CONTENTS
Friday, April 18, 1997
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9919
Bill C-92. Report stage 9920
Motion for concurrence and second reading 9920
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9920
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.) 9920
Motion for third reading 9920
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 9928
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 9929
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9930
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9931
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9931
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9931
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9934
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9934
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9935
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9935
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9937
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9937
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9937
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9938
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9938
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9938
Bill C-92. Third reading 9940
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9951
Division on motion deferred 9955
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 9955
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9958
9919
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 18, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: Order. I have notice of a question of privilege
from the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton and I propose to hear
that before we proceed with any other business.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (SarniaLambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise this morning on a question of privilege concerning the
cancellation of private members' hour today.
I learned yesterday afternoon that the member for Vancouver
North, whose motion appeared at position number one for today,
had notified the office of Private Members' Business that he would
not be appearing. I spoke with the hon. member this morning and in
fact he had notified that office at the opening hour, 9 a.m. yesterday
morning.
Prior to that I had a bill put on the order of precedence, as
published yesterday in the Order Paper at No. 28. It was submitted
to the private members' office at 5.55 p.m. Wednesday evening. I
advised the clerk that if a substitution was to be made that I was
looking for one. The next morning at 9 a.m. the clerk was advised.
Standing Order 94(1) states that ``the Speaker shall make all
arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private
Members' Business, including ensuring that all members have not
less than 24 hours' notice of items to be considered during private
members' hour''.
(1005 )
As of yesterday morning at 9 a.m., notice had been given. In fact
on the evening prior, at approximately 5.55 p.m., notice had been
given of a bill on the Order Paper that was published yesterday. At
no time did I receive from that office an opportunity to be
substituted or to be placed on the Order Paper for today. I
appreciate that the rules also say that a member will give 48 hours'
written notice.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is one test. However,
there are other tests. Certainly the office had more than 24 hours to
contact other people and to ensure that the orderly conduct of
private member's hour would continue.
Although 48 hours is one point, 24 hours is another point.
Somewhere in that 24 hour interval there was opportunity. The
office did know I was looking for a substitution. Had I been offered
that place, it would have meant the rules requiring that 24 hours'
notice be given and would have been published yesterday at 6 p.m.
I would suggest that as a result of this that my rights and my
privileges have been usurped. In fact it is within your authority, Mr.
Speaker, to do one of two things. Either to cancel the continuation
of government business at 1.30 p.m. today, or to add a private
member's hour following that one hour that has been apparently
removed at this point.
I should point out that the bill to which I am referring has passed
through the House, has passed through the Senate and only needs to
come back on the Order Paper here. Notwithstanding the fact that
the 48 hour notice has not been complied with in the sense of
Standing Order 94(2)(a), that the orderly conduct of business could
have continued. The 24 hour notice provision would have been
complied with.
The 48 hour notice is not a precedent in the sense that a member
must give written notice. I am advised that often members will call
from distant places and say: ``By the way I am not going to be
there''. Someone may call on a Monday from some remote place in
the world and say he or she is not going to be here and not be able to
provide written notice to the clerk, who on many occasions has
acted. They have I understand also acted in terms of this window of
opportunity being the point between 24 and 48 hours.
It is on that basis that I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that my
privileges have been usurped and I ask for this extension or
substitution of government business from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think
the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has raised a very important
point in his question of privilege. Private Members' Business is a
when we bring material to this House which we take very seriously.
9920
The fact that I cancelled my appearance today on a private
member's bill was actually done as a form of protest because my
bill is non-votable.
The member for Sarnia-Lambton has a votable piece of
material, and notwithstanding the Standing Orders and a ruling that
you might make in connection with that, I would also like to
suggest that perhaps in the process that is going on here we may be
able to get unanimous consent of the House to do a substitution and
to meet the needs of the hon. member.
The Speaker: I take it as part of my duties as your Speaker to
ensure that there is a reasonable continuation of business in the
House.
(1010 )
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has quoted the passages
in the rules which are germane to this point of privilege. The hon.
member puts forward in his argument that he was not contacted24 hours prior to the period or surely he would have agreed to have
his bill brought forward. I believe this is in Standing Order 94(1). If
I am off on the number the clerks will correct me.
In Standing Order 94(2) of the rules of the House, which were
established by us together in concert, it is quite clear that the
Speaker should have notice some 48 hours prior to making any
move. The reason the Speaker is given the 48 hours is so that he
will be able to contact the member at least in the next 24 hours to
have this member bring forward his bill.
The hon. member argues that sometimes written notice is not
given. In my short experience here and because of the faxes that we
now have, when a member calls to say he or she cannot bring
forward a bill, we usually ask that a fax be sent and usually that is
done.
Be that as it may, the rules are quite explicit. They state that
notification should be given to the table officers, who will then
inform the Speaker, so that there can be an orderly procedure in
Private Members' Business.
I would rule that the Speaker did not get the 48 hours' notice and
therefore I did not order the clerks to give the hon. member 24
hours' notice.
The hon. member for North Vancouver is here. He also confirms
that he did not give the Chair 48 hours' notice.
What I find interesting in this whole matter is that you and the
hon. member for North Vancouver are both here and you both seem
to agree that this would be acceptable to the two of you. The
suggestion put by the hon. member for North Vancouver might be
the way to get around it. I will not take it upon myself to rule that
your particular bill be ordered, but if you would care to put forward
a request for unanimous consent that your bill be debated today, I
would be interested in receiving such a request.
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House for unanimous
consent to have a private members' hour today from 1.30 p.m. to
2.30 p.m.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the permission of the
House to put forth the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is no agreement. Therefore, we will not
proceed with this point.
_____________________________________________
9920
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-92, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules and
another act related to the Income Tax Act, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I understand there is unanimous
agreement that the third reading stage of Bill C-92 may be
considered as soon as the second reading stage is completed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1015)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that the
bill, as amended, be concurred in and read the second time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall the
bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Emard) moved that the bill be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
debate Bill C-92, the Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996.
When I last addressed the House on Bill C-92 it was to
recommend that it be sent to committee prior to second reading. It
is important to note, therefore, that the House finance committee
9921
recommended 13 amendments when it reported on the bill. All of
them were technical in nature and were the result either of
consultations or improvements in the wording of the relevant
provisions. For example, there were some wording changes
relating to labour sponsored venture capital corporations and
resource properties.
There were also two amendments in the area of child support to
help ensure that payments made after April 1997 were subject to
the new system in accordance with the policy.
[Translation]
I would now like to make some observations about the context in
which the proposed tax measures are situated.
In the present era of global changes, which have left many
Canadians feeling insecure, the 1996 budget introduced measures
in a number of areas that were designed to safeguard the future of
Canada.
First were measures to safeguard our financial future, with
guarantees that we would reach and even exceed our goals for
public finances; in the same breath, we defined a role for
government that meets the needs of the modern economy and of the
federation.
We also took action to ensure the preservation of our social
programs, including the old age security system and the offer of
stable federal funding for programs administered by the provinces.
[English]
We invested in the future by reallocating money to priority areas
for future jobs and growth, priorities like youth, technology and
international trade. In the area of taxation perhaps the most
noteworthy point is what we did not do. Despite the enormity of the
fiscal challenge that faced us, a challenge we have continually
handled with credibility and success, we did not increase tax rates
in the budget, not personal, not corporate, not excise.
The government recognizes that taxes in Canada are higher than
any of us would like. Fiscal turnaround is vital so that we can free
up resources to ease the tax burden when it is responsible to do so.
In the interim the government has made it a key priority to meet or
better its fiscal targets without increasing personal income tax rates
in any of the four budgets it has brought before the House.
Taxation is not only about generating revenues. It is also a matter
of economic efficiency and fairness. That is why the 1996 budget
undertook a number of important tax initiatives to enhance the
fairness of the system and to ensure that it operates as effectively as
possible.
Let me briefly outline a number of measures we are proposing in
the bill before us today. In the area of personal income taxation
several important changes concern the system for providing tax
assistance to retirement savings. Specifically the budget proposed
three measures affecting registered pension plans, RPPs, and
registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs.
As the finance minister said at the time of the budget, Canada's
retirement assistance program is effective and the government is
firmly committed to its preservation.
(1020 )
The proposed changes will help to ensure the sustainability of
the program by limiting its costs while at the same time better
targeting assistance to modest and middle income Canadians.
First, RRSP limits are to be frozen at $13,500 through the year
2003 and then increased to $14,500 in 2004 and $15,500 in 2005.
To provide comparable treatment to define benefit pension plans,
the maximum pension limit for these plans will be frozen at the
current level of $1,722 per year of service until the year 2005.
This change will keep the cost of the tax deferral for retirement
savings in line and more fairly targeted. The federal revenue cost of
this assistance is significant, amounting to nearly $16 billion in
1993.
Even with the changes the system will remain a generous one
extending to twice the average wage. This means that only
individuals with incomes over $75,000 a year will be affected in
any way.
The second measure relating to retirement savings is the
reduction in the age limit for maturing RPPs and RRSPs from age
71 to 69. In other words, individuals will not be able to contribute
to RRSPs or accrue pension benefits after age 69 and will have to
start drawing income out of these plans by the end of the year in
which they turn 69. This change will help move the maturation age
for retirement savings and pension plans closer in line to the ages at
which most Canadians are retiring.
I pause here to say that contrary to the assertion that some have
made about this change, it does not remove incentives to save in
RRSPs, private pension plans or other retirement income vehicles.
Canadians will always be better off saving for their retirement and
using these vehicles as one way to do so.
Third, the bill proposes the elimination of the seven-year limit
on carrying forward any unused portion of maximum allowable
RRSP contribution. I am sure most of us can relate to the fact many
younger Canadians have difficulty making significant RRSP
contributions, especially during the years when they are raising
families. This proposed change will improve the opportunity for all
Canadians to benefit from the RRSP system. People will now have
an unlimited time, within age limits of course, to make up for years
of lower contributions. That is an important change.
The bill addresses another vital area for saving for the future,
registered education savings plans or RESPs. Canadians know that
a better education means a better job and the Government of
Canada knows that to prepare Canadians for the 21st century we
must support their efforts to secure a good education. Hence in both
the 1996 and 1997 budgets the federal government increased tax
assistance to students and their families. RESPs are an important
mechanism that assists parents or grandparents to save for
children's education. They do so by exempting the growth of assets
9922
within the RESP from taxation. Eventually this growth is
distributed to students who are typically taxed at a low marginal
rate.
The bill before us proposes to increase the annual contribution
limit from $1,500 to $2,000 per beneficiary. It will increase the
lifetime limit from $31,500 to $42,000.
As most hon. members will recall, the 1997 budget proposed to
enhance tax assistance delivered through RESPs further still,
notably by doubling the annual contribution limit to $4,000 per
beneficiary and by improving the potential flexibility of these
plans.
Two further elements of today's legislation recognize the
increasing importance in the cost of education. First, the bill
proposes to increase the amount on which the education tax credit
is calculated from $80 to $100, an amount that the 1997 budget has
proposed to increase still further.
Second, the bill will increase from $4,000 to $5,000 per year the
limit on the unused tuition fees and education amounts that
students may transfer to spouses or parents. Once again this
measure would be enhanced by the proposals of the 1997 budget
which would allow students to carry forward those unused
amounts.
Many of the individuals who need training or retraining to make
the most of the opportunities in today's economy already have
young families to care for. For many of them, especially single
parents, school is not an option without day care for their children.
That is why today's bill proposes to broaden eligibility for the child
care expense deduction by allowing parents who are full time
students to claim the deduction against all types of income.
I should mention that the bill would also raise the age limit for
children for whom child care expenses may be claimed from age 14
years up to age 16 years, thereby providing increased tax savings
for families with older children.
(1025 )
A further measure in the bill that will benefit taxpayers with
children is the change to the rules governing child support.
Specifically the bill provides that child support paid under a court
order or written agreement after April 1997 not be deductible by
the payor or included in the recipient's income. This change
reflects the widely held view that the old system of deduction and
inclusion was not working to benefit children.
I remind my hon. colleagues this tax measure is one element in
the larger child support package which recently received
parliamentary approval. In addition to the tax changes in the bill,
the package includes guidelines to set fair and consistent support
awards, new measures to enforce child support orders and, as
announced in the 1997 budget, an enrichment of the child tax
benefit. Education and child care are important components of the
economic and social infrastructure for tomorrow.
I will now turn to to another keystone of Canadian society, the
charitable sector. That sector is playing an increasingly important
role in meeting the needs of Canadians. The government
recognizes the importance of giving charities the tools they need to
accomplish their important work. For that reason the 1996 budget
increased from 20 per cent to 50 per cent the annual limit on the
amount of taxpayer net income eligible for tax assisted charitable
savings. Once again I remind hon. members that the 1997 budget
has gone further, substantially increasing tax incentives for
charitable giving.
I will skim over some of the other major measures included in
the bill beginning with labour sponsored venture capital
corporations. These funds sponsored by labour organizations help
improve access to capital for small and medium size businesses
and thereby contribute to job creation. Generous federal and
provincial tax credits have helped LSVCCs attract large amounts of
venture capital, so large in fact that by the time of the 1996 budget
they had a more than three-year supply of capital. Given this level
of capital accumulation, measures were warranted to keep the level
of special tax assistance in these funds in line with current fiscal
realities.
Consequently today's bill proposes reducing the federal LSVCC
tax credit from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, reducing the maximum
purchase eligible for the credit from $5,000 to $3,500 and not
permitting a taxpayer to claim the federal LSVCC credit for three
years after he or she has redeemed an LSVCC share.
The bill also includes important measures for the energy and
resource sectors, for the oil, gas and mining industries. The bill
modifies rules relating to the resource allowance thereby resulting
in a more stable and consistent tax structure. For the oil, gas and
mining industries the bill proposes significant improvements to the
flow through share regime.
Flow through shares are an important mechanism for financing
exploration and development programs in these resource
industries, as they can be used to accelerate deductions for such
expenses. Companies issuing flow through share which incur
exploration and development expenses within the first 60 days of a
calendar year can renounce those expenses which are then treated
as having been incurred by the flow through share investor in the
previous calendar year.
Consultations with the industry have indicated that the 60-day
limit was too restrictive and encouraged corporations to make
economically inefficient decisions. Accordingly the bill would
allow the issuing company a full calendar year to incur and
renounce the exploration expenses. In return for this accelerated
9923
deduction, however, the issue will be required to pay a monthly
financing charge to the government.
Among the other provisions of the bill is a change to the
accelerated cost allowance rules for new mines including oil sands
which will ensure that all types of oil sands recovery projects are
treated more consistently. The bill also includes measures to
designed to promote sustainable development of energy resources
by providing an essentially level playing field between certain
renewable and non-renewable energy investments.
One measure is to create a Canadian renewable energy and
conservation expenses category in the tax system. The second
measure is to extend the use of flow through share financing
currently available for non-renewable energy and mining and
similar costs for certain renewable energy and energy conservation
projects.
[Translation]
With this, I will conclude my overview of the measures
addressed in the bill under consideration today. These measures are
equitable and will make it possible to improve the effectiveness of
the tax system. Several of these measures, by their very nature,
eliminate constraints, and many Canadians have already benefited
from the provisions of this bill.
These measures will help Canadians prepare for the future in a
world that is constantly evolving, by stimulating job creation,
education and charitable donations, among other important sectors
of activity.
(1030)
The measures in the bill under study reflect the values and
expectations of the Canadian people. As their elected
representatives, it is our responsibility to respect these values and
expectations.
Accordingly, I have no hesitation in urging my colleagues to
support this bill in its entirety and to give it speedy passage.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Madam Speaker, essentially, Bill C-92, which is aimed at
amending the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application
Rules, is intended to bring the Income Tax Act into line with the
decisions in the 1996 budget.
In both the 1996 and the 1997 budgets, there is, essentially,
nothing new. In fact, just recently, we learned that the anticipated
$19 billion deficit will actually be far lower than that, after 11
months of operation. The deficit is, in fact, less than $8 billion,
which means that the Minister of Finance will have an enormous
amount of money to work with in the coming months.
Where does this come from, one might wonder. The announced
objective of the cuts in government spending, in operating
expenditures, not having been met, where does this enormous sum
we are speaking of today come from?
We know that there are, essentially, two sources: the $4.5 billion
in cuts in transfers to the provinces, or in other words $4,500
million, and the $5,000 million they garnisheed from collective
wages via the unemployment insurance account. We know that
these two, the cuts to provincial transfer payments and the lifting of
wages from the unemployment insurance fund, essentially account
for 84 per cent of the deficit reduction. So it is the unemployed, the
sick, the welfare recipients and the students who will bear the brunt
of this deficit reduction.
With reference to the cuts in transfers to the provinces, we will
remember the commitments made by the Prime Minister on
Canada AM on October 20, 1993. I am translating what he said in
English, which we can presume means the same in French. Here is
what he said on October 20, 1993: ``We said in our platform we do
not intend to reduce the transfer payments. What I said in the
program, and I intend to keep my word, is we do not intend to cut
further''. That was said less than a week before the last election.
A few months after the election, on April 19, 1994, the Minister
of Finance told the Toronto Star that the next federal budget would
include drastic cuts to assistance to the provinces for such things as
health, welfare and education. This is exactly the opposite of what
the Prime Minister had said.
There will be an election shortly. I hope people will remember
that, when this government makes promises, even just a week
before an election, it has no intention whatsoever of keeping them.
The cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces mean, for
Ontario as well as for Quebec, that drastic cuts are now being made
in health care, payments to welfare recipients, and education.
It must be clearly understood that these cuts are inevitable, and
are the result of cuts to transfer payments from the federal to the
provincial governments. I know that some of my fellow Quebecers
are still saying: ``Yes, but the federal government gives us money''.
There have been no cuts in federal funding, for what the federal
government is doing with its transfer payments, in actual fact, is
returning to us part of what we send to the government in Ottawa,
$30 billion annually.
As well, the government dips into the unemployment insurance
fund to the tune of $5 billion, when it contributed not one red cent
of that.
(1035)
As you know, the money in the unemployment insurance fund is
basically the money put into the fund by workers and their
employers. There is not one cent of the government's money in the
fund. However, $5 billion was taken out of the unemployment
insurance fund to balance the books, and that is why the Minister
of Finance now has this extraordinary flexibility. That flexibility
exists at the expense of the little guy, the sick, people on welfare
and the unemployed, the unemployed whom the Prime Minister not
9924
so long ago described as useless beer drinkers sprawling in front of
the TV. And the result has been to create massive poverty in
Canada and Quebec.
