House of Commons Hansard #192 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was provinces.

Topics

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his question. However, I do not think that I need a lecture from the hon. member on respect.

I am not saying that I oppose changes to the equalization formula. I am not saying that at all. Yes, he is right about Nova Scotia. Yes, he is right about Newfoundland and Labrador.

My point is simply this. If the government continues to take back, dollar for dollar, any royalties that we get from oil and gas, or from Voisey's Bay, if we ever get to develop it, we will not become a have province. Voisey's Bay is still in the ground. The company paid something like $4.2 billion for control of the resource, and there is much more than that there.

My point is that there had to be changes. If we are ever going to become a have province, then we are going to have to be able to keep some of the royalties that we get from those resources and not be penalized by the federal government clawing them back. That is my point.

I am not against changing it. I know what the hon. member is saying about three provinces and seven provinces. We want to be a have province.

What I said was out of no disrespect for the west. What I said was that too often in this Chamber members stand in their place who are a little too parochial but think that they understand the problems of other regions and have solutions for other regions when they do not understand the people and they have never been there. How can someone understand the people, their issues and concerns if they do not go to where those people are to gain an understanding of their problems?

Perhaps members could criticize me for not having a great enough understanding of the west. I could probably be fairly criticized for that. However, I am suggesting that if members of parliament are going to recommend solutions for people from other parts of the country we have to understand the people and the problems before bringing solutions that just do not cut it.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Charlie Power Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Madam Speaker, I must commend the member, for whom I have the highest regard, for his comments about equalization. All of us in Newfoundland are very concerned that these equalization changes could make our lives much more difficult rather than easier.

I want to ask the hon. member if he could clarify a point for us.

Sometimes the laws that we make in this House of Commons are what can make a have or a have not province. For those members from western Canada or Ontario who do not fully understand, Newfoundland has become a have not province because of an act of this House of Commons of 1967 which forced the province of Newfoundland to make a deal only with Hydro Quebec and with nobody else. The Upper Churchill agreement has cost the province of Newfoundland as much as $700 million per year, every year, during the seventies, eighties and nineties.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

An hon. member

Ask Joey Smallwood. He signed it.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Charlie Power Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Joey Smallwood and the Government of Canada. This House of Commons forced the people of Newfoundland into an agreement which was unjust and unfair and we have never been able to change it.

I want to remind the member that the same thing almost happened in western Canada when the national energy program was in place. It almost impoverished the province of Alberta. It could have made it a have not province had it stayed in place much longer.

I want to ask the hon. member if there is going to be some time in history when we could have a moratorium on paying back all of the royalties that we receive in Newfoundland from resource projects until such time as Newfoundland is a have province.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. For those of us who were involved in bringing the Hibernia project to fruition in Newfoundland and Labrador, we know at that time that there was a similar debate which took place.

The hon. member and I were members of a provincial government at the time and we negotiated an agreement whereby we got to keep a percentage of royalties from Hibernia. If memory serves me correctly, we got to keep about 30%. That has helped us a bit.

Right now we are into the development of Terra Nova and other oil fields. White Rose and so on will come onstream before too much longer. We are going to be a significant player in offshore oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador. Hopefully we will have significant mineral developments and mining and the smelting of various ores.

However, the point is that we should be afforded an opportunity to develop our natural resources and keep enough of our royalties so that over a period of time we will become a have province. That is my point. I think that is basically what the hon. member is asking.

Yes, the federal government should give serious consideration to a formula that would allow us to keep at least a portion of revenues from Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose and Voisey's Bay without knocking us back, dollar for dollar, off the equalization formula.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB

Madam Speaker, I am a little confused about some of the comments the member is making. The proposal is that as the resources of Atlantic Canada are developed, in order to become a have province they should not only keep the royalties from those resource projects but also the transfer payments as a have not province. As an Albertan I would like to know if that thinking would also apply to Alberta, that we could keep the royalties from our natural resources and also receive transfer payments.

