House of Commons Hansard #112 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gst.
Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Does the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have the consent of the House to propose the motion?
Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I would like to inform the House that under the provisions of Standing Order 30, I am designating Wednesday, September 20 as the day fixed for the consideration of private member's Motion No. 160 standing in the order of precedence in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
This additional Private Members' Business hour will take place from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. after which the House will proceed to the adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, in the motion just read, there was a reference to giving immediate introduction of a bill. I think you will now have to proceed with the introduction of the bill that was in the motion just read. It says to immediately introduce for first reading a bill entitled an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Parliament Of Canada ActRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
When shall the bill be read a second time? Later this day?
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, a related act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the third time and passed.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Madam Speaker, before we broke for unanimous consent, I was responding to the Canadian Alliance and its new tax idea of a 17% flat tax. That was suggested by one of its spokespeople as an alternative to some of the taxes in the country.
This bill really deals with the goods and services tax and with a whole series of technical amendments to the GST that were introduced as a result of the budget that came into the House in February. It also makes permanent a 40% surtax on profits of tobacco manufacturers, and a number of things of that sort. We have in here a whole series of things, some positive and some negative.
What we should also be doing in this debate is going back over a bit of the history of why we have the GST in the first place. I remember very well back in 1990 when the idea was suggested by the Conservative government of the day led by the former prime minister Brian Mulroney. The GST became law in January 1991. It was a 7% tax brought in by the Mulroney government.
It was about 1990 when the Conservatives first suggested bringing in the GST and replacing the old manufacturers sales tax. My recollection is that this was never discussed in the federal election campaign of 1988. It was something that happened after the campaign. It is something that stirred a great deal of controversy and animosity in the country, as most Canadians were opposed to the GST. The GST in effect is a flat tax, with a 7% rate for everyone, regardless of whether one is rich or poor. If people are going to have a haircut or buy a certain product or a certain commodity on which the GST is applicable, it does not matter what their income is, they still pay the GST.
For the poor people there is of course the GST tax credit, but even with the tax credit it does not make it an equitable tax. When we get to the middle income bracket, compared to the wealthier income people, it becomes extremely regressive because it becomes in effect a flat tax. Everyone pays the same tax rate on the same commodities, which are in many instances necessities of life.
I remember very well the Liberal Party of Canada taking a strong stand against the GST. I remember the all-night committee hearing in the Railway Committee Room when the Liberals said that if they were elected and formed the government they indeed would abolish the GST. They said they would get rid of it. “Elect us and the GST will be gone”. That was part of the 1993 campaign. We all remember a couple of years after that when the then deputy prime minister, now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, resigned her seat because of a commitment she had made to the voters of Hamilton East that if elected the Liberal Party would indeed get rid of the GST.
That of course has not happened. The GST is still here. A campaign commitment that was made has disappeared. It is interesting that Brian Mulroney, when he made his first political speech on Friday, in addition to talking about the the Alliance being the Reform Party in pantyhose, talked about the present Liberal government accepting many of his policies, including the free trade agreement, NAFTA and the GST, policies that the Liberals had campaigned against, policies that they had opposed, policies that they had filibustered against in the House of Commons. Speaker after speaker rose in the opposition to say that if they were elected they would get rid of the GST. If they were elected they would not bring in a NAFTA-type deal. If they were elected they would certainly not go along with the free trade agreement with the United States. That is a bit of the history.
We also have the harmonized sales tax which was implemented in some of the Atlantic provinces in 1997. Before that, of course, Quebec introduced its harmonized sales tax in 1992. That is some of the background on the GST.
As I said, the Liberals promised to scrap the tax. They broke their promise. That is one of the reasons more and more Canadians are cynical of the political process, and are more cynical of politicians as every year goes by. Liberal politicians are seen as having broken their promises.
The whole tax system has to be made fairer and more progressive. I think the GST is among the most regressive of all taxes, except for the GST tax refund for some of the poor people in the country. It is a very regressive tax because it becomes a flat tax. Of course, as I have already said, the Alliance wants to carry it even further by having a flat tax of 17% right across the board.
