Debates of Sept. 24th, 1998

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today signed by over 200 of the constituents of Prince George—Peace River. They note that on the same day that the Canadian Radio Television-Telecommunications Commission refused to license four religious broadcasters it did indeed license the pornographic Playboy channel television service.

The petitioners believe that Canadians have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, conscience and expression. Therefore they call upon parliament to review the mandate of CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which will encourage the licensing of religious broadcasters.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions today.

The first petition has to do with lowering the age in the Young Offenders Act from the age of 12 to 10 and also some other changes to the Young Offenders Act, increasing the penalty for first degree murder from a maximum of 10 years to 15 and ensuring parental responsibility.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from constituents which has to do with the issue of marriage. The petitioners ask that Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female, be implemented.

I am presenting this petition on behalf of my constituents. I would remind my hon. colleagues that it is my duty as a member to present my constituents' wishes.

I have another petition that I will table at another time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will all look forward to that.

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 Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1998

[Allan Rock, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find the unanimous consent of the House to split the 40 minute speaking time allocated to the official opposition into four 10 minute speeches. There are no questions and comments associated with that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to the suggestion of the hon. House Leader for the official opposition?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today at second reading of Bill S-16.

This legislation will implement the income tax conventions that Canada recently signed with Vietnam, Croatia and Chile. Bill S-16 is important as it is part of an ongoing effort to update Canada's network of income tax conventions.

Tax treaties are directly related to international trade and thus have a subsequent impact on Canada's domestic economic performance. Their benefits are therefore significant. Witness the almost 40% of Canada's annual economic wealth that depends on exports, commerce abroad and direct foreign investment.

Canada has been updating its network of tax treaties regularly since 1971 when our income tax system was overhauled. One of the outcomes of this overhaul was the expansion of our network of tax treaties. Canada now has income tax treaties with 64 countries.

Canada has two main objectives in mind when signing tax conventions with other countries. One is the avoidance of double taxation. The other is the prevention of income tax evasion. New tax treatments are, for the most part, similar to others already concluded by Canada. However, by necessity they do vary from one country to another.

Bill S-16 guarantees that our income tax rules are integrated to ensure that our agreements with Vietnam, Croatia and Chile have full force and effect.

Before I discuss some of the specifics in the bill I want to highlight three major benefits that will result from the bill.

First, taxpayers will know that a rate of tax limited under any of these agreements cannot be increased without substantial advance notice of any changes.

Second, Canadian taxpayers with business interests or investments in Vietnam, Croatia or Chile will operate under a reduced compliance burden as the rules of the game will become clearer.

Third, taxpayers involved in international transactions where double taxation occasionally occurs will see this problem largely eliminated.

In a world where people and capital are increasingly mobile, double taxation treaties are crucial because they ensure that returns will not be taxed twice. Canada has 64 treaties, including our conventions with Vietnam, Croatia and Chile, which eliminate double taxation in one of two ways.

They assign exclusive taxing rights to only the taxpayer's country of residence or the source country of the income. Or they require the country of residence to give credit for the tax paid to the source country if the income is taxable in both countries.

Double taxation treaties often encourage the exchange of information between revenue authorities to prevent tax evasion, the second objective in signing these treaties, and Bill S-16 is certainly no different.

Withholding taxes are another major issue addressed in this particular bill. A taxpayer's country of residence can usually withhold tax at a rate of 5%, 10% or 15% on dividends and branch profits, and 10% on interest and royalties. In some cases royalties on copyright, computer software, patent and know-how are exempt at source.

Under the agreement with Vietnam, there will be a reduced dividend rate of 5% for a Canadian company with at least 70% of the Vietnam company's voting power, 10% for a company controlling between 25% and 70% of voting power, and 15% in all other cases.

In addition, there will be a reduced branch tax rate of 5%, a reduced 10% rate on interest and royalties and a 7.5% on technical service fees.

For Vietnam there is no immediate exemption for royalties on copyright, computer software, patents and know-how. However, if Vietnam agrees to any future exemptions with other OECD countries, Canada and Canadians will automatically obtain the benefit of that same exemption.

