Mark Assad

[Dictée Des Amériques, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in this year of Canadian francophonie, I would like to report that last weekend the final of the dictée des Amériques was held in Quebec City. This international event featured 112 finalists from 12 countries in America, Europe or Africa.

It is a source of great pride that Canada has hosted such an event. The French language holds pride of place in our country. One Canadian in three speaks French and one in four has French as his or her mother tongue.

Congratulations to the prize winners. Three of them came from right here in Canada: Marc Ethier of Gatineau, Heidi Garrand of Regina, and Monique McDonald of North Vancouver.

In Canada, the French language has an intrinsic value, even if we are proud of this country's linguistic diversity.

[Tax On Financial Transactions, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not have much time, but I did want to take this opportunity to state that the motion by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle addresses a world problem that has been around for many years.

Every day, in excess of one thousand billion dollars are moved around the world. This is not exactly investments, but rather speculation. People need to be clear on the point that we are not against the free movement of money, but instead we want to limit speculation.

The result of our hon. colleague's motion would be that Canada would be one of the first nations to promote this needed reform. In the past 15 or 20 years, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have not been able to find any way to control the existing abuses. The currencies of the various countries are in danger because of the incredible speculation that goes on in the business world.

This measure will need the support of all countries, at least all the industrialized ones. This will be a start toward putting the financial affairs of the various countries in order.

The developing countries, those unable to pay their debts, have fared the worst. Looking at the figures for recent years, the resulting difficulties and human suffering that have ensued are obvious.

There has been reference made to the Tobin tax. Some five or six years ago, I had the opportunity to hear Mr. Tobin speak and answer questions when he was invited here to Ottawa. He explained his approach and the way the various transactions could be taxed for the good of humanity. A half or a quarter of one percentage point is certainly not enough tax to hamper investment.

If there is one thing we need, it is investment, but not speculation. This initiative will certainly be the start of putting the world's finances in order so that the kind of shameless speculation that is already going on will not continue.

Canada has an opportunity to demonstrate on the world stage that we are concerned with the countries that are having a hard time. With this motion, I am convinced, it would be an honour for Canada to take this to the G-7 countries in order to try to convince them that this is a necessity in today's world.

[The Francophonie, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Francophonie is alive and well in Canada and throughout the world.

Spanning five continents, it comprises 400 million people in 52 countries. French is the official language in a number of countries and is spoken in bilingual countries such as Canada and Cameroon and multilingual countries such as Switzerland and Mauritius.

Through the years, the Francophonie has grown. It now encompasses language, culture, cooperation, the economy and politics. French culture is diverse and all the richer for it.

I want to thank all those who work hard to promote the Francophonie on the national and international scene.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yes. The commission report was made public in 1967, four and a half years later. It is true that the government changed during that time.

When the Carter Commission made its recommendations public, it toured the country. This is a rather interesting story. Many people in mining and other industries had interests to protect. Various sectors of the economy wanted to have their say.

The minutes of this tour are a real mixed bag. Everyone came to complain, to say what suited them best. They did not look at the bigger picture of how all Canadians could be affected. Whether it was the oil industry, the mining industry or others, everybody was out to look after their own interests. There were a lot of pressures at the time not to do this or that.

In a democratic system, it is only natural for the government to be under pressure to do one thing or another. There were pressures from everywhere. The building industry even threatened to stop working. It feared the government might impose recommendations made by the Carter commission.

As the result of all these pressures, the government more or less decided to take its time, let things cool down and gradually implement the Carter commission's recommendations.

It took a number of years, but the first attempt was made by Allan MacEachen. In 1980, he made several recommendations. There was a very heated debate in the House. When later I raised the issue with the Hon. Allan MaEachen, I told him that the recommendations put forward would have been beneficial. He agreed. However, there were as usual so many outside pressures, threats to shut down entire sectors of the economy, that he withdrew his proposals. That is unfortunately how it went.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we all like to hear that we should immediately get into action and take decisions. Most Canadians think, and we have repeated it here, that we have had enough study.

Nevertheless, when we are dealing with something like the tax system we cannot do it without having profound knowledge of the implications for everybody. That is why I wanted to bring up the idea of a royal commission like we had in the past. Maybe we can go back to the Carter commission of 1967. There was a review some four or five years ago that showed that scholars at Harvard recognized the Carter commission as a revolutionary document. Scandinavian countries used part of the commission's report to make reforms. The only country that never used any of the commission's recommendations was our country.

To get back to what the member asked, I believe we have to understand the implications of our tax system. We can go back to the Carter commission but we cannot immediately jump in an cut taxes. Like I pointed out, the whole income tax system is flawed and detrimental to the middle class. We do not have to be economists to realize this. That is what we have to look at and it requires a lot.

The member mentioned that we have a lot of people in Canada who are very knowledgeable. I could name a few I have met through the years who came to the commission. Quite often they tell us afterwards that their recommendations over the years have been ignored. I believe it is not only the finance department that has had a monopoly on brains through the years. We have had some very qualified people. I have come to know individuals like Pierre Fortin from Montreal. He is one of our foremost economists and has written extensively. I have discussed this with him on many occasions without going into any details. I do not consider myself an expert, far from it.

The overall tax system has to be reformed. That is what we have to realize. Everybody would like to have lower taxes. Everybody would like to see changes whereby our taxes would go down and they would have more disposable income. That would give us a shot in the arm. Before we can start cutting or doing this we have to know what the flaws are in our system. That will not be easy. There are a lot of people in this country who are very satisfied with the tax system. The richest 1% would rather it not be touched.

Without going into more detail, before we can start one thing or another with the tax system, we have to reform it.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for some time now the House has been addressing income tax, what can be done, and what cannot. But I think that in a debate such as this one, a retrospective might be necessary, to look at what is already in place before making any changes to the Income Tax Act.