In this country we have a long history of a progressive tax system. That tax system has gradually become less and less progressive with the passage of time. I remember before the Mulroney days that there were seven or eight different tax brackets on the federal side, which were reduced to only three brackets, 29%, 26% and 16%.
As announced in the last budget, we are gradually going to see that made a bit progressive within the narrow band where the middle bracket will eventually go from 26% to 23%, so we will have 16%, 23% and 29% brackets. What we have suggested many times is that we make the system more progressive. I would personally like to go back to about five different tax brackets so that we could have a more gradual scale, where we would tax people more progressively based on their ability to pay. I think that is only fair. If someone makes more money than someone else, the long tradition in this country has been that they should be taxed in accordance with their ability to pay.
We are moving away from that. The Reform Party wants to go the extreme distance by having just one flat tax in the country, which would be extremely unfair.
Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has referred to our party as the Reform Party several times. I wonder if he could use the correct term for our party.
Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I remind the hon. member to please call the Canadian Alliance by its proper name.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Madam Speaker, before I was interrupted by the member from the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party, I was saying that that particular party wanted to make the tax system even more regressive, more unfair and even more of a burden for ordinary middle class Canadians. That is the policy of the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party. That is what it stands for.
I submit that is why 100 people showed up a few days ago in the Muskokas at $5,000 a head to eat caviar and sip champagne with Tom Long, one of the candidates for the leadership of that party. They are excited about a more regressive tax system. They are excited about putting more of a tax burden on ordinary, middle class people. They are excited about tearing down government and putting less money into health care, education and regional economic development. That is what the Canadian Alliance stands for. It is the party of the wealthy, the rich, the insiders and Bay Street.
Canadians note those things. They are not stupid. They understand where this new party is going, that it is trying to become the party of Brian Mulroney and the old Conservatives from a few years ago, the very party which the original leader tore apart in 1993 for the foundation of the Reform Party. Like amoebae they are changing their skin and trying to form a party of big business and Bay Street. They are basically doing that by advocating a flat tax and a radical reduction in the role of government. The Canadian people will see through it and will not allow that kind of extreme right wing ideology to have any more influence.
In my opinion, the GST should be scaled back as a first step. I see that the member for Red Deer just entered the House. I wonder whether he went to Tom Long's little picnic for $5,000 the other day in the Muskokas. It was a great fundraiser for his leadership campaign.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I really do not believe that who attended what function or how much they paid has any relevance at all to Bill C-24. I ask you to bring the member back on topic.
Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I do not believe that is really a point of order. Relevance is a point of order and I would remind the hon. member to please keep his speech close to the bill.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Madam Speaker, I want to remind my friends in the alliance party of something that Ernest Manning once said.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The name of the group represented is the Canadian Alliance.
Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I would remind the member again that the Chair has ruled that we refer to that party as the Canadian Alliance.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Madam Speaker, in the House of Commons we call it the Canadian Alliance. The chief electoral officer, I think, calls it the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance. It is rather confusing to a lot of us what it calls itself. The former Prime Minister of Canada called it the Reform Party in pantyhose. It becomes more confusing day by day.
I want to remind the House that a very distinguished gentleman, Ernest Manning, and another very distinguished western politician, Tommy Douglas, a number of years ago always said to us “He who pays the piper calls the tune”. We should always watch to see who pays the piper, who contributes to political parties and who pays the bills for political parties.
We are now seeing on our left a party that is going through a metamorphosis. It originally started as a grassroots party. Now we are seeing the extremely wealthy people in the country paying $5,000 for an afternoon of sipping champagne and eating caviar with Tom Long. It is a party that has changed its rudder and its direction. That tells us an awful lot about what it really stands for.
What we are seeing is a direction in which the Canadian people do not want to go. The majority of Canadian people, the polls have shown, want the GST to be cut back. The most popular tax cut in the country would be to get rid of the GST, to scale it back.
