Debates of Feb. 6th, 1995

Taxation

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Liberals on the Standing Committee of Finance recommended that the government implement a 2-cent per litre tax increase on gasoline as a way of dealing with the deficit. The Minister of Finance has stated that Canadians are up to their eyeballs in debt, but they are also up to their eyeballs in taxes. The tax on gasoline has risen by 466 per cent in the last 10 years.

Could the Minister of Finance tell the House how increasing the tax burden would not further drown Canadians in a sea of ever increasing taxation?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the member will have to wait for the budget.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.

Consumption taxes account for 52 per cent of the average consumer price for gasoline in Canada, compared to 37 per cent in the United States, our largest competitor and trading partner.

Could the minister explain how siphoning another $500 million out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers would enhance Canada's competitiveness, its ability to stimulate the economy and its ability to create jobs?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed in the last 30 seconds nor in the last 15 minutes nor in the last hour. The member will have to wait for the budget.

Goods And Services Tax

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

We all know that GST credits are supposed to be paid only to low income Canadians. It has been reported that they are also being paid to those with incomes above $100,000.

Is this true? If so, what is the minister doing to stop it?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question which allows me to correct and clarify some misunderstandings on this subject.

The GST credit is for low income Canadians. For example, a Canadian family of four with a family income of $38,000 would be above the limit for any GST credit. Eligibility is based on family income and this reflects the situation of these low income Canadians.

I should add, however, that it is net income that creates the entitlement to the GST credit. There may be cases of people with high nominal incomes but low net incomes who can in fact obtain benefit from the system through the GST credit. We are doing our best to tighten up the system.

Public Service

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In another of his surprising pronouncements, last Friday in Toronto, the Prime Minister said that there are public servants who are paid to sit around and do nothing. He was immediately contradicted by the President of the Treasury Board.

Given that he was contradicted by his own minister, does the Prime Minister maintain that there are federal public servants who are paid to sit around and do nothing? If so, how many are there, and if not, was he referring to those three National

Defence generals who chartered an Airbus to go and play golf in Florida at taxpayer's expenses? After Operation William Tell, are we having an Operation Lazyboy?

[The Speaker]

This is a long question.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am informed that there are some. I could find out how many, although the President of the Treasury Board acknowledged not knowing any personally. I do not know any either, but I am told there are some. I got this information from the Privy Council. If I was misinformed, I will apologize, but I was told again, afterwards, that there were some.

Workforce Adjustment

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. This weekend negotiations over the workforce adjustment directive failed and public servants, including those who live in Ottawa-Vanier, want to know what the government is doing about it.

Is this government afraid to finalize its position because of the byelection in Ottawa-Vanier? Why will the government not tell public servants now whether it is going to legislate changes to the workforce adjustment directive?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member should be worrying about Ottawa-Vanier at all. I do not think it is in the cards for him to worry about it.

Long before there was to be a byelection we were talking with the unions with respect to the matter of workforce adjustment because of the number of people involved in downsizing as a result of the program review process. We will continue with those discussions. I hope to have further discussion to try to bring some resolution to the matter because the workforce adjustment directive is in the union agreement.

As I said earlier in response to the previous question, we intend to treat our employees fairly and reasonably in dealing with this matter.

Social Policy

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. His government has now brought Canadians through a major social policy consultation. We will soon have a budget in the House of Commons that promises major cuts to social policy.

The minister of human resources today said that they are targeting for more efficiency. My question to the Prime Minister is quite simple. What are the targets and priorities pursued by his government in the area of social policy?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. leader of the Conservative Party would read the red book he would know what our priorities are in terms of social policy.

Taxation

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance simply say that what we read in the press today is not true, that in spite of the fact that we all appreciate there are a whole host of loopholes for the wealthiest in Canada, now we find out that the minister is going to provide one more loophole outside the parameters of the budget? Canadians who sell off assets in excess of $600,000 in the U.S. are going to pay U.S. tax but this minister now is contemplating giving them a tax credit to make up for that.

Will the minister stand in his place and say this will not be a tax loophole that he will be introducing, although it is part of the protocol being negotiated? While he is on his feet, will he tell us what the Prime Minister is going to tell President Clinton to do about that head tax at the U.S. border?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, what the most recent measure does is protect the Canadian tax base on the one hand. It also makes sure that Canadians who own property abroad are not further discriminated against as a result of their Canadian citizenship compared with Americans.

What has happened is a very good measure that protects not only the Canadian tax base but Canadians. I am sure the member would agree that is worthwhile.

In terms of what the Prime Minister should tell President Clinton, it is really an absurd idea that the Americans at the time of NAFTA and the current times of exchange of trade would put on some kind of crossing border tax. It is simply absurd. It is an idea to which this government takes great exception.

I know that I speak for the minister of trade, although I also would say that it is sometimes very difficult to speak for the minister of trade.

Presence In The Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Leonid Kravchuk, member of Parliament and former President of Ukraine.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Privilege

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the leaking to the media of the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on changes to social programs.

I submit that the privileges of members of this House have been breached by the premature release to the media of this report due to be tabled today. It is a question of privilege because it is a violation of the proper order of proceedings that reports from committees should be presented first in the House of Commons so as to ensure equal opportunity to access by all members of Parliament and all Canadians. Until such presentation in this House, reports should be confidential.

To accentuate the breach that has taken place, as an associate member of the committee I was denied access to the report while it was freely available to the press.

I would ask that you consider what appropriate action might be taken to deal with what is surely a gross contempt of the rules and procedures of this House.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for the question of privilege. Of course I will look into it and report to this House if necessary.

Points Of Order

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on December 13 a vote was taken on Bill C-226. Although I stood to be recorded as voting for the bill, I was inadvertently omitted from the list. May I have the record corrected?

[The Speaker]

My hon. colleague, it would be difficult to go back and change a vote that has already occurred. It would set a precedent that would be very difficult for us to manage in the House.

I am sure the hon. member will have his views put on the record. They stand there now. This is not really a point of order but his point has been made.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was present in the House and he voted on a measure.

Through inadvertence his vote was not recorded. It was not his inadvertence, it was the inadvertence of the Table. It seems to me that the only appropriate way of dealing with this matter perhaps by unanimous consent is to record the hon. member as voting in favour of the bill that was before this House.

[The Speaker]

I would take the suggestion of the hon. member for York South-Weston. Notwithstanding the fact that it is rather a different approach, if there were unanimous consent by the House I would agree to letting the vote be recorded.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before giving unanimous consent, are we to understand that this would create a precedent and that it will now be possible to ask for a vote to be reviewed after three, four or five days or even a week?