House of Commons Hansard #98 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was allocation.

Topics

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provide for the government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The motion is in order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion?

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 1291Government Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, the Environment; the hon. member for Dartmouth, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Human Resources Development.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

May 16th, 2000 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and the member for Sarnia—Lambton concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-276 scheduled at the conclusion of Private Members' Business today, and I believe you would find consent for the following:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-276, any recorded division requested to dispose of report stage and third reading of the said bill be deemed deferred until Wednesday, May 17 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is that agreed?

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, be Read a second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

4:40 p.m.

Western Arctic Northwest Territories

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew LiberalSecretary of State (Children and Youth)

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today at the second reading stage of Bill C-25, the 1999 income tax amendments act.

Last fall Canadians were promised, in both the speech from the throne and the Minister of Finance's economic and fiscal update, that the government would set out a multi-year plan for further tax reductions.

Budget 2000 delivered on that commitment through a five year tax reduction plan that indexes the tax system against inflation, reduces the middle tax rate and overall cuts taxes by at least $58 billion by the year 2004, an average annual tax cut of 15%, with even greater relief for families with children. It is a plan that will provide further real and lasting tax relief for all Canadians. It is also a plan that had its foundations laid in previous budgets, including that of 1999.

Bill C-25 deals with the measures announced in the 1999 budget. The measures in Bill C-25 demonstrate the following principles of tax fairness: tax relief must be fair and we must start with those who need it most, low and middle income Canadians, especially families with children; priority must be placed on personal income taxes where the burden is greatest and where we are most out of line with other countries; ensure that Canada has an internationally competitive business tax system; and, tax relief must not be financed with borrowed money.

Bill C-25 goes a long way in addressing these issues. Many of these measures are the result of consultations with the industry or clients affected, a process to which our government is dedicated in any major policy change. Each measure addresses an inequity, inconsistency or a discrepancy in the tax system.

I want to focus on the measures that deal with the concerns of low and middle income Canadians and those who need it most. In particular, I want to speak about the following measures: tax credits for individuals, the Canada child tax benefits, medical expense tax credits and tax co-ordination with first nations.

On the issue of personal tax credits, which will bring tax relief to all Canadians, with the high cost of living in the north this will go a long way to alleviating some of the strain on families, especially those with children. Women will also benefit greatly as they remain among the poorest of the poor in Canada. Nearly half of the retired widows live below the poverty line.

The following personal tax credit measures will be of great assistance. First, the 1998 budget raised the amount of money that low income Canadians could receive on a tax-free basis by $500. The 1999 budget extends this relief to all taxpayers and increases that amount by $175. As a result of these two measures, all taxpayers will benefit from a basic personal credit sufficient to allow the receipt of up to $7,131 of tax free income. That is an increase of $675 over what was available in 1997.

The amount upon which the spousal credit is calculated will also be increased by $675 to $6,055. The threshold where the spousal credit begins to be reduced will increase from $538 to $606.

The 1998 budget began the process of eliminating the 3% surtax that was brought in by the previous Conservative government. The surtax was eliminated for taxpayers with incomes of up to $50,000 and reduced it for those with incomes between $50,000 to $65,000.

The 1999 budget completes the process by eliminating the 3% surtax for all taxpayers, so all Canadians will no longer have to pay the 3% surtax. This is a very significant amendment.

In addition there is the removal of 600,000 Canadians from the tax rolls. Together the 1998 and 1999 budget measures removed 600,000 Canadians from the tax rolls and reduced taxes for all 15.7 million Canadian taxpayers.

While all taxpayers will benefit from these measures, low income earners have the most to gain. A typical one earner family of four that receives an annual income of $30,000 or less will pay no net federal income tax. A similar family earning $40,000 will enjoy a 15% federal income tax reduction.

The next point is the Canada child tax credit. The 1998 budget announced a further $850 million under the child tax benefit for the national child benefit system. The 1999 budget sets out the design for the increased assistance agreed to by the federal, provincial and territorial governments targeted at low income families with children.

Effective July 1, 1999 the national child benefit supplement is $785 for the first child, $585 for the second and $510 for each subsequent child. As of July 2000 the supplement will be increased to $955 for the first child, $755 for the second child and $680 for each subsequent child. The increases are quite evident. This will be an increase of $350 for each eligible child.

For both Canada and the Northwest Territories the percentage of lone parent families has steadily increased over the past 15 years and slightly faster in the Northwest Territories. They have faced greater challenges in terms of income and labour force activity. Some 57.1% of single parent families led by women with children under the age of 18 live in poverty based on the 1997 statistics. The child tax benefit will be of benefit to these families in particular.

Turning to tax relief for Canadians with disabilities, hon. members are aware of how this will affect those individuals. They are aware of the government's continuing commitment to help these Canadians by building on the assistance that is already available.

