Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1996

Taxation

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, pardon me, but the minister is not doing a good job of defending herself. What we are talking about here is a 200-page opinion on this matter, an unfavourable opinion from Revenue staff, a document that was not given to the public accounts

committee, which, according to the Minister of Finance, was to thoroughly investigate the family trust scandal.

How can the government justify, other than by referring to the other government, that the committee in question, which was to investigate this scandal, was not aware of this 200-page opinion prepared by the departmental staff of the minister of revenue?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as usual when it comes to questions under the Access to Information Act, the department responds directly and considerably. We reviewed all the documentation. We wanted to provide to the requester the amount of information that we could. We felt that the appropriate thing was to provide the 200 pages. The review has been made. I would point out as well that we provided all the information to the public accounts committee that it requested.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, an article that appeared in a Canadian tax publication three weeks after the tabling of the Minister of Finance's motion, supposedly intended to close the tax loopholes, proposed no fewer than eight ways of getting around these new restrictions on transferring assets out of the country.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that his ways and means motion still allows the rich to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and therefore leaves us back at square one?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we closed the loophole with the ways and means motion. That is very clear.

Now, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition thinks the tax experts in the private sector are going to give up trying, he has another think coming. We know very well that they will keep trying it on for size, that is how our system operates. But, I tell you, the loophole has been plugged. They will keep on trying, and we will keep on plugging the holes. That is how our system operates.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course the experts will keep trying, but with the government as an accessory? That is what is happening.

On October 2, the Minister of Finance tabled a motion that was supposed to plug a tax loophole that allowed the transfer of a trust fund outside the country, like the $2 billion that was transferred to the United States tax free. In this motion, the Minister of Finance asks holders of Canadian trust funds to provide a guarantee equal to the amount of income tax they would normally have to pay Revenue Canada at the time of transferring the trust fund outside the country.

Unlike the rules applying to ordinary citizens or other rules applying to guarantees for tax deferral by a trust fund, would the minister agree that no interest is collected on the amount deferred and there is no limit on the deferral period? No interest is charged.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

On deferred taxes? Is that it?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well, and if he does not, he can ask any accountant in his party, that deferred taxes are not taxes due. Taxes are due in cases where companies make a profit. If they make a profit, they will pay taxes immediately. Unfortunately, the hon. member is wrong once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is misleading us. That is the difference.

What he is saying with his ways and means motion is that a rich taxpayer with a family trust that owes $1 million to Revenue Canada can defer this amount indefinitely without paying a cent in income tax. Try and do that as an average citizen, Mr. Speaker.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois critic is wrong.

As soon as taxes are due they have to be paid. If they are not paid, interest will be charged. In the situation described by the hon. member, if a tax is not due, no payment is required. Payment is only required when taxes are due.

Krever Commission

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, HIV tainted blood will kill over 3,000 Canadians from AIDS. Another 12,000 Canadians are infected with hepatitis C through infected blood.

Legislation was drafted in 1984, draft amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and draft regulations under that act that might have prevented or at least lessened this tragedy. However somewhere in the federal government, probably somewhere fairly high up, somebody or some group of people decided that the legislation and regulations were not worth proceeding with. Justice Krever wants to know who those people were and why they failed to act.

Will the government provide Krever with all the documents that explain why legislation that might have protected the blood supply was shelved by Liberal and Tory administrations in 1984?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure upon what claim the member is making his comments. I will repeat what I said yesterday.

In the interests of everyone in getting to the bottom of all the circumstances surrounding this very tragic situation, it would possibly be advisable for Mr. Justice Krever to call the people who were there at the time to testify before the commission. Certainly in the case of Monique Bégin, I know she has already indicated in writing that she is prepared to appear.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, none of these excuses hold water. The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that the former minister of health offered to testify to the Krever commission and the commission declined to call her. However, in a letter from Mr. Rennie, counsel to the former minister Monique Bégin, to the Krever commission on August 16, the minister indicated she did not wish to testify or offer any evidence but rather would respond only by way of written submission.

Mr. Justice Krever has had trouble right from the start trying to ascertain why in 1984 the Liberal government of the day did not proceed with legislation and regulations that might have prevented the tainted blood scandal.

Why does the government not simply provide Justice Krever with all the information that he is requesting to get to the bottom of this tragedy?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the statement that I made yesterday holds again today. In fact it was the legal representative for Mr. Justice Krever who made the statement last year that she did not intend to call any of the previous ministers as witnesses.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we cannot persuade the government that it has a legal obligation to act in this matter, can we persuade the government that it has a moral obligation to act in this matter?

