House of Commons Hansard #127 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.
TaxationPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Does the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt have unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?
Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, I sought unanimous consent with the full expectation that it would be denied by Liberal members.
It is noteworthy to draw to the attention of the House and all Canadians the undemocratic manner in which the Liberals are intent on governing the nation. Therefore, before I move into a discussion of the actual motion before the House, in an attempt to illustrate the importance of that, I would like to highlight the degree to which members of the House and all Canadians are deprived of great ideas put forward by members on their behalf.
I will summarize some of the bills I have before parliament which will never have the opportunity to be voted on because Liberal members are unwilling to have them come forward for a vote.
I have a bill to protect the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. I have a bill which would require fixed election dates so that the Prime Minister can no longer play games with Canadians on the timing of an election. I have a bill which would provide longer jail sentences for those who use a firearm in the commission of a criminal offence.
I have a bill to provide for a referendum to determine whether Canadians wish medically unnecessary abortions to be covered under the Canada Health Act. I have a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code to make trade union membership in the federal public service optional. I have a bill protecting persons accused of a crime from undue public speculation before guilt has been established.
I also have a bill which would amend the Parliament of Canada Act regarding recognized political parties, requiring an official party to have at least 10% of the seats in the House, which seems to me to be a very reasonable level and would prevent the type of fringe parties we have, for example, the fifth party in the House.
I have a bill which would require that companies no longer to be forced to make payroll deductions on behalf of the federal government and a bill requiring transparency in pricing of goods for sale in Canada. In other words, a listing of taxes could no longer be contained in the price of a product but would have to be specifically listed.
I also have a bill which would require federal transfers for welfare under the Canada health and social transfer to be contingent upon whether that province has a workfare program. I also have a bill to eliminate official bilingualism.
Some of my motions include repealing the Employment Equity Act, entrenching property rights in the constitution, criminal code punishment for persons wilfully disrupting electronic commerce, and the motion I have currently before the House today.
On the eve of a federal election I have to wonder how the Liberal members would handle questions from their constituents as to why they were unwilling to vote and have a public record of whether or not they supported these types of motions and bills. I hope their constituents are fully aware of this undemocratic inclination and will replace them with a Canadian Alliance government.
My motion would double the basic personal exemption for people over the age of 69. The rationale behind it is that seniors who have accumulated registered retirement savings plans are required at that age to liquidate them into a registered retirement income fund.
The retirement savings that have been accumulated over a lifetime up to that point may have to sustain a person's well-being, for decades to come in some cases. The timing and use of the retirement fund should be at the discretion of the individual as opposed to being a legislated statutory requirement of a percentage that must be removed and liquidated from the sheltered savings plan. Notwithstanding that and more to the point, my motion would help to reduce the tax burden incurred as a result of the law that requires liquidation of the savings.
Doubling the basic personal exemption for seniors over the age of 69 would affect not only those who have accumulated savings but seniors who have no savings. My motion would place their tax exempt level at a much higher rate and would enable them to earn more income from whatever source of income they may have, to avoid the taxman to a level that is a bit more reasonable than the current level of only $7,231.
It is worthwhile to examine the Liberal record with respect to taxation and the tax savings that seniors would gain from my measure as opposed to what the government is doing with their money.
If my motion were law seniors would retain more money in their pockets at the end of each tax year. The government has seen fit to use that money for such things as fountains and golf courses in the Prime Minister's riding. That is offensive to seniors, especially low income seniors who do not have a retirement nest egg and are forced to work to subsidize their living, with the taxman taking a bite out of their earnings at such a low level.
The Liberal record does not just include wasteful spending. In the seven years of Liberal government we have seen our national debt increase by almost $100 billion. This represents a drain on our social programs because such a large part of the annual tax collected by the government each year must be used to service the debt instead of paying for useful social programs that we all care about, such as health care and education.
As a result of not only the waste but the fiscal mismanagement by the Liberal government, Canadians are seeing a declining standard of living as compared to the United States. We have the highest level of personal income tax of any country in the industrialized world.
Last year the government had a $12 billion surplus. It has promoted this fact quite widely and quite proudly. For the benefit of the House and all Canadians, although the word surplus is a sexy word, sounds good and is appealing, the truth is that it represents an overtaxation. Part of the overtaxation was incurred by seniors who were forced by law to liquidate their savings. My motion would minimize the tax grab on those seniors.
