House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was taxes.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Industry for clarification. Was he rising on a point of debate?
Walt Lastewka Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Yes.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
It is confirmed that it was on a point of debate. Debate.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things that goes on in this House is the kind of games we end up playing. We do not really have any idea why, on the question of Bill C-2, that the government insisted the issue come to a vote immediately and we end up with it going to committee and being hidden.
Now we have this situation. The government, with all of its wonderful leadership by people like the House leader and the parliamentary whip, ends up with this kind of parliamentary manoeuvre so that it can slip this through just as quickly as it possibly can.
We have, within Canada, an understanding that democracy stands like a three-legged stool. It stands on the principle of people, politicians and the press. The difficulty comes when we have a bill like this, or a bill like Bill C-2, and the government turns around and moves things through the House at light speed.
The press does not have an opportunity to come up to speed or perhaps is deficient in not being able to come up to speed. If the press does not do its job or if the government gets away with moving these things through the House of Commons at light speed as they are prone to do, we end up with a failure in democracy.
The failure in democracy comes when people do not realize what the government is attempting to slip past them. When this happens we drive the cynicism toward the entire political process. Cynicism ends up building apathy.
The problem in Canada right now is that people have lost faith in the parliamentary process. People have lost faith in politicians because of the games that politicians and the parliamentary process play with them. Many Canadians approach me and say “We have no idea what is going on, nor do we understand what is going on, nor do we believe that we can actually impact any kind of a change”.
The last time I looked the democratic process actually was under attack, a very subtle attack. I would never accuse the Liberals of deliberately trying to undermine democracy. But with this kind of action of making things move through the House at the speed of light so there is no way the political process can come under the scrutiny of the press, Canadians end up not believing in the process any more.
What we see going on at the start of the 36th Parliament is the pizza parliament the pundits were talking about. The government is creating the kind of conflict that will lead to a pizza parliament.
The problem is not with this side of the House. The problem is with a government that is trying to jam things through the House in such a way that this side of the House is going to have to react. We will react.
We have already seen it when the government rammed through Bill C-2 to hide the changes to the Canada pension plan out of sight of everyone. By doing that it is hoping that Canadians will not realize that they are going to be ripped off an additional $700 a year. The government is doing it in a very sneaky way. It is doing it at a rate of only 1% a year.
Canadians have to realize that if they are only going to be taxed at 1% a year, the government is treating Canadian taxpayers like live frogs. How do you cook a live frog? You put it into a cold pot of water and slowly increase the heat and pretty soon you end up with a cooked frog.
By the government increasing the CPP rip-off, this massive tax increase, at 1% per annum starting in January 1998, Canadians are going to be poorer at the end of ten years by about $100 billion. This is the kind of action that is going on.
The official opposition is attempting to slow things down enough so that Canadians will be aware that the government is trying to ram things through the House of Commons. I think it is scandalous that the government is using all these parliamentary procedures in order to put grease under the skids of legislation. I object in the strongest terms to the action that the government is taking.
We are debating at this time the issue of the government pulling parliamentary procedures out of a hat so that it can get legislation through the House quickly and Canadians do not realize what is actually happening. I do not blame the people of Canada. I believe they respect the fact that we have a democracy here. I blame the Liberal government.
The Liberal government is treating the House as a rubber stamp and that simply cannot be. We must be prepared to stand up and be counted against it trying to create a rubber stamp process.
It is the role of the official opposition, of all the opposition parties, to ensure that the people of Canada understand what the government can do. We understand governments have the opportunity to enact legislation as they see fit in a majority government. With the lack of backing we have had from the Bloc Quebecois to date it is going to be a very difficult job for the rest of the members in the House to hold the government accountable. If the Bloc Quebecois continues to act in the way that it is, it will be darn near impossible to hold back the juggernaut of the Liberals.
If I think about the 35th Parliament for a second, I realize it was the Liberals who propped up the Bloc Quebecois as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. What a joke it was that the Bloc would be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Why were Bloc members here? They were here at the behest of the Liberal government. Why did they have the role of vice-chair in all the committees? Why were they put into an exalted position in this Parliament?
It was because the Liberals wanted them here. They did not want an official opposition that believed in a united Canada from sea to sea to sea, that was patriotic toward Canada and would stand for a united Canada.
Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC
Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the member who just spoke are completely anti-democratic. He was not elected to comment on the relevance of the role played by each of the parties in the House. We have obtained our role democratically from those who elected us to office.
There are rules in this House whereby the party that finishes second is given vice-chair positions and the title of official opposition. That is why we were the official opposition«
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The Chair questions whether that is a point of order or a point of debate. The hon. member for Richelieu will have ample opportunity to make that point at a later time.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification for myself, I believe we are debating the motion moved by the parliamentary secretary. Is that correct?
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
We are debating Bill C-10.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The hon. member is quite correct. A motion was put. The motion was carried and we resumed debate on Bill C-10.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, in taking a look at Bill C-10, as I mentioned in my previous interventions, the problem was that the action the government took was exceptionally unfortunate action.