In the last two years additional assistance has been provided through such measures as a caregiver tax credit, a refundable tax credit for low income earners with high medical expenses and the addition of new eligible expenses under the medical expense credit known as METC.

The METC is being extended further to cover expenses for the care of people with severe disabilities living in a group home, therapy for those with severe disabilities and tutoring for the learning disabled with severe disabilities.

In addition talking textbooks for individuals with perceptual disabilities who are enrolled in educational institutions will be included on the list of eligible equipment for persons with disabilities. This will make the lives of those people immeasurably easier. It will help. It will not be the total solution but it will help. This measure will be of great assistance to those who need it most in our society.

The first nations taxation co-ordination measure was not announced as part of the 1999 budget. It is designed to help implement taxation agreements with the first nations providing for a reduction in federal tax for individuals who are subject to the income tax legislation of certain first nations. This amendment puts the federal government's tax sharing agreements with self-governing Yukon first nations into force.

With respect to the personal income tax collected from residents of these Yukon first nations settlement lands, the federal government will vacate 75% of its tax room for the Yukon first nations government to occupy. The bill will also ensure that the tax burden of an individual subject to first nations taxation is the same as in its surrounding jurisdiction. This is an example of great progress on the issue of first nations taxation and self-government.

As hon. members know, the government remains committed to providing substantial tax relief to Canadians on an ongoing basis. Bill C-25 and budget 2000 deliver on this commitment.

I conclude by saying there are many measures here that are going to help the average Canadian and which will help those people who need it the most. We must not forget when we as government take certain steps to alleviate pressure on those impacted groups that we do it with the sensitivity that is needed and in a universal manner that reaches all those people who need it the most.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, it is sad to see the opposition taxing the patience of members of the House by trying to delay legislation that would reduce the taxes of Canadians, but then logic and consistency have really never been the strong suit, or should I say the long suit, of the party once known as reform.

The motion proposes that:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-25...since the principle of the Bill does not provide for a Single Rate Tax Plan as proposed in Solution 17.”

If I may offer some friendly advice to the hon. member and his colleagues, if they ever want to build a truly national constituency, it is time they got out of the single rate rut. The flat tax proposal of the Canadian Alliance fails miserably in the two most important tests: the test of equity and the test of simplicity. I hope I can show that in my remarks which follow.

Instead of trying to sell a phoney silver bullet solution, they should be helping the government enact its program of tax relief, including the $58 billion in tax savings proposed in the February budget. They are real tax savings for all Canadians and fair tax savings that provide the greatest benefit for families in the greatest need rather than reward the rich.

Our government knows that Canadians are tired of the tax burden. That is why, with the deficit eliminated for good, we have taken clear, concrete action to get taxes down. We have made it clear that the actions in budget 2000—including those contained in this bill—are just a minimum. As revenues improve, we will do more.

But a single tax rate is not on that agenda because it is not on anybody's agenda. They should put effective, equitable public policy ahead of desperate partisan politics. This point was emphasized in a column last week in the Ottawa Citizen . In referring to the hon. member for Medicine Hat, it states that he:

—points out that (Premier) Harris `has been agnostic' on the (single rate) tax. Yet, in last week's budget, the Ontario Premier missed the opportunity to move in the direction of a single-rate tax. And there are few other examples for the Alliance to point to: Only Latvia and Hong Kong have flat taxes, and five American states have single-rate taxes.

More impressive is the list of those (from Thatcher's Britain, to Reagan Republicans, to an early Reform Party task force) that have studied the flat tax and rejected it.

The reason that so many jurisdictions have rejected the opposition's solution 17 approach, just as a decade's worth of U.S. primaries rejected the flat tax mania of millionaire presidential wannabe Steve Forbes, is that it is both wrong-headed and wrong-hearted.

The fact is that solution 17 with its 17% single rate would provide much larger tax reductions for high income individuals compared with middle and low income individuals. This would violate the widely held view in our democratic system that a key objective in providing tax relief should be to deliver it first to those who need it most: middle and low income individuals and those with families.

Thinking caring Canadians understand that it is important to ensure that the tax system recognizes the ability of individuals to pay by taxing at a lower rate middle and low income families. But reform's solution 17 heads in the opposite direction. It would significantly reduce the progressivity and fairness of the tax system.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker ruled some time ago that our party would from here on in be known as the Canadian Alliance. I have heard many instances where other parties have referred to us otherwise. I am going to ask that you rule that in every case that we be known as the alliance or else we will find new names for the Liberals.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The hon. member certainly has a point. I would ask the hon. member from the government side to address the other side as the Canadian Alliance.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Certainly, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether it is an alliance party or a movement but I am happy to comply.

The Canadian Alliance solution 17 heads in the opposite direction. It would significantly reduce the progressivity and fairness of the tax system. For incomes above the basic exemption, it would tax a lone parent earning $30,000 a year at the same rate as a wealthy CEO making $2 million a year.

