Debates of Sept. 25th, 1995

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-103, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Excise Tax Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred division at second reading stage of Bill C-103.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that the House would be willing to apply the vote just taken in reverse to the motion now before the House.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Agreed.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Agreed.

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

Agreed.

[Jag Bhaduria, Liberal, Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 1994 I put a question on the Order Paper which the government still has not answered.

I asked as follows:

With respect to the $3.3 billion in 1994-95 and the $3.1 billion in 1995-96 the government will spend for grants to business, (a) what agency dispenses these grants, (b) what criteria does the government apply to determine which businesses receive grants and (c) how do these criteria differ from those used by the previous government?

I did not ask the government to provide me with a list of grants to businesses. Instead I merely asked the government to explain how

it decides who will receive these generous payouts of taxpayers' dollars, who does the paying out and how the Liberals' actions differ from practices followed by their predecessors.

These are questions which Canadian taxpayers have every right to expect their government to tell them. What possible reason could there be for the government to take 17 months and still not supply an answer? Could it be that the government does not know what standards it applies in deciding what businesses (a) or (b) should be given a grant? Somehow that does not really seem likely. However if the government did know what standard it uses, why would the government not simply have answered my question?

The conclusion most taxpayers will probably draw from the government's refusal to reply is that the standards it uses dare not be exposed to the light of day, that it would expect more trouble from supplying the answer than it could get from simply not answering.

This conclusion will probably lead many people to assume that Liberal Party patronage is one very big criterion for receiving money from the current Liberal government, just as it has been so often charged that Conservative Party patronage was one very big criterion for receiving money under the Mulroney Tories. Liberal-Tory, same old story.

I raise this question after listening to many discussions in the Standing Committee on Industry. Since that time I have moved over to the natural resource committee, serving as the the Reform forestry critic. I attended meetings with representatives of the forest industry all across Canada.

A question I often asked these members of the forest industry was: What can we do to get the federal government out of the natural resource area which according to the Constitution should fall under provincial jurisdiction? One of the answers I often heard was to put an end to federal grants to the forest industry. The forest industry may apply for those grants but they apply only because their competitors do so. If one business in the field gets a federal grant and another business in the same field does not, it gives the first one an unfair competitive advantage over the other.

Nobody is more competitive than a logger. I feel certain that the same is true of Canadian business and industry across this great country. Individual business owners want to be free of government. They want to be free of the red tape required to complete the application forms. However, if their competitor is applying for and likely getting a grant, then businesses needing to compete must do the same.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that grants to businesses and industry must end. They must end for several reasons. They are a needless burden on the taxpayers at a time when government is struggling to find money for essential services like health care and education. They must end because they are like the apple in the Garden of Eden as a temptation to politicians to favour their old friends and their party supporters in a system of pork barrelling and patronage which is a disgrace to honour and integrity in government.

Grants to businesses and industry must end because they subsidize those less able and least trustworthy to succeed at the expense of those most able and most worthy to succeed. In short, grants to businesses and industry are readily used to reward failure and to penalize success. Canadian businesses and industry deserve better.

As I conclude my remarks I ask hon. members: When will I get an answer to the question I raised 17 months ago?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. member. As he knows, having transferred his question for debate, he now will not get an answer except what I tell him tonight and I do not have an answer for him tonight. He can put his question on the Order Paper again, perhaps in a slightly modified form, and maybe he will get an answer in due course.

I want to recall what happened. The question was put on the Order Paper on April 26, 1994. Officials in the Privy Council Office dispatched the usual inquiries to the appropriate government departments and were advised that four departments or four agencies of the government would be able to provide a satisfactory response to the question.

When the response was received in July, after the House had adjourned for the summer, I had an opportunity to review the response. I take some personal responsibility for this. I concluded that the response was unsatisfactory because only four agencies had been canvassed when in fact the question was not specific as to which agencies might have dispensed the money. In fact it was a question directed to all government departments. Accordingly I asked that all government departments be contacted to ensure that a full answer was given to the hon. member, that the answer be accurate in all respects and to provide an answer in respect of all government grants to businesses.

My request resulted in the answer being sent back to the appropriate government department. The government department in question has not produced an answer to date, despite many memorandums, despite many requests.

I can only say that this particular department is one which in my experience, and that of other members of the House, is slow in responding to this kind of request from the House and from its committees. I am sorry that is the case, but there is nothing further I am able to do at this time except to assure the hon. member that if he puts a question on the Order Paper along similar lines I will personally speak to the minister of the department and urge that speed follow in the preparation of the answer to his question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)