They do not seem to work together, in my opinion. I would like the hon. member's comment on that.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Unless things change, we will always be a have not province. If we give someone $10 and take back $10, they are no better off.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Reform

Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB

How did Alberta become a have province?

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL

Alberta was not always a have province. We are going to be a have province, but we need some considerations from the Government of Canada to get there.

We would love to be a have province. We wish we did not have to come to the Government of Canada looking for five cents. That is our wish, but we are going to need some help and some consideration gradually until we get there. That is what we are asking for. Give us a sliding scale so that it is taken back over time, but at least let us get to that point where we are considered to be a have province and then we will not need as much equalization from the Government of Canada or from other provinces.

That is what we aim to do, but we are going to need some help to get there.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-65.

When future generations look back at today's Hansard they are going to see that the member for Broadview—Greenwood gave a speech in this House and was subsequently followed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

The people of Selkirk—Interlake sent me to Ottawa to represent them, to stand up for them and to put their points of view across to the government in a way that it would understand. Some constituents suggested that I take a length of two-by-four or a fence post. I have to say that I declined, but today, after hearing the member for Broadview—Greenwood, I wonder if I should have followed their advice.

That member constantly referred to the west as that remote region, the region out west. The member for Broadview—Greenwood is the epitome of that thinker who says that the centre of the universe is Toronto, the centre of the universe is the Liberal attitude, the arrogant Liberals, the “we will tell you in the remote regions what is good for you” Liberals, the interventionist Liberals. That was his favourite, the interventionist Liberals. I would simply say that the people of Selkirk—Interlake believe that Toronto and the member's riding of Broadview—Greenwood are in fact remote regions to them and we resent being referred to as a remote region.

He was speaking about the interventionist government being the kind of government that we need, and big intervention, not small. I would suggest to the member that he look at the interventionist activity that could have been taken in relation to our native people and the poverty and the homelessness that he was talking about. In that case the government has all the authority and the right to act on behalf of those poor people and has not done so.

I would suggest that he use his interventionist activities and abilities to move now, not sometime in the future when they get bigger government and more power. Do it now, with the power the Liberals have today.

I will now speak more directly to Bill C-65.

This has taken a bit of my time but the record is important for future generations. I will also be sharing my time with the member for Dewdney—Alouette who also has some important things to say about Bill C-65.

The interventionist member took some time pointing out Reform's position, my party's position, yet he strayed from the facts. The purpose of equalization is to promote equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians, to further economic development, to reduce disparity in opportunities and provide essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

I would like to quote the Leader of the Official Opposition who stated “The official opposition, the Reform Party, is committed to equalization and has been from the outset. I believe that the rank and file people in provinces like British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario who receive no equalization payments and in fact are net contributors to the federal-provincial transfers also support the principle of equalization. They have objections as to how the federal government administers it and how the federal government handles transfers but do not object to the principle itself”.

That should put to rest the statements the member for Broadview—Greenwood made. He distorted precisely what the position is of the Reform Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I would like to talk about some points in Bill C-65. It is certainly a big subject that cannot be handled in one short speech.

One of the things that has caused me some concern is the concept of gambling revenues. It is my understanding that the changes will see for the first time provincial casino revenues included in the formula for the calculation of equalization payments.

Myself and many people in my riding are very much against the video lotteries and the extensive gambling that is going on in Canada today. Without trying to say that no one should gamble, which is not the question, the question is how much reliance should provincial and federal governments be putting on gambling revenues as a major source of their incomes?

Once governments start to figure things in and say they are part of the income, if there is any danger of that drying up, the first thing they have to do is take action to get people to gamble in order to keep that source of revenue coming in. If governments need more money, they have to encourage more people to gamble. Gambling in itself is not wrong. The problem is that many people cannot control their gambling instincts. Having a public government, the representative of the people, encouraging gambling is not right.