Under the treaty with Croatia, the reduced dividend rate will be 5% for a company controlling at least 10% of the voting power, or holding at least 25% of the capital, and 15% in all other cases. The rates on branch taxes and interest and royalties will be 5% and 10% respectively. Again, there is no exemption for interest or royalties on copyright, computer software, patents and know-how.

In the convention with Chile, the reduced dividend rate will be 10% for a company owning at least 25% of the voting power and 15% in all other cases. A 10% branch tax rate will apply, and if Chile agrees to a 5% rate with another OECD country, this lower rate will automatically apply to Canada.

There will also be a 15% rate on interest and royalties, but no exemption for interest or royalties on copyright, computer software, patents and know-how.

Another measure I would like to discuss concerns non-resident pensions. Bill S-16 respects Canada's right to tax pensions and annuities paid to non-residents. Under the agreements with Vietnam and Croatia, pension payments can be taxed in both countries, with the source country collecting no more than 15% of the total payment. Social security benefits will be taxable only by the country that pays those benefits. With respect to Canada and Chile, pension and social security payments will be taxable by the country from which the payments are made.

Hon. members may be interested to know that capital gains on the sale of real property, business assets and shares in real estate companies, or interest in real estate partnerships or trusts will remain taxable by the country in which the property is situated.

In conclusion, there are some very real benefits for Canadians in this bill. With no tax treaty presently in force with Vietnam, Croatia or Chile, these agreements will definitely help Canadian corporations and individuals with operations and investments there. Along with promoting international trade and investment, and helping to secure Canada's position in the increasingly competitive world of trade and investment, their existence will also foster an atmosphere of certainty and stability for investors and traders that will only enhance Canada's economic relationship with each country. At the same time these agreements will help to ensure that Canadian tax policy remains consistent internationally.

I also point out that there will be no revenue losses to any of the countries affected by this bill.

Tax treaties are part of the normal apparatus of international relations for a modern economy and their expansion is part of the ongoing operations of a responsible government. This is important and non-controversial legislation and I encourage hon. members to grant its speedy passage.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to remind the House that, pursuant to unanimous consent, I will be splitting the official opposition's 40 minute allocation between myself, the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, the member for Medicine Hat and the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, in that order.

The official opposition supports Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

We, as a party for free enterprise, strongly support measures of this nature which can remove barriers to commerce and make efficient financial flows between trading jurisdictions such as Canada and the three countries stipulated in this bill.

We have reviewed this bill in detail and find that it is substantively in keeping with the model for international tax conventions proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

I would second the substantive remarks of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who just detailed for us some of the elements of this bill.

I would, however, make reference to one concern that I have, which is with respect to an element of this bill which confirms a tax convention with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. While in principle I think it is a good thing for Canada to establish firmer trade links leading to greater prosperity between ourselves and international jurisdictions, I think this gives us pause to reflect on the general foreign and economic policies of the current government vis-à-vis tyrannical regimes overseas.

We have seen a recent example of this kind of cosy, pillow fluffing, red carpet treatment that Canada provides to foreign jurisdictions, such as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Indonesian, a country we have been talking about in this House recently.

While I do not oppose the effort to establish a tax convention of this nature with Vietnam, I do wish that it were tied more clearly to a more vigorous articulation on the part of the Canadian government of the need for the respect of human, religious and civil rights in communist tyrannies such as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Simply opening up trade and more efficient means of financial balances such as these tax conventions without a concomitant effort to press the need for human rights and political reforms is, in my view, insufficient and is a black mark on the record of this government and of this country.

Having said that, let me say that I and my colleagues object most strenuously to the process by which we find ourselves addressing this bill as S-16. For those not familiar with parliamentary procedure, it is coded as S-16 because it is a bill that was introduced in the Senate in May of this year.

Why was this bill introduced in the Senate? Conventionally in this Parliament, right from its beginning, bills, and particularly meaningful government bills, have been introduced in the lower chamber, the House of Commons, reviewed, debated, passed and then submitted to the upper chamber in the other place.

However, in this case we have before us one instance of the growing and troubling pattern on the part of this government to introduce legislation such as Bill S-16 in the Senate, to pass it there and then to bring it before us here in the Commons. We submit this is a contravention of a long established parliamentary convention whereby we respect the de facto supremacy of the lower Chamber, the elected Chamber, the democratically legitimate Chamber over the appointed patronage haven we call the Senate to introduce and discuss bills here first.