We suggested taking the GST off things like books. We suggested taking the GST down one point, from 7% to 6%, as the beginning of a process to get rid of it. That is what the Canadian people want. In fact the federal government's own polling, done by the Earnscliffe group, which is very close to the Minister of Finance, reported just a few months ago that the tax cut of choice—and we do not hear this from the Canadian Alliance—would be to scale back and eventually eliminate the GST, a tax which last year picked up some $23.1 billion from the Canadian people. It is the most regressive tax that we have.
Not only is the GST unfair to ordinary citizens, it is a tax that is unfair and very difficult for business, particularly small business. When we go up and down the main streets of our small towns and cities—and I am sure that even the premier of Prince Edward Island would be willing to admit this—we hear many business people talking about the paper burden of being a tax collector for the Government of Canada. It becomes a real burden for the small business person who has only a handful of employees, or the farmer who, compared to a large business, because of the economy of scale, can do this with much less difficulty. Indeed, it is a very bad tax for small business.
Again, the Canadian Alliance members are silent on this. The silence is really deafening when we do not hear them complain about the GST, when we do not hear them calling for the elimination of the GST and when we do not hear them asking to roll back the GST. The GST is a very regressive tax that hits ordinary Canadians and middle class Canadians the hardest. It is a bad tax for business. It is a bad tax for farmers. It becomes a paper burden. Of course, that is something which Canadian Alliance members do not complain about whatsoever.
It is also not a good tax for medical doctors. The physicians of this country cannot, contrary to what some other professionals can do, claim the GST tax refund. That makes it a difficult tax for them. In fact the Canadian Medical Association has spoken out against this and has asked for some changes in terms of how the GST applies to the medical profession.
The reason is that the designation of medical services is tax exempt under the Excise Tax Act, which means that physicians are in the position of being denied the ability to claim a GST tax refund. That of course is for input tax credits, which many other professionals and many other organizations can claim.
These are some of the inequities about the goods and services tax, some of the things that should be changed and some of the things that reflect what the Canadian people want.
The member from Kamloops is very anxious to say a few words, so I will conclude by saying that the main thing we need is a more fair and a more progressive tax system that is based on ability to pay.
If we knock on doors or if we walk down the main street with ordinary people, the people who go to Tim Hortons, to McDonald's or to the corner cafe, the ordinary people who shop on a Saturday morning at Canadian Tire or who go to the wheat pool elevator in Winyard, Saskatchewan, those ordinary people do not go to Tom Long's $5,000 per person affair in the Muskokas with the wealthy people. The ordinary people of this country—
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
The member of the Canadian Alliance said something that is actually accurate. He said that the wealthy people have a vote too. Of course they have a vote. The Stronachs of the world have a vote. Peter Pocklington has a vote. Wealthy people have votes. Now we have a political party that caters to the wealthy people, that stands for the rich, that stands for the privileged and that stands for the wealthy people on Bay Street who make a lot of money and support a backroom boy called Tom Long. He used to be on Brian Mulroney's staff who brought in the GST, who helped bring in the free trade agreement and who helped bring in all kinds of regressive policies.
I will be very excited if Tom Long wins the leadership of the Canadian Alliance. Then finally those guys will be out of the weeds. There will be a party here that will stand for the wealthy, the rich and for a redistribution of income where more goes to the wealthy people and less goes to the middle class and the poor. That is what that party is all about.
We are going to have a great debate about the tax system. It is an ideological debate about where we want to go in this country. Very clearly we want a tax system based on progressivity, based on fairness, based on the ability to pay and not a taxation system with a flat tax where everybody is taxed at the very same rate regardless of income. That is not where the Canadian people want to go.
I look forward to the next campaign when we can take on the forces of the far right that want to turn back the clock and return this country to the age of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Madam Speaker, I too look forward to making a few comments on Bill C-24. The comments of my friend who just spoke made me think about an issue. These days there is a level of cynicism in the land attached to politicians. One wonders where that cynicism comes from, what is it that makes people—
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
From the member who just spoke. It was 20 minutes of lies. That is where it came from.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Madam Speaker, I was not going to refer to my friends in the Canadian Alliance but since they have been calling us liars, I feel that I have to make some comment.
