37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 025
CONTENTS
Friday, March 2, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-13. Second reading
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1010
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1030
1035
1040
1045
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1100
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| GUY RÉGIMBALD
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITIES
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| MEMBER FOR FREDERICTON
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1105
| TREVOR AND LINDA DAVIES
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S WEEK
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1110
| AFGHANISTAN
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| NOVA SCOTIA
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| MEMBER FOR ETOBICOKE—LAKESHORE
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| HEATING FUEL REBATE
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| LANDMINE AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1120
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| LUMBER
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1125
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1130
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
1135
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
1140
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. James Lunney |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1145
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1150
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
1155
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| BEAUPORT BAY
|
| Hon. David Collenette |
| INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| AQUACULTURE
|
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
1200
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-291. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1205
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-292. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| PETITIONS
|
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
1210
| Violence
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-13. Second reading
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1215
1220
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1300
1305
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1310
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1315
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1320
1325
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| RIGHT OF LANDING FEE
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Motion
|
1330
1335
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1340
1345
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1350
1355
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1400
1405
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1410
1415
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1420
1425
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 025
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 2, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
introduce second reading of Bill C-13.
Bill C-13 reaffirms the government's commitment to making our
tax system simpler and fairer, not only for individual Canadians
but for Canadian businesses as well.
[Translation]
Before I begin setting out the measures in the bill, I would
like to mention that the consultative process leading to its
introduction is an excellent example of co-operation between the
government and the business and tax communities to achieve the
shared objective of improving our tax system.
[English]
On behalf of the government, allow me to take this opportunity to
thank those interested parties that brought forward their views
on the many issues addressed in the legislation.
Bill C-13 implements measures relating to the goods and services
tax, the GST, and harmonized sales tax, HST, that were proposed
in budget 2000, as well as additional sales tax measures proposed
in a notice of ways and means motion tabled in parliament on
October 4, 2000. These measures are aimed at improving the
operation of the GST-HST in the affected areas and ensuring that
the legislation accords with the policy intent.
The bill also implements two amendments to the excise tax
provisions of the Excise Tax Act.
The first clarifies provisions relating to the deferral of
excise taxes on automobile air conditioners installed in new
automobiles and on heavy automobiles at the time of importation
by or sale to a licensed manufacturer.
The second provides discretion for the Minister of National
Revenue to waive or cancel interest, or a penalty calculated in
the same manner as interest, under the excise tax system.
[Translation]
First, I will set out the proposals of the bill as contained in
the 2000 budget.
The GST-HST is designed to ensure Canadian businesses and goods
are competitive in the export markets. Some of the measures
proposed in the 2000 budget and contained in C-13 are intended to
achieve these objectives. These measures concern, more
particularly, the following:
[English]
The GST-HST treatment of export distribution activities; the
provision of warranty services by Canadian businesses to
non-resident companies; the provision of storage and distribution
services by Canadian service providers in relation to goods
imported on behalf of non-residents; and finally, sales of
railway rolling stock to non-residents.
1010
Let me take a few moments to briefly summarize each of these
measures.
Registrants engaged in export distribution activities involving
the limited processing of goods for export face a cashflow cost
that may be significant in relation to the level of value added
to the goods. This can be the case where goods are imported for
minor processing and subsequent export.
The cashflow issue arises because tax is paid on the importation
of the goods but no offsetting tax is collected on their export.
As a result, the business must finance the tax until the receipt
of a refund from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
The proposal for an export distribution centre program contained
in the bill addresses the cashflow issue faced by low value added
export oriented businesses by allowing them an export
distribution centre certificate to purchase or import inventory,
or to import customers' goods on a tax-free basis.
This measure will help ensure that the GST-HST does not present
an impediment to the establishment of North American distribution
centres in Canada.
I would note that a national consultative process took place on
this issue that involved many interested parties from all regions
of the country, including constituents in my area near Pearson
airport. We think the prospects for this are very exciting.
With respect to Canadian businesses supplying warranty repair or
replacement services, Bill C-13 contains a measure that would
help protect the competitive position of these Canadian
businesses relative to their foreign, particularly U.S.,
counterparts.
[Translation]
At the moment, import duty relief is accorded in the case of
goods imported into Canada for repairs under guarantee, provided
the goods are exported once the work is done. However, when the
good imported is replaced rather than repaired, the import duty
relief does not apply.
[English]
The bill proposes to extend the relieving rules to cover
situations where a replacement good is provided under warranty
and is exported in place of the original imported defective good,
for example, where the original good is destroyed.
This proposal would ensure that the GST-HST does not make
Canadian suppliers of warranty repair or replacement services
less competitive relative to foreign suppliers when these
services are provided to non-residents.
Bill C-13 also expands on a program known as the exporters of
processing services program. This program allows the tax-free
importation of goods by a Canadian processor for the purpose of
processing the goods in Canada and subsequent export.
The program ensures that the GST-HST does not impose prohibitive
cashflow costs on Canadian service providers by their having to
pay tax on their customers' goods at the time of importation.
However, the program does not apply where a Canadian processor
only provides storage or distribution services.
The bill proposes to expand the program to allow access to
businesses that provide only storage or distribution services for
non-residents.
Another proposal relating to cross border transactions contained
in the bill concerns sales of goods delivered in Canada to
non-residents who intend to export the goods.
Special rules under the GST-HST system allow an unregistered
non-resident person to acquire goods, and most services in
respect of goods, in Canada without paying GST-HST, where the
goods are bound for export and remain in the possession of
registered Canadian service providers before being exported.
Bill C-13 proposes amendments in order to ensure that this
objective is met.
Specifically, an amendment is proposed relating to the sale of
railway rolling stock to non-resident businesses. The current
rules do not permit the sale of the rolling stock to be tax free
if there is to be any use in Canada of the rolling stock prior to
its export. This restriction does not reflect current industry
practice because rolling stock is rarely shipped empty to its
U.S. destinations.
[Translation]
The bill proposes an amendment so that the use of railway
rolling stock to move goods outside the country in the context
of the exported rolling stock does not of itself result in the
stock not being exempt.
Consultations on the proposed amendments I have just mentioned
were conducted with a number of businesses operating in the
transportation of goods from and to Canada.
1015
[English]
The fruit of these discussions is in the proposals contained in
the bill which will improve the operation of the tax system in
these important export sectors.
I would like to turn to an important sales tax initiative that
budget 2000 proposed for the rental housing sector which is
likewise contained in Bill C-13. The bill contains a measure of
significant benefit to builders and purchasers of new residential
rental accommodation.
Under the existing sales tax system, tax applies to new
residential rental property when the property is acquired by a
landlord from a builder or on a self assessed basis when the
builder is the landlord. For purchaser landlords, the tax
becomes payable upon purchase of the residential complex. For
builder landlords, the tax becomes payable as soon as the first
unit in the residential complex is rented. As a result, both
purchaser landlords and builder landlords finance the tax
liability up front and recover the tax over time.
The bill implements the new residential rental property rebate
which is a partial rebate of the GST paid in respect of newly
constructed substantially renovated or converted long term
residential rental accommodation. The rebate is payable to the
builder landlord or purchaser landlord who paid the tax. This
will help increase the stock of rental accommodation in Canada.
[Translation]
In fact, the new rebate will reduce by 2.5 percentage points the
effective rate of tax on new residential rental property, which
is the same as the federal tax reduction that applies to new
owner occupied homes under the existing new home rebate program.
[English]
I mentioned earlier that in addition to the measures proposed in
the 2000 budget, Bill C-13 contains other sales tax measures
designed to improve the operation of the GST-HST. Three of these
measures are also in the area of real property.
First, the bill proposes a refinement to the existing new
housing rebate program which reduces the cost to consumers of
building or purchasing a mew home. Refinements are proposed to
allow new homes to qualify where they are used primarily as a
place of residence, as well as to provide short term
accommodation to the public in certain circumstances as the case
is with many bed and breakfast establishments.
Second, Bill C-13 would address a problem that arises when a
consumer who has purchased real property from a vendor and has
paid GST or HST subsequently returns the property to the original
vendor without having used it. Currently there is no mechanism
by which the consumer can recover the tax paid on the initial
purchase.
The proposed amendment contained in the bill would allow a
consumer in this circumstance to recover the tax paid on the
purchase of the property if it is returned to the original vendor
within one year and pursuant to the original contract. This
would place a consumer returning real property in a similar
position to a person who returns new goods to a vendor and
receives a credit or refund for the GST or HST that was
originally paid on the goods.
The third real property measure contained in the bill relates to
the sale of land by individuals. Hon. members may know that
sales of real property by individuals or personal trusts are
generally exempt from the GST-HST, provided the individual or
trust has not used the property in a taxable business. The bill
proposes to ensure that a sale of real property cannot be treated
as exempt from sales tax if the seller was previously leasing it
to other persons on a taxable basis.
All of these amendments relating to real property transactions
reflect the government's commitment to ensure that our tax system
is fair and efficient.
As members will recall, last year's budget contained proposals
that reflect the government's commitment to continue to work
toward improving the quality of life for all Canadians. Quality
of life has many dimensions, including access to quality health
care and education. Bill C-13 builds on the spirit of that
commitment.
In the area of health care, the bill proposes an amendment to
continue in force an existing GST-HST exemption for speech
therapy services that are billed by individual practitioners and
that are not covered by the applicable provincial health care
plan.
1020
With respect to education, Bill C-13 contains a measure that
will extend the sales tax exemption for vocational training to
more situations, including cases where the training is supplied
by a government department or agency rather than a vocational
school. Specially, the amendment will do away with existing
conditions on the exemption that required that the training or
the resulting certifications be subject to certain government
regulation or that the school be run on a non-profit basis.
The proposed change will ensure that vocational training
provided in different provinces receives the same GST-HST
treatment regardless of the regulatory regime that exists in each
province with respect to vocational schools.
A further amendment would add the flexibility for providers of
vocational training to elect to treat their services as taxable
where their clients are commercial businesses that would prefer
to pay the tax and recover it by way of input tax credits.
[Translation]
As for charities, our government is also taking into account the
major role played by these agencies, which Canadians by
enriching the lives of our communities.
This bill proposes amendments so that the GST-HST legislation
accurately reflects the government's intention to generally
exempt charities from having to pay tax on rent and related
goods.
[English]
As I stated at the outset, Bill C-13 also contains amendments
relating to the non-GST-HST parts of the Excise Tax Act which
deal with excise taxes on specific products. Among those
specific taxes are excise taxes on automobile air conditioners
and on heavy automobiles which have been imposed since the
mid-1970s.
Since 1984, these taxes have been payable by the manufacturer at
the time of delivery to an automobile dealer. Payment of the tax
is effectively deferred at the time of importation and on
immediate transactions between licensees until the sale to an
automobile dealer in Canada.
Several manufacturers have recently challenged the longstanding
interpretation and application of these provisions with respect
to automobile air conditioners installed in imported new motor
vehicles and are seeking substantial refunds of tax. They argue
that the relief provided on importations by licensed
manufacturers does not simply defer payment of the tax but
permanently exempts these goods from tax.
This is clearly contrary to the well understood policy intent
and longstanding interpretation and administration of these
legislative provisions. Bill C-13 therefore proposes clarifying
amendments to ensure that there could be no misinterpretation of
these provisions with respect to importations as well as
intermediate transactions.
The retroactive application of these amendments is consistent
with the criteria that were laid out by the government in 1995 in
the response to the seventh report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts. For nearly 20 years these provisions have been
interpreted and administered by both Revenue Canada, now the
CCRA, and manufacturers and importers in a manner consistent with
the underlying policy intent. The tax charged on automobile air
conditioners has routinely been included in the price charged to
consumers.
Finally, the amount of government revenue at risk is
substantial.
[Translation]
Practical measures must therefore be taken so that there can be
no doubt as to the application of these provisions to both
future and past operations.
[English]
Bill C-13 contains one other amendment relating to the excise
tax system. The bill provides authority for the Minister of
National Revenue to waive interest otherwise payable under the
non-GST-HST parts of the Excise Tax Act. This amendment will
achieve greater harmonization of the administrative rules under
the excise tax system with those under the income tax and sales
tax systems which already provide for this waiver.
The amendment will further help ensure fair administration of
the excise tax system.
Consistent with the manner in which this discretionary power has
been used under the income tax and sales tax system, the Minister
of National Revenue would have the ability to waive interest in
circumstances such as where, despite a taxpayer's very best
efforts and as a result of extraordinary circumstances beyond
their control, the taxpayer has been prevented from meeting
certain deadlines and thus has incurred the interest.
1025
[Translation]
Bill C-13 contains another improvement regarding the application
of the tax system. Hon. members may remember that the Prime
Minister recently announced a federal on-line initiative, which
is a key component of the government strategy called Connecting
Canadians, which is designed to make Canada the most connected
nation in the world.
[English]
This initiative provides Canadians with another way to access
the information and services they receive in person and by
telephone. Members may know that businesses can now file GST-HST
returns and remittance information electronically. However,
under the existing legislation a person who wishes to do so is
required to apply to the Minister of National Revenue for
authorization. This procedure is cumbersome and more onerous
than the procedure for filing income tax returns electronically.
Bill C-13 proposes amendments to streamline the administrative
procedures and harmonize them with those under the Income Tax
Act, thereby facilitating the electronic filing of GST-HST
returns.
In closing, the measures contained in Bill C-13 that I have
outlined here today propose to refine, streamline and clarify the
application of the tax system.
[Translation]
They also reflect the commitment made by our government to
ensure that our tax system is fair.
[English]
I therefore urge hon. members to support the bill. I know it is
complex and technical but I would hope the members here would
support it.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would seek consent of the House to
split the balance of my time with my colleague, the member for
Elk Island.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast have the consent of the House to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-13,
amendments to the Excise Tax Act which is, as the hon. the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has indicated,
essentially a series of technical amendments to the GST, its
collection and its administration.
At the outset I would like to set down some principles from
which the official opposition judges all tax related legislation.
First, we believe that government should take not one penny more
in taxes from Canadians through any source than is absolutely and
strictly necessary for the efficient operation of necessary
programs. That is to say, programs that are necessary to provide
core services which are the exclusive jurisdictional
responsibility of the federal government and, in a sense, to help
those who cannot help themselves.
From that basic point, the one test with which I approach all
fiscal matters is this: I ask myself if an extra dollar spent,
collected by us through parliament and spent by politicians and
bureaucrats in Ottawa, will do more good than that dollar left in
the hand of a resident of my constituency who owns and operates a
small business.
Generally, the answer to that question is a resounding no. The
dollars we collect, including the approximately $20 billion net
which we collect through the goods and services tax, is money
which would be more powerfully used for social good if left in
the hands of the creative men and women who earn that money and
create that wealth in the first place. That is the first premise
by which we judge all of these matters.
We then ask ourselves, if we are going to have taxes to finance
necessary limited government programs within federal
jurisdiction, how can we raise those taxes in a manner which is
least destructive to the economy and which has a minimal
distortional effect on the choices made by people freely in our
economy every day.
I remind the House of the dictum that the power to tax is the
power to destroy. All through history we see this lesson. There
is a brilliant book about the history of taxation and its
destructive power called For Good and Evil by Canadian
author Charles Adams. In the book he relates through the
centuries, beginning in ancient Egypt, how governments, monarchs,
parliaments, congresses have imposed taxes which have had
enormous unintended consequences, and how governments frequently
do not understand that the power to tax will distort human
behaviour, often for the worse.
1030
Let me provide one interesting and humorous example. In the
16th century the British crown decided to bring forward something
called the window tax. This was during the Tudor era of
architecture. All of a sudden, one of the new luxuries which
indicated social status was the capacity to install glass windows
in one's residence.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Windows 98.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, 1598. The government was looking
for another way to collect more money for the crown or for the
treasury, because even in 1601 it had the same insatiable
appetite for revenue as it does in 2001. It imposed a window
tax. It had assessors go across the land to count the number of
windows people had in their domiciles.
Lo and behold, if we go to small English towns today and look at
some of the Tudor homes, we will see over and over again these
very clear window shaped spaces that have been plastered over and
filled in or bricked in. Why? It was because 500 years ago
people understood that they could protect their economic best
interest by avoiding taxes legally and so they bricked in those
beautiful glass windows all across England.
It is just one example which demonstrates how the unintended
consequences of bad tax policy can shut out the light and leave
people in darkness. That is the kind of tax policy we too
frequently see from the Liberal government. We look from a
historical perspective at trying to construct a minimal tax
regime which allows for maximum human freedom and creativity and
does not distort the marketplace.
In that respect we, like many Canadians, have many grave
concerns about the whole range of taxes imposed by this place, in
particular today with respect to the goods and services tax. We
all recall back in 1990-91 when the then Progressive Conservative
government imposed what at that time was, and probably still is,
the most despised tax in Canadian history. It did so over the
overwhelming opposition of the majority of Canadians.
I know you will remember this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe
you were a member of this place. If so, you were certainly
sitting in these benches vigorously opposing the tax. You ran in
the election campaign in 1993 where the central promise was not
just to amend the tax through technical amendments such as those
before this place today, not just to tinker with its
administration and collection, but to kill, eliminate, abolish,
get rid of and scrap the GST.
However here I am in the House in the year 2001, eight years
after those solemn promises were made and those undertakings were
given, and I have in my hand a bill to continue and amend the
goods and services tax. It is like Alice in Wonderland. The
bill comes forward from the same government which said that the
tax, which it is now amending, would no longer exist.
At the outset I will put on the record the dismay of so many
Canadians that the government thinks it can get away with, and
continues to get away with, perpetuating a tax which it promised
to kill, slash, abolish and eliminate.
The third point I will make with respect to constructing taxes
of maximum efficiency is that we must have a tax system which
allows for accountability on the part of government because, as I
said, the taxing power is such an awesome destructive power.
Arguably, next to the criminal law power exercised by parliament,
the taxing power is the single most weighty and onerous power
that it wields. It really can destroy people's economic
well-being.
1035
Often that power can be wielded in a reckless fashion by tax
collection bureaucrats. I have in my files literally hundreds of
cases where law-abiding, well meaning, well intentioned citizens
have acted in good faith to try to comply with tax laws like the
one before us today and have found themselves harassed, audited,
chased down, investigated, abused, and have had their assets
frozen by the agents of revenue Canada, now the revenue agency.
That is why my colleagues and I have brought forward a taxpayer
bill of rights that would seek to enshrine in legislation, in a
very clear way, definitive rights of recourse and appeal and
protection for taxpayers in the assessment and collection
process.
The parliamentary secretary says that it is already there but it
is not. There is a preambular statement with no sanction and no
statutory power which is a goodwill statement. We propose to
legislate specific standards of performance on the part of the
CCRA and its employees and clear items of recourse so that people
do not need to go to court to enforce their common law rights for
fair consideration under the application of the tax laws.