Bills ought to be introduced and debated, deliberated on and passed here and then considered by the Senate as a de facto rubber stamp rather than the other way around. Instead we find ourselves, through introducing this and other bills at the Senate, increasing the legitimacy of what is in actual fact an increasingly illegitimate body in the eyes of the Canadian people and the official opposition. We find this very troubling indeed.

We have asked the government in our negotiations with its House leadership and in public statements here and elsewhere to respect the long established parliamentary convention of introducing legislation of this nature, government bills, in the Commons for consideration by the duly elected representatives of the people before proceeding to the Senate and not the other way around. But the government has decided to refuse to respect that convention and to refuse to assert the democratic authority of this place over the Senate.

This is very unfortunate, particularly in light of the fact that this government has virtually no substantive legislative agenda. Here we are in Canada with an economy that is slowing down, with a nearly $600 billion debt, with the highest personal income tax rates in the G-7, with a dollar that has just this summer reached historic all time lows. Here we are with enormous problems to deal with in terms of the livelihoods of Canadians and what does this government have on its legislative agenda? Very little except for little technical bills of this nature.

So there is no compelling reason for the government to have introduced this bill or similar bills in the Senate for its consideration before the consideration of the Commons. There is no compelling reason except for the government's decision to try to legitimize the upper chamber at a time when in the eyes of Canadians it is increasingly an illegitimate body.

I say this about Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the republics of Vietnam, Croatia and Chile, because we have before us in this place a rare historic opportunity. That is an opportunity provided to us by the duly elected government of the province of Alberta. The Alberta legislature has decided to convene and hold an election for senators in that province, an election that will be held on October 19. This election is not being held as some symbolic frivolous effort by a political gesture on the part of the people of Alberta.

Rather, the Government of Alberta wants the people of Alberta to choose its next senators to begin the long, arduous but critically important process of fundamental Senate reform so that one day we can reach a situation where the upper chamber is elected and is accountable, so it can exercise effective powers hopefully with equitable if not equal representation from the provinces and regions so that it can consider bills like Bill S-16, so that it can even talk about technical government legislation such as tax conventions with a modicum of democratic legitimacy. Until that day arrives we assert the prerogative of this House, the democratic assembly of this parliament, to consider bills of this nature first before they go to the patronage haven down the road.

Today we heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that the Senate elections in Alberta are undemocratic. Undemocratic elections? Let me get this straight. In this strange twisted Orwellian world of the government opposite it is undemocratic to have elections but it is democratic to appoint people to an upper chamber to decide how tax dollars are spent and to use the enormous and sometimes coercive power of the state. I fail to grasp the twisted logic of the Deputy Prime Minister and the government in introducing bills like this and in attacking a legitimate effort to push the agenda of democratic reform in parliament. The Liberal Party of Canada and the Right Hon. Prime Minister say they favour reform of the Senate. I then invite them to demonstrate that support by introducing bills like this in the lower Chamber first.

Before my time expires I would like to move—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move, seconded by the member for Langley—Abottsford—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member cannot move a motion on a point of order. I suggest that given the circumstances he pass it on to one of his colleagues, whoever is going to speak next. I believe it will be the hon. member for Langley—Abottsford.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you can count on this being a very pleasant speech because I want to talk about Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the republics of Vietnam, Croatia and Chile.

From my perspective Reform has always supported measures that might in any way lower the tax burden of Canadians. I am sure support will be found for the bill.

However, I do have, as my colleague has just talked very briefly about, some concern about how Bill S-16 came before us. I stood in the House a number of times on points of privilege and points of order. The privilege I spoke about is the privilege that is being denied members of the House to look at such bills first, have first reading, second reading, have them go to committee, perhaps have the committee go across the country if it is that important to discuss with people, have the bills go to third reading and then off to the Senate for its review.

I am really at a loss once again why we find Bill S-16, yet another bill, coming from the Senate first into the House. The problem I have is I guess we have to look at what makes the House of Commons effective first of all. I think what makes the House of Commons effective is open debate on any issue, dialogue across and the accountability, of course. If we stand up and vote for or against a particular bill in the House and the public does not like it there is accountability. There is accountability at the polls. If we look for feedback from our people it is democratic and bills get the right filtration they need throughout the country.

