,
compensation for losses or costs incurred because of this
harmonization. The three Maritime provinces have come to the aid
of the Minister of Finance on the GST, accepting the so-called
harmonization, which is supposed to serve as a model for all of
Canada.
(1050)
However, this gesture costs $1 billion or thereabouts, $961
million, if I remember correctly, in compensation. This is nearly $1
billion our generous Minister of Finance paid, using our money, the
money of taxpayers who are listening, to compensate the maritimes
as part of a purely political agreement which does nothing to deal
with the problem of the GST and especially not the problems
Canadian Liberals have with the GST.
The Prime Minister, his Minister of Finance and the Deputy
Prime Minister made a solemn commitment in 1993, in 1992 even
before the election campaign and as far back as 1989, when the
GST was coming on stream, to scrap this hated tax. That is how the
Liberals referred to the GST. They ranted and raved. They said:
[English]
``We will strike the GST''.
[Translation]
Those are the words of the Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime
Minister said: ``We hate this tax and we will scrap it''. They have
not scrapped it, and now they want to harmonize it. It will costs us
$1 billion for a harmonization that in fact does not exist and which
is not what the Canadian public understood those guys opposite
would do.
They served us up a pack of lies, and they have been doing that
for three and a half years. A few days ago I was listening to the
Premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna. I must admit I was
shocked, upset and even insulted by the way he behaved on his trip
to Asia with Team Canada. I think it is inconscionable that on his
Asian trip, the Premier of New Brunswick, instead of recruiting
local companies or attracting potential customers, governments
and big corporations, was trying to recruit companies from Quebec
and get them to move to New Brunswick.
Do you know what Mr. McKenna's message is when he does this
kind of recruiting, when he tries to steal from his neighbour on a
trip intended as an opportunity to find new international markets
and not to steal companies from Quebec? Do you know what he
told those companies? He told them what he told companies from
Ontario: ``If you move to our province, for the next two or three
years, your corporate tax burden will be reduced by $400 million''.
So where will those $400 million come from?
What a coincidence: it just happens to be New Brunswick's share
of the compensation paid by the federal government for
harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the GST.
What this means, and this is absolutely crazy and unfair to boot,
is that federal money, one quarter of which comes out of the
pockets of Quebecers, is used to finance a corporate raider, Mr.
McKenna, so he can attract Quebec companies and in the process
transfer Quebec jobs to New Brunswick. That is the spirit of
federalism. Amazing. I never saw anything like it.
New Brunswick is no longer the poor little province from the
maritimes. New Brunswick is building itself an industrial force in
the high tech sector with our money and, what is more, its premier
had the gall in Asia to raid our firms in an effort to attract them to
New Brunswick. This is unacceptable and it is an indirect effect of
a supposed political harmonization of sales taxes in the maritimes
that our show off Minister of Finance presented as a revelation he
received from somewhere or other to get out of the mess the
government was in with the GST.
This minister, who claims to be a strong federalist and who
would thus normally treat all the provinces in Canada the same way
and co-operate with them, ends up subsidizing one province to dip
into another, its neighbour, and draw business away. It makes no
sense. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable.
(1055)
If the approach used in the case of the famous compensation of
nearly $1 billion, which comes out of our pockets to buy three
maritime provinces in the GST-sales tax harmonization process,
were applied to what Quebec did in 1991, the federal government
ought to pay Quebec $2 billion.
If it insists on paying this compensation of nearly $1 billion, it
should pay the Quebec government $2 billion. ``Out of the
question'', say government representatives, ``have you lost your
marbles?'' We have not lost our marbles. If we used the
calculations and the logic the Minister of Finance put forward in
signing the agreement with the maritime provinces, then, if the
maritime provinces are entitled to nearly $1 billion, Quebec is
entitled to nearly $2 billion for the harmonization it has done since
1991. This is in addition to the other bills we have often sent the
government, but this one, I must admit, is particularly hard to take.
In Quebec in 1991, we were good boys and girls. We decided we
were going to make things easy for our businesses and set an
example as well by harmonizing and thus lead a movement in the
other provinces of Canada toward a harmonized system to facilitate
interprovincial trade. Billions are involved. Trade between Ontario
and Quebec in particular represents $36 billion. Our reward for this
vision is nothing. We are being treated as if we are worth less than
7754
nothing. The maritimes get $1 billion. We are entitled to $2 billion,
instead we are sent packing as if our request were unwarranted.
So, clearly, in the motions in Group No. 2 on harmonization, we
totally disagree with the unreasonable, unfair and unacceptable
scheme in the three maritime provinces.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Normally the members who are opposed
to the motion explain why and then the parliamentary secretary
sums up why the government agrees or disagrees. It is the minister
who has moved the motions and accordingly I will go to the
Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am under your guidance. When we
group motions like this, it is a little bit confusing for us. The
problem arises because within the grouping are some motions put
forward by the government and some by the opposition. I would
propose to speak now in favour of the motions we have put forward
and in that same 10 minute allotment in opposition to some of the
others, followed by my colleague opposite.
There are three things I want to say. First is in response to what
the hon. Bloc Quebecois member has said with respect to
adjustment assistance. As he well knows, there is no basis for the
claim that Quebec would qualify for adjustment assistance based
on the formula that is being applied for that assistance to the
maritimes. Quebec simply did not incur any loss of sales tax
revenue as a result of harmonizing and that is just a fact of life. The
formula requires adjustment assistance if a province loses
approximately 5 per cent in sales tax revenue in moving to
adjustment. In fact Quebec made money. That is the way it was;
there is no justification for adjustment assistance.
Second is with respect to harmonization.
[Translation]
Members of the Bloc oppose harmonization. This is very
strange, because there is harmonization in Quebec. Is it because
Quebecers want to keep the benefits and advantages of
harmonization for themselves, for their businesses and their
consumers?
[English]
There is no question that harmonization provides a comparative
advantage. Provinces that are harmonizing will have a more
efficient business sector and cheaper prices for consumers than
ones that are not. I detect underlying this intense opposition to
harmonization, striking the word throughout the bill as the
opposition proposes, is an attempt to deny the benefits of
harmonization to provinces that live right next door to Quebec and
to preserve those advantages for Quebec. I hope I am not right, but
I suspect that may underlie some of the opposition.
(1100)
The government motions to amend clauses 150, 160, 198, 203,
204, 241 and 254 are related. They would ensure that the provincial
component of the HST would apply to Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland offshore areas in relation to activities to which the
Canada-Newfoundland-Atlantic accord implementation act and the
Canada-Nova Scotia offshore petroleum resources accord
implementation act apply.
This treatment would be consistent with the terms of the existing
offshore petroleum resources accord, Canada-Nova Scotia and the
Canada-Newfoundland-Atlantic accord and the related
implementation act under which taxes equivalent to retail sales
taxes in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland currently apply.
Further, among the motions, subclause 150(6) of Bill C-70
enacts a new definition of basic tax content for purposes of part IX
of the Excise Tax Act.
The concept of basic tax content is principally used to determine
the amount of additional input tax credits that a registrant may
claim when the registrant increases the extent to which capital
property is used in commercial activities and the amount of input
tax credits that are recaptured when the use of the capital property
and commercial activities are reduced.
Generally, the basic tax content of the property is the tax that was
payable on the acquisition after deducting rebates on certain other
amounts that the purchaser was entitled to recover and after taking
into account depreciation of the property.
The motion proposes to include in the calculation of a basic tax
content a tax that would have been payable but for the fact that the
purchaser acquired the property for use exclusively in commercial
activities. This change will ensure that the correct result is obtained
in determining the amount to be remitted or recaptured if there is a
subsequent change in the use of the property.
Government Motion No. 63 proposes to amend clause 204 of
Bill C-70, which adds new section 220.06 to the Excise Tax Act.
This section ensures that goods delivered to a purchaser in a
participating province do not escape the 8 per cent component of
the HST when they are supplied by an unregistered, non-resident
person who has not paid the tax on bringing the goods into Canada
or into the province.
7755
In this case, as a result of section 220.06, the recipient could
be assessed a tax. The proposed amendments remove the
references in the section to a ``specified motor vehicle'' that is
required to be registered in a participating province. These
references are inappropriate because a special regime is intended
to apply to sales of registerable motor vehicles.
Where a registerable motor vehicle is sold by a non-registrant, in
circumstances in which the 7 per cent GST does not apply, as in the
case covered by section 220.06, neither should the 8 per cent
component apply. Instead, a special 15 per cent provincial levy will
apply to the vehicle which will be payable to provincial licensing
authorities when the vehicle is registered in the province.
Therefore, section 220.06 should not apply at all to sales by
non-registrants of motor vehicles that are required to be registered
in a participating province. The amendments also clarify when the
tax under section 220.06 becomes payable.
In conclusion, I apologize for that bit of reading into the record
but it is required in order to adequately explain some technical
amendments to the act.
I would only add that with respect to motor vehicles, yesterday
we heard some suggestion of an unlevel playing field between
people who sell vehicles privately and people who purchase used
vehicles from dealers.
If members opposite understood the impact of the harmonization
legislation, they would understand that in participating provinces
there will be a level playing field because registrants' provinces,
when purchasers register a vehicle, will be paying all sales taxes
applicable. That will alleviate a situation that prevails and will
continue to prevail in provinces that are declining to harmonize at
this time.
It is a dramatic improvement in those provinces that are
harmonizing.
(1105 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak once again to Bill C-70, in particular to this group
of motions.
There seems to be a common theme not only in how the bill
came into being, but in the whole process that surrounds Bill C-70.
It really explains why people are so concerned about the
harmonization legislation. The common theme is a general lack of
accountability, a lack of being able to hold the government
accountable, and a series of gaps that have made the GST a real tar
baby in terms of governments being able to deal with it and not
draw all kinds of flack.
Let me start by going back a bit in time. I want to follow up on
comments that were made by members of the Bloc Quebecois.
First, we need to remember how this legislation came about in the
first place. In 1993 during the election campaign the Prime
Minister and the current Deputy Prime Minister said that under a
Liberal government the GST would be gone, it would be
eliminated. Of course, that is not the case.
Mr. Collins: I did not say that.
Mr. Solberg: The hon. member across the way says he did not
say that. The Prime Minister in a town hall meeting denied that he
said it too. ``I did not say that. Show me where I said it''.
Unfortunately, for him the public record is very clear because
minutes later the CBC showed clips of the Prime Minister saying
on national television: ``We will kill it. We will scrap it''. A clip
was shown of him in a radio station during the election campaign
saying that the GST would be gone.
I remember very well how the Prime Minister tried to dress
down the young woman from Montreal for having the audacity to
try and hold him accountable. What a terrible thing to do. That has
become a common theme. I will explain a little more about that in
just a moment.
During the months that followed the election, members of the
government tried to downplay their election promise. They tried to
say that what they really said was they would replace the GST.
However, they knew that statement was not resonating very well
with the public. The opposition was making yards here in the
House when we kept pointing out that the government made a
promise and it was not being fulfilled.
Finally, the Deputy Prime Minister conducted a poll to see if she
could resign and still get re-elected in Hamilton East. She did,
indeed, conduct the poll at great expense to the taxpayers. Then a
byelection was held that cost a lot of money and, of course, she was
subsequently re-elected.
Canadians were expecting more. When members say they are
going to resign, it does not mean they are going to resign and run
again right away. Nevertheless, that points once again to a lack of
accountability in the House of Commons. People want members of
Parliament to be responsible for what they say.
A little further along we get to the point where we are having
discussions about the harmonized sales tax because the government
said: ``To get us out of this, we are going to give Atlantic Canada $1
billion''. That is what it did. Atlantic Canada had no interest in a
harmonized sales tax at all until the $1 billion was slapped down on
the table. To get the government out of this promise it slapped
down the $1 billion and Atlantic Liberal premiers said: ``Maybe we
are interested after all''. Just show people the colour of money and
it is amazing what they will do.
We had that incident. What followed? Ultimately legislation
came down and hearings were held. Were hearings held in Atlantic
Canada where this was going to affect people? Reform members
moved an amendment during the hearings and Liberal MPs said:
``We are not going to extend the hearings. We are not going to have
hearings in Atlantic Canada,'' despite the hue and cry from people
7756
in Atlantic Canada who were saying there were all kinds of flaws
with the bill.
We heard dozens of witnesses who said: ``We have big problems
with tax in pricing and big problems with many components of the
bill''. The fact that people had many problems with the HST and
the fact that the government acknowledged there were problems
with it and tried to make some changes along the way, points out
that Atlantic Canadian MPs were not listening to the people of
Atlantic Canada.