Gambling revenues are going to be included in the equalization formula to determine payments. That is a big mistake.

As to what the formula is going to do over the next few years with regard to the individual provinces, I note that my province of Manitoba will lose about $37 million by the end of the five year term. The figures could certainly go higher, to as much as $50 million as some members have stated.

Premier Gary Filmon has taken a very good economic road and has had economic policies for the benefit of the province of Manitoba over the past 10 years. He spoke out on equalization when this formula was proposed. He clearly stated that the objective of Manitoba is to become at least zero or a have province. We are taking economic activity and initiatives that will get us to that point.

In the meantime, as has been pointed out by the Reform Party, the formula which is in place and which is being developed in part of this bill is so convoluted and unfair that it is not really transparent or obvious to Canadians how it works. It is subject to political influence and interference. I do not think our country should be run in a way which tries to equalize things and make them fair for everyone but in fact, the very formula that is being used permits the government to be either unfair to a province or excessively fair to a province.

A particular example is the province of Newfoundland. Just before the provincial election it was in a deficit position. It happened, I suppose by accident, that it was a Liberal who was trying to become the premier of the province again. Lo and behold, after refiguring the formula and recalculating how it works, Newfoundland's payments went higher and the would-be premier of the province went into the election saying that he had a balanced budget.

That is one example of what is wrong with this formula. Newfoundland no doubt deserves that money and needs that money because it has fallen on hard times in years past. But in treating provinces fairly, it should not be left to the government of the day to make individual decisions based purely on politics on how to be fair to Canadians and to the poor people of this country.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Madam Speaker, these are questions and comments and mine will probably be a comment.

The hon. member is our critic for agriculture. Even those of us who are on the finance committee whose job it is to study this bill and the equalization plan have great difficulty understanding the formula and how it is evaluated.

I would like to comment on the issue of lotteries. The member is looking at the bottom line. According to the bottom line of this bill, when it is passed it is projected—and we got these numbers from the finance department officials—that the equalization payments for Manitoba will go down $37 million. That is the number the member quoted quite correctly.

However, it should be pointed out that because of the lottery component, if the member would look at the sheets, which obviously he has not had an opportunity to examine, in the breakdown per tax component, Manitoba loses about $50 million because of the gaming component. It is in the tables. This means that instead of going down $30 million, $50 million is due to lotteries. Instead of going down, Manitoba would have had an increase. Manitoba went from an increase situation to a decrease because of the lotteries. The total lottery impact is some $50 million.

My other comment has to do with respect to the formula and evaluation. How does one compute the potential of a province to gain lottery revenue? That is how the equalization formula works. It would be very subversive if actual income was used.

As the Conservative member from the east has explained, when a government gets new revenue, it does not like to have that taxed because there is 100% clawback. The same thing is true here. How would it be evaluated?

I would like to give one of my other colleagues a little more time so I will very gently shut down and add that as a comment. It really does not require a response from the member.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Madam Speaker, certainly I have said quite clearly that I am not in favour of lotteries being included in the formula because of the incentive it gives to governments to try to raise those revenues.

I also have a question with regard to casinos that are going to be on our aboriginal reserves. How does this work into the formula?

Part of the problem is that it gets so complex and convoluted that it is difficult to work with. It may be okay for government actuaries and accountants, but the problem is that the average Canadian has to understand how this works because it is his or her money that is being thrown around by governments. That is why I would like to see a much simpler formula. I thank the member for his question.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Reform

Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Madam Speaker, I that know time is brief so I will try to make my points very quickly here.

It is a pleasure to enter into this debate for a number of reasons, the first one being that this whole area of equalization is an important area, something that we support. We do not support the way the government has gone ahead with this bill and the way it has introduced it. The government has had five years, imagine, to deal with this issue and in three days it has brought it forward without consultation. It is another example of the top down arrogant style of governance we have seen from the Liberal Party of Canada over and over and over again. It is reflected again here with the introduction of this bill.