They know perfectly well that thousands of people will no longer
be eligible for unemployment insurance and will have to go on
welfare. But before they go on welfare, they have to exhaust all
their resources, everything they have, until they have nothing left.
This is now happening to thousands of people in Canada and
Quebec. This wage grab and cuts in transfers to the provinces have
caused poverty levels to rise dramatically.
Meanwhile, the government is doing nothing to reduce tax
expenditures. Nothing was done in 1996 and nothing has been done
in 1997. Perhaps I may explain, as I did recently, what a tax
expenditure is.
Obviously, if tomorrow the government decided to send a
cheque for $100 million each to 10 different companies, people
would hit the roof. There would be headlines in the newspapers,
and the public would know the government is doing something that
makes no sense at all.
A tax expenditure occurs when instead of sending a cheque for
$100 million, $50,000 or whatever to a company, the government
tells the company it owes so much in taxes but does not have to pay
them. It amounts to the same thing for the company, which will
save $50,000. And it amounts to the same thing for the
government, which instead of receiving a cheque for $50,000, will
have a shortfall of $50,000. However, there will not be the same
public outcry.
Sure, if the government wrote cheques to companies every day,
it would be in the headlines. But if it is a tax deduction on a
company's more or less confidential tax return, the public does not
see that. In other words, tax expenditures represent money that is
not collected, although it should be, from companies or the public.
The Auditor General of Canada gave a good example of a tax
expenditure not long ago when he revealed that a family trust went
to the United States with the blessing of Revenue Canada under
very dubious circumstances. The Auditor General said at the time,
very diplomatically, that the company and those who made the
decision to let the trust go, had, as it were, frustrated the intent of
the legislator. In other words, they were breaking the law. That was
the opinion of the Auditor General of Canada.
So a family trust left the country with $2 billion on which no
income tax was paid. It is estimated that between $400 million and
$500 million in taxes should have been paid. Of course, if the
government had written a cheque for $400 million or $500 million
in this country and sent it to this family trust or to the two trusts
which, in fact, belong to the same person, the public would have
been outraged. The Auditor General explained how this happened,
the details were published, it was in the headlines for one day, but
no one talked about it again. Why? Because tax expenditures are so
complex.
You may recall certain tax commitments in the red book. On
page 19, we read:
A number of government programs and tax expenditures-some of which have
been identified by the Auditor General-are inefficient, poorly managed, or driven
for purely political reasons. Just as we are proposing new measures to grow the
economy, we will examine such programs with the objective of reducing waste and
inefficiency and promoting economic growth.
That was the commitment.
(1040)
And then there was the report of the auditor general on family
trusts and the Liberals' reaction in the finance committee. Each of
them took a turn sniping at the auditor general for having criticized
the fact that the trusts had hot footed it out of the country without
paying taxes.
That is precisely the role of the auditor general. He is the public
watchdog. When we criticize the government, we are partisan,
clearly. When the auditor general does so, we can assume generally
that he is non partisan. The Liberals took pot shots at the auditor
general for criticizing the family trusts I referred to earlier.
So, as we realize, there is no deficit problem in Canada. We are
reducing the deficit far faster than we had anticipated in our
objectives. The Minister of Finance has a lot of manoeuvring room.
We therefore have no deficit problems in the short term. We even
expect to bring the deficit to zero by the year 2000. However, there
is a question of fairness, since it is the middle class that is paying
off the deficit. It is becoming increasingly poor. The government is
creating huge poverty in Canada, leaving untouched those who are
in a position to benefit from the tax laws. It is the middle class that
is getting it.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois decided in November 1996 and
February 1997 to table two studies on taxation: corporate taxes,
first, and personal taxes, second. This sort of study has never
before been prepared by the official opposition.
The Minister of Finance reacted to our first study by saying:
``The Bloc Quebecois tabled a sober report yesterday. I consider it
a very professional one. I thank the Leader of the Opposition and
the members here for their work. There are many things in the
report we agree with'', and I quote him exactly. Yet, it was shelved
and will probably gather dust there for a number of years. It is
some one hundred pages long and was prepared with the means
available to us, because the official opposition has far fewer means
9925
available to it than the government. This is the first time such a
thing has been done, up to now.
The last time the tax system was totally revamped was in 1962,
as a result of the Carter Commission. According to the Carter
report, tax criteria had to be followed. The system had to be fair
and different incomes taxed the same way, regardless of source or
recipient. That, basically, was the philosophy of the Carter report.
Many of the report's recommendations were never implemented
in the Income Tax Act, which was to be expected, but we used the
report as a reference work in terms of both principles and approach.
It covered the whole Income Tax Act and was 2,575 pages long. It
was six years in the preparation, and its recommendations were
never fully implemented.
In 1966, the Liberal government, which had been given the
report, decided not to use it. It asked the Minister of Finance to
produce a white paper on taxation-this government's usual
solution is to produce white papers or red books as appropriate-
and a watered down version of the Carter report led to the 1971
amendments to the Income Tax Act.
We had to wait until 1981 for the next changes. However, the
Minister of Finance at the time, Allan MacEachen, underestimated
the resistance of the financial community and had to back off on a
number of amendments he had wanted to make to the Income Tax
Act. The final tax reform was Michael Wilson's in 1987. He too
had to retreat on some of the reforms, because of major pressure
from lobby groups to limit the extent of reforms.
The principles underlying the Bloc's two reports on taxation are
those found in the report of the Carter commission, principles
everyone can understand, principles of fairness, efficiency,
neutrality and stability.
(1045)
Under the principle of fairness, the tax system must ensure a fair
distribution of the tax burden among taxpayers. We appreciate that
everyone should pay taxes. The taxation system must not only be
fair but also be perceived as such, that is to say, people should feel
that everyone is paying their fair share.
We can assess how equitable a tax is by one of two yardsticks: it
must either reflect the ability to pay of those who are subject to
it-that is what we call vertical equity-or match the benefits to
the taxpayers, a principle called horizontal equity. The
implementation of a progressive tax system is consistent with the
principle of vertical equity.
In a vertical equity analysis, one has to use the concept of
diminishing returns John Stuart Mill described in his book, clearly
defining it in terms of a single taxpayer's equivalent sacrifice. This
is taken, of course, from Principles of Political Economy with
Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy. I think it is not
widely known, but the majority of leading economists in the early
days were in fact philosophers preoccupied with ethical concerns
or wondering why, and the question is still valid today, there was
such a huge gap between the rich and the poor.
This means that each taxpayer does not pay the same amount of
taxes proportionally to make an equal marginal sacrifice. It would
clearly not be as much of a sacrifice to pay $2,000 in taxes for
someone earning $500,000 per year as for someone earning
$12,000. That is why, in the interest of equity, there is a so-called
tax progression.
But the facts tell quite a different story. Just think of family
trusts that were transferred to the U.S. tax free. Clearly, the public
realizes there is nothing fair about that.
Think of the Liberal member for Gander-Grand Falls, who,
every 12 or 18 months-he must spend most of his time at Revenue
Canada-issues the list, withholding names of course, of dozens of
millionaires who not only never pay tax but actually receive money
from the Government of Canada in the form of additional tax
deductions. They actually receive money from the Government of
Canada. In fact, I think the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls
does a fine job. What I find extremely distressing in all this is that,
the next day, it is all but forgotten.
Think also of the strong public belief that the current system is
not fair, that the poor keep paying while the rich manage to get out
of it.
The second principle on which these reports on the tax system
were based is the principle of efficiency. To be efficient, any
taxation system must be kept as simple as possible. It makes it
easier to enforce, and the taxpayers waste less time making sure
they have complied with the various tax regulations.
In addition, a simpler taxation system results in lower
government management costs. When income tax time is upon us,
we realize that, for most of us, it is no simple task to fill out a
personal income tax return. As for corporations, we know they do
not just file a regular income tax return. They have tax experts who
dig into piles, three or four feet high, of tax documents. They go to
great lengths to avoid paying tax.
All this to say that this is a very complex system. When we meet
tax experts, whether at the Standing Committee on Finance or
elsewhere, that is the first thing they tell us: the tax legislation is
extremely complex and we lay people need their help to understand
it. It is a fact that one needs very complex training to sort it all out.
In a nutshell, the current taxation system lacks efficiency.
9926
The third principle is that of neutrality. The taxation system
must be neutral. This means that companies should make
investments based on economic and financial considerations and
not on tax considerations.
(1050)
Yet, we are well aware that many companies make major
decisions which are not based on economic or financial interests,
but on the impact that these decisions will have on the amount of
taxes they will have to pay. So, the system is not neutral.
The fourth principle is the principle of stability. A tax system
must produce stable revenues over the years for the government, so
that it can make consistent economic forecasts. Stability provides
for a certain continuity in the level of revenues and expenditures.
Such stability currently does not exist, given that the government
was forced to cut $4.5 billion in transfers to the provinces-which
is not a source of revenue-and to garnish workers' wages by
taking $5 billion out of the unemployment insurance fund, so it
could reduce its deficit. This shows that the tax system is not
stable.
All these principles, developed by the Carter commission and
reiterated by Bloc Quebecois members with the very limited means
available to them, show that a tax reform is in order. This is one of
the reasons why such a reform is necessary, but there are many
more.
As regards corporate taxation, our first document was essentially
tabled because we realized that, over the years, corporations have
been paying less and less taxes. I will show you figures which I
already mentioned in the House, but which bear repeating every
day. Let us take a look at the gap between taxes paid by
corporations and individuals since 1951. I will show that gap for
every 10-year period, that is for 1952, 1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992.
Here are the figures.
In 1952, corporations contributed 51 per cent of the taxes paid to
the government, compared to 45 per cent for individuals. In 1962,
10 years later, corporate taxes amounted to 36 per cent of the total;
in 1972, it was 20 per cent; in 1982, it was down to 18 per cent, and,
in 1992, it was a mere 7.6 per cent. We can see that, over the past 40
years, corporate taxes have steadily gone down, while personal
taxes have increased.
So, over the past 40 years-and this is the second reason why we
are asking for a comprehensive tax reform-the tax burden in
Canada, has been supported less and less by corporations and more
and more by the middle class and the poor, through cuts affecting
services provided to them. This is the second good reason for a tax
reform.
The taxation principles stated by the Carter commission are no
longer being complied with. Moreover, for the past 40 years,
corporations have been paying less and less taxes, while
individuals have been paying more and more. Under the
circumstances, it would be in order to go back to the conclusions of
the Carter commission.
The third principle is a bit of a myth. It has always been said that
corporate taxes should not be substantially increased, because
corporations in Canada may already be paying too much tax,
compared to companies in other countries. According to statements
made by succeeding governments, both Liberal and Conservative,
corporations pay too much tax in Canada. However, the figures
show just the opposite.
I am referring to the figures from the OECD, which compared
the corporate tax rates in various countries. We are talking here
about corporate tax revenues, that is the taxes paid by corporations
in relation to the country's gross domestic product. Let us look at
the years 1965, 1975, 1985 and 1993, since the data for 1995 is not
available. Let us see how Canada fares.
According to these figures, in the United States, for the year
1965, 6.48 per cent of tax revenues came from corporations,
compared to 4.7 per cent for Canada, 12 per cent for France,7.23 per cent for Germany, and 5.81 per cent for Japan. In 1965,
Canada, along with Spain and the United Kingdom, was the
country with the smallest proportion of tax revenues being paid by
corporations.
(1055)
In 1975, ten years later, the percentage for Canada was 6.38, and
for the United States, 7.16. On might expect lower taxes in the
United States, but the opposite is true. Corporate taxes are higher in
the United States. The same is true in France, Germany and Japan,
all of which have corporate taxes several points higher than
Canada's.
In 1985, it is even worse, and in the final year, 1993, Canada
looked to corporations for less than 6 per cent of its revenue, the
United States, 7.25 per cent, and Japan, almost 10 per cent. Japan is
not a third world country. It looked to corporations for almost 10
per cent. Internationally, therefore, Canada is not facing impossible
competition. It is even one of the countries-and we are talking
about industrialized countries-with the lowest corporate taxes.
The same analysis can be done for tax revenue, but this time
compared to overall revenue. Here again, Canada ranks lowest
among all other industrialized countries, including the United
States. We therefore see that Canada is one of the OECD countries
with the lowest corporate taxes compared to individual taxes.
Do I have one minute remaining, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: Dear colleague, there are 14 minutes remaining,
but we are coming up to the time for statements by members, and
that is why I was motioning to you. That is all.
9927
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, how kind of you. In fact, I still
have quite a bit to say. But since there is a logical break in my
text at this point, I will therefore stop for now and continue after
oral question period for the time I have remaining.
The Speaker: I am in agreement, dear colleague. It being now
almost 11 o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
9927
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, small business is one of the fastest growing sectors of the
Canadian economy and women are leading the way.
This was recently demonstrated at a Small Business Info Fair
which I hosted in my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River. I was
pleased to see that so many of the participants were women
entrepreneurs.
Did members know that women make up over one-third of
independent business people in Canada, that Canadian women
operate more than 700,000 firms employing 1.7 million Canadians
and that half of women entrepreneurs started their businesses with
less than $10,000?
I am proud of the opportunities that the Liberal government has
given to small business owners. Congratulations to the women of
Dauphin-Swan River who have used their pioneer spirit and
followed their dreams to operate a small business.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Manitobans are again facing devastation from flooding. In
fact, it is predicted this will be the worst flood situation since the
mid-19th century. Thousands of people will be forced from their
homes, and while local governments are better prepared than ever
before, we could be entering into unknown territory according to a
natural resources spokesman.
Manitobans would like assurance that the federal government
will work quickly and co-operatively with the provincial and
municipal governments to provide emergency relief for families
and financial compensation to repair flood damage.
I hope Manitoba flood victims will not have to experience a
repeat of last year when the federal government attempted to
renege on its commitment after the fact.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Ernie
Eves, Ontario's minister of finance, has claimed today in the
Globe
and Mail that the federal Liberals are delaying the Canada-Ontario
infrastructure program ``with an eye to the coming election
campaign''.
The facts show who is really delaying the infrastructure
program. The federal government has already signed agreements
with eight provinces and one territory. The federal government is
ready, willing and able.
(1100)
The extended infrastructure program could create more than
6,500 new jobs in Ontario. Ontario is the only province that has not
concluded an agreement. I would like Mr. Eves to tell the
constituents of Simcoe North why Ontario is stalling on creating
new jobs.
In many other files, the federal government has shown its
unequivocal desire to move ahead. Who is stalling on harmonizing
the GST in Ontario? Who rebuffed the Prime Minister's efforts to
amend the Constitution? Who is delaying an agreement on labour
force training for Ontarians? The provincial Tory government of
Mike Harris, that's who.
Let's go to the polls today and ask Ontarians who is working for
Canadians and who is playing politics.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government's policies for a growing economy are working.
Today Vistajet, headquartered in my riding of London West,
announced an expansion of its operations to better service
passengers flying between Toronto, Windsor and Ottawa. Vistajet
has already hired 55 new people and hopes are soaring that the
London based jet airline will create employment for at least 200
more within a year with the addition of new routes.
The company aims to become a national carrier offering value
conscious leisure and business travellers the convenience of flying
at a rate comparable to driving or taking the train.
It has been the Liberal government's management of the
Canadian economy that has enabled companies like Vistajet to
expand. During four consecutive budgets, the Minister of Finance
has adopted policies that have reduced interest rates to historic
lows and fostered a competitive economy, laying the foundation for
the private sector to create new jobs for Canadians.
To Vistajet and its new employees-
9928
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bruce-Grey.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.):.):
Mr. Speaker, last
December the government offered the provinces and territories the
possibility of extending the Canada infrastructure works program
for another year. Since that offer, nine provinces, except Ontario,
have agreed to continue this successful program to build
infrastructure and create jobs in their communities.
The Canada infrastructure works program allows municipalities
to set priorities for projects. It is a grassroots approach to
government which involves local elected officials who know what
is best for their communities.
Our government and the provinces respect the municipalities as
equal participants in the program.
As a former mayor, I encourage the Government of Ontario to
involve local governments in the decision making process. The
issue is jobs and the enhancement of community life. I hope that
the Government of Ontario will not let this opportunity go.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the fishery has
never been in such poor shape as since the Liberals came to power
in Ottawa.
Successive fisheries ministers have managed only to lower
fishing quotas, shorten seasons, reduce the size of fleets, slow
down processing plants, and manage the resource to the advantage
of fishermen from Newfoundland, the province from which,
furthermore, all the Liberal Party's fisheries ministers have come.
I am not asking this government to bring back the missing fish,
but to reverse the power play by which the Liberal government
took over management of the fishery from Quebec in July 1983.
Quebec had handled this responsibility perfectly well since 1922.
Quebec's fishermen will never be well served by Ottawa, which
takes no account whatsoever of their opinions and their needs.
I am certain that, until such time as it attains sovereignty,
Quebec has all the expertise necessary to handle this responsibility
successfully.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the truth is out. Rather than fulfilling its red book promise to
provide honest, more accountable government, Liberal patronage
is alive and well, in fact, working overtime.
While armouries across the country are being considered for
closure, the Prime Minister's canoe museum in Shawinigan will
now be matched by a government funded hotel and a large new
armoury.
Nor will the Deputy Prime Minister miss out on Liberal election
largesse. Hamilton will receive a new naval reserve building. Not
to be outdone when it comes to pork-barrelling, the health
minister's Nova Scotia riding receives a new naval reserve
complex.
Our reserves play a vital role in the military and social fabric of
Canada and deserve our support, but is it not strange that all six
new armouries or naval reserve facilities are going to Liberal
ridings?
The shutdown of the Somalia inquiry to prevent scrutiny of high
level defence involvement, the buying of political favour with
taxpayer money and a host of broken red book promises prove that
the Liberals have not and will not provide honest, good
government.
* * *
(1105)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec's maple syrup industry has modernized its image and set its
sights on outside markets.
Quebec alone accounts for 90 per cent of Canadian production,
of which 80 per cent, it is estimated, is consumed outside the
country. Last year, the industry exported over 20,200 tonnes of
maple syrup, 4 per cent more than in 1995, to 32 countries.
During the same period, the value of these exports jumped to $97
million, a 20 per cent increase, and in just four years the value of
exports has almost doubled, rising to 84 per cent, an average annual
increase of 22 per cent.
These results are attributable to the revitalized methods being
adopted by longstanding producers, and the emergence of a series
of new and very dynamic enterprises, with different approaches
and products, that are targeting a much broader range of niche
markets than ever before.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the leader of the Tory party was in
9929
Nova Scotia trying to resurrect support for a party the voters
rightly repudiated in 1993.
