CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 11, 1997
Bill C-70. Motion for third reading 7928
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 7961
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7961
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7963
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 7964
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7964
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7964
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7964
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7965
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7966
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7966
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7966
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7967
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7968
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7968
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7969
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7970
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7970
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of third reading 7972
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7977
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7982
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7989
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 131; Nays, 73 7991
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 7992
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 7992
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 31;Nays 173 7992
Motion negatived on division: Nays, 131; Yeas, 73 7993
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7997
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 8000
7927
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 11, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: Before we get into the daily routine of business, I
will hear a point of order from the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminister.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, it is not a point of order. It is a
request for an emergency debate. Is it appropriate at this time in
routine business?
The Speaker: I will hear him at the end of the daily routine of
business.
* * *
[
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]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions.
The first petition is signed by 84 people from my riding. The
petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal government to
join with the provincial governments to make a national highway
system upgrading possible beginning in 1997.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is signed by 332 people from the province of New
Brunswick.
The petitioners feel that education and literacy are critical to the
development of our country and call on the House to urge all levels
of government to eliminate the sales tax, including the GST, on all
reading materials.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition to present signed by 233 people from my area and
from British Columbia generally.
The petitioners are concerned about the GST, particularly on
reading materials. They ask that this regressive tax on newspapers,
reading materials and magazines be removed when any
harmonization takes place. They request that the GST be removed
from any reading material.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 52, I wish to ask
for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a
specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. It is
imperative that the House debate the important matter of delays in
grain shipments to Canada's west coast ports.
Current estimates are that it is costing the Canadian economy at
least $65 million. The matter requires immediate attention.
Perhaps, more important, the minister of agriculture is scheduled to
meet with the parties involved. Therefore, it is incumbent on
Parliament to meet to debate the issue before he meets with the
parties involved with regard to the delay in shipments to the west
coast.
(1010 )
It is on that basis and according to the standing orders that I
move:
7928
That this House now adjourn to give urgent consideration to the important matter of
delays in grain shipments from Canada's west coast ports.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
was good enough to send me notice of his application for an
emergency debate earlier today.
I have had an opportunity to look over the reasons for an
emergency debate and the adjournment of the House and, in my
view, this does not meet the exigencies of what we have set up as
criteria for an emergency debate at this time. However, I thank the
hon. member for raising the matter in the House.
_____________________________________________
7928
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that 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, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open third reading
debate on Bill C-70. This is landmark legislation. It will implement
the harmonized sales tax in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador.
As of April 1, 1997 the harmonized tax will replace the GST and
provincial retail sales taxes in those provinces. This legislation also
proposes over 100 technical amendments to the Excise Tax Act.
These technical improvements will serve the dual purpose of
paving the way for harmonization while making the GST run more
smoothly in those provinces that have not yet agreed to
harmonization.
Why do I say that Bill C-70 is landmark legislation? That is
because harmonization marks a bold and creative development in
the field of federal-provincial relations. The bill is a tangible sign
of the progress that can be made when different jurisdictions work
together and resolve to end overlap and duplication. The
significance of four governments agreeing to move forward on
harmonization of retail sales taxes cannot be overstated.
Once this bill is in place, businesses in the participating
provinces will no longer have to follow two sets of sales tax rules
and regulations. They will no longer have to deal with two different
bureaucracies nor file two sales tax returns for every appropriate
and different period under both regimes, the federal and provincial.
Under the harmonized system there will only be one set of rules
and one tax administration, and registrants will only have to file
one sales tax return.
Harmonization will make life simpler for companies of all sizes.
They will spend less time doing the books and filling out forms and
more time doing business.
As my hon. friends will recall, the structure of the harmonized
sales tax will parallel that of the goods and services tax. The tax
will apply at the harmonized rate of 15 per cent to the same goods
and services that are already taxed under the federal GST. The new
combined tax rate will be almost five percentage points less than is
currently the case of the combined rates in Newfoundland and
Labrador and 4 per cent less than it currently is in New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia. This will be a major cost saving for consumers in
those provinces.
(1015 )
The rules for registering, filing returns and claiming input tax
credits will be the same as those to which registrants across Canada
have already grown accustomed.
As we moved to this system we were very conscious of the need
not to saddle businesses with a whole new system, a whole new set
of forms, a whole new set of rules to deal with a new tax
administration, but rather, to the extent possible in moving to
harmonization, to use forms and procedures, rules and regulations
that businesses are already accustomed to and comfortable with.
One thing was clear as we travelled the country with the finance
committee. When people in the country, consumers and retailers,
said end this ridiculous anomaly of duplication, of double sales
taxes, of ten sales taxes across this country and harmonize, they
said ``please, when you do that do not saddle us with an entirely
new system. We have adjusted to the ways of dealing with the
existing GST. When you harmonize, to the extent possible, let us
use the same forms, the same rules and regulations'', and we have
responded.