I will turn to the specifics of the bill. We strenuously object
to the fact that the government continues to reject its 1993
election promise. We believe the GST itself collects too much
revenue as the government does overall. In fact, we are now
looking at very substantial taxpayer overpayments.
The government likes to call them surpluses and pat itself on
the back. The only people who deserve credit for these surpluses
are hardworking men and women. Notwithstanding the highest
personal income tax burden in the G-7; notwithstanding that we
have the highest corporate tax burden in the G-7, according to a
recent study by KPMG; notwithstanding the fact that the
government and its predecessor have burdened them with the second
highest level of public indebtedness in the OECD; notwithstanding
that we have seen our standard of living, our per capita GDP,
fall relative to our major competitors for the past two decades;
and notwithstanding the enormous burden of red tape and all of
the anti-growth policies of the government; notwithstanding those
substantial facts, hardworking men and women of Canada have
managed to produce growth. The government by raising taxes has
benefited from that hard work, wealth creation and growth, and of
course it shamelessly takes credit for it.
That constitutes a huge amount of overtaxation, well over $120
billion of overtaxation, that should be refunded to the people
who earned it and overpaid it.
While we recognize that the government has failed to accept its
commitment with respect to the GST, that it continues to overtax
and that it still fails to bring in something like a taxpayer
bill of rights which enumerates taxpayer rights in the
assessment and collection procedures, nevertheless there are some
technical improvements to the GST in the bill, to which I now
turn my attention.
On the first point, the bill's primary goal is to correct some
administrative oversights in the February 2000 budget. With the
thousands of bureaucrats in the Department of Finance and the
40,000-some in the Department of National Revenue, why do we have
significant administrative “oversights” in key tax legislation?
That is part of the problem.
When we speak about administrative oversights, I want to comment
on the manner by which the bill comes to us. We in the official
opposition got notice of the bill about 48 hours ago. It is a
detailed technical bill. We have very limited resources at our
disposal. It is absurd for the government to expect the
opposition properly to execute its oversight function of
legislation with 48 hours notice on a major technical bill.
That is one of the reasons we end up with administrative
oversights. It is one of the reasons the government always
brings in legislation like this one to correct the mistakes it
made. It does not give parliamentarians the benefit of time to
become properly acquainted with the legislation it proposes.
1040
If we had more time to analyze this, and if the government were
more generous in accepting and considering opposition amendments,
we would not find ourselves again and again wasting parliamentary
time correcting mistakes the government has already made.
Some of the mistakes the Liberals have made, which they now
propose to correct, consist of, among other things, implementing
new rules to ensure the GST does not impede North American
distribution centres in Canada. When businesses import goods
from the United States or from any other country, rather than
taxing the goods when they are imported and then applying for a
GST rebate, they can go through tax free. That is sensible. It
should have happened a long time ago. It is something industries
have been asking for many years.
Second, the bill ensures that no tax is payable on the
importation of defective goods imported solely to be replaced
under warranty. If somebody here buys an alarm clock from a
Japanese manufacturer and it does not work and they return it,
the new clock can be shipped back into Canada without GST
applying on it again. That is a sensible administrative
efficiency which should have been in the act a long time ago. I
see the secretary of state is once again congratulating himself.
I am not surprised.
It also seeks to implement the new residential rental property
rebate, which is a partial rebate of GST paid in respect of newly
constructed or substantially renovated long term residential
rental accommodation. This is a measure, which my hon.
colleague, the learned and distinguished member for Wild Rose,
has long sought to obtain in the legislation. He has fought for
it on behalf of constituents for some time, so this section we
can call the Myron section. This is a victory for the
constituents of the member of parliament for Wild Rose. Let the
record show that he is getting spontaneous applause even in his
absence.
The bill also continues to enforce the existing GST exemption
for speech therapy services that are billed by individual
practitioners and not covered by the applicable provincial health
care plan. This is also a sensible improvement which should have
happened a long time ago under the minister's watch.
The secretary of state who applauds sat without acting for I do
not know how many years while this measure was not in place. He
should not applaud his tardiness.
The bill also seeks, with respect to education, to ensure that
vocational training across the country is provided the same
exempt treatment regardless of how vocational schools are
regulated in each province. This is an incremental improvement
in the tax treatment of vocational schools. I hope the
government will also use its authority to bring the provinces to
the table to ensure that credentials provided by such schools are
recognized from coast to coast. That is one useful role the
federal government could play.
With respect to electronic filing, the bill removes the
requirement to apply to the Minister of National Revenue for
permission to file GST returns electronically and therefore
allows anyone to do so provided they meet the criteria set out by
the minister. This would streamline the ability of people to
file electronically. That again is something that should have
happened long ago. There are also miscellaneous administrative
amendments clarifying interpretations of the act.
Let me say on that point that far too often the government makes
tax policy by news release. The primary power of this place,
based on the long history of parliamentary government, is to
approve the taxation, the ways and means of the crown. However,
over and over again very significant amendments are made to tax
law by news releases coming out from either the Department of
Finance or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
For instance, we will see in this section a number of
administrative interpretations being clarified but which were
given the effective force of law by mandate of news releases from
bureaucrats months if not years ago.
I want to say on the record that it is time we ended this
usurpation of parliamentary authority and brought it back to this
place through those kinds of amendments.
All in all, we in the opposition have a tendency to be opposed to
any amendments to the GST on the clear premise that the
government promised to abolish it, not tinker with it.
1045
Having said that, we do support some of the incremental
improvements in the bill but we believe it could go a lot further
in improving the administration of the GST.
On behalf of the opposition I want to say that until the
government finally begins to truly understand—and not just mouth
platitudes about it—the negative impact that its tax policies
have on our economy, our families and our small businesses, this
opposition will continue to be a clarion voice for tax relief and
tax reform. While we support elements of legislation like this,
we will not support the continuation of an overly onerous,
burdensome and destructive tax regime which the government uses
to finance its overspending and its wasteful and inefficient
practices.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to stand in the House on a Friday morning and
enter into this debate on the GST.
It was the GST that brought me here. I do not know whether that
is widely known. The most common statement I heard while
knocking on doors in 1993 was “we are going to get rid of those
Conservatives who brought us the GST”. A bunch of people asked
me why they should vote for Brian O'Kurley when he did not vote
for them. Brian O'Kurley was the Conservative predecessor in my
riding. It was Brian Mulroney and Brian O'Kurley who campaigned
for me in 1993 and undoubtedly delivered more votes for me than I
could possibly have got by myself. The GST has a history.
I had a very interesting experience the other day. I was
preparing to speak on the fact that the government was invoking
closure in its motion in order to reduce the ability of the
opposition parties to do their work in the House. My staff and I
did a bit of research at the Library of Parliament. Among other
things, we looked at some of the newspapers circa 1989 and 1990,
in that era when the GST was being debated. It was absolutely
incredible to read some of the newspaper reports of the day. I
was amazed by the outrage expressed by the present Minister of
Industry at that time. He was on this side of the House then.
The outrage he expressed toward the Conservative government that
was proposing the GST was absolutely amazing. Also, the present
Prime Minister was then travelling around the country telling
people that his government would kill the GST.
Just as I got here because of the GST, I wonder how many
Liberals got elected on that same hatred of the goods and
services tax, sometimes called, in our part of the world—I am
going to say this real quickly, Mr. Speaker, and then you can
stop me afterwards—the gouge and screw tax. That is what it was
called out west. The amount of animosity generated by that
particular tax was absolutely incredible.
I was not aware until last week that the finance critic from
this side of the House took a number of Liberal MPs with
petitions out to the Sparks Street mall. It was recorded in the
newspapers in 1990. Those MPs asked citizens to sign a petition
to stop the GST. The newspapers had huge headlines about all of
the overt opposition to the GST.
We know the history of it. The Conservatives finally were
persuaded to reduce the rate from 9% to 7%. That, they claimed,
was a victory for the people because they listened to the people.
I guess they listened like these Liberals listen when it comes to
tax policy and other issues. They reduced the rate and then
proceeded to put it through the House.
1050
At that time I was researching the use of tactics to prolong
debate in the House. Members would not believe what the Liberals
did on that side of the House in order to try to stop that
legislation. They did not introduce 4,000 amendments—I guess
they were not bright enough to think of that as a tactic—but
they did all sorts of other things. Finally it was pushed
through in a whipped vote.
By the way, our own member of parliament for Elk Island at that
time, my predecessor for whom I have a great deal of respect, was
a real gentleman in the campaign. I have talked to him several
times since then. He is a nice guy, but sitting on the
government side he had no choice about representing the wishes of
his constituents in that vote, because it was a whipped vote just
like pretty well every vote on the government side of the House
is a whipped vote. That does not give members of parliament the
opportunity to represent their constituents. He was an
honourable guy, but he was pushed into the system and I suppose
had no choice.
What happened in 1993? I told my friend—and I will call him my
friend—Brian O'Kurley that he went down with the ship but that
he as an individual did not take down the ship. It was the whole
crew that took down the ship. Ten years later we now have a
group of Progressive Conservatives represented over on that side
of the House in a double file along the wall, five deep on two
sides. People just did not ever come back to the PCs. In the
last election, the PCs lost some 86% of their vote in Quebec.
They have very little market share, whereas there is a great
attraction to formerly the Reform and now the Canadian Alliance
because we have explicitly as one of our policies that it is our
primary duty to represent our constituents.
I like to think that had we had a Canadian Alliance type of
government in 1989 and 1990, that tax either would not have been
implemented or would have been greatly improved before it was
implemented. It would not have been implemented until we had the
consent of the people. As it was, the tax was jammed through by
an arrogant government, with 85% of Canadians opposed to it.
That was an error.
I really commend my hon. colleague from Calgary for his speech.
We must be geniuses who think alike because I was going to use
the Tudor example as well. The only difference in the story that
I remember was that they did not count the windows, they measured
the windows. They measured the area. That was why the windows
were so small.
If I had a dream that could be fulfilled, because we know there
are some private members' bills that commemorate this day or that
day, I would like to have a private member's bill passed in the
House such that every time people saw a Tudor style small window
they would be encouraged, not forced, to incant these words “I
hate huge taxes”. If every time we saw one of those buildings
we were to say “that is the result of an arrogant government
that overtaxes the people”, then perhaps we would start putting
pressure on the government to reduce taxes.
Since we are talking about the GST and taxes in general, I
should also say that I have little doubt in my mind that it is
the presence of the Canadian Alliance on this side that has
actually made reduction of taxes an issue of debate and has made
it respectable to talk about.
Until we came along, it seemed to make no difference whether it
was the Liberals or the Conservatives on whatever side of the
House. Each of those governments increased records of the number
of times they increased taxes and the amounts by which they
increased taxes.
I like to think that we on this side had some considerable
influence on the direction the government is now taking in
gingerly starting to reduce tax rates. The government knows that
the public is starting to hear our message and it knows that the
public will vote for us if the government does not do what we are
promising to do.
1055
I look at some of the issues the federal government has
approached, especially in the major campaign document it
introduced four days before the election was called, namely the
Minister of Finance's mini statement, and I note that the reason
those issues were in there was that the Liberals realized without
them we would make huge gains, and so we would have if they would
not have stolen from us. I suppose I should commend them for
stealing our ideas and tell them to steal more because that is
the way to go.
There is another example of how taxation policy affects human
behaviour. One of my favourite stories is that of my own father
who is now in his 90th year. My dad was a hard-working farmer.
He taught us to work hard when we were kids growing up on the
farm in Saskatchewan. These days he sees that farmers are
farming so well and so efficiently, including my brother, who has
taken over the family farm and expanded it.
My dad is deeply distressed and concerned about the fact that
these farmers farming so well with big equipment on a large scale
and getting good crops, basically four times as much per acre as
he was able to raise with his boys when he was a farmer, are now
struggling for their very existence, with many losing their
farms. It is absolutely despicable. My father has been a farmer
all his life and still loves to get out there at harvest time and
watch that grain come roaring out of the chute on the combine. He
is one who is very practically minded, I can assure members.
I remember the GST coming in and my dad breaking the pattern he
had had for a number of years. After I left home, my Dad's
financial situation somehow seemed to improve. I wonder whether
there was a correlation there. We were very poor when I was
young growing up on the farm in Saskatchewan, exceptionally poor.
When I graduated from high school, went on to university, got my
own job and ceased being dependent on him, somehow at that stage
my father's financial fortunes seemed to take a little turn for
the better and on more occasions he would buy a new car.
For many years he bought a car every three or four years. In
1991 when the tax came in, my dad had a car that was four years
old and was ready to be traded. He went to look at the new ones
and the dealer hit him with the GST. He walked away from the
dealership. He said to my mom “we are going to keep the car”.
Mr. Speaker, if you are going to interrupt me may I continue
later?
The Deputy Speaker: I want to assure the hon. member for
Elk Island and all his colleagues on either side of the House
that in fact he will be able to continue after question period.
He has approximately eight minutes remaining.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March 8 is International Women's Day and the theme for
this year's celebrations is “Canadian Women: Raising our
Diverse Voices for Positive Change”.
To commemorate the day next Thursday I will be hosting my annual
breakfast to acknowledge the accomplishments of six outstanding
women in my riding.
My special guests will include: Allison Bain, associate
managing director of the Toronto International Film Festival; Pia
Bouman, of the Pia Bouman School for Ballet and Creative
Movement; Marilyn Bruner, president of St. Joseph's Health
Centre; Diane Jermyn, entrepreneur, owner of Blues on Bellair;
Linda Leblanc, volunteer and community activist; and Olha
Zawerucha-Swyntuch, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Social
Services.
This is an occasion to reflect on the progress made to advance
women's equality, to assess the challenges facing women in the
new millennium, to consider future steps to enhance women's
quality of life and of course to celebrate their achievements.
More important, it is a day to celebrate the lives of ordinary
women as makers of history.
* * *
1100
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on June 29, in the second session of
the 36th parliament, the House passed Bill C-18, which provides
for a sentence of life imprisonment for the crime of impaired
driving causing death where aggravating factors are present.
Yet today, over seven months later, the bill has still not been
put into force by the Liberal government.
Bill C-18 is a very important step in the fight against impaired
driving.
I speak not only for the victims of this senseless crime but for
all Canadians in demanding that the Minister of Justice get this
bill into law to help deter impaired driving, to ensure that the
penalty fits the crime where death is a result, and to help save
the lives of thousands of innocent Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
GUY RÉGIMBALD
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 2001
edition of the Canadian National Division of the Philip C.
Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition took place from
February 15 to 17 at the University of New Brunswick's Faculty
of Law.
Some sixty entrants representing the elite of Canadian law
faculties took part in this prestigious event. Today, I would
like to pay tribute to the performance of Guy Régimbald, an
Aylmer resident, who represented the University of Ottawa and
who won the title of best French language litigator.
This is a fine reward for Mr. Régimbald, who put in long hours
of preparation, doing research into this year's theme “The
Seabed Mining Facility”.
Once again, congratulations to Mr. Régimbald. I hope that this
honour will be the first of many in a successful law career.
* * *
FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITIES
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, more
than 400 movers and shakers from various francophone communities
in Canada are now in Ottawa taking part in “Live Dialogue”, an
event organized by the Fédération des communautés francophones
et acadiennes.
This meeting is a follow up to the “Parlons-nous/Let's Talk”
report, which was the result of cross Canada consultations.
Members of francophone, anglophone, native and ethnocultural
communities are meeting this weekend in order to discuss their
vision of intercultural relations and also to strengthen the
links between the various components of the francophonie in
Canada.
I am sure that their discussions will help increase the numbers
of francophiles in Canada.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in parliament the defence
minister suggested that if there were an earthquake in the lower
mainland of B.C. the Canadian military would be able to respond
just as it did during the ice storm in Quebec or during the
Saguenay or Red River floods. What nonsense.
The defence minister should talk to the Prime Minister who knows
from his many overflights of B.C. on his way to China that much
of the province is mountainous. There is only one highway into
the lower mainland. It and the two rail lines are vulnerable to
slides and slumping, which could close them indefinitely during a
major quake.
The lower Fraser valley and the Fraser delta are dissected not
only by the Fraser River and its many arms but by several other
rivers as well, giving rise to a large number of bridges, all of
which would be at risk during a quake.
We needed the special skills of the army engineers who were
based in Chilliwack. Now that they are gone we can only thank
God for our generous American neighbours and give the infamous
Trudeau finger to Liberals everywhere.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, International
Women's Day will be celebrated on March 8. This is a special
time to take a moment to look at what women have achieved and
what they have still before them.
Women are contributors to the history of Quebec and the history
of Canada. They have contributed to the advancement and the
influence of these two countries, which have carved an important
niche for themselves among the world's powers.
Through volunteer or paid work, whether at home, in a family
business, in industry, in the service industry or in one of the
social institutions, women have helped build Quebec and Canadian
society.
Today, my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois join with me to pay
special tribute to all these women.
* * *
[English]
MEMBER FOR FREDERICTON
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to bring to the attention of the House, not that it will be
a surprise to most members, the fact that the reform alliance is
just the same old, same old.
I read a letter to the editor of the newspaper in my riding
whose headline reads “Employment Insurance: Today's version of
buying votes with liquor”.
It was written by none other than Jordi Morgan, the reform
alliance candidate from Dartmouth in the last federal election.
1105
It comes as no surprise that these boorish comments continue to
be made by members of the reform alliance. After all, before the
federal election even began, John Mykytyshyn, a key Alliance
strategist, summed up their feelings about our part of Canada
saying that “Atlantic Canadians are simply lazy”.
The reform alliance was rejected by Atlantic Canada during the
last election because it indicated to us that it cares nothing
for our region, our people or our communities.
Shame on the Alliance for not giving Atlantic Canadians—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot.
* * *
TREVOR AND LINDA DAVIES
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Trevor and Mrs. Linda Davies
of Camrose, Alberta for their volunteer efforts in Honduras.
On behalf of the Canadian Executive Service Organization, Trevor
and Linda went on assignment to Honduras to assist an
organization that provides financial services to Afro-Honduran
communities and other ethnic groups that have difficulty
accessing credit from conventional sources.
Trevor wrote a comprehensive report that covered the past and
present micro credit situation, management and personnel and
projected lending. He made a series of recommendations for
change.
Linda provided recommendations for immediate and long term
health and sanitation improvements for a village project the
organization sponsored. She left medications and other supplies
donated by Canadians at the village clinic and donated materials
to the village school.
The outstanding and selfless efforts of these two individuals
helped stimulate development in the disadvantaged economy of
Honduras.
In this year of volunteers, I salute the work of these highly
skilled volunteers, Trevor and Linda Davies.
* * *
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
November 1996 I held a roundtable discussion for youth and youth
service providers here on Parliament Hill.
This discussion was designed to help celebrate National Child
Day by bringing together youth with service providers to help
address the issues faced by our youth today.