(1110)
Why were the people of Atlantic Canada not allowed to have
hearings in Atlantic Canada? This is one of the most fundamental
tax changes in the history of Atlantic Canada. Certainly it is
taxation without consultation. I would argue it is taxation without
representation.
Business group after business group, all kinds of people
representing provincial jurisdictions, came before the finance
committee and said: ``Here is a problem''. If Liberal MPs in
Atlantic Canada had been representing their constituents that
would have never happened because the Liberal MPs would have
gone to the finance minister and told him that people have raised
these concerns and they should be dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what happened? They did not do that.
They were mute. That is bad enough, but they allowed businesses
to close in Atlantic Canada because of this legislation. They said
nothing and people in Atlantic Canada lost their jobs. They lost
their livelihood.
Debate is ongoing in this country about child poverty. The
children in the homes of the people who have lost their jobs already
or who probably will, according to business people who appeared
before the committee, are going to be in a situation where their
parents do not have an income. I would argue that is one of the
biggest reasons why we have child poverty. In this case the
government is actively encouraging unemployment by not being
sensible about the tax in pricing component of this bill. The Liberal
MPs in Atlantic Canada have done a horrible job of representing
their constituents.
Where were they when all the negative aspects of this bill came
forward? People from around the country were forced to come to
Ottawa to make their case. That was the job of the Liberal MPs but
they were silent. They were mute. Some Atlantic Canadian MPs are
cabinet ministers. They sit around the cabinet table. They did
nothing: the fisheries minister, the defence minister. Many of them
sit around the cabinet table and they were absolutely silent.
Not only is that regrettable but in a modern democracy that is
unforgivable. In a modern democracy when people are expected to
make very difficult decisions every day in their lives, those same
people certainly have the ability to be involved in the debate about
the future of their tax system, something that is a fundamental part
of everybody's economic well-being. I want to make a strong
argument that the Liberal government has completely failed the
people of Atlantic Canada in giving them the type of representation
that all Canadians deserve.
I have one final point because my time is running short. The
government led physicians and the providers of private ambulance
services to believe that it was truly interested in restoring tax
fairness in the taxation system. It led them to believe that perhaps
under this legislation it would amend the act so that physicians and
providers of health care would be given equal treatment under the
taxation system with many others.
The problem is that physicians and private ambulance services
are not allowed to pass on GST costs like other small business
people are. Therefore, they have to bear those costs themselves.
For doctors it amounts to something like $1,500 per year per
physician.
I heard the finance minister yesterday say that he is very
concerned about tax fairness and how the government has closed
this loophole and that loophole. Is it not interesting that the
government is only concerned about tax fairness when it means
more money for the government, when it means taking more
money out of people's pockets? But when it comes to treating
people equally and perhaps having to give a little money back, it
does not want to hear about it. Tax fairness? That is not tax fairness.
Tax fairness is only when we take money away, and I think that is
wrong.
(1115)
I make the point that again that the government has an obligation
to treat everybody equally under the tax code, including physicians
and private ambulance services.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to say a few
words on the report stage motions in Group No. 2 regarding some
aspects of Bill C-70.
Bill C-70 is essentially legislation that gives the government the
opportunity to enter into agreements with Atlantic provinces to
harmonize the hated goods and services tax with the provincial
sales taxes in the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick. It is interesting to note that the province of Prince
Edward Island is absent from that list. Prince Edward Island has
just completed a provincial election. Its government changed hands
and a new government is now in place.
There have been a couple of elections in Atlantic Canada since
this harmonization deal was proposed. The results are certainly
interesting to look at. The federal Liberal government should pay
some attention to the results of those elections. I speak of the
Prince Edward Island election and the provincial byelection in the
constituency of Halifax Fairview.
7757
Both election campaigns had tax fairness and harmonization as
a key component. If the Liberals look at the results of those two
elections they will see that they have a lot more responsibility yet
to give to the people they have been elected to represent. With
the government changing hands after the Prince Edward Island
election, the former Liberal government was removed and a new
Conservative government was put in place.
New Democrats are very proud that for the first time in the
history of the province of Prince Edward Island, a New Democrat
was elected to that provincial chamber; not only a New Democrat
but the leader of the provincial New Democratic Party, Dr. Herb
Dickieson, a medical physician, a practitioner who campaigned
very strongly not only on taxation matters and representation but
on health care as well. There is certainly a message this
government should be taking from these results.
More important, in the province of Nova Scotia the new leader
of the federal New Democratic Party, Alexa McDonough, served
her constituents well in the provincial legislature for 14 years. She
had to resign that seat in order to take the position as leader of the
federal New Democratic Party, and we hope very soon to have her
joining us here in the House of Commons so she can bring the
views of Nova Scotian New Democrats and of all Canadians to this
Chamber.
When we look at the election that replaced Alexa McDonough in
Halifax Fairview, the Liberal government in the province of Nova
Scotia said prior to that byelection that when the byelection was
called it would put its all into it, that it would campaign on its
record, that it would campaign on taxation, on how it was dealing
with harmonizing the provincial tax with the federal GST. The
people of Halifax responded very clearly to the challenge of the
premier of Nova Scotia, a challenge that said ``our record on
taxation is on the line''. Not only did the government get defeated
in that byelection, but a New Democrat who campaigned on tax
fairness was elected in that byelection with 65 per cent of the vote.
Everyone in Canada seems to think that New Democrats are
western based, that the New Democratic Party is a party that
defends western interests via small protest votes in the House of
Commons. But 65 per cent of the people of Halifax Fairview said to
the Government of Nova Scotia and to the Liberal members of
Parliament in this House that this harmonization deal is wrong,
they do not buy it, they do not accept it and they want a New
Democrat representing their interests, giving their comments to
government in this House of Commons. Those two elections in
Atlantic Canada certainly indicate why it is necessary that more
New Democrats are elected in the next federal election to this
House of Commons, more New Democrats who speak clearly on
behalf of Canadian interests, the middle class and working
Canadians right across this country from coast to coast.
(1120)
We are looking at a harmonization deal in Atlantic Canada and
that is why I raise those two issues here in the Chamber today.
There are other issues right across Canada that could come about as
a result of the acceptance of this harmonization deal for the three
Atlantic provinces that are signing on. All Canadians have a
responsibility to examine this deal, check out this legislation and
see what is happening in the Atlantic provinces so as to avoid
similar things happening in the rest of Canada.
Although this is called harmonization there is very little
harmony in the way in which this legislation is being implemented
or the way in which the idea is being accepted by people in Atlantic
Canada. The consumers, retailers, interest groups, the clergy and
others have not found much harmony in the way in which they
respond to this legislation.
I think this is recognized in the fact that the name has changed
several times during this process as well. You were in this House,
Mr. Speaker, when the hated goods and services tax was brought in
by the previous government. The GST was considered by a lot of
Canadians, there was great turmoil in this House of Commons and
elsewhere, and as a result of that turmoil we have a country that is
divided over sales tax and the implementation of sales tax regimes.
Prior to the introduction of the goods and services tax, retail
taxes were primarily the prerogative of provincial governments.
Yes, there was a manufacturers sales tax levelled for the federal
government at the wholesale level, the manufacturers level. But the
retail prerogative was primarily the responsibility of provincial
governments.
Provincial governments used that prerogative to establish social
policy within the provinces as well as using the taxes as a source of
revenue. Many provinces did not tax books. Virtually no province
in this country taxed labour costs. No province wanted to tax
children's clothing or food items. With the introduction of the
goods and services tax there was a tax applied to some of those
matters that the provinces had chosen not to tax in the interests of
the consumers and the residents of those provinces. I forgot to
mention home heating fuel and even the costs of funerals which
many of our provinces decided should not be taxed.
As we move into the harmonization of the GST we are seeing
that the provinces lose that prerogative to use tax policy for social
purposes and to exempt certain income levels of people from retail
taxation and to exempt certain classes of items from retail taxation.
The GST and now the harmonization system has removed that.
It was originally called the manufacturers sales tax, MST. With
the Conservative government it became the GST, the goods and
services tax. The government in changing the system and wanting
to blend it with the provincial sales taxes began calling it the
blended sales tax, BST. It did not like the sound of BST so now the
harmonized tax is called the HST. For those who like to think about
these things remember the words of Alexa McDonough in a speech
7758
recently. She said with regard to this new BS tax, now the HST tax
``what have they got against horses?'' I think this is a very
interesting situation that we have happening in this country. While
there are a lot of things to be said on these individual motions and
on the bill itself, I am sure I will have other things to say on the
next round of motions.
(1125)
I hope to be able to put a few additional comments with respect
to the motions and the harmonization deal on the record later in the
day.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak at report stage of Bill C-70, an act to amend
the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction
Account Act and related Acts.
This bill is a collection of various amendments to the GST,
which will become the HST, or the harmonized sales tax. Let me
tell you right now that this tax is very unpopular in my riding of
Bourassa, in Montreal North, especially among business people. I
must add that I support the motions put forward by the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, which are included in Group No. 2.
This Liberal government is highly embarrassed by the broken
promise of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage to abolish, scrap, and kill the GST. As we all know, the
member for York South-Weston even left the Liberal Party over
this broken promise among other things.
The Liberals are bent on reaching an agreement with the
maritime provinces for harmonizing this tax, which will cost
Quebecers and Canadians nearly one million dollars. Moreover, the
government intends to ram this legislation through, which
undermines the quality of democratic life in Canada.
By the way, the Liberals allowed only three days of public
hearings on this crucial, essential, very important bill. The
opposition asked that the consultations be extended, but their
request was rejected by the Liberal majority on the Standing
Committee on Finance. The government wants to put an end right
now to this embarrassing issue of the GST, even though Bill C-70 is
a very bad bill.
During the 1993 election campaign, the Prime Minister kept
repeating: ``We will scrap the GST. Nous allons éliminer la TPS''.
Later, on May 2, 1994, he said: ``We hate this tax and we are going
to eliminate it''. This broken promise will be very costly for the
Liberal Party of Canada in the next election.
In a minority report dating back to November 1989, Liberals,
when they were the opposition, stated: ``The Liberal members of
the finance committee maintain that the goods and services tax
proposed by the Tory government is bad and that no ``repair job'' of
any kind will make it fair for taxpayers''. What the Liberals are
doing now with Bill C-70 is nothing but a repair job, a cosmetic
make-over.
GST remains as it is, at the same rate, whereas the provincial tax
is the one doing the harmonizing. There can be no sales tax reform
without a reform of personal and corporate income taxes nor
without the involvement of other levels of government. Canada has
to undertake a tax reform encompassing every form of taxation at
all levels of government.
Like the Bloc Quebecois, I demand for Quebec a $2 billion
compensation for having harmonized the QST with the GST. It is
unacceptable that the federal compensation formula should help
Atlantic provinces compete fiercely with Quebec in the quest for
new investments. When I see in Quebec newspapers ads by
maritime provinces seeking to lure away Quebec businesses, to me
thats provocation.
(1130)
The $400 million federal compensation paid to New Brunswick
will be used to finance the income tax reductions announced in
December by the finance minister of that province. I condemn the
raiding campaign launched by Premier McKenna against Quebec.
The federal government is showing a lack of openness and
fairness in that matter. It refuses to communicate detailed data on
the maritimes. This refusal is unacceptable considering that a $1
billion compensation will be paid to those provinces from the
income tax and other taxes paid by all Canadian taxpayers.
If the federal government really wants to help boost Quebec's
economy, it will have to give Quebecers the money coming to them
in all fairness. On May 21, 1996, the Quebec government asked for
a $1.9 billion compensation under the adjustment assistance
program. Quebec harmonized its tax with the federal tax and is in
charge of its administration. It is easy to see that co-operating with
the federal government is not very profitable.
I take this opportunity to mention that yesterday, my party, the
Bloc Quebecois, has made public an excellent report demanding an
overhaul of our personal income tax. In 1996, it had a similar report
on the corporate income tax, a report that drew compliments from
the finance minister.
7759
I hope the federal government will implement recommendations
and proposals from those two reports in its upcoming budget. It
should be bringing some order back, and a higher degree of
fairness, in our tax system. For example, we know that Canadian
banks do not pay their fair share of taxes when they are hoarding
staggering profits of over $6 billion. We have the same problem
with the chairmen of these banks. They are paid huge salaries but
do not contribute a fair amount to government revenues.
The Bloc Quebecois report contains a number of suggestions to
make our tax system more stable and fair. Rich taxpayers should
pay more, and the poor should pay a little less. Taxpayers with big
salaries could end up paying about $1,500 more each year, and
those in the middle class as much as $800 less. Extra federal
revenues would amount to $2.5 billion. This is an remarkable
proposal by the Bloc Quebecois.
