House of Commons Hansard #199 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was grain.
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3(3) of the Employment Insurance Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two copies of the second monitoring and assessment report on the employment insurance program, the 1998 report.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
Paul Martin Liberalfor the Minister of Industry
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-75, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code (forfeiture).
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to introduce my first private member's bill on behalf of the citizens of Lethbridge and indeed of the children of Canada.
My bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow courts that convict a person of an offence under the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code to order the forfeiture of anything used in the commission of an offence under this provision.
This amendment, once passed, would give courts and law enforcement officials one more tool to use in their fight against child pornography.
It is my hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will join with me in supporting the bill. The bill gives courts the same authority to deal with child pornographers that they have under 55 other federal statutes, giving children protection that is long overdue.
I want to close by recognizing the efforts of our law enforcement officials who fight the spread of child pornography and who have been instrumental in developing the bill. I would especially like to recognize Detective Inspector Robert Matthews of the Ontario Provincial Police, Project P, the OPP Child Pornography Unit, and to all those who continue the fight against child pornography I say keep up the good work.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Jane Stewart Liberalfor the Minister of Transport
moved that Bill S-23, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act to give effect to a protocol to amend the convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air and to give effect to the convention, supplementary to the Warsaw convention, for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air performed by a person other than the contracting carrier, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South, on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world in countries such as Indonesia. They also point out that Canada continues to be internationally recognized as the champion of human rights.
Therefore the petitioners ask parliament to continue to speak out against human rights abuses around the world and to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents asking parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the right of spouses' parents or grandparents to have access to or custody of the children or the child.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition on behalf of the citizens of Peterborough who signed the petition on behalf of the 18,000 Canadians who suffer from end stage kidney disease.
The petitioners support research into the bioartificial kidney. They point out that kidney dialysis and transplantation are important lifesaving treatments, but there is difficulty in providing adequate dialysis service and the rates of organ donation are not sufficient to meet the need.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to work in support of the bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition this morning which is signed by over 100 residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas. It draws to the attention of the House that volume discounts for rapists and murderers, which is the law in Canada today, cheapen life, that an average one murder per month in Canada is committed by a released person on parole, that the lives of individual victims are erased from the sentencing equation and that the suffering, the pain and the death of the second, third or eleventh victim is of no consequence to the courts.
Therefore the petitioners call on parliament to enact legislation to reduce the inhumanity to families of victims, restore truth in sentencing and to enact Bill C-251 to prevent multiple murderers and rapists from getting one sentence for multiple offences and to narrow the gap between justice and our justice system.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 135 will be answered today. .[Text]
Question No. 135—
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
With respect to the Thetford Mines regional industrial development fund incorporated: ( a ) on what date the fund was created; ( b ) how much money has the federal government put into it; and ( c ) how are its directors appointed?
Martin Cauchon LiberalSecretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
(a) April 15, 1988.
(b) Grants of $1 million in April 1988 and $504,805 in April 1993.
(c) At the time the fund was created, all the directors, six, were to be appointed by the minister of industry, science and technology of the Government of Canada. However, the fund was released from this obligation in the year following its creation once it had complied with the conditions of incorporation and only once the grant had been paid. In April 1993, as the $504,805 granting conditions, the minister had to appoint two directors. The other directors, for a total of nine, are appointed through the usual nomination and election procedure. The link between the fund and the agency ceased on September 30, 1998.
Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have three questions on the order paper, Question No. 166 and Question No. 167, which have been in for 120 days. Question No. 183 has been in for 100 days today. They deal with asking the government for information on the clean-up of the contaminated DEW line site in northern Canada and also deal with distribution of funds by the environment minister.
I would like these questions answered. I do not know why it has been taking so long.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I note again the member's interest in Questions Nos. 166, 167 and 183.
I know it is difficult for members who are very interested in topics like this, but I have pointed out on a number of occasions that some questions involve many of our ministries and the question has to go from one to the other. Sometimes after it has been to one it then has to go back to one of the others.
