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
seriously injured people. The hospital's response: cut 10 more beds
because there is no funding.
There are 12 male and female patients in one room separated just
by sheets with one bathroom. There is no funding for staff. A
quadriplegic has to be turned, cannot be, develops bed sores,
becomes septic and dies.
(1400 )
A sixty-year old patient has a heart attack and needs urgent
transfer to Vancouver. There are no beds because there is no money
and the patient dies.
A young woman needs urgent dialysis. There is no funding for
any staff, the patient has a cardiac arrest and almost dies.
This is the Liberal government's version of publicly funded,
accessible health care. Shame on this government for deceiving the
Canadian public and playing political football with the health care
of Canadians.
7778
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Centres of Excellence program allows university, government and
private researchers to join forces on cutting edge technology
projects.
Networks of Centres of Excellence have won an international
reputation for doing high quality research which is relevant to
private and public sector activities in Canada and around the world.
The networks have been praised in Europe and the United States as
areas in which Canada has excelled by getting university
researchers to collaborate with each other and with industry.
The Centres of Excellence have contributed to the economic
growth of the country by the rapid transfer of technology, the
establishment of many new companies and the training of a highly
skilled workforce.
By working together to provide the transfer of knowledge, the
universities, governments and the private sector have made a
greater impact than individual researchers would have done alone.
The continuation of the Networks of Centres of Excellence
program is essential for Canada to compete on the global scene.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's major banks recently announced a
great new way to encourage job creation.
CIBC has agreed to lend money to small businesses at reduced
interest rates if they promise to create jobs. A business that borrows
the maximum of $100,000 will save $3,000 in the first year.
The bank will advance loans at one percentage point below
prime to small firms that promise to use the money to expand and
create at least one full time job or three part time jobs in the first
year of the loan.
Since the major concern of all Canadians is job creation, I want
the federal government to do everything it can to ensure all banks
make their loans more accessible and affordable to the small
business sector.
* * *
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to advise the House that today Toyota Motor Manufacturing
Canada announced plans to produce a new two door coupe at its
facility located in my riding of Cambridge.
Production of a new Toyota coupe is expected to create 1,000
new jobs and represents an additional investment of $400 million
in operations at the Cambridge plant.
Toyota's decision to produce 50,000 new cars a year reveals the
high level of confidence in the workers of Cambridge and the
community as a whole.
I would also like to mention that the federal government is
playing a role in this good news announcement from Toyota with
its contribution of $1 million for job training.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
government intervened to enable Canadian Airline employees to
vote on issues affecting their future but now denies Pacific
fishermen the same right on licence stacking.
In January, when the minister lifted the moratorium on licence
stacking, he stacked the deck to favour large fishery operations
with deep pockets. They can afford to buy the additional licences,
assuring themselves the lion's share of the catch.
At the same time, the minister denied small fishermen and
communities their right to stay in business and keep their jobs.
By delaying the vote on stacking until November, the minister
assures himself an affirmative response because only those who
buy into this expensive plan will be eligible to vote.
Reducing the size of the fleet does not address the survival of the
salmon because the smaller fleet still has more catch capacity than
the resource can withstand.
There are avenues readily available and easily instituted to limit
the efficiency of the fleet, spread the wealth and protect the
resource but the minister ignores this option.
So much for the Liberal promise of jobs, jobs, jobs.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
workers at Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg have called on all three
levels of government to form a working group to monitor the sale
of Bristol Aerospace and to make sure that the sale is conducted in
the best interest of the city of Winnipeg and of the workers at
Bristol Aerospace.
They have approached all three levels of government and have
some measure of agreement from all three levels of government to
at least participate in a preliminary process. But they are at a point
now where they have not heard back from the people on the federal
7779
side as to when a meeting might be held, and they are very anxious
that this meeting be held.
(1405)
Therefore I am on my feet today to urge the Liberals, whoever is
responsible for making sure this happens, to convene a meeting of
that working group as soon as possible so we can make sure this
sale transpires in the interests of the city of Winnipeg and of the
workers. I want to make sure we do not have another instance of
people losing their jobs in Winnipeg as we have had over the last
few weeks where plant after plant seems to be shutting down as a
result of the combined policies of the Liberal federal government
and the Conservative provincial government.
Here is an opportunity to do something and I hope the Liberals
will soon act to make this working group a reality.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Naïm Kattan, a Quebec essayist and novelist, recently
won the Prix de la culture séfarade. Born in Baghdad in 1928, he
emigrated to Quebec in 1954, after studying literature at the
Sorbonne. Since then, he has played a role in the cultural life of
Quebec as a critic for
Le Devoir and
La Presse, and for the
periodicals
Liberté and
Voix et Images.
In 1971, he won the Prix France-Canada with his first essay, Le
réel et le théâtral. He has published three novels, Adieu Babylone,
Les fruits arrachés and La fiancée promise.
He was a researcher for the Royal Commission on Bilingualism
and Biculturalism and has a number of publications to his credit:
Juifs et Canadiens, Écrivain des Amériques, and Les Juifs et la
communauté française.
Quebec's culture has been enriched by Naïm Kattan's very
special voice, a wonderful blend of the Jewish, Arab and Christian
civilizations. It is with pride that the Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to
him today.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure today to recognize the accomplishments of four
of my young constituents in London West. Last Wednesday the
rhythm and blues group The MacAuley Boys were nominated for a
1997 Juno Award.
Through hard work and their great amount of talent the four
brothers, Gary, George, Mark and Randy, have released two albums
since 1995 and they have been featured recently on the Much
Music dance show ``Electric Circus''. Their latest album, ``In
Another Lifetime'', is receiving national play and distribution and
airplay in the United States. The group has been invited to perform
at the half-time show in the final home game of the Toronto
Raptors.
A special nod should go to The MacAuley Boys' parents, Rita
and Winston, who have supported and encouraged their sons' very
special talent. Whatever the results of the Juno awards, London and
all Canadians will be very proud of The MacAuley boys. We wish
them well with their future. Bravo.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
approach budget day, I take this opportunity to express my support
for strengthening the role of the CBC. Many of Prince Edward
Island's citizens have expressed their concerns to me about the
future of public broadcasting, both radio and television.
I recognize that the CBC has to share in meeting deficit targets. I
believe it has done that and that no further cuts are necessary. In
P.E.I. CBC is our mainstay for local news, including coverage of
high profile events such as political conventions.
Ratings show that Islanders per capita watch local CBC news at a
higher percentage than any other station in Canada. Morning radio
programs focus the debate and provide critical analysis relevant to
Islanders. On the cultural side, CBC has given aspiring local artists
their start in the achievement of artistic careers.
The future of the CBC must be ensured.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Human Resources Development announced a major
grant to a company in Sorel. The firm, Hebco International, a
specialist in the environmental sector, has just received close to
$1.3 million to help it set up a research centre and an assembly
plant.
Thus, one hundred and twenty-nine direct jobs, plus numerous
indirect ones, will be created in the Sorel region because of this
Government of Canada funding, which comes from the transitional
job fund created by our government.
7780
(1410)
Ninety-four million dollars from this fund have already gone to
help fund Quebec projects.
The Canadian government is pleased to be associated with this
project, which contributes to the creation of lasting employment in
the greater Montreal region, a region which merits the attention of
all governments.
* * *
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the Prime Minister's return from Asia, the Liberals cannot stop
congratulating themselves on the success of this mission and
attempting to link it with Canadian unity.
Yet the success of this economic mission cannot be attributed
solely to federal action. The Quebec mission, headed by Premier
Bouchard, made it possible to bolster the Quebec presence in South
Korea, the Philippines and Thailand.
If our governments were successful in showcasing our know how
in Asia, this was because of the genius of the entrepreneurs of
Quebec and of Canada, and the quality of their goods and services.
When the Canadian and Quebec governments pool their efforts in
the economic area, success is assured. That is what partnership is
all about.
For Mike Harris, the sovereignist project of the Quebec
government does not mean the end of foreign investment. He
stated, and I quote: ``As far as Ontario is concerned, this is not an
obstacle''. Partnership is definitely an idea that is taking hold.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 1 British Columbia Senator Len Marchand will step down,
leaving a vacant seat in the Senate.
To fill that seat, British Columbians want to choose a senator
who will represent provincial concerns and will serve British
Columbians as opposed to just another Liberal hack appointed by
the Prime Minister whose only loyalty is to the Liberal Party.
B.C. already has a law on the books which allows for British
Columbians to elect their next senator. Before the last election, the
current Prime Minister promised that the Liberal Party would
establish an elected Senate within two years of its forming
government.
Yet in the last three years, the Prime Minister has appointed
more political hacks to the Upper House than Mulroney did in nine
years in Parliament. So much for Liberal integrity.
Now is the time for the Prime Minister to put the democratic
rights of the people ahead of the political interests of their party
and allow British Columbians to elect their next senator.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
international development week. It brings together a wide range of
partners, co-operatives and corporations, non-governmental
organizations, universities and colleges and Canadian international
development agencies.
Participants come from all walks of life and ethnic backgrounds.
I want to acknowledge three constituents from the Nepean riding
who have recently volunteered overseas with CESO: Roy Walker in
Russia; Jivan Shah in Lima, Peru; and Tadeusz Cienski in Lubin,
Poland.
By sharing their expertise with disadvantaged economies, they
epitomize the values and ideals we celebrate during international
development week.
This week is a week when Canadians come together and renew
commitment to a common future, one that is shared with the rest of
the world.
The need for international co-operation has never been greater.
Messrs. Walker, Shah and Cienski have proven that all races and
cultures, joined by common cause, can work together in peace.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to bring to the attention of the House the unfair and
discriminatory manner in which the GST is applied to physicians
and private ambulance services in this country.
Unlike small business people and self-employed Canadians,
doctors and ambulance service providers are not allowed to claim
GST input credits for necessary medical supplies they purchase to
provide urgent and quality health care.
This discriminatory and unjust practice came into being with the
GST itself and both the previous Tory and the present Liberal
governments have refused to address this legitimate concern.
In fact, Liberal members of the finance committee defeated a
Reform amendment proposed to correct this wrong during
examination of the GST harmonization bill.
7781
In defeating this motion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance suggested to his colleagues who were
sympathetic to the longstanding grievance that their concerns
should be addressed in the provincial fee schedule for their
services. This is a shameful abdication of federal responsibility.
_____________________________________________
7781
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is pre-budget time, of course, and I imagine the
Minister of Finance is working very hard on his budget. When he
read the documents the Bloc contributed to the process, he must
have realized that the Canadian tax system needed reform.
Unfortunately, the minister has never been very forthcoming about
tax reform. He does not seem interested.
Today, as budget day draws nearer, I want to ask him and I have
not yet given up on convincing him, if he agrees that the Canadian
personal and corporate tax system needs a thorough review, and
whether he intends to proceed accordingly in his next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the whole tax system must be modernized, because the economy
evolves, because the ability of taxpayers to consider their financial
situation evolves, because of the way corporations are able to find
tax havens, or simply because of the globalization of our economy.
That is why, since we came to power, we proceeded with
thorough reforms as each budget was brought down, and we
certainly intend to keep modernizing our tax system.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, all socio-economic partners agree it is important for the
government not only to modernize the tax system but also to bring
about thorough changes that will make it fairer, more equitable,
more productive and will help stimulate the economy.
In November we tabled proposals suggesting that the minister
eliminate tax spending on companies that are not productive. In the
process, the government would recover $3 billion and use the
money to stimulate job creation by introducing appropriate fiscal
measures that are attractive and provide an incentive for business.
Does the minister intend to include this suggestion in his next
budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Absolutely, Mr.
Speaker. I have already said that I read the Bloc Quebecois report
on corporations with great interest.
I think the federal government's situation was accurately
described by Quebec's Minister of Finance, Bernard Landry. In
referring to his own situation, he was actually answering the Bloc's
question, and I quote what he said: ``Regarding the tax burdens on
corporations'', because that is what the Leader of the Opposition
referred to, ``these tend to diminish the yield on their investments.
Companies lose the incentive to invest, which means fewer jobs.
Furthermore, as the tax burden in Quebec increases, foreign
companies are less likely to invest here and create jobs. It is clear
that higher tax levels kill jobs''.
That is what Bernard Landry had to say, and I think the Quebec
Minister of Finance is right.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is rather frustrating. The Minister of Finance did not
understand the question at all.
We are not asking the Minister of Finance to increase the tax
burden on corporations. This is about eliminating unproductive
fiscal spending deductions that do not stimulate job creation and
instead make these deductions contingent on the number of jobs
created.
The Bloc Quebecois never asked the government to increase the
taxes of these corporations. We simply asked the government to
redirect its tax spending. The minister does not understand tax
reform. That is the problem. And he is the Minister of Finance. I do
not have much of a problem with the federal tax system, because
pretty soon we will no longer be affected by it.
(1420)
I wish the Minister of Finance would realize that by refusing to
make thorough changes in the federal tax system, he is also
preventing such changes from taking place in the provinces,
because the two are closely related. He takes the lead, so he should
know.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, we are always prepared to co-operate with the
provinces. In fact, we have taken the lead in many areas, and
Quebec has followed suit.
The Leader of the Opposition is asking us what we have done. I
will tell you what we have done. We put in place new rules for
declaring foreign assets if the value of these assets exceeds a
certain amount. We added a temporary surtax on banks. We
scrapped a tax return for businesses that are not incorporated. I
could go on. As I said, we have done a great deal and we intend to
continue.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance was to table his three pages. We
are still
7782
waiting for him to table them in the House. For his three pages, we
could give him three hundred pages of analyses of corporate and
individual taxes.
The government often says that job creation is its primary goal.
The Minister of Finance has said that ``every effort of government,
including the tax system, must be directed toward that end''.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. If the Minister of
Finance thinks that taxes can play a determining role in creating
jobs, would it not make sense to immediately implement the Bloc
Quebecois' suggestion of creating an employment RRSP program?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, the member asked me if I am prepared to table the document.
The three pages I have are a summary. If all the measures were to
be included, the document would be longer.
Do you want me to table the document? No? When you are
ready, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do so.
As regards the employment RRSP program suggested by the
member, this is not the first time such a suggestion has been made.
I am prepared to examine the program. However, as the member
must know, there is another angle, that is, RRSPs exist to protect
the retirement system, that is, seniors' pensions. We have to ask
ourselves the following question: Should we change the function of
RRSPs, that is, put the retirement system at risk? We should debate
this.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have the Minister of Finance's answer to this question,
because it was a question.
At the moment, we have the home buyers' plan. It enables
people to draw on their RRSP in order to purchase their first home.
Four years later, they have to start repaying what they borrowed at
the rate of one thirteenth of the total amount a year over the next
thirteen years.
In other words, taxpayers borrow from themselves. We are
proposing exactly the same thing. Under an employment RRSP
program, an unemployed taxpayer could create his own job with a
start-up fund where he could take-
The Speaker: This is novel: I have the question here and the
answer there. Please continue with your question.
Mr. Loubier: Since this would have no effect on the
preparations for the taxpayer's retirement, is he prepared to
implement an employment RRSP program, which could give a
boost to over two thirds of the jobs created annually, which qualify
as self-employment.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
two or three years ago, at the very start of our mandate, we looked
at exactly seven options.
The vast majority of experts in the field, including most
representatives of small and medium sized businesses in Canada,
told us that it was more important to protect rather than risk the
retirement system of these people. That would be the end result of
the member's suggestion, in that it would put their retirement at
risk by asking them to invest in businesses which could very well
go bankrupt.
* * *
(1425)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Dr. Jo Hauser of the health department shredded some
documents in 1989. They included documents going back to 1982
when the Liberals were in power. Those documents could have
explained why the blood system became tainted.
In 1993 Bob Fowler and John Anderson shredded memos that
might have pointed to a high level cover-up at the defence
department. In 1994 more key documents that could have shed
light on the Somalia scandal were shredded, altered or hidden.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It is a very simple
one. Is the shredding, hiding, altering or destruction of public
documents such as these right or wrong?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government certainly
does not support the shredding of any such documents.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Therefore I
assume the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that such activity is
wrong, Mr. Speaker. If that is the case, then surely the Deputy
Prime Minister also agrees that people who are guilty of such
wrongdoing should be held accountable. The information
commissioner thinks so, but he says that he has not been given the
power to hold public servants accountable for improperly
destroying public documents or records.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the government
willing to give the information commissioner the power to hold
people who destroy evidence required by public inquiries, people
like Jo Hauser, Bob Fowler and John Anderson, accountable for
their actions?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any illegal shredding of
documents should most properly be handled by the organization
responsible for those kinds of criminal activities, the RCMP.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's handling of evidence shredders and the
7783
Deputy Prime Minister's answer is another indication of the
government's double standard when it comes to ethics.
The RCMP have been called in to investigate Jo Hauser's
destruction of the Canadian blood committee files, but it is unlikely
that the RCMP will be able to get anywhere near the Prime
Minister's friend Bob Fowler. What is more, the RCMP said
yesterday that destroying such documents may not even be a
clearly established offence under the Canadian Criminal Code.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. What concrete
action will the government take to ensure that people who destroy
evidence required by public inquiries are held accountable for their
actions?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I most strongly object to
the claim of the hon. member that somehow the RCMP would be
precluded from doing its work because of the ``friendship''
between the Prime Minister and anyone. It is a very serious
allegation to make against the RCMP.
I would hope that the member, along with all members of the
House, will respect the fact that the RCMP is impartial and
completely capable of carrying out its responsibilities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
We know that the Liberal caucus is divided regarding certain
aspects of the tobacco legislation.
Given that the Minister of Health does not share the view of his
colleague, the minister responsible for regional development in
Quebec, does he still intend to maintain in his bill the tough
restrictions on sponsoring by tobacco companies?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately the hon. member was not available to attend our
national caucus meeting yesterday. The endorsement that I and the
government have received for its tobacco package was
overwhelming from all regions of the country.
With regard to the specifics, the hon. member knows that her
colleague has participated on the committee and various
recommendations have been made. Those recommendations are
under review.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, still, can
the minister tell us whether his colleague's opposition to the bill
changed the timetable?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my colleagues from across the country make a variety of
representations, most of which are positive, to improve both the
quality of the health of Canadians as well as the economic situation
of the country.
(1430 )
I want to assure the hon. member that I take all viewpoints into
consideration. I want to assure the hon. member we will adhere to
the principles of Bill C-71.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
RCMP is investigating the destruction of the Canadian blood
committee documents, files and tapes from 1982 to 1989. They
would have explained why thousands of Canadians were infected
with tainted blood. The shredding of public documents is
extremely serious and all evidence shredders should be held
accountable for their actions.
The Deputy Prime Minister just said she thinks it is a serious
matter. She also said, let the RCMP do their work. That is exactly
what we want.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the RCMP be
called in to investigate the alleged evidence shredding of Bob
Fowler and John Anderson?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
interesting to hear the hon. member discuss alleged shredding.
For all of us to understand what has gone on in a number offices
and a number of departments, perhaps what the hon. member is
proposing is that RCMP operate the shredders right across the
country, including perhaps the one in her office.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not sure what to thank the hon. member for.