We should also be closing loopholes available to the rich. I
congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot on the
excellent job he has done in this matter, and more particularly
concerning his RRSP-Employment proposal. The Bloc Quebecois
report suggests something extremely innovative, that is, to create
an Employment RRSP program, which would allow the
unemployed to start their own businesses with funds from their
RRSPs. According to this report, maximum withdrawals of
$25,000 would be repaid over 13 years. This tax initiative is very
fair and should create many jobs.
I have seen the response of the labour movement, in particular
the CLC, which is demanding more fairness in tax system. They
say that the current tax system is not fair, that average income
earners must bear a disproportionate tax burden. This view is
shared by the whole labour movement.
(1135)
However, the government in its last budget cut part of the tax
credits for the workers' fund, in particular the Fonds de solidarité
of the FTQ. As a former unionist, I cannot accept the government
making cuts in this outstanding job creation tool.
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
particularly pleased to participate in the debate with you in the
Chair. I am sure you remember all too well how you were treated
by the governing party when you stuck to your principles and was
kicked out of the party. I commend you for taking that stand.
Here we are just four days back sitting in this House and we are
debating some aspects of the GST. That should be good news to
Canadians because by now every Canadian must know about all the
promises government members made, from the Prime Minister to
all the Liberal candidates who knocked on doors during the last
election promising voters that if elected they would abolish, kill or
scrap the GST.
Having made all those promises to do away with the GST, the
government finally got around to legislation to accomplish that. Is
that what we are debating? Are we debating the government's
promises? Are we debating a bill that would see the end of the
GST? After all that is what the promises were. No, that is not the
debate, not at all.
So much for the Liberals' broken promises. Instead of debating a
bill to end the GST and reduce it to the rubble heap where it
belongs, we are debating the harmonization of the tax, not reducing
this most reviled tax to the rubble heap, but how to harmonize the
tax with the provincial sales taxes in Atlantic Canada.
Let us look for a moment at the word harmonize and then briefly
examine why the government targeted Atlantic Canada
specifically. Harmonize is such a nice word. It rings like music to
the ears and well it should because the word has a soothing,
musical connotation. But that is not all. It also implies a sense of
unity, which is not something this government knows too much
about, a sense of togetherness and co-operation. When applied to
the GST however, harmonization means the four C's. When applied
to the GST, harmonization means coercion, confusion, cost and
cover-up.
Why target Atlantic Canada? Probably because it was the most
vulnerable. Atlantic Canada has been dealt several serious blows
by the powers residing in Ottawa. The golden triangle interests
became concerned about the economic muscle and the trade
activity that characterized Atlantic Canada for decades, possibly
even centuries. Ottawa effectively wiped out the shipbuilding
industry, which at one time was a flourishing industry; the fishing
industry, and we all know about that; the sealing industry, and God
knows what else. Well, I guess we do know.
Eventually Atlantic Canada will have to bear the costs of
harmonization of the GST, notwithstanding the billion dollar
incentive to embrace it now. But more about costs a little later if
time permits.
Let us turn to the first C, coercion. Part of the harmonization
plan would force businesses to hide the new harmonized sales tax,
the HST, in the price of the product or service being sold. And here
is the clincher. Businesses in Atlantic Canada had better be aware
of this and I am sure they are. They should be well aware of this,
but perhaps there are people across the country who still may not
know. Here it is: Shopkeepers, businesses, people who make a
mistake and sell a product without including the tax in the price
would face fines, jail and hence a criminal record. And that is it. It
is off to the calaboose, to the gulag for those brave souls who would
reveal how much tax Canadian consumers are paying. That is right,
it is off to jail, which is absolutely despicable.
7760
(1140)
Imagine this happening in a country that boasts about its
freedoms, liberties and open society. While rapists and robbers can
be granted absolute discharges by a judge under sections 763 and
737 of the Criminal Code, Gramps, Pops or Annie down at the
cornerstore will be excluded under these sections and they will rot,
will languish in jail for not including the HST in the price of a
chocolate bar.
Will this government reduce our country and subject Canadians
to this kind of lunacy? It is absolutely unbelievable. This reminds
me of Bill C-68, the gun control bill. Criminals will possess and
use their guns but farmer Jones who may forget to register his .22
or his 12 gauge will be hauled off to jail. If farmer Jones is a grain
farmer and does the unthinkable, that is, he sells his wheat or barley
to the Americans, then Mr. Jones faces a double whammy. Mr.
Jones could be in the same fix as Mr. McMechan.
Andy McMechan did what any other owner of a product in
Canada can rightfully do which is they can sell their product
abroad. That is what Andy McMechan did. He also did the
unthinkable. He sold his wheat to the Americans, just like a steel
maker or any kind of fabricator or a cattleman or someone selling
any kind of service. These people can sell their goods and services
abroad, even to the Americans. But farmers cannot sell their wheat
or barley abroad without first selling it to the Canadian Wheat
Board and then buying it back at a greatly jacked up price. Then
with a permit they can sell it abroad, even to the Americans.
Andy refused to buy back his own wheat and barley, but he did
sell to the Americans. Then they came, probably at midnight or
maybe just before dawn so the neighbours could not see.
Government officials descended on McMechan's farm to seize his
farm truck which he would not allow. Then the government
officials hauled Andy off to jail without his being formally
charged.
Get this. Andy McMechan languished in jail for about six
months without being formally charged, but they allowed him to
spend Christmas with his family. He risks losing his farm because
of the coercion of the government.
Did Andy receive an apology from the government for what the
government subjected him and his family to, like a former Prime
Minister received? Not that I know of. Andy is an average, hard
working taxpayer. The former Prime Minister even though he is out
of office is still a member of this country's political elite. He
received an apology, plus a cool million dollars or so. What might
happen to Andy? He just might lose his farm. So much for
coercion, the way it applies to the HST.
I will now speak a bit about the confusion it creates. I have to
read this because it is confusing even to read about what the HST
will do to Atlantic Canadians. It is probably confusing enough to
have a combined provincial and federal sales tax in three of
Canada's provinces, two separate sales taxes in six provinces, and
only one sales tax in one province. If we need it to be more
confounded, how about this.
The new HST legislation will exempt some items from the
hidden tax rule and allow businesses to show both a tax inclusive
price and a tax exclusive price, as long as the former is displayed.
Shoppers could conceivably be faced with four different prices for
the same marked down item: the original price with the tax; the
original price without the tax; the sale price with the tax; and the
sale price without the tax. Confusing? I should say so. It seems to
me that businesses in this country are increasingly being reduced
mostly as tax collectors for governments.
(1145)
There is more about examples of costs. A study by the
accounting firm Ernst & Young estimated that a mid-sized national
chain with 50 stores in the Atlantic provinces would put up to $3
million in one time costs and up to $1.1 million a year to comply
with a regional tax in price sales system. The Halifax Chamber of
Commerce predicts that the harmonized sales tax will push up new
house prices by 5.5 per cent as well as force municipalities to raise
property taxes.
I see my time is up, but I hope I get a chance to talk a little more
about this particularly agonizing piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is a bit embarrassing and even humiliating to have to claim what is
rightly ours.
Once again, the province of Quebec, through Mr. Landry, is
talking about $2 billion that we now have to claim, compared to the
maritimes. The GST saga under this Liberal government will go
down in the history of our Canadian Parliament, and what a tale it
will be. It will be known as one and even several broken promises.
During the 1993 election campaign the prime minister and his
ministers promised during their tour of Canada, especially in
Quebec, that they would create jobs. ``Jobs, jobs, jobs'', they kept
saying. The next election will be here soon and they will probably
use the same slogan and again promise us ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. In my
riding of Matapédia-Matane, we are still looking for the jobs the
federal government has supposedly created.
There was another promise. First, let me remind the House of the
promises made in the red book on page 22: ``The GST has
lengthened and deepened the recession. It is costly for small
business to administer and very expensive for the government to
collect. And the GST has fallen far short of its promised revenue
7761
potential partly because it has stimulated the underground cash
economy''.
Could it be that once in office federal Liberals realized that the
commitments they made in the red book did not hold water? Could
it be that, with the Liberals in office, the GST no longer deepens the
recession? That it is no longer costly for small business to
administer and that it is bringing in its promised revenue potential?
Moreover, if what is in the red book is true, the GST has now
suddenly stopped stimulating the underground cash economy. I
have a hard time believing that a miracle has happened since the
Liberals, these princes of darkness, took office.
Further down on the same page of the red book, we can read: ``A
Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that
generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small
business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes
federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization''.
(1150)
If I understand correctly, the GST is unfair for consumers and
small businesses. It is also a nightmare for small and medium size
businesses, and it deters federal and provincial governments from
co-operating and harmonizing their policies.
All those big defects would also have, as if by chance,
disappeared a few months after the Liberals came to power. Federal
Liberals, by some sort of magical trick, would have toned down the
GST's worst effects, and the GST would no longer hurt anyone. On
the contrary, it would almost be a godsend.
After the broken promises of the red book came the promise
made by the Prime Minister who, like a new messiah, stated that he
would abolish the tax. Some time later, he said that he had never
promised such a thing. He only said that the GST would be
replaced. This is hard to believe for me as well as for my
constituents and the rest of the country.
Can we believe the Prime Minister? Can we have faith in him?
The Deputy Prime Minister even resigned because she had really
promised to abolish the GST. But the Prime Minister always
affirmed the contrary. The Deputy Prime Minister resigned, and it
cost us half a million dollars to get her re-elected. What a scandal.
What utter nonsense. It is another episode in the GST saga.
As for the Minister of Finance, he admits that he cannot replace
the GST nor abolish it. At least he admits having made a mistake
by letting people believe it was possible. The Prime Minister, on
the other hand, maintains he never said he would abolish the tax.
The rest of the story is not really any rosier. Quebec, which is
administered by a nasty sovereigntist government-according to
the federalists-decided to harmonize that tax with its own
taxation system. Aware of the extra red tape that tax represents for
businesses, the government of Quebec decided to take action to
help the economy.
However, it will not receive any compensation from the federal
government. The only expression of thank Quebecers will get from
the Minister of Finance for having saved him money will be the
obligation to pay a quarter of the compensation of almost one
billion dollars that was granted to the maritimes. Not only will we
not receive anything but we will have to help the maritimes. This is
clearly another example of the inequities of the federal system as
managed by our friends across the floor.
To get out of the mess they put themselves in, the Liberals are
ready to buy the concurrence by the maritimes. They will buy the
tax harmonization by making taxpayers in Quebec and Canada
cough up almost one billion dollars.
The Quebec government does not ask for different treatment, but
only for the same treatment as the maritimes. However, the federal
government does not want to give compensation because it is
Quebec.
It must be said that we, Quebecers, are unfortunately used to that
kind of attitude from the federal government. In research and
development, you know that we never got our fair share. The
history of the Canadian Confederation is full of examples of that.
So, you will understand that we have had enough.
(1155)
That is why Quebecers want to achieve sovereignty. We no
longer want to pay federal taxes that will go directly to the
maritimes. We do not want the government to play that dirty trick
on us. Mind you it is not the first time.
We no longer want to pay for the errors made by the federal
government, let alone for campaign promises that a party is unable
to keep. We no longer want policies such as the national energy
policy which, in the 70s, almost completely destroyed Quebec's
petrochemical industry without any compensation for Quebec.
I am almost tempted to say thank you. Quebecers will remember
that. They will not be fooled by this government in the next
election. This time, we do not want to hear about jobs, jobs, jobs.
Two billion dollars represent 35,000 jobs, which would lower the
unemployment rate by 1 per cent in Quebec. We need these 35,000
jobs, especially in my riding of Matapédia-Matane. The
government owes it to us.
We are not asking for a gift, we are simply asking to get back
what we pay in taxes to the federal government.
7762
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to speak
in this debate today and I will do so for only a few moments.
I think when we hear incorrect information we are responsible to
correct it as soon as possible. The Reform member who spoke
before the last member opposite, the member for Yellowhead, was
talking about criminal penalties on pricing. He said that if we do
not have tax in pricing there would be a criminal penalty. I think
that is unfortunate because it is misinformation. I want to be very
clear that this is not a criminal offence. At one point there was
something in the legislation. However, we all know that in
Parliament we have a process for bills, a process of working
through this House and through the committees of Parliament
legislation so it can be accurate and responsive.
