Bill Graham

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

He spoke of living in a lawful society. He has trouble with gun control. After all it is guns that allow murderers to do their dirty work. This does not seem to bother him. It also does not seem to bother him to and suggest that a Reform government could wipe out the effect of section 745 while he fails to recognize this is a legal matter of great complexity which must be addressed properly. If he were honest in his speech he would address it now.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments. Could the member for Crowfoot tell us how a Reform government would go about amending the Constitution in a way which would have the effect of removing section 745 and which would affect Clifford Olson's situation?

Surely the member is aware that this provision has been in the Criminal Code for some time now. This is a vested right under the law of this land which people have. I suggest to the member that in playing with people's emotions in this way, by attacking the law, he is being rather irresponsible. He knows, or he ought to know, that this is not a matter that could be removed in this case without a constitutional amendment. He knows or ought to know that no one on this side of the House has any brief for Clifford Olson. Everyone despises everything he did and everything he stands for.

Surely the member believes in a certain amount of respect for law. Surely he believes that we do not live-

[Toronto, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Monday the citizens of six Toronto area municipalities rejected the Ontario government's proposal for megacity amalgamation. One understands the results of this vote when one considers the substance of these proposals and the fundamentally undemocratic process that accompanied them.

Toronto voters have said no to a proposal which, while purporting to address problems of governance in the Toronto area, ignores the best advice of all municipal government experts. They have said no to a proposal which creates a mega monster, unable to respond to the real needs of the region and too far removed from its citizens for local accountability. They have said no to a fundamentally ill-conceived proposal to finance welfare and housing from the municipal tax base.

Mike Harris and his government should heed the message. The best interests of the Toronto region, which represents 25 per cent of the GDP of this country, is at stake. Now is the time to abandon political partisanship and to work together to find practical solutions to this very important issue.

[Committees Of The House, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade relating to Bill C-81, an act to implement the Canada-Chile free trade agreement and related agreements.

The committee has examined the bill and agreed to report it with amendments.

[Indian Act Optional Modification Act, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the matter of a question I asked the Minister for International Trade on October 23 about Canadian exports. In the minister's response to my question, he made two points that I thought were very important.

The first point was that our merchandise exports are sufficiently high in terms of the surplus over our imports to counteract what has previously been an unfavourable balance for us in invisible trade. That means our current accounts are now in a surplus position in Canada for the first time in something like 22 years. That is largely due to a lot of aggressive moves by the government which I would like to refer to later. However it is important that the Canadian public focus on the fact that it is not just our exports that are in surplus now, but it is our total current accounts which are in surplus. This is an extremely important development for the Canadian economy.

The second point the minister made was that much of the success in the export market that has been made recently has been due to efforts of small and medium size businesses. The committee on foreign affairs and international trade recently prepared a report on small and medium size businesses and the export trade.

In that report we found that small and medium size businesses are being much more aggressive in areas of export than they had been before. They are becoming familiar with the tools which government provides them with, such as the Export Development Corporation which in turn is working with the banks to enable better financing mechanisms for exports. They are better using our trade commissioner services. They are using team Canada and going on team Canada missions when team Canada goes abroad. They are participating also through their provinces and municipalities in a way to ensure that they have access to exports.

We found something else about small and medium size businesses and their access to exports that is very important for this country. We have a tremendously talented pool of people in the multicultural communities of our country who speak languages other than English and French and who have knowledge of other cultures, business cultures.

In my own riding of Rosedale in downtown Toronto, there are areas where over 50 languages are spoken. I speak to many of these people. Some of them are now forming small and medium size businesses. They are able to export their products to the communities where they came from because they have access to those communities. They know those markets. This is an enormously rich pool for us to develop. This government is to be congratulated on reaching out to that community and seeking to enable it to be effective in these markets.

Finally, the other thing we have to draw attention to in this area is the fact that many of our exports are now directed toward the service industry. Services now represent about 60 per cent of the GDP of modern economies. I am informed that in Toronto over55 per cent of all services are traded services.

A report prepared by the Boston consulting group, sponsored by the Bank of Nova Scotia, shows the importance of the financial services to the Toronto economy.

This is key to the future because these are traded services and therefore require a marketplace within the domestic economy which will enable them to reach out into the international economy. We must be conscious of the fact that we have to make sure that in this country we have an appropriate domestic marketplace that will enable these companies to grow and develop in the service field, particularly in the financial field in modern cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and other important financial centres.