He has a tough job ahead of him. The voters in Nova Scotia
remember well the legacy of that last Tory government, a
government of which he was a part: higher unemployment, higher
taxes, government finances out of control, missed deficit targets,
scandal after scandal. He hopes Nova Scotians will forget. They
will not.
The election has not been called and the Tory platform has
already been discredited. Their numbers do not add up. Nova
Scotians know that a party fighting for the right wing Reform vote
in the rest of Canada is not a party that can be trusted in Atlantic
Canada.
The people in Nova Scotia know that the Liberals have delivered
good government. We have cleaned up the fiscal mess of the
Mulroney years. We have acted to protect and sustain our social
programs and we have put the economy on the right track.
We are beginning to see the results with low interest rates,
growing consumer confidence, a good climate for growth and jobs.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year
marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lester B. Pearson,
Canada's Prime Minister from 1963 to 1968.
Mr. Pearson had one of the most distinguished careers in
Canadian political life. In 1957 he was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in recognition of his leadership in establishing Canada as the
world's peacekeeper.
Mike Pearson was a pragmatic, humble, decent consensus
builder.
On Wednesday, April 23, it will give me great pleasure to join
with my colleagues and my constituents in paying tribute to this
great man at the Pearson Centennial Dinner at the National Arts
Centre.
Lester Pearson was a leader who made Canada an even better
place to live. To his family and friends, may his memory live with
us forever.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
hesitated until the last minute about making this speech. Should I,
or should I not, bring up the words used by Bernard Landry the day
before yesterday concerning our Prime Minister?
Should such an attack be allowed to pass without comment, so as
not to attract more attention to it than it merits, or should it be
vehemently objected to? The liberal principles and values to which
I fully subscribe teach us not to counter an insult with another
insult.
The Bernard Landrys of this world ought to realize that such an
attack on the Prime Minister is an attack on the very foundations of
the political institution. And then they turn around and moan about
the lack of confidence and the cynicism people have toward
politicians.
* * *
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
reference has just been made to great Liberal principles.
The Corival construction company, of which Liberal Senator
Pietro Rizzuto is a minority shareholder, has been fined $56,000 by
the Quebec Court for major fraud. A Revenue Canada investigation
has proven that the company of Rizzuto and his brother-in-law
claimed four fictitious invoices totalling $198,000 as business
expenses for tax purposes.
This is not the first time that Pietro Rizzuto, the Quebec
campaign manager for the Liberal Party of Canada, has been
involved in some funny business. During the 1993 election, he had
promised jobs to all defeated Liberal candidates. Three and a half
years later, 40 of those former Liberal candidates or MPs have jobs
in the Chrétien government. It is therefore obvious what clout this
man of few principles wields in a party that thumbs its nose at
ethics and integrity.
The Liberals have just reminded us, once again, that where
honest government is concerned, they are tarred with the same
brush as the Conservatives. Their 1993 commitment to restore
integrity was mere opportunism, and was not rooted in any real
desire for change. Accordingly-
(1110)
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. member for
Miramichi has the floor.
* * *
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
National Volunteer Week.
[English]
As members of Parliament we must acknowledge the
tremendous contributions that many Canadians make in improving
the lot of their fellow citizens. Time is one of our most precious
commodities. It is important that all of us use this time effectively
and efficiently.
Across Canada many Canadians budget some of their time in an
effort to enhance their communities by serving on boards, in
providing recreation, in coaching, with youth programs, in visiting
the sick and providing services that would cost our communities
9930
many thousands of dollars. Volunteerism, the offering of one's time
to the community, offers all of us a tremendous contribution.
Today we salute these volunteers for their efforts and those
people who offer their services to charities.
I would like to challenge all Canadians to reflect on this use of
time and consider the importance of volunteerism.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage released her plan for
the Bow Valley, but in her haste to pander to the demands of some
vocal special interest groups, she could well be cutting off access
to, and quiet enjoyment of, the park for the elderly and disabled.
If the Bow Valley Parkway is closed to all automobile traffic,
those who can no longer, or never could, hike or walk long
distances, will be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy some
birdwatching, a picnic lunch or a short stroll in an alpine meadow.
What is the use of a national park if it is reserved only for use by
speciality hikers and those who do not mind being crammed into a
crowded bus for a quick trip through the woods?
If speed or too much traffic is the problem, surely we could
restrict the speed limit or the number of vehicles going through the
Bow Valley Parkway each day. That is the way it is being done in
the Grand Canyon national park.
On behalf of the regular users of the park who alerted me to this
problem, I urge the heritage minister to please reject any complete
closure of the Bow Valley Parkway. While she is at it, could she
please confirm whether there is any truth to the rumour that she is
building-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, with each passing day, ownership of Canada's daily
papers and private television and radio stations are controlled by
fewer and fewer people. Today, entire regions of the country get the
news from daily papers owned by one large company. Conrad
Black's Hollinger Incorporated now controls 60 per cent of
Canada's daily newspapers and 43 per cent of Canada's coast to
coast circulation. The consequences for democracy are severe.
When Conrad Black bought control of all Saskatchewan
newspapers, 171 jobs were lost and specialized reporting on
agriculture, health and civic politics fell 20 per cent of their
previous levels.
The reaction of Liberals was to sit on their hands on the grounds
that no commercial interests had been harmed. The silencing of
dissenting voices, the limits on what we counted on as news did not
trouble them.
But highly concentrated media ownership limits the free
exchange of ideas and information among Canadians. What we
need in this country are new rules to limit the concentration in the
media and protect democracy. We need a Canada-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for hundreds of years, even before Confederation, Canada has been
a nation characterized by cultural diversity.
Our First Nations were joined by many newcomers who arrived
from every nation on earth. Countless waves of pioneers and
adventurers became united in an untiring effort to build a new land,
proud to call itself home to the languages, arts, religions and
traditions of the world.
These ancestors have left us a cultural heritage and diversity
envied and respected throughout the global community.
When all Canadians grasp the gifts at hand that forge a bright
future for our country, we will enter the third millennium as a
cohesive, respectful nation, second to none.
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been honoured these past 3.5 years, an honour that is
bestowed on very few Canadians.
I wish to thank the citizens of Surrey North for providing me
with this opportunity to be their member of Parliament. I am
honoured to represent them in the House of Commons. I also want
to thank my Reform colleagues for their support and
encouragement over the past 3.5 years. It has been a phenomenal
growth for all of us and has been interesting to watch.
(1115 )
I thank the other members of Parliament and the Hill staff for
their friendliness and co-operation in our deliberations in Ottawa. I
extend a special thanks to my staff, my family and friends,
especially to Le and Pearl Hale, for their continuing support.
9931
For me the past 3.5 years have been an unforgettable experience,
one I will treasure.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this week I had the great privilege to wish bon voyage to the
Ottawa Youth Orchestra. Members of the orchestra will be
travelling with the Newfoundland Youth Symphony Orchestra to
Bristol, England to celebrate the 500th anniversary of John Cabot's
historic voyage to the new world. Together with young musicians
from Bristol they will be performing at the celebrations.
These young people are Canada's outstanding musicians of the
future. They are our cultural ambassadors to the world and we wish
them well on this important mission.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
also like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to those
who have helped me in the constituency, those who have worked
hard with me in both offices, Calgary and Ottawa, and government
members, a lot of whom showed courtesy and kindness in helping
us along.
I agreed with many of your rulings, Mr. Speaker. However, there
were a couple that I disagreed with. It was always when you cut me
off and would not give me an opportunity to speak a little longer.
Mr. Speaker, it was an honour and a privilege to serve and
represent the people of my riding. This House is a great institution.
It is worth defending, it is worth fighting for and it is worth keeping
together. It is worth keeping all Canadians in Canada. Canada first.
_____________________________________________
9931
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
On the subject of linguistic school boards in Quebec, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs insists he now supports the
Quebec government's request. So far, however, his own
government has refused to start the procedure for adopting the
constitutional amendment as requested.
Why has the minister, although he says he agrees with the
amendment requested by the Quebec National Assembly, not
tabled a notice of motion that would make it possible to start the
debate in the House? What is he waiting for?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to support the amendment we
received from the National Assembly which will help modernize
the Quebec school system in a way that has found support among
all groups in Quebec society.
We received this proposal barely 48 hours ago. We intend to
proceed without delay, with due respect for parliamentary
procedure.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I asked the minister a straightforward question. I imagine
when his students asked him questions, he had some answers. Why
does he have no answers now that he is in the House? What kind of
teacher is he?
I will repeat my question. He decided that hearings would be
held. We agreed. However, he must first table a motion in the
House. Let us stop being hypocrites, here.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): I know I am not
supposed to say that, but I said it.
Last Monday, they came to ask us when we would be ready to
proceed. We said: ``The Government of Quebec will proceed
Tuesday, we will be ready Wednesday''. At the time, they were
talking about going ahead on Monday.
The minister knows as well as I do-perhaps he does not because
he told us the other day he was not very knowledgeable on the rules
of procedure-but in any case, when does he intend to table this
notice of motion? Ask the House leader, but when are you going to
table your notice of motion?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the acting opposition House leader forgot that her party and
the Reform Party agreed that on Monday we would, I hope, pass the
anti-gang bill. Did she change her mind? Does she want to renege
on her commitment?
(1120)
Because of a previous agreement we cannot start with the
resolution on Monday, but as we say in Parliament, the hon.
member may rest assured that we intend to start consideration of
the resolution as soon as possible after Monday.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect for the hon. member and his career as
9932
a parliamentarian, first of all, I am not the acting House leader but,
as far as I know, the official House leader.
Second, we agreed on an agenda until next Thursday. Does this
mean that the House will adjourn on Thursday? Does this mean the
government has no intention of tabling the motion? Is that what it
means?
In one of those end-of-session deals, we also suggested an
approach that would meet both the government's objectives and
ours. With the unanimous consent of the House, we asked the
government to proceed today with debate on the motion so that
Monday, the constitutional amendment could be referred to the
Senate and then to the joint committee for 48 hours of hearings, and
after that the amendment would come back to the House so we
could vote on it before the House adjourns. Is the government
prepared to accept this deal in its entirety, yes or no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Quebec government waited at least two years to table its own
resolution, and the National Assembly took three weeks to adopt
the resolution after it was tabled. Why should the hon. member
expect us to consider this very important constitutional motion
within a shorter time frame than the National Assembly?
Second, the hon. member does not like the word ``acting''
connected to her position, and I apologize for the fact that I forgot
she is leader of the acting official opposition. I may remind her that
we are all here in an acting capacity, to a certain extent, and this is
especially true of the present official opposition party.
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we now know this is a government delaying tactic. If I
were the leader, I would not be too worried about our return.
My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
As we speak, a family from Belgium seeking to immigrate to
Quebec is in prison. The father, the mother and the three children
aged 9, 13 and 14 are at the Laval detention centre. The entire
situation is based on a bureaucratic mess arising from
misunderstanding, and false and erroneous information.
It appears that Mr. Truzewicz is being held on account of a
robbery committed 18 years ago in Belgium. He however has
shown that it was not he who committed the robbery, but someone
using his car.
Is the minister prepared to examine this matter immediately so
that Mr. Truzewicz and his family are accorded fairer treatment? A
little understanding, please.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I looked into this matter
personally, but the Quebec privacy act precludes my commenting
publicly on the facts of this case, and I think we should protect
people's privacy as a matter of course.
If I have anything to say to the family today, it is to suggest that
they comply with Canada's laws. That is the best approach, if they
want to return some day.
(1125)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what is not a matter of course is our treating these people
as if they were criminals, when they are not. This family is being
treated like criminals. The parents and the three children have been
thrown into prison.
Until the situation is clarified, could the minister arrange to
release these people who are accused of nothing so that we can at
least stop aggravating the situation these innocent people are
facing?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to stop making political points with a
human situation that is difficult for all concerned.
Clearly, everyone must obey Canadian law. I would hope the
Bloc members would do the same in this country.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the ink
was barely dry on the anti-tobacco legislation before they started
changing and watering it down.
In public the Liberals talked a really good line about not caving
in to the tobacco lobby and protecting the health of our young
people. They seemed concerned then but then in private the health
minister could not backtrack fast enough on tobacco sponsorship.
In fact he became the host of ``Let's Make A Deal'' with the
tobacco lobby. Tough on tobacco, I do not know. I am not sure.
Why did the Liberals cave in to the tobacco lobby, or was it
always part of the pre-election plan? Who is going to answer that
one?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ignores one very
basic important fact.
Bill C-71 passed from this place to the other place and passed in
the other place without any amendments. The bill still maintains all
its integrity. It has all its objectives which the House supported,
notwithstanding the reluctance of some members opposite.
9933
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fix
is in. The government has already passed the legislation and it
talks about the other place. It is already talking about amending
it again. It is absolutely ridiculous and it proves the Liberals are
shameless.
They ought to be saying to the Canadian public that the only
thing the Government of Canada cares about at the moment is the
political fortune of the Liberal Party of Canada. How ironic this
should be on the eve of an election.
First there was the Somalia inquiry. Then there was a $260
million payout for Pearson and Airbus, airports and Airbuses. Then
came salmon, cod and now the anti-tobacco bill.
Why is the government so concerned about losing votes that it is
willing to compromise its conscience?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is shameless is the
poor attempt to try to score political points by distorting the facts.
The facts are still as follows. Bill C-71 went from the House to
the other place and from there into the public domain with clear
health objectives that remain as they were when they left this place.
We had already considered all other ramifications of the bill.
Those ramifications are included in some amendments that were
accepted here, for example that we would have an implementation
period following which there would be consultation with all
stakeholders and a review of some of those implications in the
context of Health Canada's health objectives as stated in the bill.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
great to hear them talk so eloquently about the fact that they really
care about young people and smoking, and then they say they are
making these changes. I do not think the Canadian public cares
what House it has been through. It is seeing the Liberal government
caving in to the tobacco industry on labelling.
He did not mention that the Liberals were planning to cave in to
the tobacco lobby after the bill was passed and amended in the fall
with the arrogance of assuming that they will be here to make those
changes. He did not mention the Liberals differentiated between a
tobacco ad on a billboard and a tobacco ad on a race car.
Why should Canadians vote for a government that talks tough on
smoking and then puts a Liberal logo on a race car?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we were to put a Liberal logo on a
race car I am sure we would get all kinds of support. The hon.
member knows full well that all the articles of the bill indicated
that we would have restrictions on sponsorship. There was never
any question of anything else.
(1130)
I might add for the member's edification that we would have an
opportunity to get people to understand the objectives. There were
restrictions but no bans. We said here are the health objectives and
we carried those out.
The legislation went through the House with the health
objectives in place, consistent with the Supreme Court decisions
that generated this and consistent with all consultations we had in
the field leading up to the legislation.
Nothing has changed, absolutely nothing. Canadians are pleased
the Canadian government could get the legislation out of the
Commons, into the Senate and into the public. She should applaud
it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one can
tell there is an election in the offing. That is why the President of
the Treasury Board and member for Hull-Aylmer would like to
see the public service pay equity issue resolved, in his interest and
that of his colleagues in the Ottawa area.
The Bloc Quebecois strongly urges the government to stop
stalling over this issue and show respect for its 80,000 employees,
who have been waiting for 12 years. Otherwise, the campaign trail
might be bumpy, especially in Hull-Aylmer.
On this issue, the minister chose to make an offer via the Toronto
Star rather than directly at the bargaining table. Why did he take
this disrespectful approach to labour relations?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
naturally, I have no intention of negotiating in this place something
that should be negotiated between the employer, namely the
Treasury Board, and its employees.
On Monday April 21, we will be putting on the table an offer
regarding pay equity for the public service employees' union to
consider. At that time, the details of the offer will be released, I
guess, by the union itself.
People will be able to see for themselves what our position is. As
far as we are concerned, we want both parties to negotiate in good
faith, and we would not want to prejudice either the employees'
position or that of the employer by discussing the matter in this
House.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Treasury Board has called a meeting with PSAC for April 21
without providing an agenda for the meeting.
9934
Will the President of the Treasury Board confirm that he plans
to put an offer on the table to resolve the issue, or is this just
another stalling tactic because an election is coming?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
just indicated, we will be putting on the table, on Monday April 21,
an offer regarding pay equity. These matters have already been
negotiated with the unions.
A settlement has already been reached with one of the unions,
the one representing professional employees, and we hope not only
that a settlement can be negotiated in good faith but also that it will
be fair to both taxpayers and employees.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, is there no shame in the Liberal ranks?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Pearson airport, $260
million taxpayer dollars; cancelled helicopters, $745 million
taxpayer dollars; Brian Mulroney, only $2 million taxpayer dollars.
He must be feeling hard done by. Canoe museums, armouries and
hotels in Shawinigan.
Is there no new low the government will stoop to in its panicked
rush toward an early election? Where are all those good jobs the red
book promised?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder why the Reform Party is supporting the program of a
party it says it opposes, namely Brian Mulroney's Conservative
Party.
Why does the Reform Party want the taxpayer to spend $5
billion to $6 billion on helicopters that do not meet Canadian
requirements? Why does the Reform Party want the taxpayer to
spend $600 million instead of $60 million on an airport deal that
was strongly criticized by Canadians across the country?
Are Reformers turning into a new set of Mulroney Tory clones?
(1135 )
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the people know Liberal-Tory, same old story. We are not
the ones paying out taxpayer dollars for all these things.
It is now painfully obvious to every Canadian except Liberal
MPs that infrastructure programs and other big government make
work projects only produce short term jobs. Real job creation will
only come through smaller government, balanced budgets and
across the board tax relief.
Has the Prime Minister finally learned this, or does he still
believe, as he said during the CBC town hall, that if Canadians
cannot find a job they should simply move to where there is work,
to where his government is spending their tax dollars, to
Shawinigan?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is certainly a lot more to do in terms of helping Canadians
who want to work find jobs, but we have made a very good start
with a very good basis.
Some 700,000 new jobs have been created since the government
took office. A further program of action was outlined in the very
effective budget of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. We have
laid the groundwork for further progress that I am sure will be
achieved.
I wonder why my hon. friend on the one hand says that things
have to be done at the local level, at the community level, but he is
rejecting the successful infrastructure program which was
designed, worked out and supported by the Canadian Federation of
Municipalities.