It reminds me a little bit of a comic strip we are all well aware of. In the Charlie Brown comic strip there is a character named Lucy. She would pull the football away from Charlie Brown every time he tried to kick it. Charlie Brown kept coming back to try to take another kick at the ball and every time Lucy would pull that ball away and Charlie Brown would lie flat on his back.

That is the way the Liberal government approaches legislation. In fact it is the way the Liberals approach governance in this country. We could substitute whomever we would like to for Charlie Brown, whether it be the hardworking Canadian taxpayers who fork over dollar after dollar after dollar to the government, or in this case the provinces which are treated in that same way. They come back in good faith, yet the government continues to pull the ball away from them, to take away the goodwill they bring to the table over and over and over again.

That is the way this Liberal government deals with Canadians and with the provinces. And the Liberals wonder why they need to send out a task force to western Canada to find out what the problem is, why they have only a few members of parliament when there is approximately 100 seats in the west. Perhaps the Liberals will be sending a task force to other regions of the country as well to figure out why people are not voting for them. It is very simple. Canadians are not voting for the Liberals in those parts of the country because the Liberals are not listening. They do not get it. They do not understand.

Those comments were made clear by a member of the government, the member for Broadview—Greenwood just a few short minutes ago when he said he was an interventionist. “Do not worry, people of Canada. The federal government will solve your problems. Send us your bucks and we will take care of you”.

That simply is not working. It is not the truth and it is not the reality of the situation. And the Liberals wonder why they have to send a task force out to western Canada and other parts of the country to find out why people do not support them. They just do not get it. They do not understand.

The member for Broadview—Greenwood mentioned that he cannot understand why people in western Canada are upset with a government that says it has basically taken care of them. “We have put all this money into this program and that program. Why do you not support us?”

People of western Canada and other regions of the country do not support the government because it does not listen. Government members think they have the answers.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

An hon. member

What does this have to do with his riding?

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Reform

Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Madam Speaker, I hear the member from Coquitlam harping up once again. It is nice to see that he is here for a change. It would be nice to see him enter into this debate in a reasonable manner rather than just shouting across the way as he usually does.

It is the government's way of dealing with Canadians and the different regions of Canada. The Liberal members simply think they have all the answers. Thirty years of governance from the sixties onward have shown that the government does not have the answers, that it does not have the solutions. The programs it has put in place do not solve all the problems. The government cannot see that and that is a shame. That is exactly the approach it has taken with Bill C-65. Once again it has shown its arrogant way of dealing with Canadians. It is a shame.

The government could have taken a different approach. It could have taken a consultative approach where it talks with individuals and mentions equalization in a formula that would actually work. To think that we have seven have not provinces, in this government's own terms, is a shame. It is incomprehensible how that can happen in a country as rich as this.

That is this government's approach to governing. It is disrespect for Canadians that has led to this kind of legislation and this style of governing and it has to come to an end.

The House resumed from March 4 consideration of the motion and the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

March 9th, 1999 / 5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Pursuant to order made Thursday, March 4, 1999, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 333Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 334Government Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

Division No. 334Government Orders

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make sure that my name was included among those who voted in favour of the Reform Party motion. I was present.

Division No. 334Government Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I can assure the hon. member that his name was included on the list of those who voted. I have already determined this, and everything is all right. The member therefore voted.

It being 6.15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Reform

Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB

moved that Bill C-312, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (percentage of gifts that may be deducted from tax), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate my private member's Bill C-312. Let me thank my colleague from Delta—South Richmond for seconding the bill.

Bill C-312 would amend the Income Tax Act with respect to the percentage of gifts that may be deducted from tax. I will read a brief overview of exactly what this private member's bill is all about:

The purpose of this enactment is to increase the deductibility of charitable gifts up to $1,150 a year to be no less than for political contributions. It applies to gifts, up to that amount, the same formula for calculating the deduction that is used for political contributions to registered parties and candidates. The deduction for gifts above that amount remains unchanged.