There is a ticketing offence, if one wishes to call it an offence,
under the Contraventions Act. This is similar to a driving fine.
However, that is a far cry from a criminal offence. Basically that
section the member was referring to, in the process that finished a
couple of weeks ago when the finance committee met for a review
of this bill, that section was taken out of the bill. It will actually end
up in some regulation.
I think it is inappropriate to stand in this House and do some
scaremongering and fearmongering. Criminal Code offences are a
far different thing. We do not have Criminal Code situations here.
This is misinformation. Those are the types of situations, when we
see a bill and know the work that has gone into it, we know that not
everybody does the same amount of homework before they stand
up in this House, so I just wanted to correct the misinformation
spread.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing, the Liberals stand up here and talk about
scaremongering and fearmongering but they are the experts at it.
That is exactly what they are doing right now to the hardworking
Canadian taxpayers out there who are scared to death of another tax
coming down the tube from this Liberal government. That is
scaremongering.
Canadians are afraid to plan their futures. They are afraid to plan
their children's education because they may not be able to afford it.
They are afraid of losing their job. They are afraid of not being able
to afford the next tax levy that comes down from this Liberal
government. They are afraid to make any long term financial
commitments because of this Liberal government's tax policies.
That is real fearmongering. That is scaremongering at the highest
level.
There is a whole larger issue at stake here with Bill C-70. This is
just one small symptom of the big issue. That big issue can be
addressed by asking when is a promise made a promise to be kept?
When is a promise a promise? I would suggest that a promise is a
promise only when it is not made verbally by a Liberal candidate in
a federal election. That is the root of this issue.
(1200)
Verbal promises have been tested in the highest courts of this
land and have been found to be legally binding. But that does not
matter to Liberal candidates who campaigned door to door in the
1993 election. They went door to door, meeting to meeting and
verbally-they are very careful-said to the Canadian people ``We
hate the GST, we will scrap it, we will abolish it. We have always
said that we hated the GST and when we get to be government, it
will be gone. We will kill it''.
That is what they said as they went from door to door, house to
house, meeting to meeting, coffee party to coffee party. They made
that verbal promise to the Canadian people, a type of promise
which they do not recognize as being legally binding as it has been
legally binding for decades in the highest courts of this land.
By contrast, when Reformers went from door to door, coffee
party to coffee party, house to house, meeting to meeting, we
promised the Canadian people that we would do our utmost to
protect them from the Liberal tax and spend policies, and that is
exactly what we do in this House on a daily basis. That is a promise
kept. We made it verbally, we put it in writing and we are keeping
that promise. We have the guts to do that, unlike this Liberal Party,
which will say one thing from the mouth and put another thing on
paper. That is the big issue here, integrity and honesty in this
government, of which there is none.
When the government members sat in the benches over here as
opposition to the Tory Party, which brought in this hated tax in the
first place, they railed against it: ``How could you do this to the
Canadian people?'' They called the Mulroney government every
name in the book for bringing in this regressive and devastating
tax. They were very vocal against it.
When they campaigned in 1993, the Liberals said to the
Canadian people ``Trust us, we're not like the Tories. First, we are
telling you the truth and you must trust us. We will kill, scrap,
abolish this dreaded Tory GST''. That is what they said.
The Prime Minister said ``we hate it and we will kill it''. He said
it on a radio program which he conveniently forgot, just as he
completely forgot his imaginary friend. He said that he would kill
the GST and when he was questioned by a member of the audience
he asked ``what radio station, where did I say it, come on?''
Fortunately the CBC was mad at the government at that time
about the cuts to the CBC, which is another promise that was talked
about by the minister of heritage. So the CBC decided to run some
7763
tape which would show the Prime Minister for what he is, a person
who does not believe a verbal promise is legally binding.
The Minister of Finance said ``I would abolish the GST'', which
does not sound anything like ``I would harmonize the GST. I would
bury it in with some other tax''. The minister of defence said ``the
GST is a regressive tax; it has to be scrapped and when we get to be
government we will scrap it''. That is what he said.
The bottom line is that the Liberals misled Canadians on their
GST promise. To them a promise is not a promise. They misled
Atlantic Canadians. Taxpayers across the country are going to pay
for that broken promise and they are going to pay over and over
again. It will hurt every taxpayer because in order to get the
Atlantic provinces to agree to this harmonization scam, the
Liberals are going to give them a cash payment to make up for the
shortfall. Talk about a buyout. Talk about a buyout to try to
somehow justify this Liberal broken promise once again.
(1205)
This payment is estimated to be as high as $1 billion to Atlantic
Canada and taxpayers in every other region of Canada are going to
pay it. Tax relief is important but it has to be across the board if it is
going to be tax relief. Canadians in certain regions of the country
should not be asked to subsidize a tax cut for the maritimes. In all it
is not a tax cut really.
The Liberals are using $1 billion from taxpayer money to buy a
buried GST in Atlantic Canada so they can say their election
promise slate is not as dirty as it has proven to be. This is truly
despicable and Canadians are not missing this one. Believe me,
they are not missing this Liberal broken promise.
They did not miss it on the national town hall meeting where the
Prime Minister was caught red handed in a Liberal broken promise,
a promise that his candidates from the Liberal Party told hundreds
of thousands of Canadians, millions of Canadians in the 1993
election. He was caught in his own broken promise on videotape.
Tapes do not lie. Videotapes do not lie.
It is interesting that Atlantic Canadians will also suffer because
while they pay a lower tax rate, they will pay taxes on a larger
variety of goods and services. In fact, a seemingly lower tax rate
really does not mean necessarily a lower tax rate because you will
be paying a seemingly lower rate but on a huge variety of goods
and services. The tax base has been expanded. A neat Liberal trick.
It is nice that the government talks about child poverty. The
harmonized tax will apply to children's clothing. Does that figure
somewhere in child poverty? I understand children who are living
in poverty do need cloths. They probably do not need a tax on those
clothes.
It will apply to books. I understand that education helps to get
children into a position where they will not have to live in poverty
anymore. It will apply to haircuts. Even poor kids need a haircut.
It will apply to funeral services and heating oil. Heating oil is a
major expenditure to families that live at the poverty level. Now
the government is going to put a tax on heating oil. So much for its
concern about the poorer Canadians of our society.
It will apply to gasoline. Poor Canadians in our society still have
to go out and try to look for a job or ways to increase and improve
their lot in life. Now the government is going to charge more
gasoline taxes. And it will apply to new homes.
By the way, where have all the MPs from Atlantic Canada been
in this debate? Where are all the MPs sent here from Atlantic
Canada to protect the interests of the Atlantic Canadians, the
maritimes? Where are they? They are sitting in their seats silent
because they have been told to do so. ``Don't you stand up and
defend your constituents. This is a government bill and, by golly, if
you dare speak against it you are going to be disciplined''.
Where is the member from the Conservative Party? Where is she
speaking on this? She is from Atlantic Canada, the maritimes.
This is a regressive tax. It is going to hurt Canadians. It is going
to hurt the poorest of Canadians. How on earth could a Liberal
government that promises to have the best interests of Canadians,
the best interests of the poorest people in our society at heart, even
conceive of putting such a regressive and hurtful tax on Canadians
in this country?
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-70. I say this for the
benefit of our viewers, this bill is a collection of amendments to the
GST.
(1210)
The group of motions we are dealing with contains among other
things amendments aimed at harmonizing the GST with the sales
tax in three maritime provinces. The amendments brought forward
by the Bloc with regard to those motions are basically aimed at
withdrawing any legislation on harmonization and compensation.
There are several reasons for this.
This bill is flawed, based exclusively on political and electoral
considerations, since everything suggests that we are about to have
an election. It is poorly drafted and flawed.
What is more, in order to convince the three maritime provinces,
which did not expect it, the federal government had to promise
political compensation of close to one billion dollars, while it has
7764
systematically refused to pay Quebec the two billion dollars it lost
by harmonizing its provincial sales tax with the GST in 1991.
Quebec is often pictured as the black sheep or the spoilsport of
the system. We have here the best example of this. Quebec was the
first province to support harmonization with the federal tax and
now they are going to make the province pay for that.
My colleagues will further develop each and every point I have
raised,to put them in their proper perspective. They have already
begun. Several have already spoken and they will be followed by
others. For my part, I would like to underscore the fact that this bill
is first and foremost a symbol.
It is a symbol that makes three things very clear. First, it shows
the present government's lack of transparency. Second, it points to
the fact that, in the Canadian Confederation, Quebec constantly
ends up on the losing side, economically speaking. I should use the
term ``federation'', because Canada stopped being a confederation
long ago. In fact, Quebec does not receive its fair share of spinoffs
from its investments in Canada, amounting to 25 per cent of
Canada's revenues. Third, this bill also shows that any member
from Quebec elected in Ottawa as a Liberal or a Conservative
always ends up taking Ottawa's side against Quebec.
The government's lack of transparency has been plain to see
throughout its mandate, during this legislature, since 1993. This
bill is in keeping with this lack of transparency. It is the last chapter
before the election, it is the icing on the cake.
Some recent events are clear indications of the government's
lack of transparency. I will try to go fast, but there are many of
them. There is the tainted blood issue. While the Prime Minister
claims to want the entire situation brought to light-that is what he
says all the time-he refuses to initiate the process of giving Mr.
Justice Krever access to the documents that would allow him to get
at the truth. This morning, we learned that the RCMP was looking
for related documents that are said to have disappeared. Where is
the transparency?
There is also the Somalia inquiry. While promising once again to
get at the truth, the Prime Minister has refused the extension
requested by the inquiry and its chairman. We know for a fact that,
if this commission needs a extension, it is only because the
Canadian army hid documents. Months were lost tracking them
down.
The Airbus affair was another example of lack of transparency.
The previous Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, was pronounced
guilty in advance, almost under criminal charges. We know full
well that this is contrary to Canadian law and yet nobody is
responsible.
Etymologically the word responsible refers to the person who is
able to provide a response. When we ask questions in the House,
we never get any response, which means that nobody is
responsible. Somebody else is, the system is or some other thing.
There is not one minister who is responsible.
Here are a few blatant examples of broken promises and lack of
transparency on the part of the government: it promised to tear up
the free trade agreement, and yet it signed it; it promised to
deprivatize the Pearson airport, but the issue has not been settled
yet and has been handled in such a way that it might cost taxpayers
tens of millions of dollars.
(1215)
Remember the commitment to Quebec during the referendum to
recognize the concept of distinct society and give Quebec its veto
back? Another broken promise. Every Quebecer remembers it.
Remember the promise to create jobs, jobs, jobs?
In his last budget, not the forthcoming one, the one he tabled
before, the finance minister told us: ``The government's role is not
to create jobs, we are going to create the right environment for
corporations to create jobs''. When we look at major corporations
posting record breaking profits, starting with the banks, we see that
they are all laying off people.
One has to wonder who in Canada is creating jobs these days, but
not why 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed. ``Jobs, jobs, jobs'',
another broken promise. And now the ultimate one, the one that
tops them all, the one we are dealing with today. They were going
to scrap the GST. Instead they are talking about changing the GST
harmonization standards.
This promise was heard on every radio and TV station, and the
Prime Minister told us on May 2, 1994: ``We hate this tax, we will
do away with it''. The hated tax did not disappear, so they are
trying to hide it. The finance minister apologized, saying that they
should not have made such a promise. The Deputy Prime Minister
resigned, and the Prime Minister still insists he never said anything
of the kind.
I am sure you have read the Toronto newspapers; they were hard
enough on the Prime Minister. I will not repeat in the House what
the journalists wrote because it would be unparliamentary. It is
easy to see there is no transparency there.
Secondly, as this bill shows clearly, Quebec is always the loser
within the Canadian Confederation because it never receives its fair
share. Since we have been here, we have held numerous debates in
the House to explain how Quebec never gets its share of structuring
expenditures, of job creating expenditures. We have often given the
example of research and development as an area where Quebec
gets nothing, where it never gets its share of expenditures.
This GST case is just one more example. The maritimes will
receive a billion dollars for the harmonization whereas Quebec got
absolutely nothing for harmonizing its QST with the GST. What
does this mean? Since Quebecers make up one quarter of Canada's
revenues, it means that the federal government is taking $250
7765
million away from Quebecers to send it to the maritimes while
Quebec is receiving nothing at all.
We all know what the people over there will do with that money.
Mr. McKenna for one is raiding Quebec to attract Quebec
businesses. We are paying people for them to come here and
compete with us. That is the kind of system we live in. The GST
situation shows that clearly.
