Debates of June 1st, 2000

Canada Transportation Act

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from May 31, 2000 consideration of Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 28, 2000, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we ought to have been able to rejoice with a projected budget surplus over the next five years of what, according to the minister's own analyses, will be $95.5 billion. For the first time, we can anticipate, for such a considerable length of time, some amazing surpluses in federal public finances. The last budget by the Minister of Finance is, however, a great disappointment. Why? One has to think about where those $95 billion have come from.

There are three main sources for the Minister of Finance's budget surpluses of the past two years and the next five to come. A surplus of that size is not good news when one learns its sources.

First of all, since 1993, since this Minister of Finance has been in that portfolio, things have been arranged so that the taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada have paid $30 billion more in taxes without the Minister of Finance having to announce any increases. This was done by not indexing the tax tables.

In the last budget, he announced that he was going to start indexing. It will, however, take years and years to correct the tables to reflect inflation, years before the Canadian taxpayers can see any difference in their pockets as far as a tax return is concerned. We are talking $30 billion in additional taxes here.

Another significant source of the Minister of Finance's surplus is the employment insurance fund. Year in and year out for the past four years now, he has been dipping into the employment insurance fund to find surpluses ranging from $6 billion to $7 billion annually. These funds are made up of the contributions of employers and employees to the employment insurance fund, not the federal government's contributions, for it has not put a cent into it since 1992. So one part of the surplus the Minister of Finance is so proud of comes from the surplus in the employment insurance fund.

There is another major source of these surpluses. The Minister of Finance, who is full of compassion for society's disadvantaged and who blithely puts his hand to his heart as he thinks of Canada's poor children, is the same Minister of Finance who, in 1994, put a budget mechanism in place that year after year ensures systematic cuts are made to the Canada social transfer, without any announcement of them. This transfer enables the provinces to fund social assistance, income security, post-secondary education and health.

Even with the minor adjustments he made in his latest budget, the 2000 budget, by 2003, the Minister of Finance will have withdrawn no less than $32 billion from these transfers to the provinces.

When we take a look at the Minister of Finance's evaluation of the surpluses over the coming years and the evaluation of what he has systematically stolen from these three budget items, we cannot miss the striking similarity of the figures. He will take the $90 billion from taxpayers as disguised tax increases and from the Canada social transfer by cutting it on the backs of the provinces. He will take it as well from the surplus in the employment insurance fund.

We should be pleased with what he calls good management of public finances and what we call robbery of taxpayers, the most disadvantaged in society and the unemployed.

We must not forget that the surplus in the employment insurance fund is not just an over-contribution by employers and employees. It is also the product of a tightening of the criteria under which unemployed workers may benefit from this plan.

Are members aware that only 42% of those unemployed can benefit from the employment insurance plan? It no longer covers the majority of the clientele it serves. This has got to change.

With surpluses coming out his ears, the Minister of Finance should be thinking about showing real compassion, instead of deliberately waiting until an election campaign is in full swing before announcing any sort of relief.

Since the government knows perfectly well that it will have a $95 billion surplus over the next five years, according to the minister's estimates, and over $140 billion according to ours, it is unconscionable to wait, while the problems of poverty and the problems in the health care system throughout Canada and not just in Quebec grow worse.

There has been an anti-Quebec campaign since we came here. We are more aware of it in the Bloc Quebecois, since we are the only ones defending the interests of Quebecers in this House. We are very aware of the systematic attacks and anti-Quebec propaganda around here.

With respect to poverty, when we see the latest figures provided by such bodies as the National Council of Welfare, it is outrageous, scandalous and unacceptable that a Minister of Finance, who will have surpluses coming out his ears over the next few years, does not introduce drastic measures to do something about this poverty, does not restore the Canada social transfer, and does not make the EI system more flexible in order to benefit unemployed workers.

When we look at the issue of poverty since the Liberal government has been in power, the government led by the little guy from Shawinigan, it has increased for all categories of the population. Let us look at the case of children alone.