Five years later this roundtable is still going strong. The
third Monday of every month, youth and youth service providers
meet at the new city hall to share information and to plan their
annual youth forum.
I want to commend all the staff and the volunteers of these
organizations and congratulate them and all others involved on
their excellent dedication as they continue to address youth
issues in our communities.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
8.45 a.m., December 6, 1917, at the height of World War I, the
Belgian relief vessel Imo collided with the French
munitions carrier Mont Blanc in the narrowest part of
Halifax harbour.
Out of a population of less than 50,000 people, over 1,600 died
and 9,000 were injured, including 200 blinded by flying glass.
Today there are only nine pensionable survivors still living.
The federal government promised to support the survivors, but
their benefits have dwindled over the years to the point where
they no longer reflect the cost of living.
I want them and their families to know that I will be lobbying
the Minister of Veterans Affairs to ensure they receive the
benefits to which they are entitled.
I will work not for only this group but for all the merchant
mariners who are owed benefits for their service and contribution
to our country.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S WEEK
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
International Women's Week kicks off this weekend. The theme of
this year's celebration here is “Canadian Women: Raising Our
Diverse Voices for Positive Change”.
We have come a long way since International Women's Day was
first proclaimed by women across the world struggling for
equality, justice and better working conditions. Women achieved
the right to vote here, became recognized as persons and began
the steep climb up the ladder in society, in the workplace and in
the corridors of political power.
Last year in the World March of Women 2000, women across the
world once again united to effect change in the fight against
poverty and violence.
This week and in particular on International Women's Day, March
8, Canadian women and their sisters across the world will
celebrate their immense achievements and demonstrate their will
to continue to struggle for women's rights and equality. I
invite all men, women and children to take part in this important
week of reflection and action.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
over the past five weeks, the federal government has shown it
lacks transparency and treats democracy with disdain.
For example, in the case of the summit of the Americas, for
which the federal government has refused to make public the
documents to be used in the negotiation of a free trade area of
the Americas even though the public wants to know what is being
negotiated, the government is turning a deaf ear.
1110
Another example is that of the young offenders. Despite
Quebec's unanimous opposition to this bill, the federal steam
roller rolls on. Not only is the government refusing to hear
what people are saying, but it has no hesitation in muzzling
their representatives.
After invoking closure during its first seven years in power
more than any other government has ever done before, the Liberal
government wants to systematically paralyze the work of the
opposition with its Government Business Motion No. 2.
Members will agree that it is time for Quebecers to withdraw
from this system, which no longer respects who they are, and
even less what they want. I will be glad when Quebec is
sovereign.
* * *
[English]
AFGHANISTAN
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Taliban, the ruling Islamic regime of Afghanistan, has
decreed that all non-Islamic statues in Afghanistan be destroyed.
This includes two Buddha statues carved from sandstone cliffs
centuries ago, the tallest one being over 50 metres.
We in Canada have great difficulty understanding the state of
mind that would drive the rulers of a nation to such behaviour.
Despite protests from many countries, including Canada, and
despite representations from UNESCO and the United Nations, the
ruling regime intends to continue to remove all these statutes.
The Taliban persists on its course of cultural destruction.
It will forever be a sad day when religious intolerance or
intolerance of any sort causes the wilful destruction of items of
world cultural heritage.
* * *
NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate two special Nova Scotians on their recent
accomplishments: Eric Mackie on his recent assignment with the
Canadian Executive Service Organization in Peru, and Colleen
Jones on her third consecutive win at the Canadian Women's
Curling Championships.
While in Peru, Mr. Mackie helped establish a network security
process for the central bank. Mr. Mackie is one of 4,000
volunteers who work with this non-governmental agency as
volunteer advisers helping developing nations by sharing
technical, professional and managerial expertise.
Colleen Jones recently led the Nova Scotia women's curling team
to her third women's title at the Scott Tournament of Hearts. It
was Ms. Jones' 15th time competing at the Canadian national
final, the first time being in 1980. Ms. Jones and her team are
now looking ahead to the world championship in Lausanne,
Switzerland and we wish them all the best.
Congratulations to these two very deserving Nova Scotians on
their recent accomplishments.
* * *
MEMBER FOR ETOBICOKE—LAKESHORE
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to recognize the achievements of one of our very own
parliamentarians. Last weekend the hon. member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore was honoured with three distinct awards for
her outstanding contributions to her community and her country.
She, along with our colleague the hon. member for Parkdale—High
Park, was the recipient of the Canada-Estonia Gold Order of
Merit, which was awarded to mark the 83rd anniversary of the
independence of Estonia.
The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore was also recognized by
the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers with their community
award. This award honours her work in advancing human rights in
the law and recognizes her role in mentoring and supporting
others.
Finally, she was awarded the special Citizens Thank You Award at
the National Archives of Canada. This award gives national
recognition to Black History Month.
At the end of Black History Month, it is appropriate that we all
take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore for all her tremendous efforts in advancing
the causes of minority groups in our society. As a former chair
of the national women's caucus, she has also been instrumental in
bringing to the fore issues that affect women all across Canada.
* * *
HEATING FUEL REBATE
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on
behalf of my constituents who continue to ask me to enlighten the
government about the wrongheaded gas rebate scheme. In the past
month I have received hundreds of letters, e-mails, faxes and
phone calls about this cruel billion dollar joke.
I could go on about this myself, but instead I will use my own
constituents' words.
Leandra, who lives in Kamloops, is upset that prisoners got
rebate cheques a month ago while she, who actually pays a gas
bill, still has not received a cheque.
Ellen, who lives in my riding, writes that she is upset with the
incompetence of the Liberals and really wants to know how this
government came up with such a scheme.
There is Stephanie from Kamloops. She is a hard-working single
mother who pays a gas bill of $125 a month. She resents being
penalized for having a job and contributing to society while the
government buys her vote with her own tax dollars.
My constituents want more than vague platitudes from the
government. They know when they are being bought and they want
this gas rebate scheme fixed.
* * *
LANDMINE AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
week is Canadian Landmine Awareness Week. In conjunction with
their many partners, Mines Action Canada is promoting awareness
of the global landmine crisis.
Today marks the second anniversary of the coming into force of
the international mine ban treaty, the Ottawa treaty. This
treaty prohibits the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of
anti-personnel mines and represents a great step forward in
reducing the human tragedy and suffering resulting from their
use.
1115
It is on their behalf that I ask all members to support the
efforts of Mines Action Canada and of those organizations around
the world in encouraging countries, like the United States and
China, to accede to the Ottawa treaty so that one day we can
achieve the goal of creating a world free of landmines.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister claimed
that he had followed all of the conflict of interest rules and
turned everything over to his trustee.
However, on January 27, 1996, it was not the trustee who
contacted the ethics counsellor, as it should have been, it was
the Prime Minister himself.
Under the terms of the blind trust agreement, the Prime Minister
should not even have known about the problem with his shares.
Why was the Prime Minister involving himself with his blind
trust, in direct violation of the conflict of interest code?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the premise of the hon. member's question
is not correct. If that is the case, her whole question
flounders.
The ethics counsellor was very clear in what he told the
Globe and Mail yesterday. He said:
I don't want there to be a sense that the Prime Minister, in our
view, was not in full compliance with his obligations.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we can read the conflict of
interest code. It is quite clear to us. Let me quote from it.
The conflict of interest code states:
The public office holder cannot—participate in any
discussion—that may particularly or significantly affect the
assets that are subject to the agreement.
How is it possible that the Prime Minister even knew that the
shares in his golf course had reverted back to him if he had not
participated in a discussion about them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we have to assess the premise of the hon.
member's question for its factualness and its context. Generally
when we check these things we find something missing in terms of
language and in terms of context.
It is very important to repeat what that the ethics counsellor
told the Globe and Mail yesterday. He said:
I don't want there to be a sense that the Prime Minister, in our
view, was not in full compliance with his obligations.
That is a very important statement.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is that
we ask harder questions than the lapdog of the Prime Minister.
It is interesting how things have changed over the last 15
years. Fifteen years ago members of this cabinet were jumping
and leaping over tables to enforce the conflict of interest
rules. Now they think it is okay to ignore them.
The Prime Minister obviously involved himself in discussions
about his blind trust, which is a clear violation of the code.
The Liberals over there think that is just fine.
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret but time has elapsed.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last fall during the election the leader of the Alliance
and the leader of the Conservatives wrote the ethics counsellor
asking him to investigate an alleged breach of the rules on this
matter. It was only after the ethics counsellor looked into the
matter and found there were no breaches of rules that the leaders
of the two parties began attacking him.
Rather than him being a lapdog of the Prime Minister, which he
is not, they are unhappy because the ethics counsellor refuses to
be a lapdog of the leaders of the Alliance and the Conservative
parties.
* * *
CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
National Revenue.
The minister is allowing his customs officers and immigration
officers to not only open the mail but to also photocopy and
enter information into a secret database, much like the secret
database we had in last year's human resources scandal.
Given that, for example, mail between a lawyer and a client is
privileged, what assurances do Canadians have that the civil
rights of law-abiding individuals are not being infringed by this
questionable practice? Also, are lawyers being advised when
their clients' mail is photocopied and retained?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand
that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, on the customs side,
has a dual mandate. Part of this mandate is to make sure that we
keep the communities we serve safe.
As well, part of this mandate is to make sure that all goods
coming into Canada respect Canadian law.
1120
Customs, as we all know, does perform risk assessments. It also
performs random checks. When we are referring here to mail and
goods crossing the border, we are also talking about
international mail and goods. However, we are talking about mail
more than 30 grams. Personal letters are not touched at all.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when we want a wiretap we have to go
to a judge to get it. We have mail coming to lawyers in this
country that is being opened by Canada customs.
What Canadians want to know is, if Canada customs retains that
mail and makes copies of it, are the lawyers, to whom the letters
are being written, informed that their mail has been opened and
copied before it is forwarded to them? We want to know if our
civil rights are being violated.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here we are talking
about mail and parcels weighing 30 grams or more. Each and every
time that we proceed on a random check basis there is a question
of risk assessment. After we open something, a box for example,
we put a stamp on it making sure that the recipient is aware that
that box has been opened by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
When we talk about personal letters, we cannot open a personal
letter weighing under 30 grams without the consent of the sender
or the recipient. I must tell the House that our attitude with
regard to random checks has been very profitable to the
Canadian—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
51 U.S. senators asked the president of the United States
to maintain export quotas on Canadian lumber and have even
threatened to use retaliatory measures against Canada.
The minister keeps saying that Canada's lumber file is iron
clad. Moreover, he constantly refers to the international
rulings that all support Canada's position.
Therefore, how does the minister explain his inability to
effectively defend Canada's point of view?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is incredible for
me to hear that the minister has not expressed the point of view
of Canada adequately. The minister has been eloquent and
consistent in making clear that Canada's position on this is that
we want free trade.
The problem lies south of the border. It does not lie on this
side of the border. The Unites States has never won a
countervail duty action against Canada, and our opinion is that
it never will.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister claims to be discouraged and, indeed, his attitude is
rather discouraging.
Why does the minister attach so much importance to the comments
by these 51 senators when he could have shown transparency and
got the support here in this House of 300 parliamentarians?
Does the minister realize that by going it alone, as he has been
doing since the beginning on this issue, all Quebecers and
Canadians may well lose out on this issue?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the
member's question is just incredibly wrong. The Minister for
International Trade has consulted widely with all provinces, all
trade ministers, including the trade minister of Quebec, and all
the sectoral groups involved in the lumber industry.
The fact of the matter is that the Canadian position is very
clear. There is a clear consensus in this country, from coast to
coast to coast, not to have a quota based system. I would remind
the hon. member that includes her own province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, up to
now, the Minister for International Trade has not taken a firm
stand on the immediate return of free trade in the lumber
sector, preferring to speak of a long term transition to free
trade.
More recently, in his meeting with the American secretary of
trade, he expressed his discouragement at the attitude of the
U.S.
Will the minister acknowledge that his attitude and his remarks
are not putting Canada in a strong position, which is crucial at
the start of negotiations with the Americans over lumber?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary.
The minister simply expressed the frustration that ought to be
shared by all members on both sides of the House, which is
certainly shared by the people in the lumber business from coast
to coast to coast, that we are interested in a free trade
arrangement in softwood lumber with the United States, which
claims to be a free trading nation.
Despite three attempts at a countervailing duty action, the
United States has never succeeded. That is the kind of
frustration the minister has expressed. We have consistently
been shown to be correct and we will be again, if necessary.
1125
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, beyond
personalities, beyond the frustrations expressed, one very
important thing stands out and that is the future of the lumber
industry and of the thousands of jobs it provides.
Instead of bragging in this matter, as all the members of the
government are doing, why does the minister not join the Prime
Minister right now and approach the American president in order
to pave the way to real negotiations, with the attitude of the
Americans, which will not be more intransigent in the coming
weeks, so as to reach an agreement that will benefit the
industry as a whole and keep the thousands of jobs? Why does he
not act immediately, because this is serious?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure
where my hon. colleague has been, but this issue was raised by
the Prime Minister of Canada personally with President George
Bush when he met with him.
On Monday of this week, this was one of the very first issues
raised by our Minister for International Trade with U.S. trade
representative Mr. Zoellick.
One minute the member is describing the minister as expressing
frustration, then he says that he is making light of the issue.
Quite frankly, it is the member who is playing politics with this
and it is not constructive.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
As the minister knows, the farmers are furious and very
disappointed with the announcement made yesterday on the farm aid
program. He also knows the government has a budgetary surplus.
It is a matter now of priorities for the government.
Can he explain to us why the federal government is ignoring the
biggest farm crisis in the history of Canada, at least since the
1930s? The government has the money. Why is there not more
money for farmers when they are going bankrupt and being forced
to leave the land?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's contribution is half a
billion dollars, and along with the provincial contribution, that
is $830 million. I do not think that is ignoring any issue at
all. That is a considerable amount of support to Canadian
farmers.
I would ask the hon. member why the province he is from does not
want to participate.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Saskatchewan grain and oilseed farmers have seen a drop
in their income by $500 million over the last five year average.
Yet under this new program they only get $100 million from the
federal government, $2.38 an acre.
Why does the minister not face the reality and inject more money
into the western economy for the farmers of this country?
Saskatchewan has 60% of the arable acres and a small tax base.
Why is there not more federal money, which is where the money
should be coming from?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when an hon. member stands up and says
that it is only $100 million, I do not think he has a very good
appreciation of what $100 million is. It is a substantial sum of
money. I just find it absolutely disappointing that the NDP
government in Saskatchewan does not want to support the farmers
like the federal government does.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Chief
Lawrence Paul and others in Nova Scotia have stated that federal
negotiators are considering dividing bays in Atlantic Canada
between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen. This is clearly
a wrongheaded policy and goes against the spirit of sharing the
fishery under one set of rules.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans state clearly that no
such plan is being considered?
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Marshall issue
is one that is well known to the House. As the hon. member well
knows, we have been consulting with the industry through our
associate federal representative. We will continue to consult
with the industry.
I can tell the hon. member that the issue, as it relates to the
Marshall judgment, is one of hunting, fishing and gathering, and
we have been following suit. We already have a number of
agreements in place, 88% with the first nations.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister will remember quite well last year's shrimp fiasco.
He now has a request from Quebec for an allocation of 6,000
tonnes of northern shrimp.
In light of the fact that the stocks could be in danger, in
light of the fact that many of the adjacent fleets do not have
enough quota to maintain a viable operation and in light of the
fact that Newfoundland and Labrador entrants are denied access to
the resource, will the minister categorically deny the request?
Is it not time that the minister either fished or cut bait?
1130
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the northern shrimp
issue has been debated and has taken on a lot of profile. It is
basically off the riding of Labrador which I represent.
The minister has had a number of requests relating to northern
shrimp, not only for this year but for previous years. We are
looking at the shrimp industry. We are reviewing with industry.
At a future date we will make a decision on shrimp conducive to
the way we have done policy in the past.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a known Nazi war criminal, Helmut Oberlander, who
lied to enter Canada in 1954, has been allowed to remain here for
over a year due to the immigration minister's inaction.
How is the minister, who so freely smears the reputation of
others with her name calling, able to defend her refusal to
deport this known Nazi war criminal?
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, it is not the policy to discuss details of
individual cases in public.
If a person misrepresents himself or herself in citizenship or
immigration proceedings, he or she may be subject to revocation
proceedings under the Citizenship Act. There is a process for
revocation and this process must follow its course.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the process has already occurred and it is sitting
on the cabinet table waiting for a decision. It has gone through
the federal court and the federal court has says that he is
cleared for deportation.
Now that it is clearly in the minister's lap, why is she
refusing to deport this known Nazi war criminal?
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to
repeat for the hon. member that we cannot discuss individual
cases. It is very simple. The process for revocation is quite
clear and it is following its course.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, we learned that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
randomly opens citizens' mail, although the law states that
officials may open mail only if they have serious grounds to
believe that Canadian laws have been broken.
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Will the
minister make public the criteria the agency uses when deciding
whether or not to open private mail?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the customs
component of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is
responsible for the safety of all our communities. We must
ensure that all goods entering Canada comply with Canadian laws.
We also know that customs officials proceed by evaluating risk.
They also do a random check. They are authorized to do what
they do by section 99 of the Customs Act, which is very clear.
Their results now show that they deserve praise.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems
that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is passing on
personal information gathered when mail is opened to other
federal government departments, and that this information has
been put in a file.
Will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us whether
this file contains personal information and whether she has
sought the advice of the Privacy Commissioner in order to avoid
a repetition of the HRDC megafile fiasco?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, let us get this straight.
We are talking about letters and parcels weighing more than 30
grams, which customs officials are permitted to open. Personal
mail weighing less than 30 grams may not be opened without the
consent of the person who sent it or the person to whom it is
addressed.
In any event, the results speak for themselves: 293 drug
seizures in 2000, for a total value of $23.3 million. At Canada
Customs, we are doing our job.
* * *
[English]
REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister of Industry threw an
additional $140 million into genetic research. Canadians would
expect the expenditure of millions of dollars to accompany clear
guidelines of accountability measures. We remember HRDC.
Canada currently lacks a regulatory framework in reproductive
genetic technologies. Why would the government sink millions of
dollars into Genome research in the absence of such a regulatory
framework?
1135
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the mapping of the human genetic code is one of the
great achievements of humanity. Canadians have been responsible
for advances that will lead to amelioration or assistance in
dealing with diseases which affect our communities.
If the member is suggesting and believes on behalf of the
Alliance Party that the rest of the western world and scientific
community should not be involved in this exciting new endeavour
but that Canada should put its head in the sand and say no to our
scientific community, we do not share that kind of vision of
Canada's future.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that was really interesting. We have no problem with
the funding going there, but this is purely and clearly an
example of cart before the horse mentality.
