Debates of Sept. 30th, 1997

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership and the associate membership of the standing committees of the House.

If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in the first report later this day.

Criminal Code

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill. This enactment amends the Criminal Code and provides that a person is guilty of an indictable offence and must be sentenced to one year imprisonment if the person operates or uses a motor vehicle that the person has stolen or knows has been stolen while committing or attempting to commit an offence or during flight after committing or attempting to commit an offence.

The sentence imposed on a person for such an offence shall be served consecutively to any other punishment that is imposed on the person.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed the need for this bill in light of the epidemic of car thefts used to commit a crime. In some cases this has proven to be fatal.

In Vancouver alone there have been three deaths where individuals have stolen cars and killed people. This has also been the case with many young offenders joy riding after stealing a car and encountering police pursuits. This bill is needed as a deterrent to those considering these types of actions. I am pleased to introduce this bill today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act (profit from authorship respecting a crime).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act to prohibit a criminal from profiting by selling or authorizing the story of a crime. If a person is convicted of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code any moneys he or she may have made or may make in the future from the creation of a work based on the crime would be deemed proceeds of crime, subject to seizure by the crown.

This is the same bill that I introduced in the last Parliament and which was passed unanimously by the House and sent to the other place where it was also referred to committee and then unfortunately died an unnatural death because of the call of the election.

I am hoping that with co-operation from all sides we can do the same and get it through the House this time.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Business Corporations Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-221, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.

This bill if passed will allow members of the boards of directors of Canadian corporations the defence of due diligence in the conduct and performance of their duties and responsibilities.

Too often very competent individuals decide not to become members of the boards of corporations because they fear they could be held liable for their conduct, even if they carry out their duties and responsibilities in a conscientious and reasonable way.

For example, a number of months ago we heard about the case of Canadian Airlines International and its board of directors which resigned at a time when one could argue easily that it was needed most.

This bill provides directors with the defence of due diligence and brings the Canada Business Corporations Act into line with most provincial statutes.

I am pleased to introduce this bill and I look forward to the support of my colleagues in the House on this important piece of legislation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Cultural Grants Acknowledgement Act

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-222, an act to require that in the advertising and at the opening of a cultural project supported by public money a public acknowledgement be made of the grant and percentage of the total cost that the grant represents.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce by private member's bill in the House today. This bill would require the recipients of grants of public funds for cultural projects to acknowledge that a grant has been made. It would also require recipients to specify the percentage the total cost of the grant represents at the time the program is announced or advertised and open to the public. Non-compliance may result in the recipient's having to repay the grant.

It is my hope that the members of the House will seriously consider the bill's intent and purpose.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Income Tax Act

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of interest on mortgage loans).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my private member's bill to the House today, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, deduction of interest on mortgage loans for first time homeowners.

The bill provides for the income tax deduction of the interest paid by a taxpayer on the first $100,000 on a mortgage loan secured by the first qualifying home acquired by the taxpayer.

This bill would provide these first time homeowners with a much needed tax break and would also benefit the Canadian housing industry. This bill would make home ownership a feasible option for more families. Recognizing the importance of the family unit, this would have a positive impact on Canada's social climate. Some conditions apply to this bill and are outlined in it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present to Parliament a petition signed by 54 people in my riding of Red Deer, Alberta.

The petitioners and I support a call on Parliament to urge the federal government to join the provincial governments to make the national highway system upgrading possible.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Points Of Order

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the private member's bill introduced earlier today by the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest had previously passed all stages in this House and had been referred to the Senate where it passed all stages, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deem it to have passed all stages again.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to give consideration to the hon. member's request, I need to know which bill is being referred to. I missed it because the interpreter spoke too quickly. Before giving consent, I want to know which bill passed all three stages in this House and was approved by the Senate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, moved for leave to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act (profit from authorship respecting a crime). The hon. member for North Vancouver has asked that the bill be passed at all stages by unanimous consent today.