In 1993, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada was critical of the Progressive Conservatives because, at the time, there were one million poor children in Canada. The latest statistics indicate that there are 1.5 million poor children in Canada, an increase of 50%.

If there are poor children, this is because there are poor parents, and if there are poor parents, this is because the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and this Liberal government have blithely slashed the Canada social transfer, and have accumulated a stupendous surplus, with plans to accumulate still more in coming years, on the backs of the poor.

When we look at the incidence of poverty among female seniors, it comes close to 50%. What is this government doing to remedy poverty in this group, in Quebec and in Canada? Nothing. It is swimming in surplus funds and is proud of it, but is doing nothing to remedy the situation.

As far as seniors are concerned, according to the Canadian Council on Social Development, we are seeing the reversal of a trend that has been in place for the past 30 years, which was to ensure that seniors had a decent income. Now we are in the process of quietly impoverishing certain sub-categories of seniors, while we ought to be continuing along the path of ensuring them a stable and fair income in a society that claims to be full of compassion and justice.

When we look at the new forms of poverty this government has created, we see that even now there is a new phenomenon which is impoverishing the employed. Now we have the working poor, a phenomenon we had not seen for several decades. People work, but because of a variety of factors, including government inertia when it comes to correcting injustices, such as in federal taxation, they are becoming poorer.

I will give an example. A couple with one child and a single income starts paying federal income tax once their income reaches $13,700, whereas in Quebec, this family would pay income tax only once their income reached $30,000.

Is it reasonable, when they have surpluses coming out of their ears, for the government to start taxing poor families with a dependent child at $13,700? In Quebec, the situation has long been rectified, and income tax is not applied until the income threshold of $30,000 is reached.

Is it reasonable for this man, who is boasting about having surpluses—and the money is here, not in the provinces—to continue to brag about these surpluses, with his Prime Minister bragging about the Canadian model around the world, while no thought whatsoever is given to reforming taxation for Canada's poorest families as the Bloc Quebecois has been requesting since 1993? It is deplorable.

Federal taxation is now contributing to the impoverishment of society, and that is serious. When the Minister of Finance sits on his behind doing sweet nothing and ignoring our requests, despite all these surpluses in his budget 2000 forecasts, that is completely unacceptable.

Not to mention, and I will conclude with this, that the money we give this government, the $32 billion Quebec taxpayers hand over every year to this government, is being used to pay off their buddies in the HRDC scandal, in the form of grants to friends of the Liberal Party for the ministerial tour around Quebec to spread anti-PQ propaganda.

Their buddies are getting money. But it is money from our pockets—$32 billion from Quebecers—that is paying for this anti-Quebec propaganda, for ministers to parade around singing the praises of federalism and squandering our tax dollars.

We are going to vote against this bill at report stage now before us. The Bloc Quebecois is here to defend the interests of Quebec and of Quebecers, because they are very ill served by this government.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous speaker, I am definitely here to defend the rights of all Canadian citizens. I want to make that perfectly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the entire House.

I have some great concerns about the amendments that are proposed to Bill C-32. In particular, clause 35 of Bill C-32 is consequential on clause 36, the substantive provision of this act. I will therefore speak to why the government cannot accept the motions to delete clauses 35 and 36 of Bill C-32.

Clauses 35 and 36 amend the Excise Tax Act to address the issue of tax evasion. These measures are intended to deal with exceptional circumstances where there is clear and unequivocal evidence of an intention to evade the payment of tax and where the collection of taxes is therefore in perilous jeopardy.

There are important safeguards in the use of this measure. In particular, the Minister of National Revenue must apply to court for judicial authorization. The court can place whatever condition it deems appropriate on that order. The court order is then subject to appeal by the taxpayer. There is a process in place that is to be followed and can be followed by each and every taxpayer in this country.

A similar provision relating to income tax already exists in the Income Tax Act. The proposed measure would give the Minister of National Revenue the same tools to protect against tax evasion under the Excise Tax Act as he has for income tax purposes.