The enactment actually covers Crown gifts and cultural gifts as well because they are added to charitable gifts to calculate the deduction under the act and the expression “total gifts” means total charitable gifts up to 50% of income plus total Crown gifts plus total cultural gifts.

The rationale for this private member's bill is really about levelling the playing field. As members know we are all proud to be Canadians and we believe that Canadians should be treated equally. That is one of the pillars of our democracy. Politicians should not have any advantage over regular citizens who work hard and pay a lot of taxes. In fact 46 cents out of every dollar is paid out in tax in one form or another. For that purpose it is even more important for citizens to get the same breaks as politicians.

This bill is really about equality for Canadians. It is about being treated in this country on an equal footing. Regardless of what politicians believe, which is that they should have an added advantage certainly during election times when raising funds, I believe that politicians should not have an advantage over other citizens who would like to contribute to the charity of their choice. Therefore, this bill would level the playing field.

In essence, Bill C-312 is about taking away political advantage for political donations. Politicians I believe and most people in this country believe should be treated no differently from the average Canadian. Not all donations should have the same weight.

This bill unfortunately is not votable. Obviously it was politicians who decided that it should not be made votable. In fact when I presented myself before the committee there was an instance when members of the committee thought I was mixing apples and oranges. I really do not think we are mixing apples and oranges. I believe that Canadians need to be treated in an equal fashion. Politicians are Canadians and so are the citizens of this country, so it is really not about apples and oranges.

What I would like to do at this time is run through the bill so that the people who are watching will know what it is about. As I first indicated, Bill C-312 would amend the Income Tax Act with respect to the percentage of gifts that may be deducted from tax.

Subsection 118.1(3) of the Income Tax Act would be replaced by the following:

(3) For the purpose of computing the tax payable under this Part by an individual for a taxation year, there may be deducted such amount as the individual claims, not exceeding

(a) 75% of the lesser of $100 and the individual's total gifts for the year if the total does not exceed $100, plus

(b) 50% of the amount by which the individual's total gifts for the year exceed $100 and do not exceed $550, plus

(c) 33 1/3% of the amount by which the individual's total gifts for the year exceed $550 and do not exceed $1,150, plus

(d) the highest percentage referred to in subsection 117(2) that applies in determining tax that might be payable under this Part for the year multiplied by the amount by which the individual's total gifts for the year exceed $1,150.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to the 1998 and subsequent taxation years.

The proposals necessary to change the calculation for the charitable donation credits for income tax would take place in such a manner.

The Income Tax Act would have to be amended, as I indicated earlier, in order to make the calculation of the tax credit for the first $1,150 of charitable donations in order to make the treatment equivalent to or better than the tax credit for political contributions of $1,150.

With respect to political contributions, the taxpayer may at present deduct from income tax otherwise payable under Part I of the Income Tax Act an amount in respect of contributions made in the year to a registered party or an officially nominated candidate in a federal election or byelection.

According to subsection 127(4) of the act, the above terms have a meaning assigned to them in the Canada Elections Act.

Pursuant to subsection 127(3), the political contribution deduction is calculated as a percentage of the actual contribution made by the taxpayer in the year.

The taxpayer may deduct (a) 75% of the first $100 contributed; (b) 50% of the next $450 contributed; and (c) 33 1/3% of the next $600 contributed. The maximum deduction is therefore $500 and is available where the taxpayer has contributed $1,150. Where the contribution in a year exceeds $1,150 no amount is deductible in respect of this excess and the taxpayer may not carry such an excess over and take a deduction in another year.

Since the deduction is from part I, tax otherwise payable, it is in the nature of a tax credit. Where the taxpayer is not otherwise required to pay income tax for the year in an amount at least equal to this credit the benefits of the credit are lost. The taxpayer cannot receive this credit as a tax refund.