On the other hand, I guess one could look at what would hamper that in the House. What would hamper that is a debate after the fact, a bill going to the Senate first through unelected, unaccountable individuals, and then coming to the House seeking some form of rubber stamp after it has already been discussed by the Senate. I guess we would be hampered if the individuals who bring these sorts of bills to the House from the Senate were not elected, which they are not, and were not accountable to people in this country, which they are not, given that they are patronage appointments. I do not understand for a moment why a government time after time in the House purports to have some form of democratic process going on when bills are coming into the House from the Senate and are not debated first in the House of Commons. There is something wrong with that undying philosophy that my friends and buddies have a better process for making legislation than individually elected members of parliament.

My colleague from Calgary Southeast talked about the implications of Senate patronage appointments on the current elections in Alberta. Just what does this government hope to gain by flying in the face of Senate elections in Alberta and appointing someone to the Senate from Alberta? What does it hope to achieve by that?

I will tell members what it is going to achieve. It is going to probably achieve no seats in the next election, but then it does not have many seats in Alberta anyway. I guess the arrogance of it all is starting to show. Maybe that's it.

When is this going to stop in this House? When is this government going to come to the realization that the House of Commons was built as an institution that legislates the affairs of Canadians. When is it going to understand that the buddies, the hacks, all those friends who have been appointed to the Senate are really not accountable for these issues, they really should not be initiating bills and sending them to the House? They really should not be looking after the clean-up of issues the government does not want to initiate in this House in the first place.

This issue of the Senate is not going to go away. I can assure members of that. It really does not matter to me what the content of the bill is coming from the House of Commons. The fact is all those bills should be initiated in this House first.

To the government it may seem that the other place, the Senate, is accountable, it can do all the work there and save the government some time. But that is not in the eyes of Canadians what this is about. If we are going to legislate then we must be accountable for our actions. We cannot toss it off to this group over on the other side that is unaccountable.

If the Liberals think for a minute that this is not going to be a major issue until such time as they initiate change to the Senate, they are kidding themselves. I think the arrogance of it all is bad enough but the overconfidence is going to get this government. This is by no means a small issue across this country. This happens to be a very large issue where I come from.

Canadians want a Senate that is accountable, that is elected, that is effective and they are going to get it. If they cannot get it through the other side they will get it through another party and another government.

Let us stop talking about Bill S-16 being so important that we have to get it through the Senate first. If it is so darn important then put it through the House first. My colleague is absolutely correct about the government's agenda. Here we are with young people looking for jobs, a dollar that is lower than it has ever been historically, taxes that are far too high, debt that is far too much and what do we have in front of us? Bill S-16 from the Senate. There is a minister here. Go back and tell the cabinet that Bill S-16 from the Senate does not address the issues of getting our kids back to work.

Now for my amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be not now read a second time, but that the order for the second reading be discharged and a message sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House will no longer accept legislation introduced by the Senate until the Senate agrees to lift the ban on senators' attendance records.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair will take the amendment moved by the hon. member under advisement before it decides whether the amendment is in order and will get back to the House as soon as possible.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-16. This is my first time up in the House since we resumed. Like my colleagues I am extraordinarily disappointed with the line-up that we are seeing in the House this early in the session.

I start by pointing out that my friend is absolutely right when he suggests that we have a huge unemployment problem in Canada today, and here we are dealing with a bill that is, shall we say, a bit insignificant.

We have a problem today with our dollar. In case members opposite have not noticed, it hit 10 new historic lows in the month of August alone.

[An hon. member]

How many?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Ten new historic lows, unbelievably, and what are we talking about? A reciprocal taxation agreement with Chile, Croatia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

We are concerned about taxation on this side, specifically about the issue of double taxation which the bill purports to deal with. However I would like to ask the government opposite why it is not concerned about double taxation in Canada. For crying out loud, we have GST on provincial sales taxes and we have GST on fuel taxes in this country. Why does the government not move a bill that would remove that type of double taxation? No. It is only good when it involves countries outside Canada. It is a disgrace that it has such a skimpy agenda.