For these reasons and many more, the government believes this is an important measure and we cannot accept this motion. Although it is not surprising, considering the fact that the hon. member for Medicine Hat said he wants to in some way, shape or form, actually delay, under Bill C-32, the delivery of over $2.5 billion in increased payments under the CHST. That in itself speaks volumes for the hon. member for Medicine Hat and his party for their basic thinking of the way Canada should be run and the way we should evolve under our taxation system. Without a doubt, they are unequivocal in their support of the scandalous and scurrilous flat tax. My dad used to say that if something is too good to be true, it usually is. That is definitely the case with this flat tax system.

We all know that the vast majority of the MPs in the Canadian Alliance, not counting a few of them present here today, basically think along the American tradition. They want to Americanize our country Canada especially with regard to the taxation system and the way we distribute the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to make the social fabric of our country the best in the entire world. But they do not want to do that. They want the Napoleonic version of life where might makes right; look after the rich and forget about the middle income people and most assuredly forget about the poor people.

Let me tell hon. members who will benefit from the flat tax. The rich will benefit, because under the flat tax proposal, people making about $40,000 a year will pay about the same tax that they are currently paying under our system, but those people making $100,000 would pay approximately $4,000 less. Does that seem fair? It certainly does not seem fair to me and I know it does not seem fair to the Canadian public.

If it was such a great tax, why would the American friends of the hon. member for Medicine Hat not embrace this tax with open arms? The ultra right-wing of the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich himself, has decried this flat tax saying it will not work. The reason it will not work is simply that under the flat tax system there will be less money brought in to the revenues of this country. Therefore, we would not have the same amount of taxpayers' dollars to distribute, to make Canada and equitable place for all citizens to live in.

Under the flat tax we would not be bringing in as much money, so what does the Canadian Alliance plan to do? The CA most assuredly plans to eviscerate our social system. CA members have already said that. They are on the move. One of its members currently sitting here is running for the CA leadership. He is talking about a two tier health care system. Let us Americanize the health care system. There is a bright idea. He must be a 100 watt bulb. In America 38 million people as we speak are not covered under health insurance. The single public payer use system we have in Canada is recognized around the world as the very best there is on planet Earth.

Many other countries, including the United States of America, would like nothing better than to move to our medicare system. Under the flat tax we would not be able to have that because we would not be bringing in the proper amount of money to look after our medicare system. Why would we not have enough money? Because the rich people would not be paying near the income tax they should be paying.

I for one believe that the more that we gain out of the country, the more that we prosper, the more that we should be willing to share with our fellow citizens. But not under the flat tax system. Under the flat tax system the rich pay less and the poor get more. By more I mean they get more right in the ear. They would not get a darn thing extra out of the flat tax system. They lose, they lose and they lose, because there would not be money in there to make the system work.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat espouses the great benefits of the flat tax but maybe he should join the flat earth society because it just will not work. He knows it and hon. members opposite know it. That is part and parcel of their amendments to Bill C-32.

I have got the ire up of the big fellow across the way, but he knows we are right. He knows that the Liberal government is reducing the taxes. We have reduced taxes by $58 billion in the last three to four years and we will further reduce them. We are on the road to economic recovery.

Canada is recognized without a doubt as the best country in the world in which to live. The former leader of the hon. members opposite is now running as the leader for a new party. He happened to be flying around the world on taxpayers' dollars a couple of years ago and said, “Canada is a third world country. Do not come to invest in Canada”. Is that the type of person we want running this tax?

I just noticed that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is listening to what I have to say. I do not know if he will get up and make a comment but I would like him to make a comment on the flat tax system.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know we are all enraptured with the dissertation we are receiving from the member opposite, but maybe while you are checking on whether or not what he is saying is relevant, we could have a quorum call.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see a quorum.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members opposite know very well that I speak the truth. That will be the end of what I am saying today because I cannot indulge in any mendacity from the other side.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

(Motion No. 1 negatived)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.