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that this request be made tomorrow. I absolutely want to see the bill, as we were not told that such a request would be made. Therefore, I would like this issue to be postponed until tomorrow, if possible. I refuse to give my consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Unanimous consent has not been achieved.

Supply

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

moved:

That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50 election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes, and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, just so people get the point, let me re-read the motion. The motion is:

That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50 election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes, and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.

As somebody very wise once said—who is very well known to you, Mr. Speaker—this is the public's money. That is the point we are trying to make. I want to underline it by pointing out that the government has not consulted with Canadians on this whole issue, probably the most important economic decision that it will make during its mandate.

What do we know so far? This flows from the government's election promise and from its throne speech of last week.

We know that the government reaffirmed its commitment to spend 50 percent of any surpluses, when they occur, on new spending. We know that. It was in part of the election package and it was also in the throne speech.

Again, I raise the question of whose money is this?

Second, we know that there was absolutely no acknowledgement in the throne speech that Canada has a debt of $600 billion. That is a staggering amount of money.

There was absolutely no acknowledgement in the throne speech that we have the highest taxes of all of our trading partners, the highest personal income taxes in the G-7 by a tremendous amount.

There was no acknowledgement in the throne speech that in the past the government has been routinely chided, not only by watchdogs like the Reform Party and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, but even by the auditor general on many occasions for irresponsible spending. There was no acknowledgement of that in the throne speech. I will say more about that in a moment.

No criteria has been laid down by the government for determining how any of this surplus should be spent, whether on new programs or on the side of taxes and debt reduction. Of course there was one measly lone reference in the throne speech to reducing taxes and paying down debt. Absolutely no criteria have been established on how those decisions are going to be made. The government has not talked about what the optimal size of debt, taxes and the level of government would be. There has been no definition anywhere about what constitutes, for instance, a tax break. What is tax relief as opposed to a social benefit that is delivered through the taxation system? That is a very important point. It would not be nearly as important if people knew that the government could be counted on to be up front and give them what most people believe would be a tax break. However, it appears the government may be intent on playing some games with what constitutes a tax break.

Also, there is no indication whether the spending announced in the throne speech will be applied toward the government's 50 percent spending promise. It is not mentioned anywhere. Therefore, we really cannot hold the government accountable to its promise unless we know that for a fact. I think there are many reasons to be concerned about what we know so far.

We also know, based on a recent poll published in the weekend Financial Post , that Canadians want tax relief. For instance, the poll states that 28 percent of Canadians would like to see a personal income tax cut, 3 percent want to see a business tax cut, and another 20 percent want to see both personal income taxes and corporate taxes reduced. That is a plurality of people who want to see tax relief, at least 51 percent. The people who want to see personal income tax cuts compared to the people who want to see taxes rise are outnumbered by a margin of 28:1. Those are the things that we know based on what has gone on before.

Anyone who is just a little bit logical has to conclude that what the government is proposing, in the face of the poll that I have just mentioned and after 27 years of fiscal irresponsibility, is the return to chequebook politics. We are returning to the 1970s and the sorts of supposed solutions that the government at that time brought forward. Rather obviously, those solutions failed miserably at that time.

The question raised in many people's minds is why are we repeating the same mistakes that we made in the past? As somebody once pointed out, if one does not pay careful attention to history one is bound to repeat all of the mistakes. I seems that is what the government is doing.

I have talked a little bit about some of the things that the government did not acknowledge. I talked about the debt, taxes and irresponsible spending. I want to say a little bit more about that in a bit more detail.

As members know, the Reform Party has done a tremendous amount of work on raising these issues not only with the government but also with the public. We think it is important that the public be invited to consult on these sorts of issues. As a responsible party we do our part to ensure, to the degree that we can, that we provide some background information so that when people give us feedback on these issues it is informed and that people really understand all the things that have happened in the past.

I want to make that point by talking about some of the things that are in our document, Beyond a Balanced Budget. We are going to be consulting with Canadians over the next three months to gather their input. By the way, if people want a copy of this—and I say to my hon. friends that they can certainly come and get one from me—it is on the Internet at www.reform.ca/babb so that if people want to pull that down they can.

