Debates of Nov. 28th, 1997

Thunder Bay

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada's top priority is public safety. Propane gas response specialists were on the scene early to assist the local fire department—

[An hon. member]

How dare he answer this.

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

I am sorry that the leader of the Conservative Party is not concerned about public safety.

As a preventive measure some 100 households were evacuated. As of today that number has been reduced to safety, and Transport Canada will be seizing the tanker car in question for investigation.

The Environment

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we ask the government what commitments it is going to make on behalf of Canadians in Kyoto we get things like manana, manana, tomorrow. But tomorrow is here.

We would like to know what are the standards to which this minister is going to oblige Canadians. Will she tell us today? Manana is here.

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I suggest the Reform Party go home and study this issue, listen to its constituents and come back on Monday. We will let those members know on Monday what our targets and time lines are.

This is a real and serious issue. The hon. member's constituents are concerned about it. The constituents of each and every one of the members want them to take a responsible position on this issue.

Dairy Industry

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of International Trade.

Last week, the Standing Committee on Agriculture reviewed the issue of the importation of oil, butter and sugar mixtures.

Will the government finally accept the dairy industry's request that oil, butter and sugar mixtures be reclassified under the proper tariff line, as has already been successfully argued in a recent NAFTA panel?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. We have spoken with industry representatives in Quebec and in Canada. I have had extensive discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and other ministers.

We are willing to review this matter and we are working very hard on this. I hope to be able to provide more information in the near future.

Employment Insurance Fund

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

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

At a time when 57% of the unemployed are not eligible for unemployment insurance, the Liberal government is reducing the deficit on the backs of the unemployed. Because the Liberals do not care what happens to the unemployed in this country, the CSN had to submit a petition to the Federal Court to seek an end to the government's raiding of the employment insurance fund.

Have we really reached the point where it is necessary to go to court so that the unemployed can receive what they are entitled to, that is more generous benefits? Or is the minister willing to promise that in the future, the surplus will benefit only the unemployed?

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

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we have implemented a major employment insurance reform. We feel that the reserve is absolutely necessary. I believe it is important that there be such a reserve.

Before we came to office, when the Conservative government was in power, the employment insurance fund went from a surplus to a deficit of $6 billion. A reserve is necessary because it reduces the need to increase premiums in a full-blown recession.

We must also see to it that we can provide benefits when they are most needed—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for West Nova.

Canada Post

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, depending on what time of day it is the minister responsible for Canada Post cannot decide whether or not he is going to privatize the corporation. The government has also made it clear that it has no plans to end this postal strike. In fact, the government has no long term business strategy for the future of the crown corporation.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that small and medium size businesses are losing $200 million a day while this government drags its feet about ending the strike.

Does the minister have any idea what he is going to do about Canada Post and if so, when?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the government since last April has given a mandate to Canada Post to have universal service to all Canadians, to commercialize operations so that it can make profits and investments in the future and also to have price stamps below inflation.

That is what we are doing and we hope the negotiations will be completed as soon as possible so it can go on with its mandate.

Immigration

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The government is being criticized because potential immigrants are allegedly discouraged from coming to Canada because they cannot afford the landing fees.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain to this House what steps she is taking to help those people who cannot afford the landing fees?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a loans program which is very effective. In fact, it helps at least 95% of refugees and people come to this country. We also have a very high payback, 92%. It is a program that works very well for refugees and immigrants coming into this country. It is very effective.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Hon. members, this would bring us to the end of Question Period.

Board Of Internal Economy

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that the following members have been appointed as members of the Board of Internal Economy for the purposes and under the provisions of an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, Chapter 32, Statutes of Canada 1997, namely, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Government Response To Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.