My friends opposite have pointed to other issues. I will point to one as well. We have the social union that is being considered by the provinces right now. We have the federal government balking at dealing with the provinces. They are bringing forward for the first time in a long time a unified proposal. We should see the federal government embracing some of the things that are being brought forward by the provinces. Instead we are dealing with Bill S-16. It is absolutely unbelievable.

I point to an issue that has been heating up all summer and actually deals specifically with the bill but not in the way the government was proposing. I am talking about the Senate elections in Alberta.

Here we have a bill initiated in the Senate, a bill that, granted, is not a big important bill. However it deals with taxation. If a bill begins in a place where there are not elected people but actually patronage appointments, it is fair to say that essentially what we have here is a case of a taxation bill being drawn without representation. I am extraordinarily concerned that we are allowing this to continue to happen in this place. We have pointed this out before.

People in the lower house are elected; people in the upper house are appointed. They are friends of the Prime Minister and previous prime ministers. They are great hockey players in some cases but they are not people who were elected. They do not necessarily bring any expertise to these issues. I am disappointed that we have to lecture the government once again on what democracy is all about.

Today we had a great democrat speak in this place, Nelson Mandela. He spoke about democracy and I thought how ironic that we have Nelson Mandela in this place speaking about democracy and the government balks at allowing democracy to happen in Alberta.

In Alberta today we are trying to hold a Senate election. We had 600,000 people vote in the previous Senate election in Alberta and we actually elected a senator. Finally Brian Mulroney was forced because of tremendous public pressure to put Stan Waters, a Reformer, into the Senate, the first really truly accountable senator who has ever sat in that place.

Now we are proposing to do the same thing again, and what do we get from the Prime Minister? He says the Senate election is a joke. That is what he thinks of Albertans. I will tell the House what is a joke. I think the joke is the government's approach to the people of Alberta and to democracy. It is ridiculous that the Liberals will sit there day after day and say that we rejected a Senate of an elected nature under the Charlottetown accord. Therefore they will not give us any chance to elect senators at all.

The Prime Minister knows that is absolutely untrue. We rejected many aspects of the Charlottetown accord. We rejected specific things about the Senate proposal in the accord but we really rejected it because it would not lead to a triple E Senate, something that Albertans believe in very strongly.

The other day one of my colleagues asked the Prime Minister what he had done in the last five years since he had been in office to promote a triple E Senate, to promote an elected Senate. He could not answer. He has not done one thing in five years despite the fact that this is the most important constitutional issue, and even non-constitutional unity issue, for Albertans.

Despite that fact, the Prime Minister could not name one thing his government had done to push the issue of Senate reform. Now the Government of Alberta and Reformers have taken matters into their own hands. Hopefully they will embarrass the government a bit by showing it how democracy is supposed to work.

On October 19 four candidates for the position of senator will be on the ballot when Albertans go to the polls during their municipal elections. Two of those people will be selected and will ultimately be suggested to the Prime Minister when the next Senate vacancy comes up in Alberta. We certainly hope that this time around the Prime Minister will heed the wishes of Albertans who frankly were quite insulted the other day when the Prime Minister went ahead, even during a Senate election, and chose to put a patronage appointee back into the Senate. It is absolutely disgusting.

I will wrap up my remarks by saying that this is not an issue that Albertans will soon forget. We point out that we have been working on this matter for a number of years. One of my new colleagues, Bert Brown, who was nominated by Reformers the other day, has been working on the Senate issue for 16 years. His colleague, Ted Morton, who was also chosen by Reformers as a nominee for the Senate election, is a political scientist who has been working hard to push the issue of Senate reform for a long time.

We will not leave this issue alone. We will continue to pound away at the government on that issue and on the issues the government should be dealing with today such as lower taxes, not reciprocal tax agreements with other countries around the world. We will pound away on the issue of debt.

We want to know why there is not a bill before us today legislating debt paydown. We want to know why there is not legislation today dealing with some of the issues the provinces have raised in their recent discussions in Saskatoon. We want to know those things and we will continue to pound away.

We are putting the government on notice that we are prepared to bring these issues to this place, even if the government has become so disconnected from Canadians that the best it can do in its first week back is to bring in a bill dealing with reciprocal tax treaties with other countries around the world.