I speak on behalf of the people who came into my office, people who are in a very low income situation. All of a sudden out of the clear blue sky there were changes created to the way in which taxes were extracted by the U.S. before they came into Canada. Because the protocol was negotiated a difficulty was created for low income people, and I speak for them.
As I discussed in debate with the member for Etobicoke North, the difficulty I have is that the government would like to see itself as being saved harmless in this debate. In other words, like it was not the current finance minister, like it was not the current prime minister, like it was not even the former revenue minister who now sits as the fisheries minister, like it was not these people of the government in the 35th and 36th parliaments who actually brought in the legislation. It was this government that goofed.
Maybe it is nice to be able to say it is great they have been able to own up to it. They have said “Let us make some changes”. That is like hitting your head against a brick wall and stopping because it feels good. It just does not make any sense that Liberal backbenchers would stand to say they have made a wonderful change. What they are really saying and what the people of Canada have to know they are saying is that they agree with us that the finance minister, the prime minister and the revenue minister did not know what they were doing then and I submit do not know what they are doing now.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I heard the remarks of the member opposite. Is he suggesting, because there has been a problem in the past, that we should not try to correct it as quickly as possible?
Simply because he feels the government made a mistake in the past and even though he is siding with the people who are adversely affected by the current tax regime with respect to social benefits coming from the United States, is the member prepared to vote against legislation that will correct that inequity?
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second question, all we ask is that he support the Reform Party amendment which would clarify the entire issue.
In answer to the first question, he and the rest of the backbenchers cannot get away with saying that we are supporting this change, recognizing that the finance minister, the revenue minister, the prime minister and the entire government did not know what they were doing in the first place and goofed. They made a very serious situation.
Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, mentioned just now that he had unfortunately not had the support of the Bloc Quebecois to block a move by the Liberal Party.
I would like to say two things. First of all, we are in agreement with the bill. We therefore have no wish to see this debate go on indefinitely, as long as it is conducted respectfully.
Second, we are no longer the official opposition. We are not the party with the second largest number of members. The party with that distinction is the Reform Party. They have 60 members. It is up to them to assume their role, through their presence and their numbers. This is their role now. We assumed it when it was our turn, and now it is theirs.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
Some hon. members
Hear, hear.
Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC
Again, we are in agreement with the bill and, if you require our assistance, you will have to speak to us ahead of time.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is very telling that Liberals were applauding the Bloc member. I go back to what I was saying previously about the three legged stool. If one of the legs is shortened, the stool will fall over.
We are talking about people, politicians and press. Bloc Quebecois members are probably siding with the politicians on the other side of the floor. That is fine. They have been bedfellows before. I am sure they will be bedfellows again.
The difficulty is that the government is trying to ram through legislation at lightening speed so that the three legged stool falls over and the politician ends up with the ability to get away with murder in this case.
Far be it from me to tell an intelligent member like the one from the Bloc how to conduct himself, but the reality is that if the debate had finished today and had not gone into committee, which it is now destined to do as a result of the lack of Bloc support, there would have been at least one more day of debate and hopefully Canadians would have been given the opportunity to know what was going on in this place.
The Bloc should have sided with us to stop the government from ramming through this stuff as though it were grease under skids.
Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is not regularly or even often in agreement with the government. This time, however, we are. And I would like to remind our colleagues in the Reform Party that, during the 35th Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois raised these issues. This is not the first time that they have been discussed in the House.
Our colleague, François Langlois, the fondly remembered former member for Bellechasse, regularly raised questions on the floor of the House. This is why we feel that the government's bill is very much in the interest of Quebeckers who are affected by tax matters. We are prepared to do whatever is necessary to ensure this legislation is passed by the House.
Our colleagues in the Reform Party may see things differently, I respect that, but they too must respect the fact that we have acted in good conscience.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, the issue is not the difference of opinion between the Reform Party and the Bloc with respect to the legislation. The issue is that the people of Canada will not have an opportunity for this matter to be brought to their attention.
It may well be that the judgment of the people of Canada might side with that of the Bloc and that of the government. That is entirely possible. However the light speed in which the government is attempting to jam this complicated piece of legislation through the House of Commons, in particular with respect to trying to save the embarrassment of the finance minister, the revenue minister and the prime minister, is the issue. As an issue of parliamentary procedure we have to give the people of Canada an opportunity to know what the Liberals are attempting to pull off.
In this case the Liberals are attempting to correct a wrong that their government, the same finance minister, created in the first place. Now they are trying to clean it up as quickly as possible.
I am rather surprised from a strategic political perspective that the Bloc Quebecois did not realize the official opposition and members of the other opposition parties were attempting to bring awareness of the issue to the level of competence of the minister and his department.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
If the House will indulge the Chair for a moment, the Chair has benefited from the wise counsel of the Clerk who advises me, and I shall advise the House, that debate is on the motion. The motion will also include the bill being debated so that members can feel quite comfortable in debating the motion that the question be put.