This means we must focus on ensuring that we have a free market within Canada. We have to perfect our national markets. We have to insure that we are not impeding but helping our financial services providers to be part of the international community as well as the domestic community.

The people from small and medium size businesses who came before us in the committee told us that they are now competing in the domestic economy as well as internationally. We must make sure we have both. In so doing, we must ensure that we have the multilateral as well as the bilateral mechanisms in place.

Finally, in that respect we should congratulate the government on signing the Canada-Chile free trade agreement, which is one more way to ensure that we will have access to those important developing Latin markets which will complement our exports outside of Canada.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's observations about 46 ships in Vancouver harbour running up demurrage charges. We all agree that is a very unfortunate situation.

I was curious, given his known propensity for privatization and for respecting private industry as a way of dealing with these issues and his reticence to have subsidies deal with them, exactly what he would propose to enable the railways to move the grain faster, without giving them a subsidy.

He seemed to suggest that the legislation should impose huge penalties on the railways, as if they were not already being penalized by the fact they are not getting the grain to the harbour. I

am sure that if we asked a railway person they would say that they are anxious to move it because they could make more money by doing that.

What exactly is the member proposing as a concrete solution to this problem which would not involve either a subsidy or some form of government interference in private industry which he generally finds so offensive?

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. The first part of his question was probably more of a comment than a question. I am delighted to hear that the Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to harmonization. This means they will vote for this bill.

If I am not mistaken, they have a problem with the last election campaign. There is an election campaign coming up, let us see how it goes. But as regards the bill before us, if I understood correctly what my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, said in his remarks, his party is not against harmonization. That is good and I am pleased to hear it.

As for the $900 million, if I got the point right, and I am the first to admit that I am not an expert in this matter, which may be a source of merriment to my hon. colleague across the way, any time a new tax or system is introduced, there are always transaction costs involved. They cannot be avoided.

In this case, the $900 million referred to are a form of payment designed to help in the implementation and integration of the new tax. Given the benefits to the local and Canadian economy, I would say that $900 million is an entirely reasonable amount, proportionate to what this tax will accomplish. That is all I can say.

The hon. member for Elk Island has the remaining three minutes.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a question which I understand has been discussed before the finance committee. It is a concern. There are always problems in any tax system which will create a glitch here or there. The one about the doctors is one that has to be faced.

As the hon. member well knows, doctors are paid at rates set by the provinces. The integrated tax is a tax that is being developed by both the province and the federal government together. It seems to me that where this must be addressed, and where it would be equitable for it to be addressed, would be at the provincial level. The provincial governments in question should be looking at the impact of the tax-after all they are party to this-on the medical profession and ensuring that the medical profession will be properly compensated for any inequities that are being imposed on them from the tax.

I do not see why this poses any problem. There might be some eventual time difference in terms of finding the correct solution to this, but there is no principal problem that the tax itself imposes.

There is the need for a political recognition that this is an issue and has to be addressed. It does not have to be addressed through the tax itself. It has to be addressed through the proper compensation scheme set by the province. I think that is the answer to that problem.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand why the member has so few hairs on his head. He has split them so often in the debates in this House that he only has a few left. If he really wants to have his feet on the ground and not be out in space, I suggest that he keep the hair he has left by focussing his remarks on the real issues.

He has raised no real issues here. Look at what took place in the committee of which he is a member. The proof in committee was that we will now save $700 million in subsidies to businesses in the maritimes, $140 million of which will be in the retail sector alone.

These are all benefits to consumers, finally. This is what it means to have your feet on the ground, to be realistic and to look out for the interests of consumers in this country. I suggest to the hon. member that he look at benefits to consumers in this country instead of looking at the world through the rose coloured glasses of his party on the ski slopes of Quebec.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

We are not talking about video tapes here. We are talking about taxation and we have been seeking to deal with it since were were elected. The finance committee has met innumerable times and we have spent hours and hours of individual members' time from all parties of the House to come to grips with what is a very serious problem. Instead of cat calling back and forth about it, we should be trying to wrestle with it.

I believe members opposite are saying they want a rational solution to the problem. Let us try to find a rational solution to the problem rather than saying scrap it. The party opposite says scrap it and at the same time wants to see the deficit reduced. How can we deal with a deficit of $17 billion? Take it out of the taxes and put it into the income tax system? This is not realistic.

We are seeking a realistic solution to a very complicated problem. There is a realistic solution that I think we can be proud of when we look at the Atlantic provinces. What have the Atlantic provinces achieved by agreeing to harmonization? This is the way to deal with it.