The Reform Party has just given a slap in the face to thousands
of mayors and reeves across the country and they will not forget it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
spring, hundreds of owners of satellite dishes will lose the last
analog signal in French, that of Radio-Canada. While technological
progress may be a good thing, these people should have been
informed of that change, before investing over $1,000 in satellite
dishes that will no longer work.
Why does the industry minister not conduct a real information
campaign on this issue, so as to reach people, particularly those
who live in rural areas, instead of merely publishing a brochure
distributed by the sellers of satellite dishes, who do not always
have an interest in telling the truth to their customers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said on several occasions in this House that it is the
objective of Industry Canada to ensure that all consumers are
informed and that the purchasing of satellite dishes should be made
with the knowledge that the technology is changing.
9935
We recently issued a licence to Telesat Canada to provide DTH
services to Canadians. I believe these new services, including
LMCS and the cable broadcasting service to be introduced by
telephone companies, will result in many technological changes
all consumers should be informed of.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Broadcasting Act provides that Radio-Canada's signals must reach
the largest possible audience.
Given that the satellite broadcasting industry is still in its
infancy, will the minister ask Radio-Canada to put off its decision
to eliminate its analog signal for at least one year, so as to give
consumers time to adjust to the technological changes he just
mentioned?
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Why not do like
the Americans you like so much?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): I am
sorry, madam.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): The minister is not
allowed to speak to me directly. He must go through the Chair.
Mr. Manley: If I can get a word in, I would advise the member
to direct his question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I would
say to the hon. member that it is definitely the government's
objective to ensure that all Canadians can receive Radio-Canada's
signals.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the finance minister.
Given that the finance minister has claimed he has not raised
personal income taxes in any of his three budgets, why is it that the
after tax disposable income per family is down by $3,000 per year?
(1140 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for eight years prior to our taking office this country had a
Conservative government. That was when the decline in after tax
income took place. Since we have taken office it has stabilized. If
one takes a look at the projections of most economists, it is that it
will be going up.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find this
funny. I said since 1993 this is what has happened. It has nothing to
do with the Conservatives. When they were over here they blamed
the Conservatives. Now that they are over there, they blame the
Conservatives. Liberal-Tory same old story.
I have a concern that the finance minister is basically using the
UI fund as a surtax on his deficit cutting promises. He has said that
if the cuts to the Canada health and social transfer are $7.5 billion,
he would cut program spending by $9 billion. Revenues in the UI
fund will hit $7 billion by the end of this fiscal year and revenues
from personal income taxes are up by $4 billion after only11 months, and that is from the Fiscal Monitor.
If the finance minister has not raised personal income taxes, if he
claims that he has not touched personal income taxes, why are tax
revenues from personal income up by $4 billion? We have the time
to handle this and answer it properly, so just take your time and
answer it.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are a number of answers to the hon. member's question.
I think the hon. member would be interested in knowing that in
1966 the real net worth per household rose 2.7 per cent. What that
means is that households have more assets, more money and are
better off. Canadians are better off. I am sorry, 1996. When you are
talking to the Reform Party you are lucky to get the century right.
Let me simply say that the reason our personal income tax
revenues are up is that in the private sector there are 850,000 more
Canadians working. That is why, that is the way it should be, and
that is good news.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
This morning we learned that the CBC is toying with the idea of
privatizing Bon Matin, a news broadcast now under the
responsibility of Radio-Canada's news service. This represents yet
another step on the road to abandoning great Canadian cultural
institutions like Telefilm Canada and the CBC to the private sector,
where the rules of ethics and accountability are not the same as
those found in the public sector.
Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree that her
government is responsible for dismantling Canadian cultural
institutions and abandoning them to the private sector?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
through its protection of Canadian cultural institutions in recent
budgets, I think the Canadian government has shown that it values
9936
them greatly and that it intends to continue to protect them in the
future.
Whether we are talking about Telefilm Canada, Radio-Canada or
the CBC, the federal government has stated its objectives, and we
intend to continue to serve the Canadian people, including the
people of Quebec, in such a way as to promote the development of
culture in Canada through strong and sustainable institutions.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the idea of starting to privatize the news broadcast by
Radio-Canada is the direct result of Liberal cuts to the CBC.
Instead of providing decent funding for the corporation, the
Liberals diverted the money to the Copps fund, administered by the
private sector and by Heritage Canada.
Why are the Liberals doing everything they can to weaken
Radio-Canada and Telefilm Canada, instead of strengthening
Canadian culture?
(1145)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we are putting more than $1 billion annually into supporting
our cultural institutions, there is no doubt that our government is
showing that it wants to give effect to the principles of which we
spoke and to continue to defend our cultural institutions.
As for the privatization of Bon Matin, I would like to remind the
hon. member that the CBC is an autonomous agency in which we
do not interfere. It is precisely because we do not want there to be
any political interference that we are allowing the CBC to take
decisions such as the one it may eventually take regarding Bon
Matin. Opposition members would be the first to complain if there
were any political interference. In this case, we are not interfering,
so how can they complain?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
financial institutions are charging 17 per cent interest on their
major credit cards. Department stores are charging up to 28 per
cent interest on their cards.
Is there any progress by the government on reducing credit card
interest rates?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his work together
with other members of the House from all parties, especially the
parliamentary secretary to the House leader, for their work in
raising the awareness of Canadians on this issue.
What we have seen since they began to raise this issue is that
consumer awareness in Canada has increased significantly of the
fact that low rate cards are available, as well as new low rate cards
that have come into existence; five new ones in the last few
months. Now consumer awareness of these cards has increased
from 30 per cent to 60 per cent, a very important contribution to the
ability of consumers to make the choices that are in their best
interests.
In addition, Industry Canada continues on a monthly basis to
make available to the public full disclosure of information on the
comparative rates and other costs associated with credit cards. As
well, we have recently instituted on our web site, Strategis, the
ability for consumers to use a credit card calculator. Inputting their
own consumer practices, we can calculate for them which credit
card is the best one for them to use.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.
In the last three and a half years this government has messed up
every agriculture policy it has touched. It killed the Crow subsidy
without having a competitive and efficient grain transportation
system in place and as a result farmers have bins full of grain that
cannot be moved.
Full grain bins and empty pockets have been Liberal and Tory
policy for the past 130 years. How does this government expect
farmers without cash to put in this year's crops?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last
several weeks we have been asked by many people to work on this
situation and to put out a committee to look at it.
We feel that is not the direction to take. We feel the minister is
working with the rail companies, with the product groups in the
west trying to move this question forward as quickly as possible.
There is no question that grain has moved very slowly off the
prairies this year. There was an avalanche which slowed things
down for a week. We understand there was a major wash-out of rail
lines a week ago which caused another huge slow down.
We sympathize with all the producers in the west. There is no
question we want to see this move forward as quickly as possible.
We are involving all the stakeholders and we are working with
them to make certain these problems are clarified and sped up.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has to realize if farmers had been given a
marketing choice, as the Western Grain Marketing Panel recom-
9937
mended, they would already have resolved the transportation
problems.
But because the minister arrogantly refused the
recommendations of his own panel, the whole exercise was a waste
of millions of taxpayer dollars.
How do the minister and the government plan to compensate
farmers for his arrogance and negligence?
(1150 )
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of
the member's question is totally wrong. In absolutely no way has
the minister, in any of the judgments made, done anything to cause
delays in the transportation of grain on the prairies.
The member knows very well that the cause is due to problems
within the rail companies. We are working with the industry and
everyone in the industry knows we have been working with them to
resolve the problem.
You don't have a good-
The Speaker: I know you are going to catch me the next time
around.
The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On February 28, in response to a letter from Quebec Minister of
Cultural Affairs Louise Beaudoin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
stated that there was no question of Quebec artists being excluded
from funding programs on political grounds.
If this is so, will the minister confirm that he has altered the
objectives of his financial assistance program for touring
companies by withdrawing the criteria linking departmental
subsidies to the promotion of Canadian unity?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with regard to the new policies, we made it clear that
decisions on individual artists would be based on each person's
artistic merits. There is, therefore, no change.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer to the question. I have asked the
minister whether he had changed the criteria in the law, rather than
in promises. We all know what happens to promises. We were
promised that the GST would be scrapped, and it was not.
If the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not changed the criteria of
his program, how then can he write Minister Beaudoin saying that
the political opinions of Quebec artists will not be taken into
account when his department awards funding to artists?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wrote to Madam Beaudoin to ensure we cleared up the
total misinformation that was put forward by members of that party
suggesting that political views would be taken into account. Never
at any time was that the case. It was only in the minds of the Bloc
Quebecois members. They attempted to exploit it as a way of trying
to drive a wedge. Never was it part of our guidelines.
All we said was that we wanted to ensure that when we promote
the opportunity for Canadian artists to go abroad that it be the
widest possible range of artists, young people, aboriginal people,
people representing the various cultural groups. Never were
political beliefs taken into account.
The Bloc Quebecois must apologize to the Canadian public for
creating that kind of perception.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just days
before a needless federal election call the Liberals are spreading
money around the way farmers would spread fertilizer. They
obviously did not learn from the fact that Trudeau's 1984 patronage
binge cost them the election. What a flip-flop from the days in
opposition when they criticized the Tories for their pork-barrelling.
While it still has time, will the government commit to cutting
taxes so that real jobs can be created?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the last budget we brought in over $2 billion worth of selective tax
cuts, which will take effect over the next three years, for Canadians
with disabilities, for students and for low income families. We
brought in a series of targeted tax cuts directed where the impact
will be the greatest.
Given that the government has reasonably restricted financial
resources, that is the option which any reasonable government
would take. The alternative recommended by the Reform Party is
to bring in a broad based tax cut which would benefit the wealthy of
this country. It would be paid for by cutting services which low and
middle income Canadians desperately need.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is up to his old tricks of misquoting the Reform Party's
policies.
9938
(1155)
For the last 78 months the unemployment rate has been high in
this country. At no other time has it been this high except during the
Great Depression.
If, as he claims, they are creating jobs, how is the minister
prepared to explain to the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians that
his policies are working?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the numbers are very clear. There are 850,000 new jobs that have
been created by the private sector since we have taken office. The
hon. member says I have misquoted from their budget.
Let me quote exactly from false start: ``The federal government
contributes about $3.5 billion each year to provincial welfare
programs through the transfer payment known as the Canada health
and social transfer. A Reform government will eliminate these
payments''. That is a direct quote; 3.5 billion out of the pockets of
those who need it most. That is not a misquote, that is what
Reformers would do.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
We are all quite aware of Canada's longstanding tradition of
peacekeeping initiatives. Canada's contributions throughout the
globe are second to none. One such initiative was the participation
of Canadian troops in UN peacekeeping operations in Cyprus.
I would like to ask the minister today to inform the House of any
new developments with respect to Canada's role in Cyprus that
may help bring a just and peaceful solution.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Scarborough
Centre and the members from Don Valley East and Saint-Denis
who have worked actively over the last several months to develop
an initiative for Canada to assist in the reconciliation of the
problems in Cyprus.
I am pleased to announce today that we have established a
special ambassador, Mr. Michael Bell, to be the envoy for Canada
in Cyprus and to work closely with the United Nations and to work
with other countries. We think it is at the right moment with the
proposed admission into the European Union. We hope that Canada
continues to play the constructive balanced role that we played
during peacekeeping in Cyprus. Now we can provide a constructive
political and diplomatic initiative. If we can do that, we can help
bring peace and demilitarization to that country and to that land
which so desperately needs it. I am very pleased that we have been
able to make that announcement today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
One of the recommendations of the Bloc Quebecois on tax
reform concerned the Governor General's salary of $97,400 on
which he does not pay a cent of income tax. Of course, the Minister
of Finance did nothing about this.
Although all taxpayers must do their fair share to help the
Minister of Finance fight the deficit and even the Queen of England
now pays income tax, what justification does the minister have for
the fact that her representative in Canada, with a salary of $97,400,
does not?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
accountants could go on about this at length. Is it better to pay him
the salary of a Deputy Minister, around $140,000 or $150,000, so
that he will have a net income of $97,000, or to pay him his salary
tax free, because technically, the Crown cannot tax the Crown?
That is a choice accountants have to make, and one way or another,
it will not have much of an impact on the future of this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just like
the old line patronage ridden parties before it, this government is
digging deep into the taxpayer trough so that it can hand out
hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money to last
minute pre-election goodies for Liberal ridings.
If we add the cost of the election to the cost of the handouts and
the cost of the MP pensions for the 30 or so Liberals who are
deserting a sinking ship, Canadians are probably going to be out
about $1 billion for this folly.
Other than being an excuse to shower Liberal ridings with
largesse, could the government please explain the purpose of the
upcoming early June election.
(1200)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there has been no election call as yet, except perhaps in the minds
of the Reform Party.
9939
Could the Reform Party please explain why its leader is not
around here and is out campaigning across the country every day?
Could the Reform Party explain why it is distributing copies of
its false start program all over the country?
The Speaker: We are all aware it is getting close to the end, but
we should not mention who is here and who is not.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development. A Statistics Canada study shows that poor
children are three times more likely to be in remedial classes than
children from the richest families.
Since the government was elected the number of children living
in poverty have increased while the transfer payments to provinces
for social support programs and education have been slashed. The
opportunity of getting out of the poverty cycle has been reduced.
Is this an example of the new Liberalism that oversees the
entrenchment of a permanent underclass?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
should be aware it is obvious that child poverty is the number one
issue on the minds of all Canadians.
Therefore the agreement that we made with the provinces and
the new child tax credit are intended to help alleviate the concern of
all Canadians. To suggest that somehow any member of Parliament
on any side of the House would not see this as a major challenge is
quite disgusting, to say the least.
We are trying as governments to deal with child poverty. They
are not interested on all sides of the House in having any underclass
in our country.
That is the NDP philosophy. That is why people do not vote for
the NDP. It tries to split people into interest groups. We try to deal
with Canadians overall.
* * *
Hon. David M. Collenette (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The Canada infrastructure program created tens of thousands of
jobs across Ontario. As we approach round two the Ontario
government has proposed to exclude municipalities from the
project approval process. To add insult to injury, it is rumoured that
the amount of money to be allocated to the greater Toronto area is
disproportionately low.
Will the President of the Treasury Board guarantee that before
the program goes ahead with Ontario the municipalities will be
given a meaningful role?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
early February I indicated to Minister Eves of Ontario that we were
ready to have an agreement on the basis of the current guidelines.
Mr. Eves then proposed an approach where the province of
Ontario selected all the projects and subsequently presented the
federal partner with a list. This is a very substantial change from
the current guidelines where the municipalities had the
responsibility to identify and select the projects.
I cannot in good conscience agree the municipalities which pay
one-third of the cost of the program would have no voice in
deciding where the projects are.
It is true, according to the current list developed by Ontario that
has not been fully revised by federal officials in particular, that the
counties of Muskoka, Haliburton and Parry Sound received
disproportionately high benefits relative to population.
Coincidentally and to our great surprise, this is Minister Eves'
riding.
The Speaker: I am glad you two members are getting close
together.
_____________________________________________
9939
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1205)
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition
signed by many constituents in the Ottawa area.
They call on the House of Commons to ask the federal
government to enact a national infrastructure program to help the
country to rebuild its national highway system.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first one contains 51
names.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize the
fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from
undue interference from the state and to recognize the fundamental
right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their
children.
I fully support the petitioners.
9940
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners pray that Parliament
not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal
budget.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in the last petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to
urge the federal government to join with provincial governments to
make the national highway system upgrading possible.
I agree with the petitioners.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present two petitions on behalf of
133 and 25 constituents respectively.
They request that Parliament ask the minister responsible for the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to suspend
negotiations on social housing to the province of Ontario and to
resume these negotiations only if the federal government proceeds
under publicly declared principles with input from housing
co-operative stakeholders.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition
which indicates that 38 per cent of the national highway system is
substandard.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament and urge the
federal government to join with provincial governments to make
the national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
over the last couple of years two petitions have been circulating
across Canada. I would like to present them on behalf of my
constituents of Mississauga South.
In the first petition the petitioners would like to draw to the
attention of the House that our police officers and firefighters place
their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the emergency needs
of all Canadians.
They also state that in many cases the families of police officers
and firefighters killed in the line of duty are left without sufficient
financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts
and bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have presented the second petition over 150 times in the House.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9940
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies has 13 minutes
remaining.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I will not be taking my 13 minutes. I have been
asked to be brief because a number of my colleagues wish to take
part in this debate, as we know, and there is not much time left
today.
I would just like to sum up what I have said. The government has
had an excellent opportunity in the past two years, with the 1996
and the 1997 budgets, to completely rework the Canadian taxation
system, to ensure that the rich people in this country pay their
taxes, which is not now the case, as well as to reduce the gap that
currently exists between the middle class and the rich.
(1210)
For the past two years, the government has opted not to revise
the taxation system, on which the Bloc Quebecois has already done
some in-depth research. Instead, it has preferred to dump almost
the entire deficit reduction effort on the sick, on welfare recipients
and students and on the unemployed, by chopping $4.5 billion from
transfer payments to the provinces, much of which goes to welfare,
9941
hospitals and education, and taking $5 billion from the
unemployment insurance fund.
The Prime Minister will most certainly be calling an election in
the next few days, and will be wooing the votes of all those
unemployed people in Canada whose benefits he has just cut
drastically and who will find themselves without any benefits this
fall after the election is over.
I would just like to close by wishing him good luck. In many
parts of Canada and Quebec he is really going to need it.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was
expecting the Bloc member to make a few more comments and he
caught me by surprise.
This budget implementation bill is obviously important. We
certainly have to take a look at the financial status of the
government and what is happening in Canada today.
There has been a lot of talk that very shortly the finance minister
will be announcing a much lower deficit than he projected in
February of this year when he said that the budget would come in at
about $19 billion.
When we analyse the latest Fiscal Monitor put out by the
Department of Finance two months in arrears, we see some
interesting financial information. The Department of Finance
releases this document which enables everyone to see what is
happening on an ongoing basis. It is a very worthwhile and useful
document.
Reform researchers have analysed it and have found some
interesting information. Last year the government was able to
predict a deficit overshoot by extrapolating final fiscal figures from
the monthly series. The presentation I make today will show a bit
about how the government is able to make its projections and
predictions and keep telling Canadians where it stands.
Since the Fiscal Monitor is released with an average of a
two-month lag, the most recent figures are from the February issue.
It covers 11 months of the previous fiscal year, from April 1, 1996
to February 1997. The deficit at the end of February stood at $7.8
billion or $15.5 billion lower than the same period in the previous
year of 1995-96. The improvement comes from increased revenues
of $9 billion, reduced transfers to provinces of $4 billion, reduced
public debt charges of $1.7 billion and reduced departmental
spending of $400 million.