Section 118.1 provides for a non-refundable tax credit to individuals in respect of certain gifts made by them which qualify as charitable gifts, crown gifts, cultural gifts or ecological gifts. This credit is applicable against income tax otherwise payable under part I of the Income Tax Act and is determined in accordance with the formula described in section 118.1(3).

The formula is based on the individual's total gifts for the taxation year, meaning the total of the lesser of the individual's total charitable gifts for the year and generally 50% of the individual's income for the year in 1996 and later years up from 20% in 1992 to 1995; the individual's total crown gifts for the year; the individual's total cultural gifts for the year; and the individual's total ecological gifts for the year.

The relevant definitions of the above terms are contained in section 118.1(1). According to section 118.1(3) the tax credit for an individual in respect of total gifts for a taxation year is calculated at two rates, 17% of the first $200 of donations plus 29% of the donations over $200.

In order to change the calculation of the tax credit for the first $1,150 of the total charitable gifts to make it equivalent to or better than the tax credit for $1,150 in political contributions an amendment would be required to section 118.1(3). The wording would depend on whether the intention was to change the calculation of the tax credit for only total charitable gifts or for total gifts since total charitable gifts comprise only a portion of the total gifts on which the present calculation of the tax credit is based.

Assuming that the calculation of the tax credit for the first $1,150 of donations was changed to be the same as the calculation for the tax credit for $1,150 in political contributions, a determination would also have to be made as to what the legislated formulae would be for calculating the tax credit on the portion of donations in excess of $1,150.

Turning to the revenue implications of the proposal in Bill C-312, the most important change is the increase to 75% credit of the first $100 as opposed to the 17% of the first $200 given the existing rules and 50% of the next $450. The average charitable donation claim in 1993 was $626 according to Revenue Canada's taxation statistics. Subject to standard rules the federal tax credits generated would be $158. If this representative donation had instead been subject to the political contribution credit rules, the earned credit would have been $325, a difference of $168 multiplied by a hypothetical 5.4 million taxpayers.

Another approach to estimating the revenue implication of the proposal is static microsimulation which was done using Statistics Canada's social policy simulation model and database. Responsibility for the results and the interpretation lies with the present author. This involves rewriting the algorithm of calculating the charitable donations tax credit to reflect the proposal at hand and using the model to estimate the net impact of federal revenues.

Assuming that for charitable contributions above $1,150 the credit rate would be thirty three and one-third per cent instead of the current twenty nine per cent. Matching the political contributions credit for amounts below that, the impact on federal revenues is estimated to be about $800 million. The simulation approach thus matches quite nicely with estimates above employing averages.

After $1,150 it will go back to 29%. This is a static exercise, which is to say that we assume in doing the calculation that individuals do not choose to donate more because of the more favourable treatment. If it is the case, that more favourable treatment does not generate any new or incremental revenue for charities, all that is changed is the cost of giving.

It would be more realistic to assume that individuals choose to donate more, in which case charitable events would increase and federal revenues would decrease more than they do in the static exercise. How charitable givings would increase is a matter of speculation. It depends on what estimates one chooses for the rate of tax induced giving, which means how much the after tax cost of donation influences the amount donated.

There has been a reasonable amount of empirical work on this question and the jury is still out. While taxes do positively affect charitable livings, on the margin the magnitude of that effect is uncertain.

The incremental federal cost of increased giving depends on who is doing the giving. This is because for amounts above $550 the credit rate is only changing from twenty nine per cent to thirty three and one-third per cent, a relatively small shift. For smaller donors the credit rate is changing from 17% to either 50% or 75%, which may have a significant impact on donation rates. In other words, we may well find a large number of new donations under the $100 level and a large amount of new or increased donations in the $100 to $550 range. This would obviously influence charitable receipts in a positive way and a federal revenue in a negative manner.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being able to speak early on the motion tonight. I understand the parliamentary secretary assisted in that and I am very much appreciative.