In this case there are a number of jurisdictions involved, but I assure the member I will look into this very important matter.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Is it agreed that the remaining questions stand?
Request For Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I have an application for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
I understand that a similar motion was brought up the other day. I would ask him to be very succinct in his explanation.
Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, precisely what is happening is nothing. There has been an impasse in the negotiations and the government has given us no indication of how it will move this forward.
The union and the government are at loggerheads. I think the financial harm, the loss of productivity, the drastic economic conditions in agriculture all make it incumbent on us as elected members in the House of Commons to debate this issue and show a consensus or a full airing of all the issues involved in this strike action and the repercussions on Canada as a whole.
I believe that would be very beneficial in moving this strike along. The government and the unions have known since 1993 that the wage freeze that was in place was to end and that it has ended. Why there could not have been something in place I do not know.
I am not here asking for this emergency debate to determine why things happened or why things are not moving ahead so much as reinforcing that this is an emergency to the Canadian economy. It is an emergency to farmers and their families, to the union people and their families. It is the duty of the House of Commons to do everything possible. I believe this is an emergency.
Request For Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The request for an emergency debate was received yesterday at 3 p.m. I have instructed my officials to get further information to me and I will make this decision some time before question period. I will return to the House.
Jane Stewart Liberalfor the Minister of Finance
moved that Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Tony Valeri LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, members opposite should be keen to support Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the 1998 budget and technical measures. In doing so they will support broad based and fair tax relief for low and middle income Canadians and their families as well as targeted relief for those Canadians who need it most.
I suspect that, as in the past, they will deny Canadians once again and go on to criticize and make wild projections to achieve objectives that would put Canadians' recent success in eliminating the deficit in jeopardy. A vote for Bill C-72 amounts to support for reducing taxes for 14 million Canadians, support for removal of 400,000 Canadians from the tax rolls, support for providing tax credits for interest payments on Canada and provincial student loans, support for allowing Canadians to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs to fund full time education and training, support for extending the education credit to part time students, and support for providing a tax credit to individuals providing in home care for an adult relative, and certainly much more.
However, as I have said, I have grave doubts about my colleagues' tax cutting credentials. My memory may be faulty but I cannot recall their supporting a single tax cutting measure we have brought forward during the last two parliaments.
Clearly with Bill C-72 my friends opposite can tangibly demonstrate they truly want to reduce taxes in a sustainable fashion.
I ask the hon. members opposite that when the division is recorded for Bill C-72 they can vote yea for tax relief for Canadian taxpayers and their families or they can vote nay. It is really that simple.
As the finance minister noted when presenting the 1998 budget, the measures in Bill C-72 represent the first steps toward general income tax relief, the first steps on which this government has already built with the 1999 budget. Together, the two budgets provide $16.5 billion of tax relief over the next three years. Moreover, as the minister recently noted, this is only the beginning.
With the federal deficit behind us Canadians can now look forward to tax relief in budget after budget in the foreseeable future. Of course at the outset, given that the financial dividend that allows broad based tax relief is modest, so too must be the initial relief itself.
We must not provide unaffordable relief that would jeopardize our regained financial health and impinge on Canadian priorities such as health care and education. Accordingly and in keeping with the nation's priorities, the measures in Bill C-72 act first to reduce taxes for those who can least afford to pay them, low and middle income Canadians.
The legislation before us contains two measures providing general tax relief. The first is a proposal to increase the amount of income that low income Canadians can earn on a tax free basis. As my colleagues know, personal tax credits ensure no tax is paid on the basic amount of income. This helps to make Canada's tax system fair.
Prior to the 1998 budget the basic personal amount that Canadians could earn tax free was set at $6,456 while the spousal and equivalent to spouse amounts were a maximum of $5,380. Effective July 1, 1998, Bill C-72 proposed to increase these amounts by $500 for low income Canadians. This will effectively increase the amount of tax free income by a maximum of $500 for single taxpayers with income under $20,000 and by $1,000 for a family with income under $40,000. As a result of this measure some 400,000 low income individuals will be removed from the tax rolls and another 4.6 million taxpayers will pay less income tax.