(1215 )
The Liberals will overshoot their deficit target by about $10
billion, mostly as a result of stronger than expected revenue
growth, an international trend toward lower interest rates and large
reductions in health and education transfers to provinces.
If members will recall, the finance minister projected a $24
billion deficit for year ending March 31, 1997 and then it was
revised recently to $19 billion. This $10 billion overshoot is from
the $24 billion down to about $14 billion instead of the $19 billion
that he had projected.
The finance minister's department seems unable to make
accurate forecasts. That generally reduces the level of confidence
with which people view any of their forecasts.
During the Mulroney years, which was referred to today in
question period, the department was always wrong in that it always
overstated revenue growth. Now the department errs in the other
direction, constantly understating revenue growth with the
implication that taxes remain high as a result of this
understatement.
It is just as bad to be wrong one way as it is to be the other. If a
deficit is projected at X and it is exceed because certain things
happen negatively in the economy, we have an excuse. If a deficit is
projected at of X and it is lower, then it depends on what program
we are trying to push.
I maintain that the finance minister is trying to preserve and
protect the EI fund, which has now reached $7 billion, as a surtax
on his deficit. Rather than making the program spending cuts that
he projected and said he would, he is using this extra revenue from
UI to cover off his and his department's slow progress in making
the cuts that they promised to make.
Perhaps the minister would have faced more pressure to cut
taxes had the department been more accurate in its forecast. This
type of poor forecasting sets a dangerous precedent and calls into
question its credibility. The one thing the Department of Finance
should be serious about guarding is its credibility in making
forecasts.
However, one never knows what happens with the Department of
Finance, the cabinet and the finance minister. Perhaps there is some
political pressure. Perhaps there are instructions to shape, present
the numbers, present the worst case scenario and be overly
conservative on revenues so that the pressure can be kept up to
make the cuts. In either case, there is a variance that is never
accurate.
Nobody says the forecast has to be within a billion dollars.
However, if it cannot be within 15 per cent or 20 per cent of the
projected number, whether it is a deficit or a surplus-let us say
that a 20 per cent variance is acceptable either over or under-if it
is exceeded then the fundamentals that are being used to achieve
those budgetary projections, especially given that they are revised
on a quarterly basis, have to be seriously questioned.
If it actually does go from $24 billion as was forecast a year ago
February down to $14 billion, some people would say that was
great. This is what the Liberal government says. However, I am
submitting that is bad. It is just as bad as the Conservatives when
9942
they projected a $20 billion deficit and it ended up at $38 billion,
$18 billion higher. That is more than 20 per cent the other way.
What we need is a Department of Finance that will not get brow
beaten by any finance minister regardless of political party, that
will present the facts as it knows them to be because it is the one
constant from government to government. The officials who work
in that department have a handle on the revenue stream. Unless a
government decides to spend a bunch of money somewhere else, it
is able, given the variance in the economy, to conservatively and
within a 20 per cent variance predict the revenues. However, it is
off big time.
Never before have I seen a government make so many
fundamental changes in the way it does the financial statements
and present the government's balance sheet. The government has
moved things around. It has redefined certain types of spending.
This has allowed the government basically to redefine program
spending and claim that it is sticking to the percentage cuts that it
predicted of 18 per cent when it is really only 8 per cent or 7 per
cent. It has taken some program spending out and put it over into
other areas, off balance sheet spending and it ends up claiming that
it has met its targets when that was not the intent.
(1220)
The government was supposed to cut $9 billion and to date it has
only cut $4 billion. We are going to go into an election. Is it going
to promise to do the rest a year from now? The implication of bad
forecasting is just as bad if one is better than expected rather than
worse than expected.
If we take a look at the difference and review the components of
the deficit reduction, we see from the ``Fiscal Monitor'' that the
revenues of the government increased by $8.964 million. The
government reduced the transfers to persons by $349 million. It
reduced transfers to provinces by $4 billion. Departmental
spending went down by $400 million in the last 11 months and the
debt charges were less than projected at $1.7 billion. That is a
variable that is out of the control of the government.
When things get really bad the government will say: ``Interest
rates are not really something that we can control directly.
Indirectly, yes, we can, by running a prudent government''. Interest
rates are a factor of the global economy and how our dollar
compares on an exchange rate basis with currencies of other
countries. Therefore, to that degree it can have a huge variance and
a huge swing and the government cannot be held accountable
totally for that.
We notice that this comes to $15 billion. That is the total decline
in the deficit. Of that $15 billion, the increased revenue as a
percentage of these reductions is a 58 per cent component. The
transfer to persons is at 2.3 per cent. The transfer to provinces is at
26 per cent. The departmental spending is only 2.6 per cent.
Wait a second, were the transfers to provinces not to be equal to
the reduction in departmental spending? That is what the
government said. It was going to lead by example. It was going to
cut $9 billion out of program spending to justify the $7.5 billion
reduction in transfers to provinces for the Canada health and social
transfer. It does not seem to me that the government is on target for
that. The debt charges as a percentage of the $15 billion
improvement is11 per cent.
To sum up, according to our table, increases in revenue and
reductions in transfers to the provinces made up a full 84 per cent
of the improvement. Increased revenues through taxation,
reduction in the transfers to provinces represent $13 billion out of
$15 billion in improvement which is 84 per cent. Yet the
government claims that 94 per cent of it is through growth in the
economy.
Cuts in the federal government's own back yard make up only a
2.6 per cent paltry reduction. It is important to note that the tiny
contribution of cuts to departmental spending correspond with
what the Reform Party's earlier findings were, that the government
has missed its cuts in departmental spending by as much as 50 per
cent. We brought this out two or three weeks ago in question
period, when we said that the evidence is that the government has
only cut by $4.2 billion and it promised $9.5 billion.
It is important to note that the surplus in the employment
insurance account is running at $6.8 billion after 11 months. Let us
just round that out to $7 billion for the sake of discussion. This
surplus represents a regressive form of deficit reduction tax and in
question period today in quizzing the finance minister I referred to
this as a deficit surtax.
(1225 )
The government should set EI premiums on an annual basis to
match the funds required, within a tolerance level. If the
government would set the premiums to match the benefits, the
deficit would be $14.6 billion rather than $7.8 billion and it would
be right on target.
I will give the finance minister some constructive criticism
which will help to improve the economy. It will help to keep
Canada competitive. It will help to keep interest rates as low as
possible without outside interference. The $7 billion surplus in the
EI account should come under general revenues. It should be
applied against the deficit to reduce it.
If the government were to lower the premiums from the current
$2.95 or $2.90 per hundred of insurable earnings up to $39,000
down to $2.20 and leave that money in the hands of the wage
earner, their take home pay would increase. That would also
reduce by 28 per cent what the employer has to pay. It leaves more
9943
money for the corporations to hire people, to invest and to expand.
It will help to stimulate the economy.
There is the argument that EI and CPP are not payroll taxes, that
they are investments. Regardless of what they are, the money is
taken away from workers and corporations by the government. The
rate at which the money is taken away is set by the government. If
it is compulsory it is a tax. If it is voluntary, like an RRSP, if it is an
inducement to invest, it is an investment.
Nevertheless, if the taxpayer was able to keep the money, I
submit that more jobs would be created. More money would be
spent. More money would be invested and more money saved. That
would benefit a lot of Canadians.
I am not the only person who thinks that way. I am a
businessman and I have thought this way for a long time. Wherever
possible, keep taxes as low as possible and set the tax rate at the
level required to pay for the programs which Canadians want.
In today's Financial Post is an article written by the business
economist Dale Orr. He wrote: ``What is really happening is that
Ottawa is using the present annual surpluses of $5 billion or so in
the EI fund as a form of deficit reduction surtax''. The only thing
wrong with that statement is that it is not $5 billion, it is $7 billion.
The finance minister is using $7 billion of funds which come from
employed workers and corporations, the intent of which is to pay
for people who are unemployed while they are looking for
employment for a certain period of time.
There is a huge surplus. The excuse is that some years there is a
deficit. That is true. When I ran in 1992-93 the deficit in the EI
fund was $3 billion. That gives a clue why in our zero in three
budget we felt it imperative to make $12 billion in cuts
immediately, faster than the paltry cuts the government has made
in its program spending, because we did not count on a huge
surplus in the EI fund.
This is a gift to the finance minister which he has misused. He
has a golden opportunity to stick to his party's platform, to stick to
his party's caring, sharing, forgiving and giving government, doing
it slowly, doing it properly, not punishing people unduly, and yet he
will not share the $7 billion. He has a golden opportunity.
He might do something during the election campaign. Maybe
that is the selective tax cut that he will justify because I agree we
cannot have a broad based tax cut.
Today he misrepresented our platform when he said that the
Reform Party would implement a broad based tax cut. That was not
true. He told half the story. He should be spewing forth the truth
when he talks that way.
(1230)
He should be saying that once the budget is balanced the Reform
Party would offer broad based tax cuts that would average $2,000
per family by the year 2000. That is why we say $2,000 in 2000. It
takes a year or two to balance the budget. We say no tax breaks
until then, no tax cuts until then.
Then we raise the personal exemptions, the spousal exemptions,
to $7,900. We will get rid of the federal surtax of 5 per cent, the 3
per cent, and all the extra taxes we will not need. That will leave the
money in the hands of the people who need it, in the hands of the
people who know how to spend it better to look after themselves.
This in turn will reduce the pressure on welfare programs, reduce
the pressure on all the other social assistance programs the
government has to provide, as it should to those who truly need
them.
I will quote further from the Financial Post to support my
argument and submission that there is an opportunity here to do
something with the $7 billion in the EI fund.
A faster reduction in the premium rate would help lower business costs for
employers, whose share of the premiums is proportionally more. It would boost take
home pay, especially for lower income workers. The combination would contribute
to higher consumer spending, profits, economic growth and jobs. Some studies put
the employment potential at up to 200,000 jobs.
A potential for 200,000 jobs just be lowering the unemployment
premium rates, EI rates, to $2.25 or $2.30 from the current $2.95.
These are not from the Reform Party. The finance minister takes
off his glasses, waves them and says that half-baked numbers do
not work. They were from a business economist. He is not the only
one. I could quote many different sources and many economists
who argue and maintain this point of view.
High taxes kill jobs. Payroll taxes kill jobs. Why does the
finance minister not something when he can and while he can? We
have a surplus. We do not need the $7 billion in the EI fund. We
should keep a base of $3 billion to $4 billion, keep that surplus and
reinvest $3 billion of it with the Canadian public.
Maybe I should not tell him that, because if he offers that he
might come back here with a majority government again. We really
do not want that. We want a fresh government later this year.
I will summarize a few more items from the Fiscal Monitor.
Transfer payments in the 11 months since April 1996 to February
1997 have decreased. Transfer payments to individuals, which
includes the elderly benefits and the EI benefits, net out at a
decrease of $349 million. It increased the elderly benefits by $512
million and decreased EI benefits by $861 million.
9944
Not only is what it is collecting on EI greater than what needs
to be put out, but the benefits it is paying out are going down from
the previous year by almost $1 billion or $861 million.
Transfers to governments have been reduced by $4 billion. Of
that $4 billion, $3.685 billion is the Canada health and social
transfer after 11 months. That is where it hits.
The government claims it is the fault of provincial governments
because it is their responsibility to look after health care. If they
close hospitals, we should not blame the Liberals. If they have to
lay off nurses and pay doctors less, we should not blame them. We
should blame the provincial governments, provincial health
ministers, provincial premiers and provincial treasurers. How
foolish is that?
In its first budget it said that we all must sacrifice. I support the
government in reducing the Canada health and social transfer by
$7.5 billion. That is not my criticism.
(1235)
The Liberals said that we had to share, sacrifice and make do
with the same or less money. They were to show leadership by
example. They were to cut federal government program spending
outside the Canada health and social transfer, outside the transfer to
provinces. They were to reduce the rest of the spending of
government by a greater amount than the $7.5 billion. They were to
reduce it by $9.5 billion. To date, after 3.5 years and projected to
the end of four years, the government will not be there. The
Liberals will have only made $4 billion with those cuts. That is
from their own information.
This is not being made up by the Reform Party. I respect the
Liberal member opposite who said politicians should represent
more of the facts rather than distort or give their interpretation of
them. That is what I am trying to do. The government has fallen far
short.
Other transfers and subsidies add up to $128 million. Total
program spending has decreased by $4.778 million. If the
government were truly trying to show leadership by example, after
four years of governance the government should be closer to 50:50
in program spending even in the past year. In fact the number
should be higher than $4.7 million. The $3.6 billion reduction in
Canada health and social transfer is fine. That was projected. It was
to be phased in over a period of time, two or three years, which is
the right way of doing it.
Cuts in program spending should have matched. Rather than
$4.7 million, the real embarrassment to the finance minister is that
the number should be $7.2 million. He has failed to pressure, to
push, to keep the other cabinet ministers in line, and to force
cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers
to clean house, to shape up. This is what the Canadian public wants.
Those are the direct words and orders from the finance minister
and the President of the Treasury Board. They set the target and
they are missing it big time. That is the embarrassment in the
Fiscal Monitor.
That is what it revealed. That is the failure of the finance
minister. He is actually $4 billion behind the cuts he promised to
make when he asked all Canadians to sacrifice and all levels of
government below this one to figure out ways to provide the same
level of service with less money. The federal government cannot do
it.
The President of the Treasury Board rose today in question
period with a set up answer from the former minister of defence.
He talked about infrastructure and whether municipalities would be
guaranteed the money would go to the programs they want. Then
he lambasted the finance minister from Ontario. He quoted him by
name. He took after the premier of the province. Those two
gentlemen are in provincial politics. They are not even in the
Chamber. They are not here to ask a question or to defend
themselves. That is shameless. It is an embarrassment to have a
member of the government do that. It was cheap, political
partisanship against a level of government that is not even here.
He should hang his head in shame. He should write a letter of
apology saying that he is sorry and that he got carried away. He
should indicate there is an election coming and the former minister
of defence asked him to embarrass the local government in Toronto
so that he can boost his chances of getting re-elected.
That is crap. They believe in infrastructure but I do not. I
criticize all levels of government for going forward on short term
jobs. There is only one taxpayer. It is an admission by all levels of
government that they have let infrastructure deteriorate, if that is
where it is truly going.
The first responsibility of a municipal government is
infrastructure: bigger projects, provincial and bigger than that,
federal. Where have these guys been for 10 years if all of a sudden
we have to spent $6 billion or $9 billion on infrastructure?
To pick on people in another level of government who are not in
the House and cannot defend themselves is a new level of cheap
political partisanship I have not seen before. The government has
made its deficit reduction mainly by cutting the transfers to
provinces. Some 77 per cent of this year's deficit reduction has
been through the Canada health and social transfer. It is undeniable.
The facts are here. I am quoting the government's own statistics.
(1240)
We have proof that an overwhelming majority of the
improvement in government program spending comes from cuts to
the CHST. I have already said what the percentage. When we
include other transfers to provinces, reductions in transfers
accounted for a
9945
full 84 per cent. Eighty-four per cent of government spending was
by way of downloading. The provinces were given less. They were
told to handle it, and the government said it cut spending. The
government says it has done its part and now it is the provinces'
turn. What a way to do it.
It promised to cut program spending by 18.8 per cent and then
only reached 9 per cent and changed the definition of program
spending. It took from here and there and suddenly $4.5 billion
because 18 per cent again. How does $4.5 billion become 18 per
cent? Once again it is perception.
I will speak later on Bill C-95, the anti-gang legislation. The
Prime Minister in his autobiography said that in politics perception
was everything. What a shame. It is too bad that in politics reality
and facts cannot be everything. It is too bad those in the traditional
parties who were here before us believed in that perception. Why
not deal in truth and facts? Why not represent reality and assess
what is really happening and then propose legislation to solve the
problem?
In a 1995 speech to a symposium on budget deficits sponsored
by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, the Minister of
Finance stated:
We were nevertheless determined not to cut back our support to the provinces by
any greater percentage than we were hitting programs in our own backyard.
If he wants to refer to our zero in three, which I will touch on that
a little later, I will refer to what he said in 1995.
Cuts to provincial transfers made up 84 per cent of the total
spending cuts to date this year. Departmental reductions have made
up 8.4 per cent of the spending cuts. The reduction in transfers to
the provinces represents a 16.2 per cent cut over 11 months. The
$400 million in departmental spending represents 1 per cent.
In the second budget he told us what he was to do with the CHST.
He made the promise worldwide so it must be something he
believed in and something he told cabinet he would do. He was
determined-I would assume cabinet and the rest of the Liberal
caucus were determined-not to cut back support to the provinces
by any greater percentage than they were hitting programs in their
own backyard. All they have cut in their own backyard to date is
$4.5 billion. What they have cut by downloading to provinces in
other areas amounts to $8 billion.
How about that for promises? That party is good at breaking
promises made in its election platforms. The Liberals got elected
on renegotiating NAFTA but did not do it. They got elected on not
having a third runway in Toronto. They got elected on saving
taxpayers money on Pearson airport but did not do it. It will cost us
close to $600 million. They got elected on getting rid of the GST
but did not do it. In fact they entrenched it.
Talking about flip-flops, when the finance minister was on this
side of the House he said that if a provincial sales tax is ever
combined with a goods and services tax the GST is entrenched
forever. What has he done as finance minister? There is a GST and
a BST in the three Atlantic provinces that were signed on by three
Liberal premiers, one of whom quit because he saw the writing on
the wall. I am looking forward to the provincial elections to be held
in another year or so when the effect of the harmonized sales tax
works through the system. He has entrenched this GST, a terrible
thing which is against his own principles. There are two examples
right there.
(1245)
The government is skimming more and more of the economy's
weak recovery in the form of higher tax revenues. In April through
February 1996, the government collected $3.5 billion more in
personal income tax alone. Part of this increase was due to
technical factors which affected the timing of income tax payments
while the remainder was due to the effects of inflation in an
unindexed graduated rate system with frozen basic exemptions.
Today I asked the finance minister, if everything is so good, why
is the after tax disposable income per family down by $3,000? If
the minister has not raised personal income taxes over the past
three years, why has personal income tax revenue in this past year
alone been $4 billion more? And why has personal income tax
revenue overall been between $10 billion and $12 billion? In
response to my questions, the finance minister cited two or three
things and then he stopped. The rest of the truth he failed to spew
out was that he had tinkered with the personal income tax system,
that he had removed some personal exemptions and basic
deductions and that he had closed a few tax loopholes. He failed to
say the one big thing he did, which represented a lot of revenue and
which he would not talk about.