The Liberals have increased taxes 63 times since they came to power. I contrast that with the Canadian Alliance because since we are heading into a federal election it is worthwhile to explain the difference in the two approaches.
While the Liberals engage in wasteful spending on frivolous programs, the Canadian Alliance believes that the federal government should be focused and streamlined, that we should end wasteful spending and that patronage should not exist. Grants and giveaways by the federal government should not exist and should certainly not be based on who are the friends of the Liberal government.
Our plan, to a large extent, would make my motion not necessary. The basic personal deduction I am proposing should be doubled for seniors over the age of 69. A Canadian Alliance government would peg the deduction at $10,000 for every Canadian, including the spousal exemption, which would end tax discrimination against single income families. We would also provide a $3,000 deduction for every child.
For example, a husband and wife with two children earning $26,000 a year would pay zero tax. Our tax applied to income above that level would be a single rate of 17%. If a family of four was making $30,000 the total percentage of income tax they would pay would be approximately 2% because they would pay the 17% only on the amount above their exemptions, which would be $26,000. In other words, they would be taxed 17% of $4,000 or about 2% of their overall income.
A further example is that the same family earning $100,000 would pay 17% of $74,000, which would be the balance between their exemption level and the $100,000 income level. That would come to approximately 13% of their income.
Although it is a single rate of tax it is actually a graduated scale. In the case of a family of four earning $26,000 or $30,000 or $100,000, they would go from a rate of 0% to 2% to 13% and so on as the income climbs.
It is a very fair and progressive system. It would deviate from the regressive nature of the current tax system of the Liberals which penalizes people for working overtime, working hard, applying themselves and earning more money by bumping them into higher rates of income tax.
Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
One of the rules of debate in the House of Commons is not to be taken in by the heckling from the other side, but I cannot let the comment go. I heard the hon. member on the other side. Actually he has it backward. It is regressive to start increasing the percentage of tax paid because people are working harder.
I can tell a personal story. In the last federal election campaign I visited the town of Humboldt. A few residents of that town work in the potash mines, not that far away. An individual told me he never works any more than one overtime shift per pay period because it does not pay. That is exactly because of the regressive nature of the tax system of the Liberal government.
The regressive approach is not restricted solely to the marginal increased tax rates the government has in place but also applies to many other rules, excise taxes, surtaxes and surcharges that the Canadian Alliance would completely eliminate. It also applies to the tax grab the government places on the retirement nest eggs of seniors, which my motion would alleviate on behalf of Canada's seniors.
Paul Szabo LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the motion of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt asking that consideration be given by the government to doubling the basic personal deduction for taxpayers over age 69.
I checked the notice paper to get the wording and the member's motion in fact says basic personal deduction. There is no such thing in the Income Tax Act as a basic personal deduction. It is called basic personal amount and it is a non-refundable tax credit. On the basis of simply the wording of the motion and with the words basic personal deduction in quotations in the motion, it actually is out of order.
However, had the member had a look at the Income Tax Act, I assume he would have got it correct. I will respond to the member's motion as if he had referred to doubling the non-refundable tax credit called the basic personal amount.
The purpose of Motion No. 305 is to provide additional tax assistance to taxpayers over age 69 by doubling the basic personal amount. I appreciate the hon. member's recommendation. However I would point out that the government already provides special tax recognition for seniors. Furthermore, the government has reduced taxes substantially in recent years for all Canadians, including seniors, and will continue to do so as resources permit.
Let me explain to the House why we should not support Motion No. 305. I would like to clarify to my colleagues that the purpose of the basic personal credit, a non-refundable tax credit, is to contribute to tax fairness by ensuring that Canadians earning less than a basic amount do not pay tax. In addition, it is important to note that the basic personal amount has been increased each year since 1998.
As hon. members know, the 2000 budget proposed a five year tax reduction plan. This plan provides real and lasting tax reductions for Canadians to ensure that all taxpayers, including seniors, will see their taxes reduced and an improvement in their standard of living.
In particular, the five year tax reduction plan will increase the amount that can be earned tax free by at least $8,000 by the year 2004. The basic personal credit for the year 2000 is equal to 17% of $7,231, which reduces federal taxes payable by $1,229.