It has been some years since Canada had the opportunity to have a royal commission into its taxation system. One was struck in 1962, and dubbed the Carter Commission. That commission was chaired by a man named Kenneth Carter. Mr. Carter worked for over four and a half years before putting forward recommendations to correct our tax system and make it fairer and more equitable.

What is interesting is what happened when the Carter report was released. This truly was a revolutionary document on taxation. The recommendations on our tax system were so well thought out that Harvard University, in the United States, decided that this program could be used in industrialized countries to show how tax systems can be reformed so as to make them fairer and more equitable.

Unfortunately, for reasons that we do not know, it was decided not to publish the commission's report. This was rather strange but, for the first time in the history of our country, the report of a royal commission was not published. Canadians were not informed of the recommendations made by these economists. People who might have wished to examine these recommendations to improve our tax system were not able to do so.

Also, after the commission completed its Canadian tour, there seemed to be a consensus that the report was an important discussion paper. But this was completely ignored, until now.

Although the royal commission now dates back more than 30 years, consideration was given to a number of the Carter Commission's findings in 1992 or 1993, I think. While the recommendations made at the time still hold true today, unfortunately, once again, they were ignored.

Regardless of which party is in government, the problem has never been faced that we need an in-depth reform before examining any ideas, whether a single rate of 20% or tax deductions for homemakers. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the Income Tax Act. The reform must be done in detail.

I would just like to raise a few points to demonstrate the distortions that have been introduced into our system over the years. From 1984 to 1988, there was about a 10% increase in the income tax paid by people of average income. That was a substantial increase. At the same time, between 1984 and 1988, there was a barely 6% increase in the income tax paid by those who were better off.

The distortion in the income tax system for these two categories of taxpayers is immediately obvious. I am giving just a few points. We are aware that there are many more. Four or five years ago, witnesses appearing before the Finance Committee indicated that there were 75 to 80 items needing correction in the Income Tax Act.

One of the examples they gave was that of people earning in excess of $100,000, who benefited most generously from capital gains exemptions. In all, such persons had refunds of over $1 billion. Fifty one per cent of people with an income over $100,000 benefited. However, of those with an income of $50,000 or less, only 8% benefited from capital gains.

That shows that the richest enjoy the greatest benefits. They are more likely to pay less income tax and obviously to become ever richer.

Without going into detail, I wanted just to point out a few things. I have a lot here to show that, first and foremost, and it must be repeated, we need an in depth reform, as we had in 1962, either through a royal commission or some other means, to look thoroughly at ways to correct the gaps in our system. If every year only adjustments are made, we will never have a fair and equitable system.

Over time, our fellow citizens must be convinced to tell their representatives that we need a global solution to the problem, that it is not enough to correct it one page at a time, given that there are over 1,400 pages in the Income Tax Act.

Another matter that does not come directly under the Income Tax Act is the fact that we have a money policy that proved to be disastrous for us during the period starting in 1985. For a number of years, the Bank of Canada set the interest rates at four percentage points, sometimes five percentage points higher than those in the United States. It caused our national debt to grow by leaps and bounds.

In 1984, our national debt was $160 billion; nine years later, it had reached $460 billion. The debt was increasing every year and the government had to collect more and more taxes to pay the interest on it.

Again, it is not simply a matter of amending minor provisions of the Income Tax Act. We must consider all the components of our national tax system. We need a comprehensive reform of our monetary policy, which is a critical tool for the government. Very few know how this policy works, or why it is in place.

Again, and I conclude on this note, the most important thing we can do for our fellow Canadians is to urge this government, and I have done it many times, to undertake a comprehensive tax reform. We must not merely ask for changes here and there. We must look at the overall picture and decide that we need another commission such as the one we had in the past.

If, at the time, we had followed up on that revolutionary document, perhaps we would have a solution to make our tax system as fair and equitable as possible for all Canadians.

[The Late Yvon Dufour, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to one of Quebec's great actors, Yvon Dufour, who passed away last week.

I had occasion to work with Yvon on a business project for a number of years, and I will always remember his sense of humour and how easy he was to get along with.

Many will remember him in Le Survenant , Le temps d'une paix , Les enquêtes Jobidon and La petite semaine . Yvon enjoyed life, and was a generous and fun-loving person.

He was very active in the community. He represented the Association des aphasiques de la ville de Québec for many years and was made honorary chair of the Semaine québécoise des personnes handicapées this past December.

To his wife Josette, and his children and family, we respectfully extend our heartfelt condolences.

[Citizenship Week, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is Citizenship Week, and we are preparing for Flag Day and Heritage Day. These events represent an opportunity to recognize the values that we, as Canadians, share and the enduring traditions that have formed the fabric of our nation.

Canadians know that our nation's diversity is our nation's strength. Just the very word heritage must in this diverse Chamber instantly evoke different personal thoughts and memories. Our heritage is a binding force that unites all Canadians.

I encourage all parliamentarians to pay tribute to the individuals and organizations that have been participating in the program of special events in their communities

Let us take this opportunity to further strengthen the vibrant, positive community bonds that exist throughout the country.

[Election Campaign In Quebec, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 30, Quebeckers will be choosing a new government. I encourage the population to exercise its right to vote, as this is the very cornerstone of democracy.

People need to keep in mind that, ever since the Quiet Revolution, the Quebec Liberal Party has safeguarded the best interests of Quebec. When making their selection, they must keep in mind that the Quebec Liberal Party has always worked to maintain harmony and social justice within a country serving the best interests of the people of Quebec

[Petitions, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table a petition signed by some 125 people. These people oppose Bill C-68, the Firearms Act.

They ask Parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and to reassign the officials appointed to enforce this law to other duties permitting a real fight against crime and violence.