Let us step back for a second and look at this issue on a broader conceptual basis. Indeed several different flat tax proposals have been put forward in recent years both in Canada and abroad. Typically such proposals involve the replacement of a progressive rate structure with a single tax rate and the elimination of many deductions and credits. The resulting tax structure is of course appealing for its superficial simplicity. However, these flat tax proposals raise a number of issues.

Flat tax systems can be designed to be progressive, like the current income tax system, through the provision of a relatively high basic personal exemption for low income filers. Providing such an exemption with the reduced single rate would result in a significant reduction in income tax revenues. We have to consider the cost of any proposal especially over the long term.

The opposition's 17% solution, including an increase in personal exemptions to $10,000 and a new $3,000 exemption per child, would cost in the range of $34 billion a year. That is almost one-third of the entire federal program spending budget for this year. Even including the tax cuts we have announced, it would entail major cuts to federal programs. Which programs would the hon. member want to cut: health spending, support for R and D or old age security? It would be cuts like these that are the real cost of the tax savings the opposition seeks.

What about the issue of simplification? Here too the opposition is playing fast and loose with both fact and philosophy. The real fact is that most taxpayers would not find tax calculations much easier if only one rate were used. Simplicity generally comes from the elimination of deductions and credits, not from reducing the number of tax rates. Again we get a glimmer of the real bottom line agenda of the opposition.

In the real world many of the deductions and credits that would have to go to deliver tax simplification and to pay for the reduction in the tax rate would hit painfully and punitively on modest and middle income Canadians. It could mean for example getting rid of the child care expense deduction, the medical expense and tuition fee tax credits. Perhaps the hon. member for Medicine Hat has no problem getting rid of this targeted relief aimed at those who are in the greatest need.

That is not the solution this government would ever embrace because Canadians demand better of us. Canadians understand that eliminating these deductions and credits would provide less recognition of the ability to pay tax of individuals in different circumstances. Canadians recognize that such action would mean less flexibility for the government in delivering social and economic policy in a volatile global economy; policies designed to help our country seize new economic opportunities while protecting those who can be buffeted when the winds of change blow too harshly.

Here is where we can see clearly and cleanly the basic philosophy difference between our government and the opposition. We both may agree that a key objective of national policy must be to lower tax rates in order to leave Canadians with as much money as possible so that they can provide for their needs. However, we differ diametrically when the advocates of flat taxes justify the elimination of deductions and credits by arguing that the government should not use the tax system to pursue social and economic policy. The sad irony is that if these deductions and credits are carried forward in the solution 17 flat tax proposal, then clearly they would not have made the income tax system more simple, as many Canadians believe to be the advantage of flat tax system. We cannot have it both ways.

While I agree that taxes should be lowered, this government also believes that how and how fast we cut taxes is also critical. To make those decisions, we believe that fairness should be paramount. The government must ensure that the most vulnerable in society are not left behind. This in turn has a concrete corollary which recognizes that the ability of Canadians in different circumstances to pay must remain a key concern.

In conclusion I emphasize that looking for ways to improve the fairness of the tax system while keeping it as simple as possible are ongoing objectives of the government. We are committed to bringing the overall tax burden down as fast and as far as we can without jeopardizing Canada's hard won fiscal stability. Never again will we risk a return to deficit financing, especially not with pie in the sky tax solutions.

And that is the problem with the idea that underlies this time-wasting motion. Against every element of a proper template for tax action—fairness, effectiveness, compassion, and long-term fiscal prudence—the opposition's approach fails, and fails badly.

Let us not reward that failure by wasting much more time here today. We should get the motion defeated and get on with the real tax cutting as contained in the income tax amendment act before us.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

5 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate the amendment to the amendment to Bill C-25. I will start by saying that either my friend across the way is completely out of his depth on the issue of single rate taxes and flat taxes, or he is misrepresenting the position put forward by the Canadian Alliance.

As he scurries away, I would simply say to him that it is not the Canadian Alliance that caused a situation where today in Canada there is not a single—

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order only because it has happened several times already today. The rules of the House have been ignored by the opposition in commenting on the presence or absence of members in the House.

I would ask that the Chair inform the member that it is not permitted under the rules, or I will be forced to start commenting on the presence and absence, which is noticed right now, of Canadian Alliance members.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

5 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, I heard it and I should have made mention of it too. We do not reference the absence or presence of other members. We know that they are busy in committee and have other responsibilities.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

5 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that he beat an intellectual retreat. My friend across the way has to know that it was not the Canadian Alliance which put Canada in a position where we now see that not a single province in Canada has disposable income that matches even the poorest of the poor American states. It was not the Canadian Alliance that caused that situation. It was government members across the way.