Other measures outlined in this plan will benefit seniors. They include: first, the reduction of the middle income tax rate to 23% from 26%, starting with a 2% reduction to 24% in July 2000, which has already happened; second, increasing the amounts at which the middle and top rates apply to at least $35,000 and $70,000 respectively; and eliminating as of July 1, 2000 the 5% deficit reduction surtax on middle income Canadians and completely eliminating that surtax by 2004.
In addition, the five year tax reduction plan also restored full indexation of the personal income tax system. In particular, the tax reduction plan put an end to bracket creep by restoring full indexation to the income tax system at the beginning of this year. Of particular significance to Canadian seniors is the indexation of the age credit, another non-refundable tax credit available to seniors.
The five year tax reduction plan is the most significant tax cut in 25 years. Let me make it clear that, while substantial, the tax relief outlined in the five year tax reduction plan represents the least, not the most, the government will do. Indeed, as indicated by the hon. finance minister to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on June 8, 2000, the measures outlined in the five year plan will be accelerated. Furthermore, the government will explore new options for tax relief for all Canadians, including seniors.
As I stated earlier, the personal Canadian income tax system already has measures in place that provide special tax assistance for seniors. There is the age credit, which was introduced to reduce the tax burden supported by elderly Canadians. This is the measure used to recognize the special circumstances of seniors as it affects their ability to pay personal income taxes. For the year 2000 the age credit provides a federal tax benefit for those aged 65 and over equal to 17% of $3,531, which reduces their federal taxes payable by up to $600. In order to target the age credit to those seniors who are most in need, the credit is reduced by 15% of individual net income in excess of $26,284 and is fully phased out once income reaches $49,824.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the pension income credit. This is a 17% credit on up to $1,000 of pension income, which provides additional protection against inflation for the retirement income of elderly Canadians. The government also provides significant tax assistance to help people save for their retirement through registered retirement savings plans, commonly referred to as RRSPs, and registered pension plans, commonly referred to as RPPs. For these plans, the tax owing on the contribution and investment income is deferred until income is received out of those plans. In other words, contributions are tax deductible and investment income is not taxed as it accrues.
Federal revenue costs of tax assistance for savings, pension plans and RRSPs were about $17.5 billion in 1998. This means that if tax assistance for retirement savings did not exist, taxpayers would have paid approximately $17.5 billion more in taxes for that one year.
Clearly the system of retirement savings represents a significant benefit for individuals and helps to ensure that seniors have adequate incomes in their retirement.
It is also important to recognize that in addition to tax assistance, seniors have the opportunity to benefit from other federal programs such as the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and the Canada and Quebec pension plans. I would emphasize that Canada's public pension system has significantly improved the income position of seniors relative to the working age population over the past several decades. From 1951 to 1997 the average incomes of seniors rose from 55% of that of the working age population to over 81% of that of the working age population. It is very significant.
A number of international organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank have concluded that Canada has one of the best retirement income systems in the world.
There is no doubt that the government provides tax assistance in recognition of the ability of seniors to pay income tax. In addition, the recent tax reduction plan significantly reduces taxes for all Canadians, including seniors. Combined with other federal programs, the government directs significant resources to help meet the needs of our seniors. The government is committed to continuing to reduce the tax burden to all Canadians, including seniors.
I will make reference to a couple of the member's comments about the fact that our tax system is regressive. He said it a couple of times. I noted for him that it was progressive. He disagreed, saying that I had it totally reversed.
The member will know that progressivity in an income tax system is something that is in every industrialized country in the world. Progressivity means that the higher the income, the higher the effective rate of taxation one pays and the more one pays.
I asked the finance critic of the Canadian Alliance about progressivity and why the flat tax proposal it announced today would go to a single rate of x per cent. It will be the same regardless of how much income one makes.
That to me is not progressivity. It means that we are to shift the burden from high income earners to the rest of taxpayers. Even though they would say we are to increase the basic personal amount for some and reduce the number of taxpayers, all of a sudden what it means, if they are to collect the same amount of taxes and if high income earners get a big tax break, is that the only place to make it up is to tax more heavily those in the middle income categories.
If the member does not agree with that, he would also have to admit that if about $17.5 billion of income tax revenue is to be lost, the only way to make it up is to slash services and programs that are assisting Canadians, including seniors. That will be a big issue in the next election.
In fact, our current system is a progressive system. To reduce it and to lower the burden for high income earners at the expense of the low and middle income earners is in fact regressive. That is the regressivity.