The House will also know that the 1999 budget proposes to build on this measure by extending the $500 increase in the basic amount to all Canadian taxpayers and increasing it by a further $175 for a total increase in the basic amount of $675. This would mean that effective July 1, 1999 the basic amount of income that all Canadians can earn annually on a tax free basis would rise to $7,131. Effective the same date, the maximum spousal and equivalent to spouse amounts will increase to $6,055. This will more than offset the effects of inflation on these amounts since 1992.
In the interest of fairness the largest proportionate benefit of these measures will accrue to low income Canadians. On top of the 400,000 lower income Canadians who will no longer pay any federal income taxes due to the measures in Bill C-72, the 1999 budget would remove 200,000 more Canadians from the tax rolls for a total of 600,000.
To continue with the measures to provide broad based relief, Bill C-72 proposes to eliminate the 3% general surtax for those with incomes up to about $50,000 and to reduce it for those with incomes between $50,000 and $65,000. As my colleagues will recall, the previous government introduced the general surtax as a measure to help fight the deficit. Accordingly, having eliminated the deficit, it is time for us to eliminate the surtax. This measure eliminates the 3% surtax for almost 13 million tax filers and another 1 million taxpayers will pay significantly less surtax.
Having begun the process of eliminating the 3% surtax in the 1998 budget, the 1999 budget proposes to complete the process and eliminate the general surtax for each and every Canadian taxpayer. This action will bring an end to this surtax for the 2.7 million Canadian taxpayers who continued to pay it in whole or in part following the 1998 budget. As a result, effective July 1, 1999 the 3% surtax will have been eliminated for all 15.1 million Canadian taxpayers.
Before I turn to some of the targeted measures included in the legislation I underline that these two measures in Bill C-72 provide very progressive tax relief. That is because as a percentage of current tax, the tax reductions are highest at lower incomes.
In each budget since we have taken office, including the 1998 budget, our government has provided targeted tax relief where the need was greatest and the benefits were substantial. Reflecting this fact, Bill C-72 contains several targeted measures, particularly those related to the Canadian opportunities strategy. Canada operates in a fast changing, competitive and interdependent world economy, an economy that is increasingly knowledge based.
The facts speak for themselves. Since 1981 the number of available jobs for Canadians with a high school education or less dropped by some two million while more than five million jobs were created for those with higher qualifications.
Unfortunately, as all members in this House realize, not all Canadians are in a position to access the knowledge and skills they will need throughout their lifetime to find and keep good jobs in a changing labour market.
Barriers, most often financial barriers, reduce access to post-secondary education for many. Accordingly, the 1998 budget and Bill C-72 propose several tax measures to provide financial assistance for students.
Student debt has become a heavy burden for many Canadians. In 1990 a graduate completing four years of post-secondary education paid an average student debt load of about $13,000. This year the same graduate's average debt will almost double to about $25,000. Moreover at the beginning of the decade, fewer than 8% of student borrowers had debts larger than $15,000. Now almost 40% are in that boat.
The financial burden on students must and will be reduced. To that end, Bill C-72 contains measures to provide all students with tax relief for interest paid on their Canada and provincial student loans. This will take the form of a 17% federal tax credit that will apply to both federal and provincial student loan programs.
In terms of dollars and cents, for a student with a loan of $25,000, it will mean a reduction in federal and provincial taxes of $530 in the first year alone. Over a 10 year paydown of a student loan, the new tax credit could mean as much as $3,200 in tax relief. This measure will benefit about one million Canadians.
The 1998 budget contains several other measures to help manage student debt. While they are not included in this piece of legislation, I will take a brief moment to remind my colleagues of these important measures.
For example, besides the tax credit, we increased the income threshold used to qualify for interest relief on Canada student loans by 9%. We introduced graduated interest relief which will extend assistance to more graduates farther up the income scale.
We have asked that lending institutions extend the loan repayment period to 15 years for individuals who have used the 30 months of interest relief. Moreover if after extending that repayment period to 15 years a borrower remains in financial difficulty, there will be an extended interest relief period. For the minority of graduates who still remain in financial difficulties after taking advantage of these relief measures, we will reduce their student loan principal by as much as half.