There is a law that unless inflation increases by 3 per cent in the
economy the personal exemption will stay frozen. In other words,
an individual gets $6,500, the spousal deduction is $5,900 and it
will not be touched until inflation hits 3 per cent. It is 2.5 per cent.
It has averaged about 2 per cent in the past five years which adds up
to 10 per cent. Those people who have seen their incomes go up by
10 per cent because of inflation are in a higher tax bracket. They
still get the same low personal deduction of $6,500 and therefore
they are paying more in taxes. And he says: ``I have not raised
personal income taxes''. Well, yes he has.
The Reform Party recognizes that. We also recognize the need to
ensure there is sufficient revenue so that programs can be paid for,
health care and education spending can be increased by $4 billion
and we can work toward a balanced and surplus budget. Then the
first thing we would do is raise the exemption level, both personal
and spousal to $7,900. We recognize that stay at home parents are
9946
being taken advantage of and to help the family decide on its
lifestyle and not force both individuals in a marriage to work
outside the home. We recognize that what anybody does when they
stay at home is just as valuable as when they go out to work. That is
why we would make that exemption the same. That is my story and
analysis of the ``Fiscal Monitor''.
Let me get back to the Liberals' favourite tax. The GST and the
HST are entrenched forever in our lives. This goes against the very
words of the finance minister when he was in opposition. I could
not do that and I would not do that. That is not why I would be here.
I would consider myself a hypocrite if I did that.
Everybody in the country ranted and raved against the
Conservatives on the GST. Eighty-three per cent of Canadians did
not want the GST and the fools still put it in because they said they
knew what was best for us. ``Leadership isn't about popularity'',
said the former Prime Minister, ``it is about doing what is right for
the people, and we know what is right''. How the heck can 83 per
cent of Canadians be wrong?
The Liberals rightly attacked it and attacked it. I am not sure
what the NDP did but I know the Liberals attacked it. I have
quotations from the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance,
the Prime Minister, everybody attacked it. They said that it was a
big issue. They had a big pre-election meeting in Toronto at which
they decided to abolish the GST: ``We're going to kill it, we're
going to scratch it, we're going to get rid of it''. They got elected
partly on making that promise door to door. That promise was
probably a huge factor in their election.
I hope the Canadian taxpayer remembers what this Liberal
government did to get itself elected. Liberals promised jobs, jobs,
jobs. That was their big slogan. There were 1.6 million people
unemployed. Today there are between 1.4 and 1.5 million
unemployed and just as many if not more underemployed. Did the
Liberals keep their promise? Did they create the jobs? Decide.
(1250)
Then we have the GST. Their promise went from abolishing it,
killing it, scrapping it, to replacing it, harmonizing it. After two
years they went from killing to replacing to harmonizing. If we
read the promise in the red book, it states that they would
harmonize with a system that was revenue neutral. This is not
revenue neutral. It cost the Canadian government $961 million to
pay the Atlantic provinces for their loss of revenue from lowering
their provincial rate. They call that paying Canadians. I call that a
cost.
When the Liberals say they have solved the problem and have
kept their promise, it is only in three provinces. Surely to goodness
a promise to harmonize would include all of Canada, would
include at least Ontario where they have 98 out of 99 seats. They
even failed to impress Ontario with their big harmonized sales tax
scheme. Do members know why? It is because the Ontario
government is smart enough to recognize how much it will hurt
consumers in the long run.
After all, a goods and services tax, no matter how it is sliced, no
matter what the arguments are-that it helps businesses to keep the
cost of the product low, that it simplifies the system and that they
would have lower overhead-which are all true, but the one thing
they stop short of saying is that no matter what the rate is, whether
it is 1 per cent, 7 per cent or 15 per cent, guess who pays. The
consumer pays. They pay pre-tax. They pay tax on their income.
They have after tax dollars and they have to pay tax on that.
What everyone ends up doing in this country, if they work nine
to five, is work half a day for the government and receive half their
pay.
How much time do I have left, Madam Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): You are out of
time.
Mr. Silye: Have I had my 40-minute intervention?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Yes.
Mr. Silye: Really, I was just getting warmed up.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, my intervention will not be 40 minutes but I wish to put a
few things on the record.
It is of course always a concern for New Democrats, particularly
a New Democrat from Saskatchewan, to make certain that the
books are balanced. I know many people have accused the New
Democratic Party of being the party of tax and spend and running
up high deficits. However, the background and history of the
leadership of both the CCF and New Democratic governments in
Saskatchewan has shown that historically we want to maintain a
balanced budget.
The Regina manifesto put it so well: ``No CCF government will
run its public finances to help feed the parasitic interest receiving
classes''.
Having said that, it is worth noting that the attempts by the
present Liberal government to balance its books have basically
been done on the backs of working Canadians, the poor, the elderly,
the young and the sick.
As the previous speaker from the Reform Party so aptly put it,
most of the money saved by this government has been because of
the cutbacks to the Canadian health and social transfer payments.
Huge sums of money that should have gone to the provinces to help
pay for medicare, post-secondary education and the increased
number of people on social assistance rolls because of the lack of
job opportunities, are the people who are paying for the deficit
reduction of this government.
9947
As well, major hunks of surpluses of the employment insurance
fund are going to general revenues to help further reduce the
deficit. Yet let us not forget that it is not the poor and not the
unemployed and it is not our social programs that have created
the debt in the first place. A Statistics Canada study in the early
nineties determined that 50 per cent of the debt was due to high
interest payments. Some 44 per cent of it was due to loss of
revenues. Only 6 per cent was due to increases in government
expenditures of which I believe only 4 per cent was due to
increases in government expenditures on social programs.
(1255)
It was not the increase in social programs that created the debt in
the first place. It was the reaction to the runaway inflation of the
seventies that created the high interest payments going to 18, 19, 20
some per cent that catapulted the deficits into huge debts. Then it
was the loss of jobs, plus the tax loopholes that mainly the Liberal
government introduced in the 1970s that created a loss of revenue
which in turn also accounted for 44 per cent of the debt.
Only 6 per cent of the debt is because of increases in government
programs and only 4 per cent of that is due to increases in social
expenditures. Yet who are the people who paid for the reduction of
the deficit? It mainly comes on the backs of working people, the
young, the sick, the unemployed and the poor.
A few years back Jesse Jackson in the United States coined a
phrase that ``it wasn't us poor people who sat and indulged
ourselves at the banquets but we're the ones who are stuck with the
bill''. That is as true for people in Canada as it is in the United
States.
The wild government expenditures of the 1970s that created
runaway inflation, that saw the horrendous growth of assets,
stocks, bonds and real estate, both in Canada and in the United
States, those are the people who benefited. Yet they are not the ones
who are paying for it. Their effective tax rates have actually
declined while the taxes for working and middle class Canadians,
even for poor pensioners, have increased while their benefits have
decreased.
This system is wrong. It is morally wrong. It is economically
wrong. It is a bankrupt system that does not bode well for the
economic health and well-being of our country. The
mismanagement and the wrong economic policies of this
government and the previous Tory government have led us to a
position where we have this huge mountain of debt that will take I
do not know how many generations to pay off.
One of the items also included as a tax item in this bill that we
are debating, Bill C-92, is a change that resulted from the Supreme
Court decision on what is called the Thibaudeau case. It was
determined that rather than having the higher income earner paying
child support and family support payments being able to deduct
those payments from his or her income tax, it should be the
recipient of the payment who actually had to pay for those costs.
At the time it was recognized that this would mean less money to
families for child care and that it would mean an increase in
government revenues. In fact the budget papers for 1996 suggested
that as a result of the Thibaudeau court case the government will
get a windfall of $120 million in the third year in increased tax
revenues and more in subsequent years.
(1300 )
That is $120 million extra which is being taken away from
families. In most cases the male makes child support payments.
They cannot deduct those payments from their income tax. The low
income earner is not able to deduct child care expenses and the
government is ending up with more money.
While we support it in principle, it is of concern to us that $120
million is being taken away from families. That money should be
going to support children.
I would like to place the position of the New Democratic Party
on the record today. We would want this section of Bill C-92 to be
reviewed on a yearly basis to determine what impact it is having on
child care and the families raising children.
Our concern is the impact this will have on children, particularly
those children living below the poverty line. We are concerned that
in the end it will mean some $120 million being taken away from
the needs of those children. On behalf of the New Democratic Party
I would like to put on record our concern and our wish that this
section be reviewed on a yearly basis.
The tax system is essential for a government to raise the
revenues it needs to do the things which government should be
doing and as well to effect a redistribution of wealth in the country.
Our position has always been that such a system must be fair and
equal to all Canadians. That is why we initially supported the
suggestions and reports which recommended that a dollar earned,
whether from profits, commissions, dividends, increases in capital
gains or by the sweat of one's brow, should all be taxed equally, as
the Carter commission proposed. We have never come close to
achieving that ideal. What Carter said was that a dollar is a dollar
and that the tax on that dollar should be equal.
Corporations should be paying their fair share. We have seen
during Liberal and Conservative regimes more tax loopholes being
given to the rich and the powerful. While small and medium size
businesses are struggling to keep their heads above water, creating
jobs for Canadians, the very large transcontinental corporations are
able to get by without paying any or very few taxes.
9948
It is a crime that one family should be able to move $1 billion
offshore and not pay a cent on the capital gains earned on that
money. It is a shame that would be allowed when poor pensioners
earning a little over $1,000 a month have to pay tax.
The tax system is unfair. That creates cynicism and encourages
average Canadians to cheat. The average Canadian will say ``why
should I pay this amount of money when the rich and the powerful,
those who have the connections to the Minister of Finance and the
Department of Finance, are able to get special rules and omissions
so they do not have to pay their fair share of the taxes?''
This unfairness must be corrected. We will continue to fight for a
fair and equal tax system so that all Canadians will be taxed fairly
and equally.
(1305 )
I find it interesting that Bill C-92 should be debated in what is
presumed to be the end of this Parliament with an election being
called soon.
Taxation is what Bill C-92 is all about; who has the power, how it
gets exercised, who benefits from the power. As long as there are
political parties in power that are financed by the banks,
international traders and the wheeler and the dealers, by the
mighty, the powerful and the wealthy, there will never be true
democracy, true equality and a true and just society. It will be the
poor and the working people who will pay the price for deficit
reductions, as we have seen under both the Liberal and Tory
governments. It will be the poor and ordinary working middle class
Canadians who will pay the price.
The struggle will go on and in the coming election we will make
certain this becomes a major issue.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
good to have a look at some of the amendments to the Income Tax
Act that the government is proposing.
Canadians are probably saying we need do not to amend the
Income Tax Act; we need to totally eliminate it, rip it down to
nothing and start again from scratch. The Income Tax Act is
absolutely enormous. There are volumes and volumes to it. It does
not seem that regular Canadians are able to fill out their income tax
returns anymore because it has become so complex.
It seems there are so many rules to follow and so many loopholes
that people can slip through, it is almost impossible for anyone to
obey the Income Tax Act or make any sense of it.
When Bill C-92, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules and another act related to the
Income Tax Act came forward, most people would wonder what in
the world it means. In either official language it does not seem to
make sense.
However, I would like to look at some of the specifics and talk
about tax credits for individuals. It enriches the education tax
credit, the tuition fee tax credit and credit for infirmed dependants.
I guess there is some merit in trying to help students, but I am not
sure this is the right way to go about it. I am sure that members on
both sides of the House know that students want a good, solid
education and a real job at the end. The government is tinkering
with the Income Tax Act and offering them some token help, and it
probably is a start. However, I think they would want more
substantive reforms to make sure that when their formal education
process is finished they will be able to get a job.
It says that the education tax credit is increased from $80 a
month for those attending school to $100 a month. For a student in
school for eight months a year, the average university or college
year, the increase means the education credit goes from $109 to
$136, a $27 increase.
Going out for supper could easily cost $27. This is not a
tremendous amount of cash, no real encouragement to a serious
student. Students are not looking for a $27 or $30 change but
substantive changes from a government that is continuing to spend
billions and billions more every year than it is bringing in.
I know many students are fiscally responsible. Some may be
living on a student loan. They have resource limitations in terms of
part time jobs. However, they see their government spending
money hand over fist, $60 million to $70 million a day more than it
is bringing in. I do not know how they handle their frustrations
when they see people who are running the country, the role models
they are supposed to look up to, spending $60 million to $70
million a day more than is being brought in and then saying to
students ``sorry, we have made some tremendous cutbacks in your
areas but we will be kind and generous with this $27 increase''.
That is pretty pathetic.
(1310)
On the government's huge cuts to provincial transfers with
respect to education, $7.5 billion cut to the Canada health and
social transfer has meant huge tuition fee hikes on Canadian
students. Twenty-seven dollars will produce very little assistance in
this.
It is incredibly incongruous it is for people to say ``we are
concerned about your welfare, we really want to make sure you get
a quality education, we care but we just chopped $7.5 billion''.
They may want to blame it on the Tories.
In two Parliaments we had the Tories blaming the Liberals when
they were in opposition and now we see the Liberals blaming the
Tories when they are in opposition. This place is just a vicious
circle that goes round and round. I do not think the Canadian public
really cares who started it or who is to blame, I think it wants it
9949
ended and right now. This kind of legislation certainly is not going
to do it.
When Liberals say they are the great defenders of medicare and
post-secondary education it is unfortunate they do not live up to the
commitment. When the Liberals were in power in 1965 they gave
the commitment when medicare came in that they were going to
pay 50 per cent of the funding of medicare. With this latest budget
they are now down to 16 per cent. What do you expect the
provinces to do?
Now that post-secondary education is included in the Canada
health and social transfer I can understand why students are upset.
And yet the government says it is the defender of post-secondary
education. I think it is a pretty weak defence and if it is going to
offer $27 it is more of a slap in the face than what it is intended to
do.
A $7 billion cut. For those who attack my party and say we will
rip medicare apart and we will not help students, do not forget that,
as the myth goes, which we hear in question period here every day,
we will take grocery money from old ladies and will dismantle
pensions. That is not true.
The Liberals looked after the MP pensions very well in this
Parliament, tightening their belts, austerity measures. Instead of $6
to one employer-employee contribution, they have really sucked in
their belts and they are giving $4 to one employee-employee
contribution. That is not sitting very well across the country.
We understand the frustration students feel. The guarantee was
made that the Liberals are the great defenders of health and
education. Then they regularly, every day in fact, shriek about the
fact that the Reformers are going to dismantle pensions and health
care. That is not true.
Reformers have committed to balance the budget and then
reinvest $4 billion into health care with these kind of dollars in the
late 90s, because wherever you go across the country and ask
people their priorities, they say health and education.
If those are the priorities, we respect that, but something else has
to go. If we have a federal government with such a voracious
appetite that it is spending billions of dollars a year more than it is
bringing in, then something has to go.
When I see this government talking about budgets, finances and
what a wonderful job it has done in terms of getting the deficit
under control, it is by tax increases and revenue increases, not by
cutting spending. This is seen in the public accounts where it says it
has increased revenues and taxation by $25 billion a year. I think
the Canadian public would say shame. I think students in terms of
the tax credits for individuals are not going to be blinded by that.
What a pathetic day it is when we say to our young people that
we are looking after them but then we turn around and slice and
slash and then blame other political parties. Any political party will
do for a scapegoat. ``Your more terrible than we are'', they say. Let
us just fix the problem. That would be a far wiser thing to do.
(1315)
If we look at the tax codes and some of the changes that are being
made in the bill, we realize that the government has maintained its
policy of adding to the complexity of the tax code, not by adding to
the simplicity of the tax code.
People want things simpler when it comes to income taxes and
the Income Tax Act, but the government has adjusted the rules for
various interest groups. I am not surprised by that. For
years-whether it was the Liberals or Tories really does not
matter-millions of dollars have gone to special interest groups
that have one function and one reason only, that is to come to
Ottawa to lobby for more funds. Governments give money to
interest groups that come back to Ottawa to ask for more money,
and it goes around and around. I call it the royal flush.
The government has also removed legitimate reductions so that
overall Canadians have faced an increase in taxation. Earlier today
in question period the finance minister said that Canadians were far
better off. Canadians will be doing their taxes this week because
April 30 is the deadline. I do not think there would be very many
who would be supportive and say they feel better in terms of their
disposable income or a whole lot better thinking they have more
cash in their pockets. That is not true. They can ask their family and
friends. They all pay taxes.
I do not think anyone is jumping up and down, whether in the
province of New Brunswick where I just came back from this
morning or on the west coast. People are not feeling really cheery
that they are paying less taxes. They know they are paying more.
They have stubs and are sending in their income tax forms this
week. They know perfectly well what is happening.
Government members can talk and blather all it wants in the
House of Commons but it is irrelevant. People are paying more
money in taxes. They have less disposable income. The main point
is that people are frustrated with a system that keeps saying it is
okay, it is looking after them and it has their best interest at heart.
Meanwhile the government is winking one eye and has a hand on
their wallets.
A certain trust factor is missing between the Canadian public
who is filling out its income tax forms right now and the people
who are saying: ``Trust us. We are from the government. We are
here to help you''.
Taxes have increased since 1993. Again today the finance
minister was trying hard to make us believe that it was under the
Conservative government that taxes increased. We have had a few
9950
budgets now from this government and that is simply not true. By
fiscal 1998-99, next year, the government will collect $30.4 billion
more in tax revenues than it collected its first year in office.
It would be difficult to blame the Conservatives for that. The
Liberals have been in office since 1993. They say it is the fault of
the Tories, that they are responsible. However, since 1993 they
received $30.4 billion more in tax revenues than they collected in
their first year in office.
Then there are tax hikes. I have heard for 3.5 years in Parliament
that the lousy Tories raised taxes time and time again. The Liberals
were to be better at it. What do you think? The Liberals have hiked
taxes at least 36 times, not including the multi-billion dollar hikes
to federal user fees over the same period. There is more money
going from an individual's pocket to government as a tax.
The finance minister can call it an investment. He could call it
increased revenues for the new, beautiful harmonized sales tax
down in Atlantic Canada. They are not really happy about it in New
Brunswick. They voted in a Liberal government because it was
going to scrap, kill and abolish the GST. It has been entrenched
further. It is thicker and deeper in Atlantic Canada with this new
blended sales tax.
``We are from the government and we are here to help you''. The
people in New Brunswick did not feel that way this morning.