The member has it wrong. I would suggest to the member that not only should he check the wording in his motion to make sure he brings accurate information to the House, he should also look at the reality of a single tax system which would take the income tax revenue that the government gets from the highest income earners in Canada and recover that either through income taxes or through service fees charged to all Canadians at low and middle income levels.
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this debate on Motion No. 305, brought forward by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, asking the Government of Canada to immediately double the basic personal deduction for taxpayers over the age of 69.
It certainly is an interesting and well intentioned suggestion, since it is aimed at helping seniors maintain a good standard of living in their old age. However, I think such a measure cannot apply to all people over the age of 69 regardless of their income.
For the sake of social fairness, it is crucial that we set an income limit over which this deduction would be pointless. We could also think about a decreasing scale above the fixed ceiling.
In a report entitled A Portrait of Seniors in Canada , Statistics Canada indicates that the average income of single seniors decreases somewhat in the older age groups. In 1997, the average income from all sources for single seniors between age 65 and 69 was $21,400, compared to $19,500 for seniors 70 years of age and older. Seniors currently have access to three taxable public programs: old age security, the Canada pension plan and régime des rentes du Québec, and the guaranteed income supplement.
As in the overall population, single senior men have a significantly higher income than single senior women. In 1997, single men 65 years of age and older had an average income of $24,300, almost $6,000 more than single senior women.
Also, the income of seniors varies from province to province. In Ontario and western Canada, the income of seniors is higher than in Quebec and especially in Atlantic Canada.
To double the basic personal deduction of taxpayers 65 years of age and older would be very beneficial. However, some seniors start cashing in their RRSPs at age 70.
What would this extra money do for our seniors? Not only on a moral level would it be a sign of the state's gratefulness for its aging population, but also on a financial level it would provide a support seniors rightly deserve.
What about our senior citizens' expenses? In some cases they have medical and related expenses. At long last we would live in a society that would no longer be ungrateful to the senior citizens who have greatly contributed to the system.
Let us not forget inflation. Senior citizens' incomes do not keep up with price increases. It is wrong to believe that we have fewer needs when we grow old. It is often said that senior citizens spend less on food, clothing and entertainment. This is wrong, since like the rest of the population, senior citizens spend a significant part of their total budget on basic necessities such as food, housing, clothing and transportation.
Speaking of housing, housing costs account for a sizeable portion of the total expenses of senior citizens living on their own. In 1997, they spent over one out of every four dollars on housing. If we stay healthy, it is not our age but the lack of money that will slow us down. This extra money could make life a lot nicer for a number of our fellow citizens getting on in age.
Senior citizens make a significant contribution to society through their volunteer activities. A more generous basic personal deduction could be seen as a reimbursement for the indirect expenses incurred by elderly volunteers.
I am in favour of this motion, but the government should listen to the representations the Bloc Quebecois has been making since 1993, namely, that the tax system should be entirely overhauled. Such a reform should take those making less than $30,000 a year off the tax roll. This proposal would help not only senior citizens, but a whole category of our fellow citizens who cannot make ends meet.
Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS
Mr. Speaker, I could not help but listen to the member from the Alliance when he talked about his motion. The first thing that came to my mind was, will the real Alliance Party stand up?
The member talked about the initiative as helping seniors across the country. I do not think we will find anybody in the Chamber who is not committed to initiatives that will help seniors. However, when I listened to the member I could not help but wonder why his party did not want to help the largest portion of seniors in terms of a national pharmacare program.
We have read study after study that talk about our aging population and the fact that, as we all know, when we get older unfortunately we have the need to access the health care system. He talked about putting money back into the pockets of seniors. I know that the seniors in my riding would really appreciate having some assistance in paying for their drugs. In my part of the country I have seniors who literally play Russian roulette in choosing between taking medication or buying groceries. This winter it will be about putting fuel in their tanks to heat their homes.
The hon. member talked about spending on frivolous programs. Is the Alliance saying that medicare is a frivolous program or that the Canada pension program is a frivolous program? It is interesting to listen to the Alliance day after day. When we look at some of the initiatives that have been put forth by the Alliance over the last three years, there is one key thread that continues to run through all of them and that is the divisiveness which its initiatives cause in this country.
The member talks about seniors. Why not, as I said, support an initiative that would help all seniors, not just some seniors? Why not have an initiative to provide that anybody who makes $15,000 or less does not have to pay income tax? That would surely help an awful lot of seniors in my part of the country.