Together, these new interest relief measures will help up to 100,000 more borrowers.
To keep a job or to get a new one, many Canadians who are already in the workforce want to take time from work to upgrade their skills through full time study. There are many of them and we hear from them in our constituencies.
Individuals are looking to upgrade their skills and need the time away from work to do so. They often lack the resources to pay for these types of programs and courses. The legislation before the House includes several new measures to improve Canadians' access to learning throughout their lives.
The first of these measures is the proposed tax free registered retirement savings plan withdrawals for lifelong learning. An individual who has an RRSP and is enrolled in full time training or higher education for at least three months during the year will be eligible to withdraw up to $10,000 from their RRSPs, up to a maximum of $20,000 in furtherance of their education.
Of course to preserve the role of RRSPs in providing retirement income, the amounts withdrawn will have to be repaid over a 10 year period. In many respects, what we are proposing in Bill C-72 resembles the very successful home buyer's plan where Canadians can access their RRSPs when they are purchasing a home.
There is no doubt that every member in this House and all Canadians would agree that there is a need to continually upgrade knowledge and skills. That can be particularly hard for the growing number of Canadians studying part time while trying to manage the difficult balance of work and family. Therefore, we are proposing to extend the education credit to part time students.
Under the proposal, part time students will be able to claim an amount of $60 for each month they are enrolled in a qualified course lasting at least three weeks and including a minimum of 12 hours of course work per month. This measure will lessen the expense of education and facilitate lifelong learning for over 250,000 part time students.
As well, members will recall that to help parents save for their children's future, the 1998 budget introduced the Canada education savings grant to make registered education savings plans even more attractive. The government will provide a 20% grant on the first $2,000 deposited in annual RESP contributions for children up to age 18, up to a maximum annual grant of $400 per child. This truly makes RESPs among the most attractive savings vehicles available to Canadians for their children's education.
Over the past year we have already seen the impact of this particular initiative with the success that RESPs are having by increasing the pool from what was $2.5 billion before this initiative to approximately $4 billion just over this past short while.
Educational assistance payments are for students enrolled in full time education. However, taking into consideration the special needs of disabled individuals, Bill C-72 proposes to allow disabled part time students to qualify to receive educational assistance payments.
As well, the bill proposes to assist income constrained families by increasing the amounts they can transfer out of their RESPs into their RRSPs in the event their children do not pursue higher education. Specifically, the amount will be increased to $50,000 from $40,000.
Bill C-72 also contains several other targeted measures that are worthy of support by the House. Among them is the proposed new caregiver credit. The credit would reduce the combined federal-provincial tax by up to $600 for those Canadians caring for an elderly parent or disabled family member. It would provide assistance to about 450,000 caregivers that normally would not qualify for the infirm dependant credit.
To improve equity in the treatment of self-employed and incorporated businesses—and I know hon. members across the way would want to support this measure—Bill C-72 proposes that self-employed Canadians be able to deduct health and dental insurance premiums from their business income.
I am sure hon. members would also want to support this initiative. To support communities and the thousands of Canadian volunteers who provide essential emergency services, the legislation before us proposes that the tax free amount for volunteer firefighters be doubled from $500 to $1,000. This measure will also be extended to other emergency service volunteers.
Time constraints preclude me from addressing at length the many other contents of the bill. I trust that my colleagues will address these matters either in debate or at committee.
While the view from this side and the view from the other side do not always mesh, I trust on this occasion we will see eye to eye, given that Bill C-72 contains tax relief measures for Canadians, tax relief upon which the government built in the 1999 budget.
I trust members opposite can put aside the usual rhetoric and support the beginnings of what we on this side of the House see as a plan to continue to provide broad based tax relief in each and every budget, year after year. I call upon the members in the opposition parties to support Bill C-72.
Gerry Ritz Reform Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-72. I would like at this time to seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Lakeland.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Is it agreed?