We think it is shameful and we are putting the government on notice that we will continue to bring these issues to the government, irrespective of the trashy legislation it has brought before us.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is ready to rule on the admissibility of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

I may say the Chair has very serious concerns that the amendment is out of order. I refer hon. members to citation 568 of Beauchesne's sixth edition wherein it states:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.

The amendment that is proposed by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford is relevant to the bill in its first part, but in its second part it would tend to lead to debate on the question of attendance records of the Senate, which, while possibly of interest to many hon. members, is not relevant to Bill S-16 that is currently before the House.

I also draw the hon. member's attention to citation 666 of Beauchesne's sixth edition—and I know that the whip of the official opposition is familiar with this citation—which states:

There are three types of amendments that may be proposed at the second reading stage of a bill. These are:

1. the hoist (eg. three months, six months).

2. the reasoned amendment.

3. the referral of the subject-matter to a committee.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford fails to meet any one of those requirements. Accordingly I must rule the amendment out of order.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to be able to raise my voice on Bill S-16.

The Reform caucus supports the content of Bill S-16. The bill is technical in nature and addresses some tax discrepancies between Canada, Vietnam, Croatia and Chile, along with agreements that Canada has with 64 countries.

The bill is part of the thousands of similar mutual agreements that increasingly are being made between countries and organizations. It reflects the growing realization that co-operation and friendly competition under the same set of rules in the long run benefits all the players. When enlightened peoples learn to play fair economically by established rules, all of the world societies can be lifted up.

It is the direct opposite approach from the historical methods of socialism and in a partial way the tendencies of NDP governments in Canada. The politics of envy, exclusion and special rules for some and of quotas, exclusive regulation and a host of many other measures that limit basic freedoms in the marketplace are the hallmarks of that kind of thinking. Unfortunately those kinds of hurtful ideas are still rampant in the academic community of the country and in too much of the reasoning from some of the NDP sympathizers.

Although the social goals may be the same as mine, the ideas about what is wise concerning methods of getting there makes all the difference. It goes much beyond belief. It goes to the hard evidence of what it shown over time to work and what is shown not to work.

When I travelled to Moscow last year to meet with Russian parliamentarians I was saddened by the similarity in the underlying concepts of the arguments I heard in their Duma about their resentments requiring economic penalty solutions such as disincentive taxes.

The politics of barriers rather than agreements seem to carry the day. It is no wonder that average Russians will likely always be poor. It comes from the ideas they carry about how to get to a better world and those ideas actually destroy any hope of ever getting there.

We have had the same historical problems in this country to a lesser degree. We even still see remnants of those hurtful ideas in the budgets of the present finance minister. Since my election to parliament in 1993 fortunately we have seen the government reluctantly move toward better economic fundamentals, openness, and move away from socialist tendencies. There is hope that we can become fully a freedom loving country where every member of society has a chance to participate in the economy and have the opportunity to take responsibility for their welfare.

The more we get our national economic fundamentals right, the more we as a society will be able to help those who cannot help themselves.

There are agreements of mutual benefit among nations, provincial economic zones, markets and labour zones. All these must continue to be opened up with fairness, avoiding discrimination.

The bill makes an agreement with three countries. Yet we still have a way to go to get it done, to make agreements within our country among provinces to enhance the overall economic welfare of Canadians. If Canada then can set the highest of standards for the regulation of a self-renewing economy, other nations can follow.

For example, when ethical fundamentals were violated in the Asian economy the consequences eventually came to us all in the world. It hurt us all. However the bill represents the possibility of the opposite trend where we can get our economic fundamentals right and the whole world community can be elevated to fulfil its human potential.

Mutual agreement in fairness is the goal. How we get there in the process is also important. That is why I am concerned about the precedent this bill sets by being first tendered by the government in the Senate.

We do not agree that the bill should come from the other place. Did the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance feel that the House was too busy to handle this bill from the beginning? Or did the government think that it needed to give the other place a bit of work?

Reform truly believes that bills may sometimes come from the other place, however only if the other place is elected, effective and equal. So far, none of these traits generally characterize the other place.

This week was the first week for a few new senators. Senator Mahovlich put on his new suit on Tuesday, which we know from reading the full page ad in the Globe and Mail was picked out by his personal shopper at Harry Rosen. Off he went probably thinking to himself that he had it made, no coaches yelling at him, no penalty box and lots and lots of vacation time. Who can blame any senator for feeling that way? Senator Thompson took good advantage, as have many others.