Finally, the third point this bill proves is that a liberal member
from Quebec, when he is in Ottawa, will always take Ottawa's side
against Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, your are telling me I have only one minute left, so I
will try to conclude swiftly. Where are the Quebec members when
the government refuses to pay Quebec and takes $250 million from
Quebecers to send it to the maritimes, with nothing in return?
Liberal members from Quebec are saying nothing and are nowhere
to be seen.
Where were the Liberal members from Quebec when the
government seized from the unemployment insurance fund $5
billion that collectively belonged to the workers? Mum was the
word. They were nowhere to be seen. Where were the Liberal
members from Quebec when family trusts moved to the United
States without paying some $500 million in taxes? They were
nowhere to be seen and did not say a word.
To conclude, Quebecers now know, thanks to this bill, that is no
use sending a René Lévesque to Quebec City and a Pierre Trudeau
to Ottawa, a Lucien Bouchard to Quebec City and a little guy from
Shawinigan to Ottawa. Quebecers now know that Canada is not, as
the Deputy Prime Minister was saying, a tower of Babel that works.
It is a tower of Pisa, a tower that leans to one side: Ottawa.
(1220 )
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-70 which harmonizes
the sales taxes in the maritimes.
The object of the bill is an attempt to create jobs, to simplify the
tax system and to stimulate the economy. This attempt by the
government to harmonize the sales tax will do exactly the opposite.
It is an example of an ill-advised taxation initiative which will put
people out of work, increase the underground economy, drive
companies into bankruptcy. Let me give some examples.
The business community has cried out against the present form
of this tax. The Retail Council of Canada said that it will cost
retailers at least $100 million per year. It will not only cost the
retailers, obviously it will cost those who pay for it in the end, the
taxpayers. The Halifax Chamber of Commerce said that the sales
tax will push up the cost of new houses by 5.5 per cent. This is in an
area of the country where people are finding it increasingly
difficult to purchase homes.
Consumers are going to pay more for children's clothing, books,
gasoline, heating fuel: the essentials. In fact, it will hurt those who
are least able to afford it. The government should be embarrassed
about doing that to the people of Atlantic Canada.
The intent, though, is sensible. Having a harmonized sales tax is
actually a good thing but it has to occur in a different number of
ways. It has to be one tax for the entire country applied across the
board. The rate has to be lower than what it is now. We need one
auditing procedure and it has to be simpler and easier to
understand. It has to have one single remittance and one set of
rules.
The system that is proposed by the government does not do that
at all. It just increases the complexity. Furthermore, it asks
Canadians outside the provinces in the maritimes to fund this
project by shunting money from the west to the maritimes. For the
moment, the west does not mind providing for provinces that are
less able to afford things. However, to ingrain this harmonized
sales is doing a disservice to all Canadians. This tax will affect over
50 per cent of businesses in the maritimes in a massively negative
way. This is information from the business community in the
maritimes.
There are ways to get around this. There are ways to provide a
sales tax that will be better and therefore stimulate the economy.
There are ways to get people back to work but the government has
just nibbled around the edges for the last three years that we have
been here. It has done very little to help the 10 per cent of
Canadians who are unemployed and the nearly 20 per cent of
Canadians who are under employed.
Here are a few constructive suggestions that I challenge the
government to take up. First, the debt and the deficit. Get the
deficit down to zero and decrease the debt. Second, instead of
having the HST that the government is proposing, let us have a
sensible harmonized sales tax that has one tax, a lower rate
applicable across the country, that is simpler, with one reporting
procedure per year, one auditing procedure that is easier to
understand.
Better, of course, would be to scrap the tax altogether. A few
years ago when the government of the day decided to lower taxes,
what happened? More money came into the government coffers,
more money was in the pockets of Canadians and the economy was
stimulated. What did that government do? The Conservative
government of the day started to tax wildly. That did the exact
opposite of stimulating the economy and revenues to the public
purse went down.
7766
We need to flatten the tax system. My colleagues in the Reform
Party have proposed some sensible solutions for flattening the tax
procedure for all Canadians. It is a simple tax that does not defeat
the intent of working harder to earn more for ourselves and our
families. It provides for a greater minimum exclusion for those
in the lower socioeconomic groups so those who are poor in our
society pay little or no tax at all. It is a win-win situation.
(1225)
Interprovincial trade barriers have to go. I do not know if the
Canadian public realizes it but there are more barriers to trade
east-west across our country than there are north-south. That is an
embarrassment. The government has had opportunity after
opportunity to deal with this but it has not.
We have serious problems in education in our country. There is a
dislocation between the needs of the private sector and the
initiatives of the education system. If we want to build a stronger
Canada, if we want to build a nation where we can compete with
countries from around the world, if we want to become one of the
new tigers in the economy of the Asia-Pacific countries, then we
have to invest in education.
We have to determine what will be the needs of the private sector
in the 21st century. We have develop co-operative initiatives
between the education system and the private sector to enable the
students of today and tomorrow to develop the skills that will
enable them to become employable in the future. That is not
happening right now. I challenge the government to work with their
provincial counterparts to do just that.
Number four is skills training. It is an embarrassment to us that
we are one of the nations of the world with the lowest investment in
skills and labour training in the developing world. How can we be
competitive in the global economy if we do not invest in skills and
labour training for our workers? That is absolutely essential if we
are going to compete in the future.
We also need to reinvest in research and technology. The
government is pulling money out of research and technology. It is
doing the same thing with education. The government ripped some
$7 billion from transfer payments for education, health and welfare
and claimed it was balancing the budget. All the government is
doing is balancing its budget on the backs of taxpayers. At the end
of the day it is the taxpayer who pays for everything.
We have to capitalize on foreign markets. We heard that we
should be reinvesting in north-south trade. Thirty years ago trade in
Asia represented 5 per cent of the world's gross national product.
Today it is 30 per cent and growing. We are uniquely positioned to
take advantage of this in my province of British Columbia. We
have the geography, we have the people, we have the opportunity
for skills development, not only for points east in Asia-Pacific but
also as a conduit and as a channel for points in Europe and points
south. Very few nations, in fact no nation, can boast the ideal
position that we have today.
I challenge the people of Canada to realize that our system of
governance today is not a democracy at all. It operates more like a
fiefdom. Democracy has very little to do with what takes place
within our nation today. In fact, most of the important decisions
made are made by a group of non-elected, unaccountable officials
that the public never sees. That is where the legislative initiatives
occur. They are made not to make this country a better place, but
purely for the maintenance and acquisition of power.
If the Canadian public wants to see radical, fundamental,
positive social and economic change, then they will have to get
angry and put pressure on all of their elected officials to demand
the changes in governance that we will require if we are going to be
an aggressive player in the economy of the 21st century.
We also need strong leadership that demonstrates and expresses
a vision of the country that is going to lead us into the 21st century
where we will be able to demonstrate strength and compassion.
Right now, that does not occur.
(1230 )
We need to build a nation where all able-bodied individuals can
develop the skills training they require. And it is an obligation for
all able-bodied individuals to capitalize on those opportunities. We
also need to fulfil our obligation to those individuals who cannot
take care of themselves and ensure that our social programs are
placed on a sustainable footing.
If we can see that leadership in this nation, we will be able to
lead our people into a stronger and brighter future in the 21st
century. Failure to do that will mean terrible social and economic
consequences in the future and we will only be a shadow of what
we can be in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am also
pleased to speak today to Bill C-70, which, among other things,
makes some amendments on harmonization of the GST with the tax
in the three maritimes provinces.
It will be remembered that, just before Christmas, the official
opposition deplored the way in which the finance minister had
tabled the documents relating to this bill. The opposition had less
than 24 hours to examine a very technical bill, in which this whole
reform was set out in 300 pages, without any explanatory notes.
However, in January of this year, we witnessed an even more
revolting spectacle for anybody who believes in the quality of
democratic life in Canada. First, the Liberals allowed only three
7767
days of public hearings for such an important bill. And we know
this bill is very important to the maritime provinces.
The opposition tabled a motion calling for an extension to
consultations, and even for the committee to travel to the maritimes
to listen to the people. The government wanted none of this. It is
clear, therefore, that this government has no regard for democracy.
With three days of public hearings, under the pretext that
complaints were made, the government moved 13 amendments.
Imagine how many amendments could have been made if, for once,
the government had been listening to what people had to say. The
whole bill would then have ended up in the waste paper basket. It
must also be said that this bill is a great source of embarrassment
for the government. That is why it wants to have it rammed
through.
In December, someone came to call in my region. The Prime
Minister came to my riding to tell us that we had misunderstood
what he had said about the GST. Millions of us were under the
impression that the GST would be abolished. Do these words have
a different meaning? I would like to hear the members opposite on
this. What this bill does is show that promises were not kept,
whether they were made in the red book, by the Prime Minister
himself, by the Minister of Finance, by the Deputy Prime Minister
and heritage minister or by any past or present Liberal candidate or
member. Clearly, the Liberal government has lost sight of the
people on behalf of whom it is supposed to govern.
(1235)
During the 1993 campaign, countless statements were made
about scrapping the GST entirely. The Prime Minister himself used
the word ``scrap''. In 1994, he said the Liberals hated this tax and
would kill it. A byelection was even run at taxpayers' expense on
this issue. That was not so long ago. We all remember. Eliminating
the GST was an election promise. But instead of being eliminated,
it is being disguised, hidden. This leads us to say that, through this
bill, the Liberals are doing exactly the opposite, what they had
criticized.
The new GST is a hypocritical tax; from now on, it will be
hidden in the cost of goods and services. However, in a report of the
Standing Committee on Finance dating back to 1994, the Liberal
majority said that it would be improper to hide from Canadians the
amounts they paid in taxes to their governments and that making it
a hidden tax undermined their ability to make the government
accountable for the way these taxes were collected and, to a lesser
extent, for the way moneys were spent.
The position of the Liberals on hiding the GST in the sales price
used to be that, if the GST was hidden in the sales price, it would be
much easier for the government to increase it later on. Yet, we
know that 76 per cent of Canadian businesses are opposed to hiding
the GST in the sale price of goods and services. Personally, when I
pay my bills, I want to know where my money goes. I want to know
how much I am paying for the goods or services, and how much I
am paying to the government. And I am sure my constituents feel
the same way. I sincerely believe that some members opposite
should go back to their riding and talk to those who elected them.
I want to discuss another aspect of this most undemocratic bill,
that is yet another infringement of the rights of Quebecers. During
the referendum campaign, and even after, we were constantly told
that all Canadians were equal. Why is it then that, under this bill,
Quebecers are being refused the compensation awarded to the
maritime provinces? Such is the kind of equality that prevails
under our federal system.
Yes, Quebec did harmonize its tax with the federal one; Quebec
administers that tax. Quebec acted very responsibly. So why should
Quebecers not be entitled to the same compensation that the federal
government is giving the maritime provinces?
The maritimes may be facing additional costs to harmonize their
tax with the federal one, but so does Quebec.
(1240)
If the maritimes are entitled to $1 billion in compensation,
Quebec should also be entitled to a compensation. The Minister of
Finance must act in a fair manner. The term ``harmonization''
implies that the parties get together and are, for all intents and
purposes, in agreement. However, it seems that this concept takes
on a different meaning with this Liberal government.
I would have liked to discuss the tax on books, but I will
conclude by simply saying this: in Quebec, the provincial sales tax
does not apply to books. In Quebec, we realized a long time ago
that taxing books means taxing knowledge.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to this group of amendments to Bill C-70, the
so-called harmonization bill.
Those who have been listening to the debate over the last couple
of days will know that this bill will not lead to harmonization at all.
It will mean that three provinces will live under a completely
different set of rules than the rest of the country. Part of the reason
for that is that the other provinces do not think it is the right thing to
do and will not give the federal government their approval. We
have anything but harmonization. What we have is more disunity
and more divisiveness in the country as a result of this legislation.
Any amount of amendment to the bill will not fix it. The fact is
that the bill will not make things better. It will not harmonize the
tax across the country, it will lead to a split. It will not fulfil the
7768
Liberal promise to get rid of the GST. Those who have been
listening to the debate over the last few days will know that.
Leading up to the last election campaign, during the election
campaign and since the election, many Liberal MPs and the Prime
Minister have very clearly promised to abolish, kill, scrap the GST.
There is no doubt about that.
This harmonization bill is not a well thought out piece of
legislation. It is a smoke screen so the Liberals can say on the
campaign trail that they kept their promise to scrap the GST, but it
will not sell. Those 10, 20, 30 or 40 Liberal MPs who were elected
on the promise of getting rid of the GST are in danger of losing
their seats on that one issue alone. No amount of amendment and
certainly not the amendments in this group will solve the problem.