Over the weekend the Standard & Poor's DRI report on Canada pointed out that disposable incomes in Canada continue to plummet relative to the United States. That report showed very clearly that the state of Mississippi, the poorest American state, has disposable income which is 10% higher than the wealthiest Canadian province, Alberta.

Why is that? It is precisely because of some of the disincentives we find in the tax system in Canada today that our country has fallen so far behind, which is why solution 17 makes so much sense.

I will simply address head on some of the accusations and misrepresentations I heard from across the way a few minutes ago. My friend across the way suggested that somehow solution 17 was unfair to people on the low end of the income scale. I simply have to point out that under solution 17, 1.9 million low income Canadians would be lifted right off the tax rolls. They would no longer pay the taxes which the government forces them to pay.

It is unbelievable to me that they stand there and pretend they are the champions of the little guy. The only little guy they care about is the little guy from Shawinigan.

The truth is that 1.9 million low income Canadians pay taxes today who should not and solution 17 would solve that problem. They would no longer have to pay taxes to the finance minister and to the Prime Minister to fund all the questionable causes, shall we say, that we currently fund. I want to deal with that one head on.

Second, I want to address the accusation that somehow what was inferred was that people at the high end of the income scale would pay the same tax rates as people at the low end. That simply is not true. They would pay a rate that is the same but the effective tax rate would be completely different.

I will illustrate what I mean with an example. Let us consider someone who makes $1 million a year in income and compare that to someone who makes $24,000 in income, say a single mom with one child. The difference between those two incomes is about 40 times. The person with the million dollar income has an income 40 times larger, but under our system that person would pay 1,000 times more tax than the single mom making $24,000. She would pay $170 and the person with the income of $1 million would pay roughly $170,000.

What the member across the way was suggesting completely misrepresents the situation. It is simply not the case. It is a desperate attempt by members on the other side to try to scare people away from a proposal which they know is intuitively appealing to Canadians. We know that is the case because we even have finance department polling which shows that people favour this kind of idea. They understand that Canada is in a competitive situation and that we have to start to remove some of the impediments to wealth creation which have caused us to fall so far behind.

I mentioned a minute ago that relative to the United States our wealthiest province has after tax disposable income on average that is lower than the poorest of the poor American states. That is not the only evidence we have to bring forward that the government has dropped the ball when it comes to finding ways to increase the productivity of the nation and through that the standard of living of Canadians.

One of the most revealing reports we have is from the OECD. It demonstrates very clearly that over the decade from 1988 to 1998 Canada languished in terms of producing real per capita output or, to put it another way, Canada's standard of living grew by 5%. Over 10 years, a lot of it under this government, our standard of living grew by a scant 5%.

How fast did it grow elsewhere? In France it grew three times that fast; in the United States, four times that fast; in Australia, four times that fast; in Norway, six times that fast; and in Ireland it grew by a remarkable eighteen times the rate that it grew in Canada.

My friend across the way from Hamilton says that is remarkable. It is. I want my friend to understand the reason for it. Is it that Ireland has so many more resources than Canada? Hardly. It has good management. It made the right public policy decisions.

In fact the DRI report I referred to earlier talked a bit about Ireland. It said that many things were similar between the situation Canada is in and the situation Ireland is in. We both have well educated workforces. We concede that. That is true. We are both next to big prosperous markets. In Ireland's case it is Europe; in our case it is the United States. We have these things going for us. We have access to those markets. We have a free trade agreement. Ireland is part of the European economy.

One thing that separates us, and DRI pointed it out, is that Ireland took the commonsensical approach of reducing taxes to attract investment. In Canada we have marginally lowered taxes so that we do not fall behind quite as fast.

What has been the difference? As I mentioned a minute ago, the economy in Ireland grew exponentially, 18 times faster than Canada's over that 10 year period.

What has been the impact on the Irish economy? We know today that a country like Ireland, which for 150 years lost population, is now actually starting to add numbers to its population. It is increasing in population for the first time in 150 years, just because of public policy decisions. It is in a situation now where with 1% of the population in Europe it now attracts 20% of all new investment in Europe.

It is an amazing story. In fact its economy is growing rapidly now and it is projected to grow just as rapidly into the next five years. It is bringing in so much revenue with much lower taxes that it now provides free university education for all its people. It is an amazing story.

What do we do in Canada? The government tries to convince people that it is addressing the situation by bringing down the last budget and arguing that it delivered $58 billion in tax relief. It simply was not so. The DRI report points to the flaws in what the government has done. In the $58 billion that it talks about we find that about $8 billion of it is the child tax benefit. It is a sweetening of the child tax benefit. It is a social program, and the Liberals are calling it a tax cut. It is hardly the same. A tax cut is when we leave the money in people's pockets in the first place. We do not take it out and then run it through—

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Reform

Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if it is possible to seek unanimous consent to return to Routine Proceedings so I may have the chance to table the minority report which I did not have a chance to do this morning.