Senior aides to former defence minister Kim Campbell have
sworn affidavits that Bob Fowler and John Anderson shredded
important memos that pointed to a high level cover-up in the
department of defence. If these serious allegations are true, then
Fowler and Anderson must be held accountable.
I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, and I hope that she
gets on her feet and does not look like she is dazed by the
headlights. The entire military in this country is under a cloud
because of the behaviour-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member is going to give her question
now.
7784
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, we know about being dazed in the
headlights in Beaver River and we saw an example of it right
there. If this is unparliamentary I do not know where we are going
in this place.
The entire military is under a complete cloud in this country
because of the behaviour of a very select few people. When is the
Deputy Prime Minister going to get to the bottom of this and set
our Canadian Armed Forces free once and for all?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed
that the hon. member, who represents a party that has people sitting
around her who have served honourably in the Canadian forces,
would stand in her place and say that there is a cloud over
everybody in the Canadian forces. You have no respect for the
Canadian forces. You do not care-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: Shame on you.
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to please address their
remarks to the Chair.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
unless I am mistaken, the minister is upset.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister remained silent on the issue of
culture. Yet, his cabinet is divided on this most important issue for
Canadian and Quebec cultures.
Last week, the Minister for International Trade said that
NAFTA's cultural exemption was a myth, while the heritage
minister claimed it was an essential tool for Canada's cultural
development.
(1435)
My question is this: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who
is the real spokesperson on this issue? Who is stating the
government's position: Is it the Deputy Prime Minister when she
says she is trying to get culture excluded from WTO agreements, or
is it her colleague who has no intention of defending this cause at
the international level?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely vital that
the Government of Canada take a unanimous stand on an issue that
concerns us all. I am just as concerned that, when the Prime
Minister put me in charge of the heritage department, he asked me
to fight hard for Canadian culture because it must be done.
I can assure you that as far as Canada's policy to work very hard
for our culture is concerned, I am in complete agreement with all of
my cabinet colleagues, including the Minister for International
Trade.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am asking the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that she is the
government's official spokesperson.
I am asking her why, yesterday, she said she would wait for the
WTO decision concerning Sports Illustrated before deciding
whether to appeal. I would remind her of the very clear conclusions
stated in the 1994 Tassé report regarding this magazine, and I
would also remind her that 80 per cent of magazines bought at
newsstands in Canada come from abroad.
In making her statement yesterday, the minister contradicted the
comments she made last week when she said she would definitely
appeal the decision. What made the minister back down?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I said the same
thing I am saying today. The decision has not yet been made. It is
impossible to confirm that we will appeal, given that the decision
has not even been made.
The ruling that was made is a provisional decision. We will wait
for the final decision, which should come at the end of this month. I
can assure the hon. member that once a final decision is made, we
will use every available means, including our right to appeal this
unacceptable demand by the Americans.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the Minister of National Defence realizes the impact this
Somalia issue is having on the military. Why does he think the
people in Edmonton are ashamed to wear their hats to work when
they are driving because they do not want to be perceived to be in
uniform? Does he not understand that all the military feels
tarnished by what has happened and they are concerned by their
perception that the leadership is not being held accountable for
what happened?
Will the minister accept that this whole episode is troubling the
people in the military forces?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree
with my hon. friend that the incident in Somalia and much that has
gone on since is indeed troubling for members of the Canadian
forces, both present and past. I know that my hon. friend is very
much aware of that.
I have been to the base in Edmonton and that I do not share his
view that the men and women of the Canadian forces are ashamed
of their uniforms. As a matter of fact, I hold quite the contrary
view, that the men and women of the Canadian forces in Edmonton,
or in Bosnia where I was last week with our troops over there, are
very proud not only of what they are doing today but what men like
7785
my hon. friend and other men and women of the Canadian forces
have done for the last 100 or 125 years.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no question about the job the Canadian forces are doing.
They are doing super work. But I have letters in my office from
people in Edmonton who say: ``I won't wear my hat to work
because I don't want to be seen as a person in military uniform''.
Deputy Minister Fowler visited Somalia between February 5 and
9, 1993 and Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Anderson was in
Somalia on March 6, just two days after two Somalis were shot. Yet
the muzzling of the inquiry precludes either Fowler or Anderson
appearing. The commission says they simply do not have enough
time.
(1440 )
If the minister really cares about the welfare of the Canadian
forces, how can he leave this aberrant episode in Canadian military
history unresolved?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say to
my hon. friend that under no circumstances at any time have we
ever attempted to influence the choice of witnesses who should be
heard before the inquiry.
The Somalia inquiry was extended now on three occasions.
Upon the last request made by the commissioners, the government
determined that we would extend the period of the inquiry until the
end of June allowing for hearings to be held until the end of March.
There is absolutely no reason why the commissioners cannot ask
the people to whom my hon. friend has just referred to appear
before the commission. There was also no reason why they were
not able to hear them over the last nearly two years now that this
commission has been conducting its business.
However, I have never commented on either the roster of
witnesses nor their testimony, nor do I intend to. That is entirely
within the purview and prerogative of the commissioners of the
Somalia inquiry.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
In an attempt to divert attention from the unforgivable mistake
of shutting down the only French language military college in the
country, the government is promising phenomenal savings. Just
recently, we learned that the operating costs of the college in
Kingston were higher than ever and that the training costs, per
student, were in excess of $76,000, much higher than in St-Jean.
Could the Minister of National Defence explain why no one can
tell us with any accuracy how much the college in Kingston is
costing us every year? Figures like $30 million, $50 million and
$90 million have been tossed around. What is the budget of the
college in Kingston?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague will understand that I do not have at the tip of my fingers
every available detail pertaining to every aspect of the Canadian
Forces activities, whether at the military college in Kingston or
elsewhere.
I undertake to provide this information to my hon. colleague.
Just so I am clear, I would appreciate it if he could let me know
exactly what details he is looking for concerning the funding of the
military college in Kingston. We could also provide him with
figures to enable him to make a comparison with the military
college in Saint-Jean.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
our sources, the astronomical costs at Kingston prove only one
thing: it was a mistake to close down the military college in
Saint-Jean, where military training was provided to officer cadets
at a much lower cost.
Are we to understand that, once again, the government is unable
to admit it made a mistake, to the point where it would rather just
keep spending and spending, while French-speaking members of
the armed forces suffer?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as the
French-speaking military or young people looking to train and
carve out a career in the Canadian Forces are concerned, we will do
everything we can to make sure they get the best possible training.
Regarding the other part of the question, where the hon. member
implied that we tend to spend recklessly, I must say I gave that up
long ago.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the shredding of
blood committee documents by Dr. Jo Hauser is condemned by the
information commissioner as an effort ``in thwarting the public's
right of access''. These documents by the way were from 1982 to
1989 implicating a Liberal cabinet.
Did the health minister know both the identity and the motives of
this shredder when he gave him the golden handshake one day
before the bombshell hit the press?
7786
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the hon. member is being somewhat careless and
reckless with the facts.
The evidence that has been provided to me as minister is that I
have a fiduciary obligation as well as a legal obligation to comply
with the provisions of the Access to Information Act.
I want to say to my colleague opposite that information was
provided to me in a preliminary report on December 3, as I believe
he made reference to yesterday, which is a standard procedure
under the access to information provisions. Thereafter the
department responds. It is concluded by the information
commissioner making a final report, which I believe he did on
January 21. Thereafter that report was made public immediately,
forwarded to Justice Krever and thereafter forwarded to the
solicitor general for the purposes of an RCMP investigation if they
deem it appropriate.
(1445)
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think most
Canadians will recognize that I did not even get close to an answer
to my question. The question was, did the minister know the
identity and the motives of this shredder prior to when he gave him
a golden handshake? I will try again: Were the identity and the
motives known by this minister?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am just a lawyer from rural Canada. I am not a spin doctor. In
terms of the motives of various individuals, whether they be
members of the public service or whether they be members of the
third party, I am not aware of their motives. However, one can
speculate as to what their motives are about.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of agriculture has a significant role to ensure
that the throne speech commitment to rural development is
fulfilled. It is a very important issue for those of us living in rural
Canada.
Would the minister tell the House specifically what actions he is
taking to ensure rural economic development is pursued?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka has been consistent and very aggressive in
pursuing and promoting the interests of rural Canada as have a
great many members of the caucus on the government side.
The throne speech last year indicated the general nature of the
government's commitment. Since then we have been working on a
variety of initiatives including improving access to capital,
improving access to information technology and improving the
quality of information available to rural Canadians about the
programs and services of the Government of Canada.
In particular I mention the Canadian adaptation and rural
development fund which among other things will pump in excess
of $100 million over the next four years into the hands of local
adaptation councils across Canada. This will help with rural growth
and diversification and will bring decision making and priority
setting into the hands of people locally in their own communities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Department of National Defence is the subject of an
unprecedented application to the Federal Court by the
commissioner of official languages, who is accusing it of systemic
discrimination against members of francophone soldiers' families.
This is especially the case in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, where
several francophone families have been the victims of this
disgraceful and generalized discrimination.
How can the defence minister tolerate the systemic
discrimination practised by his department for over 26 years
against members of francophone soldiers' families on Canadian
army bases?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already
had an opportunity to meet with the official languages
commissioner for the very purpose of discussing the problem in
Moose Jaw that the hon. member is refering to. There were also
other situations that I thought were unacceptable in other regions of
the country.
Following these meetings, I asked my department to report to me
as quickly as possible on what can be done to correct circumstances
which, I am in agreement with my hon. colleague, were
unacceptable.
We will try to move ahead as quickly as possible, and I hope to
be able to get back to her in the near future about concrete action
taken in this regard.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to a degree I find the minister's reply reassuring or
encouraging. But according to our information, and the minister is
well placed to tell us if it is incorrect, the department is getting
ready to try and have the court disallow the official language
commissioner's application.
Why has the minister decided to take the same approach as his
predecessors who, for 26 years, have refused to allow
francophones on military bases access to services in French,
although it
7787
knows the disastrous consequences this will have for these
families?
(1450)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague is well aware that I should not discuss a situation that
could come before the courts or be litigious. I am, however, very
aware of the need of men and women in the Canadian Forces to
have services available to them in the language of their choice.
In the cases referred to by the hon. member, it is clear to us that
the situation was unacceptable, and we are going to look into it.
As for the commissioner's application, we should let the court
make up its own mind.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
saw on the CBC town hall that the Prime Minister believes that one
of the best job strategies is to rely on blind luck. If that fails, the
second best job strategy is apparently to try to steal jobs from
somebody else if you cannot get your own.
In a crass political move, apparently the Minister of Foreign
Affairs has decided to steal the 900 jobs that are currently in place
at NORAD in North Bay and move them to Winnipeg. That will
cost about $15 million. Even the Liberal MP from Nipissing has
publicly voiced his opposition to this job stealing by the minister.
Will the minister reverse his decision and keep the NORAD jobs
in North Bay?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that the
hon. member probably is very familiar with what is described as
the hole at North Bay. But in fact, if he was aware of what is going
on in the restructuring of the command control and other aspects of
the air force activity in the Canadian forces he would know,
because I said yesterday in response to a question outside the
House of Commons, by people who are familiar with this subject,
that absolutely no decision has been made with respect to the
location of these centres and no decision is imminent.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the newspaper reports, the premier of Ontario is not
buying that and neither is the member from Nipissing. Both have
publicly voiced their opposition and both say that apparently this
decision has already been made.
Will the minister reassure these people that the decision has not
been made and in fact that air command will stay in North Bay and
will not be moved to Winnipeg?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, air command is
in Winnipeg. General de Quetteville is in Winnipeg. That was a
thing that was decided some time ago.
What the hon. member was given was information that
somebody else wrote down for him which has to do completely
with another aspect of what we are trying to do in the restructuring
of the Canadian forces. If he has a moment sometime, I will explain
it to him.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The fishing, fish processing and agriculture industries in
Atlantic Canada have been hit hard by new or increased fees for
licences and fishing related services. Will the minister review the
cumulative impacts of these user fees? Will he consider setting a
ceiling on total payments to ensure that cost recovery will not
adversely affect the immediate and long term viability of Atlantic
coastal communities?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is a very important question. I am quite aware of the impact which
these fees have created. Therefore, we have put together a
multi-sectoral committee of stakeholders which will be meeting
next week to examine solutions. We will be developing a new
policy in Treasury Board based on the results of these consultations
which will be aimed at reducing the inconvenience caused by the
imposition of these fees.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has asked the federal
government to intervene in the disastrous grain movement situation
in Canada, which is estimated to cost Canadian farmers at least $65
million in lost revenues and demurrage costs. We agree with the
Canadian Wheat Board and would add that government policies
such as privatizing CN Rail, deregulating the rail industry,
changing the car allocation policy, allowing the abandonment of
rail lines and condoning inappropriate downsizing within the
railways have all contributed to this problem that keeps grain from
moving to the ports.
(1455 )
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Does he not agree that the federal government has a responsibility
7788
and the authority that is required to get the railways to make grain a
priority, and that he should use the full extent of his authority to get
that grain moving again?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislative authority to which
the hon. gentleman refers is, he will agree, rather limited.
In terms of the nature of the problem, it would appear that the
difficulty this season does not relate to rolling stock or to delivery
of supplies in the country or to port operations. Rather, it is a
combination of severe weather conditions coupled with a shortage
of locomotive power.
I am advised by both railways that in the course of the last
number of days, particular efforts have been made to augment the
locomotive power to catch up on the existing backlog. It is also fair
to observe that it is cold every January, it snows every January and
the railways should do better.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
The problem of the Magdalen Islands ferry continues. The Lucy
Maud Montgomery has seen better days and the people of the
Islands are no longer being taken in by Liberal promises. They
want a permanent solution and they want it soon.
The Liberal government has already had a $30 million budget
available for more than two years. Is it going to let the people of the
Magdalen Islands wait much longer, while it insists on dumping its
old Princess of Acadia on them, instead of providing them with
another ferry, the Island of Inishmore , which is 80 feet shorter, but
safer?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is probably unaware that at this time of
the year every year there is no ferry service from P.E.I. to the
islands.
I would point out to him this is a condition that is not the result
of any decision of the Canadian government. I would suggest to
him that we will have a ferry available just as it has been every year
for the past 20 years. It will be available on schedule. The service
will be protected between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward
Island.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The government lawyers are now in court arguing that they did
the Pearson developers a favour in cancelling the contract because
they would have lost their shirts. Talk about a flip-flop.
Now that they have the government experts arguing that this was
a good deal for the taxpayers, will those experts who argued in
favour of the Nixon report be held accountable to the taxpayers?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I rise to answer a question from the Reform Party, I
am perhaps a little more nervous than I am with the Bloc because I
do not know whether I will be met with fisticuffs or with lawyers
outside the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the government cancelled the
Pearson contract after it was found that it was not in the best
interests of the Canadian taxpayers.
We prefer the airport to be in the hands of a not for profit
corporation which is similar to that in Vancouver, in Edmonton, in
Calgary and indeed in Montreal as well.
Obviously, we are open to any reasonable settlement offers that
come forward. However I have to say that I cannot understand why
the hon. member and his party consistently sidle up to the
Mulroney appointed senators to try to guarantee for the developers,
including the former president of the Conservative Party, $600
million in unearned profits which could so well be put toward other
programs. Why they want to do this-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
some time ago, the Minister responsible for the infrastructure
program announced the federal government's offer to continue the
program for one more year.
Could the minister inform the House of the status of negotiations
with the provincial governments, the Ontario government in
particular?
(1500)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
first phase of the infrastructure program with Ontario was an
amazing success, with 5,000 projects and 39,000 new jobs, mainly
in the construction industry, where the unemployment rate was
very low.
To date, all provinces and territories have given me a response
on the new offer we made them to extend the infrastructure
program for the period 1997-98. In principle, all have been
favourable. We are going to sign a new agreement with Alberta
7789
tomorrow, and I trust that the one with Ontario will soon follow
suit.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of the House the presence
in the gallery of the Hon. Patrick George Binns, Premier, President
of the Executive Council and Minister Responsible for
Intergovernmental Affairs of the Legislative Assembly of Prince
Edward Island.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the Government
in the House the usual Thursday question. Can he give us an idea of
what is in store for next week?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this afternoon we shall continue with report stage and
third reading of Bill C-70, which harmonizes the goods and
services tax.
Tomorrow will be an opposition day.
[English]
Monday we shall resume consideration of Bill C-70. When that
bill has had third reading we will return to the third reading of Bill
C-60, the food inspection legislation, Bill C-23, the nuclear safety
measure and Bill C-17, the Criminal Code amendments. We shall
then resume second reading debate on Bill C-46.
Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you would
find unanimous consent for reverting to the daily routine of
business, presenting reports from committees. If so, I would have a
presentation of a committee report.
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous
consent to revert?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7789
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the House for its indulgence.
I have the honour to present the 51st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing
Order 73(1), I wish to advise the House that it is the government's
intention to refer Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications
in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them, to
committee before second reading.
_____________________________________________
7789
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed 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. 3.
The Speaker: We are on Group No. 3 and the member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley had the floor when we interrupted for
question period.
(1505 )
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was pleased to be able to speak to Group No. 2 and also
now to Group No. 3.
In introducing my presentation to Group No. 2, I wanted to point
out that these particular amendments to this bill are about a whole
larger picture than simply the GST. I wanted to bring it to the
attention of Liberal members opposite so that they might be able to
recognize some of their past deeds that they committed during the
1993 election.
7790
I talked about when is a promise not really a promise. It was
clear that in that case it would not really be a promise if it was a
verbal promise made by the Liberal Party even though, as I pointed
out, the highest courts in the land have recognized that a verbal
promise is and can be and has been deemed to be legally binding.
But not to the Liberal government.
I would like to use another phrase now to introduce my
comments on Group No. 3 of the amendments. I am drawing a line
from an old move called ``Love Story'' many years ago. The line is
``being in love means never having to say you're sorry''. I would
like to revamp that line and say this to the Liberal members, that
telling the truth first means never having to say you're sorry. They
might consider that in the next election campaign as they go door to
door, coffee shop to coffee shop, meeting to meeting, verbally
making election promises to the people of Canada that they know
they are not able to keep and will not keep.
This is the very thing that has created the cynicism, the mistrust,
the attitude that politicians rank lower on the acceptability scale
than the lowest form of occupation we can find in this country
because politicians like these people across the House here have
partaken in a deception of the Canadian people in the 1993
election. They have verbally promised the Canadian people that
they would kill, scrap and abolish the GST. Yes, they did. Evidence
shows it over and over again that is exactly what they did and they
have the gall to sit here and deny that they did not say it when they
have been caught in their own lies.
The Speaker: My colleague, the word ``deception'' was
borderline. The word ``lies'' is not acceptable in this House. I
would ask the hon. member to withdraw that immediately.
Mr. Harris: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course I withdraw the word
``lies''.
This party, these members have been caught in their own
misrepresentation when they went door to door all across this
country and told the people of Canada, rank and file hardworking
Canadian taxpayers that they were going to give them some tax
relief by killing the GST.