I want to speak to these amendments and to the so-called
harmonization of the GST from another point of view. As the
Reform Party critic for interprovincial trade, I want to deal with
that issue and explain how this legislation clearly violates the
government's agreement on internal trade. That agreement does not
allow legislation such as this to apply to one part of the country and
not another. This bill clearly violates the agreement. I will speak to
the bill from that point of view.
(1245 )
Some people may not be surprised that this piece of legislation
or one piece of legislation would clearly contradict legislation that
was presented earlier by this government, but that does not mean it
is right.
I suppose I should not be surprised that the government would
break its own law, a law it has put in place, the agreement on
internal trade, through the introduction of another piece of
legislation. That is what it has done. I should not be surprised but I
do not accept it. Many other Canadians do not accept it. Canadians
expect government to honour the laws it puts in place just as they
expect everyone to honour the laws that are put in place. This
legislation clearly violates the government's own law.
The agreement on internal trade is falling apart. The agreement
was put in place after the negotiations between the provinces and
the federal government throughout 1994. After it was signed in
1995, I thought the government had made some progress on this
issue. It had reached an agreement in some areas on removing
barriers to interprovincial trade. In other areas it set a framework
and a timeframe for removing further barriers to internal trade and
the provinces had agreed in principle to removing the barriers to
internal trade. I thought progress had been made.
Unfortunately very little progress has been proven over time.
The set deadlines have been broken one after another to the point
that British Columbia is saying that it will not even take part in the
negotiations on the so-called MUSH sector, the sector that deals
with procurement for municipalities, universities, schools and
hospitals. British Columbia announced earlier this week that it will
not even take part in negotiations to try to finish this agreement.
Deadlines have passed. The agreement never had a mechanism
to ensure that the provinces and the federal government would
abide by the rules of the agreement. With the formula for approving
changes to the agreement, being unanimous consent, it was clear
from the start that it would be very difficult to complete the
agreement. And that has proven to be the case.
There are several reasons this is such an important issue, why it
is so important to Canadians that these barriers to interprovincial
trade be removed. First, according to the Fraser Institute, it costs
the average Canadian family $3,500 a year just having these
barriers to trade in place. We have a situation in Canada where it is
actually more difficult for a company based in one province to do
business the other provinces than it is for a company in the United
States to do business with all Canadian provinces.
The barriers have created an incentive for Canadian companies
to relocate into the United States so they can have open access to all
Canadian provinces. This drives jobs out of the country. The
Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated in a report before
Christmas that just reducing internal trade barriers or increasing
internal trade by 10 per cent will create 200,000 jobs in this
country. That is a lot of jobs.
For a government that was elected on the promise to get rid of
the GST and partly on the promise to create jobs, you would think it
would be enticing to make relatively simple changes compared to
some of the other changes that would have to be made to create
jobs. Just increasing trade between provinces by 10 per cent would
create 200,000 jobs, but the government does not seem committed
to this idea.
Now with British Columbia saying that it will not even
negotiate, we are left to ask whether this 1995 agreement, which I
said at the time was real progress, is really going to accomplish a
thing.
We have a problem that needs to be dealt with with urgency. This
harmonization bill and these amendments we are debating in this
House are not going to solve a problem. They are not good for
business in Atlantic Canada. They are not good for the people of
Atlantic Canada, as jobs will be lost because of this deal. Many
businesses involved have stated this clearly.
(1250)
There is a further aspect to this agreement on internal trade and
the importance of the trade between provinces that has not been
talked about very much. We have put the Canadian economy at
risk, a risk we have put in place unnecessarily by coming to depend
more and more on international trade before we have done the work
7769
to encourage trade between provinces and to make it easier for
businesses to trade between provinces. There is an increased risk.
If we have a substantial increase in our dollar we are going to
have a dramatic reduction in trade and this government and this
country have come to depend on trade for jobs. Any new jobs that
have been created have been pretty much due to international trade.
We have an increase in the dollar, our trade surplus has decreased,
which happened in the third quarter of last year. Our economy goes
in the tank, unemployment increases. That is why it is so important
to deal with this issue.
I will certainly continue on this topic relating it to the debate in
future groups of amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
House of Commons is dealing with a crucial bill for the province of
Quebec, Bill C-70, an act to harmonize the infamous GST with the
provincial sales tax in three Canadian provinces, namely New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
This harmonization is another example of discrimination against
the province of Quebec, which is nothing new. As early as
1841-and this is making the members opposite smile-the union
of Lower and Upper Canada brought about the harmonization of
the debts of the two territories. Lower Canada, that is the province
of Quebec, French Canada if you prefer, was not heavily in debt at
the time, but did not have a lot of infrastructures in place. On the
other hand, Upper Canada was 12 times deeper in debt, but had a
lot of roads, harbours, railroads, et cetera. After the union,
Quebecers had to pay for the debts of English Canada. That is how
our marriage to English Canada started. The majority at the time
decided to split the debts equally between the two founding
nations.
In 1997 as in 1841, we have the same remedy, the same type of
discrimination. Given how the GST is being harmonized in three
maritime provinces, according to a simple rule of three, Quebec
should get nothing less than $2 billion in compensation.
What did the federal government offer Robert Bourassa, a
Liberal from Quebec, when he agreed to harmonize with Brian
Mulroney's Conservative government?
(1255)
Quebec was the first province in Canada to harmonize its
provincial sales tax with the GST, but it did not get anything in
return, except, of course, the sharing on a fifty-fifty basis of the
costs associated with collecting the GST and the QST. Quebec
taxpayers were even proud of this harmonization. As a farmer, I
was happy too because instead of filling two forms, one for Ottawa
and one for Quebec, I would have to fill only one form. So,
personally, I was proud of the Quebec government at that time,
even though it was headed by a Liberal, namely Robert Bourassa.
What I am driving at, Mr. Speaker, and your smile tells me you
already know, is that Ottawa did not pay Quebec any
compensation, and it is now ready to give these three small Atlantic
provinces nothing less than a billion dollars. That is a flagrant case
of injustice.
The same thing happened in 1996 when this government
abolished the Western Grain Transportation Act. It released $3
billion to compensate three western provinces. It gave them $3
billion.
Last year, in 1996, as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot
knows, the same government decided to abolish subsidies to
industrial milk producers. What did Quebec producers get as
compensation? Nothing. That is the kind of equality that exists in
our country. That is the kind of medicine Quebecers get from this
Liberal government. It is not surprising, my friends, that the
Liberal Party is so low in the polls in Quebec.
We cannot wait to see the result of the next election. The Prime
Minister himself, in his own riding of Saint-Maurice, will-to use
his own expression-take a beating. That is what he was telling us
before the referendum. Well, he is the one who is going to take a
beating.
It takes nothing more than the rule of three to demonstrate that
this government is cheating Quebecers out of $2 billion in this
harmonization deal with the maritimes.
There is another example of discrimination, this time against
Quebec and Ontario. You certainly know that, in recovering the
costs associated with the RCMP, the federal government recovers
only 70 per cent of the real costs. Quebec and Ontario each have
their own provincial police force, namely the Sûreté du Québec and
the OPP.
We pay 100 per cent of the costs associated with these police
services. We pay whatever these services cost. But the other
provinces pay only 70 per cent of the real cost of their police
services. So Quebec and Ontario both are paying 30 per cent of the
costs of the police forces in the maritimes and in most of the
western provinces. Where is the equity? Where is the fairness in
this country? As far back as 1841 it has been the same thing, year
after year.
I would like to come back to the GST. Since October 1993, or let
us say November 1993, the Liberal government has been turning in
an amateur performance. It has improvised every last step of the
way. First of all, think back to the 1993 election campaign, in
September and October. The Deputy Prime Minister, the member
for Hamilton East, made a solemn promise to step down if they had
not abolished the GST in the first 12 months of their mandate.
7770
(1300)
Obviously, she will say today that she kept her word. But I would
remind you that, just like a mother bird pushes her chick out of the
nest to teach it to fly, the opposition members had to give her a
shove to get her to resign. The Deputy Prime Minister's blunder
cost Canadian taxpayers no less than $500,000.
When they are reminded of these mistakes and of the fact that
this government improvised and behaved like a rookie, it hurts, of
course. It hurts the Liberal members.
In 1993, all members heard the Prime Minister say in caucus that
he was going to abolish the GST, to scrap it. One of their own dared
to vote against the finance minister's budget last year. Like a good
father, the Prime Minister kicked him out. As you know, I am
talking about the member for York South-Weston. In December,
during a question here, he reminded the Prime Minister that on at
least three occasions he had promised to abolish the GST and had
not kept his promise.
In closing, I would like to remind you of the credibility we
politicians have with our electorate. Yesterday, in the House, we
were once again treated to the sad display of two members
removing their jackets and preparing to fight it out in the House of
Commons, the people's Chamber. This makes us look ridiculous.
The Liberal member from British Columbia, the member for
Okanagan-Shuswap, and the Liberal member for Scarborough
Centre took off their jackets, undid their shirts and got ready to
fight it out-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sorry, but the
member's time is up. It is too bad, because as usual his remarks are
very interesting.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise again to speak on Bill C-70, the harmonized sales
tax, the HST or, as a friend of mine, Mr. Mike Jenkinson from the
Alberta Report referred to it, the helter-skelter tax. I thought the
name that he applied to it was quite appropriate in so far as we have
rules that apply to eastern Canada we have different rules that apply
to western Canada and we have the Minister of Finance trying to
bring Ontario on side. We have, more or less, harmonization with
the GST in the province of Quebec. Right across the country it
appears that there are different rules in different places. Therefore
the helter-skelter tax perhaps is not that inappropriate.
I want to again focus on the concept of the Liberal Party which is
tax and spend at all costs. If there is an opportunity to raise taxes, it
will leave no stone unturned in order to find that extra dollar which
it is always looking for in order that it can develop a new program
to give to Canadians in order to buy their votes. When I say give to
Canadians, it seems that the government always wants to break
society into its different classifications.
I happened to see in the Globe and Mail today an article
regarding youth jobs plan and some side steps training, how they
are moving their focus away from training to a youth jobs plan and
how they are perhaps going to focus several hundred million
dollars into this program.
(1305 )
Youth training and youth jobs are vitally important. We have
here the tax and spend philosophy of the Liberal government which
taxes Canadians right across the board, the GST in this case, and
harmonize sales tax in Atlantic Canada. Collect all these taxes and
try to provide jobs for youth and job training for youth.
I cannot speak for my friends in the Bloc who introduced some
tax increase concepts yesterday, but we in the Reform Party would
like to point out clearly and definitively that if we can reduce
taxation, especially for employers, it is surely better than the tax
and spend philosophy of a government that takes it from employers
and gives it back to a few.
We heard at the last election about the jobs, jobs strategy of the
federal government where it was going to spend $6 billion to renew
our infrastructure. We all know how much actually went into
infrastructure renewal, not an awful lot. But that is another issue.
The point we are trying to make is that while the Liberals made a
great issue of spending $6 billion to revitalize the economy and
restart the economy to create jobs, we have heard nothing about the
deliberate policy of the Minister of Finance of maintaining
employment insurance premiums far higher than we need in order
to cover the cost of payouts. He has therefore built up a surplus of
$5 billion, all paid for by employers and employees. It is a payroll
tax that the Minister of Finance has siphoned out of the business
community in the last two years and therefore has recovered every
penny of his $6 billion tax and spend program which did very little
to create jobs in the first place.
The myth I want to point out is that tax and spend programs do
not work and tax and spend programs allow the Minister of Finance
to hide these payroll taxes that are inequitable and damaging to the
economy. They destroy jobs but yet provide the federal government
with the excuse to come up with a youth jobs plan to put this money
back into the economy. Surely it makes imminent sense to leave the
money in the hands of the employers in the first instance who can
decide where best that money is to be spent.
I think of the state of the union address by the President of the
United States the other day. He challenged every employer in the
country to create one new position; through their own efforts to
build a business and create another job. That I think is a wonderful
7771
challenge. Too bad the Minister of Finance did not think about it.
Too bad the Liberals did not think about it. They are totally focused
on taxing more money out of employers in order for them to come
up with what they consider to be vote buying programs as they
spend it back in the economy. There is a fundamental difference.