Genomics is a highly complex activity and one that raises
pressing ethical issues about animal and human cloning, about
reproductive technology, and about using human embryos for
research.
Canadians want assurances that genetic research and its
applications do not get out of hand. What accountability
measures are in place to ensure that federal funding of genetic
research respects the concerns of Canadians?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, having this kind of lecture coming from the Jurassic
movement within parliament is indeed interesting, but I want to
assure the member that a part of every contribution being made to
the five regional science centres across Canada is for the social
sciences and the humanities. Part of the money is being provided
for ethical studies as well.
We will ensure that the sensitivities of Canada and of Canadians
are being taken into account as we proceed to participate in this
exciting worldwide venture to understand better the makeup of the
human genetic code.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, the Canadian
government attaches great importance, and deservedly so, to its
participation in international negotiations, including the WTO
and now the various free trade agreements.
Quebec has the same attitude toward international negotiations
that affect its jurisdictions, including education, health and
culture, but Canada refuses to let Quebec sit at international
tables.
How can something, which is fundamental for the Canadian
government in federal jurisdictions, not be just as fundamental
for the Quebec government in exclusively provincial
jurisdictions?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in this very decentralized federation, Canada must
speak as one if there is to be an effective foreign policy.
This is why the Canadian government is empowered, under the
Constitution, to sign treaties in all areas of jurisdiction.
This being said, if a province does not like the content of a
treaty, it does not have to implement it in its jurisdictions.
But to avoid that, we must consult extensively, and this is what
the Minister for International Trade is doing in relation to the
Quebec City summit.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the champion
of plan B has a hard time understanding that things can function
in ways other than the current way.
Whenever Quebec asks to sit at international negotiating tables,
the federal government says that things do not work that way,
that they cannot work that way because of what the minister just
said.
Why is it that things work very well for the German Länder and
the Belgian communities? If it is good and if it works for the
Belgian communities and the German Länder—and this has not always
been the case in these countries—why could it not work for
Quebec?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think all Canadians truly appreciate the support given by the
Bloc Quebecois to our great and wonderful constitution.
It is interesting to see that Bloc Quebecois members are now
affirming every day their support for the Canadian constitution.
We thank them for that.
* * *
[English]
REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Society of Canada report in January warned
about an inherent conflict of interest caused by giving
regulatory agencies a mandate to both promote and regulate
genetic research.
Regulations have been promised ever since the royal commission
on reproductive technologies was tabled in 1993. Why is the
minister committing large dollars to establish Genome centres
before adequate safeguards or guidelines are in place?
1140
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to be very certain of the position of the
Alliance Party. As he knows there is currently in place, as of
May 2000, $160 million to allow Canada to participate in the
research that is occurring all around the world. The $140
million brings the sum to $300 million.
Is it the position of the Alliance Party that all of this
funding and all of these research centres, including the movement
toward a proper regulatory environment, be shut down and that
Canada and Canada alone in the western world turn its back on
this exciting new field of endeavour in science?
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the minister does not understand
the question.
It now appears that each big budget Genome centre is to do its
own research into ethics, environment, legal and social concerns.
It sounds a lot like appointing an ethics counsellor to oversee
the Prime Minister and his government without providing any
rules.
Why has the government reneged on its longstanding promise to
provide a regulatory framework for genetic research?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, coming from a party whose belief and creation is akin to
the making of the movie Jurassic Park, this line of
questioning is indeed frightening.
Canada is providing a proper regulatory framework. Canada is
mindful of community standards and the concerns of Canadians. The
Canadian scientific community is a responsible community. We
should be proud of that community and the fact that we have the
ability to participate in this important worldwide scientific
endeavour.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will
soon be a week since the Minister for International Trade met
with his U.S. counterpart about the illegal and unfair trade
action against P.E.I. potatoes.
Could the minister or his parliamentary secretary inform us
what, if any, progress is being made to open the border? Or, is
it time to show the U.S. that enough is enough and start turning
back some truckloads of its agricultural exports at the border on
an equivalency basis as it has done to us?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague, who has been very persistent on this important file,
for his question.
I want to inform the House that the Prime Minister raised this
important file in his meeting with the president. It was one of
the first issues raised by the Minister for International Trade
last Monday with U.S. trade representative Zoellick.
Mr. Zoellick undertook to speak with the secretary of
agriculture Veneman this week and ask her to deal with this issue
expeditiously. Mr. Zoellick also agreed that any action has to
be based on better science. We are pursuing this as a priority
item.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the finance minister. According to the auditor
general, the Liberal government is hoarding $35 billion in the
employment insurance fund. Hardworking Canadians pay into EI
expecting it to be there when they need it, but because the
Liberal government has taken $35 billion from the fund most
unemployed Canadians who paid into EI while they were working now
cannot get a dime of it back.
In the real world this would be called an insurance scam. What
does the finance minister call it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister calls it a very important program
to sustain Canadians through downturns in the economy. It has in
fact done that.
We have substantially improved its benefits. Parental benefits,
as an example, are only the most recent indication of what the
government has done. The bill before the House is another. I
would also say that the accounting treatment of the employment
insurance fund is exactly that recommended by the auditor general
in 1986.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government is not fooling anyone. Some $35 billion were
grabbed from the EI fund to make the finance minister's surplus
look good. One million unemployed Canadians who paid into EI
cannot get benefits. Many who do qualify still cannot make ends
meet because the benefits are so low. Bill C-2 will not address
this issue.
The finance minister is like the princess with the pea. No
matter how thick his cushion is he wants more, more, more. The
auditor general says this sort of financial mismanagement causes
waste and inefficiency. How much more does the finance minister
plan to take from the EI fund. If $35 billion is not enough, how
much is?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to simply take a look at the
treatment of the fund. We treat it the way the auditor general
recommended in 1986. There has never been a separate fund of
cash since its beginning. The hon. member ought to know that.
1145
If the hon. member wants to know what has happened as a result
of our treatment of the fund, she should look at the fact there
have been two million jobs created since we took office. The
unemployment rate has dropped from 11.5% to 6.8%. That is what
is happening with the Canadian economy.
If the hon. member is sincere in her wishes, I hope she will
support the government and the changes to the Employment
Insurance Act.
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Akimbo deal
fell through. The Prime Minister asked his trustee to negotiate
a settlement. That settlement involved a further sale of the
shares to Louis Michaud.
Is the government really asking Canadians to believe that a loan
which increased the value of the golf course had no impact on the
negotiations being pursued on the Prime Minister's behalf to sell
shares in that very golf course?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor testified before the standing
committee of industry of the House of Commons as follows:
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance recently rejected requests from Atlantic
Canada to revisit the equalization process. One of the
contributing partners to the equalization process is Alberta.
Alberta in the thirties began its economic transformation
because it was allowed to hold on to a lot of its royalties while
receiving equalization.
Will the minister follow that already established precedent and
let Newfoundland and Nova Scotia hold on to more of their
royalties while receiving equalization until they also can be
contributing partners in this great confederation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is not correct. What I said when I met
with the Atlantic finance ministers is that equalization is under
review. Our officials are meeting and it is continuously under
review. We are very open, as we always have been, to looking at
equalization. I would point out to him that equalization has
reached an all time high under this government.
The hon. member is also wrong in his assessment of what happened
historically. When equalization was brought in and then amended
in 1962, 1963 and 1964, it was at that point that Alberta no
longer—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island
North.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister had a weak response to Canadians'
concerns about emissions from the proposed Washington State Sumas
2 power plant near Abbotsford, B.C.
To deflect attention the minister criticized the province of
British Columbia for proposed emissions from the newly completed,
much smaller and environmentally sound co-generation plant in
Campbell River.
Why did the minister criticize the province when as part of a
thorough environmental review his officials were part of the
project approval for the Campbell River project?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I regret I cannot give a detailed answer to the hon.
member today. I will take it as notice and give it to my
colleague when he returns on Monday.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is becoming a habit with the
government on Friday. The $220 million Campbell River plant was
approved in 1998, construction is now complete, and it is
scheduled to go operational this month. Now the minister is
criticizing it.
The plant is important for power sufficiency, for business
confidence and for reducing pulp mill emissions. The minister is
unfairly smearing it as a dirty plant when his officials clearly
see the overall benefits and emission reductions. Why?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assure the member that the Minister of the Environment
and his officials are certainly working hard on all these
environmental questions. They certainly sing from the same page,
unlike the member from the Alliance Party.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since 1983, Revenue Canada's address in Laval has been 3131
Saint-Martin Blvd. It seems that this address is soon going to
change.
Further to a call for tenders concerning the lease for these
offices, will the Minister for Public Works and Government
Services confirm that the lowest bidder, the present landlord of
the building, the Fiducie des chauffeurs d'autobus et de
retraités of the Société de Transport de Laval, was not
selected?
1150
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government wants to collocate all Quebec based Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency activities in Montreal to one location to better
serve Canadians. In the end we will be able to deliver better
services more efficiently and at less cost.
Bids are currently being evaluated and a decision will be
announced in due course.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the apparently successful bid from Garadex Inc. and First
National Funding Corp. is $7 million higher, and does not include
the major investment of $1 million for computer wiring done by
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in the present building
and the major costs associated with a move to a virtual building
in the middle of an industrial park.
What were the reasons for the minister's decision? Is this
another brilliant example of this government's management skill?
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I indicated to the member, the bids are currently being evaluated
and a decision will be coming shortly.
The federal government is committed to ensuring the best value
for Canadian taxpayer dollars through a contractual process based
on open and fair competition.
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, three years ago the auditor general reported that
the multicultural minister's spending on grants and contributions
had unclear objectives, lacked due diligence in assessments and
approval, and lacked sufficient information on budgets.
Three weeks ago he said that the minister still did not meet the
minimum standard of due diligence. Why has this boondoggle been
increased by 13% in the estimates this week when there is already
absolutely no accountability?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that the
programs offered and administered by the multiculturalism
department are programs that Canadians want to reflect our
multiculturalism and diversity.
With respect to the member's direct question, the minister has
implemented the auditor general's report. Actually the
auditor general has found that she has been exceeding the
expectations of her department.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a boondoggle. Before 1999 the Liberals
published a list of recipients and the amounts, but for the last
three years they have been hiding these grants and contributions.
Canadians know that these grants and contributions are being
used as a Liberal slush fund. Why will this weak, arrogant and
unscrupulous government not at least come clean by publishing
these numbers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is now on the record that the Alliance Party thinks
that multiculturalism and support for it by the government is a
boondoggle. That is a shameful attack on one of the foundations
of Canadian society. It is enshrined in our constitution.
This is on the record and members of the Alliance Party have
been unmasked and exposed. They ought to be ashamed of
themselves. They ought to get up and apologize.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recently Canadians had the pleasure to learn that
the government will inject an additional $624 million into the
defence budget. We on this side of the House know just how much
this infusion of new money is welcome.
Could the Minister of National Defence or his parliamentary
secretary explain to the House and to Canadians just how this
money will be used and will further improve the lives of men and
women in our military?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
the question. The government puts the needs of Canadian forces
members first. That is why the money is being spent in the
following manner.
Forty per cent of this money or $250 million is earmarked for
increases in pay and benefits for Canadian forces members.
Another $214 million will toward clothing, vehicles and other
tools our men and women need to do their jobs.
This money, plus the $2.5 billion received by DND in the last
two budgets, proves the government's commitment to the needs of
the Canadian forces.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this year's budget estimates for
agriculture are $470 million less than last year's. The minister
said that it was because of some unusual accounting in the
supplementary estimates.
However the answer hides the basic facts. Has the minister
overstated what the government delivered last year to farmers by
$470 million, or has he made $470 million less available this
year?
1155
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the announcement yesterday we will
be spending $1.6 billion this year to support Canadian farmers.
Last year we spent $1.1 billion.
As I have outlined to hon. members on the other side several
times this week, if they want a briefing to explain how the
booking of that is done in the estimates, I would be pleased to
arrange it. I would ask them to approach the treasury board and
its staff. They would be more than pleased to explain it to
them.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, from the outset the government's farm
initiatives and programs have failed to solve the farm crisis in
Canada.
The 1998 AIDA applications are finally being completed. With
the 1999 applications now being processed, farmers are being told
that not only will they not receive assistance for 1999, they
will also have to pay back portions of their 1998 payment. This
money will then return to the AIDA fund and be reused as farm
aid.
Why does the government have more creative accounting practices
than it has solutions for farm families in Canada?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member of a party
that for a number of months in the House wanted to make sure the
proper amounts went to those who triggered criteria for
government assistance, whether they be farmers or other groups.
That is what we do to make sure the criteria are met accurately
and the proper amounts go there.
When he talks about farm aid, about what the government is doing
to help farmers and about spending money to help farmers and
other people, he might want to speak to his colleague from St.
Albert who asked “Will the spending madness ever end?”
* * *
[Translation]
BEAUPORT BAY
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Quebec Port Authority has released its final land use plan.
Amazingly, it is still determined to extend its piers toward
Beauport, ignoring the opposition of various regional
stakeholders, and of the three Liberal MPs from Quebec,
regarding the future of the Beauport Bay.
Since the Quebec Port Authority is refusing to listen and
intends to plow ahead regardless of what the public thinks, will
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services take action
and turn over the property bordering on Beauport Bay to a
non-profit organization that will develop its recreational and
tourism potential?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite surprised the hon. member would ask that kind
of question. He was the transport critic for the Bloc when we
passed the Canada Marine Act in 1998. He is fully aware of the
provisions in that piece of legislation that allow directors to
be appointed on the nomination of port users and to reflect the
views, the attitudes and the aspirations of the surrounding
community.
I am surprised that he makes this kind of accusation, knowing
the very competent job now done by the Quebec port authority that
represents the local people in the city of Quebec.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. Earlier this morning I
had the pleasure of speaking to a grade 10 class at John McCrae
High School in Barrhaven. One of the messages I sought to convey
to the students was the importance of staying in school.
Since today marks the beginning of National Engineering Week,
could the minister tell the House what we are doing to encourage
students and young people to pursue careers in science and
engineering?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The Government of
Canada has been making investments in the last little while.
Investment intentions have been known.
I want to join with all members of the House in commending the
Minister of Finance for his excellent stewardship of the country,
and hence our ability to make additional investments in
universities, in science and technology, and in R and D, and to
take the first steps to double R and D spending in Canada.
Those kinds of investments will lead to future bright young
women and men taking up the sciences and a role in engineering
across the country.
* * *
[Translation]
AQUACULTURE
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec has
created the Société de recherche et développement en
aquaculture, investing $300,000 in it specifically for research
into freshwater aquaculture.
This research should lead to new avenues for the groundfishers
hit by the loss of certain species and the negligence of
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Could the minister of fisheries confirm in the House his
intention to respond affirmatively to the request by the Quebec
minister of fisheries that he invest an equivalent sum in this
research fund, that—
The Deputy Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans.
1200
[English]
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say
to the hon. member that the question of aquaculture is an
important issue for Canada and certainly for all Canadians.
I reiterate that I will give a longer response next week. We
will take this under advisement and report next week to the
member.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance stated in the House that he is willing to
consider revisiting the equalization formula.
The Minister of Industry used a new deal on equalization as a
major promise during the past election and that influenced many
Atlantic Canadian votes.
Will the Minister of Finance now revisit the equalization
formula?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the Minister of Industry did during the election
campaign was to state, what has been stated in the House on many
occasions, that in fact equalization is one of the principal
foundations of supporting our growing economy. It is a way in
which individual regions of the country are able to help one
another.
It is also, which is what the Minister of Industry has said,
under constant review. It is under review by our officials now.
We will continue to look at it. We will continue to support the
equalization program as an essential foundation, despite the fact
that the official opposition has consistently attacked it in its
programs. We will not allow that party to prevail.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-291, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (violent crimes).
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce
this private member's bill. It amends certain provisions of the
criminal code relating to life imprisonment.
The bill can be properly characterized as two violent strikes
legislation. Anyone who is convicted for the second time of a
violent offence shall be sentenced to life imprisonment.
For those who wish to rape, maim, conspire, corrupt and commit
all manner of violent acts, this private member's initiative is
bad news. For victims and their families, the bill represents a
return to the principles of fundamental justice. It means those
who repeatedly hurt and prey on the young, the innocent and the
law-abiding will spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Let there be no mistake about the intent of the bill: Two
violent strikes and the criminal is out for life.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1205
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife).
She said: Madam Speaker, this bill is an attempt to make the
killing or capturing of wildlife and wildlife parts an offence
under the Criminal Code of Canada.
I want to make it clear that the bill would not apply to acts
carried out with a licence, permit or exemption order. The bill
is not meant to replace provincial wildlife laws but rather to
complement them.
I see the bill as dealing only with the most serious offences in
the same manner that the criminal code is used for the most
serious driving offences. It has become apparent that provincial
laws are not a sufficient deterrent to deal with the
multimillion dollar illegal trade in animal parts.
The bill would give provincial wildlife authorities and crown
counsel the option to proceed by way of provincial wildlife
legislation or the new section of the criminal code. Anyone who
is convicted of an offence under this section would be guilty of
an indictable offence and subject to a maximum two year sentence
for a first offence and three years of incarceration for a
subsequent offence. If the animal in question is a threatened or
endangered species, the maximum sentence is four years for a
first offence and eight years for subsequent offences.
The legislation would include such activity as an enterprise
crime so it would be subject to the proceeds of crime section of
the code.
It is very important that we make every effort to protect
endangered species and animals from the misuse and abuse of
hunting and fishing as we know it. People are making extremely
large amounts of money by poaching and by illegally killing or
capturing species that are sometimes endangered. We need to do
more to see that it stops.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise to present a petition on behalf of 300 residents of my
riding who are calling on the government to de-link economic from
military sanctions against Iraq.
CANADA POST
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by rural route
mail couriers. They often earn less than minimum wage and have
working conditions reminiscent of another era. They seek the
right to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working
conditions.
The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal section 13(5) of
the Canada Post Corporation Act that prohibits them from doing
so.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present
containing several hundred names of residents of Prince
George—Bulkley Valley.
They urge the Government of Canada to enact legislation
explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care
workers and prohibiting coercion and unjust discrimination
against them because of their refusal to participate in matters
contrary to the dictates of their consciences. They ask the
government to establish penalties for such discrimination and
coercion. I support this petition 100%.
1210
VIOLENCE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a
petition on behalf of over 600 parents from across Canada who are
concerned with the extreme violence and sexual content that is on
television.
The petitioners are asking parliament to urge the media and CRTC
to act the same as parents and representatives of parents to
reduce the sexual and violent content contained in the media.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask that
all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, an
act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I was in the middle of an exciting discourse when we
were interrupted for members' statements and questions and all
that other exciting part of the day. I was in the middle of
telling the story about how taxation policy affects behaviour.