What we have is the Alliance again bringing forward initiatives that will create division among various groups of our population. We know all too well that once it creates division the Alliance is very good at fueling that division.
It was interesting to note that the hon. member who spoke prior to me said that men over 65 living alone actually make $6,000 more than women over 65 who live alone. Is the member for the Alliance targeting men with his initiatives? If the member truly believes that it is the responsibility of the Alliance to create initiatives that help all seniors, why does his party not support a national pharmacare program? Seniors across the country have clearly indicated that they need it and they need it now. That is clearly what would assist seniors to put money back into their pockets.
I talked a number of times today about the legacy that the government is leaving Canadians. We have 1.4 million children living in poverty. We have a majority of seniors who worked hard all of their lives with the hope that they could sit down, enjoy life and smell the roses. However, seniors are being gouged because they have to pay exorbitant prices for drugs which they need to maintain breath in their bodies.
What we have seen from the member from the Alliance Party is an initiative that clearly will cause division within the groups in our society. If the member is really committed to helping seniors put money back into their pockets, then I ask the member and his party to support a national pharmacare program that will do exactly what the member says he would like to do.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member from the NDP party to know that there is no question that we would certainly support a pharmacare program.
When I was a councillor back in 1977, the mayor of the day was Samuel Davis. He was the first and only Jewish gentleman to be mayor in Saint John. Samuel said to me “Elsie, I want you to go out to east Saint John. There's a meeting out there. They're calling it the seniors' club”. He said he did not know what it meant but he wanted me to go. I was not a senior then but off I went.
When I walked into the meeting I was really impressed with the seniors who were there. They said they wanted to get seniors involved. They wanted to get seniors who were lonely and living alone involved as well. They started their first club and today there are 34 seniors' clubs in my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick. We have brought the seniors out. A lot of them do not need medication now because they have friends, they get involved and they are busy. However, there is no question that they some need help.
This motion calls on the federal government to double the basic personal deduction for Canadian taxpayers over the age of 69. All of us in the House recognize that with a rapidly ageing population, Canada is faced with the challenge of ensuring that our senior citizens are able to live out their retirement years in dignity. The word dignity means an awful lot.
Studies show that approximately 70% of elderly Canadians are dependent on public pension plans. It should also be noted that in 1997, 662,000 Canadians aged 65 and over had incomes below Statistics Canada's low income cut-offs. In the same year, 45% of seniors aged 65 and over and living alone were considered to have low incomes compared with only 7% of seniors who lived with their families.
According to Statistics Canada, the average income of seniors across Canada is just a little over $20,000. I want everyone here tonight to think about that. Could we live on $20,000? How would we manage? How would we make out? No, members certainly could not do it, and seniors have a most difficult time with it.
The OAS, the old age security program, accounts for the largest part of seniors' incomes at 29%. This is followed by CPP, 21%; retirement pensions, 20%; non-RRSP investment, 11.6%; and employment income, 7.6%. Meanwhile, 60% of the after tax income of seniors goes toward the basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing and transportation. There is very little left for someone who is renting an apartment. They do not live in luxury.
The bottom line here is seniors. Like other segments of the population they pay too much tax. Something must be done, not only for our seniors but for all Canadian taxpayers regardless of their age.
Canada continues to have the highest personal income tax rates in the G-7. Federal budgetary revenues are at record levels in Canada: $155.6 billion in fiscal year 1998-99, up 34% since 1993-94. Meanwhile personal income tax revenues were $72.5 billion in 1998-99, up from $51.4 billion in 1993-94. That is a 41% increase since the Liberals took power in 1993 despite the fact that Canada's real GDP grew by just 15% over the same period of time, so we know that it was increased taxes.
Although the Liberal government claims to be reducing taxes, it continues to increase CPP contributions. In the past year alone CPP premiums have increased by 40 cents.
We can and should do more for Canadians, including our seniors. However, the current government has difficulty in organizing its priorities. It chooses to carry out an agenda of wasteful government spending. We need only to ask the Auditor General of Canada about that. The people of Canada should look at his reports.
With respect to the motion before us today, the PC Party believes that the basic personal exemption, the BPE, can and should be increased, not only for those over 69 but for all Canadians. We have proposed that the BPE should be increased from its current level of $7,131 to $12,000. This can be done over a five year period and will remove 2.5 million Canadians from the tax rolls. Many of them are seniors and a lot of them are families in need.