I said earlier telling the truth first means never having to say you
are sorry. The minister of heritage had to say she was sorry about
her promises on the GST. She had to resign and seek election again
in her riding. The Minister of Finance on record has said: ``I'm
sorry. We promised to kill the GST. It was a mistake and we
apologize for it''.
It is absolutely unbelievable that two ministers in this Liberal
government have come forth and said they were sorry, not having
to do so, not willingly. They were dragged kicking and screaming
to that apology, kicking and screaming by the mounting pressure
from the Canadian people and the Reform Party, which led the
charge. While these two ministers have come forward and made
public apologies about their GST misrepresentations, the Prime
Minister of this country, the person who has been elected to the
highest office in this country, who is supposed to display the
highest form of integrity and honesty, has not come forward even
though the Prime Minister has been shown several times on video
tapes from the 1993 election to be saying: ``We will scrap, kill and
abolish the GST. I promise you that''.
(1510)
He has said that many times and he does not have the integrity to
come forward and say ``I am sorry, we made a mistake. I got caught
up in the election furore of 1993 and I said some things that perhaps
we could not keep, some promises we could not keep''. He does not
have the integrity to do that.
This is the Prime Minister of Canada we are talking about. What
kind of an example does that send to the Canadian people when the
Prime Minister of Canada cannot stand up and say ``I was wrong,
we were wrong, we should not have done it, we should not have
said it''? What kind of an example does that send to Canadians?
What kind of an example does that send to the Canadian youth who
look to their parliamentarians for direction? They are told that the
parliamentarians in this House of Commons are people of integrity
and honesty. What kind of an example does that send?
Be sure about this fact. The Reform Party will stand here day
after day and we will hold the feet of the Prime Minister of Canada
to the fire on the GST misrepresentation, as we have done to all the
members here; as we did to force the minister of heritage to say she
was sorry and resign from her seat; as we did to force the Minister
of Finance to say ``I'm sorry it was a mistake''; and as we will
continue to do into this next election. Hopefully the Prime Minister
will show some integrity and take his position at the apology table
and tell the Canadian people ``I'm sorry, we should not have said
that''.
The provinces across Canada recognize exactly what kind of a
scam is going on in this House, what kind of a scam is going on in
this GST harmonization. Ontario has said that the plan would cost
its consumers between $2 billion and $3 billion extra per year in
their purchases. Ontario's premier has gone so far as to say that the
subsidization package given to the maritimes was in fact a bribe.
Alberta's premier has said the compensation component was a
bribe put forward to get Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada to sign
on to the deal, and sign on they did. Why? Because their Liberal
premiers-
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is clear that the
member who is speaking now is carrying with him a degree of
frustration for whatever reason. He has alleged in this House within
the last 60 seconds that what is happening in this House is a scam.
7791
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you to consider whether that may be
unparliamentary. He has also used the word ``bribe'' and I ask you
to consider whether that may be unparliamentary. He has also
alleged that I as a member of my party did or said things in the
last election campaign which I know not to be accurate. I know
this is a point of debate but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call
on the member to use parliamentary terms.
The Speaker: My colleagues, there is no need for me to recall to
your memory that we have had a pretty rough couple of days here.
Yes, our emotions are right here on our sleeve. I would prefer that
words like ``bribe'' not be used. We have used words like ``scam''
before, possibly in the context of the last few days.
It might be advisable if all members would lower the tone a bit
of their rhetoric. I do not mean in their voices but I mean in their
choice of words.
(1515 )
I would appeal not only to the hon. member speaking now but to
all hon. members to keep this in mind. We are all a little bit caught
up in the whole thing. I do not judge the words that were used to be
unparliamentary under normal circumstances. The hon. member
used the word ``misrepresentation''. We have used that word and I
find it to be in its context acceptable. I believe he was quoting
someone else when he used the word ``bribe''. I would remind the
hon. member that he cannot quote someone from outside the House
and use words we are not allowed to use in the House.
The point has been brought up and I am sure all hon. members
will want to adhere to this request. The hon. member still has about
two minutes left.
Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Saskatchewan's minister
of finance has said the plan would need a massive shift on to the
province's consumers. Manitoba has also said that the cost to
consumers would be too high and they declined to sign on to this
harmonization deal.
It is not surprising, but there has not been one call of outrage
from the Liberal premiers of the maritime provinces that have
signed on to this deal. They are part of the Liberal Party, I suppose,
and this is probably status quo, I would assume.
However, the most amazing thing is that the people who
contribute most to the economy of the maritimes, the retailers, the
manufacturers, the farmers and the consumers, have all said that
this is going to be a hurtful tax. Where is the representation from
the maritime members of Parliament? Not one word has been heard
from the people who were sent to Ottawa to represent the best
interests of maritime Canada, because they are not permitted to
utter one word in opposition to this harmonized sales tax.
We are talking about the extra costs associated with the closures
of five Greenberg stores in the maritimes. This is a loss of 79 jobs.
Seventy-nine jobs in the maritimes is big stuff. Greenberg's
management says that there is a chance that all their other stores
may be closing in other areas of Atlantic Canada as a result of
harmonization.
Bill C-70 is just a symptom of a whole bigger picture and that
bigger picture is honesty and integrity. As I said at the beginning of
my presentation, if politicians would tell the truth the first time,
they would never have to say they are sorry. That is something that
every Reformer in this House knows. That is something that every
Reform candidate who goes out in the next election knows.
Members can bet that in contrast to the other candidates from the
other parties, every Reform candidate in the next election will
know that if they tell the truth first they never have to say they are
sorry.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the
government on these Group No. 3 motions.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I am going to try to stick as much
as I can to the actual motions before us and talk about what they are
rather than talking about everything else.
First, government Motion. No. 120 deals with clause 262. Clause
262 of Bill C-70 adds new provisions to the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act that set out the statutory authority for the
federal government to make payments to the participating
provinces equal to their respective share of the provincial
component of the HST determined in accordance with the
harmonization agreements. This motion amends new section 8.4
and 8.5 of that act to provide that, for government accounting
purposes, the revenues from the HST shall be recorded net of these
amounts payable to the participating provinces. I point that out in
support of the government's motion.
(1520 )
I will respond to some of the remarks that have been made in the
debate on this group of motions. I oppose the opposition motions
that are a part of this group. My first comment is with respect to
some comments made earlier this morning by the Bloc Quebecois.
[Translation]
As I said this morning in English, Bloc members are opposed to
harmonization and this is very odd. It is odd indeed, since there is
already harmonization in Quebec. Could it be that opposition
members want to keep the benefits of harmonization all to
themselves, their businesses and consumers?
[English]
The reality is that members of the Bloc Quebecois know the
value and merits of harmonization. They are not suggesting that
7792
Quebec cease, unravel and turn back the clock on harmonization in
Quebec. They are not saying that at all. However, they are saying to
the maritimes: ``Don't harmonize, this is a terrible thing''.
I wonder whether they want to preserve the advantages of
harmonization for the businesses of Quebec, particularly because
they border on other provinces, while they would deny those
advantages of lower prices to consumers and the simplicity to
retailers that would come from harmonization in provinces
contiguous with Quebec. It is a little surprising to see the Bloc
stand up hour after hour and attack harmonization.
I will turn to members from the third party and the spectacle we
have seen in the House. They are from one regions of the country
and they are once again saying to another region: ``You don't want
this. We know better. Don't do this. This would be terrible for
you,'' while consumers are telling us overwhelmingly, ``this is
what we want,'' and the provincial governments agree.
We hear a great deal from members of the third party about
respecting local governments and regional decision making. When
regional governments have made a decision it is only okay if that
decision agrees with the views of the members of the third party,
but if they take a decision in the interests of Atlantic Canada, in the
interests of business and principally consumers, that is not good
enough for the third party.
I really do not want to get into this debate. I want to speak
precisely to the motions before us. It is really incredible that they
keep speaking about retailers but I have not heard them speaking
for the consumers. This harmonization measure will benefit
consumers immeasurably and enormously. People in those
provinces know that, which is why they are going down this route.
No doubt this is a complex bill. There are adjustments in any tax
legislation. That is why we are debating these motions, why we had
very good and effective amendments at the finance committee and
why we are debating a number of government motions again, to
make the bill work better.
I welcome this opportunity to speak to this. This is a big and
complex country. It is possible that one region of the country might
decide for the moment that one course of action is more in the
interests of their people than another. It is unfortunate when
members from one region presume to tell the people of another
region what is good for them. They are perfectly capable of making
up their minds, and they have done so in Newfoundland, New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-70. Before addressing the subject matter
of the bill, I would like to respond, if I may, to something that was
said by the hon. member who spoke before me.
He accused the Bloc Quebecois of being against harmonizing the
GST. Either he misunderstood what we said or he got it wrong.
Quebec was the first province to harmonize its sales tax with the
GST, and we did it at our own expense. What we disagree with is
the fact that, months before an election, the government is
considering spending $1.3 billion to help eastern provinces
harmonize their taxes, while we did it at our own expense. That is
what we object to.
(1525)
Allow me to say a few words today about Bill C-70. First of all, I
wonder about the democratic values underlying this Liberal
government's actions. The public is shocked by the way this
government operates, which is hardly transparent.
I told you yesterday how difficult it was to obtain information
from Heritage Canada on the cost of the Take it to Heart program,
an initiative to promote Canadian citizenship. The Liberal
government is taking a hard line on more serious and complex
issues. There are countless examples. Just think of the Somalia
inquiry, the Krever Commission, the Airbus affair, the Pearson
Airport deal. The Liberals are camouflaging the facts and hindering
the proper functioning of our democratic institutions.
If we had to find a three-letter word that best sums up the image,
the weakness, the incompetence of this government, the one that
would immediately come to mind is ``GST'', because it represents
unkept promises, mismanagement, improvisation, arrogance, lack
of accountability, deceit.
That same undemocratic attitude motivates the government in
connection with the GST. They are rushing this bill through,
systematically concealing the facts from Quebecers and Canadians,
so as to clear the way for the next election campaign.
What they will not be able to conceal, however, is the
embarrassment of the Prime Minister and the Heritage Minister
over their failure to keep their promise to scrap the GST, to kill it. It
is clear that the Prime Minister does not want to have to apologize
again, as he had to after his appearance on the CBC on December
12, when Johanne Savoie, a Montreal waitress, backed him into a
corner by asking him about his campaign promise on the abolition,
pure and simple, of the unpopular goods and services tax. Let us
recall the Globe and Mail editorial headed ``The Prime Minister is
lying'', where it states, and I quote: ``The Prime Minister told a lie.
Not a fib, not a prevarication, not a disingenuous remark-''
The Speaker: Order. Dear colleague, we cannot use the words of
someone else when these words cannot be used here in the House. I
would, therefore, ask you to withdraw the word ``lying'' because it
is neither parliamentary nor acceptable.
7793
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw these words because I was
quoting a text, not making an accusation.
That is what Quebecers and Canadians will remember-in any
case, they heard it on television and they read about it in the
media-when they mark their ballots in the next general election.
I deplore the attitude of a government that tries to prevent us
from doing our job as parliamentarians. As a member of the official
opposition, I may remind this House that we had less than 24 hours
to examine a very technical bill more than 300 pages long, before
proceeding with second reading.
This week, the opposition had not yet received the printed
version of Bill C-70 as amended in committee, and this was 24
hours before resuming debate on third reading. How can we
possibly do our job as parliamentarians under those conditions?
Either the Liberal government is terribly inefficient or it is
deliberately engaging in obstruction. Hon. members may draw
their own conclusions.
(1530)
This has been said before but it bears repeating: the Liberals do
not keep their promises and have a very selective memory.
Not so long ago when they were in opposition, in November
1989, the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance
maintained that the goods and services tax proposed by the
Conservative government was not a good proposal and that no
amount of tinkering would make it fair to the taxpayer.
But what are that same party's representatives proposing today,
if not tinkering? It makes no sense. Hiding the tax in the price does
not change anything. The GST stays the same, at the same rate, and
the provincial tax will harmonize accordingly. This tax will be just
as bad and just as unfair to the taxpayer.
By hiding the GST in the sales price, the government is opening
the door wide to a possible increase in the GST in the days to come.
And do not tell us that consumers want this. Consumers want the
Liberal government to keep its promises, including scrapping the
GST.
The official opposition believes there can be no sales tax reform
without a tax reform that covers all forms of taxation at all levels of
government. For more than three years, the Bloc Quebecois has
been asking the Minister of Finance about this, but the minister and
his government prefer to cut transfers to the provinces, and the
Prime Minister prefers to choke the unemployed.
There was the survey by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in
1994, in which 70 per cent of Canadian businesses said they were
opposed to hiding the tax. In February 1996, the same survey
reconfirmed this point, with not 70 per cent but 76 per cent of
Canadian businesses opposed to harmonizing the tax. That is
revealing.
Another major problem is the political gift to the maritime
provinces of some $1 billion in tax money paid by Canadians. The
official opposition thinks all provinces should also benefit from
agreements relating to harmonization, including compensation.
Why should there be a double standard on the issue of
compensation?
As my time is up, I will conclude by saying that Quebecers will
see once again it does not pay to work with the federal government.
They will see that the approach of this government has not
changed. It is plan B, and we will continue to oppose it.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-70 today. We are talking about 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. Among all that verbiage
comes the GST and the blended sales tax.
While I am doing walking tours in my constituency, whether it is
in Leduc, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin, Lacombe, Bentley or elsewhere, I
ask the shop owners and the people in their employ what is their
biggest problem or what it is they would like to discuss. I tell them
they have their MP before them. It is an opportunity for them to tell
me what it is they like about the way the country is run or more
likely, what it is they do not like about the way the country is run.
The most often mentioned thing about how they do not like the
way the country is run has to do with the GST. The GST makes
reluctant tax collectors out of shop owners, business people, people
who have concerns about paying their staff, about paying for their
lights and their heating. People have concerns about keeping their
shop open, keeping their staff on payroll and making a living for
themselves and their families.
(1535)
Not only do they become reluctant tax collectors, but if for some
unknown reason they do not follow the collection of the tax or the
filing of the papers to the exact degree the bureaucrats insist on,
then they are subjected to all sorts of harassment, penalties, interest
and audits. An army of people rain down around their necks and tell
them that this voluntary job, this job they took on under great
duress, is not being done properly and if they do not do it properly
they can face all sorts of penalties and interest charges.
More specifically we should be talking about the blended sales
tax or the harmonized sales tax, the BST or the HST. Those
acronyms conjure up some great possibilities, but I guess I will not
allow myself to go in that particular direction at the moment.
7794
One of the things that is particularly grating to general members
of society in the province of Alberta is that even though we do
not have a provincial sales tax, we are now compelled to pay a
sort of surreptitious provincial sales tax in order to help fund this
$1 billion fund. This $1 billion fund has been called all kinds of
things. I know that Mr. Speaker has advised us to be very judicious
in our choice of words, so I have chosen the term persuasion fund,
which I hope will pass the parliamentary committee.
Residents of Alberta are going to have to pay into this $1 billion
persuasion fund whether they like it or not. Residents of Alberta are
quite proud of the fact that they do not have to pay a provincial
sales tax. Now of course it looks as though they do.
When the GST came about, we all remember the events which
led up to the imposition of the GST. It was first talked about as
having to be a 9 per cent tax. I remember very well. I was on county
council in those days and we all agreed that if we had to pay some
kind of a consumption tax in order to ever see our way clear of this
deficit and debt that we would wind up having to pay for, that yes
we could see ourselves paying some kind of a tax, provided that all
of the revenues from that tax went toward debt reduction and
deficit reduction.
As a matter of fact we even went so far as to say-and this was
just brainstorming, it was nothing official or in the minutes of the
meetings-we were talking among ourselves. We decided that if
the government of the day were to say there would be no
exemptions, there would be no kickbacks, there would be no partial
exemptions-well, kickbacks perhaps, partial exemptions shall I
say.
I will use the municipalities in Alberta as an example. They were
exempt for I believe it was 57 per cent of the GST. I believe that is
the correct amount. That necessitated the employees of the county
of Ponoka to fill out a GST form to apply for this rebate on goods
that they bought. They paid the full 7 per cent up front and then
they were allowed to recover I believe it was 57 per cent of that by
remitting the form.
We said that it was too complicated. Immediately we could see
that it was going to require extra bureaucracy and extra help in
order to figure out who was eligible and who was going to get the
rebate and who was going to pay the full shot and so on.
(1540 )
We said that if it was something that was going to go straight
toward the debt to reduce the debt and improve our lot in the days
and years to come, then we could probably live with it if it was
around 3 per cent and was applied to everything: toothpaste,
diapers, bread. We said that we could handle that because we could
see ourselves working toward a goal.
I believe the thinking of the government of the day was that if it
started off at 9 per cent and wound up with 7 per cent, then the
people of Canada would say: ``Whew, at least it is not 9 per cent'',
and perhaps they would accept it.
The people of the constituency of Wetaskiwin told their sitting
member, who was a government member at the time: ``We will not
support you. We do not want the GST. If you vote in favour of the
GST we will not support you''. The member said he heard what
they were saying but the government of the day voted in the GST.
During that time the Liberals sat in opposition. There was a great
hue and cry against the inequities and the unfairness of the GST.
We could see during the election campaign how the Liberals
promised to scrap, kill, abolish and otherwise do away with the
GST.
Mr. Szabo: And replace.
Mr. Johnston: The member opposite says ``replace''. Yes of
course it was written as replace in the red book, a very limited
production paper that was only available to certain people in
Canada. At the town hall meeting the Prime Minister admonished
the lady who asked him about his GST promise. He said:
``Obviously you did not read the red book''. She probably did not
but I would suggest she is in good company. There are millions of
other Canadians who never had an opportunity to read the infamous
red book because as you know, Mr. Speaker, it was not made
available to everybody in Canada.
The bottom line is that the GST was something about which the
opposition parties said: ``No, we will not accept that. This is a
matter of fact if we are in power''. It is almost as though they
thought there was not a ghost of a chance of their getting into
power so they could promise the moon. As it turned out they did get
into power. People put their trust in them that they would live up to
their word and do away with the GST but they did not do that.
This is a little bit like the NAFTA agreement. In opposition the
Liberals said over and over how unfair the agreement was, how
they would abolish it, do away with it, scrap it and get rid of it.
History has shown and will show that it was hardly amended and
was accepted almost holus-bolus by the Liberal government once it
came into power.
For the many merchants in my constituency who put up with this
GST nightmare daily, and I hasten to say that of the problems that
come to my constituency office, the GST and problems with the
GST are number one.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate of Bill C-70, particularly the
Group No. 3 report stage motions. The parliamentary secretary has
nicely laid out the rationale for those particular motions. As a result
of where we have gone with this debate I would like to recap a
7795
couple of the things we are talking about with regard to the
so-called harmonized sales tax.
Members will know that before the goods and services tax, there
was a federal sales tax which was included in the pricing of
manufactured goods. It generated some $18 billion in revenue for
the government in its last year of operation.
The Mulroney government made some changes and introduced
the goods and services tax. Interestingly enough, in the first year of
operation the goods and services tax generated for the government
some $16 billion in revenue, which was actually $2 billion less.