My colleague from Calgary spoke about the fact that rich people
being taxed on the size of their windows put very small windows
in their houses in order to reduce taxation. The tudor type of
architecture with the small windows was the result of a taxation
policy many years ago.
I was in the middle of relating the fact that my father, who
bought a new car every three or four years, thought about buying
a new car in 1991 when the GST came in. He went to the dealer
and found one he liked. He was ready to buy it until he looked
at the bill. It had a huge amount for GST. My dad said that he
had already paid income tax on the money he had earned and that
the government now wanted him to pay what was left on the GST. He
decided not to buy the car. He walked away from the dealership.
He did not close the deal. He said that he would keep his old
car.
The local dealership lost business, the salesman lost his
commission and the owner did not make a profit on the sale of the
car. The result of that, I believe, ripples down through the
whole economy. My dad, being a frugal person who spent his money
wisely over the years, made that decision because of the GST. I
believe hundreds and probably thousands more Canadians postponed
purchasing decisions based on the GST. The GST thereby has had a
huge effect on the economy of the country. Taxation has a huge
effect on the economy.
We are here today discussing the GST. We are making small
changes to it in order to improve it. I believe to this very day
that there is a lot of anger out there about this most hated tax.
There are businesses in Edmonton close to where I live that
advertise sales in the papers that are called GST events. They
do this today, 10 years after the tax was imposed. Just about
every week one of the furniture companies or car dealerships will
have a GST sale. In smaller letters, the ads say that the
company will pick up the GST.
Companies could simply say that they will give buyers a 7%
discount. Some people will show up and pay attention to it.
However, when a great big sign says “We will pay the GST”, even
though it is only 7%, people will go to the sales. It makes them
feel good when they do not have to pay that hated tax.
1215
I come from the province of Alberta where we had no sales tax
until the GST. It was wonderful. If an item was marked $4.99,
we would pay with a five dollar bill and get a penny back. It
was very healthy for our economy. Why is it that Alberta is a
province which is so well off compared to some of the others? I
contend that one of the reasons is that over the years Alberta
has had a much more rational and less offensive tax policy.
It affects me to this day as I spend approximately half of my
time in Ottawa as a member of parliament and the other half in
other parts of the country, most of it back home in Alberta.
Perhaps I should not say this, but whenever I need to buy
something I buy it in Alberta and bring it back here.
I do not usually have time during the day to go to the stores
around here, but even if I did I would postpone it. Not long ago
I needed some videotapes in my office to record one of my
colleagues giving a speech in the House. I bought them in
Alberta because I did not have to pay a provincial sales tax. The
provincial government may look at all the money it gets from this
tax, but we should look at all the money it avoided.
A number of years ago the provincial government of Saskatchewan
imposed a tax on fuel. It then made a rule that every farmer and
every businessman who submitted their receipts at the end of the
year could get a rebate of that tax. In other words, the purpose
of the tax was simply to tax people from out of the province.
I and hundreds of other people responded to that. My family
still lives in Saskatchewan. I go to visit them. What did I do?
I used to drive from my home to Swift Current where my family
lives. I would visit with them, fill up and drive home again.
After this tax was brought in I drove to the last gas station at
the Alberta border. I filled up, drove to Saskatchewan to visit
my family, drove back to that town in Alberta and filled up there
in order to avoid this tax.
Introducing that tax did nothing for Saskatchewan. The numbers
show that its revenue went down as a result. Meanwhile it had a
huge administrative boondoggle, taking money and giving it back.
How am I relating this to the GST? Let me just finish the
Saskatchewan example.
Its revenue went down and its local businesses lost business. A
local business used to sell me a tank of fuel every time I went
down there. After the tax was brought in, and in fact I do not
know if it still has this tax, I got into the habit of filling up
in the last town in Alberta, whether it was Wainwright or
Provost; driving to Saskatchewan; and making sure to get back
there before I was out of fuel.
I did not give them the business any more so they lost the
profit. They could have made some profit from me, but they lost
it because of their government's tax policy.
The GST does the same. I do not know whether Canadians are
aware that the GST brings in approximately $50 billion a year of
gross revenue. Members will be amazed when I tell them that
approximately $25 billion of it is sent back in refunds and
rebates. That is absurd. Why have a system where the money just
spins in circles in a huge centrifuge? The only thing we are
supporting by it is a huge army of government bureaucrats whose
only job is to process the payments of people who have put money
into a pot when in fact they will get it back.
Not long ago a lady in my riding phoned me and said that her
small business was in trouble. It had a couple of gravel trucks
to haul snow in the winter and to help with road construction
projects in the summer. Its old trucks were just about worn out.
If that small business were to buy a new truck, the value of the
truck could be depreciated over time, but when it is purchased
the GST must be paid in full upfront, even though it was entitled
to some of it back in terms of the way this money goes swishing
around. It is a terribly silly, useless, ill conceived and badly
administered tax. It was then and it is now.
1220
I am sorry that I have to end my remarks. Maybe I should ask
for unanimous consent since no one else seems eager to speak.
May I have another five minutes? I would love that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent for the hon. member to have five more minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, with
all due respect for my colleague from the Alliance, I must say
that he had enough time to express his point of view. If he
wanted more time he should not have shared his time with his
colleague.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-13,
concerning changes to the excise tax and to the payment of
GST-HST refunds.
We would have appreciated it if the Minister of Finance had used
this reform of the excise tax to abolish, at least on a
temporary basis, the gas tax, in order to give a break to
independent truckers, in particular, and everyone working in
industries that rely heavily on gas.
Way before the last election, we urged the Minister of Finance
and the Liberal government to take this measure to help those
who are being badly hurt by the ups and downs, but mostly the
increase in the price of gas, natural gas and heating oil. Since
the minister was tinkering with the excise tax, we would have
expected him to suspend on a temporary basis the excise tax on
gas.
We are disappointed by this omission given how serious the
situation is for some taxpayers, particularly, as I mentioned,
the independent truckers who have been having a lot of trouble
these last two years to make ends meet.
Second, we would have liked to see—and it is sad to say that we
would have liked to find certain things in Bill C-13 that are not
there—the Minister of Finance, in this harmonization exercise
between the tax provisions on GST and harmonized sales taxes or
the provincial sales taxes like the Quebec sales tax, remember
that the GST and the Quebec sales tax were harmonized several
years ago.
The Quebec government footed the bill for the harmonization of
the GST and the QST.
It was never compensated for the subsequent tax revenue losses.
It was a disappointment to us, three and a half years ago, when
the Minister of Finance signed agreements with three of the
maritime provinces for harmonization of the provincial sales
taxes and the GST and, moreover, gave these provinces $900
million in compensation.
Quebec has been demanding the same compensation since the
federal government, that is to say the Minister of Finance,
announced this $900 million compensation package for the three
maritime provinces for the harmonization of their sales taxes
and the GST.
We are entitled to such compensation. According to calculations
made by us and by the Government of Quebec, the amount of the
compensation could be in excess of $2 billion, if we use
the same figures the Minister of Finance used when three of the
maritime provinces accepted to harmonize their provincial sales
tax with the GST.
We find nothing about this in the bill, even if it deals
with harmonization of the GST and of harmonized or provincial
sales taxes. This is great disappointment.
1225
Since our arrival here in 1993, we have been asking the federal
government for real tax reform. This is not to say that the
harmonization provisions contained in the bill are not valid;
quite the contrary. The bill contains very good provisions, and
I will come back to them later. The bill deals with issues
which should have been dealt with years ago, namely
the harmonization of federal and provincial sales taxes.
However, we have asked the minister for real tax reform. We did
not ask for this on a partisan basis.
Since 1996 we have bein conducting studies and
making serious proposals to the finance minister regarding an
indepth reform of personal and corporate taxes.
Our proposals were so devoid of partisan thinking that when we,
in the Bloc Quebecois, tabled our analysis reports, the
government was delighted and considered them as serious
proposals for tax reform. Unfortunately, since 1996, apart from
having congratulated us for our excellent work, the Minister of
Finance has not undertaken any real tax reform.
Year after year, in all his reports and more recently again,
the Auditor General of Canada,
Mr. Desautels—whom I congratulate, by the way, on his excellent
work over the past 10 years—spoke of the need for a real tax
reform. In his 1992, 1996 and 1998 reports, he also mentioned
the disastrous effects of certain federal tax provisions and of
the tax agreements between Canada and other countries throughout
the world, the result of which could be to erode the federal tax
base.
This means certain provisions could decrease the tax
revenues the federal government could collect if the Income Tax
Act were properly enforced and if fiscal co-operation accords, or
tax treaties, were signed with countries whose tax rates were
similar to Canada.
This is very important. It is so important that in his final
report, which was a sort of legacy, Mr. Desautels, the auditor
general, said, and I quote:
One of the biggest threats to the tax base lies in the
international activities of Canadian taxpayers, particularly the
use of tax havens.
This is not unique to Canada; many nations are working
individually and together to find solutions.
In report after report since 1992, the auditor general has
spoken about the danger to the tax base of Canadian taxpayers'
international activities, which are based on tax agreements
signed with countries not considered to have a normal tax
system.
They are seen as tax havens, countries whose rates of taxation
are so minimal and their tax treatments so preferential compared
to what we have here and in the United States, that these
provisions, which are permitted under the tax agreements between
Canada and these countries, lead to a substantial amount of tax
avoidance.
It means that, because of investments made elsewhere throughout
the world in these tax havens, the federal government has been
losing tax revenues at an alarming rate, particularly over the
past 10 years.
I will quote some figures to give members an idea of the size of
this phenomenon. In 1999, the last year for which this kind of
data is available, money invested by Canadians abroad totalled
$257 billion.
1230
Nearly $28 billion of the $257 billion were invested in three
countries considered as ideal tax havens, that is countries
where the corporate tax rate, for example, is nil in some cases.
It is 0% in some countries, and 2% to 3% in others. Three as
the countries at the top of the list as ideal tax havens have
received nearly $28 billion in Canadian investments abroad.
This means that 10% or so of direct Canadian investments abroad
have gone to three countries considered as tax havens, with tax
rates that are ridiculously low or non-existent.
They are Barbados, the Bahamas and Bermuda.
Canadian investments in these three tax havens are larger than
all the Canadian investments in the whole of Asia. Barbados, in
particular, accounts for $17 billion in direct investments, and
these investments are larger than those made by Canadians in
Japan, France and Mexico taken together.
Is it normal that a country like Barbados, with a very small
population, can account for that much direct investment by
Canadian taxpayers? As I mentioned, Canadian citizens have
invested $17 billion in this small country.
With regard to investments in tax havens, they have been growing
considerably over the last 10 years.
I will give some revealing figures. I think the finance minister
should have dealt with tax reform long ago, and he had a good
opportunity to do so, and should have reviewed the tax
conventions Canada has signed, particularly with countries
considered as tax havens.
There are 28,000 companies, subsidiaries of Canadian, British
and other corporations, operating in the Cayman Islands, the
population of which is only 30,000. Members will admit that
there is something odd about the way the Cayman Islands attracts
businesses in view of its population.
In the Turks and Caicos Islands, a British colony north of
Haiti, there are 7,000 people living in the whole of the Turks
archipelago—not to be confused with the country of Turkey—but
there are 16,000 companies, Canadian for the most part.
There is something odd about the way these countries attract
billions of dollars in Canadian investments. The federal
government's inaction on this issue has been condemned not only
by the Bloc Quebecois and sovereignists, but also by
the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, which published a report a few months ago.
The report says that OECD countries that have relations with
countries that are considered as the worst tax havens, the worst
contributors to tax evasion—the money that does not go into
federal coffers, but rather into investments made by the
wealthiest Canadian taxpayers in these countries—should denounce
or cancel tax conventions signed with these countries.
The three worst countries mentioned in the OECD report—we have
nothing against the people of these countries, but it is the
OECD that says this—were Barbados, the Bahamas and Bermuda. It is
Canadians who are making these foreign investments in the
Bahamas.
1235
The OECD condemns these countries as being the worst in terms of
tax evasion and as being ideal tax havens. The OECD is asking
its members—Canada is a prominent member—to cancel tax conventions
that might exist between Canada and other OECD countries and tax
haven countries. Far from abolishing them, Canada is promoting
these countries that are considered as tax havens and promoting
Canadian investment there.
To make a long story short, a tax convention is an agreement
between Canada and another country to avoid double taxation of
the profits of branches of Canadian corporations abroad, in
other words, to avoid the profits being taxed in the country
where the branch is located and taxed again by federal tax
authorities when they are brought home.
Normally tax conventions are very useful and perfectly
justified. A corporation cannot be taxed in the United States on
the profits its branch generates there and taxed again when
these profits are brought back in Canada. It would be absurd.
Since tax levels in Canada, in the United States and in most
OECD countries are more or less the same, give or take a few
percentage points, we can justify the existence of and need for
tax conventions. Profits generated by Canadian branches abroad,
in Europe, for example, cannot be taxed at 30% in Europe and
then taxed again at the same level here. It would not make any
sense.
When it comes to countries that are considered tax havens, with
tax levels of 0% on corporate income—in the Bahamas—or 2.5%—in the
Bermudas, we have to ask why Canada should sign tax conventions
with them, especially since the OECD has just condemned this
practice, which the Bloc Quebecois has been criticizing since
1993.
It does not make any sense to sign tax treaties with countries
where the tax levels are so totally different from ours that
they are considered tax havens.
We must bear in mind that what is invested in these countries is
not taxed in Canada and that Canadian taxpayers must therefore
make up for this loss in tax revenues.
It is not because we now have a budget surplus that we should
let go of some of our tax revenues by signing tax treaties with
countries identified as tax havens, let go of hundreds of
millions, if not billions of dollars, in current and future
taxes on investments.
We have nothing against wealth or against the wealthy, but there
is a limit to being the laughing stock of the world, when our
taxpayers have to compensate for the inaction of the Minister of
Finance in the area of tax reform.
I said it before and will say it again, the Bloc is no longer
the only one to urge the government to terminate the tax
treaties signed with some 30 countries that are considered the
worst tax havens in the world. Since the release of its recent
report, the OECD is going after governments that are unfairly
attracting investments and are hurting most member states of the
OECD with their tax provisions, which are much too lax.
Furthermore, it is rather strange—and I will be able to ask the
Finance Minister about this later—that we still have a tax
convention with the Bahamas, for example, while the OECD
financial action task force on money laundering, or FATF, in a
report tabled on June 22, 2000, points the finger at countries
that are not co-operating in the fight against money laundering.
Among these are two countries with which Canada has tax
conventions and where Canadian investments are astronomical, not
to say unbelievable.
I am talking about the Bahamas and Bermuda, the two countries
Canadian investors like best.
1240
How can it be explained that, the OECD having condemned these
countries as being rather lenient with regard to money
laundering, Canada still has a tax convention with them,
especially the Bahamas?
Somewhere in all of this there is a problem bordering on the
ethical. If it were the Bloc Quebecois saying so, one could say
that these are partisan comments, despite the fact that we have
tried since 1993 to act in a non-partisan way to propose real
measures and to speak for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers on tax
reform.
However, now the OECD has just released a report that points the
finger at 35 countries meeting the criteria of tax haven. The
finger points as well at countries which do not co-operate in the
area of money laundering. Yet we continue with our tax
conventions with these countries. There is a serious problem in
this regard.
Not only do we retain the tax conventions but we encourage
Canadian investors to use these tax havens to swell Canadians'
savings. The government is encouraging this tax evasion.
On July 16, 1999, for example, the Canadian Departments of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade published their calendar
of special events for 1999-2000 in CanadExport, the departments'
major trade publication.
Included was the title of a conference, a seminar given by the
Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
“Demystifying Tax Havens”.
The federal departments and the Government of Canada promote tax
evasion, promote the outflow of capital to tax havens. These
are the topics covered, in broad terms, in this seminar
organized by the federal government. They discussed the origin
of tax havens and their use as a financial strategy imagine that.
They encourage the use of tax havens to avoid federal tax
abroad. Great morality, this government.
They also discussed the criteria for selecting a good tax haven.
Not only was the use of tax havens being promoted but they also
said “Listen, the best one is probably the Bahamas. There is no
corporate tax. You can do whatever you want. There are no labour
laws and no environmental laws to speak of. Use the best tax
haven”. This is the message that was conveyed.
The fourth theme of the conference—and this is shameful—was “Tax
havens and Canada's tax laws and how to get the most out of your
tax havens”. Unbelievable. A seminar organized by the federal
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade teaches
investors how to save as much federal taxes as possible.
They are told to take their money abroad, to the best rated tax
havens, while the taxpayers who are here and who cannot afford
to pay for financial planners and to invest in tax havens
continue to pay, continue to be choked by the tax system in
spite of the tax reductions recently announced by the
government. These reductions are totally inadequate, given the
margin available to the government to lower taxes. The middle
income taxpayers, middle income families, are the ones paying,
not millionaires.
Millionaires and billionaires use the federal government's
services to send money abroad without having to pay any taxes to
the federal government. The result is that we, the majority of low
and middle income taxpayers, continue to pay taxes and to be
choked by the tax system. This is unbelievable.
It is not just the OECD report that provides a picture of the 35
countries considered to be tax havens. There is also a report
from the task force on money laundering, which says that Bermuda
and the Bahamas are among the countries that do not co-operate in
the fight against money laundering.
1245
Those two countries are considered by Canadians as tax havens
par excellence. Not only do they choose them themselves, but the
federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
tells them how to use them. One day we will have to wake up. The
members will have to wake up, put on the brakes and say that
this is enough.
The tax system has to be changed. We have to make sure that
there will be no tax treaties with countries considered as tax
havens in the future.
I once read a statement made by David Dodge, the former
deputy minister of finance and now governor of the Bank of
Canada. He said that we have to maintain our tax treaties with the
underdeveloped countries because they help to create jobs and
wealth in those countries. Fat chance. They have nothing to do
with job creation or economic growth.
The only thing that tax treaties with those tax havens do is
give millionaires and billionaires a chance to get even richer.
Those who already have money manage to escape taxation here and
to make even more money because they pay very little, if
anything, in income tax in the host country. That makes
absolutely no sense.
Since 1993 we have been denouncing the existence of tax
treaties between Canada and the worst tax havens in the world.
Despite our criticism and despite recent criticism by the
OECD, which is not a branch of the Bloc Quebecois, or the Parti
Quebecois calling for the elimination of tax treaties with
countries that favour tax avoidance, we are here dealing with
bills aimed at rectifying certain situations or harmonizing
certain taxes. Obviously, we support this type of measure, but
there is a fundamental problem with regard to our tax system and
tax treaties that needs to be dealt with.
Before the election, considering the fact that the fight against
the deficit had turned into a surplus accumulation exercise by
the finance minister, I expected a little more decency, a little
more serenity with regard to tax reform.
I expected the government to announce a thorough reform of our
tax system and a review of problematic tax treaties.
