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.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member from across the way whether he feels that it is fair to Canadians on important issues such as seniors pensions that this House debate the issue for five hours. Do you honestly feel that five hours of debate is adequate?
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The Chair would gently remind all hon. members to address each other through the Chair. The hon. House leader for the government.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the purpose of the question is but if the hon. member wants to debate it longer, we have even provided for an extension of the hours so she does not have to be limited to five hours.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that this early in the game after the House has resumed since the election, first we had closure brought in by the government on Bill C-2, the very first bill by the way. And now we have to debate this all night. The government must have a legislative agenda as long as your arm, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know what it will bring in next in order to allow room for an opportunity to debate. However we find out the government is rushing another bill through the House of Commons. This has to do with tax conventions, primarily one with the United States.
I think back to last year when we were debating a thing called family trusts. There was a loophole that allowed one particular family in this country to move $2 billion out of this country tax free. When it was brought to our attention the Minister of Finance left that loophole a mile wide, wide open for three months before he closed it which allowed others perhaps with the same amount of wealth to do the same type of thing.
I read in the papers over the weekend that now we find the loophole the Minister of Finance closed has been closed in such a way that small entrepreneurs who want to leave this country are now going to find that they are taxed disproportionately because the bill was not debated and examined properly in this House when the amendments were forced through by the Minister of Finance and this government.
I want to ask the House leader whether this type of issue, where he is forcing the closure on debate, is going to again allow loopholes to work to the disadvantage of Canadians and the people who have to pay tax in this country and allow the rich families who support the Liberals to go home free? Is the intention of this legislation to allow that type of thing or are we going to find common sense debated in this House where we have an opportunity to look at the legislation, examine it closely and ensure that this type of nonsense that has already gone through this House will not happen again?
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points. First I know the hon. member is conversant with the rules as is the hon. member for South Surrey. Being as familiar with the rules as they are, they will know that the motion was passed to extend the hours to hear all of the brilliant discourses the hon. member and his colleagues are willing to give to us.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I am glad the hon. member referred to tomorrow's speech but it is an opposition day. This issue is not on the agenda of the House for tomorrow.
The second point very briefly is that if the hon. member across thinks that this bill is closing a loophole, then presumably he would be in favour of it.
This bill is about allowing lower income Canadians to get their money back that right now is seized by the Government of the United States.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The first five hours of debate have concluded. Therefore pursuant to Standing Order 74, all further interventions will be of 10 minutes duration and there will be no questions and comments.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have found the conversation to be quite interesting. The member is quite right. We do know the rules of the House. However perhaps Canadians do not know that this extension of hours is a procedural manipulation of debate to make sure that this debate ceases to exist after this evening's sitting however long that may be, instead of giving Canadians the opportunity to understand what this government is trying to do to them by deferring the debate a couple of days hence. That is the issue here. The government is closing the debate much sooner than it would have gone on if this procedural motion had not taken place.
The concern that I have is for the many seniors in my constituency who are just finding out about the changes that this government is proposing to seniors benefits, to CPP and now they are being thrown another change. They are worried and concerned because they are the most vulnerable people in our society. They are older people who no longer have the opportunity to go out and work in order to supplement an income that they see diminishing. These seniors are very concerned that their government is not giving them the opportunity to understand what it is that it is doing to them.
My concern as a member of Parliament is that the government does not seem to want to allow time so that the people in our constituencies can understand what the government is proposing and understand the arguments against the proposals. What is the rush? Why is the government so reluctant to allow Canadians to fully understand what is happening to them?
The fear and concern of our seniors are real. That fear and concern are often based on lack of knowledge and understanding. The government seems to continually do procedural things to prevent seniors from having that understanding, so that they can accept change and understand why the changes are taking place.
It is that fear we have to live with on a daily basis as they come to our offices asking us “What is happening to our incomes? Why does the government continually change the system after we have ceased to work? Why is the government always changing the rules on us? When we go into retirement we have planned it with careful preparations to look after ourselves, then the government changes the rules. Why?” I cannot tell them why.
Is the government trying to fix a mistake that was made in the last Parliament? One would ask why that mistake was made in the first place. Did the government not allow ample opportunity for consultation with Canadians who are caught in the bind of income from another country? Why did the government not consult with the people who are affected before coming up with the legislation to deal with it? Why did the government not allow for open consultation with the public, with the people who are affected, with tax consultants and others who would be brought into this? Why did it make that mistake in the first place in the last Parliament?
I would hasten to suggest that perhaps it is the same reason we are faced with today, that the government is reluctant to allow for timely discussion to allow citizens to understand what their government is doing. I would suggest that it is my responsibility as a member of the opposition to constantly ask the government these questions. Who has it consulted? In what way has it consulted? How does it know that what it is doing is the right thing if it does not allow the process for people to question what it is doing and to suggest change?
We owe it to Canadians, to our seniors who are the most vulnerable in our society an opportunity to understand that these changes may be to their benefit, but that they may have a disastrous effect on them and they may lose some of their income. They need to understand so that they may have the opportunity to prepare, not so that they can live a wealthy lifestyle travelling and whatnot, but so that they can put food on their tables, pay their rent, look after their health needs and the care of their loved ones who may be in a care situation and where they pay their own expenses and those of their loved ones in a care facility. They need the opportunity to understand what the effect will be on them.
In essence the government has closed the debate. It will continue this evening before running out of time. It will not be resumed two days hence. It is unfortunate that we will not have that opportunity to continue it in two day's time so that we can get the information out to more concerned Canadians.