I want to address specifically the issue of debt. In the throne speech the government made one reference to the whole problem of debt. It seems blind to the fact that the debt in this country is $600 billion. It consumes about 74 percent of the gross domestic product in the country which is almost without parallel among any of our trading partners. It is an absolutely astronomical figure.

I often point out to high school students when I talk to them that if they stacked up one hundred dollar bills about this high that would be a million dollars and if they stacked up our debt in one hundred dollar bills it would be about 1,200 kilometres high. It is a tremendous amount of money.

But that in itself really is not the problem. The problem with a debt that big is it has to be serviced. Interest payments on the debt have grown exponentially. They now consume about $47 billion a year. A third of every tax dollar that Canadians send to the treasury each year goes toward paying the interest on the debt.

We point out in our paper, Beyond a Balanced Budget, that since 1993 debt service charges have increased by $7.5 billion a year. That is only since the government came to power. At the same time health transfers have fallen by about $7 billion a year.

It has had a profound impact on the ability of the government to fund the programs that are the most important to Canadians. That is why the issue of the debt deserves more than one lonely mention in the government's throne speech. We condemn the government for not paying more attention to this important issue.

Perhaps this will help bring the issue home for people who have trouble dealing with an astronomical number like $600 billion or even $47 billion in interest. The annual interest bill is enough to run the governments of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, with enough left over to repay the entire public debts of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It is a tremendous amount of money.

The annual interest bill is enough to pay the annual federal transfers to the provinces for health, education, welfare, equalization and old age security. It is by far the single biggest payment the government makes each and every year. It is money that could be used for good things but because of the profligacy of previous governments, the government is paying out this tremendous amount of money, in many cases to foreign lenders, and this imperils the future of the country. The country is that much more vulnerable when the debt is $600 billion.

We argue in our paper that the government must pay attention to the debt. If government members talked to their constituents they would discover that people are very concerned about this massive debt. They are probably disappointed that the government has not paid more attention to it in the throne speech, which allegedly is the vision that the government lays out for the next few years.

It is not just the issue of the debt that we are concerned about. We are concerned about the government's poor commitment to the issue of reducing taxes. There is one single mention in the throne speech. A moment ago I spoke about our personal income tax burden. I do not know if members realize that compared to our G-7 trading partners, the personal income tax burden is 52 percent higher as a per cent of the total economy than in the U.S., Japan, U.K, France and Italy.

Obviously when you have a tax on production, which is what income tax is, that is that much higher than our trading partners, it will have a profound impact on our ability to compete. In the Financial Post poll on the weekend business leaders such as Peggy Whip from the Royal Oak Mines stated that the reason the company moved its operation to the United States was it could not attract people to Canada because the personal income tax burden is so high they refused to come.

This is not an academic exercise. It has a profound impact on jobs. People in the business community have said so. We also have the situation, and many members across the way are familiar with this, were we lose some of our brightest and best doctors to the United States. We produce computer programmers at the University of Western Ontario and they are lured away to other countries, primarily the U.S., because of its lower income tax burden. This is after we have paid for their education.

This is not an academic debate. The tax measures that the government has put in place over the period of many years has driven many Canadians out of the country. It has driven many Canadians out of business. The government has presided over record bankruptcies. 1995 had record bankruptcies. That was not good enough. Bankruptcies went up by another 20 percent in 1996 under this government.

I would argue that in some part it is due to the fact that we have tremendously high taxes in this country. It makes it very difficult for businesses to compete. It is not only personal income tax. We have all kinds of direct taxes, payroll taxes for instance.

At a time when we have a surplus in the EI account of about $13 billion, we have this government refusing to give Canadians tax relief. These payroll taxes have a very serious effect on the ability of businesses to compete because they are not sensitive to whether or not a business is making a profit.

If businesses are in a loss situation, they have to continue to make those payments on EI premiums, and at the same time the government is talking about raising CPP premiums by 73 percent. We already have legislation introduced into the House that will make that a reality starting on January 1. They will start to go up more and more and more. Payroll taxes will claim more and more and more victims.