In my province of Ontario we have two different systems of tax being collected differently. Some apply to services and some do not. It is an irrational system to have two different levels of consumption taxes applied, collected differently and imposed particularly on small and medium size businesses that have to bear

the extraordinary input costs of dealing with this system. It just does not make any sense.

The Atlantic provinces have been willing to grasp this nettle in a way that deals with many problems. It deals with the problem of the small business which looks at the fact that its cost to apply this tax will be less. It deals with the problems of the manufacturers in the general economy by insuring that the proper input credits will be given both in respect of PST and GST. That would eliminate one of the most serious macro economic problems about this tax, which is its inefficiencies and the way in which it interferes with rational economic planning and manufacturing.

It deals with the problem of the consumer, who in the end really does not want a system as complicated as the present one. That makes a lot of sense.

I suggest that if we in the province of Ontario would be willing to look at a similar solution, and if the rest of the provinces would be willing to look at a similar solution, it would be of extraordinary benefit to the country. In the first place, it would remove what is a very serious non-tariff barrier to trade within the country. We cannot ignore the fact that at present the tax structure of the country inhibits people from moving back and forth and offering their services in different parts of the country.

I happen to know of service providers in the province of Ontario who will not go to the maritime provinces at this time because the cost of having to calculate what their services would be and how they would pay the tax is not worth their while. As a result, the maritime provinces are losing the benefit of the input of those people and the people of Ontario are losing the opportunity to compete in those marketplaces. It is inefficient. It does not make sense. The maritime provinces have provided an opportunity for the rest of Canada to follow.

The tax will deal with the problem of proper management. It will deal with the input level issue. It will deal with the question of services which today account for 60 per cent of the economy. It is totally a modern solution to the problem. This is the only way we can go.

What I find a bit odd is that it is members from Quebec who are protesting a system that is ultimately the same as the one in their own province. They have harmonized their PST with the GST.

Why? Is it because Quebec's representatives at the provincial and federal levels have recognized that it is in the interest of Quebec taxpayers to harmonize? Having done so, they are asking the rest of the country why they are following suit. "You are nuts to harmonize your provincial sales tax with the GST," they say. I do not understand this reasoning at all.

I am surprised that Bloc Quebecois members are not saying: "At last, the rest of the country is recognizing that what we did makes sense. We congratulate the rest of the country for following our example and we urge the Province of Ontario and the other provinces to follow suit. And in the interest of Quebec taxpayers, we are going to eliminate the non-tariff barriers between Canadian provinces for the greater benefit of all Canadians, not just in Ontario, but in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces".

We in this country no longer have the privilege of living in an isolated world. We live in a world in which our goods and services compete in international marketplaces. Furthermore, our goods and services compete in international marketplaces not just when they are exported but they compete in international marketplaces within our own country, within our own jurisdictions, because we have competing goods and services coming in.

We have to face the fact that in 1998 when the NAFTA comes into effect goods and services will move across the borders of Canada, Mexico and the United States much more freely than they do today. We have to recognize that we need in place a tax system which will recognize that reality and not be an inhibition to the productivity of our citizens, our manufacturers and our sales people in this country. Otherwise we are going to be in real trouble.

The harmonization solution which will be implemented in the Atlantic provinces will go a long way in dealing with a lot of these issues.

The members of the foreign affairs committee have had the opportunity to travel and meet people, for example, in the European Union. People in the European Union have spent the last 30 years trying to harmonize their taxes.

When I was a law professor at the University of Toronto years ago, I remember meeting experts from the European Union who said: "You created a tax system with different rates in different provinces? You have a PST in some provinces, different from the GST? How could you possibly invent a system that is not harmonized? We have spent 30 years trying to harmonize our system and you have created a system that is a nightmare". That was in 1986.

The government is trying to cure the nightmare that was created by the previous administration. Instead of the members opposite screaming and yelling and saying: "This is crazy. Did you watch last night's video?" why not say: "Let's pull together. Let's look at this mess. Let's find the best solution possible". The finance committee has looked at this. We have all looked at this. The harmonization proposal for the Atlantic provinces is finally ad-

dressing in a concrete, positive way a tremendous problem that we have as Canadian citizens.

Speaking as a member of Parliament from the province of Ontario, I hope that the members of Parliament from my province and the premier of the province of Ontario will have a look at it and say: "This is the way we should go. This is for the benefit of Canada. This is for the benefit of the citizens, not only of the Atlantic provinces, but Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and every other province in Canada".