I move:
That this debate do now adjourn.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Pursuant to section 25 of the Standing Orders this motion to adjourn is not in order.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The Chair would be pleased to explain. When it is provided in any standing or special order of this House that any business specified by such order shall be continued forthwith, disposed of or concluded in any sitting, the House shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a minister of the crown.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I heard what you read and I believe I heard from the text that the House not be adjourned. I do not believe I heard that the debate not be adjourned. The motion from the member from South Surrey was that the debate be adjourned.
Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC
That is a good point.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The Chair recognizes the member from Kootenay—Columbia has raised an interesting point. Such point will indubitably be raised in further meetings of the clerks as this is considered.
For the moment the Chair, in consultation with Table officers, has concluded that this motion pertains also to the term debate.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise seeking clarification. As near as I can tell, with your ruling you have said that any motion that we may put forward on this side of the House is out of order because of Standing Order 25.
Standing Order 25 is very specific. It specifically says there shall not be a motion entertained to adjourn the House. There may be many motions, debatable, votable motions made from this side of the House through the course of the evening until midnight. If you rule as you have that everything is out of order because of Standing Order 25, you have in essence said the opposition cannot propose anything else.
With respect, I am not sure how you can extrapolate that meaning from this standing order.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Order. Again, after consultation with the Table officers, it is brought to the Chair's attention that the House leader of the opposition is quite right. The House cannot consider any further motions until the motion on the floor has been dealt with.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The Chair will not recognize any further points of order on this subject. Resuming debate.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House makes me almost sad because of what it seems to imply. It seems to imply a strategy on the part of the government to confuse the people of Canada.
The issue is very significant. Very often what happens when a change is made in one aspect of legislation, especially one that affects such wide ranging provisions as senior citizens' benefits such as pension plans, taxation structures whether income taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes or whatever, is that it affects other pieces of legislation.
The government can go to the public through its representatives, the parliamentarians, and say “We have consulted widely. We have consulted in depth. We have heard what the people have said” but they have asked them only one question. The one question was would they like the Government of Canada to change the convention that would allow the Government of the United States to collect or withhold certain social security taxes rather than collecting them at home when our provisions apply.
What the Liberals did not ask is what are the implications for those who are in a higher income tax bracket? What are the implications for those who are in a medium income tax bracket? What are the implications for other pension plans, the Canada pension plan, the old age security benefit? What are the further ranging implications? They did not ask that question.
The government provided us with legislation on the Canada pension plan. It wanted to change this legislation. It did not indicate either what the implications would be to RRSPs.
Did it tell us about the clawback provisions when it came to the old age security benefits currently existing to those that will take effect on January 1, 1998? Unless the government tells the whole story, it could be confusing to people.
In fact, if the Liberals tell only part of the story without telling the whole story with the view to changing the attitude of the people and their direction, they could be charged with deliberately leading the people in a direction in which they would not go if they understood the whole story.
That is the danger behind this legislation before us today. Then they are forcing the issue so that we cannot tell the people of Canada what is involved. This misleads them and creates a situation that is false from the beginning. It creates a foundation that is wrong and creates doubt in the minds of the people. What is this government really all about?
Canadians will find out. The day is coming when they will pay their taxes and recognize “What in the world happens now? I have to pay this tax. I have to pay that tax. I have to pay another tax and what I thought I was going to get, I don't get. What's going on here?”
They call it an income tax. They call it a surtax. They call it a clawback. They call it a reduction in benefits. They call it a shift in emphasis. All of them lead to one thing, more money in the general treasury of the Parliament of Canada. It is wrong.
It confuses the people. It distracts their attention and makes it impossible for them to make well-informed and solid choices.
I cannot help but hearken back to a letter the Minister of Finance wrote not too long ago. In fact it was written last spring. In the letter he referred to the excise tax for gasoline. Guess what he said? He said that excise taxes go into the consolidated revenue fund of the Government of Canada and were necessary to reduce the debt.
The government has been in office since 1993. It has not reduced the debt one cent. In fact, $100 billion were added.
What did the Minister of Finance say in Vancouver just last week? He said that the deficit would only be $8.9 billion. Only $8.9 billion more will be added to the debt of Canada. He should have said that our debt had increased by $8.9 billion in the last year. That is what the government is giving Canadians and it does not help.
The difficulty is that again the Minister of Finance is confusing the people. There is confusion on taxes. There is confusion on seniors benefits. There is confusion in the way in which the government rams things through the House. There is confusion because people thought their representatives would be able to represent their point of view accurately, concisely, honestly and in a truthful way. What did they discover? We have to shut up. That is wrong.
We need to get to the point where the government tells the whole story when it presents a program or legislation. It should tell the whole story. That is the truth. It should not tell part of the story or lead in a particular direction and actually end up saying something, presenting something or creating a perception that is false. That is going on here.
I decry that kind of thing. It should not happen. Are there certain provisions in the proposed legislation that could be supported? Absolutely there are. There really are.
One of my major concerns is that the legislation does not treat all people equitably. It does not treat them fairly. As a consequence we have to vote against the bill.
Does it mean we object to everything in the bill? No, it does not mean that. It means the bill ought to tell the whole story and it does not.
The time has come for every parliamentarian to examine every piece of legislation on the basis of three things. Is it the truth? Does it treat people fairly? Does it create the kind of perception that will give wisdom and courage to the people so they can go to their children and grandchildren and tell them what they have done for them and what benefits they have been given. Liberal member and opposition members need to develop that kind of orientation in parliament.
Legislation like this bill and the way it is being presented proposes an arbitrary manipulation of the rules of the House to get a particular point of view across. It confuses and misleads the people of Canada. It creates cynicism on the part of people who ask what parliamentarians are up to anyway. The time has come for them to be able to say that parliamentarians represent what they want honestly, fairly and completely. That is missing this afternoon.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move:
That the hon. member for Calgary Centre be now heard.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The motion is in order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.