Let us look at this helter-skelter tax and at some of the rules they
are going to ask business to administer. Do not tell me that they are
not going to have extra costs. What about travel agents? I live in
Alberta and I travel across the country as part of my position as a
member of Parliament. Let us say I buy a ticket from Edmonton to
Halifax. The travel agent has to charge me only the GST because
the province of Alberta has no provincial sales tax, the only
fortunate province in the country that gets by without one. If I ask
the same travel agent in Alberta to provide me with a ticket from
Halifax to Ottawa, the travel agent in Alberta has to charge the
harmonized sales tax.
(1310 )
How is a travel agent supposed to accommodate that complexity
of rules? As far as tickets are concerned the GST or the HST will
apply based on the point of departure, not on the point of purchase.
The same applies to trucking and shipping goods across the
country. Therefore who is going to set up a warehouse distribution
system in Atlantic Canada where every shipment out of a
warehouse will have a harmonized sales tax of 15 per cent when
they can locate that warehouse in a different province and pay a
lower GST and provincial sales tax?
These are job killing programs and the government comes out
with this vote buying program such as job plans which is in the
Globe and Mail today. That is an inequity on the taxation side. It is
an inequity on the government spending side. That is why we say
surely it makes a lot more sense to leave the money in the hands of
the employer and give him the challenge of creating another job.
We hear about discrimination at every turn. We hear about
discrimination about older people who find it so dreadfully
difficult to get back into the workforce. Right now it is more
appealing for this government to focus on the youth and it ignores
the older people who want to return to the workforce.
I can expect on February 18 we are going to see some kind of
program focused at them as well when surely it would have been so
much better had the government lived up to its first election
promise to axe, scrap and abolish the entire thing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac)): Resuming
debate, the hon. member for Calgary North.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
must say you are much better looking than I expected to see in the
chair.
I am really happy to speak on this bill. The bill we are debating is
Bill C-70. Bill C-70 is a very clumsy attempt by this Liberal
government to harmonize the goods and services tax with the
provincial sales taxes in three Atlantic provinces.
Another little wrinkle now which the Liberals have thrown into
this mess is to hide the new harmonized sales tax from consumers
by requiring the sticker price to include tax. In addition to some of
the objections that I mentioned to this bill when I spoke on it
before, we now have a situation where it is even worse than it was
when I last spoke. Perhaps if I point out some of the difficulties to
this government it will pay close attention and it will be happy to
change the parts of the bill that are inadequate and inappropriate.
This tax inclusive pricing should be changed, should be
abandoned, should be scrapped, a good Liberal word. for four
reasons. One is that tax inclusive pricing kills jobs, the jobs, jobs,
jobs that the Liberals promised us faithfully in the last election that
they were going to create. It kills jobs because it hits business right
between the eyes and takes away profits and resources that could
have been used to expand business and hire more people.
The second reason this tax inclusive pricing is bad is it makes us
pay more for what we buy. Goodness knows, with this
government's sucking $24 billion more out of our pockets every
year than it did when it took office, we can ill afford to have
increased costs.
(1315 )
The third reason tax inclusive pricing should be scrapped is that
it is clearly nothing more than a clumsy, shoddy attempt to hide the
fact that the Liberals have broken another key election promise,
which was to get rid of the GST.
The fourth reason to get rid of tax inclusive pricing is that it is a
big example of how we are losing democracy in this country, how
we are losing the ability of the people to have a say in things that
affect them. That is perhaps the most serious problem of all.
I want the Liberals to know that I am going to agree with the
Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin. The Liberal finance minister,
Paul Martin, said on November 28, 1989: ``The goods and services
tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax''. I agree with that
statement. I agree that it is a tax which has caused nothing but
headaches and grief to Canadians. I am sure all members of the
House have had constituents in their offices who were absolutely
beside themselves because the way the tax is administered, it is
nearly impossible for them to know what the expectations are, what
kind of rules and regulations they have to meet and what the true
impact on their businesses will be.
7772
The Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin, said-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. I know that the
Minister of Finance would appreciate the hon. member's
agreement, but she must know that under the rules of the House she
may not refer to him by name but only by his title. I would invite
her to restrain herself in that regard.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly respect
that direction from the Chair.
In April 1990 the Liberal finance minister, whose name is well
known to all Canadians, said this: ``I would abolish the GST. The
manufacturers sales tax is a bad tax and there is no excuse to repeal
one bad thing by bringing in another one''. I consider those words
to be words of wisdom. One has to question why a bad tax like the
GST is now being replaced by another even worse tax, the HST, in
three of our provinces.
Those two statements by the Liberal finance minister were made
while he was in opposition. Here is a statement which he made
while he was the finance minister on June 21, 1994. Again this is a
statement which I would agree with very strongly: ``It is almost
impossible to design a tax that is more costly and more inefficient
than the GST''.
The finance minister has certainly outdone himself. He has now
brought in the HST with TIP, which is more costly and more
inefficient, if that is possible, than the GST.
This is not just something for political rhetoric and political
points. These taxes affect things which are very important to
Canadians. In particular they affect jobs.
Bill C-70 as now constituted will increase costs to retail business
and result in a net loss of jobs, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
Perhaps I should repeat that for the benefit of members who
represent Canadians in the three Atlantic provinces. They are
supposed to be their voice but we have heard precious little from
the members of Parliament from the Atlantic region. They should
be sticking up and standing up for the interests of their constituents.
For their benefit, perhaps they need to be reminded that Bill C-70
in its present form will increase the cost of doing business in the
three Atlantic provinces. It will create confusion among consumers
when shopping. It will decrease retail sales and will cost many,
many Atlantic Canadians their jobs.
(1320)
I know that many others who have spoken on this bill have been
very clear about the concerns that have been raised by retailers who
do business in the Atlantic provinces. The bottom line is that these
business people, these job creators, these people who pay the wages
of real Canadians in those three Atlantic provinces estimate that
they will lose at least $100 million because of this foolish proposal
by the Liberal government to hide its tax in the sticker price in
those three Atlantic provinces only.
When these things happen, the bottom line is that Canadians
themselves have to pay the costs which costs Canadians more
money. In addition to the fact that our taxes have been increased by
this government by at least $24 billion every single year since it
took over our affairs, it is now increasing costs by attempting to
pretend it has kept a key election promise.
It is important to emphasize that democracy itself is at stake
when we talk about the way our taxes are structured. There are two
elements in the way the provisions of this bill have been brought
forward which I think Canadians, particularly Canadians in the
affected Atlantic provinces, should be concerned about.
One is that I did not see one single member from those provinces
who represent thousands of Canadians whose jobs, incomes and
spending discretion is going to be affected. I would also say that
with closure being brought in, the concerns that they have are being
stifled and cut off in this House.
I see I am also being cut off because my time is finished. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make these
remarks on this bill. I urge this House to reject it.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe I
heard the hon. member opposite say that this government has
imposed closure. That is untrue. Nothing of the sort has been done.
I would like the record to be corrected.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I think that is a matter for
debate. I do not think it is a point of order. The hon. member in her
remarks did not say that it had been applied on this bill. She was
careful to avoid suggesting any such thing. She said that the
government has used closure. Clearly members disagree but I think
the record is clear.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on Motion
No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
7773
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 6 to 14
inclusive, Motions Nos. 16 to 53 inclusive, Motions Nos. 55 to 59
inclusive, Motion No. 61, Motions Nos. 64 to 100 inclusive,
Motions Nos. 102 to 113 inclusive, Motions Nos. 115 and 117.
(1325)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 118
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 261.
Motion No. 119
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 262.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Finance) moved:
Motion No. 120
That Bill C-70, in Clause 262, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 359 with the following:
``province out of amounts received in a fiscal year under Part IX of the Excise Tax
Act''
(b) replacing line 30 on page 359 with the following:
``of amounts received in a fiscal year under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act to a
person''
(c) replacing line 41 on page 359 with the following:
``advance out of amounts received in a fiscal year under Part IX of the Excise Tax
Act''
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 121
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 263.
Motion No. 122
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 264.
Motion No. 123
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 265.
Motion No. 124
That Bill C-70 be amended by deleting Clause 266.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the third group
of motions regarding Bill C-70 and the so-called harmonization
agreement between the federal government and three Maritime
provinces, and I am referring to the harmonization of federal and
provincial sales tax.
When we talk about harmonization, the subject of this third
group of motions, we think about harmony, which means
everything is all right and unfolding as it should. It ``flies through
the air with the greatest of ease'', but that is certainly not the case
with this bill.
In January, when many of my Liberal colleagues were still on the
slopes, the finance committee was sitting, and for three days, only
three days, it invited representatives from the Maritimes to appear
before Liberal, Bloc and Reform members. The government
wanted to rush this bill through. It wanted to silence the opposition.
I must say that in three days we got a very interesting sample of
opposition, even from the Maritimes, to the proposed
harmonization of the GST.
One major witness, the Retail Council of Canada, whose
members are responsible for 65 per cent of the retail trade, told us
that this policy, this Bill C-70, should be scrapped.
They were not against harmonization, far from it. In Quebec, we
saw the advantages as far back as 1991, when we harmonized the
sales tax with the federal GST, and since Quebec administers the
GST on behalf of the federal government, we can hardly be against
harmonization. We are in favour. However, the bill before the
House today creates almost insurmountable problems for business.
One of those problems is including the tax in the price of the
product. The provisions of the bill allow merchants some latitude
on whether they want to include the tax or indicate it separately,
include it directly or only on certain products, and there are any
number of exceptions.
According to the Retail Council of Canada, we could have a
situation where we would have four different ways of labelling the
same product. How is the consumer supposed to find his way
through this maze?
Furthermore, people may be completely confused as to the
actual price of a product while the new system is being phased in
by the three Maritime provinces, where merchants will have four
months to comply with the new sales tax legislation.
(1330)
I think that anyone would be foolish to include the tax in his
prices, because these prices will not look very competitive. There
are quite a few problems here.
According to the Retail Council of Canada, phasing in the new
system will cost about $100 million. That is not exactly peanuts for
merchants in the three Maritime provinces. It will cost merchants
$100 million for additional adjustments and $90 million annually
to administer the new price structure, the new system that will be
applied in these three provinces.
During those three days, we heard some highly interesting
testimony from representatives of companies, not small ones, but
7774
very big Canadian companies which do business in all of the
provinces. Sears Canada, for example, made the following
comment on this bill: ``The use of prices which incorporate the tax
in a partially harmonized system will mean higher costs and more
complex systems for Canadian retailers''.
Sears has a catalogue shopping system, as you probably know. It
will produce 52 million catalogues in 1997. The production of
``harmonized'' catalogues, to fit in with the so-called harmonized
system in the Maritimes, will cost Sears a fortune.
We heard from other witnesses such as Canadian Tire, and I shall
take the liberty of quoting their opposition to the government's
plan and to the terrible complications imposed on them when it
comes to pricing and stock management. To quote Canadian Tire:
[English]
``We are opposed to the piecemeal approach to the application of
tax included pricing as part of the introduction of the new HST.
This would create very significant ongoing costs as well as extreme
confusion to our customers. There are no savings. In fact, there are
increased costs''.
[Translation]
This is a quote from Canadian Tire's brief. There are companies
like Canadian Tire and Sears Canada, and other major companies,
which do business everywhere in Canada and have to prepare
shipments of products to branch stores from a centralized product
source. They will have terrible problems in managing various
products that will then need to be shipped out to branches.
Canadian Tire, for example, will be forced to divide its huge
central warehouse into two parts: one for the products destined for
the three Maritime provinces where harmonization is planned and
one for those destined for the rest of Canada, as the price labels will
be different. Products will have to be stocked specifically for the
three Maritime provinces, where an agreement has been signed
which makes no sense.
Imagine, companies already find it complicated and expensive
enough to handle their stocks, and now they are going to have a
dual stock system imposed upon them, for goods to be shipped to
the Maritimes and goods shipped to other provinces, a dual pricing
and labelling system and, what is more, the three Maritime
provinces will have complete leeway in the way they do their price
labelling. Let me tell you, we are not out of the woods yet.
That is why these major companies have made representations to
the finance committee. Others could have as well, but could not
afford to come to Ottawa. There are other small businesses opposed
to this bill. They have asked that application of the bill be deferred,
because it is not manageable, is more costly to businesses, and is a
complex system such as has never been seen anywhere else in the
world. What is more, instead of making consumers' lives easier, it
makes the system more confusing. We are no longer in the good old
days at the beginning of this century.
(1335)
Why do the members of the government not recognize that to err
is human and that they may have made a mistake in this agreement
with the maritimes? When they realize they made a mistake-this
is what we teach young children when they start to understand
common sense-we are prepared to forgive them. But they have to
take the agreement, tear it up and stop muddling things up with
their total incompetence. It makes no sense.