In the participating provinces businesses will finally be able to
recover all sales taxes they pay on inventory and other expenses.
By contrast, in non-harmonized systems businesses have no way of
recovering provincial retail sales taxes they pay. Any of us with
experience in the complicated area of retail sales tax know that it is
indeed costly to pay tax on those inputs and it is indeed complex to
know whether or not particular inputs are subject to exemption
certificates or whether tax is payable.
In the harmonized system this added cost will not be there. In the
non-harmonized provinces, tax on those business inputs will
continue to be passed on to consumers, both domestic and foreign.
Unrecoverable provincial sales taxes are buried at all stages as
products move through the chain from manufacturer to wholesaler
7929
to retailer. Those hidden taxes on inputs undermine the
competitive vitality of Canadian firms. Clearly this works at cross
purposes with our efforts to promote trade in this country, reduce
deficit and foster a more competitive environment.
The integration of overlapping sales taxes with a single, value
added tax structure will bring our tax system into line with other
policies that promote competitiveness.
A key element of the harmonization agreement is tax included
pricing. The pricing requirements will allow a shopper to be certain
of the full cost of what he or she is buying before the cashier rings
up the sale. To keep the tax visible to consumers, the amount or rate
of sales tax payable will be disclosed on receipts. The suggestion
that tax in pricing is just a convenient way for government to sneak
in tax increases is simply and absolutely untrue. The tax will be
clearly displayed on sales receipts and invoices for everyone to see.
Indeed, while members of the House have spoken about this
issue and their concerns about hidden taxes, not one of them has
complained about the current situation which prevails at the gas
pump, where the tax is indicated on the receipt. As I have pointed
out to the House on earlier occasions, in much of the rest of the
world we do not see legislators or individuals standing up and
railing against governments for hiding a tax which is clearly visible
on receipts. We could choose any country in Europe and we will see
taxes clearly indicated on sales receipts. Whether it is the VAT at a
certain rate or the VAT at a certain amount, it is there for the world
to see.
The fact that the taxes will be indicated on receipts in the
harmonizing provinces clearly puts the lie to the suggestion that
taxes are being buried or hidden.
Tax inclusive pricing will address a longstanding consumer
irritant. It is something which the finance committee heard a great
deal about as it travelled the country studying this matter.
Consumers are always on the hook for a sum of money that is
different from and greater than the price that is posted or marked. It
does not matter if the person is buying a restaurant meal or a
refrigerator. The point is that almost every time a cash register
rings in this country we can be sure that a consumer is caught short,
surprised, inconvenienced or embarrassed.
(1020 )
I stress that Canadians overwhelmingly related stories to us, as
did retailers, of awkward moments at the cash register when they
were confused as to the price of items because tax had to be added.
In testimony before the finance committee of this House, a retailer
said this to us when commenting on the prices of goods in his shop:
``I cannot sell shoes in my store for $11.49, but I can sell them for
$9.99''. But the reality is that a consumer cannot buy those shoes
for $9.99; they really cost $11.49.
While we may have some sympathy for the marketing needs of
retailers and, as I will explain later we have gone a great distance in
responding to their concerns about tax inclusive pricing with
flexible guidelines, we have had very much in mind the need for
consumers to know what things really cost, what they will really
have to pay. The marketplace place will function better because
consumers have that information.
Public opinion research has shown conclusively that tax
inclusive pricing is favoured by the overwhelming majority of
consumers. An Ekos Research Associates survey conducted this
past month found that consumers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland and Labrador strongly support tax in pricing. When
respondents were given a choice between tax included and tax
excluded pricing, 80 per cent of consumers preferred tax included
pricing, a finding that is consistent across all three provinces.
When asked about their intensity of support or opposition to tax
in pricing, 42 per cent of consumers said they supported it and 37
per cent said they strongly supported it. Over 65 per cent of
respondents said that it is extremely important to know the full
price before reaching the cash.
The reasons stated by consumers for preferring tax inclusive
pricing are compelling. Eighty per cent agreed that taxes should be
included in the price so that the total price of a good is known
before getting to the cash. Seventy-six per cent of respondents said
that including sales taxes in the price displayed on the product is a
more honest way of showing prices to consumers. Sixty per cent of
respondents did not think that adding sales taxes to the display
price would make things more complicated for consumers, an
assertion we have heard from certain people.
While 69 per cent of respondents said that they pretty much
know the total price of an item before reaching the cash, 64 per cent
of respondents said that they are often unpleasantly surprised at
differences between sticker price and total price at the cash.
Remember my example of the $9.99 item that the retailer says he
can move at that price but also the $11.49 actual price under the
new system.
Participating governments in consultation with affected
businesses have developed guidelines for tax included pricing. We
have made and participate along with the other participating
governments a concerted effort to ensure that the pricing
requirements that accommodate the wishes and needs of consumers
do not do so