Instead of that, we heard statements of intention and statements
based on the government's past actions. It says that it has indeed
brought in tax reform but that there is always room for improvement.
I am not known for being mean but there is a great sense of
urgency here. When we know that it is not only the opposition
parties that are calling for a thorough reform of our tax system
and a review of tax treaties but also the OECD, it means that
the whole industrialized world unanimously agrees that we need
to review our tax practices.
I am amazed that this has not been done earlier because all the
evidence is there. Since 1993, use of these tax havens has
climbed sharply. However the example has to come from the top down
and, in this regard, the Minister of Finance is not setting a
very shining example. He himself has companies in countries
considered to be the worst tax havens.
He has companies in Liberia, the Bahamas and Bermuda. How can
someone have any political will to reform the tax system, to
review tax agreements between Canada and Bermuda or the Bahamas,
for instance, when he himself is involved in these countries
and benefits from the tax agreements between Canada and these
tax havens? It seems to me that such a person does not have a
very strong political will to reform and to review tax
agreements. That is the result.
1250
The members opposite should stop looking so shocked every time
we raise this problem. This is directly related to what the
Minister of Finance is. He is a shipowner. He owns companies.
He has 13 subsidiaries in other countries considered to be tax
havens and identified as such in an OECD report. He is taking
advantage of this tax avoidance. How could he be expected to be
interested in reviewing all this?
He cannot review it because he is both judge and judged. That
is why, given what we know, we should be asking questions. Is
it urgent to review tax agreements? The answer is yes.
First, we should review all tax conventions Canada has
signed in recent years and, in particular, conventions with
countries which are on the OECD list and are considered the
worst tax havens.
Second, talking about the preservation of the tax base, the
auditor general has made it crystal clear. He said that one of the
biggest threats to the tax base lies in the international
activities of Canadian taxpayers, particularly the use of tax
havens. The situation is critical.
We have a problem if we do not act immediately to review and, if
need be, cancel tax conventions with countries which make tax
avoidance easier, something rich Canadian taxpayers take full
advantage of, and with countries which do not co-operate
adequately in the fight against money laundering.
Third, if the finance minister feels he is both judge and party
to the case because of his companies and subsidiaries located
in countries considered to be the worst as far as tax havens and
tax avoidance go, he should step aside and let somebody else do
what has to be done.
It is however doubtful that the Minister of Finance will start a
movement to reform tax conventions and taxes which could enable
us to ensure that the most serious threats to the tax base, as
criticized in 1992, 1996, 1998 and recently in the auditor
general's report, which covers the past 10 years, are
countered. Until they are, I do not think this objective will
be met.
I challenge the government to truly reform taxation.
Bill C-13 deserves some praise. Taxation is harmonized,
especially the GST and the HST, which have some value and which
were long expected. However, the minister and the government
must do more than that. That is important but reform of the
tax conventions and of taxation is vital and fundamental.
The surpluses are piling up in government coffers.
It is a simple arrangement. Everyone is cut off and it piles
up. Do the people not entitled to employment insurance, who
call for more money for health care and are cut off by the
government, the students wanting more money for education and
who are cut off by the federal government, realize that there need
not have been cuts, if we had had responsible government and a
Minister of Finance who was not both judge and jury in
recent years?
They would have kept their tax base. We could have built up
surpluses, but ones paid for by those with the means to pay and
to fund and not have them accumulated through savage, drastic
and inhuman cuts to employment insurance, savage cuts to health
care and savage cuts to education.
We must realize that every time a billionaire invests money in
the Bahamas with the help of the federal government and of the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, that
money is no longer in the federal treasury. The Minister of
Finance then gets new money from the poor, from the unemployed,
from students who have a hard time making ends meet and from the
sick.
Is it not indecent to maintain the status quo because the
Minister of Finance is both judge and jury here?
1255
In the coming weeks, we will continue to harass the government
regarding this important issue since the future of the federal
tax base is at stake. It is an unbelievable injustice that this
government is promoting when it uses tax havens to tell
millionaires and billionaires “Such is the Canadian tax system;
here is what our tax treaties with the Bahamas, Bermuda or
Liberia provide and what you should do to take advantage of
these tax havens to the fullest”.
The government is telling rich taxpayers how to avoid paying
taxes in Canada by using tax havens that are being condemned by
the OECD and that often do not co-operate in the fight against
money laundering. This is serious stuff.
While we support Bill C-13 because some provisions are worth
supporting, we are sending a wake up call to the public and
asking the Minister of Finance to stop looking after his own
interests, to stop being judge and jury and to let someone else
undertake a true tax reform, a comprehensive review of all the
tax treaties signed by Canada with countries that are considered
to be tax havens. We will fight tooth and nail for that.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-13 which is before
the House today. It deals with a whole number of taxation
issues. I only want to make about three different points to
facilitate this bill going before the committee.
First, the tax bill deals with the GST. It is rather ironic
that between 1990 and 1992 the party across the way, and I
remember it so well, promised to get rid of the GST. I remember
the Minister of Canadian Heritage even resigned her seat to go
back and get a mandate from the people in Hamilton East because
of the promise to scrap the GST, the goods and services tax. Now
we have a government that is bringing in amendments to the GST
and a taxation regime that includes the GST. No wonder people
are cynical of this institution.
If elected, the Liberal Party promised to get rid of the GST. I
notice almost every Liberal has left the Chamber in shame. There
is only one Liberal left in the House and he is hanging his head
because of the embarrassment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sure the hon.
member, who has been in the House longer than I have, knows full
well we should not talk about the presence or absence of other
hon. members of the House.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, you are absolutely
accurate. The rules of the House say we should not do that. I
just wanted to point out the truth to the Canadian people. I am
sorry that is a violation of the House rules.
I can say that the only member in the House is hanging his head
in shame because the promise on the GST was broken by his party.
I remember that so well. There is a second Liberal over there
and she is hanging her head in shame as well over the broken
promise on the GST.
That is a promise they made. It was a solemn commitment to the
Canadian people. I remember the leader of the opposition at the
time, who is now the Prime Minister, getting up in the House and
talking about getting rid of the GST.
[Translation]
He would say that it was is time to get rid of the GST, that it
was not a fair tax at all and that if Canadians elected the Liberal
Party the GST would disappear”. The GST is still here for Canadians.
[English]
The GST is still here. It is a very unfair tax. It is a tax
that is really like a flat tax. No matter what one's wealth is
one has to pay the same 7%. When we buy some hardware goods, or
a car, or get a haircut or buy a new tie, there is a 7% tax that
everybody pays. Even a really wealthy member like the member
across the way from near Toronto has to pay 7%, the same as some
poor guy in Kamsack, Saskatchewan. It is a very unfair and
unjust tax.
Our party has said that we should start reducing the GST,
starting with 1%, and take it off books and necessities.
Eventually we should eliminate the GST because it is a very
unfair tax. That used to be the position of the Liberal Party
before it was influenced and terrified by the Alliance and the
Reform, so it moved to the political right. That is the first
point.
1300
The second point I want to mention deals with the comments made
by the finance critic from the Canadian Alliance. He stated that
taxes are horrible, that taxation is an awesome power in the
hands of parliament, said that taxes are much too high and that
taxes should be reduced.
In some cases taxes are too high, and the GST is a good example
of that, but instead of talking about a general across the board
tax cut, we should be talking about a progressive tax system that
is based on the ability to pay. It use to be that way but it was
changed a number of years ago by the Mulroney government and
continued on by the Liberal Party across the way.
A recent CBC poll released a few days ago asked Canadians what
they felt was the most important issue in the country. Over 40%
of them said that investment in social programs, in particular,
health care, was the most important issue, whereas only 7% said
lowering taxes was the most important issue.
Members of the Canadian Alliance have said time and time again
that there should be a radical reduction in taxes across the
board. Canadians do not want that.
The Alliance Party is really an anti-government party. It does
not believe in government nor in public institutions. It wants
to privatize almost everything. It probably even wants to
privatize the post office and go to pony express or whatever. It
does not believe in the Canadian Wheat Board, the CBC or a public
one tier health system that is supported by the tax system of all
Canadians. That is where the Canadian Alliance stands but it is
not where the Canadian people stand.
It is important to point out in the debate today that we need a
taxation system that is progressive and based on the ability to
pay. We need a taxation system where wealthy people pay more
taxes and ordinary people pay less taxes and get a decent tax
break. The position of the New Democratic Party and an
overwhelming majority of Canadians is that we should have a
taxation system where the wealthy and the large corporations pay
their fair share.
The Canadian Alliance stands up for the very wealthy and the
large corporations. It is getting more and more of its money
from those large corporations. It is no longer grassroots party
of ordinary Canadians. People should realize that as we talk
about this issue today.
The last point I want to make is in regard to household debt.
Household debt is at an all time high. When big tax cuts are
made they mainly go to the wealthy people not to the ordinary
people who have huge household debts. The Vanier Institute
recently stated that during the decade of the 1990s, the
wealthiest 20% of Canadians saw their incomes go up by about 6.6%
and the poorest 20% of Canadians saw their incomes shrink by some
5.2%.
For a number of years, throughout the fifties, sixties and into
the seventies, there was a gradual reduction in the gap between
the rich and the poor. In the 1990s, at the end of the Mulroney
years and into the years of this government, the gap between the
rich and poor has widened once again. The rich are getting
richer and the poor are getting poorer. The Canadian Alliance
wants to spread it even wider by having a flat tax where
everybody would pay the same rate. This would mean that the rich
would get richer and the poor would get poorer. That is exactly
the way the Alliance Party wants to go.
We need a progressive tax system with five or six different tax
brackets based on the ability to pay. We have to eliminate flat
taxes like the GST. We have to phase them out because it
discriminates against the poor. That is exactly what Canadians
want.
Canadians want a progressive tax system based on the ability to
pay. They also want to make sure that there are enough taxes in
the country in order to invest in infrastructure, social programs
and into the institutions that are important to them. They want
enough money raised through taxes to make sure that we have not
just $500 million for farmers but a couple of billion dollars to
help farmers. That is what taxes are all about.
1305
However, we get the Alliance Party saying that there is spending
madness going on by the Government of Canada. What is that? Is
it too much money for the old age pensioners, the poor, the
farmers, the fishermen and the health care system?
Mr. Pat Martin: Squandering money on the poor.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: As my friend from Winnipeg said,
squandering money on the poor. That is the position of the
Alliance Party. My goodness, the Liberal Party is not too far
behind in its shift to the right.
We need a tax system that is fair and just. We need a tax
system that raises enough money to support public institutions
and the infrastructure of the country. Infrastructure has been
cut back over the last number of years, particularly in the 1995
budget, and it is time to reinvest in ordinary people. That is
what the debate is all about.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the member's
speech.
Usually I rise on points of order when members do not get the
name of our party right, but I will simply say that member from
the CCF has really misrepresented our position. When he talks
about our party not being concerned about those who are less
wealthy, he is misrepresenting what we actually believe.
We believe that it is best for people to have a job. We have a
tax policy that would reduce taxes according to our actual
numbers. If he were to be intellectually honest enough and
actually look at them, instead of just spewing about them, he
would see that the greatest tax reductions in our plan are for
exactly the people he is talking about. In other words, when
some of the rich people get a tax reduction, those who are in the
lower brackets get a 100% tax reduction. That is not good enough
for him. I do not know what he is asking for.
With respect to the tax for the rich, we believe that those who
are well off should not be punished for their successes. Those
are exactly the people we need to drive our industries, to
produce jobs, to hire people and to take poor people, give them
employment and get them off the welfare rolls.
Our view is that the measure of the effectiveness of our economy
is not how many people we have on welfare but rather how many
people we get off welfare. That is what our position is and
frankly I do not care whether the member from the CCF has a
response to that or not.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the member over there
is the author of the hidden agenda.
During the election campaign, do members not remember when he
made the great statement about privatizing old age security and
the Canada pension plan? He said that if the Alliance Party was
elected it would privatize those things, that people would have
monster RRSPs. He said that would be the panacea to get the
government off the backs of Canadians, that everyone would be in
the private sector investing in the stock market. Do members
remember that in the campaign?
I remember picking up the Globe and Mail and reading a big
headline about privatizing pensions and getting rid of old age
security and the CPP. The member for Elk Island was the author
of that hidden agenda. He even took his own leader by surprise.
That is the kind of member we are dealing with here. When he
talks about these kinds of issues he fails once again to mention
the tax policy of the Alliance Party. It is a flat tax policy.
It wants a single tax rate. With a single tax rate, someone who
is making $300,000 or $400,000 a year will get a bigger break
then the ordinary citizen who is making $30,000 or $40,000 a year
teaching at an elementary school in Churchill, Manitoba. Those
are the facts.
That is exactly where that party stands. It wants a big break
for the wealthy. It believes that the free market will look
after the poor. It believes in what is called the trickle down
theory of economics, that if we feed enough oats to the horse,
eventually enough will trickle through the horse to feed the
sparrows. That is exactly the philosophy of the Alliance Party
of Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, how grateful I am for the
opportunity that the member from the CCF has given me to say that
during the campaign I too was grossly misrepresented in that
case.
I bear part of the responsibility. By giving an interview to a
member of the press, I made the gross error of forgetting that I
was not in a debate in the House of Commons. I got into a debate
with the interviewer and I probably said some of the things that
were reported about me. I greatly regret having given him the
interview because it gave him, during the time of the debate, the
two or three quotes that he needed.
1310
My apologies to you, Madam Speaker, the Canadian people and to
everybody for that. It was a misrepresentation of what we really
want to do. We want to fix things and improve things for
Canadians.
With respect to the hon. member's statement on taxes for the
rich, it just is not true. Let us say, for example, that I was
walking along with my little grandson and we were carrying some
stuff. Let us say that I had a load of 100 pounds on my back and
my little grandson was carrying five pounds. Somebody else comes
along, maybe my grandson's dad, my son, and says that he will
help carry that. He takes half of my load and he takes all of
his son's load. My grandson had a 100% reduction in his load,
from five to zero, and I had a reduction in my load of 100 to 50.
Sure I got a bigger reduction but it equalizes it out.
It is just totally intellectually dishonest for that member and
the members opposite to so misrepresent our tax policy because it
just is not on.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to
the hon. member from the time warp who was talking about the CCF.
That was about 40 years ago. However, I realize he is a bit
behind the times.
It is the policy of the Alliance Party to have a flat tax, a
single tax rate. The former Reform Party and now the Alliance
Party both have this idea of a flat tax. Even the great
socialist in the United States, George W. Bush, has rejected that
as being unfair and unjust and yet the Alliance Party is
advocating a single tax rate so that a wealthy person making
$300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 a year or a millionaire making
over $1 million a year would pay the same tax rate as a high
school teacher making $40,000 or $50,000 a year. That is not
fair and it is not just. It is not equality of condition.
I am glad that party is saying that because I now know where
that party stands. It is a party of the past. It is a throwback
to the forties and fifties when the rich would get richer and the
poor would get poorer and be grateful for it. That is the
Alliance philosophy. Thank God about 90% of Canadians reject
that philosophy and that attitude.
I am sure that the more Canadians hear about it, the smaller and
smaller the Alliance Party will get because it represents a very
small point of view. Even the leader of the Alliance Party has
put that member so far back on the backbenches that he is always
hiding behind the curtain because of his points of view.
I am glad this issue has been raised today. I am glad the
people are now seeing where the Alliance Party stands. It stands
for wealthy people. It stands against public institutions such
as the wheat board. It stands against a one tier health care
system. It wants two tier health. It wants private clinics. It
wants whatever is good for capital and whatever is good for the
wealthy people. It does not want pensions for senior citizens.
It wants to get rid of the Canada pension plan. It wants big
RRSPs, which will help the wealthy, and to hell with the poor,
the ordinary citizen of Canada. That is exactly where it stands.
Before long, it will become an historic artifact in the history
of Canadian parliamentary annals, just like the Social Credit
Party so many years ago. Its hero was Bill Vander Zalm in
British Columbia. We can see what has happened to Mr. Vander
Zalm and the Social Credit Party.
Now the member from Vernon is getting up on his feet. He was a
member of the Social Credit Party. He is a worshipper of Bill
Vander Zalm. That is the kind of politics that was rejected by
the people of B.C., and it will be rejected by the people of
Canada.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I cannot just sit and listen to the
ramblings and the ravings of the hon. member from down on the far
reaches of the opposition benches.
Maybe I should explain a little bit that there is a big
difference. I know it is hard for the member to comprehend so I
will say it very slowly so that maybe he will really understand.
The difference between a single rate and a flat rate tax is
deductions.
1315
In a single rate tax standard deductions are allowed. That is
the policy. Those making over $100,000 are taxed more. It is
unfortunate to say but it is the truth.
Let us go into the history of the NDP. We are all well aware of
how the NDP got ahead in British Columbia and how it stole from
the blind and from charities through bingo hall services. That
is common knowledge. We have also seen its socialistic attitude:
the more people work, the more will be taken away from them. We
are well aware of that attitude in British Columbia under the NDP
regime in place there now.
We do not have far to look to see what NDP members think about
private medicine. Their own leader uses private medical services
in Canada. The hon. member knows that, yet he will stand here
and tell the world that NDP members do not do that. That is
their policy. What is good for them is good for them, and the
rest of Canada can do without.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, thank goodness there is no question attached to that
statement. My colleague from the NDP would be on his feet until
at least supper hour.
This is an interesting debate today. We are talking about Bill
C-13 which proposes technical adjustments to the GST. As my
colleague from the NDP mentioned, it is probably a debate that
under normal circumstances we would not be having. Witness red
book one.
I am not sure whether or not red book one brought you to this
place, Madam Speaker, but it certainly brought a number of
Liberal MPs to the House of Commons. The election of 1993, among
other things, was based on the promise to eliminate the hated
GST.
The government received dividends from the GST in more ways than
one. It obviously received political dividends, because it
brought a lot of its members to the House under what in the real
world are called false pretences. It is probably unparliamentary
to say that, but I am being more generous than I should be.
Obviously it worked.
The government has been in power now for over seven years and we
are still saddled with the hated GST. Just by way of comment, I
should mention that we supporting the technical changes to the
GST. We will not hold them up. At least one person is
applauding over there. I did not hear the parliamentary
secretary applauding yet but I am sure he will before the day is
out.
Talk about fooling the Canadian public. During the 1993
election I fought the issue as a government member, as a
Conservative. It was the last year of the manufacturers' sales
tax. Before the 7% GST we paid a hidden 13.5% federal sales tax
on automobiles and other goods. It was hidden in the cost of
automobiles and every other commodity.
We paid a price for our intellectual honesty. We said that we
would eliminate the hidden tax and that from then on Canadians
would see it at the point of purchase. In other words, if they
bought a $10,000 car, 7% of it would be GST. Seven hundred
dollars would be seen upfront. Someone buying a $20,000 car in
1991 would pay $1,400 in tax upfront. They would see it.