I have to say I will never ever forget what Mr. Mykytyshyn said about our people back home. I come from Canada's first city incorporated by royal charter, a city that built the country. Those people moved from Saint John right across the country and built it. I have to say that a lot of those people from the maritime provinces who are in Alberta were really hurt when Mr. Mykytyshyn made his statements. They said “We are out here building Alberta for heaven's sake, but we are from the maritimes”. These are the Canadians who can least afford to pay income tax yet are currently forced to do so.
This would result in taxpayers saving as much as $1,200 annually. Furthermore we have also suggested in our task force report on poverty that the value of the age credit be initially increased by $170 by raising the amount on which it is based to $4,482, providing much needed relief for our aging population.
The task force on poverty went out west. It went into central Canada. It went into Quebec. It went right across the nation from Newfoundland right through to B.C. There is poverty in all of the provinces.
Canadians deserve tax fairness. The reform alliance party needs to take some time to understand that concept. Its 17% flat tax proposal really is not a flat tax. It would give millionaires a $135,000 tax break while people, such as the seniors we are talking about today, making $20,000 would get an $895 tax break. It is not exactly tax fairness. Perhaps the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt should tell his constituents what his party's plan would really offer.
That being said, the PC Party does not support the motion as it is written. We believe that all members of society, not just a little select group, deserve a tax break.
The reality is that the current annual cost to provide benefits to the elderly is $24 billion for the federal government alone and it is expected to triple over the next three decades.
I have raised my personal concerns on more than one occasion in the House about the ability of senior citizens to pay the ever increasing cost of heating their homes. Those seniors who live in residence or in apartments will likely have to move because there will be an increase in their rents. Those seniors who continue to live in their own little houses will certainly see an increase in their heating costs unless the government does something to assist them.
Senior citizens on tightly fixed incomes do not have the flexibility to cope with soaring oil prices. I do not believe that anyone in the House will deny the potential for an extremely cold winter this year. I do not feel that the way to treat grandparents and veterans—and our veterans are all seniors in this nation—is to leave them out in the cold.
As I have stated here tonight, Canadians of all ages are in need of tax relief.
TaxationPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
As is the custom, the mover of the motion will have the last five minutes of the debate. After he has spoken the debate will be terminated.
Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Mr. Speaker, first, I must say that the Liberal member who followed my speech delivered his speech in a very patronizing and arrogant manner. I know he referred to the basic personal amount which I referred to as a deduction. However, everybody knows we have casual discussions in coffee shops and along hallways. In fact one of the members of another party referred to it as the basic personal exemption or the basic personal amount. He was just playing word games and semantics and avoiding the issue. Not only was he avoiding the issue, he completely missed my point and referred to the Canadian Alliance plan for a single rate tax as a flat tax.
The member was sitting there when I gave my speech. I do not know whether he was daydreaming but I gave a clear example of a family of four. I explained that under the Canadian Alliance plan, a family of four earning $26,000 a year would pay an effective rate of zero per cent. If they earned $30,000 they would pay 2%. If they earned $100,000 they would pay 13%. That of course would continue to escalate up to 17% the higher their income went.
The member talked about progressivity versus regressivity and which is which. It is really interesting to note that the Liberals have a tax system in place that penalizes hard work and overtime. The more money a worker makes the more tax he or she pays, not on a graduated scale, as the Canadian Alliance is proposing, but on a percentage basis. That is regressive but the Liberals say that is progressive. Talk about word games.
Another thing the member said was that in order to do what we are proposing we would be shifting the tax burden from high income earners and putting it on middle income earners. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our plan would remove 1.4 million low income Canadians right off the tax rolls and would lower taxes for everybody.
The hon. member hypothesizes that it would not be possible to provide tax cuts to one income bracket group without burdening another, but the fact of the matter is that we will do this by simply cutting government waste and ending wasteful programs.
I could sit here all day and give examples of those programs: the regional economic development program, the job creation program, the grants and giveaways, the subsidization of crown corporations, and the list goes on. Perhaps the most prominent example is the fiasco and scandalous loss of a billion dollars by the human resources development minister.
Nonetheless, the point of my motion was to draw attention to the fact that the tax system as it exists is very convoluted and unfair. It is regressive. The Canadian Alliance plan would not only make the tax system progressive, it would make the tax system much more simple and much more fair.
TaxationPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, on June 13, I asked the justice minister a question which she refused to answer.
On behalf of my constituents, I sincerely hope that after almost four months she has been able to find the courage to tell Canadians the truth about her badly bungled gun registry and how much it has cost taxpayers. For the benefit of the minister, I will repeat my original question.
In 1995 the justice minister tabled a document entitled “Financial Framework for Bill C-68” that projected a deficit of $2.2 million over five years for implementation of the gun registration scheme. It is now five years later and the minister has collected less than $17 million in user fees and the deficit is more than $300 million. That is 150 times larger than the deficit first projected.
Who is responsible for this huge waste of money, the previous minister's ridiculous estimate or the current minister's mismanagement of the scheme?
In my supplementary question I asked the minister about the cost of her latest advertising blitz and the firearms outreach program. She ducked that question too, spouting statistics about refused and revoked licences and blocked sales of legally owned guns, all this while the minister knows full well that taxpayers did not need a half a billion dollar gun registry to achieve these results. All that was really needed was better administration of the 20 year old FAC program. As if we needed more proof, in 1999 the United States blocked 160,000 gun sales and it does not even have a gun registry.
Will the minister please provide us with a cost benefit analysis of her gun registry program? Will the minister please explain how requiring the registration of grampa's shotgun helps to generate these bogus blocked gun sales statistics? Will the minister please explain how she is preventing these now potentially dangerous gun owners from acquiring firearms illegally from the nearest Indian reserve?
Just last week I received a response to an access to information request from the minister's department. Her bureaucrats failed to provide any information about the costs of her firearms outreach program as I had requested. The minister's bureaucrats did provide enough statistics, however, to prove her firearms outreach program was another fantastic flop in a five year series of firearms flops.
Documents show that the justice minister's plan was to process 1.4 million licence applications this summer. In fact the department's own website reveals it received less than 300,000 applications and processed only 102,000 firearms licence applications.
Will the minister tell Canadians how much her outreach program and ad campaign cost taxpayers and explain why the program was such a dismal failure?
The minister's departmental website also reveals a bigger problem than the waste of half a billion dollars of public money. As of September 2, 2000, her bureaucrats had issued only 286,000 firearms licences in the last 21 months, an average of 13,630 per month, and 339,000 licence applications were in processing or in backlog.
At its current rate of production, it will take the Department of Justice more than two years to get rid of this backlog and 12 more years to process the licences from the remaining two million gun owners. The government's very low estimates still have not even been applied. The minister's impossible deadline is now less than three months away.
Finally, the Minister of Justice still refuses to provide this year's budget for the Canadian firearms program operated by her department. The minister's minions are even stonewalling investigations from the Information Commissioner of Canada.
Sources close to the minister tell us that the gun registry has already cost taxpayers $260 million this year and will exceed $300 million by the end of March 2001. Will the justice minister tell Canadians what she is trying to hide?
John Maloney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the government has not been shirking any of its responsibility concerning this major public safety initiative.
Canadians overwhelmingly share our vision and support this important program. We now have more than 1.1 million Canadians who hold or who have applied for licences under the legislation. More than 1.6 million firearms are registered. Since December 1, 1998, more than 929 licence applications have been refused for public safety concerns. As well, 1,182 licences have been revoked from individuals deemed not to be eligible to hold a licence because they pose a safety risk. The number of revocations is over 20 times higher than the total of the previous five years.
We cannot talk about the costs of this program without talking about the benefits. The benefits of this program represent an investment of $2 per Canadian for the past five years.
The costs of the firearms program are subject to the same kinds of review and scrutiny as any other government program. The government is accepting its responsibilities, including its financial accountability. It would be refreshing if the members opposite opposing this valuable legislation would accept their responsibility for playing a positive role respecting the public safety of all Canadians.
We have an aggressive program in place to deal with providing enhanced service to Canadian firearms owners. Elements of this include the following services. We have been providing face to face assistance to help people complete their applications for licensing. We have dramatically simplified our forms. We have implemented processing and system efficiencies throughout to provide better service to Canadians more quickly. We have enhanced our call centre services to provide better and faster individualized assistance.
At the same time as we are providing better service to firearms owners we are providing better public safety to all Canadians. We are now able to do background checks before any legitimate firearms sale can proceed.