The motion is a very important motion that seeks to address a fundamental flaw in the Canadian tax code as we see it currently, the discrepancy between the tax treatment of political contributions and charitable contributions.

As a preface to my remarks, it is very important to recognize the importance of the role charitable organizations play in Canadian society. That role has increased in recent years in part due to both federal and provincial government cutbacks where we have been in a period of fiscal restraint.

The non-profit sector, the volunteer sector, has had to play a larger role in providing some of the basic services. For instance, in areas of health care organizations like the VON have been called on to play a larger role than perhaps they have ever had to play in the past.

I argue that not just the intentions of this motion are very important but that the government should be trying to engage the volunteer sector on almost every area of service delivery to ensure that we identify the needs of Canadians more effectively and also, through the volunteer sector, to can work more effectively in meeting those needs.

There are several facts I would like to provide to the House on this issue. The discrepancies are very clear. The maximum contribution amount eligible for credit with a charity is 50%. For political parties the amount eligible for credit is $1,150. On charitable or non-profit organization contributions it is 17% of the first $200 and 29% on gifts over $200. The largest possible tax credit is limited by 50% of the donor's actual taxable income.

On contributions to political parties it is 75% of the total if the total does not exceed $100; $75 plus 50% of the next $450 is eligible and the lesser of $300 plus one-third of the amount exceeding $550 or $500. Clearly at some levels of contributions there are significant advantages of contributing to a political party as opposed to a charity. My party is not opposed to political contributions. I encourage Canadians who are watching tonight to make contributions.

The issue before us tonight is one that specifically addresses the discrepancy between contributions to charities and the non-profit and volunteer sector and political organizations. In the next century it is argued that in most industrialized countries the volunteer sector will play a larger and larger role in society. Governments will be asked to do some things extraordinarily well and will be asked to do less in some other areas. If we are to provide that level of responsibility to the volunteer sector we have to provide with it some type of commensurate improvement in the tax treatment which would enable citizens to contribute to those worthy areas.

This is not the only area that needs to be addressed in terms of our treatment of charitable contributions. We believe the government should remove the remaining capital gains tax on gifts of publicly traded securities to registered charitable organizations. Our party has taken a strong position on this. We have recommended to the minister that he eliminate this capital gains tax on publicly traded shares.

These publicly traded securities have been a very attractive option in allowing a philanthropist to transfer some of their investment holdings to worthy organizations. The capital gains tax effectively reduces the incentive for these philanthropists to contribute to the causes that are very important to them and that are very important to Canadians. The government appeared to recognize the principle I am speaking of a year ago when it reduced the capital gains tax on contributions of publicly traded securities by 50%.

What we are asking the government to do now is carry that policy to its logical conclusion and completely eliminate that capital gains tax on contributions of publicly traded shares. The cost to the federal treasury of the initiative I am speaking of in forgone revenue would be less than $50 million per year. That strikes me as an eminently reasonable tax expenditure to encourage more Canadians to contribute publicly traded shares and to support many of the non-profit and volunteer sector institutions, including hospitals, universities and other worthy institutions that are very important to the quality of life for Canadians.

This motion addresses one area of tax policy that we would like to see corrected. As I discussed, we have been pushing for the government to eliminate as well the capital gains tax on contributions of publicly traded shares to Canadian charities. These are some of the steps whereby the government could provide a recognition of the importance that Canada's volunteer sector provides to Canadians and the important level of services provided to Canadians by Canada's volunteer sector.

It is very important to recognize the trend of the increasing role that our volunteer sector is asked to play in society. The House would do itself proud to support this motion and to make steps in any way we can to encourage more Canadians to contribute to the volunteer sector which improves the quality of life of Canadians every day.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC

Madam Speaker, I did not appreciate the fact that you gave the floor to the member who just spoke. I should have been the second speaker.

I rise this evening—

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I would point out to the hon. member that the normal rotation does not apply during the period set aside for the consideration of Private Members' Business. The decision rests with the chair.