(1545)
In essence, what happened is that Canadians got a $2 billion tax
break right off the bat because of the introduction of the GST, but
they were angry about it. They were angry about the GST. It really
is ironic that Canadians were given a $2 billion tax break about
which they were angry.
Canadians were justified in a sense because it was a change. It
was visible. Not only that, it was visible on each and every
purchase that Canadians made.
When I went to the shelf I saw an item and the price was there. I
made a purchase decision and I went to the cash register, but at the
cash register the price I had to pay was different. It was more. It
was significantly more. That, I believe, is the reason Canadians do
not like the goods and services tax. It was a change. It was visible
to them at the cash register but not when they made their purchase
decision. There is a bit of irony in that.
Then came the election. Before the election the Liberal Party
was in opposition. The role of the opposition is to be the opposition
and to deliver blows that would tenderize a turtle, as someone once
said. Liberals in opposition said ``we do not like this tax because
Canadians said they did not like the tax''. They did not like the
optics of it. However, after a number of years there was not much to
be done about it. All of a sudden it was generating $18 billion in
revenue to the government.
The question becomes is there anybody who supports a policy, as
the Reform Party has been outlining, that would simply eliminate
the tax. Is there someone who would say let us have no more GST
ever again, it is over, gone and done? That is what the Reform Party
has been suggesting that the government promised in the last
election campaign. Just get rid of it. Add the $18 billion to the
deficit.
Nobody in this place would want to do that if they were the
government of the day. We cannot afford to add $18 billion to the
deficit. That is clear to all Canadians. All Canadians know that it
was not just to get rid of the GST, it was to replace it with a revenue
neutral system. That means that we will have to collect the same
dollars, but we will look to see if there is a better way to do it. In
fact, the red book said, as well as many of us in our speeches and
literature, we will, through the finance committee, with all parties,
have an opportunity to look and see what is the best way to deal
with this.
As it turns out, the best replacement for the GST is the GST. That
is what it really comes down to. It is unfortunate in a political
sense, but in a fiscally responsible sense we have to do the right
thing.
The finance committee studied the issue. During its 35 days of
hearings I was there. I heard what business and industry were
saying to the finance committee. They did not want two systems of
consumption tax at both the federal and provincial levels. They did
not want to have two sets of forms. They did not want to have two
different bases. If the tax was going to be kept in its general form as
a consumption tax, what they wanted was to have the federal and
provincial taxes harmonized. They wanted to have it applied to the
same base. They wanted one return. That would be more efficient
and more cost effective for business.
In fact, if we bring the provincial component into the GST
system, that means that provincial taxes will be eligible for an
input tax credit the same as the GST. Members will know that
provincial taxes which are charged on top of each other through the
process of production, et cetera, account for about 30 per cent of
provincial revenues. That means that Canadians have been paying
tax on tax. In fact, harmonizing the taxes will save businesses 30
per cent of the provincial taxes which they would otherwise have to
pay. That money will be available for businesses to pass on to
consumers through lower pricing. That is extremely important.
(1550)
The proof is in Quebec. Quebec has had the best of all worlds. It
did not wait for the federal government to harmonize and to come
forward with this bill. It made its own deal and harmonized itself.
There is a harmonized tax system in Quebec and it is taking
advantage of a lower tax base, of lower pricing so that its exports
have out performed other competitors in Canada.
Its exports have performed much better. Even though Canadian
exports are at record levels, Quebec exports have been much better.
Quebec is a model to follow. It has proved it. The consumers have
accepted it and the system has worked. That is what we really have
to look at.
One final point I would like to make has to do with the
underground economy. Everyone knows that whenever a tax is
introduced into a purchase scheme, there will be people who say
``Gee, 7 per cent GST. If I don't do this, if I do this economic
activity under the table, I can reduce my price to the consumers by
7796
7 per cent. I won't remit it to the government''. We have
underground economic activity.
Ontario, for example, where the tax is 8 per cent, has 15 per cent
combined cost. Businesses looking at this will not forego the
opportunity to recover 15 cents on the dollar by doing its business
under the table. In fact, by streamlining the system, by
harmonizing those taxes, there will be a major disincentive to
operate underground. These are other benefits that will come.
I would simply like to raise that we have, with the three
provinces in the maritimes which have combined rates of some 17,
18, and 19 per cent, will have real rate reductions, will have price
reductions and will have a more efficient tax mechanism to operate
with, which will be in the best interests of consumers in the
maritimes.
I am sure when the other provinces come on side with the HST
that Canadians will all benefit from the initiatives that this
government has brought forth in Bill C-70.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on Bill
C-70, the Group No. 3 debate.
Earlier today I had the opportunity to speak on motions in Group
No. 2. As members will recall, I had spoken a lot about the political
side of imposing the GST and now the harmonized sales tax in the
Atlantic provinces.
I mentioned at the time that the public has had an opportunity to
speak at the polls in Atlantic Canada on two occasions and the
public has had the opportunity to speak to the government through
the standing committee and through members of Parliament.
As was indicated by other speakers today, the public in Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland in particular, because
the committee did not travel to Atlantic Canada, did not have a
direct opportunity to address the bill as it appears today.
I was impressed with the results of the two election polls that
were taken with regard to this. To reiterate quickly my remark from
this morning, in Prince Edward Island where the government had
chosen not to harmonize but where the threat to harmonize
remains, the public spoke loud and clear, defeated the Liberal
government and elected a Conservative government in an election
in which the harmonization was an issue on the doorstep.
In Nova Scotia in a riding known as Halifax Fairview where the
people had a chance to put the harmonization effort to the supreme
test, at the polls, not only did the government lose that but it lost it
very soundly. New Democrats won that seat by 65 per cent of the
vote.
(1555 )
As other members in the Chamber have indicated, Liberal
members from Atlantic Canada have not been very vocal in this
debate in the House on the harmonization matter. I think it is very
clear that had New Democrats been sent to Ottawa from the
Atlantic provinces the voices of those people would be heard in this
Chamber. Never has there been a better example of how New
Democrat representation is representation of the people. There is
no question that the people of Halifax Fairview are being heard
through the New Democrats in this House today because of the
representation we are able to make.
On the matter presented here in the bill and through these
amendments I have a number of additional remarks to make,
including ones relating to some of the matters that were raised by
the Liberal speaking prior to me. I think he is going to hear himself
quoted back to him on many occasions. I was astounded to hear
him say the best replacement for the GST is the GST itself.
Certainly the Prime Minister and other members of the Liberal
Party have not used that kind of a representation of what it is that
they are doing with harmonization, but certainly the GST and the
HST in the public view are not the kind of promises that it thought
it was getting in the last election when it chose the Liberals over the
Conservatives at the national level. The public wanted to get rid of
the GST, not to get it back renamed.
The member also talked about the benefit to business that the
harmonization effort brings. There is no question about it. If we
want to look at it from the banks' and the multinationals' point of
view, the HST is a windfall for them. In fact, we have calculated
that if the HST were applied across Canada, it would be a $6 billion
windfall for business in this country, a transfer of money from the
consumer to the corporations. That means absolutely nothing to
this government, it seems, that the transfer is just a natural state of
affairs.
We in the New Democratic Party reject that notion very strongly
and we reject the harmonized sales tax because it threatens to
transfer more funds from the already overtaxed consumer to the
much undertaxed multinational corporate sector.
I think that instead of harmonization, which is the key word in
the debate today, we should be talking about national standards and
we should be talking about national standards not just in taxation
matters, fair taxation right across the board for all Canadians, but
also national standards in all the matters that fall under federal
jurisdiction and within federal responsibilities.
During question period today I raised the issue of grain cars not
moving from the prairies to the ports because the railroads have
failed to live up to their commitments under the grain car allocation
policy. The federal minister of agriculture refuses to accept his
responsibility, even his authority in this regard.
7797
It is time the federal government accepted its full responsibility
on matters within its jurisdiction and started to move and set
national standards.
In this regard, fair taxation or grain movement, we have to find
ways to ensure that not only in the design and funding of programs
but in maintaining and enhancing our standards of living right
across Canada we have to develop and follow these national
standards within the federal authority.
What about in the environment? It is something I have been very
active in and I have done a lot of work here in the House of
Commons and outside the House of Commons and is something
Mr. Speaker is very interested in I know. Environment is an area
where we are devolving power to the provinces and neglecting a
strong national standard across the country, in transportation and
the grain car situation I mentioned earlier and also a national
railway policy, a national highway policy, a national airline policy,
which gets us away from the deregulation and devolution powers
that have made our country now a patchwork of poor transportation
systems. We need national standards across the country which will
serve to help eliminate poverty in all provinces of Canada.
(1600)
I could speak about literacy and education, training and tuition
fees. Just yesterday the province of Ontario announced another
increase in tuition fees. They increased 20 per cent last year and
will increase 10 per cent this year. These are massive increases for
young people who want to pursue post-secondary education in the
province of Ontario.
British Columbia, which recognizes the value of education to
young people, froze tuition fees two years ago to ensure that every
student that passes grade 12 or meets other eligibility requirements
to attend post-secondary education has an opportunity to achieve
that higher education.
Affordability is very important in education. We need national
standards in that regard.
We need national standards for health care, as opposed to
harmonized standards across the country. The national health
forum this week talked about a national prescription drug program.
It is very important not to devolve that or harmonize it with the
provinces. We must have national standards.
We need national standards for child care. We need youth dental
programs. We need home care programs. These all require a very
strong national presence to ensure that the services are delivered
effectively. We must ensure that all Canadians, whether in
Newfoundland, Quebec, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, have
equal access to the same care, programs and services.
There is a lot which should be said about these types of things. I
am sorry there is not enough time to deal with them. I hope I will
have an opportunity to continue my remarks when the next group
of motions comes up for debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is almost imperative that every member rise in this
House to speak on this bill because, of all the bills and issues
examined during the 35th Parliament, the GST will no doubt have
been the most momentous.
This government got elected under false pretences and it is a
shame that no court exists where ordinary citizens could sue the
government for broken promises, failing to keep its word or getting
elected under false pretences.
Any which way you read the red book and understand the words
written in this magnificent book, one fact cannot be misinterpreted:
in the minds of almost every citizen of this country, it was quite
clear that this government, which ran under the Liberal banner, was
going to rid us of the GST. There was absolutely no doubt about
that. Witness how baffled everyone was to hear the Prime Minister
say that everyone but him was mistaken and that he had never made
such a promise.
Earlier, I heard our colleague from Mississauga South say
nobody in this place could consider getting rid of the GST because
it generates $18 billion in revenues for the government. I think that,
when it was in opposition, there were people with enough sense in
the Liberal Party to realize that, once in power, they could not do
without $18 billion in revenues.
(1605)
So, and this would appear to be a conscious process, given what
we heard during the election campaign and what was written in the
red book, once the Liberal Party took office, it did say: ``We will do
as always. We fooled Canadians. They were dumb enough to vote
for us. Too bad. We will not abolish the GST, because we cannot
afford to lose $18 billion in revenues''.
I think Canadians are fed up with traditional parties that promise
the world but cannot honour their promises once they take office.
People are beginning to understand. This is a very dense bill-I
do not want to insult those who wrote it because they are eminent
jurists, but I will admit to not having read it through since it is
rather dull. One quickly gets bored, unless one is paid to read it, or
sits on a committee that will be taking an in-depth look at it.
Because it is dense, perhaps even in more ways than one.
This bill was thrown together. One can tell there is an election in
the offing, and the government does not want to be reminded, all
7798
through the election campaign, from coast to coast to coast, that it
did not fulfil its promise on the GST. So, the government is in a
hurry and it has hastily thrown together a bill that has 272 clauses.
Over 100 amendments were tabled at second reading. Even on the
last day of consultations, that very evening, 13 new amendments
were presented.
On February 3, even the French CBC news bulletin-but the
Prime Minister does not listen to it, so he may not have been aware
that his bill was so hastily thrown together-mentioned the need to
make amendments, adding that the government might back down
on one major issue, that of hiding the GST in the price.
I clearly remember the statements made by members of this
government, when they formed the official opposition and the
Mulroney government introduced the GST. They were adamantly
opposed to the GST being included in the sales price. The main
argument of the Liberal opposition back then was: ``We will never
let this tax be included in the price, because the government would
then be able to increase it without anyone really knowing about it''.
However, once in office, the same Liberal Party decided that the
tax would be hidden, that it would be included in the price. Today,
that tax stands at 7 per cent, but it could go up to 8 or 9 per cent in
the next budget and nobody would notice. It would then be reported
in newscasts or in the newspapers, for about 24 hours, and the
Minister of Finance would say that his document was misread.
Indeed, government members often tell people and journalists that
they misunderstood a statement or that they misread a document.
Liberal members are the only ones who can read. But the fact is
that, after about a day, people will forget that the GST actually went
up.
One major difficulty with respect to this bill is the following:
when the government was in opposition, one of the things it said
was that the Conservative government's plan to tax goods and
services was a bad one and that no amount of fixing would make it
fair to taxpayers.
Here we have their own first fix-up attempt, which has not been
too successful because, as I was mentioning earlier, there have been
several amendments. It will complicate people's lives
considerably. Imagine it is the morning of April 1, the agreement
has been signed, the tax is coming into effect, some merchants have
done all their work and will display their prices with the tax
included, but the merchant next door has not included his tax. He
has not harmonized as quickly as his neighbour, so his merchandise
will show a lower price. In the opinion of those who are looking at
the question of how this wonderful harmonized tax will be
implemented, there will be chaos in the maritimes for several
months.
The Retail Council of Canada has also condemned inclusion of
this tax in the sales price as a policy that will drive up costs and add
to confusion among consumers.
(1610)
Several businesses have appeared before the committee and
pointed out that-without wanting to give any of them
publicity-companies like Canadian Tire, Sears, and many others
with stores in every province in Canada, will have to have separate
prices and labelling for the province of Quebec, for the maritimes
and for the other provinces, because things are different, the
regulations are different.
We were even informed that, in certain cases, there could be a
product requiring four labels. One would include the sales tax in
the price; another would display the price without the tax; another,
the sale price including the tax; and the last, the sale price without
the tax. It will be a real headache for consumers.
Our colleague, the member for Mississauga South, said that
Quebec was an example to follow. I hope he realized that it is an
example to follow across the board, and that, in his province, he
will work for the sovereignty of Ontario. It is not enough to
harmonize the tax. If we are a model to follow, then he should also
work for the sovereignty of Ontario.
At the time of the ``beau risque'', Quebec agreed to harmonize
its tax. In good faith, it sat down with government representatives
and organized the thing. This was a deal worked out between
Robert Bourassa and Brian Mulroney. In the end, we realized that
we had been taken to the cleaners. Two years later, the new
government harmonized the tax along the lines of the Quebec
model, but handed over one billion in compensation to the
maritimes. The Premier of New Brunswick is using $400 million of
this compensation to come to Quebec and engage in what I would
call an almost obscene recruitment of companies to his province, to
the detriment of the Quebec economy.
I hope that we will one day follow Quebec's example throughout
Canada and reorganize this country, with its unharmonious tax.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me pleasure to once again speak on Bill C-70, a bill which
obviously is being pushed and driven by the Liberal government to
become law, irrespective of a lot of things.
I was looking at a list of items that have been submitted
regarding this bill from people who have some expertise and have
studied this matter. The Retail Council of Canada said that by
forcing stores to bury the new tax in prices, the harmonized tax
regime will cost retailers at least $100 million. If that is true, why
would a government impose it on businesses that are there to
provide jobs?
7799
Another study by the accounting firm Ernst & Young said that a
mid-sized national chain with 50 stores in the Atlantic provinces
would pay 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.
A tax is being imposed on a chain of 50 stores and it will take
millions of dollars to implement the program. The Halifax
Chamber of Commerce predicts that the harmonized sales tax will
push up new house prices by 5.5 per cent and as well will force
municipalities to raise property taxes. The Canadian Real Estate
Association says harmonization will increase the cost of a new
house by $4,000 in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and $3,374 in
New Brunswick.
(1615 )
There is the chain Greenberg Stores. Five of them are closing
and jobs are being lost. The GST harmonization is responsible for
the closure of those stores. One of the Liberal government
members said earlier that those stores were in trouble anyway, that
it was not the GST harmonization. Part of the reason so many retail
stores are in trouble across this land is because of the tax laws we
have and this was probably the icing on the cake. There have been
so many bankruptcies throughout the country, even in my riding. A
lot of them are because of tax laws and tax problems. The GST is
certainly one of them. The management of this chain said there was
a 50-50 chance that further stores will be closed and that there will
be more job losses.
What I cannot understand is that sitting in this House are
members of Parliament from the Liberal Party from the Atlantic
provinces. They represent those provinces and they sit silently.
There is no outcry from them whatsoever. Nothing is being said. I
would like to know why. The provinces are speaking. The province
of P.E.I. evidently is not very supportive of this idea. Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick have spoken loud and clear.
I look at the number of names on petitions. I am talking about
thousands of names of individuals, consumers from these
provinces. And the government still insists that this is really an
acceptable way of dealing with the GST, that harmonization is
really acceptable. I have to wonder.
Looking further into this whole idea we see that consumers will
pay more for certain things, like children's clothing, books, auto
repairs, electricity, gasoline, home heating fuel, and haircuts
among other things. Liberal Party members will get up and say that
when averaged out over the whole spectrum, consumers will find
that they are actually saving money. That is not so.
Most of the items, which were GST exempt at one time, are the
types of items used by young families who are struggling and
trying to make ends meet, trying to keep the heat on in their homes,
trying to pay their rent. They are the ones who all of a sudden will
be paying this additional money on different items that never were
taxed before. I do not see any benefit in taking more money from
those who need it the most.
We must ask, what in the world are we doing? Businesses are
closing and there is a good prospect that others will be closing.
There are thousands of signatures on petitions by people who are
absolutely opposed to this whole thing, and I am talking about
petitions from the Atlantic provinces. Yet the government
continues to push because this is the way it is going to do it. Why?
Do we not believe in listening to the people in this place?
I only have to back up a few years. Mr. Speaker, you will well
remember when the GST was brought in what would happen to
those who dared to speak the voice of the people.
When someone does speak for the people, when someone goes
against the party, they are out. They will be kicked out. They will
be punished. They will wish they had not done it, et cetera.
Now we have Bill C-70 and I see the same thing happening on
that side of the House. The finance minister, the Prime Minister
and all the rest of the chief executive in the dictatorship that exists
said to the members of the Liberal Party: ``This will be passed. You
will vote yes. If you do not, you will be booted out. You will be
punished. You will be sorry''.
(1620)
It is a shame. We live in a democracy, but a person from Prince
Edward Island or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick cannot stand in
his place with a petition that has been signed by thousands of
people and say: ``I am going to represent my people in my riding in
the Atlantic provinces and vote against this bill''. They will not do
it and it is an absolute shame.
However, we are carrying on. Is this thing going to be
implemented simply to cover the backsides of members of the
Liberal government when they reneged on killing or scrapping the
GST which they campaigned on so vigorously in the last election?
Is that what it is for? Is it simply to implement page 22 of the dead
book which most of the members obviously were not aware of, not
in the way they campaigned? It certainly was not harmonization
they were campaigning on. It certainly was not a replacement they
were campaigning on. It was scrapping it. That is what they were
campaigning on and they were doing it vigorously. Looking at this
whole bill, I suggest the real reason is it is another way to get more
revenue to spend because spending is a favourite pastime of this
government.