Justice Krever thinks these documents hold the key to why the blood supply failed 3,000 AIDS victims and 12,000 victims of hepatitis C. It is the Liberals who constantly portray themselves in this House as the guardians of Canadian health care. Let them demonstrate it in a practical way.

I appeal again to the Deputy Prime Minister to give Krever what he wants, give him the truth. Will the government release all the documents pertaining to the draft legislation and regulations of 1984 to Justice Krever?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore for the people of Canada that this government has no intention of protecting previous governments, particularly in light of the fact that the previous government about which the member has heard was the government of Mr. Brian Mulroney.

That being said, I do want to underscore that if Mr. Justice Krever really wants to get to the bottom of the issues surrounding the Conservatives' decision allegedly not to proceed with regulations that had been proposed by the Liberals, he should call the Conservative and Liberal ministers to the commission.

Canadian Airlines

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

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

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance confessed in this House that he did not know the cost to taxpayers of the fuel tax rebate to Canadian Airlines, how the rebate would be applied or how long it would be in effect. He also confirmed once more that the Minister of Transport acted hastily, on the sly and without planning in approving the tax rebate.

Would the Minister of Finance confirm that the commitment made by the Minister of Transport to Canadian could cost the federal government and the provinces some $150 million annually?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said yesterday. I said that the offer to be made by the Minister of Transport is based on a precedent dating from the early 1990s and that the government has the key elements of the offer. In due course, when the Minister of Transport is ready, the government will announce the details.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people are entitled to know how much it will cost them to save Canadian.

Since the minister does not seem to want to answer, I offer him a selection of responses. How much will the temporary survival of Canadian cost: (a) $30 million; (b) $150 million; (c) $500 million; (d) he does not know; or (e) he does not want to respond?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by my colleague the Minister of Finance, we will be giving the House and the public all information about the fuel tax rebate scheme when we have crunched the numbers and when we have come up with fully accurate information. I am sure the member does not want to have information which is not as precise as we can make it.

I should point out that the program is available for all Canadian carriers that might be in a similar situation and is not specific to Canadian Airlines International.

Krever Commission

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the feeble Liberal excuses for not releasing the documents to Krever are not working. Excuse number one, they had to have the permission of former Prime Ministers; excuse number two, the Canada Evidence Act had tied their little hands and they could not act; and now excuse number three, Judge Krever just has to subpoena some more witnesses. But who do we think Judge Krever subpoenaed the documents from? From this Liberal cabinet. Since the feeble excuses are not working, why do the Liberals not just release the documents now?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, my answers today are no different from my answers yesterday.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

More feeble excuses, Mr. Speaker.

Why do we care about these documents? A patient of mine, Judy B., went to her dentist, had a tooth pulled out and had to have a transfusion because she bled and was infected with hepatitis C in 1985. She is waiting for Krever's report. She needs Krever's report. It is because of Judy B. that we need these documents.

Will the cabinet release the documents to Judge Krever, not for my sake but for the sake of Judy B.?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hearts of all the people in the whole country go out to Judy B. in the situation that she was exposed to.

If Mr. Krever would like to examine circumstances surrounding the facts in 1985, he would best achieve that by inviting the minister who was responsible at that time to come and testify before the commission.

Employment Insurance

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The least we can say is that the minister is not very sensitive to the very costly impact of the Employment Insurance Act on many unemployed people. Last Thursday, the minister said in this House, and I quote: "We will shortly be making some very minor administrative changes to the regulations". However, the measures that will most significantly affect the unemployed will take effect on January 5.

So I am making another attempt. Can the minister tell us when the regulations will be ready, and can he assure us that they will include transitional measures to soften the brutal consequences of the bill that will come into effect on January 5?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the transitional period started last January. It is time the hon. member for Mercier realized that the reason why some provisions of the act were implemented on July 1 while others will take effect January 1 is precisely to give people time to adjust to the reform.

Last week, I provided the hon. member with an answer concerning regulations. She asked whether there would be additional regulations. I am telling her again that the additional regulations will be minor and have a minor impact, particularly on relations with clients. These regulations will be made public in the coming weeks, but they are not very significant.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to stand by my initial comment. The minister is definitely not sensitive. I will phrase the question differently, since he may not have understood it.

So that women and young people without 26 35-hour weeks of work are not excluded from EI benefits, is the minister prepared to say that, for 1997 and 1998, those who will work between 15 and 35 hours will be considered as having worked 35 hours, so they can collect benefits?