Many Canadians were surprised. They did not believe we had a
hidden federal sales tax, which we did, but the old sales tax
restricted our capacity as an exporting country.
It was all part of the parcel.
1320
We also brought in the free trade agreement, but that alone was
not enough. We wanted to restructure how we did business in the
country. We revised the tax rules. We brought the number of tax
divisions down from a high of nine to around five in one fell
swoop.
We then brought in the GST which levelled the playing field for
exporters. It made us competitive in the international world,
which we were not under the old system. The last year we had the
manufacturers' sales tax was 1989-90. In that year that tax
brought in $17.8 billion, which is quite a bit of money.
This year the GST will bring in $55 billion compared to the old
system that brought in $17.8 billion. It is interesting that we
will take $32 billion of that and pay it out in GST rebates to
Canadians outside the higher income levels that the NDP sometimes
mentions in terms of unfairness. It is a fair tax policy because
a lot of the money is distributed to Canadians who need it via
the GST rebate.
That is an astounding figure. When we do our research we find
that the government talks about a $22.8 billion revenue from the
GST. It excludes the gross. It only talks about the net. The
gross income for the government under the GST is $55 billion and
$32 billion of it is distributed to Canadians who need it. That
is a lot of money.
Another point is that taxation must be fair. It must be
perceived as being fair. My NDP colleague talks about it being
unfair because the 7% applies to everyone. It is true that a
millionaire or someone at the poverty line pays the 7% GST, but
lower income Canadians get the benefit of the GST rebate which
makes up for the lack of fairness. That was not present under
the old system when the tax was actually hidden. That is a major
improvement.
Another point is that we can never lose sight of fairness in
taxation and what has to be taxed to make the system fair for
everyone. A fair system must tax consumption. It must tax
capital and incomes. We cannot simply take a tax and cover one
base. Some people would argue that we should do away with the
GST and just tax incomes, which would be completely unfair and
unacceptable and would not work. It has never worked in any
jurisdiction that has tried it and it certainly would not work in
Canada.
We must spread out the way in which we collect taxes because if
the government is smart and considerate in how it spends the
taxes it takes in, at the end of the day it will benefit all
Canadians.
When we are talking about tax bills as we are today we should
point out that the government should consider bringing in a
budget. It is March 2 and we do not have a budget. We are still
working with a mini-budget from last fall, which was very
convenient because it was brought in on the eve of an election.
I suggest the Prime Minister was smart enough to call the
election knowing full well that some of the danger signals were
out there, that we may be heading into a recession come early
winter, late winter or possibly early spring. That was one of
the things that motivated the Prime Minister to call an early
election. Much to his credit he won it. We were right in terms
of what might be happening in the economy. Some of the danger
signals are out there.
On that point I will read into the record a comment from Don
Drummond, the former assistant deputy minister to the Minister of
Finance.
He now works as an economist for TD Bank. Just last week in his
article entitled Using the Federal Budget Surplus: Is there
any left? he wrote:
Confused about the fiscal prospects of the federal government? If
so, you are not alone. The October 2000 Economic Statement and
Budget Update provided fiscal projections to 2005-06. However,
those projections do not reflect the tax cuts promised in the
Statement, nor the spending commitments made subsequently in the
Red Book III and the January 30, 2001 Speech from the Throne. In
addition, the economic assumptions underpinning the October
Update now seem decidedly optimistic for the short term. To
date, no attempt has been made by either public or private bodies
to cut through the confusion.
1325
Things have changed dramatically in the last 90 days. It was
only 90 days ago that we stopped knocking on doors in an attempt
to get elected. A lot has changed. We see some of the biggest
and best corporations in Canada and in North America laying
people off.
I see you signalling me, Madam Speaker. If I am getting the
government in trouble in terms of time, I am sure you will rise
and I will sit down. We want the legislation to pass. We do not
want to delay it.
The government should bring in a budget to reflect today's
reality because we are in the midst of layoffs. As we speak, the
new president of the United States, George W. Bush, is proposing
huge tax cuts which will put pressure on Canada to do the same.
We must attract business to Canada. We must do what it takes to
keep the economy moving. It appears the U.S. wants to do that,
but we are in a period of suspended animation: the world is good,
why worry? It is not so. There are troubling signs on the
horizon and we must move to do something about it.
In closing, I hope the government will at least take that into
consideration in the next few days. We must do something. We
cannot stand still. We must move to reflect times as they now
are. Times have changed dramatically in the last 90 days since
the last election.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): When we resume debate
on the bill, the hon. member will have eight minutes and thirty
seconds left in debate.
It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed in today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
RIGHT OF LANDING FEE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House,
the government should eliminate the Right of Landing Fee
(ROLF) on all classes of immigrants to Canada.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to debate
this important issue of national interest. A growing group of
Canadians is calling on the government to eliminate the right of
landing fee on all classes of immigrants. To the government's
credit, about a year ago it eliminated the right of landing fee
for all refugees. The same reasons why that was a good idea
apply to all new Canadians and all immigrants. We believe it
should be done away with altogether.
This marks the sixth anniversary of the right of landing fee. It
was introduced on February 28, 1995. At that time we were in a
deficit situation, the government was in a cutback mode where all
programs were being reviewed and a great deal of effort was being
made to enter into cost recovery mechanisms. When it introduced
the right of landing fee the idea was that it would help offset
the costs of some of the services new Canadians use, whether
language training or settlement services.
In actual fact, that money was never considered a dedicated fee
for service. The money went into general revenues. It never
really did get directly connected to the services it was meant to
fund. In fact, during that period, program spending was being
cut, hacked and slashed in the immigration department.
Therefore, there was no direct correlation.
1330
This is frankly why many critics of the right of landing fee
call it a tax. The term that is being used is a head tax. The
government does not like to hear that but this has become the
same as the much loathed head tax of recent history. I remind
the House that from 1885 to 1923 the government imposed a head
tax on all Chinese immigrants to Canada. It started at $50 and
rose to $500, specifically to bar entry to Chinese people coming
to this country.
Many people view the head tax in the same way. It is a racist
head tax because it is selective by nature. In other words, the
$975 fee that is charged to every landed immigrant does not seem
like an insurmountable barrier for a person coming from western
Europe, Australia or the United States. However, for a person
from the Sudan, the Philippines or Southeast Asia, that could be
two years' salary. Therefore, it is an actual barrier to
immigration. This is why we feel not only is it a financial
burden on people who might choose to make Canada their home, it
is a real blow to their morale.
New Canadians are wondering what kind of message we are trying
to send out. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says
they want to open the door wider and invite more new Canadians to
this country. At the same time they put financial barriers that
are true obstacles to many people, especially from certain parts
of the world. In other words, the door is open if one can afford
this fee for the privilege of coming here. The door is not so
open for people who come from some parts of the world, such as
the developing nations. These people need the refuge and the
sanctuary that Canada offers arguably more than people from
developed countries.
As I pointed out, there is a growing movement around the country
of people who feel very strongly that the government should
eliminate the head tax on all new Canadians, like the Ad Hoc
Coalition Against the Head Tax. In fact, there is an
organization of organizations that formed specifically around
what it felt to be an unjust head tax.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council has been working very
aggressively on this issue. The Canadian Council of Refugees has
made representation to the Canadian government demanding or
strongly advocating the elimination of the head tax. The
national Filipino association is on the record. The Maytree
Foundation, the Canadian Labour Congress, the getting landed
project and the Caledon Institute of Social Policy are on record.
In fact, the Liberal Party of Canada, at its 1996 federal
convention, passed a resolution for a review which would lead to
the elimination of what we call the head tax. A lot of ethnic
minorities within the Liberal Party were horrified when their
government sent the message to the world that it was not as open
a door policy as was thought.
The United States has a fee for service type charge associated
with becoming an immigrant to that country. However, for a
family of four in the United States, the total fees and charges
would be about $1,580. In this country it would be about $3,150
for a family of four.
Let us look at the revenue. If immigration is supposed to be
some kind of revenue generating service that we are offering
here, let us be honest about that and say it. If the money is
not going into settlement services and into actual language
training or whatever it might be but is going into the coffers of
the government to do with whatever it pleases, then it is another
tax. As a matter of fact it is a lot of money. The government
gets about $200 million per year from this head tax. Over six
years, that is $1.2 billion.
When the Minister of Finance crows about getting out of the
deficit situation and showing a surplus, let us look at where he
is looking to find the revenue.
There is $8 billion a year from unemployed Canadians with the EI
fund surplus and $1.2 billion over this period of time from the
poorest of the poor, those struggling new Canadians who might
seek to make Canada their home.
1335
I firmly believe the time has come for the government to act
unilaterally. We do not need a change in legislation to
eliminate the head tax. In fact, the minister has the right to
implement, to raise, to lower or to eliminate any service charge
or fee under the Finances Administration Act, I believe, section
19. The minister can simply act unilaterally because it is the
right thing to do. She does not have to wait for the House of
Commons to direct her that way. Enough Canadians have spoken.
I am going to cut my remarks short in a moment or two in the
hopes that members from other parties will add their voices to
emphasize the overwhelming support for the idea of eliminating
this right of landing fee.
As I mentioned when it was first introduced, the idea was that
it would directly offset the cost of running the immigration
department. Now we have seen that there is no direct connection
to the fee being charged and the service being rendered. It is
not a fee for service as such, it is in fact a tax and an
imposition.
Perhaps the most damaging thing about this head tax is not the
financial burden it places on those who might seek to make Canada
their home, it is the blow to the morale of recent newcomers to
this country and those who would seek to reunite other family
members and bring them here. They are having this hurdle thrown
in their way, this unnecessary and I believe unwarranted obstacle
to something that the government claims it is very interested in.
It is always saying that family reunification is one of the three
pillars of the immigration policy of the country.
The government has made it far more difficult since 1995 for any
family to hope to bring other family members here, especially if
they are struggling in a financial way.
I am going to end my remarks now. I hope to have some minutes
at the end of the one hour and at that time I would be happy to
conclude.
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Being that this is private members' hour, I would like to
seek unanimous consent to make Bill C-234 votable.
This is a bill that would amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act
and require the supreme court to consult parliament in the
context of its deliberations on charter challenges.
I have numerous representations from all sides of the House,
from MPs who would like to speak to this bill. If I could get
unanimous consent, I would be deeply grateful.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to make Bill C-234
votable?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak on Motion No. 231 from the hon. member
for Winnipeg Centre on the right of landing fee.
This past week the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
introduced Bill C-11 in the House. The bill does not change the
right of landing fee provisions and the reasons are rather
simple. It is meeting the legitimate policy goal that the
government has set for it and other fees for a range of federal
services. There is no meaningful evidence that it has harmed
Canada's ability to attract immigrants. Moreover when it comes
to questions of how best to use money for our immigration
program, dropping this fee is far less important than putting
funds into better and faster processing.
First, let us be clear on what we are talking about and where
this fee comes from. Back in 1995 the government made a series
of important decisions that were necessary to get Canada's public
finances back into shape. One of the most fundamental was that
we decided that we needed to do more so that people who clearly
and directly benefit from programs and services pay a portion of
the costs associated with those services.
1340
[Translation]
That is how the right of landing fee was introduced and set at
the reasonable rate of $975. It was decided that fee would be
paid by newcomers to Canada aged 19 and over.
It is charged to people coming to this country as qualified
workers, entrepreneurs, business people, investors or members of
the family class, regardless of the country of origin and the
province of destination. If for some reason someone who paid
the required fee does not get permanent residency in Canada,
that amount is reimbursed.
The government decided to introduce the fee because the direct
beneficiaries of immigration are those who come to Canada
themselves. These people benefit from efficient immigration
programs and services. They certainly benefit from the
opportunity to prosper in Canada.
In the early 1990s, the immigration program was subjected to the
same budget cuts as the whole of government. Then, in the
consultations the government undertook in 1994 about what
improvements should be made to immigration, it asked Canadians
what they thought about the idea of introducing a fee that would
help support immigration programs and services. According to a
poll conducted on the subject in 1996, at least 72% of the
respondents were of the opinion that this was a good idea and
that the amount was reasonable.
The government examined the costs of providing these services
and came to the conclusion that an amount of $975 was fair and
reasonable. Therefore, in the 1995 budget the Minister of
Finance announced the creation of the right of landing fees.
Under this initiative, a loan program was introduced to help
those who were unable to pay the fees immediately but could
repay it later.
I believe that was a very important element. It was not
considered as a burden for the newcomers. They could take their
time to pay back this amount, as they were now living in a much
more prosperous country than the one they had left.
[English]
For example, not everyone gets admitted, while others decide not
to continue their application for different reasons. Citizenship
and Immigration Canada had to manage a substantial refund
process. It had to work with fluctuating currency rates and
similar difficulties. From April 1997 we allowed clients to pay
the fee at any time up until they received their visa. That has
made financial arrangements simpler for everyone concerned.
The second major change came in the 2000 budget. That was when
the government lifted the right of landing fee requirement from
refugees. Effective February 28, 2000, the government recognized
that these people have faced enormous difficulties and hardships.
It knew that lifting the fee would help their resettlement and
yet mean just a reduction of about $15 million a year in revenue
from the fee.
The member for Winnipeg Centre thinks we should go further. He
wants Canadian taxpayers to pick up the whole tab for services to
immigrants. He would be happier to take away the $131 million a
year from settlement programming to implement his proposal. He
is quite happy to see the people who directly benefit from these
services, most of whom are skilled workers, entrepreneurs or
business immigrants, not paying any kind of fee.
Obviously we cannot agree. The facts tell us there is no
compelling argument to change a system that works. Has the right
of landing fee reduced Canada's attractiveness to potential
immigrants? Far from it. There is no evidence that the fee has
had any impact on application levels at all. If anything, the
application levels are rising. There is no evidence that
potential applicants are ignoring Canada as a possible
destination in favour of places that might have lower fees.
Let us recognize that there are many fees being charged by other
major immigrant receiving countries, much higher than those in
Canada.
1345
[Translation]
The Canadian public still strongly supports these fees, which
ensure that those who benefit from a very important service help
to pay part of the costs involved.
If we decide to eliminate an entire source of revenue in one
area, there are in fact only two options left if we do not want
to modify the general financial balance. We can compensate by
digging a little further in somebody else's pockets, or we can
reduce the services that this revenue is supposed to support.
During the consultations on immigration carried out recently by
the government, the following question was asked: “If we had
more money for immigration, what would you like to be done?”
Three suggestions came out: to reduce or eliminate the landing
fee; to direct spending on faster processing of the immigration
applications submitted by the men, women and children who want
to settle in Canada; or to sustain higher levels of immigration.
The top priority by far was to accelerate the processing of
the immigration applications, which speaks for itself.
As members of parliament, most of us hear complaints from
constituents and can see just how long it can take sometimes to
process an application.
We know that the people on the front line of our immigration
system work real hard but there are often delays due to the
background checks, health information and security assessments
that are required. It is not surprising that reducing processing
delays is a top priority. In fact, the delays are mainly due to
the great number of applications. Those who travel around the
world know that Canada is the best country in which to live.
[English]
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said that the
new bill and some associated changes will lead to the system
working better. Of that we are convinced.
Several client service improvements are already being tested.
This will lead to faster processing and is entirely consistent
with what the minister has learned from Canadians, including
people who deal with immigration issues on a daily basis, like
most of the members in the House.
Quite simply, there is no reason to accept this motion. Let me
summarize some of the reasons. The right of landing fee applies
to people who receive the direct benefit of immigration to
Canada. That in itself is a tremendous benefit.
It does not apply to refugees who come from badly stricken areas
of the world. It has no impact on immigration levels, far from
it, and where necessary people can take out loans to cover the
immediate cost of the fees, loans that are repaid. Canadians
agree strongly with the principle of ensuring that immigrants pay
at least some of the direct costs of their programs and services.
Finally, people have recognized that we would gain far more
important impacts and benefits from any new money for immigration
by putting it into a faster processing system.
[Translation]
I know this has been a concern for many people, but I would like
to point out that in the last few years we have seen people coming to
Canada under incredible conditions, in the bilge of boats. We
know that real criminals brought these people here by boat.
These people paid $8,000, $10,000 or $15,000 to come here under
extremely terrible conditions. This shows that $975 is very
little compared to these amounts.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, excuse me. I am honestly laughing at the last remarks
of the parliamentary secretary. He compares criminals, human
smuggling, and says that is more expensive, and the $975 the
government is charging is justifiable. I cannot believe he is
tying these things together.
1350
Mr. Mark Assad: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I object to the hon. member taking my words out of
context. That is not what I said.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, he can read
Hansard to find out what he said.
I would like to congratulate my colleague from the NDP, whom I
personally know. I know of his compassion for this issue. I
would like to congratulate him for bringing forward this motion.
He can count on my full support. He very eloquently stated his
reasons for bringing forward the motion.
However, when I listened to the parliamentary secretary I
started shaking my head. What he fails to realize is that I also
happen to be an immigrant who came to this country, so I can
relate to what he is trying to talk about.
Let me first make one thing very clear, one thing the
parliamentary secretary neglected to say, and that is that every
potential immigrant pays over $500 as a processing fee. The
government is already charging every immigrant a processing fee
of approximately $545, so when he says that this fee is for
speeding up the system, he is wrong. It is not. It is a head
tax. It is a tax that goes into general revenue.
Second, the parliamentary secretary said that this tax has not
harmed people coming into this country. I would like to remind
him of something. When a country has a law and a system that
starts discriminating one way or another, is that right just
because other people are taking advantage of it? It is not
right.
Let me tell the House why I say the system discriminates against
others. I will speak about a family of four who have to pay $975
each. That is close to over $3,000 for that family to immigrate
to Canada. Add the $575 processing fee to that amount and each
individual is paying approximately $1,500 to get into this
country, and the parliamentary secretary wants to tell me that
those who arrive with their family cannot afford to pay.
There are good people from all parts of world who want to
immigrate to this country. Do they need to have money to be good
people, to be skilled people? No, they do not. They can come
from any part of the world, but if they do not have money, how
will they come here?
The government of course says it has a loan program. Yahoo. So
before people arrive here they are in debt. They can come to
Canada but they will be in debt. The government will say it is
giving them money. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary should
tell us how much interest the government is charging and how much
money it makes out of this.
When the government introduced the bill in 1995, I think, it was
for everybody, including refugees. In 1997 I brought forward a
private member's bill asking for this tax to be removed for
refugees. Now the member stands up very proudly and says that
the government removed the tax.
Let me tell members what compelled them to remove it, because I
happened to be here in the House. The tax was removed because of
the 5,000 Kosovo refugees who were brought to Canada. I am glad
they were brought here. Five thousand refugees suddenly came
into the country and suddenly the government knew this was the
wrong system. The government could not charge 5,000 people who
were refugee war victims the right of landing fee.