Spending for such things as all these patronage appointments.
Commissioner of the National Film Board. Boy, what a salary. He
must work twice as hard as any member of Parliament because he
makes twice as much money. Then there is the Canadian Labour
Relations Board, other commissioners, and the Immigration and
Refugee Board. They have to keep top dollars up there. We have to
really pay out on these patronage appointment positions, plus we
have to give them a tax free allowance. Judging from what I see
from the public accounts, with these kinds of salaries, members of
7800
Parliament had better not stand in line at the bank with any of these
fellows because we will look like we are on welfare.
We go through this list and here is Health Canada spending a
whole bunch of money on age and opportunity. Oh yes, here is
another thing we are spending it on: lunchtime radio planning
committee by Health Canada. A network of older women. Positive
straight men, we will spend $47,000 for this. I have no idea what
that is about. Listen to this one: seniors and sexuality, $116,000.
Boy, am I glad I turned 60. Now that I am 60 years old I bet I can
really benefit from that $116,000.
It is absolutely ridiculous when we go through this entire list of
spending. If that is what it is all about, then this government needs
to be doubly ashamed of itself for trying to bring this kind of
legislation forward. It ought to be ashamed.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Group No. 3 of motions concerning the fiscal
arrangements between the federal government and the maritimes,
specifically Motions Nos. 118 to 124, which are of interest to us at
this time.
There can be no sales tax reform without personal income tax
reform, corporate tax reform, social security reform, nor without
the participation of other levels of government.
Canada must undertake a tax reform which encompasses all
forms of taxation and all the levels of government involved. Why,
then, have the Liberals systematically refused, since they have
formed the government, to carry out such a total reform of the
Canadian taxation system, despite the numerous suggestions from
the Bloc Quebecois which has just tabled a second document on tax
reform, via my Bloc Quebecois colleague, the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot? That document was tabled this week and
addresses personal income tax in particular.
Quebec harmonized its own sales tax alone and without financial
assistance. The costs of this reform were assumed by Quebec
businesses.
(1625)
Quebec companies have yet to benefit from all the advantages of
a fully harmonized sales tax. It is intolerable that the federal
compensation formula should help the Atlantic provinces to
compete fiercely with Quebec for new investment. The Maritime
provinces are advertising in newspapers in Quebec and the other
provinces that are not harmonized in order to attract companies
from those provinces.
Furthermore, the $400 million in federal compensation paid to
New Brunswick will be used to finance the tax cuts announced last
December by the province's Minister of Finance.
If the federal government is really serious about wanting to boost
Quebec's economy, it could put its money where its mouth is by
giving Quebecers the amounts to which they are entitled.
According to information provided by the federal government,
Quebec would be entitled to compensation worth not $1.9 billion
but $2 billion. And even if we apply the more restrictive federal
formula to the data currently available, Quebec would be entitled to
$1 billion in compensation.
Harmonization is costly for businesses in Quebec. At this time,
the QST is not refunded on certain inputs of large companies, and it
was necessary to increase corporate taxes in order to finance this
reform. Harmonization will not cost Maritime companies a penny.
They are entitled to a full tax refund on inputs, without any increase
in income tax, since the federal government compensates these
provinces through the harmonization agreement.
This may be a political ploy to make unemployment insurance
reform as it applies to seasonal workers in these provinces more
palatable to the Maritimes. Otherwise, why would Ontario, Quebec
and the other provinces not be entitled to compensation?
The Bloc Quebecois is against the GST harmonization plan in
the Maritimes. This bill was rushed through. It is based only on
political and electoral considerations. It is poorly drafted, and is
not the model of harmonization that citizens of the Maritimes
deserve and asked for from the federal government.
If the federal government can come up with $1 billion for the
maritimes, let it also find the $2 billion Quebec is entitled to. All
the provinces must be treated fairly, and the federal government
must stop funding New Brunswick's zealous raiding in Quebec
with the tax money of Quebecers.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is asking the
government to redo its homework and this time take the time it
needs to introduce a responsible bill and especially to listen to what
people have to say on harmonizing the GST with provincial sales
tax.
We are talking about an agreement between the federal
government and the three maritime provinces, which account for
some 15 per cent of Canada's population. This is the model they
say they want to apply to all provinces in Canada.
Right now in Canada, most people oppose the minister's
proposal and the establishment of a single 15 per cent tax, which
would be managed by the Canada revenue commission the
government intends to set up and which would result in an
increased tax burden for Ontario, Alberta and Quebec. Everyone
agrees that the Minister
7801
of Finance is mistaken in thinking that all the provinces will agree
to his harmonization proposal.
Knowing the history of Quebec and of its struggle for
independence in tax matters, especially since the 1960s with Jean
Lesage, I know Quebec will never agree to be part of a federal plan
of this sort.
(1630 )
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-70, the
harmonized sales tax for Atlantic Canada.
I had the opportunity to speak at second reading prior to the
Christmas break. It is a pleasure for me to speak again to the
legislation because the real problem with the legislation is not so
much what it is trying to accomplish, it is that it points out to
Canadians what happens when a government does not keep a
promise. That is the underlying message people are getting from
this legislation.
A number of previous speakers have noted that it is certainly
viewed with a lot of concern by Canadians. I have enjoyed listening
to their interventions this afternoon, particularly those of my
colleagues from Wild Rose and Prince George-Bulkley Valley
who made some excellent points about the legislation.
I want to pick up the focus of the speech of the member for Wild
Rose which was that there is an underlying issue here. Are MPs
allowed to vote the wishes of their constituents or not? Are they
allowed to get input from their constituents, especially on the
government side of the House?
He remarked that we are only too well aware of what happens
when someone dares to counter their party line under the old party
system in this place. MPs who dare to stand with their constituents
on important issues are turfed out of their party and have to sit as
independents. Of course, the member for York South-Weston and
his riding executive, I might add, are very well aware of the
ramifications of being a Liberal member of Parliament who would
dare to vote with their constituents against legislation when it is so
obviously not supported by those constituents back home.
I would like to delve a little deeper into the whole issue of
integrity and promises. When I had the opportunity to speak the
last time on this legislation, I spoke about a promise made being a
promise kept. As I travel across my riding of Prince
George-Peace River, and I have spoken to a number of my
colleagues who represent other ridings, they hear the same message
I hear: Canadians have never been so cynical about politicians,
political parties and the political system as they are today. That is
certainly a sad reflection on this institution and the whole system of
government.
It is important when leaders of political parties and individual
candidates are running that they are held accountable for the
promises and the statements they make on the hustings trying to
garner votes from the Canadian public. It is well known that there
is an election on the way.
In the few minutes available to me, I want to reflect on the now
infamous red book, or as my hon. colleague for Wild Rose just
called it, the dead book, and look briefly through it because it is
quite a voluminous document. I want to pick out a few of the
promises that were made in that document. I will quote from the
document.
On page 20 of the Liberal red book, their manifesto from the
1993 election, they make the following statement.
To achieve such economic growth and job creation, a Liberal government will
introduce a series of measures described in this plan.
Then they go on to name some. One thing that is noted is
reducing grants to businesses. I wonder how that relates to the
recent announcement of an $87 million grant to Bombardier, $50
million in loans and grants to Pratt & Whitney. I am told that the
total amount the government has either loaned in zero interest
loans or forgivable grants to that company is somewhere in the
neighbourhood of $1.2 billion over the last several years. How do
the Canadian people, the voting public, relate this to the promise
made in the red book? I would certainly question that.
(1635)
The red book states on page 22 concerning the GST:
But instead of introducing fairness and simplicity into the tax system, the
Conservative government not only imposed the greatest tax increases in our history,
but compounded unfairness and complexity by introducing the GST. In addition to
the difficulties that it has caused to federal-provincial fiscal relations, the GST has
undermined public confidence in the fairness of the tax system.
The GST has lengthened and deepened the recession. It is costly for small
business to administer and very expensive for the government to collect. The GST
has fallen far short of its promised revenue potential, partly because it has stimulated
the underground cash economy where no tax can be collected.
Rather than scrap, abolish, get rid of or whatever other term was
used by a number of Liberal MPs during the 1993 election
campaign, today we are debating the harmonization or the blending
of the sales tax in the Atlantic region.
On page 24 of the red book it states: ``The Canada-United States
Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) are flawed. A Liberal government will
renegotiate them''. On page 24 in the red book it states:
7802
A Liberal government will review the side agreements to ensure that they are in
Canada's best interests. A Liberal government will renegotiate both the FTA and
NAFTA to obtain:
a subsidies code;
an anti-dumping code;
a more effective dispute resolution mechanism;
These are promises that Reformers clearly remember debating
the Liberal members opposite during the campaign in 1993. The
free trade agreement was a hot topic back then.
On all three of those points the Liberal working groups failed.
They failed to produce a subsidies code. They could not reach a
consensus with the United States. Canada and the U.S. were not
able to agree on an anti-dumping code and were not able to achieve
a more effective dispute resolution mechanism. The side
agreements they did obtain consensus on, the labour and
environment concerns, were not binding on either side.
Let us look at the promise that was made in the context of what it
accomplished. I would submit that it accomplished nothing. I
would further suggest that in all likelihood the Liberals knew it was
going to accomplish nothing when they made the promise. That is
probably the most horrendous part of it all. They made the promise
and included it in their now infamous red book.
On page 30 it states:
In our federal system, education is in provincial jurisdiction. The Liberal Party
believes that Canadians in every province should actively support the efforts of their
provincial governments to meet the difficult challenge of equipping our children for
the future. The federal government, however, can and should support and facilitate
the national effort to equip Canadians to compete in the world.
With regard to health care, on page 80 it states:
Without doubt, part of the immediate pressure on the program has arisen from the
decision of the Conservative government to steadily withdraw from health care
funding, thus passing costs on to the provinces. Economic conditions may change
but the health care requirements of Canadians will continue. It is essential to provide
financial certainty and predictability for our health care planning.
These are fine words and great rhetoric. What actually took
place? There was about a 40 per cent cut downloading on to the
provinces. This Liberal government has slashed $7.2 billion out of
the Canadian health and social transfer since it came to power. That
is the reality, that is the promise and that is what was delivered.
A chapter I particularly enjoy reading was ``Governing with
Integrity''. On page 91 it states:
If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity
in our political institutions must be restored.
(1640 )
Page 92: ``Open government will be the watchword of the
Liberal program''. Yesterday when the leader of the Reform Party
asked the Prime Minister to explain and table the documents
outlining the ethics guidelines which he has said he has given to his
ministers to hold them accountable, the Prime Minister turned
around and made some ludicrous attacks on the Reform Party. He
did not even try to address the question.
Have there been any open hearings on the HST in Atlantic
Canada, which is what we are discussing today? People certainly
wanted to be heard in Atlantic Canada. They have some grave
concerns about this legislation.
What has the Liberal government done? How has it backed up its
fine rhetoric from 1993 which is found on page 92? I submit that
the government has not done it. Canadians are watching and
listening and they are fed up with this nonsense. They are fed up
with a government that promises one thing in its documents and
fails to deliver time and time again.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak to the motions in Group No. 3. Naturally, I support the
amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois to Bill C-70, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act.
In my earlier speech, I have already criticized the agreement
between the federal government and the Atlantic provinces, which
cost Canadian and Quebec taxpayers close to $1 billion. I also
asked a bit earlier for the government to pay Quebec $1.9 billion,
since that province has already harmonized its tax with the federal
tax.
Under this bill, the GST will become the HST, the harmonized
sales tax. But, despite its name, it is the same GST that the Liberals
fought so hard against when they were in opposition. The Liberals,
and in particular the current Prime Minister, promised to abolish
the GST. They made this promise on television, with great
enthusiasm, although recently, he tried to say that he had never
promised to eliminate the GST. What is certain, because we saw it
on television, is that in 1993 the Prime Minister said that he would
indeed scrap the GST, that they would eliminate it. His colleagues,
when they were in opposition, said the same. I have here a few
examples.
On November 7, 1990, on page 15245 of Hansard, the member
for Windsor, now the Solicitor General of Canada, said, in response
to a question: ``Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are speaking for
Canadians when they say the GST has to be stopped. If the Minister
is interested in listening to Canadians, he will listen to the Liberals
who are saying in this House, across the country and in the Senate
that the GST must be stopped''. He added: ``Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Liberal senators, in accordance with policies
announced by
7803
the Liberals, voted in favour of an amendment that would exempt
books and periodicals from the goods and services tax. However,
the Conservative senators rejected this amendment''. Then he
asked his question: ``My question for the Prime Minister is this:
why does he claim to be listening to the country when he refuses to
withdraw his GST and has the nerve to tax books? Why does he
want to impose his GST? Why does he want to impose ignorance
on this country?''
(1645)
Now we know that the Liberals do not want to lift the GST
except from certain books, not all books and periodicals, as the
Bloc Quebecois has always requested, even when it did not
constitute a party, and as is done in Quebec. Books and culture
cannot be taxed.
To continue, on March 25, 1991, on page 18931 of Hansard, the
same member for Windsor, now the Solicitor General of Canada,
asked a question, using the following words: ``Will the Deputy
Prime Minister admit that the government was wrong in applying
the GST on books and on the economy, and set up this task force
today?'' What a difference between that and what the Liberals are
saying today.
Another well-known member at the time, now Minister of
Canadian Heritage, said on March 25, 1991, at page 18927 in
Hansard: ``Mr. Speaker, a tax on books is not going to do much for
Canadian unity and Canadian identity''.
On December 13, 1990, at page 16668 in Hansard, another
well-known member, now Minister of Health, said: ``They are
signed by residents from the province of Nova Scotia, namely, the
city of Halifax and surrounding areas. These residents petition the
Government of Canada in their opposition to the goods and
services tax, in particular as that tax applies to books, magazines
and newspapers. All petitioners on these three petitions call upon
the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax
as it is an impediment to small business as well as to Canadian
consumers''.
On December 4, 1990, at page 16171 in Hansard, another
member, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, now
Minister for International Co-operation, said during tabling of
petitions: ``Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I would like to
present pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is against the taxing of
books and urges the government to abandon the GST, at least with
regard to books, but preferably to abandon the GST altogether.
Why stop there? Let us go all the way.''
Another well-known member, now Minister of Public Works, the
hon. member for Sudbury, said that she wanted the government to
carefully reconsider its position and at least change the goods and
services tax if it was not prepared to scrap it.
The Liberals have always spoken out against the GST, especially
to request that books, magazines and newspapers be exempt from
this unfair tax. In the few minutes remaining, I would like to
mention the concerns and disappointment of many Canadian
citizens of various ethnocultural origins regarding changes in the
tax treatment of Canadian pensions as they affect non-residents.
I was approached on the subject by representatives of various
ethnocultural communities, and especially by the Portuguese and
Greek communities. They wrote to the minister and met with
officials of the Department of Finance to try and deal with the
problem, so far without success. A 25 per cent tax on pensions is
too much for elderly people on low incomes.
(1650)
We all agree that we need a fair tax system. Major reforms are
needed. However, compulsory and uniform taxation of the often
very modest pensions paid to Canadians living their last years
abroad is unacceptable. These elderly people are often subject to
double taxation: by Canada and by their country of residence. This
situation is becoming increasingly widespread, since a growing
number of immigrants who are retired go back to their country of
birth to live there.
From a strictly economic viewpoint, the return of an elderly
person to the country of birth is a major benefit for Canada. In fact,
after working and contributing to Canadian and Quebec society for
many years, sometimes for most of their lives, these immigrants
leave Canada and no longer depend on Canada but on their country
of origin for medical care, social services, recreation, public
services, etc.
On the other hand, it seems that more money comes into Canada
in the form of pensions paid by other countries than leaves Canada
in the form of Canadian pensions paid to non-residents. That is why
we must deal with this problem as soon as possible. I urge the
government to find a solution that is equitable.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
we are debating Bill C-70, the harmonized sales tax bill or, as many
have called it, the blended sales tax bill. I gather that is what the
Liberals were going to call it, but shortened down it became the BS
tax as opposed to the harmonized sales tax. I believe the term BS
tax came a little close to the truth, so the Liberals decided to call it
the harmonized tax instead. However, the BS tax is how Atlantic
Canadians and many other Canadians are beginning to view this
tax.
I would like to examine where this tax came from. It came from
the GST. The government lacked the ability to deal with and deliver
on its GST promise. The GST is the most hated tax the country has
ever seen.
7804
The Mulroney government pushed through the GST. We can
recall the days when the Conservatives dragged forward an
obscure part of the Constitution in order to stack the Senate to
get the GST through. What about all the Liberal senators? What
did the Liberal senators do at that time? They screamed that the
bill proposing the GST was horrible and had to be axed.
It will be most interesting to see what those same Liberal
senators do when the HST goes to the Senate. It is a very similar tax
in that it is hated. I hope the Liberal senators will examine the HST
and deal with the terrible parts of the bill, parts which Atlantic
Canadians are saying will not fly.
What happened to the Mulroney government over the GST? It
went from being a majority government to a party which can hold a
caucus in the front seat of an imported pick-up truck. That is what
happens to a government which does not listen to the people.
The Liberals promised to kill, abolish, eliminate the GST, not
blend it. They promised to get rid of it. The Prime Minister said it
on television, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister and the finance
minister. They are all on tape and on film saying that is what they
would do. Where are we today? We are dealing with the HST, the
BS tax, and trying to fulfil a Liberal promise and what is it going to
do?
(1655)
It establishes a 15 per cent tax in the Atlantic provinces. To some
of the Atlantic provinces this is just fine because they take the 7 per
cent general sales tax and the federal tax and add that to the
provincial tax. In most cases in the Atlantic provinces it is over 15
per cent, so this is a deal. This is a deal because Atlantic Canadians
can now say this is a lower tax than they would be paying
originally. In some cases it was 17 or 18 per cent, so they dropped it
to 15 per cent. This is just fine. The administration of it is a
horrendous nightmare, but from a political point of view this was
just fine and the Atlantic premiers bought into it.
However, there is a loss in revenue. Where is this revenue going
to come from? Naturally it comes from the rest of Canada. Alberta
will not buy into it. B.C. will not buy into it. Ontario will not buy
into it. They have categorically said there was no way that these
provinces were going to buy into a blended sales tax. If we look at
Alberta, that is the classic example. It does not have a provincial
sales tax but it has the 7 per cent GST. Why in the world would it
possibly settle for a 15 per cent tax? It would be ludicrous. B.C. is
the same and Ontario is the same, only to a lesser degree. It is
absolutely a no sell for the rest of the country.
The Ontario finance minister has said ``just blending in Ontario
would cost the province of Ontario $3 billion''. That is the type of
lunacy that we are talking about in this bill to try to sell it to the rest
of the country.
What does this do? It is a transfer of wealth. It is a transfer of
money from the rest of Canada into Atlantic Canada. If this were
for a good reason nobody would complain. However, the ludicrous
reason we have here is it is a political sell-off to Atlantic Canada. It
is the way the Liberals are trying to say this is the way they will
solve the problem. Again, here they go manipulating Canadians.