If I had an attendance record like some of today's senators, I would have to begin looking for a new job. My constituents would give me the boot pretty fast. But senators do not have constituents. They may say they do but it has become more of a figure of speech. I would propose that if one randomly asked 10 people in Ontario to name one senator from Ontario, most would be very hard pressed to do so. Most would probably say Alexei Yashin and although he is a senator, he is not from the other place.

I do not stand here today to criticize everything that is wrong about the other place. In fact, it could very well be quite effective. It definitely has the potential, if it was reformed. Senator Ghitter may have said it best when he said “We do not need to abolish the Senate. We need to change it. It is either that or maintaining the status quo which means more and more downward slide of the Senate”.

Throughout this past year I served on the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. The committee was made up of senators and members of the House of Commons of all political stripes. Our goal was and is to suggest changes to the unbalanced Divorce Act. I can honestly say that the work performed by senators was excellent.

Many know already that the attendance record in the other place of Senator Cools is very good. Her attendance and her work ethic in the committee was also very good. I know that Senator Cools was also appointed. I also know that the senator takes her job very seriously. She has been a tremendous advocate for the disadvantaged who have been shafted by the judicial system.

Senator DeWare is also another member of the committee who not only had a good attendance record but provided a great deal of knowledge and compassion to the issue.

Unfortunately, these two senators seem to be exceptions to the rule of the other place. We know full well of the exploits of Senator Thompson and his abysmal record. We also know of Senator Lucier who attends less than half of all sitting days.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I know that the hon. member would like to go into Senate attendance. I suggest to the hon. member that first, it is not relevant to the discussion we are engaged in today on Bill S-16. Second, I must advise him that it is out of order to speak disrespectfully of the other place. I know he knows that is the rule of this House. It is in the standing orders of this House.

He will want to be very careful in the words he uses. I have allowed him to go on about attendance a bit because he was being so praiseworthy of certain hon. senators. He knows that like us, they are members of the houses of parliament and he must avoid speaking disrespectfully of the other place.

I invite him to refrain from getting into anything that would touch on a personal attack on any hon. senator or that would speak in any way disrespectfully of the other house of parliament.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister appointed Senator Roche to the other place. For all we know this senator may end up displaying excellent attendance records. He may even become valuable when bills need that sober second thought.

That is not the point I am trying to make. The point is that the Prime Minister had every opportunity to wait until the Alberta Senate elections on October 19 and then appoint a winner. Senator Roche had the opportunity to throw his hat in the ring. In recent days he said that he agrees with Senate reform. He has also had the opportunity to honour his words.

As for the Prime Minister, by not waiting until the election, he has told Albertans that they simply do not count. In one easy sweep the Prime Minister has thrown Alberta mud on democracy.

Even former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney honoured the wishes of Albertans in 1989 when he appointed elected Senator Stan Waters. The Prime Minister may have protested at first but in the end he respected the wishes of Albertans.

The key word is respect. It is a word that Canada's Prime Minister must comprehend. The Prime Minister may believe the other place is working just fine, but it is unfortunate that he does not believe in listening to what Canadians think about it. He may even want to listen to the words of those in the other place because they too believe that changes should take place.

Reformers are committed to moving ahead, to making democracy better and to bringing more accountability. To the dissatisfaction of so many, the Liberals are keen on holding on to the status quo. Canadians are not willing to accept that status quo however. They believe in a strong Canada and believe in democracy. They do not believe in the old top down approach preserved by the Liberals.

It is time that the Prime Minister let go of his gigantic ego and did what is right for the country. If the ego means too much and if the pride is too deep to change, then perhaps it is time to call it quits and let a more creative leader and maybe even a better party step in and make Canada a place of pride where all can more fully participate.

I would like to move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor:

This House declines to give second reading to Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia, and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, since the principle of bill does not address the issue of an elected Senate introducing legislation which this House finds unacceptable in today's political environment and, in particular, this House finds it offensive that an Alberta senator has been recently appointed by the Prime Minister before the people of Alberta vote to fill the said position in the upcoming Senate elections in October.