Debates of March 13th, 1995

Firearms Act

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, newcomers to Canada have access to the universal social programs that are paid for by all Canadians.

Immigrants and refugees also have access to our extensive integration and settlement services, the best in the world. The cost of these programs is $271 million a year, a great part of which goes to the province of Quebec. We are talking about language training, assistance in job searches and help for families enrolling their children in schools. The list goes on.

Canadians have told us through consultations that they want those who derive benefits from Canada's wide range of programs and services to help pay for them. Refugees and immigrants have said they want to help as well.

We recognize that not everyone will be able to afford the fee. For that reason we have created a new loan option that will enable refugees to get the financial assistance they need. Like

the loan option for travel, we expect that they will repay those loans at the 95 per cent rate at which they repay the others.

Newcomers to Canada make an investment in their future, a Canadian future, and this is a small price to pay for living in the best country in the world.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on March 3 in question period I brought to the attention of the House the report of the federal environmental assessment panel which reviewed low level military training flights in Labrador and Quebec. Approximately 6,000 to 7,000 low level training flights a year are currently being conducted out of Canadian forces base Goose Bay.

These flights are allowed under a 10-year multilateral memorandum of understanding agreement signed by Canada and the NATO allies which expires in 1996. The assessment panel report recommends that the government accept the Department of National Defence proposal to negotiate a new agreement that would more than double the number of flights, establish a new practice bombing range and expand the flight training area.

This would effectively concentrate the flights over traditional lands that have been used and occupied by the Innu nation for more than 9,000 years. After 10 years of experience observing the effects of these flights, the Innu contend that the noise adversely affects the wildlife, especially caribou, which they rely on for food.

The noise also causes the Innu mental and physical stress and disrupts their culture and traditional way of life. Many Innu boycotted the hearings because they felt these concerns as well as issues relating to aboriginal rights and land claims negotiations were not being adequately dealt with by the panel.

Although the panel did not adequately address the issues raised by aboriginal people, it did acknowledge that research concerning environmental effects on the flights was lacking. On this point the report is very clear: "So little is known about much of the wildlife in the training areas and the effects of overflights on them over the longer term that much uncertainty and hence concern remains. As a result the panel could not draw conclusions on the longer term effect of low level flying on the natural systems".

The panel therefore recommended that the project proceed only if key conditions are met and certain issues are dealt with. The first condition is that before a new low level flying agreement is signed and the flights are allowed to continue, the government must establish an independent institute to study and monitor the effects of the flights.

The panel also recommended that as soon as possible the government establish a joint management board for the George River caribou herd and settle aboriginal land claims in the affected area.

In question period the Minister of National Defence gave no indication of whether he agrees or disagrees with the report, if he would recommend that cabinet accept the report or what measures the government will take to ensure that the panel's conditions are met.

The government's own assessment panel admits the impacts on the environment and aboriginal rights are unknown and DND's avoidance procedures probably will not work. Does the government think that these flights should be allowed to continue when their effects are unknown? When one does not know the impact of something, it may not be wise to proceed.

It is important for the Innu people whose lives will continue to be affected by this program to know now if the government will accept the panel's report and, if the government does accept the recommendations in the report, what steps will be taken to address the issues identified by the panel and ensure that its major conditions including land claims negotiations will be met. This is an important point, especially since it appears clear that the provincial government of Newfoundland, because of the land claims dispute, will not enter into land claims negotiations with the Innu people. It is very important to know how the Government of Canada will respond to this very important matter.

The government must ensure that it does not address the economic interests of one group while ignoring the economic interests of another.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps recall that the Department of National Defence had requested an environmental assessment be initiated to study the impact of an increase in the activity of low level flights at CFB Goose Bay.

The panel known as the FEARO panel has submitted its report to two of my colleagues, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of National Defence. The panel has made every effort to hear from groups and individuals interested in putting their views forward. It has made recommendations to the government after considering their views.

The panel concluded that stopping the military flights would be very damaging to the region's economy. It recommended that this activity be allowed to continue, under certain conditions set out in the report. According to the seven members of the panel, there was little concrete evidence, at that stage, that the flights had a substantial negative impact on the environment, human health or the community.