Besides transferring this wealth around, the administration is a
nightmare. All the businesses and consumers are up in arms saying
good lord, this will not work. Where are the Liberals? We have
about 28 Liberals from the Atlantic provinces but they would not
even allow open hearings with Atlantic Canadians. They are saying
``you cannot do that, why would we want to have people in front of
us telling us what might be wrong with this bill?''
This is the type of legislation that the Liberals are forcing
through that is simply not going to fly.
However, there is a bigger picture. This bill deals with what this
government has or has not dealt with and where it is not going. The
bigger issue is integrity. Where is the integrity of a Prime Minister
who, on national television, said one thing about a tax and then said
``I didn't say that'', when in fact he lied to Canadians? He is just
saying that the integrity of the whole government is okay. It is not
okay. What about trust? Canadians want to trust their politicians.
They want to be able to trust their politicians. This is just another
example of Liberal lunacy.
What about truth? What about representing constituents? What
about those Liberals MPs who are out on the east coast? They do
not represent their constituents. We are going into an election that
is going to be very much about the integrity of politicians
representing their constituents. When they go to their federal
ridings representing the issues and the people who sent them there,
obviously the members from Atlantic Canada who are in this place
are not representing their people. What is more, they refuse to
listen to those constituents to tell them what is wrong with this bill.
In summary, I would say that this bill will not fly. There are huge
holes in it. It is a transfer of wealth. It is about the integrity or lack
of integrity of this government and the leaders of this government.
I believe that the very short part of the deal is that Canadians are
going to go to polls and say that this is not what they want in the
form of a government. They want integrity, truth and
representation. That is what we are going to see when we go to the
polls shortly.
(1700)
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I noticed
that my hon. colleague just mentioned that the Prime Minister lied.
I ask you to check the record and ask my colleague to withdraw.
7805
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. If necessary,
the Chair will check the blues. Perhaps the member would be kind
enough to indicate what he thinks he said and if he used
unparliamentary language, whether he would withdraw.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, yes I did say that the Prime Minister
lied and I will withdraw that comment.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank both my hon. colleagues.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my first reaction when I read the bill on the GST was to
say: ``What a fine gift the government has made to the Quebec
sovereignists''.
Here we have a demonstration, in a new instance, of how the
federal system unfairly treats one or another part of Canada,
especially Quebec, which is of concern to me, at a given point in
time.
Let us think about it: the federal government signed an
agreement with the maritime provinces giving them $2 billion in
compensation, that is, it will pay the maritime provinces $2 billion
in compensation. So, we can say that some $500 million comes
from Quebec taxes-that is, about one quarter of the taxes from
one quarter of Canada's population.
This is $500 million that Quebecers will give to the governments
in the maritimes through the federal government. In the end, this
will mean that New Brunswick, for example, will receive
compensation of $400 million, and the provincial government will
be able to boast: ``Taxes have been lowered here. Move here. We
are the best spot in Canada''.
Obviously, they are not going to boast that part of the reduction
in taxes comes from compensation for the harmonization of the
GST. Some of the money even comes from Quebecers. This is why
I say it is a great argument for the sovereignists. As former Quebec
premier Mr. Duplessis said: ``Donnez-nous notre butin''. There
was also ``Maîtres chez nous'', because you can be sure that, if we
had control over all of Quebec's taxes, no other province would get
a gift of this sort. In today's world and with today's competition,
this sort of situation is completely unacceptable.
To add insult to injury, Quebec's sales tax has been harmonized
with the federal tax for several years now. Quebec was the first
province in Canada to harmonize in good faith. It even repatriated
federal officials. It got no financial compensation for doing so. It
simply considered it a worthwhile administrative move that would
produce interesting results and reduce paperwork and bureaucracy.
So there was no compensation. Why does the federal
government now think it would be worth paying up to $2 billion in
compensation? That is the political price it must pay for its promise
on the GST. It is trying to hide as best it can the fact that it has
failed to keep its promise.
In fact, this seems to be the norm with this government.
Whenever they make a blunder, they fork out compensation. The
fact that the money comes out of taxpayers' pockets does not seem
to matter too much. It was the same thing in the Mulroney affair.
They forked out millions of dollars to cover the mistake made by
officials at the justice department. Same thing with the GST. A
promise is a promise. Election promises must be kept at all cost.
They just spend as much as they need to disguise the facts and
avoid embarrassment.
But the voters will not be fooled. What is more, it is becoming
obvious that there may be justice after all. The confusion created
by the new legislation may well backfire on the government, and it
will have to shoulder the responsibility for it.
(1705)
At a time when disparities are to be eliminated and national
standards imposed across the country, there will now be a place in
Canada where the tax will be incorporated in the sales price, while
that will not be the case in the rest of Canada.
Companies that do business nationwide will find themselves in a
very complicated situation, having to live with two different
systems for registering the tax. This is absurd.
This is not a bill we as parliamentarians should be proud of. We
still have the chance to make it right. I do hope the federal
government will find a way to deal with the inequities and other
problems caused by their legislation. This bill is quite thick. The
government is trying to ram it though. The goal is to make sure
that, during the election campaign, the government can claim to
have reached its stated objective regarding the sales tax. The GST
did not disappear, but another solution was found: it was
harmonized. But at what cost? Who cares?
Two billion dollars in compensation: Was this the price to keep
Liberals from Atlantic Canada from speaking out on the
employment insurance reform? I do not know. It maybe that the
enormous amount of money involved has something to do with
this. Maybe it was thought that this amount would make up for the
shortfalls suffered by the seasonal economies of these provinces,
following the implementation of the employment insurance
reform.
There is nothing wrong with helping regional economies make
adjustments. The problem is that the government chose specific
regions but ignored other ones, such as Quebec, and particularly its
eastern part, which I represent and which is in direct competition
with the maritimes.
There are businesspeople in my region who wonder whether
there is a balance, a fairness in how businesses are treated by the
7806
two provincial governments. These people wonder if they are
treated properly, if their business benefits from a favourable bias.
When they assess the situation, they might think that the tax
reductions in New Brunswick, as well as certain dynamic factors
and the lack of environmental constraints make that province very
appealing from a business standpoint.
Why is that? One explanation is the $2 billion that will be given
to the maritimes to compensate them for harmonizing their tax.
New Brunswick will receive $400 million. Therefore, for a region
like Madawaska, on the border of the area I represent, the
economic fallout from this compensation will give a competitive
edge that is unacceptable, even a bit upsetting for Quebecers. This
is money from the federal government, so one quarter of it is
coming out of our own pockets to help our neighbours compete
against us. This raises some serious questions.
In a region like Témiscouata, people wondered whether to vote
yes or no in the fall of 1995. It is not hard to understand that they
are now leaning toward yes. In a situation like the present one, we
realize that, once again, we are being penalized by federal
management and that this will have a direct and serious economic
impact.
How could the present government correct this situation? It
should go ahead and agree to sit down with Quebec and negotiate
the compensation that Quebec should receive for the trouble-free
harmonization in that province. Harmonization was implemented a
few years ago. It is working very well. The civil servants have all
been absorbed into one government, the Quebec government. The
results are interesting. The experience was probably even used by
the federal government to persuade the maritimes of the feasibility
of harmonization.
There is a price to pay, and if this government has a sense of
fairness, if it hopes to show Quebecers that they are part of the
Canadian federation, this is an example of something concrete they
can do.
(1710)
It is rather frustrating to have to keep defending ourselves, as if
we were being forced to beg. Similarly, we had to keep on asking
questions in the House for a month or two, to ensure that the federal
government would pay its share of the bill for the Charlottetown
referendum. In the end, we won our point. The Bloc Quebecois is a
very tenacious party. We are able to sustain our points of view for a
long time, and to support them with solid arguments, but in so
doing it becomes obvious that the federal system will never offer
Quebec a way to succeed in achieving equality. The solution lies in
being fully responsible for our own decisions so we do not find
ourselves in a situation where a majority, to which we do not
belong, decides to take our money and to give it to another part of
Canada, by creating undue competition.
This is a very clear example, a very obvious example, of
something that is totally unacceptable.
Why has this bill been rushed through, without all of the proper
consultations? Undoubtedly because the bill contains many
problems, but mainly because it is inequitable. I hope that the
government will listen to our arguments, because I am certain that
all Quebecers will be attuned to them.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I have consulted
with the other parties and I think if you seek it you will find that
there is unanimous consent to have private members' motion
M-259 in the name of the member for Calgary Southwest
withdrawn from the order of precedence.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has indicated there is
unanimous consent to have the private members' bill in the name
of the member for Calgary Southwest withdrawn. Is there
unanimous consent to do that?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: No. In light of the denial of unanimous
consent I will go to the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is almost a necessity for a member of Parliament to
wade into this GST harmonization debate. This is an issue that
brought many people in the House to the political process in the
first place.
It seems particularly ironic that the government that ran on a
pledge to abolish the GST finds itself in a position of trying to
squirm out from between a rock and a hard place, finding itself
inexorably smashed by the fact it had made a commitment all over
the country, in every single constituency saying: ``Elect us and we
will get rid of the GST''. The Liberal lexicon of getting rid of the
GST is to try to disguise it by harmonizing it.
Because the package would not sell across the country, it was
necessary for the government to then try and involve as many
provinces as possible in a nefarious scheme to slide out from under
its responsibility for a campaign promise clearly made across the
country.
The only provinces that the federal government was able to
induce to going along with its nefarious scheme were the maritime
provinces, all of whom in one degree or another have consistently
been recipients of largesse from the federal treasury for many
years.
In fairness, I would expect that many of the premiers thought
this would not be a bad deal. It is not a bad deal for the four Atlantic
premiers who signed on to this nefarious scheme because the rest
of the country was going to have to finance it, top it up a little bit to
the tune of almost a billion dollars. That billion dollars comes from
the other provinces.
7807
Because the government is in a majority position it has the
power and the authority, although it does not have the moral
authority, to do pretty much as it sees fit, provided it can get the
provinces to go along.
(1715 )
As members know, I represent a riding in Alberta. In Alberta we
do not have a provincial sales tax, so harmonization to Alberta
would be a particularly bitter pill to swallow. It is interesting that as
of March 1996 provincial retail sales taxes varied across the
country. The federal government wanted to somehow harmonize
everything across the country so that everybody would have the
same sales tax, thereby removing the competitive advantage of a
lower tax or no tax at all from any part of the country that was able
to do so.
It is interesting to note that as we go from east to west in 1996
Newfoundland had the highest retail sales tax at 12 per cent, Prince
Edward Island at 10 per cent, Nova Scotia at 11 per cent and New
Brunswick at 11 per cent. So a harmonized tax at 15 per cent is
really a significant reduction on their tax rates but it represents a
significant tax increase based on the fact that it will be applied over
a much broader range of products.
As we continue from east to west we find that the tax rates come
down significantly. In March 1996 Quebec was at 6.5 per cent,
Ontario was at 8 per cent, Manitoba was a 7 per cent, Saskatchewan
was at 9 per cent, Alberta was at zero per cent and British Columbia
was at 7 per cent. That means some of the provinces raised more
money, perhaps through gasoline taxes or other excise taxes or had
a higher rate of surcharge on personal income taxes.
However, the province and the people of Alberta have made the
conscious decision that we do not want higher retail taxes. When
the idea of applying a harmonized tax to Alberta was floated
recently, the University of Alberta in the Western Centre for
Economic Research led by senior research analyst Karen S. Davis
put together a study on what would happen in Alberta if a
harmonized sales tax were applied in Alberta. The study has
revealed some interesting statistics and conclusions, some of which
I will read into the record. In fairness to Karen Davis and her
research I am reading very selectively into the record from this
report.
She makes the case, as was made early on, that if given the
choice between having two very different taxes at different rates
that cover different bases, that is they apply to different products
differently or some not at all, obviously for the ease of everyone
concerned it would make sense not to have these differences. Then
the decision would be on what products should the tax be applied
to, should the tax be applied broadly or narrowly, and should the
tax be high or low. It makes sense that the broader the application,
the lower the rate; the more narrow and focused the application, the
higher the rate would be. It is plain common sense.
But even in a situation like Alberta's where we have a zero rate
of provincial tax and with the commitment from the federal
government that any taxes raised by this harmonized tax in Alberta
would come into the federal treasury and then be refunded to
Alberta, even with that undertaking, if it could be believed, try to
find 10 people who would say with any degree of confidence they
will give the government the opportunity to get its hands on x
amount of money and expect to get it all back. I have a bridge to
sell you in Brooklyn.
(1720 )
I would like to give credit to the research done by the University
of Alberta. I would like to read into the record the financial impact
a harmonized tax of 12 per cent would have in Alberta. It reads:
``We conclude that harmonization at a 12 per cent rate across
Canada will cause real gross domestic product in Alberta to fall by
up to one-half of a per cent in the short term, and as many as 10,000
jobs would be lost. The impact on GDP is lessened if wages also
fall to mitigate the effects on employment. Real wages can be
expected to decline by 1 per cent to 2 per cent depending upon their
flexibility''.
The authors of the report have clearly stated that there are two
effects, the short term effect and the long term effect. Their
conclusion is also that in the long term it is possible, but not
necessarily probable, that the negative effects could be mitigated
over the long term. However, in the short term it is most likely
there would be serious economic damage done to Alberta.
The authors also point out that there are two aspects to
harmonization. This is something that is often overlooked. During
the debate in the House today it was mentioned very rarely, if at all.
There are two aspects to harmonization, that of the tax base and
that of the tax rate. A key issue is the need to weigh the incremental
benefits to Canada of a harmonized rate against the adverse short
term adjustments imposed on Alberta by a sudden increase in sales
taxation. Based on the premise that if we are in the boat together,
the better the boat is doing, we are going to do better incrementally.
Unfortunately these are theories, they are not proven in fact. The
one thing that we do know is that the short term damage would be
significant.
From the Alberta perspective, the finance committee's 1994
recommendations are more attractive than the finance minister's
plan to move to a uniform rate. Even with the abatement of the
incremental revenues collected from Alberta in its June 1994
recommendations to government, the finance committee stressed
the benefits of adoption of a consistent broad base and gave
suggestions on how to do it, but it was not accepted.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have consulted
again with the other parties and I believe that if you seek it you will
find that there is unanimous consent to have the member for
Calgary Southwest become sponsor for private member's Bill
7808
C-341 in the place of the former member for Calgary West, and
that Motion No. 259 be withdrawn from the order of precedence.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise again to speak to this grouping of amendments.
Before I talk about the amendments in detail, I would like to
comment on some things which happened earlier in this debate.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the finance minister
chastised both the Bloc members and the Reform members for not
speaking directly to the amendments that were in the grouping. He
went on to indicate that it was unfortunate the debate had not
focused on those particular amendments.
I would say that no amount of amendment to this legislation
would make it suitable. This legislation is being referred to as the
harmonization of the GST, but harmonization is really not a good
description of the legislation.
In the latest issue of ``Let's Talk Taxes'', put out by the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation, the author of the article described
harmonization in this way: ``Harmonize is such a nice word. Aside
from its soothing musical connotations, it implies a sense of unity,
togetherness and co-operation. When applied to the GST, however,
it means coercion, confusion, cost and cover-up''. The author of
this report went on to explain what he meant with regard to those
issues.
(1725)
Clearly this bill does not harmonize. What we have are three
provinces in Atlantic Canada that have signed on to this legislation.
We have other province that have said that they will not sign on.
They will not do it. They think it is wrong.
Of course the price that taxpayers pay for this, and this issue is
an issue that should be talked about by taxpayers and taxpayer
advocates, is about $1 billion. Taxpayers from the other provinces,
other than those three that are taking part, will pay $1 billion to put
this so-called harmonized tax in place in Atlantic Canada.
It is a lot of money. It is a lot of money to cover for a broken
election promise. We know of course that many Liberal members
were elected on that promise to get rid of the GST, to abolish the
GST. How many? Who knows, 10, 20, 30 members elected because
of that promise? It is hard to know but it was a lot.
The Prime Minister before the election campaign, during the
campaign and since the election has said ``We are going to get rid
of the GST. We are going to abolish. We are going to kill the GST''.
It has not happened and this legislation is an attempt to cover up. It
is an attempt that is costing taxpayers from the other provinces $1
billion. That is an awful expensive cover-up.
I really take exception to the parliamentary secretary to the
finance minister's chastising Reformers and Bloc members for
talking about the broader issue, the fact that this harmonization is
not harmonization at all and that it is going to cost taxpayers almost
$1 billion.
The member for Mississauga South has taken on in an admirable
way many causes, especially on family issues. I commend him for
that. However, I was absolutely saddened from what I heard from
him today. This member stood up in the House and said to
Canadians, through their televisions, that the Liberals never
promised to get rid of the GST when the television tapes that have
been shown across the country, especially since the town hall
meeting, have show the Prime Minister promising on at least three
occasions to get rid of the GST. I do not understand how the
member can say that.
Then he went on to say, as unbelievable as this sounds, that what
they did say is they would replace the GST. Then he said: ``When
we looked at replacing the GST, what we found is'', and this is the
member for Mississauga South speaking earlier in debate today,
``the best replacement for the GST is the GST''. By his own
admission the member for Mississauga South admits they have not
even replaced the GST with this new so-called harmonized GST.
Canadians are not going to be fooled by what is going on here. It
is a cover-up and it is an unacceptable cover-up. I find it so sad that
the member for Mississauga South would get involved in this kind
of activity.
Just as I speak about this it leads me to reflect on the great need
we have in this country for a recall of members of Parliament. It
makes it so clear that we have to have tools to put in the hands of
the voters and the taxpayers to keep their members of Parliament
accountable. Those tools have to be given to the people so that
politicians who run for office and who do not deliver on their
promises can be held accountable.
If the people in Mississauga South could see and could hear what
their member said regarding this harmonization legislation,
absolutely outright denying that they ever said they would get rid
of the GST, saying they promised to replace it but when they really
looked at things they found the best replacement for the GST was
in fact the GST, I suggest there could well have been a recall
petition started against that member.
(1730 )
To explain for those who may not understand when I talk about
recall, I am talking about putting in the hands of the people the
ability to fire their member of Parliament, not only at election time
when some of the main issues are being deflected from, but also
between elections. Recall comes into play between elections.
7809
When a basic promise which played such a great role in getting
many of those members across the floor elected is broken, that
is the time recall should be implemented. That is why the Reform
member for Beaver River sponsored a recall bill. Had it passed,
it would have put into the hands of the people a tool which would
allow them to fire their member of Parliament between elections
when they felt that their MP was not honouring a commitment
made at election time.
The member for Beaver River sponsored legislation which came
before the House. Had it passed, it would have been law. Why do
we not have the right of recall, the right given to the people to fire
their members of Parliament between elections? Why do we not
have that legislation in place? The answer is that it was shot down.
It was voted against by members of the Liberal Party and by
members of the Bloc Quebecois. They refused to put this important
tool which would hold members of Parliament accountable into the
hands of the people.