Government members know it and I know it. They have increased
taxes.
(1320)
Canada pension plan premiums were increased by 73 per cent.
The government says that is an investment and not a tax hike. I am
not so sure I want the kind of investment the finance minister is
trying to offer people of my generation and people who are coming
along behind. We are going to pay 10 per cent of our income into a
Canada pension plan premium rate so that when we are 65 years old
we will get a maximum of 8,800 bucks. That will be nowhere near
$1,000 a month for people in their early twenties when they reach
65 years of age. It will be an $8,800 a year maximum payout for
CPP. That is not good enough. People will not be able to live on that
in the year 2040 or whatever it is they retire.
Is it a tax? It is more money going from the taxpayers' pocket to
a government they do not trust because for the last 25 years
governments have spent far more money than they have brought in.
In 1996-97, not a Tory year but a Liberal year, Canadian
individuals and companies will have paid $3.1 billion more in taxes
than they would have paid had the Liberals left the tax system as is
upon leaving office. Why the time, why the paper, why the energy,
why the cost in Bill C-92? Why would we bother with it? Even if
the Liberals had just left things alone and kept their mitts off it, the
country would have been better off. It will go up to $3.1 billion
more in taxes for Canadian individuals and companies. It is pretty
scary.
The finance minister likes to quote from our taxpayers' budget
and go back to 1993 dollars when we were referring to Econometric
figures and role models and were making estimates on the dollars
being spent in 1993 and 1994. He is always interested in comparing
the dollars of yesteryear. Let us measure it in real 1996 dollars. The
Liberals will collect $11.4 billion more in income taxes in 1998-99
than in 1993-94.
When the Tories came in and gave their great budget predictions
for 1996 everything was to be absolutely terrific. However, if we
look ahead to 1998-99 there will be $11.4 billion more in income
taxes.
The finance minister has now delivered four budgets. I could
have sworn when first elected he said there would be no new
income taxes. He would have a hard time convincing Canadian
citizens today sitting around their tables trying to fill out their tax
returns that there have been no new income taxes. They would
think his nose was growing.
What is the bottom line? It is that Canadians are shipping more
of their hard earned money down to Revenue Canada. I do not think
they are happy about it. Whether they support Liberals, Reformers
or the Bloc, I do not think they are happy about it. They see less
return for more money they are sending to the taxman. I guess that
is what we have to look at.
I do not think Canadian citizens deny that they should pay taxes.
If we want government services, if we want roads, airports and
other infrastructure, obviously there will be tax revenues. I have
never met anyone yet who is not upset about paying some form of
taxes.
What bugs them, whether they are Liberal or Reform supporters,
is that the people they send the taxes to are spending the money
irresponsibly. They are just tossing it around. It is called deficit
financing. They are spending tens of billions more every year than
they are bringing in.
It becomes a trust factor with politicians. People ask why they
should trust the government with the money they send and why
they should send more when it does not spend what they have
already sent in a responsible manner. That is the crux of this matter.
If the government could be trusted more to do what it says it will
do, people would not mind sending tax money. Taxpayers get pretty
upset when the government spends more and more and more and
they are given less and less and less in return. There is something
wrong with that system.
(1325)
Heaven help the politicians who go out of here, probably next
Sunday when the writ is dropped, and make foolish, unwise
promises to get re-elected. If I can leave members in this place with
some advice, it would be that when they go out on the campaign
9951
trail they should not to try to buy their way into office or make a
promise they cannot keep. If they ask Canadians to vote for them
and promise to give them more, they should remember that it is
taxpayers' money.
I read an article today in a Saint John, New Brunswick,
newspaper about a government program to give seed money for
hotels and new armouries to be bought. We should not think for a
minute that people believe it for a minute. It is taxpayers' money
which they want the government to spend responsibly and not
waste.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this afternoon to join in the debate
on third reading of Bill C-92, an act to amend the Income Tax Act,
the income tax application rules and another act related to the
Income Tax Act.
We cannot discuss the bill without talking about Canada's
crippling public debt, which currently stands at over $600 billion
and is still rising steadily. It is expected that our national debt will
reach at least $619 billion by 1998. The Mulroney Tories added
$300 billion in just nine years. People are well aware of the legacy
of Brian Mulroney. Thanks to Liberal overspending, Canada's
public debt has increased by a further $111 billion since they came
to power in the fall of 1993. The interest payments on the national
debt are expected to be a staggering $45 billion to $46 billion per
year over the next three years.
Who pays for all this? There is only one Canadian taxpayer and
that is who is paying. Of the $10,200 the average taxpayer sends to
the federal government each year, about $3,400 of it will go to
service the huge public debt.
Then we come to the deficit. It was projected at the time of the
budget at $19 billion for this fiscal year. It is hardly a figure to brag
about, but that is exactly what the Liberals have been doing. After
learning about this figure Alberta provincial treasurer, Jim
Dinning, said that if he were the one turning in that figure he would
expect a kick in the butt. He would deserve it.
We know that the burden of deficit reduction has been
shouldered by Canadian taxpayers as the Liberal government waits
for tax revenues to catch up to its spending. There are rumours that
the deficit could come in substantially lower. We are quite likely to
see figures of $14 billion, $13 billion or perhaps down around $10
billion in deficit projections at some point during the election
campaign.
British Columbians will be very suspicious of that type of
rhetoric during an election campaign. They well remember Glen
Clark of the NDP that is still in power in British Columbia and
some of the projections about deficits, balanced budgets and that
type of nonsense during the last provincial election. Regardless of
the deficit number, the point has to made and Canadians have to
understand that the hole is still getting deeper. We might be digging
a little slower but it is still getting deeper every year and we are still
passing on more and more debt to the next generation.
(1330)
How has the Liberal government made the gains it has in the
battle with the deficit? A number of my colleagues referred to this
during their presentations over the last hour. It is a fact there has
been a $24 billion a year increase in taxation revenue.
It is a fact that as we go into an election campaign, whether it is
this spring, next fall or next year, the Liberal government has to run
on the record that it is collecting $24 billion more this year in
taxation revenue from Canadians than it did in 1993 when it came
to power.
It has to run on the record that it has cut roughly $7.5 billion
from the Canada health and social transfer. It cannot deny, despite
its red book claims of being the great defender of medicare, of
being concerned about the next generation and education for our
young people, that it is the one that has made that huge cut of $7.5
billion to the CHST.
The Liberals cannot deny that a week before this year's budget
they slipped in a 73 per cent increase in the CPP premiums. The
facts speak for themselves. They cannot deny that they have been
very fortunate to have their administration operating at a time when
our nation has enjoyed the lowest interest rates in four decades.
That is the real reason that some gains have been made on the
deficit.
What have we seen in the area of spending? We have seen a total
lack of priorities. From the time the Reform movement was born in
1987, we recognized that the way to get government spending
under control was to reduce the size of government by prioritizing
spending on the things Canadians desire most. The simple fact is
that we cannot continue to do business as usual. That is what the
Liberals are attempting to do. They have made some cuts but in
reality they still cling desperately to this old philosophy of big
government, of we know what is best for all people.
The arrogance of past prime ministers was very clear during
Brian Mulroney's presentation to the Canadian Club in Toronto the
other day. We are seeing that same type of we know what is best
from the Liberal government across the way.
Nothing provides a more apt example of why we find ourselves
in the position of needing to borrow $10.8 billion this year than
Canada's regional development agencies. They provide a perfect
example of the Liberal philosophy: throw money at it and the
problem will go away. Through agencies such as the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency, Western Economic Diversification
and the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, this
government is subsidizing private businesses and adding to our
9952
staggering national debt which will be paid off by the long
suffering Canadian taxpayers and by future taxpayers.
By doing so the government is interfering with natural market
forces. It is using low interest, no interest or in some cases what the
Liberals would like to call non-repayable loans-whatever they
are-to give some businesses an edge over their competitors that
are not fortunate enough to be chosen as the objects of the Liberal
government's pork-barrelling patronage.
In November 1996 the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies
conducted a study which was aptly titled ``Looking the Gift Horse
in the Mouth: The impact of federal transfers on Atlantic Canada''.
The authors of that study found that if the federal government had
invested all regional subsidies to Atlantic Canada in three month
United States treasury bills it would have built up a nest egg of
about $700 billion U.S. since 1971. That is about $1 trillion
Canadian if the federal government had invested that money.
(1335)
To put this into perspective, that is almost twice the size of our
national debt. The House will remember what I said earlier about
priority spending. It would translate into a surplus over the debt, no
more punishing debt service charges and ultimately into much
reduced taxes for Canadians.
In his 1995 budget the finance minister promised to undertake
what he called a program review. Part of the program review
involved a commitment to refocus the regional development
agencies and to decrease spending in this area by 50 per cent, from
$1.1 billion in 1994-95 to $576 million in 1997-98. What do we see
now? We see a very different picture from what was promised by
the government in 1995.
When we look very closely we see that regional development
agencies will actually have total expenditures of $1.2 billion in
1997-98. However, we do not see the increases in the budget
numbers. The increases have been hidden, as have other spending
increases. For example, the 1997 budget did not even provide a
breakdown of what the regional development agencies will spend
in the upcoming fiscal year, even though such breakdowns have
usually been provided in past budgets. If a breakdown of spending
had been provided, what taxpayers would see is not the 50 per cent
decrease that the finance minister promised in 1995, but an
increase.
Instead, when funding to extend the infrastructure works
program is included, what we really see is a 7 per cent increase in
total expenditures for regional development agencies from the last
fiscal year. Funding for infrastructure is included in this calculation
because the Liberal government originally intended it to be
included.
In their 1995 budget projections for regional development
spending the government noted that the figures were to include
infrastructure expenditures. This makes sense, considering that
infrastructure programs are a form of regional economic
development based on a formula that includes regional
unemployment levels.
However, what we see now is the Liberal government trying to
exclude money for infrastructure works from the regional
development figures in an attempt to make it seem as though
spending in this area has actually decreased. It is smoke and
mirrors. This is creative accounting at its worst.
When funding to extend the infrastructure works program is
included, what we see is this:
First, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency spending will
increase 2 per cent from the last fiscal year to this year, to $347
million in 1997-98. Spending by the Federal Office of Regional
Development for Quebec will increase by 11 per cent, to $408
million. Spending for the western economic diversification
program will increase by 10 per cent, to $380 million.
Where is the money for regional economic development
agencies going? A look at the public accounts for 1995-96, released
in October 1996, gives us some telling examples.
For example, in that year $211,500 from the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency went to the Society for Canoe
Championships in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and $310,071 from the
western economic diversification program went to the Abbotsford
air show. Those are probably worthwhile organizations, but is it
right to invest taxpayers' money in such a way?
In January 1997 an interest free loan of $723,000 was granted by
the western economic diversification program to Alberta potters,
jewellers, weavers and other craft artists belonging to the Alberta
Craft Council for Business, Training, Marketing and Network
Development.
When we look at the 1997-98 estimates respecting spending by
the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, we see
that from last year to this year total grants under this program, or as
the Liberals have been fond of calling them, non-repayable loans,
have increased from $300,000 to $1,055,975. Why? Because once
again the Liberal government has chosen to subsidize small
business rather than introduce meaningful tax cuts which would
encourage economic growth and assist all small business.
(1340)
The increase is attributable to grants made under IDEA, the
innovation development entrepreneurship and access program for
small and medium sized businesses.
9953
In the limited time remaining, I will sum up by saying that over
the last 3.5 years we have seen a lack of commitment to spending
priorities. Reformers suspected before we became members of
Parliament and it has been borne out over the last 3.5 years that
the government is committed to the philosophy of big government,
big spending, big taxes. The cuts it brags about and which it is
taking into the election campaign are in reality just smoke and
mirrors. It has not happened.
Mr. Johnston: It is Liberal math.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): That is quite correct.
Coming to light are the canoe museums, armouries and hotels
being built in Shawinigan. It reminds me of a comment our deputy
leader made to me earlier today about the movie Sleepless in
Seattle. It was a huge hit. The spending in Shawinigan reminds us
that the Liberal sequel may be Shameless in Shawinigan.
Mr. Johnston: Coming to a theatre near you.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Perhaps not to a
theatre. Coming to a voting booth near you.
I am sure that when Canadians take the time to look at the record
of the Liberal government which added over $100 billion to the
debt in 3.5 years, drove the country deeper and deeper into debt,
burdening the already over-burdened citizens and taxpayers of the
future, and when they go to the voting booths and think of this
Liberal sequel, Shameless in Shawinigan, they will be turfed out.
Canadians understand it is Liberal, Tory, same old story. The
Liberals believe in big government, big spending, big taxes. It has
been tried for over 130 years and it is time for a fresh start with
Reform.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it very interesting to hear the hon. member and his
description of various aspects of work that we have been
undertaking over the last several years which have been directed
toward the creation of opportunities for jobs and growth in the
Canadian economy.
It has been very interesting to begin to speculate, based on what
we heard him say, what exactly the Reform Party platform might
mean for jobs and growth in the Canadian economy. I have
managed to deduce a few things from his comments.
The first would be this. Despite all of the efforts that
governments around the world put into building a vibrant tourism
industry in their countries, and despite the fact that the tourism
sector is projected to be one of the largest growing economic and
employment sectors in the world over the next 20 years as
increasing numbers of the world's population become
economically capable of engaging in tourism and travel strictly for
pleasure, the Reform Party does not believe that the Government of
Canada should direct its efforts toward improving the tourism
product or attracting tourism to Canada. Many of the things he has
criticized are ones that go directly to support the travel and tourism
business.
(1345)
Let me pick one example, the Abbotsford air show. He puts that
down and he picks on that one. Out in the heartland of British
Columbia, it is now the premier air show in North America. It is the
point to which all of the major aircraft suppliers and manufacturers
come, Abbotsford, British Columbia. It is an important contributor
to the economic development of that region. It is a destination
creator for Abbotsford as well as being important to the western
Canada aerospace sector, and he would cut it out.
There is no air show in the world, whether in Paris or the UK,
that continues to attract the level of participation necessary to have
a major air show without government support, and the Reform
Party would end that.
He talked of western economic diversification and its role. He
has a little trouble with the numbers because he cannot quite figure
out how the infrastructure funds fit into the estimates. He is a little
out of date. He thinks they are still providing direct assistance to
individual enterprises. He is wrong. Listening to the last two
speakers from the Reform Party I am reminded of some of my
other duties with respect to technology. I think we need a new
V-chip for the parliamentary channel that can bleep out some of the
misleading things that occasionally come out of the mouths over
there.
Let me talk about western economic diversification. Not in years
have they been giving direct assistance to individual enterprises.
What would they shutdown when they close western economic
diversification across western Canada? They would close down 91
points of service for small businesses throughout that region. They
would close down all the community future development
corporations, those little organizations grounded in western Canada
where they develop the priorities for the economy of their region,
where they sort out what their potential is and how they can build
jobs and growth.
That is not some kind of political slush fund. It is the lawyers,
the accountants and the small business people of communities
across western Canada who participate as volunteers in finding the
keys to economic growth and diversification in their communities.
That is what western economic diversification is supporting.
It is women's enterprise centres, the sources of information for
women to find out how they can start businesses, how they can
build careers that not only help themselves but provide
opportunities for others to work. That is what they would shut
down. That is what western economic diversification is now doing.
Their criticism is directed at the dinosaurs that are gone, and not
inappropriately.
9954
We hear from Reformers repeatedly that in order to create jobs
they would slash the government and they would cut taxes. Then
they make a list. They say the Minister of Finance has raised taxes
and I think they recite a number. They include of course the
number of tax increases they blame the Minister of Finance for,
increase in taxes on the banks. They blame him for shutting down
loopholes. They count those as tax increases.
The Minister of Finance has targeted tax reductions, over $2
billion in the last year in areas where it makes the most difference.
We help the people who need the help most. They would substitute
across the board tax cuts in order to benefit whom? The highest
paid, the best income people in the country. That is the Reform
Party platform. Is that going to create jobs? It may well do that
because some of those high income people are going to have more
spend on their vacations outside Canada.
Miss Grey: There are suntans over there.
Mr. Manley: There is someone speaking who does not like to
listen. She does not listen very often, I have noticed, around here.
What we see repeatedly from Reformers is nothing but a bunch
of economic bunk. There is no economic analysis or study that they
can provide to anybody that would show that across the board tax
cuts can provide direct economic benefits and job creation in this
country.
In fact, they are like the kids before Christmas who want to open
their presents on December 20. They are not even ready to get the
deficit down to zero before they start to open the presents and cut
the taxes. That is the kind of economic analysis and argumentation
they put forward-
(1350)
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Madam Speaker, on a
point of order, perhaps you could enlighten the House. Is this a 20
minute rambling speech or is this questions and comments?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): This is
questions and comments for 10 minutes. There are 3 minutes and
12 seconds left.
Mr. Manley: Madam Speaker, I did not see any point in putting
a question because I did not think the hon. member would have an
answer. However, I do see the point in making comments.
We have listened to speaker after speaker from the Reform Party
spouting this kind of economic nonsense. I have had a great
privilege as a minister of the crown over the last 3.5 years to travel
the world and hear from others exactly what it happening and how
Canada is viewed.
When we had to present the budgets in 1994 and 1995 and take
ourselves to the financial capitals of the world, it was impossible at
that point to be accepted as credibly managing the finances of our
country because of the years of the Mulroney government when the
Government of Canada had failed to meet its deficit reduction
targets.
We have achieved in exceeding the targets year after year, in
bringing the deficit from the sixth worst in the G7 to the best in the
G7, in setting the course toward reducing our overall indebtedness
as a nation, in reducing a $30 billion a year current account deficit
to a surplus last year, in reducing the tourism account deficit from
$6 billion to $2 billion. We have rebuilt this country's credibility. It
is on that basis that we will rebuild the jobs and economic growth
that this country so deeply wants.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
how much time do I have?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): One minute.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): This is fair debate?
I have never heard such a bunch of nonsense in my whole life as
what has just been spouted by the hon. minister from across the
way. He referred to western economic diversification and then
attacked the Reform Party, saying that we would cut out all these
great and wonderful things. How many people out there know that
the western economic diversification program is subsidizing
banks?
He says we would shut down the Abbotsford air show. How
many people in Abbotsford would vote to subsidize an air show
versus $7 million cuts in health care? What we are talking about is
priority spending, something this government does not understand.