As of the end of September, over 7,770 potentially dangerous gun sales were the subject of additional scrutiny. In these cases people with histories of violence, break and enter, theft or drug involvement or people who were trying to acquire guns that they were not licensed to purchase were the subject of additional checks.
Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB
Mr. Speaker, I spoke today on the EI bill, Bill C-44, which is quite clearly a vote buying piece of legislation when we look at what the government is really doing, which is practically nothing compared to the suffering of people who have been affected by the Liberal government's 1996 cuts to unemployment insurance.
I know I only have four minutes so I will never get to everything that I want to say, but before I go into that it is important to look back at why I am a member of parliament in the House of Commons today and to look at what really happened.
In 1993 the Liberal government campaigned that it would be helping workers in rural Canada, that it would be helping to develop those regions and would make life easier for those people, like the Prime Minister said when he campaigned in Beauséjour and told seasonal workers that they were not being treated fairly in those days. Surprise, surprise. I wonder what happened once he got elected.
Once the Prime Minister was elected he introduced all kinds of legislation in the House. The bill that was absolutely unacceptable was the one regarding the unemployment insurance program. I am sure there are Liberal members on the other side who do not agree with what took place in 1996, but they were silent then. At the time in Atlantic Canada 31 out of 32 MPs were Liberal MPs. With 31 MPs on the government side, the government was able to pass a piece of legislation that out of the whole country most affected Atlantic Canadians. The 31 MPs were totally silent. They closed their eyes and supported their government. They did not care about the people of Atlantic Canada.
I started to listen to what was happening. I thought, there is something wrong here. We have an elected member of parliament on the government side. He is there. He has been an elected member for a long time. He actually stepped down and gave his place to the Prime Minister. The riding voted for him and gave him a one way ticket to Ottawa. I thought, why are those same people being punished for electing the Prime Minister and giving him his one way ticket to Ottawa.
I started questioning the MP. I asked him if he were not concerned. He indicated that they were abusing the system and that the system would have to be changed because there was too much abuse. He was saying this about the same people who were voting for him. I walked out of his office and I thought, my God, I have been voting for the wrong man all this time. He has no interest in defending my interests and the interests of the riding.
That is when I got involved and started to have public meetings. I organized coalitions. I told people that we had a problem, that we had elected a member of parliament whose sole interest in government was self-interest and that was it. I am not saying every member of the government is bad, because I know there are very nice people on that side, but he was our member of parliament and he should have been defending our interests and that did not happen.
What happened on June 2, 1999? The people asked me to run because actually I had been representing them for the last three years. Too many people were suffering and they asked me to run. I was a seasonal worker and I was going to run in an election. I could not imagine it would happen.
I am sure my time is almost over, but what I want to say is that people in Atlantic Canada are tired. They are not for sale. The bill will not buy their votes. They voiced their opinion on June 2, 1999. I will make sure that Atlantic Canadians, people from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, be they from Albert county, Kent county or Westmorland, remember what the Liberals did to them in 1996.
Raymonde Folco LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is a question in the comment made by the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, but there are a few things I can clarify.
First of all, Bill C-44, which was introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development, is designed to help people. This bill is the result of the program evaluation process that took place in the maritime provinces and across Canada.
This process made us realize that we had to make some adjustments to help workers across Canada.
Bill C-44 brings necessary changes to the employment insurance program, changes that will benefit seasonal workers and millions more in Canada.
For example, the bill proposes the elimination of the intensity rule because it has not been effective and because, according to many, it is just a punitive measure. That is the first answer I can give the member.
Communities that depend on seasonal work will benefit from this new measure as they will benefit from other measures proposed in the bill.
I would like to add one basic element, namely, long term solutions. The government is looking for long term solutions. Solutions to the problems of seasonal workers call for more than what the employment insurance program can provide.
It is hard to say this, but it is the truth, because the solutions will require better co-operation among governments, businesses, community leaders and individuals so that we can improve job opportunities.
We know life is not easy in several regions of Canada, but that is something we have to really work on.
Gilbert Dumont is the chairman of the local committee on employment insurance in Charlevoix, a region in Quebec that relies a lot on seasonal work. On September 13, he said “We must look for lasting solutions to the unemployment problem in our region, instead of relying on employment insurance”.
He is right, and as I said earlier, in partnership with communities and businesses, we can solve this problem, which is a concern not only for the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac but also for the government.
TaxationAdjournment Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.)