Petitions

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 448 constituents of my riding of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford concerning women appearing topless in public. These constituents request Parliament to enact legislation prohibiting women from appearing topless in public.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 7. .[Text]

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver):

What has the government determined to be the average annual unemployment rates over the previous 5 years for persons 18-25 and 26-34 with regard to: (a) ethnic identification and (b) gender?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

According to Statistics Canada:

Unemployment rates by gender persons aged 18-25

Both Sexes—Men—Women 1992—16.6—19.4—13.6 1993—16.5—19.1—13.6 1994—15.3—17.0—13.4 1995—14.0—15.4—12.6 1996—14.3—15.4—13.0

Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada

Unemployment rates by gender persons aged 26-34

Both Sexes—Men—Women 1992—11.7—12.9—10.3 1993—11.6—12.2—10.8 1994—10.7—11.4— 9.8 1995— 9.7—10.0— 9.3 1996— 9.7—10.1— 9.3

Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada

The labour force survey, source of Canada's official unemployment estimates, does not include data on ethnic origin.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an act to implement a convention between Canada and Sweden, a convention between Canada and the Republic of Lithuania, a convention between Canada and the Republic of Kazakhstan, a convention between Canada and the Republic of Iceland and a convention between Canada and the Kingdom of Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Convention Act, 1986, and the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention Act, 1984, be read the third time and passed.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak at third reading on C-10 that implements the treaty from tax conventions with a number of countries such as Sweden, Lithuania, Denmark and Kazakhstan. It amends tax treaties or conventions with the United States and the Netherlands.

Primarily a housekeeping bill, but a very lengthy and detailed one, it prevents double taxation in many cases and it works to prevent fiscal evasion by citizens. For the most part, we support the direction of the bill.

However, we have major concern with part VII of the bill. It is the amendment with the United States and it concerns over 80,000 people who receive social security benefits from the U.S. but who reside in Canada.

What is happening to them is unfair because it is done retroactively. These problems resulted from Bill S-9 in the last Parliament. Bill C-9 was layered with different taxation items.

The main thrust of our efforts in attacking the bill focused on the tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations. However, many seniors were taken off guard when they experienced a drastic and unanticipated reduction in their social security benefits.

Before 1996, as a Canadian citizen living in Canada and receiving U.S. social security benefits, they had to report all these benefits on their Canadian tax return. Fifty per cent of these benefits were then deducted. Therefore one ended up paying Canadian taxes on the other 50%. The benefits however were not subject to any U.S. income tax.

Since Bill S-9 was ratified, U.S. social security benefits were no longer subject to Canadian tax. One still had to report these benefits as income on their Canadian tax returns, but could deduct the entire amount under “other deductions”.

This convoluted calculation is done because the government still needs to include benefits in total income for purposes of calculating the GST credit, child tax benefit and the provincial tax credits.

What was bad news for pensioners was that their U.S. benefits were now subject to U.S. tax. The tax was taken right off the top at 25.6% of the total benefit. This tax could not be recovered because it is treated as non-resident withholding tax.

There was a lot of legitimate protest after the passage of the bill because it unfairly attacked the incomes of some 80,000 Canadians who had done their retirement planning and had based their livelihood on a set of rules in place when they were working in the United States.

The protest continued for a fair amount of time. Last April the government made the announcement that there would be change. Indeed, that change has been made in the bill which is before the House today.

Now, instead of the United States taking off the withholding tax of 25.5%, the government and the country where the citizen resides will be taxing the citizen on the social security payment, the Canadian government in this case.

On the flip side of the coin, the American government will tax American citizens receiving the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan.

What this government did not do was go back to the pre-1995 taxation level which was 50% of the social security payments. Instead, the government will be taxing 85% of the social security benefits, 85% instead of the previous 50%.

One could make the argument that in many cases this is better than it was a year or so ago but is still not nearly as good as it was prior to 1995. This is very unfair. This was done without properly consulting the people who were affected.

An organization called the Canadian Association of Social Security Seeking Equality is involved in this issue. It lobbied on this issue, and it was an important one, particularly in the Windsor area, for the election of June 2.

These citizens were not properly consulted. They certainly did not approve the change. For these people, the change is not good. They did their planning based on the rules and then the rules change.

Why is it that this government and its twin in the official opposition only push for tax reform that will benefit the very wealthy. For this reason, for the reason that the bill does not go far enough, we will be opposing Bill C-10.