Even in the maritimes, even with a gift of $1 billion, they oppose
it. They totally disagree with this way of handling the GST where
$1 billion of their tax money is spent to compensate the
governments of the three maritime provinces in order to make the
Minister of Finance look good and to get the government out of a
mess. When we get to the point where, even with a gift like this, the
people in the maritimes are saying that the bill is stupid, we have to
listen to them.
It is not only the nasty separatists, as the slugs opposite keep
saying daily, it is a matter of common sense and good economic
management, of giving business every opportunity to perform in an
increasingly competitive world and, above all, of making
consumers' lives easier. Although this bill is supposed to simplify
their lives, it shamelessly complicates them.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise once again and speak to Bill C-70. We continue to
have grave concerns about Bill C-70, and I, once again, will run
through some of those major concerns.
The reason it is important that the Reform Party take time to run
through some of the great concerns Canadians have about Bill C-70
is because the Liberal Party representatives from Atlantic Canada
have failed to rise to their feet to defend the people of Atlantic
Canada. As I pointed out before, this whole thing came about with
the understanding that the GST would be eliminated, that we would
not have a GST once the Liberals came to power.
Although the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister
denied it after they made the promises, unfortunately for them,
television cameras do not lie, videotape does not lie and they were
found out. They were revealed to have made promises to get rid of
the GST. They had to concoct a wild scheme to try to convince
Canadians that the GST was going to disappear. All they did, as
members well know, is come up with a billion dollars to bribe
Liberal Atlantic Canadian premiers to come on board.
7775
From that sorry beginning, we are once again in a situation
where the people of Atlantic Canada are being denied the chance
to hold Liberal members of Parliament accountable for a promise.
I want to touch on that in a little more detail.
During the finance committee hearings, witnesses came from
across the country but in particular from Atlantic Canada. Those
witnesses asked why the hearings could not be held in Atlantic
Canada. As this legislation has such a profound effect on Atlantic
Canada, why did the finance committee not take the time to go to
Atlantic Canada to hear from real live Atlantic Canadians?
A handful of people did come from Atlantic Canada, but not
everybody can give up a day to come to Ottawa to tell the
government their story. These people made the point rather well
that in a democracy, people should have the right to representation
before taxation, at least the right to consultation before the
government bulldozes ahead and implements a taxation system that
nobody asked for and nobody wanted. That is a basic right.
(1340 )
It was not very long ago that all kinds of GST rallies were held
across the country, where people were protesting the imposition of
the GST. Maybe Mr. Speaker was involved in them at one time. I
have no idea. People across the country were very upset and
protested what the Tories were doing. Indeed, the Liberals made
tremendous gains by saying that they would never, ever bring in a
tax of that kind that nobody wants. And the people said with one
voice: ``Don't you dare do that''.
Part of the reason that the Tories disappeared off the political
landscape was because they brought in a tax that nobody wanted,
that people did not ask for. The people felt they were not being
represented. Consequently, the Tories were reduced to a mere two
seats in the House of Commons.
As Yogi Berra would say: ``It is deja vu all over again''. The
Liberals are bringing in a tax they said they hated, that they would
scrap and kill. They have thrown $1 billion at the problem to try
and fix it. That did not work. Now we are in a situation where they
are denying the people of Atlantic Canada the right to have a say on
a tax that will fundamentally affect them.
During the hearings a number of provincial politicians appeared
before us. Members would acknowledge that it is really quite
unusual to have a number of provincial politicians appear before a
committee to protest something that is going to take place in their
regions. They had to come to Ottawa was because the Liberals
would not allow hearings in Atlantic Canada on a tax that is going
to affect those people. The fact that these prominent citizens took
the time and effort to come to Atlantic Canada speaks volumes. It
says something about the lack of representation that the people of
Atlantic Canada are getting from their Liberal MPs. They would
not be forced to send provincial representatives to Ottawa if the
MPs in Ottawa would stand up for them. But they are completely
silent.
In Atlantic Canada where unemployment is a curse that has
plagued that region for a generation, we heard witness after witness
say that the new harmonization legislation was going force
businesses to close.
One gentleman came before us and said that he had already
closed eight or nine stores in New Brunswick at a cost of
approximately 72 jobs. A witness representing Carleton Cards said
19 stores would be closed. He did not put any caveat on it. If this
legislation came in, 19 stores would be closed, again affecting a
number of jobs.
We heard from a gentleman from Woolworths Canada that has
125 stores in Atlantic Canada who told us Woolworths could
possibly close as many as 30 stores in Atlantic Canada if the
legislation came in.
Unbelievably, these people had to come to Ottawa. They could
not talk to their local representatives. They could not talk to the
Liberal MPs because the MPs could not talk to the finance minister.
They could not get their message across. In other words, they were
not doing their jobs. To date I have yet to hear one Liberal MP from
Atlantic Canada stand and list the concerns of Atlantic Canadians
with respect to the harmonization legislation.
If anyone had sat in on the meetings of the finance committee
two weeks ago they would know that there are tremendous
concerns with this legislation. People are concerned it will kill
jobs, close down businesses, create higher prices, less selection for
the people of Atlantic Canada. This legislation will have a
profound impact on people with low or fixed incomes.
A great debate is raging in the country about child poverty and
the government is proposing to put through legislation that will
drive up costs on items like gasoline, home heating fuel and
utilities. The poorest people in Atlantic Canada simply cannot
afford to bear the disproportionate burden that the HST will mean
to them when the legislation is implemented.
(1345 )
The point again is that there has been a profound lack of
representation from Liberal MPs for people in Atlantic Canada. It
has been a dereliction of duty. There have been a number of
editorials written in Atlantic Canadian newspapers about the fact
that there were not hearings there and that Atlantic Canadian MPs
have not been standing up for their constituents.
I just hope that over the course of this debate Liberal MPs across
the way have gotten the point, that when they come to Ottawa they
are not given their $63,000 so they can sit across the way and shout
names, but that they have a job to do. They have a job to do in terms
of representing their constituents, to go out and hear what they have
to say in the first place and to encourage the finance committee
and other committees to visit there when there are bills which
7776
concern that area, and finally to deliver the message to their own
government.
We do not come to this place just to collect our salaries, or in the
case of the Liberals their MP pensions. We come to the House of
Commons to represent our constituents, something the Liberal MPs
have completely failed to do with respect to the harmonization
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate,
which has not surprisingly attracted a great deal of interest. I would
first like to address a very important aspect of wanting to bring in
the sort of reform being proposed in Bill C-70, the bill dealing with
the GST. I want to talk about the confidence the public must have in
our institutions if the decisions the government takes are to become
reality.
As I have said, this element of trust is a basic principle in many
of our institutions, particularly in the area of taxation. We know
that it is a basic principle of tax law that a citizen must file his tax
return, and it is presumed that this return is accurate until proven
otherwise.
The same is true in the justice system. A person is considered
innocent until proven guilty. This principle also applies here in the
House, where our rules of procedure prevent us from calling a
colleague a liar, and require us to presume, particularly during oral
question period, that when a minister gives a reply, he is telling the
truth.
Clearly, this element of trust is a fundamental part of our
institutions. Unfortunately, when it comes to this extremely
important bill, the element of trust is missing. It is missing, and this
will have enormous consequences, because members of the public,
who are watching us and who must suffer the terrible effects of this
bill, will quite rightly rebel, because they do not have confidence in
our institutions or in the elected officials who must make decisions.
They have many reasons for expressing this lack of trust. I will
give a few well known examples still in the public eye right now.
There is the Airbus affair, which has shown us the Minister of
Justice tangled up in something that looks more like a settling of
political accounts than a real case that supposedly needed
clarification.
(1350)
The reputation of former Prime Minister Mulroney was attacked.
The current Prime Minister and Minister of Justice got so deep into
trouble that, on the advice of their own solicitors, they eventually
made amends and apologized. After dickering for months and
wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars in legal fees, they ended up
apologizing, saying that a mistake had been made in the Airbus
affair and that former Prime Minister Mulroney not only had done
nothing wrong but that his conduct should never have been called
into question.
The same thing is happening in the tainted blood scandal, with
the Krever commission. Documents were destroyed. Obviously,
the commission can no longer have access to these documents and
use them to make recommendations in its upcoming report.
The same thing is also happening with the Somalia inquiry. The
defence minister has just put an end to the mandate of the
Létourneau commission, in a highhanded way, in my opinion. He
has just decided that the hearings would have to be completed by
the end of March and that the commission would have to submit its
report by the end of June. However, several witnesses have yet to
be heard, and the public is convinced that more remains unknown
than known.
These examples show the impact of trust in our institutions, or
the lack of it. This is why Canadians no longer believe in their
representatives and, more often than not, are cynical about the
electoral and political processes. This threatens the future of our
institutions.
Bill C-70 is a case in point. During the last election campaign,
the Prime Minister himself, the Deputy Prime Minister and all the
Liberal candidates kept repeating that they would scrap the GST.
Not only was the GST not scrapped, but it was maintained and,
through Bill C-70, it will be made even worse. The bill establishes
two tax systems: one for the maritime provinces and one for the
rest of Canada. This is unbelievable.
This will destroy the confidence that is so necessary for our
institutions. Mr. Speaker, you are impartial, but I am convinced
that your Liberal colleagues think this is all a figment of my
imagination. They think I am making these comments just because
I belong to the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, and must
therefore criticize the government. They say we are trying to
destroy the Liberal government's good image every chance we get.
Be that as it may, yesterday, a Gallup poll showed that 29 per
cent of Quebecers believe the Prime Minister of Canada and
member for Saint-Maurice is doing a good job. Merely 29 per cent
of the people in Quebec believe he is doing a good job. This means
that 71 per cent believe he is not doing a good job. Therefore, the
people do not have confidence in the Prime Minister and his
government. In Quebec, in the upcoming election, once again, the
people will express this lack of confidence in the Liberal
government by re-electing members of the Bloc Quebecois.
(1355)
Hopefully the Bloc Quebecois' performance will reflect the
people's lack of confidence in the government expressed in this
poll. I have no doubt that the people of Quebec are fully aware of
the bad, unfortunate decisions made by this government, which
will adversely affect our fellow citizens in their daily lives. Just
7777
think of the unemployed, whose benefits have been cut every year
since the Liberals came to office, just to reduce the deficit.
I will close by saying that, these past few years, not only did the
Bloc Quebecois denounce bad decisions-and we will keep doing
so for the rest of this government's mandate-but we also proposed
major changes which, if implemented, would improve our tax
system.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work done
by our colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot,
with the help of the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies
and the hon. member for La Prairie, so they could table a second
report this week. This is unprecedented in Canadian history. I see
that Liberal members agree. This is a precedent; the official
opposition tabled a realistic, practical tax reform proposal.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am going to recognize the member
for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. You, sir, will have the floor
when we return after question period. Rather than interrupt your no
doubt formidable speech, with your permission I will go to
statements by members.
_____________________________________________
7777
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to offer
my condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Charles Munro of
Embro who passed away on January 17.
Charlie Munro was one of Oxford county's outstanding dairy
farmers. He represented and fought for the farmers of Oxford and
Canada as a member of local, national and international farm
groups.
Charlie served as president of both the Ontario and Canadian
Federations of Agriculture. From 1972 to 1974 he served as
president of the International Federation of Agriculture in Paris,
France. Charlie was also a recipient of the Canada Centennial
Medal and was inducted into the Ontario Agricultural Hall of Fame
in 1994.
No matter where Charlie's service took him, he always had the
people of Oxford in his thoughts and in his heart. Oxford and
Canada have lost one of their best.
Au revoir mon ami. We will remember you.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the excellence of two young
athletes from the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau.
Émilie Cousineau and Philip Devey, both from Lachute, have
distinguished themselves in sports. The hope of the Quebec
women's downhill ski team, Émilie finished first in the slalom at
the Québec-Kandahar competition recently held at
Mont-Tremblant.
In baseball, Philip Devey was named Quebec's pitcher of the
year at the 1996 Meritas gala. He has landed the spot of fifth starter
in the lineup on Southwestern Louisiana University's baseball team
next season.
All young athletes in Quebec and in Canada deserve our praise.
We must encourage and support them so that they can attain their
goals and realize their dreams. It is with this in mind that I wish the
best of success to the two young athletes from
Argenteuil-Papineau, Émilie Cousineau and Philip Devey.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, hurt number one on Liberal health care. Let us look at one
British Columbia hospital's experience with the Liberals' version
of publicly funded health care.
It is February 4 and as usual there are no beds available in the
hospital. Eight out of 13 emergency room bays are occupied by
s