I would suggest that those 10, 20, 30, 40 members of Parliament
from the governing party who campaigned on getting rid of the
GST will be held accountable at the next election. Many of them
will not be re-elected. That is accountability. The voters will
exercise their right in this case. It is unfortunate the voters do not
have recall, the tool that would allow them to do it now rather than
waiting for the next election.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me somewhat of a pleasure to speak on
this legislation.
All Canadians realize that a promise was made to them prior to
the 1993 election. It was very clear from candidates going door to
door, from candidates meetings and also from the Prime Minister's
statements to the public via TV and radio that the promise to the
electorate was that the Liberal government was going to scrap the
GST.
I do not and I am sure most Canadians do not recall the word
harmonization being used. It brings distress to most Canadians that
we are now looking at a government which has decided it will
harmonize the GST with the provincial sales tax. The government
has started in the maritime provinces. It bribed those provinces. It
did not follow the initiative of the provinces asking for it. It just
bribed those provinces with $1 billion of borrowed dollars to the
Canadian taxpayer.
It should also be noted that three provinces have said they will
not even contemplate this issue. They will not contemplate entering
any negotiations or proposals with the federal government. The
three provinces that have said they will not contemplate it are the
three have provinces, those that seem always to be paying up front
for federal government programs.
The Ontario Minister of Finance has even stated that a blended
sales tax using the GST base would cost Ontarians over $3 billion
in extra taxes.
(1735 )
This government has managed to reduce its deficit not by
substantially cutting government spending, but by raising fees and
taxes to the Canadian people. This is one more example where the
Liberal government thinks that if any Canadian has any money in
his or her pocket, it is fair grab.
The finance minister also plans to force federally regulated
industries, including airlines and banks, to bury the GST in their
prices. Canadians need to know just how much money their federal
government is taking out of their pockets above and beyond their
income tax contributions. I do not think Canadians appreciate the
underhanded methods this government has used to get more money
out of their pockets.
One of the most frightening aspects of this harmonization plan is
the cost in jobs. Three major retailers in Atlantic Canada have
stated that the net annual retail deficit will total $27 million once
harmonization is implemented. The Retail Council of Canada has
said that by forcing stores to bury the new tax in prices, the
harmonized tax regime will cost retailers at least $100 million a
year.
The tax included pricing hits retailers in four areas. One is the
duplication of the information systems and the rewriting of
software. Another is in the re-pricing of pre-priced goods: books,
greeting cards, magazines, et cetera. The third one is in the
duplication of advertising costs in flyers and catalogues; one set for
the Atlantic provinces and another set for those areas where there is
no harmonization. The fourth is in the warehousing and
distribution costs; sorting out which ones have the tax included for
the maritimes and which ones do not.
The Halifax Chamber of Commerce predicts that the harmonized
sales tax will push up new housing prices by 5.5 per cent, as well as
force municipalities to raise their property taxes. The Canadian
Real Estate Association says that the harmonization of the GST and
PST will increase the cost of a new house by $4,000 in Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland, and by $3,374 in New Brunswick.
What is happening here is that the taxpayer is having to pick up
the extra tax burden.
GST harmonization is responsible for the closure of five
Greenberg stores and the loss of 79 jobs. Woolworth Canada states
that due to the tax inclusive pricing it is considering closing a
quarter of the 126 stores in the Atlantic region meaning a loss of
over 300 jobs. Carleton Cards predicts that it will close 19 of its 39
stores in the region, throwing 116 people out of work.
7810
I find it an outrage that this government can talk about job
creation and about using the infrastructure to create part time,
temporary jobs yet it stands by and watches permanent, full time
jobs disappearing, particularly in a region like Atlantic Canada
which, Lord knows, has few enough jobs for its people. How can
this government deliberately be putting together a proposal and
putting legislation in place that is a detriment to jobs for the
Atlantic people?
Consumers, the ones who will have jobs and might have some
money in their pockets, will be paying more for funeral services,
children's clothing and books. What happened to the promise of
this government to remove the GST from books? Auto repairs,
electricity, gasoline, home heating fuel and haircuts. Not only are
we taking away their jobs, we are raising the cost of living. They
are going to be hard pressed to provide their children with proper
clothing and to heat their homes, and that is anticipating they can
even afford to buy homes with the rising costs this implementation
is going to create.
One of the more irresponsible results of this is that the Liberal
government defeated a Reform motion to hold hearings in Atlantic
Canada on GST harmonization which would have allowed the
people of Atlantic Canada to participate in deciding on whether or
not GST harmonization was something they wanted and they felt
they could support. Refusing to allow the people in Atlantic
Canada to exercise their right to participate in the discussion, in
essence is the same as having taxation without consultation or
without representation. That should not be allowed in this country.
If this government is under any misconception that the people of
Canada support it in retaining the GST instead of scrapping it,
removing it or abolishing it and if government members feel that
Canadians support them in their efforts to hide the GST through
harmonization, let me read a couple of comments made by
constituents of mine on their householder returns.
One response says: ``Get rid of all the governors general. It will
save billions of dollars no doubt as we do not need the Queen''. He
goes on to say: ``When will they abolish the GST? Prime Minister
Chrétien promised. You can see it on the old tapes when he made
this promise-
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.41 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
Mr. Campbell: On a point of order and I thank you, Mr.
Speaker, in view of the hour.
On several occasions today you, Mr. Speaker, and others who
have occupied the Chair have pointed out to members that the use
of certain words in this House is unacceptable. If I heard correctly,
what I heard was an attempt to use the same word by spelling it out
rather than saying it. It amounts to the same word with respect to
the Prime Minister of this country.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River and I
were talking. I did not hear the latter part of the hon. member's
remarks. Perhaps she would indicate what was said and if
something unparliamentary was said I know she will want to
withdraw it.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I did not name any word. What I
was doing to avoid the circumstances was I said that it was a four
letter word starting with l. I did not say any word at all.
The Deputy Speaker: We always accept a member's word in
this place and accordingly it must have been a misunderstanding.
_____________________________________________
7810
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 26, 1996 consideration of
the motion that, in the opinion of this House, the government
should return the word ``Canadian'' among questions of ethnic
origin on the Canadian Census; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion M-277 concerning a
proposed change to the next Canadian census.
The member for Beaver River moved: ``That, in the opinion of
this House, the government should return the word ``Canadian''
among questions of ethnic origin on the Canadian Census''. And
my colleague, the member for Bellechasse, moved an amendment
to this motion asking that it ``include ``Canadian'', ``Quebecker'',
``English-Canadian'', ``French-Canadian'' and ``Acadian'' among
questions of ethnic origin on the Canadian Census''.
This goes back to the last Canadian census. It is truly astonishing
that an agency as reliable as Statistics Canada, whose competence
is recognized worldwide, produced such erroneous questions.
One of them, question 17, asks to which ethnic or cultural group
the respondent's ancestors belong. The choices are: French,
English, German, Canadian, Scottish, Jewish, Haitian, Jamaican,
Vietnamese, and so on.
(1745)
Question 19 reads as follows: ``Is this person-and here comes
the problematical point- white, Chinese, South Asian (for
example, Indian, Pakistani, Punjabi, Sri Lankan)-here nations and
7811
regions are being confused, since the Punjab is a region and not a
country-black (for example, African, Haitian, Jamaican and
Somali)-as if a person could not be white and be born in
Africa-Arab, West Asian (for example, Armenian, Egyptian,
Iranian, Lebanese, Moroccan), Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin
American, Japanese, Korean or other?''.
It is, I imagine, in this list that the member for Beaver River
would like to see the word ``Canadian'' added.
There is a very definite confusion between race, ethnic group,
nationality, language, region and country. Yet these words do have
definitions, and there is a capability at Statistics Canada, with all
the scientific knowledge possessed by its employees and
professionals, to define those concepts very well. There are ways to
not confuse the concept of race, a concept that is becoming more
and more obsolete anyway, we must admit.
As for ethnicity, this is an item of no scientific value, since the
majority of people forget their ethnic group of origin. When I
myself answered the questionnaire, I did not say I was French in
origin, since my ancestors came to the country in 1657. I have more
or less loss sight of that. I am Canadian in origin, born in Canada.
For me, that presents no problem.
Except that if someone wants to ask me something more
specific, to find out what group I really identify with in Canada, I
cannot identify myself with a Canadian; there is no such thing as a
Canadian. It is all very fine to spend a lot of money to try and make
one exist, but a Canadian does not exist as such, in my opinion. At
least not yet. I am of Canadian origin, of course, but I belong to the
Quebec nation. My origin is the one I have in common with people
who live in the same area and have the same common
characteristics.
We are aware of a certain unity that exists among people who
live in Quebec and increasingly, ``Canadians'' are defining
themselves as Ontarians, Manitobans or Newfoundlanders. Many
people from Newfoundland do not feel any more Canadian than
Quebecers do. They are from Newfoundland first. Of course they
will say they are from Canada, although they were the last to join
Confederation.
So there are certain feelings, a certain commonality that unite us,
through history, society, culture and above all through a desire to
live together. I think that if they decide to keep this question in the
next census questionnaire, it should be clarified to reflect the kind
of answer that is desired.
It would be interesting to know with what kind of nationalism we
can identify, because as we know each other better, we are more
likely to accept each other as we are and understand each other, as
long as we live in the same country or when we will live together as
good neighbours. So we will know where we are from.
The important thing is that we can talk about our ethnic origin,
without mixing up all these concepts as they were in question 19.
Now we can assume that all these people who work at Statistics
Canada, with all their knowledge and skills, have a reason for
asking the question the way they did. Strictly speaking, both
Question No. 17 and question 19 are not a matter of census data or
statistics but, in my opinion, purely political questions.
(1750)
What is the point of these questions? The responses will be
tallied, the number of people from France, Germany, Italy, China
will be identified-as the questionnaire asks: Are you white,
Chinese-you can be Chinese without ever setting foot in China. If
you live in Hong Kong, Singapore or Taiwan, you are Chinese, but
you can be Chinese without ever going to China.
A lot more precision is required. You can also be Canadian and
not identify with English Canada at all. You can be a Canadian of
francophone origin, but, because of your family history, be part of
another segment of the population or the minority in Quebec. There
are francophones, even Tremblays, whose name is given an English
pronunciation and who do not speak a word of French anymore,
because they belong to the anglophone minority in Quebec.
Perhaps these people do not see themselves as Quebecers
anymore. They are more English Canadian, and we must respect
their choice.
Why make the question unclear? No doubt in order to emphasize
Canada's multiculturalism policy and convince us that Canada
exists, that it is the most beautiful country in the world and that
ours is a mosaic comprising every country. People are Ukrainian
Canadians, Italian Canadians, Chinese Canadians-I could name
all of the 200 countries in the world. We probably have people from
all these places.
I have no objection to that, but it is the source of Canada's
problem. And it is: a lack of Canadian identity. Maintaining
multiculturalism within the country means that no one wants to
become Canadian and so we end up not defining what it means to
be Canadian. In my opinion, if Canada wants to progress and better
understand itself-it will be doubtless very useful to us as
neighbours some day-there is no reason to be afraid of identifying
what one considers one's nationality.
The question must be clarified. There are Acadians in the
country, there are French Canadians, there are Quebecers and there
are Ontarians. It is vital to know what people consider to be their
nationality.
We must open our eyes. We must look at the reality of our
differences, learn to live together and respect one another, whether
it be within a single country or as good neighbours.
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to Motion No. 277,
which calls for the government to include the words ``Canadian'',
7812
``Quebecois'', ``English Canadian'', ``French Canadian'' and
``Acadian'' on the question concerning ethnic origin in the census.
First I would point out that, for a number of censuses,
respondents have been able to respond ``Canadian'' as well as
``Quebecer''-
The Deputy Speaker: The clerk has indicated to me that the
hon. member has already spoken on the amendment and,
accordingly, he knows that he is not eligible to speak again.
I see him shaking his head. Perhaps he would stand down for a
moment and we will check to see whether an error has been made
on the record.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, I spoke for part of my time when the
hour elapsed the last time and I had not completed my speech.
The Deputy Speaker: The member may not realize it, but if the
member does not show up the next time and another member
speaks, then the member who did not appear for the debate is taken
to have abandoned his right to speak. Accordingly, in light of what
the member has said, he is not entitled to speak on the amendment.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order on this?
The Deputy Speaker: I will listen to the hon. member, but I
hope it is something he has not already said.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to stand to speak
first when you recognized the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata before the clerk even read the order of the
day.
The Deputy Speaker: I will not get into a debate with the
member on that. It was the Bloc Quebecois' turn to speak. If the
member wishes to consult the Table he will see that.
(1755 )
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker it is
a pleasure for me to speak on Motion No. 277 which has been
introduced in the House by my colleague from Beaver River.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should return the word
``Canadian'' among questions of ethnic origin on the Canadian census.
There has been some interesting debate on this. I was very
interested to listen to the previous speaker, my colleague from the
Bloc, who said it was a shame there was no discernible Canadian
culture, that our culture had been fractured into hyphenated
Canadianism, recognizing all kinds of hyphenated Canadians but
not working to make sure we affirm and encourage Canadian unity
and identity. She makes a very excellent point. We need to stop
doing exactly what question 19 does, which is divide and fracture
and hyphenate Canadians based on ethnicity.
The Liberals make a big thing of a pejorative word called racism.
Yet here the Liberals, in a brand new question conceived and
written by a Liberal government, does exactly that, differentiates
Canadians on the basis of race. If that is not racism I would like to
know what it is. Perhaps when the Liberals use the word ``racist''
and ``racism'' as loosely as they do, they would bear in mind that
their actions do not always match their deeds.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there has been some hot debate and
some concern that Canadian is not one of the categories of ethnicity
or race or background that is a choice on the census form in
question 19 which is kind of interesting.
I have a very interesting and helpful letter from the chief
statistician commenting on Motion No. 277. It very helpfully sets
out this information. I am sure Canadians will be very interested in
this information because it sheds a new light on concerns that
Canadian is not one of the categories listed in question 19.
The chief statistician states: ``I would like to emphasize that a
person answering Canadian for question 19 would not be
prosecuted''. That is good news. We can be Canadians. We can
identify ourselves as Canadians even on census forms and not be
prosecuted. We should stand up and cheer about that. That is very
reassuring to me.
The letter goes on to state: ``Individuals who felt that Canadian
was the most appropriate response to the question and who wrote in
this answer in the space provided are considered to have complied
with the requirements of the Statistics Act''. This is once again
affirming if you identify yourself as a Canadian in the census form
you will not be prosecuted. It is very nice to have that freedom. I
am sure most Canadians will feel very happy.
The letter goes on to say this. ``Statistics are needed by both
governments and employers to administer and assess the impact of
the employment equity legislation passed by Parliament in 1986''.
Two interesting points come out of this letter, in addition to the
relief we call feel knowing that we can in fact identify ourselves as
Canadians. One is that Canadian is not an obvious and clear choice.
In fact, the only way that one can identify oneself as a Canadian in
question 19 is if one writes it in the blank.
Canadian is kind of an afterthought in this question. It is a fill in
the blank kind of thing and not a natural and normal designation for
Canadians. A person may be designated as almost anything else,
but only if they really feel strongly about it and decide to fill in the
blank can they really be a Canadian in that question.
7813
(1800 )
The second piece of information in this letter, which I believe is
accurate, is that the purpose of question 19, which asks for the
ethnicity of respondents, is for the purpose of administering the
employment equity legislation passed by the government.
Mr. Speaker, did you indicate I have only one minute left? Oh, I
am finished.
That is a little background to support this motion. I am pleased to
put that forward. I suggest this motion be passed and that
Canadians be free to designate themselves as Canadians on our
census forms in any manner that they choose.
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for
Calgary North.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I know time flies
when you are having fun, but that did not seem to have been 10
minutes. Could you consult with the Table to make sure I got all my
purple prose in?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member may well have an
excellent point. We have a new technology in the House now which
actually times everybody down to 10 minutes. There may have
been an error in the technology but never by anyone at the Table or
in the Chair. I will check that matter.
The fault is no doubt with the technology. The hon. member for
Calgary North still has five minutes.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I know other members
may have wished that the technology was correct in this case but I
did have a couple of more points that might throw some light on
our consideration of this motion.
I refer back to the point that the purpose of question 19 was
simply and solely for the administration of the employment equity
legislation. I had some very interesting feedback in my office
following the circulation of the census. I am sure almost every
member in the House did and that other colleagues of mine, even
from other parties, would be able to give examples of this.
From my own files, a woman named Krishna called and said:
``Census question number 19: East Indian would cover Punjabis.
The category of Punjabi should not be there. I refuse to answer and
will not send my application back to Stats Canada. This creates
division between India and Punjabi and should be removed''.
Esther phoned in and said: ``I am livid and upset and hurt about
the census forms. When I received my Canadian citizenship, the
adjudicator told me that I would never again be asked what my
ethnicity was or what my background was. Stats Canada already
has my records. Why does it need to ask me again? I thought I was
a Canadian''.
Since time is short I have provided just those two short examples
of some of the difficulties, the divisions and the upset that
Canadians feel when they are subjected to this kind of
discrimination and differentiation.
Over the past two decades, Liberal and Conservative
governments have tried to achieve equality, a very laudatory goal.
But they have tried to achieve equality among Canadians by
passing legislation that treats different groups of Canadians
differently under the law based on race and other characteristics.
Reform believes this special status approach is divisive and leads
to intolerance and inequality. We believe in true equality which
allows diversity and promotes tolerance.
A Reform government would ensure that Canadians are
protected against discrimination on the basis of equality of
individuals before the law rather than on the basis of special rights
based on group characteristics. A Reform government would
protect all individuals from rights infringements and
discriminatory actions by the state, particularly in the area of
employment which the Employment Equity Act is supposed to
address.
(1805 )
We would discontinue federal affirmative action and
employment equity programs because unlike the other parties, we
believe that even discrimination practised for ``affirmative
reasons'' is harmful because it is fundamentally unjust.
Question 19 on the census form gets us more to the point where
we discriminate, differentiate Canadians, the people in this country
on the basis of ethnicity. We think it is wrong. We think it is
harmful to Canadian society. We think it is divisive and we think it
should be stopped and reversed and that Canadians should be
affirmed as Canadians, treated equally, given equal opportunity
before the law and move on to build their lives as individual
Canadians, not as members of a special, different group based on
individual characteristics.
Once again, I urge my colleagues to support the motion which
again affirms the fact that we should be proud to be Canadian,
encouraged to be proud Canadians and should be proud to be
identified as Canadians in very way.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
you should visit us sometime. I think you might enjoy it. Although
we had some snow over the winter, we now have daffodils poking
their noses up.
I am a Canadian and what is more I am proud to be a Canadian.
As a matter of fact for over 41 years I wore the word Canada on my
shoulder flash in the air force.
It has been my good fortune to have travelled most of the world,
usually as a private citizen, but for three years as a Canadian
7814
diplomat. It did not matter what my status was, my Canadian
passport gained me a warm welcome no matter where I went. The
people I met did not care about my ethnic origin. It was the fact that
I was from Canada that mattered.
During the 1996 census one in every five Canadian households
was asked: ``Is this person white, Chinese, South Asian, black,
Arab, West Asian, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin American,
Japanese, Korean or other?''