It is a horribly serious situation, but what did it merit in the throne speech? But one mention, one mention, as though all of these problems do not exist in the country. It is as though the government has stuck its head in the sand.

Hon. members across the way know this and in a private moment I think would admit that Canadians out there really do want tax relief. I do not hear a hue and cry across the country for more spending. When I go to my riding, people do not say “Come on, let's spend more”.

I come from Alberta. In that province when people had a chance to have input into what they wanted to do with any surpluses, they said they wanted to pay down the debt. We have made tremendous progress in Alberta toward paying down the debt, but I think the key point is that the Government of Alberta recognizes that that money belongs to the Alberta taxpayer. Instead of arrogantly deciding that the government knew best how to spend that money, it consulted with the people to whom the money belonged. I think that is a message that this government should learn.

I want to touch on the issue of irresponsible spending. Over the years, I do not know in how many auditor general's reports, how many reports from interested academics, how many reports from people who were watch dogs of the government on issues, how many times the whole issue of irresponsible spending has been brought up to the government. Why is it that things never seem to improve?

The auditor general pointed out that the lack of inventory control at national defence cost the government $1.7 billion. Why do they repeatedly point out the terrible waste and even corruption that goes on in Indian affairs and nothing ever seems to change?

We point out some of the ridiculous grants that are given not only to special interest groups, arts funding and things that are beyond the pale, but also to business groups. How many times do we have to have the chamber of commerce come before the finance committee and say “We do not want grants for business any more”. Here is the voice of business saying “We do not want grants for business”, but what does the government do? It ignores them and says “We are going to continue to take money from profitable businesses in the form of taxes and give it to unprofitable businesses so they can then turn around and compete against those self-same profitable businesses”. That is ridiculous. It makes no sense.

We see this government, for reasons that I will never comprehend, continuing to do this. All the while it is undermining businesses that are trying to create jobs in this country. If there is one thing on which I think all parties agree, it is that we want to have more jobs in this country. So let us recognize what the government is doing here. It is putting short term political considerations ahead of what is right for the country and that should not be tolerated.

I would argue that the government has done a very poor job in terms of getting its spending priorities in place. Let me touch on that a little bit more.

When we talk to people around the country, and I am talking of all members in the House, I think that there is probably a consensus that the federal government should direct its spending toward issues that are important to Canadians, issues like health care.

We know that the government's record is on health care. The government has cut spending by $6.8 billion, reduced the transfers by 35 percent. But at the same time—and this speaks to its priorities—the government has cut departmental spending marginally. That is despite what the finance minister himself said on a number of occasions.

In fact we have a quote in our document “Beyond a Balanced Budget” from a speech the finance minister gave to a Federal Reserve board meeting in Kansas City, United States in 1995. He said “We will cut our own departmental spending a lot more than we will cut the transfers to the provinces”. Sadly that has not been borne out in what the government has done. We argue it is time for the government to match its own words with its deeds. We argue very vigorously that that simply has not happened, and government members are not paying attention to the priorities of Canadians.

The Reform Party wants to change that. We want to gather input from Canadians and that is what we intend on doing. We have sent out our “Beyond a Balanced Budget” document to hundreds of people around the country. We have posted it on the Internet. We are going to be talking to thousands and thousands of people over the next several months to gather their input. We are going to do the government's job for the government members because for reasons that I do not understand they think they have all the answers.

We believe this money belongs to the Canadian taxpayers and we are going to acknowledge that by going and talking to them. We argue that the real answer to creating jobs is not in subsidies and is not even necessarily training. We argue that it is demand. We believe that we need to start to lower taxes, we need to start to pay down debt so that we can get the economy going, so that we can start to create jobs that Canadians in all parts of the country need.