As far as blipping out stuff on the parliamentary channel, if we
had to blip out misinformation there would not be a thing said from
the other side of the House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
9955
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred until Monday, April 21, 1997, at the usual time of
adjournment.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from April 17 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-95, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal
organizations) and to amend other acts in consequence, be read the
second time and referred to committee of the whole.
(1355 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I wish
we could stay on Bill C-92, after the diatribe by the cabinet
minister, especially in pointing out that we would be making tax
cuts before the budget is balanced. That is a false representation of
our platform. We would not cut taxes until the budget was
balanced. We could get there sooner and we would put more money
back in the hands of taxpayers than this government will ever
dream about doing.
Let us get to the matter at hand, Bill C-95. Bill C-95 is anti-gang
legislation that has some serious issues tied and related to it.
This all started as an incident, as we all know, in Quebec City.
There is a lot of violent crime being committed by some gangs
there, basically threatening innocent bystanders on the streets. It is
important to address this situation.
However, the federal government is reacting to a challenge by
the Bloc Quebecois that says the government is doing little to
protect Quebecers. The Minister of Industry states how
wonderfully the government is investing and how great everything
is financially in the province of Quebec. I assume he also includes
it with the regional development grants and how all the wonderful
laws that the government is passing is benefiting Quebecers so that
they understand and realize that this is a great country to live in and
they should stay in Confederation. Notwithstanding all that, the
representatives who were sent here by the majority of Quebecers,
the Bloc Quebecois, stand up in this House and say this government
is doing little to protect Quebecers. They have said other things in
other areas.
Perhaps the federal government should pay more attention to
what the demands and needs are of various provinces all across the
country.
Perception is everything in politics. The Prime Minister said
that. As I said earlier today, it is unfortunate that reality is not
everything and is what the government is basing its decisions on
and is what it is working toward; the reality, the real truths, not
everybody's distorted opinion of the truths.
What is wrong here is now that there is an election being called
this justice minister has rushed to the fore where a month ago he
was not interested in this issue. When the plea came from the Parti
Quebecois to do something about introducing stronger federal
legislation to handle these criminal organizations or a criminal
gang, he was not interested. He did not want to go too fast.
I do not know when somebody whispered in his ear that there
might be a potential election call, so gear for it, get ready for it.
Most of the decisions that we have seen in the last couple of weeks
and the behaviour of this federal government seem to be that it is
preparing for an election and it is trying to make itself look good.
There are quick settlements on a lot of issues that have been
outstanding and dragging out over the last two or three years. They
are getting resolved in the last two or three weeks, in the last two or
three days and even the House leaders have been working together
to co-operate and get everything done together. This is all because
of an election.
If this issue was not important to the justice minister two years
ago when it first arose, if this issue was not that important to him a
month ago, why is it that important now and that we only have
three days to debate this?
I know why it is important but why create the urgency that it
must be passed within three days? Why can it not wait? Why can
the government not wait for an election and call an election for real
reasons? It has no reason to call an election.
There are important and pressing issues in the economy, in
society that the government could still be addressing. On the
wonderful job and the great honour and privilege that the Minister
of Industry claims to have had by serving, why does he not serve
for another year and finish it? If he does a good job for another year
he will get elected again. What is he worried about?
No, perception is everything so it has to give the perception to
the Bloc Quebecois that the government is looking after the
interests of Quebecers and the Quebec society, that the federal
government is co-operating and the Reform Party is co-operating
as well. We are helping this legislation go forward. We do not want
to be restrictive. We do not want to expand debate. We want to get
to it.
I submit that this is an example of poor governance. If it is
politically motivated, it is poor. I accuse the Liberal Party, the Bloc
Quebecois and the Reform Party of the same accusation. Our job
here is to present proper and good legislation. What is the point in
passing bad legislation? It will just get thrown out in the courts
9956
anyway, especially amendments to the Criminal Code. We would
be better to have no law at all than to have a bad law.
(1400)
I certainly support the general intent and the problem the bill is
trying to resolve. However the bill has raised so many red flags in
my mind that I feel we should take a little more time to discuss it,
even if it is a couple of days. There are many important issues here.
Over the past two years we debated many criminal amendments for
months, and suddenly this one goes through in three days.
We have been pressing and trying to represent victims and
victims rights with victim impact statements. A member of our
caucus, the member for Fraser Valley West, presented a victims bill
of rights. It had a lot of good clauses. It was every bit as good as the
legislation in Bill C-95. We asked the finance minister to fast track
it. We did not say three days. We asked him many months ago to
put it on the agenda so we could get through it. A year ago it was
sent to committee. Since then nothing has come back and nothing
has been done. Why? It was because the polls did not tell the
government to react.
The Liberals are doing poorly in Quebec. An election is coming
a week from now. The government has to act, react and show that it
cares. In the process it might be passing bad legislation, not might.
I have examples of areas of concern where we need constitutional
experts and arm's length lawyers to give opinions because they
intervene and conflict with the charter of rights and freedoms.
This is a serious issue. Never before has a justice minister or a
government tried to pass laws that talk about a group and what
criminal organizations are. There is freedom of association in the
country. The Quebec provincial government wanted a law to make
it a crime to belong to a criminal organization. How do we know it
is criminal? We have to define criminal organization.
It is dangerous to give powers to the police if it is done quickly
without being thought through. The police needs the tools to do its
job, but if they are given with the intent solving one problem are we
perhaps creating other problems? What about this extra
surveillance with electronic devices to listen in on telephone calls?
What about requisitioning and procuring income tax returns of
people suspected of associating with criminal organizations? What
if these powers are used for other groups? It could entrench on civil
liberties and has to be discussed.
It is being done for the wrong reason. It is being fast tracked for
the wrong reason. To bring the bill forward, to debate the bill, to
solve the problem is honourable, good and should be done.
However the Liberals are responding and reacting to one provincial
government that has threatened to pull out of the country. They are
reacting faster to that government than to anything that any other
opposition party, from the NDP to the Reform to the Conservative,
raise in the House to satisfy British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Ontario and the maritime provinces.
We have to be very careful when we talk about giving powers to
the police. It is just like the gun control bill, the firearms
legislation. I gave a talk on it when the justice minister was in the
House. He was trying to force, ram and push that legislation
through. It got through the justice department which put it together.
It got by the justice minister who was involved.
Guess what was in that clause? If they suspected somebody of
hiding firearms, shotguns, rifles or handguns, police forces had the
right to search and seize the weapons without a warrant. That was
the original clause in bill when it came to the House. It was just like
the bill today with clauses of a similar nature. The justice minister
said that it should be fixed, that we were right, and that we could
not let police forces search ad hoc anybody they feel like searching.
He agreed that we should insist upon a warrant on certain grounds.
(1405)
I am talking about rushing bills through and ending up with bad
legislation. That is poor governance. I certainly recommend we
should not be a part of that. We should take the time needed to get it
right.
In terms of victims rights the justice minister said in the House
that we had to take our time and get the bill right. He said it
involved many issues such as provincial jurisdiction and the
charter of rights. He was in favour of it but said we had to take our
time. Now we have anti-gang legislation being rammed through.
I refer to a Globe and Mail article by Rhéal Séguin which read in
part:
``We've defined criminal organization and then we said it is not a crime to be a
member of it.
``But if you do anything that is a crime and that is for their [the criminal
organization's] benefit, under their direction or in association with them, then you've
put yourself in a position where you've created a very serious offence, '' Mr. Rock
told a news conference.
Let us think this through for a second. There is a contradiction.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): No one can figure it
out but a lawyer.
Mr. Silye: Even some lawyers would have a hard time defining
criminal organization and making it illegal for a person to be a
member of such a group if he or she commits a crime for the
benefit of the group. How does it become a criminal organization if
it has never committed a crime? If a crime has been committed,
why is the person not put away to do the time for that crime? How
can an organization be called criminal? If it is not illegal to belong
to a criminal organization but it is illegal to commit a crime within
9957
it, the group is already identified as a group intent on committing
criminal activity. That should not exist.
Under the definition of criminal organization the crown must
prove that five or more members in the group act as an association
or a body together and that one member of the group, or each
collectively, commits an indictable offence with the maximum
penalty of five years or more. That is one of its primary objectives.
How is the primary activity proved unless a conviction has been
registered for an indictable offence punishable by a maximum
penalty of five years or more? In other words the person should
have been caught and put away even before the group existed. Five
or more persons is defined as a group. Are four people not a group?
If four people intent on criminal activity form a group, will this
definition not apply? Does it have to be five or more?
The bill talks about explosive substances and owning offence
related property. Officers are allowed to confiscate dynamite,
bombs and things like that. However the definition of explosive
substance is not in the bill. If it is not defined, should it not be
defined? We know the obvious, but what about what is not
obvious?
I will turn to another item in the bill. How does the bill coincide
with young groups? There is no reference to age. There is no
mention of the Young Offenders Act. We are talking about a certain
group. We know who they are. We see them. We see pictures of
them.
There have to be five or more. It cannot be four or less but it does
not talk about young groups. How does the bill relate to the Young
Offenders Act? Does it conflict? Does it have an impact on it? That
is not covered. Should it not be covered?
The next item in the bill talks about everyone who participates in
or substantially contributes to the activities of a criminal
organization knowing that any or all of the members of the
organization engage in or have, within the preceding five years,
engaged in the commission of a series of indictable offences under
this or any other act of Parliament for each of which the maximum
punishment is imprisonment for five years or more. How do we
prove ``participates in''? What does ``substantially contributes''
mean? ``Aiding and abetting'', but to what degree? What does it
really mean? What is the level of a substantial contribution? If
somebody gives $25 to a political party, if somebody else gives
$500 and if somebody else gives the maximum $1,000 for which
they receive a tax receipt for $550, which one is substantial? Is a
$100 donation substantial or is it closer to $1,000? It is the same
thing here. What is a substantial contribution to an organization? If
I give $500 I am okay, but if I give $1,000 that is a substantial
contribution?
(1410)
These are some of the problems which deserve a little more
attention. If we as politicians were to do our job properly, we
would ensure that civil liberty groups would have the chance to
understand why there is a need and how these things are to be done.
Those questions should be answered.
If we ask these questions when we get to committee of the whole
on Monday of next week, the justice minister should have the
answers. I do not see how it will be possible for him to have the
answers because they are not in the bill. Those answers are left to
interpretation.
Another pressure point comes from the media. The politicians
are trying to further their party and show they care by passing
legislation. I do not want to belong to the party that holds it up. I do
not want to be a Bloc Quebecois, a Reformer or a Liberal who holds
up the legislation because if somebody gets killed tomorrow or
next week it will be our fault. That is crap. It will not be the fault of
anyone in this room; it will be the fault of the person who
committed the crime.
We must pass good legislation to address this problem. If a crime
is committed next week and the individual goes to court, and
because of poor wording and a lack of clarity the criminal gets off
on a technicality, because a supreme court justice whose job it is to
protect individual rights decides that this criminal should get off,
but we know he did it, then who is to blame? It will be the fault of
the Liberals, the Bloc and Reform. It will be our fault.
That is what is wrong with this bill. That is why it is important
for us to have the sensibility and the common sense not to rush
things through for partisan purposes.
We have been a party to certain bills which have gone through
quickly, but they were done properly because the language was
clear. We are talking about amendments to the Criminal Code
which will impact the charter of rights and freedoms. The justice
minister could have added a chapter to those rights and freedoms
over the past three years called responsibility. If someone is a
member of a gang they have certain rights and freedoms, freedom
of association, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom
to drive up and down the streets with 100 bikes roaring in their
ears. It is the responsibility of the person to keep those freedoms by
not committing a crime. If they do they will lose their rights,
freedoms and individual liberties.
If we debated this properly, took an extra five days and sent it to
committee for a decent period of time, some better suggestions
might come forward.
It is more important to get it right than to get it done quickly. We
can get it right and done quickly if we all get together and put our
heads to it, rather than the leader of the Bloc Quebecois trying to
make political brownie points in Quebec, rather than the justice
minister trying to show how co-operative he is in times of urgency
and emergency. Victims rights are just as important as this. He is
setting a bad precedent, proving he is doing it for political reasons
and that the Reform Party is afraid to speak its mind because it
does not want to be seen as a deterrent to progress of the justice
system. We are not.
9958
(1415)
All three parties should put away their political partisanship on
the issue, get their heads together on Monday in committee of the
whole and come up with legislation that will be right, with proper
explanations and definitions, clarity and a sense of confidence that
when it is challenged in the courts it will not make the politicians of
this session of Parliament look like fools.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is interesting that this bill has come forward very
quickly. Considerable attention has been paid to this issue in
Quebec. Canadians are concerned about the increase in crime,
especially violent crime in some cities in Quebec, directly
attributable to the actions of gangs, the drug trade, the illegal
trafficking in guns, gambling and prostitution, in short, organized
crime activities, not only in Quebec but across the nation.
Canadians who are watching the debate today in its abbreviated
form are perhaps scratching their heads wondering about the use of
section 745. I heard a comment recently about Clifford Olson being
the multiple murderer who is hiding behind a rock.
There was a hue and cry across the nation from victims, victims
groups and the general public. Organizations like the Canadian
Police Association had passed a resolution asking for the repeal of
section 745. There seemed to be a genuine consensus that
something should be done to prevent this individual who has
admitted to the horrible torture, rape and murder of 11 children,
from using that section, the so-called faint hope clause and getting
another day in court to make his points and revictimize the families
of these young children.
I am sure Canadians are wondering how the government can
move in such a speedy fashion on a bill such as C-95 and yet pay
virtually no attention to section 745 and the cries of victims and
victims groups to repeal that section.
In February the judge had no option but to grant Clifford Olson
his day in court. He will be flown from Saskatoon to Vancouver on
August 18 and the whole country will once again be treated to the
spectacle of this predator, this disgusting degenerate, having
another day in court.
I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on what I see as
a terrible travesty of justice, that something like this could be
allowed to happen and it has received virtually no attention.
(1420 )
The government brought in some minor amendments and tried to
sell them to the Canadian people by saying that it did not really
believe that it should repeal section 745 because there are some
people who perhaps deserve early parole. They did not want to cut
that off. What we were saying is that 25 years is not too much for
the Canadian public to expect first degree murderers to serve.
Polls taken across the country consistently show that about 65
per cent to 70 per cent of Canadians support the return of capital
punishment for people like Olson and Bernardo.
Previous governments have been able to sell abolishing capital
punishment for these types of animals by telling Canadians that
they would serve 25 years. I cannot help but wonder what will
happen to someone like Clifford Olson who I am sure the majority
of Canadians believe cannot and will not ever be rehabilitated.
What happens when his 25 years are up?
We all hope and pray that he will never be eligible for early
parole, despite the government allowing him to have the luxury of
going through this farce of a section 745 hearing. However, what
happens after 25 years? We are not talking here about parole. He
will have served his sentence and theoretically he is going to get
out because this government has not addressed that type of
concern.
Something has to be done to keep these predators locked up
forever. They cannot be allowed back into society to select more
victims. It cannot happen. We have to find a way to prevent that
from happening.
I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on what I see as a
clear contradiction on the part of this government.
Mr. Manley: Explain what 25 years is without parole.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Would the hon.
Minister of Industry just kindly hold his comments? He had ample
time a little while ago to spout all sorts of nonsense for as long as
he wanted. Now he is trying to do it again.
I wonder if he would comment on the contradiction between a
government that holds itself up as being concerned about victims,
concerned about gang violence, concerned about all these things
and is rushing this bill through, when in reality that is the furthest
thing from the truth. The government is not concerned about
victims. That is clearly shown in the legislation it has introduced
and passed. That legislation has done little or nothing to benefit the
victims of crime and lots to benefit the criminals themselves.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I am just guessing, but I assume I
have about two minutes left.
I am glad I was able to settle the dispute between the Minister of
Industry and my colleague. Now they have each had an
intervention of eight minutes.
My colleague makes a very good point. What criteria does the
justice minister use to decide what is a priority if addressing
section 745 is not a priority? He claims he has. He claims he has
fixed it for multiple murderers. If people commit one premeditated
murder they will still have a chance to get out after 15 years even
after being sentenced for life with no parole for 25 years. The
murderer will still receive this early review after 15 years. That is
not truth in sentencing. That could have been addressed. It would
have been an easy bill to pass very quickly. It would have had
clarity and would have passed the test of the Supreme Court.
9959
(1425)
My colleague is right. We have to be consistent in the application
of the criteria. I am embarrassed to admit it but I believe the justice
minister is rushing this bill through more for political reasons than
for showing that he cares about the violence in Quebec City. He did
not care about that a month ago.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we
are having a difficult time convincing Canadians that there is
justice in the justice system. That perception among Canadians is
becoming more and more prevalent all the time.
I could not help wondering, as I was listening to my colleague
speak, why are we acting in such haste with this bill? I have
listened to the justice minister on various occasions say that tough
cases make bad laws. As a matter of fact, he used that argument
when the Reform Party and others were pressing his department to
make changes to section 745. How is this situation any different
than that?
Certainly all Canadians agree that organized crime should have
very severe restrictions placed on it. We all agree that what has
been happening in the gang wars in Montreal is an absolute
travesty. Innocent people are being killed. It is a form of terrorism.
When a gang war is going on in your community it is a form of
urban terrorism. Canadians are well within their rights to be
repulsed by this kind of activity and it behooves this place to do
something about it.
This situation did not emerge in the last few weeks so therefore
we must act immediately. It makes me wonder whether we are
going to enact this legislation or whether it has simply been placed
on the table. I know we are not supposed to impugn motives but I
wonder if this legislation has not been tabled more for optics and
political reasons than for justice reasons.
The Minister of Justice has not found it within his realm to act
expediently on other sections, for instance, to pass retroactive
legislation that would stop multiple killers like Bernardo and Olson
to apply for early release. The legislation is not retroactive. People
who are now serving life sentences will be able to apply for parole
after serving two-thirds of their sentence.
It puzzles me how the minister can on the one hand say that we
must act with caution and due diligence and take deliberate slow
steps and on the other hand say that this problem is taking place in
Quebec and must be dealt with immediately. He knows it is
potentially fertile ground for his party. He knows that it has always
been a key to Confederation. It has always been a key to whether or
not a party holds a majority and therefore that should be reason
enough to act immediately.
I think the people in British Columbia are going to remember
long and hard the fact that Clifford Olson has been treated with
some celebrity status and is certainly getting the notoriety that he
so hungrily seeks. I believe the electorate in British Columbia are
going to remember these instances. I would even go so far as to say
that if they are having a little bit of a problem remembering it, there
will be certain political parties that will do their utmost to make
them remember.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Being2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.29 p.m.)