For the first time in our history Canadians were required to
define and identify themselves by race. Many Canadians view the
omission of the term Canadian in question 19 of the census as a
denial of their heritage. This omission has prompted my colleague
from Beaver River to introduce Motion No. 277, and I welcome
this opportunity to address the important issues prompted by the
motion.
It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should return the word
``Canadian'' among questions of ethnic origin on the Canadian census.
Stats Canada readily acknowledges that they excluded the term
Canadian from the list because including it would make it
impossible for them to determine the numbers and characteristics
of the visible minority population in Canada. This was the essential
purpose of that question. Why must visible minorities be defined?
Why do we have to segment, to separate Canadians into racial
groups? Why simply, Mr. Speaker, to enable the employment
equity act to be implemented.
Let us have a look at what is accomplished by employment
equity. Thomas Sowell, a well respected African-American
economist has written extensively on preferential hiring programs
around the world and observes that preferential hiring policies
invariably expand, often hurting the very people they are designed
to help. They create tensions among winners and losers and are
invariably associated with heavy costs because they invite large
numbers of fraudulent claims from those who do not belong to a
minority group but wish to obtain the advantages.
In Democracy on Trial, Jean Bethke Elshtain writes of the
condescending paternalism experienced by scholarship recipient
Richard Rodriguez, the son of Mexican immigrants to California.
Although he had personally received an excellent parochial
education he was treated as a victim of cultural deprivation. He
noticed that many of his peers who were both poor and poorly
educated received all sorts of allowances and were pushed
``through the system under the assumption that standards of merit
and achievement are themselves unfair impositions by an anglo
majority on any and all minorities''.
(1810)
In Rodriguez's own words: ``The conspiracy of kindness became
a conspiracy of uncaring. Cruelly, callously, admissions
committees agreed to overlook serious academic deficiency. I
knew students in college then barely able to read, students unable
to grasp the function of a sentence. I knew non-white graduate
students who were bewildered by the requirement to compose a
term paper and who each day were humiliated when they couldn't
compete with other students in seminars.
Not surprisingly, among those students with very poor academic
preparation, few complete their course of study. Many drop out
blaming themselves for their failure. One fall, six non-white
students I knew suffered severe mental collapse. None of the
professors who had welcomed them to graduate school were
around when it came time to take them to the infirmary or to the
airport.
The university officials, who so diligently took note of those
students in their self-serving totals of entering minority students,
finally took no note of them when they left''.
I can speak personally on this practice as it is applied in the
Canadian Armed Forces where a conscious effort is made to
achieve the correct ethnic ratio in the rank structure.
Francophone officers were often given priority on promotion
lists, sometimes bypassing 10, 20, 30 or even 40 anglophone
officers who had been more highly rated.
Unhappily, in the system's effort to achieve the correct ratio,
some very good francophone officers' careers were curtailed. They
had been advanced too quickly, spent too little time in each rank
which in turn denied them the experience they would have acquired
if they had followed a more normal pattern. Some wound up in
positions of responsibility for which they were not adequately
qualified and this caused them to fail to fulfil their duties as well as
expected. The result: people who had the potential to progress
much further wound up limited in their advancement because they
had been pushed too fast and too hard.
Merit is the primary criterion on which selection or advancement
should be based. Any interference with this principle is demeaning
to the individuals to whom it is applied. It says to them: ``You are
not good enough to make it on your own so we will deny others to
help you''.
It is ironic that employment equity programs designed to create
equality in fact divide and create disparities. Yet the word Canadian
unites us, while recognizing and accepting our individual
distinctions, heritage and ancestral roots.
As people from Quebec are proud to be Quebecois, I am proud to
be a British Columbian. My roots are tied to this beautiful land: the
sea, the mountains, the uniqueness of our Pacific culture and, most
7815
of all, family. It is the place of my birth, my home as a youth, now
again, by choice, my home and the place where my children and
grandchildren have made their homes. It is a place of the heart.
I am a fourth generation Canadian. My ancestors were Scottish
and, I suppose, if I go back far enough, French. However, I do not
wish to be known or considered a Scottish-Canadian or an
anglo-Canadian or any sort of a hyphenated Canadian. I reject this
divisive principle and have received much input from constituents
who also reject hyphenated Canadianism.
For this reason, I cannot accept the census question asking us to
become hyphenated Canadians. Nor am I able to support the Bloc
amendment by the member for Bellechasse, seconded by the
member for Saint-Hubert, which reads:
That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word ``should''
with the following: ``include Canadian, Quebecer, English-Canadian,
French-Canadian and Acadian among questions of ethnic origin on the Canadian
census.
Section 15(1) of the charter states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,
age or mental or physical disability.
Section 15(1), standing alone, affords protection of all civil rights.
Section 15(2) of the charter goes on to state:
Subsection 1 does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object
the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups, including
those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(1815)
Section 15(2) of the charter is equating equality with sameness.
The very heart of section 15(1) has thus been stripped away. It now
rings hollow.
This coming August my wife Jean and I are going to Aberdeen in
Scotland to attend the 800th anniversary of the formation of the
Frazer clan. At that gathering we expect to meet Frazers from many
parts of the world, from Canada, United States, Australia, New
Zealand, Norway, France, India, other countries and, of course,
Scotland.
We will be joined together by our common name or connection
to that name, but that will not take away the fact that we will still be
Canadian, American, Scottish or whatever. Our nationality and
pride in our individual countries is in no way diminished by our
common name connection.
There is something drastically wrong if the Canadian census
form does not allow Canadians to identify themselves as Canadian.
I hope members of this House will agree and support MotionNo. 277 proposed by the member for Beaver River.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, imagine someone coming from another planet, sitting
down right here in Canada and finding that they were being asked
some questions on a census. People came around and the person
who came from outer space to Canada was answering the questions
in a census and thought ``I better find out where I am''.
He got an atlas that said Canada. He checked around and found a
hockey team called the Montreal Canadiens. He was watching TV
and saw an advertisement for a beer that was called ``Canadian''
and thought ``Canada, hmm''.
When it came time to answer the census, the person from outer
space looked for the slot that said Canadian and much to that
person's chagrin he could not find it.
Imagine the same person sitting down anywhere else in the
world. I suppose in England, English would not be there. It would
have to be something else; American would not be there.
From time to time we ordinary Canadians sometimes wonder if
there is a lack of oxygen in the air in Ottawa. God knows there has
to be something that causes this. What other explanation could
there be for such a bone headed decision to say in Canada we will
have a census form and the person cannot be a Canadian?
It does not matter whether the person has been here for a week,
whether they have been a citizen of this great country for a week, a
day or whether we go back 10 generations, we are Canadians. Is
that not what it is all about? Is that not what being part of the
mosiac, of this family from a host of different countries around the
world is?
Do members suppose that people came here from Rwanda to be
Rwandans forever? Do members think perhaps that our forefathers
came from wherever they came from to be where they were? What
do they suppose it was that brought them to this magic land
Canada? It was the values we have of inclusiveness. It was that in
Canada it is possible to be equal before the law, no matter their
station in life, whether high born or low born.
There are situations where that is not always the case. We can
speak to that tomorrow when we talk about Bob Fowler and Kyle
Brown and the difference between those two people who should be
equal before the law but who are not.
Generally speaking, one of the magic, marvellous things about
Canada is that we are equal before the law. It does not matter what
colour our skin is. We are a nation of values. What could possibly
be the motivating factor? What could motivate these people at
Census Canada who are known around the world for the fact that
we really have a good census?
7816
(1820 )
The census information that is compiled is good for the country.
It gives us statistical factual information from which we can have a
foundation for a whole host of different things, like how the
economy is going, the number of children there are, what we
should plan for, the number of schools we are going to need, the
number of senior citizen retirement homes we are going to need
and what happens demographically in a community in response to a
particular initiative, financial or otherwise.
The census is good and the census takers are recognized around
the world as being first rate. Therefore it does not seem logical for
them to say ``how can we screw up this census and enrage half the
population?'' Do we suppose they get up in the morning and say ``It
is just too easy. Why do we not do something to drive everybody
crazy and knock our phones off the hook so that people think that
we are the crazy ones, not the people in the House of Commons
who represent us''?
If we scratch the surface we will find that there is a method to the
madness. There is a reason. The employment equity affirmative
action legislation passed by the Liberal government is not worth
the powder to blow it to hell, which is where it should be blown to,
unless we have the data base from which to explore and make
comparisons.
I had the privilege to respond on behalf of our party to the
multiculturalism report on the 25th anniversary of the new wave of
multiculturalism in Canada. At that time I was proud to say that our
country is one heart and many colours. That is what we are.
However, when we set up a country based upon division, based
upon our ancestry, then we are going directly counter to everything
we have tried to do to make our nation inclusive.
We are Canadians because we share common values. Canadians
understand that there are some of us who are less able to carry the
load and we help them. We measure the quality of our community
not by the highest but by the lowest among us; not by the most
privileged but by the least privileged. These are the values that
make a nation. They are fairness and equality. All people are
measured equally, based on merit, and those who need help can
depend on that help.
The minute we introduce into our culture the notion that people
should have or be declined benefit because of their race, we are
introducing sand into the foundation of our nation that we will
come to regret.
It is interesting to note that the only country that has ever, to my
knowledge and to the knowledge of my researchers, asked for the
racial determination of persons in a census was Germany during
the horror of the Nazi times. I am not suggesting for a moment that
these two are equal. I am not suggesting that the motivation is the
same. That would be ludicrous. We all know it is not. However, the
fact remains that the racial background of people in this country is
nobody's business, period. We are Canadians because we are
human beings and that is where our equality comes in.
Everything we do in our country should be based on merit and
the values that we share as human beings, and not for any other
reason; not because of the colour of our skin, our religion, our sex
or our sexual orientation. It should be based strictly on merit.
Introducing this innocuous little change has the potential to take
us down further on a path that many Canadians already see as being
divisive and harmful to our nation in the long run.
(1825)
I would ask all hon. members to consider the fact that by putting
Canada back into the census we will be helping to build and to
mould an inclusive country where we do not look at each other and
see the colour of each other's skin, or our sex, but that we look at
each other and see who we are as human beings, sharing a common
value system, a common destiny, all of us as Canadians.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be speaking on Motion No. 277 which is sponsored by
the hon. member for Beaver River. It is an important motion
because it deals with an issue which was brought to my attention by
many people in my constituency during the time of the last census.
The people who came to me were concerned that they were not
given a choice on the long census form when they were asked about
background. They were not given the chance to choose Canadian.
Many of these people who contacted me, in fact all of them, were
upset because Canadian is what they are and is what they consider
themselves to be.
Why was Canadian not given as a choice? It has been talked
about by some of the hon. members who have spoken on this issue
before me. One of the reasons of course is that if that choice is
given it is too difficult, you do not get accurate information for
employment equity legislation. That is certainly one of the key
reasons.
Employment equity legislation insists that in government
agencies and agencies regulated by the federal government people
be hired based on quotas. Many provinces of course have
employment equity legislation as well.
Many of the people who support the idea of employment equity
argue that we are not talking about quotas at all. All we are talking
about is giving everybody a fair chance and a fair shot at things.
Clearly some groups, in particular some visible minorities or
gender or someone with a certain sexual orientation have not been
given a fair chance. We only want to make that fair but we are not
talking about quotas.
7817
A young fellow, the son of a person I have come to know
through Reform, came home when I was with his parents. I asked
this young fellow what he was working on. He said he worked
with computers. This was a job during the summer. I knew he was
in university and would be going back. I asked him what kind of
work he did. He said he was doing a project for the Ontario
government with regard to employment equity. I said that is
interesting and asked what the program is for.
He said it is to determine how many people should be hired by
chartered banks. Actually the work he was doing was going to be
sold to chartered banks so that the banks know how many people to
hire from each group. I said: ``Do you think that is right, that you
would hire based on quota?'' He said: ``It is not about quota at all.
It is just information for the banks so they can determine how many
people they should hire''.
After we pursued this a little the young man came to realize this
is quota, and that is what we are talking about here, quota. He did
acknowledge this after a bit of discussion. I found it really
surprising that this young fellow had been so brainwashed by the
people who were promoting this employment program he was
working for never to refer to this as quota when clearly that is what
is was.
What does this have to do with this motion sponsored by the hon.
member for Beaver River? The connection is that the reason
StatsCan is getting these numbers and is not including Canadian as
one of the groups to choose is that the numbers are needed for
employment equity. That is one of the reasons. It has everything to
do with quotas.
(1830)
When the statistics are collected and it is found out how many
people there are in each of the visible minority groups, in the other
categories, the different colour groups, once that information is
obtained, that information is applied directly to government hiring
and to hiring by agencies that are regulated by the federal
government, such as banks. They will be used in the provincial
employment equity programs where they are in place. That is
without a doubt the most important reason these statistics are
collected.
When these people came to me during the last census and after
the last census that is why they were so upset. They knew the
reason this information was being collected. They knew it had
everything to do with employment equity, that it had everything to
do with quotas. It upset these people.
Many of these people had immigrated to this country themselves
from some other part of the world or their parents had emigrated
from some other part of the world. They did not want to be referred
to by their ethnic background. They did not want to be categorized
based on ethnic background or skin colour or any other visible
characteristic. They wanted to be referred to as Canadians. That is
why this motion has come forth. It would give Canadians a chance
again, no matter what ethnic background, what skin colour to just
be Canadians.
It certainly is one reason this information is being collected.
There are other possibilities. One of course is to determine how
much funding should go to different multicultural groups,
multicultural spending. Polls have shown and certainly people who
talk to other people in large numbers would know that Canadians
do not accept spending taxpayers' money on promoting certain
cultures. The general principle that people believe should guide
spending on culture is that the money should come from the people
who are interested in preserving that culture.
Certain groups have done this extremely well. They have
protected their culture. They have promoted their culture. They
have put their culture to others in the neighbourhood in a way that
has fascinated people. It has not caused resentment because they
know it is not taxpayers' money that is doing this.
One group I can think of is the Ukrainian group. In my
constituency there is a large group of people who emigrated or their
parents emigrated from Ukraine. Long before multicultural grants
were available they did a super job through the church and through
work in the community of keeping their culture for themselves, for
their children and for the interest of others in the community.
Because people knew that they were doing it with their own money,
there certainly was not any resentment.
Now that there are multiculturalism programs a resentment has
built toward the people from visible minority groups themselves
who are funded with taxpayers' money, who are promoting their
culture with the use of taxpayers' money. That is what causes the
resentment.
There are some other possible reasons for wanting these
numbers. I wonder. Leading up to the last election the Liberal Party
chose women candidates, it just chose them. The Liberals did not
allow the proper nomination process to take place because there
were not enough women to become members of Parliament who
were going to be running for the Liberals.
I am wondering if part of the intent of getting these numbers is
that the Liberals are now going to appoint candidates for the next
election based on the numbers obtained in the census. I say that
kind of tongue in cheek but I am not so sure it would not happen.
Let us all hope it would not. Let us let the best person for the job get
the job.
7818
(1835)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River who
will no doubt be speaking only to the amendment.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Yes, Mr. Speaker. As
you know Motion No. M-277 is my motion. I spoke earlier in the
debate on November 26, 1996 when my colleague from the Bloc,
the member for Bellechasse, brought forward the amendment.
If we could look at a snapshot of what is wrong with this country,
it is somebody from a group who is going to add to the list rather
than make the list smaller. That probably sums up so clearly the
main reason I brought this motion forward in the first place. We
need to be recognized as Canadians and Canadians period. Yet here
is somebody in the Chamber who wants to make the list longer
rather than shorter.
I know it has been quoted here several times today by my
colleagues who have spoken on this but let me in disbelief read one
more time what the actual amendment states:
That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word ``should''
with the following:
``include ``Canadian'', ``Quebecker'', ``English-Canadian'', ``French-Canadian''
and ``Acadian'' among the questions of ethnic origin on the Canadian Census.''
This is not derogatory toward any of these groups. Every one of
these groups is to be celebrated. In Beaver River I have an
enormous francophone population and we celebrate that. It truly is
a multicultural microcosm of this country. Not only do we have a
huge francophone population, the second largest in Alberta, but we
have an enormous Lebanese community up in the Lac La Biche
area. There were fur traders there in the twenties. We have a large
German population, a large Ukrainian population and on and on it
goes.
There is one common denominator of those people in Beaver
River. They would jump to their feet in a moment if they could be
here today, if we could transport them, to say: ``I am a Canadian,
you bet''. It is as simple as that. They would say: ``I am a Canadian
period''. And they would leave off all this nonsense after all these
commas.
I had a number of calls in my constituency office and here in
Ottawa from people who were among the unlucky one out of five to
fill out the long census form. It upset me more than anything that I
got a short one. I was just waiting. When my husband phoned me
from home to tell me we got our census form, I asked him to rip it
open to find out if it was the short one or the long one. Mr. Speaker,
you know Lew and you know he was just as anxious as I was to get
the long form and he was pretty upset. I think he was ready to drive
around the countryside to find a neighbour he could swap with, but
it did not happen and we had to fill out the short one.
It is for this very reason that Lew, who just happens to be my
husband and I think the greatest guy in the world, as a regular
Canadian said: ``Let me get my hands on this so I can tell this
government exactly what I think about this kind of list making and
categorization of people as if we were just a bunch of so many
pigeons''.
It is wrong. Mr. Speaker, you know it is wrong and I think many
people in this Chamber feel it is wrong. I know how important it is
for the people my colleagues have alluded to this afternoon to say
wait a minute here, there is something wrong because there is an
underlying motive, which is wrong, for asking these questions.
That of course is: ``We will attempt some social engineering. We
know what is best for you''.
The census people from Stats Canada did not dream up these
questions. They were told, they were ordered, they were
commanded by the people who are obsessed with employment
equity and government grant giving because they think that will
help unify the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. I
am so sad that some colleagues across the way did not even stand
up on behalf of this motion today.
When are we going to stand up in this Chamber and say: ``I am a
Canadian and I am proud to be a Canadian''? When am I going to
be able to count on folks on the other side of the House who may
disagree with me politically on all kinds of things, which I respect,
but for goodness sake, it took us a year and a half to sing ``O
Canada'' in this place after I tabled a motion on that. Is it too
radical to sing our national anthem in the national Parliament? Is it
going to be too much to ask people to say: ``Let us say we are
Canadians on the census''? I could understand it from the Bloc
Quebecois. But for the life of me I cannot understand it from
people on the other side of the House who are proud and passionate
Canadians. We should be able to say ``I am a Canadian'' on
question 19. By jingles, the next time that census comes around, I
will put Canadian no matter what, because that it what should make
us proud.
Let me just close by asking the Speaker to put the question now
on the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for debate has expired. If the
hon. member wishes to speak further on the amendment the next
time, she will have four and a half minutes to do so.
Miss Grey: I know the time has expired. I am asking you to put
the question now on the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for adjournment has passed, so
there would have to be unanimous agreement from all members in
the House to put the question on the amendment.
Is there unanimous agreement to put the question on the
amendment?
7819
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I hear a no. Therefore, the debate will
continue the next time.
[Translation]
Dear colleagues, the hour provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
[English]
It being 6.41 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)