The Chair would also like to correct the record. The motion was moved by the hon. member for St. Catharines and seconded by the hon. member for Victoria—Haliburton.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take but a few moments to debate this important piece of legislation. The legislation is before the House today after wide consultation with Canadians, which led to the excellent proposal of the Minister of Finance to proceed with the tax convention between Canada and the United States of America.
Let us remember what we are doing. We are presenting a bill to the House today to provide tax relief. It has the approval of the vast majority of members of the House in most of the political parties represented here.
Let me say it again because it is a word that seems to enthral a number of members across the way. It will provide tax relief to lower income Canadians who worked in the United States and retired in Canada. Those lower income Canadians were taxed at source in the United States and could not get their money.
We are in favour, as is the majority of members of the House, of proceeding with the legislation.
The measure now before the House is that we continue to debate this issue. Only four parties out of five are in favour of it. I know that, as do most Canadians. But the Reform Party knows better.
Coming back to the point, we are so in favour of this legislation as are most members that most parties in the House have agreed to stay to debate it tonight in order to have it pass second reading. Most parties in the House were even in favour of debating this issue at all stages, including report stage, in order to have passage quickly to provide tax relief to Canadians as soon as possible. But we know who is against providing tax relief to lower and middle income Canadians. The Reform Party is filibustering a bill for tax relief. It is unbelievable. Shame on the Reform Party.
The situation which we have before us is one in which we could say without fear of contradiction that duplicity, thy name is Reform.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, being the very independent, objective, neutral person that you are, will agree with me that the actions of the Reform Party are totally unreasonable today. All right-minded Canadians and most MPs in this House want this bill to pass. Most MPs are willing to sit longer so that the bill can pass and provide the necessary assistance.
So this is what is before us today. This bill provides what most Canadians want. What voters in the Cornwall region, so well represented by the chief government whip, or the region right beside Cornwall that it is my honor to represent, or the region of Vancouver, the south shore of Montreal or elsewhere, want. At this time, whoever has worked in the United States and paid into an American pension plan has their money taxed at source and retained by the American internal revenue service.
The Reform Party is opposed to a measure that would put an end to a plan that withholds money for American taxes. The Reform Party therefore supports the fact that the American government keeps money from Canadians. I would like the Reform Party to explain that to Canadian taxpayers.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across says he has not voted yet. There is still time to repent. Members opposite can do that. I know that a large number of them rose in their place. They were against extending the debate. Maybe that means they are in favour of closure. Heaven forbid that Reformers do not want more debate. They are against extending debate.
Let us get this straight. Reformers are against more debate. They are in favour of taking Canadian taxpayers' money and giving it to the American government and they do not want to help poor and lower income Canadians. That is the position of the Reform Party. How could that be reasonable?
Mr. Speaker, a very neutral observer like yourself would no doubt agree with most right-minded Canadians that this is very wrong. It is very wrong and it needs to be corrected.
We on this side of the House will stand as we have in support of the hon. Minister of Finance, who has been so valiant in producing this tax treaty with the United States. This treaty needs to be adopted by both houses of Parliament as soon as possible so we can give that kind of protection to Canadians. That is what all of us want.
I believe that the five hours of debate has now expired so I will end my speech.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start right off by telling the Reform Party that the Bloc Quebecois has nothing to learn from them about democracy. That is the first thing.
I agree fully with the Government Leader in the House when he says that this party ought to get its act together. In Quebec, we have a wonderful motto: Je me souviens , I remember. I remember that party was opposed to the gag imposed on debate on Bill C-2, among others.
When the vote came on bill C-2, however, that party unanimously emptied its seats. The westerners elected members from the Reform Parity for a reason: to sit in their seats, and from those seats to make their dissatisfaction known, not off in the corridors, not off in their offices. That is how to make oneself heard.
The Bloc does not, therefore, have any lessons to learn from the Reform Party when it comes to strategy and to democracy. If we agree to an extension of this debate, it is for the men and women who work in the Bellechasse region, in the Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, in Lévis, in the Beauce. First and foremost, we represent human beings, which is why we have agreed to extend debate on this issue. We have no lessons to learn from the Reform Party.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of taking part in the debate to decide which opposition party has something to teach the other parties in opposition. This is not my role. However, I will say that it was at the request of a colleague from the party of the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup— Témiscouata—Les Basques that we considered the possibility of debating all stages in a single day. I thank the hon. member's colleague for the proposal.
Most parliamentarians agreed. Most were in agreement up to last Friday. I think it was the proper approach.
Today we are having a sort of filibuster in an effort to block this bill. However, at this eleventh hour, if we may continue, I still hope that we might look at the bill at all stages and be done with it so we may give Canadians and particularly people who are retired, senior citizens who today live in Canada but who worked part of their life in the United States, this tax relief. People should not have their assets seized—in fact this is just what is happening right now—at source as deductions that are not only not returned to the taxpayer but not to Canada either.