All of a sudden a bright light went on, and the government said
it couldn't charge it. That is when it was abolished. It was
not abolished out of compassion but because the right of landing
fee could not be implemented.
1355
The parliamentary secretary has stated that the government has
listened to Canadians. This surprises me. How has it listened?
By a poll. What that means to me is that the government is run
by polls. It is interesting how the government is run by polls.
The government takes a poll and justifies its actions by saying
that Canadians have said this, so it applies a fee.
The parliamentary secretary says the government is assisting
immigrants. I would like to ask him a question based on my own
experience when I came to this country and on the experience of
thousands of others who have come here. How many people who come
to this country actually use the so-called settlement services he
is talking about? I did not when I came here and I can tell the
House that the majority of immigrants who come to Canada do not
use settlement services. Why is it, then, that the money is
going into general revenues?
Something is wrong when the government wants to justify this by
saying that this is a service provided to every immigrant. That
is absolutely wrong. Does the parliamentary secretary have the
figures? I would love to have figures from the department to see
what percentage of the total number of immigrants uses the
settlement services for which the government is justifying this
right of landing fee.
The argument the government has made in justifying this does not
hold water. Every immigrant group in the country has stated that
this is a discriminatory tax. It is a head tax, despite what the
government says. It is hated. The fact of the matter is that it
is a tax because immigrants are already being charged a
processing fee. We are not talking about a processing fee. We
are talking about a head tax.
This head tax is wrong. It gives money to the government for
general revenue. There are thousands of applications coming in
and despite the member's claim that the government wants to
improve and speed up the processing system with this extra money
it is getting, that has not happened. I can tell the House that
any member of parliament here who deals with immigration is
seeing longer and longer delays. The government's argument for
having this tax does not hold water.
In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleague in the NDP for
bringing out this issue. Although this is non-votable, it has
given us an opportunity to show the weakness of the government's
argument as to why it has this head tax.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I rise today on Motion No. 231 tabled by my colleague from
Winnipeg Centre, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should
eliminate the Right of Landing Fee (ROLF) on all classes of
immigrants to Canada.
We all know in this House that Quebec and Canada are the number
one destination for many immigrants.
Thousands of immigrants choose Canada or Quebec as their adopted
country to improve their lives and reach their full potential.
As we know, Quebec and Canada both need immigration to at least
maintain their current population. Therefore, the government
regularly sets targets regarding the number of immigrants to be
received. Last year Canada received 226,837 immigrants and
refugees.
For 2001 we should be receiving 200,000 to 225,000 immigrants
and refugees and these numbers will increase by 10,000 for
2002.
1400
However these people must pay certain fees which we think limit
the possibility of immigrating to Canada and constitute an
undisguised form of discrimination for some.
We also think that the right of landing fee, or
ROLF, also known as head tax, is an unacceptable constraint.
It is interesting to note that the term head tax comes from a
tax imposed on Chinese immigrants by the Canadian government at
the end of the 19th century.
Starting in 1880, many Chinese workers took part in the building
of the CPR. Once the railroad was built, the Chinese Exclusion
Act was passed. Between 1885 and 1923, Chinese immigrants,
unlike European immigrants, had to pay quite a substantial head
tax to come to Canada. From $50 per person in 1885, the head tax
increased to $100 to finally reach the astronomical amount of
$500 by 1903.
To say it was a staggering amount of money at that time is an
understatement. In fact, it is estimated that by 1923 that
awful tax had generated $23 million for the Canadian government,
which would translate into about $1 billion nowadays.
The current landing fee of $975 per adult immigrant coming to
Canada was set by the current Liberal government in 1995.
At the time, the fee applied to both immigrants and refugees.
Public outcry prompted the government to stop collecting that
fee from refugees in February 2000.
However it still applies to other immigrants who have other
expenses to pay when they come to Canada. Besides the landing
fee set at $975 per immigrant over 19 years of age, the
permanent residence application costs $500 per immigrant over 19
years of age and $100 for anyone younger.
Everyone agrees that this tax is clearly unfair and prohibitive.
While the government is raking in surplus after surplus by
diverting the surplus of the employment insurance fund, it is
still collecting a landing fee from immigrants. Two thousand
immigrants at $975 each make for a lot of money. It comes to
about $200 million a year.
These actions by the government show once again its
insensitivity toward the poor in our society. Indeed, many
people want to immigrate here but do not necessarily have much
money. This tax does not at all take into account the economic
resources of individuals or the economic conditions in their
country of origin. In the end, the door is wide open but only
for those who have the means to pay.
While the federal Liberal government is accumulating surplus
upon surplus, Quebec is welcoming some 12,000 refugees annually.
The slowness in the processing of claims by the federal
government results in staggering costs for Quebec. It is
estimated that it costs about $100 million annually to take
charge of people waiting for a ruling by the Immigration and
Refugee Board and the federal government will not consider
reimbursing Quebec for these costs. It is too poor.
Clearly, the only reason for this landing fee is to put money in
the federal treasury.
1405
Another worrisome thing about this tax is that it is an
impediment to what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
considers one of her priorities: the reunification of families.
We know that many immigrants are not necessarily rolling in
money. For those who apply to sponsor a member of their family,
this tax is a major obstacle.
It is clear that Bill C-11, which is now before the committee,
would allow us to examine this tax and the government's real
objectives. It is essential that the federal government
significantly lower this tax or, better yet, abolish it.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 231, which suggests
that the government should remove the right of landing fee for
all classes of immigrants. I am more than happy to support the
motion brought forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre and to
speak on behalf of our member for Fundy—Royal, our immigration
critic, who also supports the motion.
A number of issues have been discussed today, but a couple of
more statements need to be made. It would behoove us all to
realize that we are all immigrants to this land. Some of us have
been here for a few hundred years and some of us have been here
for a few days, but all of us came from another place at one time
or another to make our home and to try to raise our families in
Canada. Whether one is first generation, fifteenth generation or
one thousandth generation, it really does not make any
difference. We are all equal before the law. We all stand to
benefit from good government and to continue to live here and
enjoy the freedoms Canada offers.
There is a bit of background to the head tax that should be
mentioned. The previous speaker started to go into that
background, but she did not get into the details. The head tax
and the Chinese Exclusion Act remain two of the worst examples of
legalized racism in Canadian history. I do not think we can move
forward unless we are willing to look at our history, understand
the mistakes that were made in the past, and hopefully try not to
make the same mistakes again.
The original head tax was introduced in 1885 and finally
repealed in 1923. It was only levied on Chinese immigrants.
When it was repealed in 1923 it was replaced by the Chinese
Exclusion Act which remained in place until 1947. That act
prohibited Chinese from immigrating to Canada.
Can we imagine today picking one race or one group of people and
saying they cannot immigrate to this country? It is quite
unheard of. The original head tax was also an entrance fee. It
was set at $50 per person in 1885. It rose to $100 in 1900 and
was raised to $500 in 1905. The Chinese community continues
today to seek redress for these acts.
While not to be confused with the original head tax of 1885,
many immigrant communities refer to Canada's $975 entrance fee as
a head tax, and rightfully so. It was introduced in the 1995
budget of the Minister of Finance and remains in place today.
Additional to this fee, which was mentioned by the Canadian
Alliance member who spoke previously, is a $500 per person
processing fee. The $975 is not for processing the paperwork or
looking after the fees associated with immigration.
The $500 supposedly looks after that and the $975 is a tax on
immigrants who quite often can least afford to pay it. We are
looking at $1,500.
1410
As the Alliance member mentioned earlier, it starts to add up
for a family of four, five, or six. It is a considerable amount
of money that could be well spent to allow new Canadians to
become accustomed to the country, perhaps to learn the language
or to give them a bit of a cushion as they integrate into the
community.
It is important to look at some of the statements made on the
government side of the House in the past. The Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration made a clear commitment to a fair,
affordable and well enforced immigration policy. Therefore, a
form of financial guarantee would ensure that sponsors of
immigrants met their obligations. In addition, a $975 fee would
be charged all adults immigrating to Canada to offset the costs
of immigrant services, said the Minister of Finance, as reported
in Hansard of February 27, 1995. It could not be any
further from reality. As reported in Hansard of March 13,
1995, Mary Clancy said that the cost of programs was $271 million
a year.
Even though the statements by the immigration department would
imply otherwise, that the $975 would offset fees, that is not the
case. The $975 goes directly into general revenue. The general
revenue is kind of nefarious: the money goes in there but we are
not quite certain what happens to it after. Even the auditor
general has a very difficult job to trace the money through all
the loops and the rabbit warren of general revenue. It is like
Alice in Wonderland.
To help handle criticism of the fee the same government provided
for loans to be made available to help pay the costs. The fee is
set out in typical Liberal fashion as a so-called caring and
compassionate government to ensure that no one is turned away as
a result. Loan programs and other ways of assisting are also
included in the process, according to the hon. member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore on March 2, 1995.
Now comes the kicker. On April 3, 1995, Anna Terrana indicated
that the loan option was said to be based on one's ability to
repay the loan within a certain time period. She asked how these
individuals could, without the necessary tools to acquire
meaningful employment, be realistically expected to repay the
loans within a three year period. They contradicted one another.
Everyone in the House is aware that the government has since
abolished the head tax on convention refugees. It has kind of
come part way. What we need is a commitment from the government
to come the rest of the way. It needs to take a look at what it
has done in the past and say that it does not work, that it
interferes with immigration, and that it is really a penalty
against future Canadians and immigrants to the country. The
government should say that enough is enough and simply get rid of
it. What a novel idea.
Perhaps the day has come when as parliamentarians we should look
at the things that work and applaud them. We should look at the
things that do not work and ask how they could be changed. Let
us get rid of them and put them on the chopping block.
An hon. member: It is common sense.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I agree with the member who just said
“It is common sense”. A little common sense goes a long way.
I would like to do an overview of the PC stance on immigration.
We recognize that immigration in Canada will continue. We
certainly support it. We also recognize further that it is an
economic necessity. We need to have more confidence in and
respect for human diversity so that we do not get sucked into the
debate.
1415
I will quote the words of our immigration critic, the member for
Fundy Royal, “so that we do not get sucked into the debate of
always having to add the word criminal in a statement related to
immigration. That is a very slippery slope”.
In conclusion, the PC Party supports the bill. We support the
abolition of the $975 head tax and the $500 tax that is added on
top of that. In other words, we support the abolition of the
$1,475 tax that immigrants are forced to pay when they come into
Canada.
We would like to see the bill made votable. Perhaps in the
future it will become votable. In the meantime, it is through
the continuation of efforts like this that hopefully some day we
will see the abolition of the tax.
In summary, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House
to make the motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in support of
Motion No. 231, that the government should eliminate the right of
landing fee on all classes of immigrants to Canada.
I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for moving
the motion. I would point out that in 1998 I moved a similar
motion in the immigration committee, which would have eliminated
the head tax, but the Liberal members on the committee
unanimously opposed it. Today, when the hon. member from the PC
Party asked for unanimous consent, it was again the Liberal
members, not opposition party members, including the Canadian
Alliance, who were opposed to making the motion votable.
I am convinced that the right of landing fee is a cash cow for
the Liberal government. The government is hungry to increase
taxes whenever it gets the opportunity to balance its budget on
the backs of taxpayers. In this case, it is raising taxes on the
backs of refugees and prospective new immigrants. The tax has
been in place for six years. The government has raked in about
$1.2 billion from new immigrants. That is about $1,000 per
immigrant per year.
Where does all the money go? It does not go for resettlement
purposes or into the departmental budget. It goes to the general
revenues of the government, this big, bulky government.
The head tax is not based on need. It is not based on the
income of the people or the educational level. For example,
people teaching English or French in another country may still
have to pay for English as a second language when they come to
Canada. The tax does not take into consideration the ability to
settle in Canada. It is a very unfair head tax on prospective
immigrants.
When we speak about the historical perspective, the head tax has
connotations of the discriminatory past of our country. The
government imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants to Canada
from 1885 to 1923 to discourage them from coming here.
1420
It started at $50 per head and then rose to $500 per head. This
head tax, which continues into the 21st century, reminds us of the
Chinese exclusion act. It also reminds us of the discriminatory
practices with respect to the Komagata Maru ship which
came to Canada. Based on race and country of origin, the
passengers of that ship, most of whom were refugees, were not
allowed to land on this great land. After many days, the ship
was forced out of Canadian waters. When it arrived back in
India, many of the passengers were gunned down by the government
at that time.
It also reminds us of the discriminatory practices followed in
the old age security benefits, commonly called a pension for
seniors. It is discriminatory because it is not needs based.
This head tax discriminates against the poor and people of
colour from Third World countries. Those prospective immigrants
who come from developed countries have to pay that fee which is
equivalent to about 15 days of wages in developed countries.
Fifteen hundred dollars is about 15 days wages. For many of the
developing countries, it takes about 15 months to save that
$1,500. Then we translate or convert that currency into the
local currency of that country.
In the underdeveloped countries, or the backward countries I
should say, like Zaire, it takes 15 years for people to save
$1,500 Canadian per person. When a family of four or more people
plan to come to Canada, this head tax acts as a deterrent for
those individuals.
In many other countries, the immigration visa fee is adjusted
according to the cost of living in those countries. For example,
if one applies for a British visa, the fee depends on from which
country one is applying. In certain countries, the fees are
lowered because the cost of living is lower and the cost of
processing that application is lower.
I also want to make it very clear that I talked to many
immigrants in my constituency and all over the country.
Immigrants want to pay a fee, but a reasonable fee, whether it is
a processing fee or whatever name we give it. However this fee
becomes unreasonable and acts as a deterrent, particularly so
when the minister wants to open the front door, as I have been
saying for a long time, and close the back door. When the fees
are discriminatory, it does not encourage the immigrants to come
through the front door but probably through the revolving door.
There are many individuals and groups who oppose this head tax.
Among them are the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the
Canadian Council for Refugees. They came up with a document
called “Impact of the Right of Landing Fee” in 1997. The
National Action Committee on the Status of Women noted that it
has a disproportionate impact on women. The Caledon Institute of
Social Policy, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the
Canadian Labour Congress and many more oppose this head tax. They
oppose it because it is too much. It is double the fee in the
U.S.A., for instance, for a family of four entering that country.
Originally in 1995 when the right of landing fee was imposed,
the finance minister proposed a fee of $1,700 to $1,800. Due to
some good negotiations probably, it came down to $975, even
though the former immigration minister wanted it less than $300.
I would also like to mention that the Liberal Party at its 1996
convention passed a resolution for the government to review the
head tax. I believe the government has come up with all kinds of
lame excuses. If it was a grassroots party, it would have
listened to its members.
1425
In conclusion, even though the government eliminated the head
tax for refugees in the year 2000, for five years it had been
milking those people who were forced to leave their homes. With
the deficit having turned into a surplus, the government should
lower taxes in general and eliminate the head tax. The minister
has the authority to eliminate the service charge because it is
not a designated tax. The right of landing fee should be based
on equity so that we give new immigrants a chance to settle into
their new lives.
Therefore I support this motion and I would ask the other
members of the House to support it.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, let
the record show, and I hope all the people who are watching this
back home are fully aware of this, that there is only one party
in the House of Commons that refuses to allow this motion to go
to a vote and that is the Liberal Party. The Liberal MPs are the
only ones who are afraid to put this issue to a vote.
I can tell the House why they are afraid. They would lose that
vote. There are members of the Liberal backbench to whom I have
spoken who feel very passionately about this issue as well,
because they represent ridings where there is a strong population
of new Canadians who feel abandoned and cheated by their own
government by the imposition of this unfair tax.
I know of one Liberal cabinet minister who has spoken very
plainly and openly about it and who strongly believes this should
be eliminated.
The Liberal Party knows it would lose the vote.
The Liberals had a window of opportunity. I used my very rare
opportunity of getting one of my bills or motions put forward. Of
all the pieces of private member's business I have, I chose this
one in order to give them a graceful exit so that they could get
out of a bad situation. They chose not to take advantage or
avail themselves of that. I hope they wear that right across the
country.
We heard the member for South Shore say that this is not just a
head tax but a penalty on new Canadians. They are being
penalized for choosing to make Canada their home. What kind of
welcoming message does that send around the world as we try to
attract the best and the brightest to our country? I should add
that we are in competition with other countries. There are a lot
of countries people can choose to go to. We want them to come to
Canada, yet we throw barriers and roadblocks like this racist
head tax in their way.
This head tax is an insult to new Canadians. I have spoken
confidentially with people in my riding and they are offended.
Their feelings are hurt by the imposition of this tax. The
Filipino Association of Manitoba, as my hon. colleague across the
way knows very well because he is a former president of that
association, has made very public demands. Its members have let
their feelings be known very publicly about how offended they are
that the government chose to look to them as some kind of a cash
cow or revenue generator when all they are trying to do is
reunite their families in this country.
Perhaps the most damaging thing about this head tax is not even
the financial burden that it puts on families trying to bring
family members here. It is the moral indignation they feel. It
is in the assault on the morale of new Canadians that this head
tax does really almost permanent damage.
The Liberal Party had an opportunity to live up to the
resolution it passed at its own convention and to do the
honourable thing. The Liberals do not need a legislative
directive to change this head tax. They can do it unilaterally
by order in council. The minister has the right to impose,
raise, lower or eliminate a fee of this nature and it could
happen tomorrow.
It would have sent a welcoming message to new Canadians. It
would have satisfied the many social justice groups and advocates
for immigration who have been saying loud and clear how unfair
the imposition of this tax is.
The Liberals missed the opportunity. They did it voluntarily. I
see them all looking down at their books. They are hanging their
heads in shame, as well they should, because the country is
watching, and even for those people who may have missed this
little fiasco we are going to remind them. We are going to
publish it far and wide that the Liberals willingly and knowingly
missed this opportunity. Not only did they miss the opportunity
to oppose the head tax, they decided to keep it and keep milking
new Canadians like they are some revenue generating cash cow.
Even though the government has a $100 billion surplus that it is
always crowing about, it decided not to change the practice of
picking the pockets of new Canadians.
The NDP caucus believes that immigration is an engine for
economic growth. The NDP caucus believes that new Canadians
begin contributing to the economy the very day they set foot on
our shores and buy their first meals or first articles of
clothing or rent their first home and, I might add, start paying
taxes for the rest of their lives. They pay ad nauseam.
That is how new Canadians make a contribution. We do not have to
pick their pockets as soon as they express an interest in coming
to our country.
We have missed a window of opportunity to send a valuable
message to the rest of the world today. I am sorry in my own
heart that members did not see fit to exhibit the kind of
compassion and humanitarian reputation Canada is known for.
I am very disappointed and I am sure most new Canadians are as
well. As I say, if they do not remember who the architects of
this problem were, we will be there to remind them.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
[English]
It being 2.31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday,
March 12 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)