The federal government is now studying the advice of the panel and will prepare a response to the panel's recommendations. It will be made public on completion.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance this afternoon to speak about the tax system and in particular how it affects banks in Canada. I want to lead off first of all with a comment from the "Budget in Brief" or the budget itself.

I remember the Minister of Finance in his speech talked about the fact that the government was going to get tough. It was going to close off some loopholes. For example, the large corporation tax rate was going to increase by 12.5 per cent. I remember my friends on the Liberal benches were cheering at that point. There was a a lot of applauding and actually a couple of half-effort standing ovations.

This was a 12 per cent increase of the large corporation tax rate. The tax rate of large corporations will rise from 0.2 per cent to 0.22 per cent. Granted that is 12 per cent but it is a tax going from 0.2 per cent to 0.22 per cent. Anyone who knows anything about mathematics would say this is infinitesimal and yet technically it is an increase. My gosh, we are hardly getting tough when the tax rate goes from 0.2 to 0.22. Yet that is the kind of impression the government left, that it had gone to all kinds of trouble to close loopholes.

I am prepared to say this afternoon that the government did not close any loopholes. Even the old family trust, the one that is favoured and is considered the mother of all tax loopholes, is still there. Basically it was just tinkered with and that privilege will continue.

Let us talk about the Royal Bank. If there is one corporate sector that is held up it is the banking sector. I want to challenge people opposite and perhaps anyone watching to take a look at the annual report of the Royal Bank of Canada for 1993. When looking through this report, and granted I am not an accountant or a tax lawyer, but I have read a lot of annual reports and financial statements, to me it says the bank does not pay income tax. Page after page says basically that.

When I spoke with the bank I was told that is not technically correct. It actually pays tax. I have got to say today that the Royal Bank does pay some tax. The Royal Bank pays all the usual taxes that corporations pay but we have to realize that the Royal Bank is included in a number of subsidiaries. When we add up all of the subsidiaries which include things like Royal Bank Mortgage Corporation, RBC Dominion Securities Limited, Royal Trust, the Royal Bank Canada (Barbados) Limited, the Voyageur Insurance Company and many more-the consolidated umbrella of all of the aspects of the Royal Bank-it does pay income tax. As a matter of fact, it paid about $509 million in 1992.

However, what we would call a bank that we go into with tellers where we get a mortgage, a car loan or whatever, actually lost money. Therefore, in spite of all of its fees and so on, it did not pay income tax. It did pay a minimum corporate tax and did pay the corporation tax of 0.2 per cent which the government has now raised to 0.22 per cent. While the bank, including all of its subsidiary operations did pay income tax, for clarification the Royal Bank per se, unconsolidated, did not pay income tax. Therein lies the difference.

Did the budget change any of that? No, it did not. As a matter of fact, the budget changed very little of our tax system. I would be remiss this afternoon not to say that the large share of our accumulated debt-more than 45 per cent-comes from all of the tax loopholes we have in the system. That is what has caused a lot of our debt. Yet the government did not take any steps in any substantive way to close these loopholes.

I would be interested to hear what my hon. friend has to say in terms of whether the Royal Bank has paid income tax or not. Remember-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[David Walker, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, several banks reported record profits in 1994. This has led observers to wonder whether the banks are paying their fair share of taxes.

Banks pay a considerable amount of taxes. They pay income tax and are subject to two federal capital taxes, including the large corporation tax which applies to all corporations with more than $10 million in capital, and the capital tax for large financial institutions which acts as a minimum tax.

During the period 1991-93, the six largest banks and their mortgage loan affiliates paid nearly $1 billion annually in federal income tax and capital tax. The banks also pay income tax, capital tax, property tax and other types of taxes to provinces and municipalities.

Members are probably aware of measures that were introduced in the last two budgets to ensure that banks, and financial institutions generally, continue to pay their fair share of taxes. This year's budget introduced a special tax on the capital of large deposit institutions, including banks.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Under our rules the motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

(The House adjourned at 6.53 p.m.)