In conclusion, I will simply say that we cannot solve the problems of the 1990s with the solutions of the 1970s. I just want to urge the government to pay attention to that simple message and to start to hear what Canadians are saying and acknowledge that perhaps the government does not have all the answers and that it is time to hear some of the answers that come forth from the Canadian public.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we get into questions and comments hon. members, I would ask that the questions and the responses be kept relatively brief. This will allow us to have more debate and more interchange.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how we get this warm fuzzy feeling when we hear the Reform members talk about their plan for Canada.

I hear the name Peggy Witte of Royal Oak Mines in Yellowknife and here he is using her as an example of a proud business person in Canada. Must I remind him that she and she alone was the one who caused the great mine strike and eventually the death of those nine miners who were in there.

It was her labour actions and it was her attitude toward the workforce, those workers in Yellowknife, that caused all this. What she wants—and this is for the member of the Reform Party to understand—is for workers to work as low as possible with fewer health standards and lower working standards than anywhere else in Canada.

It is amazing to hear him talk of the Reform Party and taxation. Every time I go by a Bingo hall in my riding I think of Preston Manning and the Stornoway club. If he wants to set an example, he should lead by example. The leader of the Reform Party was the one who indicated that if he moved into Stornoway he would put a Bingo sign on it. He would put a for sale sign on the car and would refuse the $49,000 stipend that he receives.

What does he do? Not more than two days afterward, he said he consulted with the members and Canadians. He never consulted with us. He should be leading by example if they want to stand up here and talk about taxes.

As well he said the government should not assist small business in any way. How does he expect a company in the northern outreaches of Newfoundland or in the outskirts of Nova Scotia to compete with those companies in central Canada when their markets are so far away?

My question to the hon. gentleman from the Reform Party is what is he going to do to help us in Atlantic Canada because of the fact that Atlantic Canadians did not even allow them in the door during this election.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think most of that tirade scarcely merits an answer. I am going to assume that the member did not really mean to say that the president of Royal Oak Mines actually caused the death of those miners. We will give him the benefit of the doubt.

I will say to my hon. friend that rather obviously he has not paid very close attention to what happened in the last election campaign. Not only did the Reform Party dramatically increase its support, but I would also point out that the whole issue of taxation and cutting taxes resonated from Canadians coast to coast.

In fact the Reform Party plan would put a billion dollars back into the pockets of Atlantic Canadians through tax relief. We argue that is a new solution that has been untried. I would also argue that if subsidies and grants work so extraordinarily well, then why is it that we have staggeringly high unemployment levels in Atlantic Canada? We have been doing this since the 1970s when we started to change UI benefits to make them regionally sensitive. What has happened since then? We have seen unemployment ratchet up and up and up and up.

When is the hon. member and his party going to learn from the mistakes of the past? How many people have to be unemployed and living in poverty before the hon. member and his party get it? Do they not understand that the solutions of the 1970s are not going to fix the problems of the 1990s? When is he going to get it?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair would gently remind hon. members to address other hon. members through the Chair. Before the next member commences, I would remind hon. members that they must be at their seats to be recognized by the Chair.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the member this one question again.

Is he saying that the film industry of Nova Scotia should not get any assistance? Is he saying that 40,000 seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada should not get any assistance? Is he encouraging them all to move to Alberta? That is not the agenda of Atlantic Canadians, sir. They would like to live and work in their own communities and they would like to work with governments at all levels to assist them and their families to stay where they are.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Reform Party believes that we need to do whatever we can to help citizens across the country. That is why we believe very strongly in a program to start to improve the infrastructure in Atlantic Canada so that we can renew some of the traditional trade ties that Atlantic Canada had when it came into Confederation which at that point made it the strongest part of the country. In fact back when there were a strong set of trade ties with New England when most of Atlantic Canada came into Confederation, it was by far the wealthiest part of the country. It did extraordinarily well.

We need to go back to that and renew infrastructure to make it happen. In some cases it means providing some training for people. In other cases it may mean that we will have to lower taxes. We need to do the sorts of things to make Atlantic Canada competitive in a modern day environment and in an environment of globalization.

I do not think we can continue to rely on the solutions of the past. I hope that the member will come around to that way of thinking.